Fact check: Summary of the "Air Ticket Purchase DeepSearch" document: Problem: Unused airline tickets represent a significant financial waste for corporations, with estimates ranging from 5-11% of total air travel spend. Airline Policies: Most airline tickets are non-transferable, primarily due to revenue protection and security concerns. However, some low-cost carriers and a few major airlines allow name changes for a fee, and there are special exceptions for corporate clients. Existing Tools: Several travel management companies and tech startups offer tools to track and optimize unused tickets within a company, such as FairFly/Oversee, TripActions/Navan, and Spotnana. Legal and Regulatory Constraints: Airline contracts of carriage and IATA regulations generally prohibit ticket transfers. However, there are some exceptions, such as EU consumer protection law for package holidays. Marketplaces and Exchanges: Some consumer-facing marketplaces like SpareFare exist for exchanging tickets when name changes are allowed. However, a true B2B exchange for unused tickets is limited by airline policies. Technical and Operational Challenges: Building a B2B exchange system would require integration with GDS and airline APIs, matching and valuing credits, and handling ticket reissuance and name changes. Innovation Opportunities: Potential future solutions include tokenizing tickets or credits using blockchain technology, creating corporate ticket pools or alliances, implementing dynamic name change fees or insurance, and establishing universal travel credit clearinghouses. Conclusion: While significant challenges exist, innovation and collaboration with airlines could lead to a more flexible system for exchanging unused tickets, reducing waste and saving companies money.

1. Summary of the results

The original summary accurately captures the core issues around unused airline tickets and their financial impact. The estimate of 5-11% waste in corporate travel spend is supported by additional data showing organizations lose up to 10% of their annual travel budget on unused tickets ^[1]. The complexity of ticket transfers is confirmed by multiple sources, with approximately 20% of travelers needing to modify their bookings ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements were not fully addressed in the original summary:

• Specific Airline Policies: While the summary mentions "some low-cost carriers," it doesn't detail specific airlines. For instance, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) explicitly allows ticket transfers with a 24-hour notice requirement and administration fee ^[3].
• Scale of the Problem: The original summary doesn't mention that about 15% of travelers encounter problems when attempting to change bookings ^[2], which adds important context to the scope of the issue.
• Cost Implications: The summary omits that name change fees can amount to hundreds of dollars ^[2], which is crucial for understanding the financial barriers to ticket transfers.
• Management Solutions: The original summary mentions some tech solutions, but doesn't include important alternatives like corporate card programs and SAP Concur ^[1].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The summary presents some potential biases or oversimplifications:

• Technology Focus: The summary places heavy emphasis on technological solutions and innovation opportunities, while downplaying existing management solutions through travel management companies and corporate card programs ^[1].
• Airline Policy Generalization: While the summary suggests a clear-cut distinction between low-cost carriers and major airlines regarding transfer policies, the reality is more nuanced. Different airlines have varying policies, and even major carriers may offer flexibility under certain conditions ^[4].
• Beneficiary Analysis: The summary doesn't address who benefits from the current system:
• Airlines benefit from non-transferable tickets through revenue protection
• Travel management companies and tech startups benefit by selling solutions to this problem
• Corporate clients bear the financial burden of the current system's inflexibility