That isn't correct, seawolf. Content won't be available to corporate bookers just because their TMC uses a GDS that is "ready."
The GDS has to be ready - fully ready - to replace GDS functionality. The GDSs have ticket issuing down in NDC. Certification and capabilities to manage a ticket are entirely different.
The online booking tool has to be able to receive NDC content. Right now, Concur can accept some of this content via non-GDS aggregators like TravelFusion, which is clunky as heck.
Finally, the TMC needs to be able to track and manage tickets. Right now, they can only manage tickets using non-GDS third-party platforms (TF Desktop and Farelogix), which they don't want to use ... and largely don't do.
All three have to work together. And, right now, they don't. You're also ignoring the fact that removing content from corporate tools is likely AA's intent.
Where do you see these concerns in the article? It’s just questions Ms. Reilly is asking but I don’t recall seeing anything in the article to suggest it is not being supported.
I interpret that as I’m switching from Windows to Mac and asking question how do I copy and paste in new OS. Valid question and the commands/approach may be different but I don’t see the article stating it is it not supported. Even Ms. Reilly indicate in last paragraph that she is not stating NDC is good or bad; she may have to adopt to a different approach. This is change management that comes with any implementation.
https://www.exploreamerican.com/glob.../ndc-overview/
seems to suggest everything they can do today can be done in NDC. Now it would appear GDS is ready but if the TMCs own systems are not ready to support all NDC capabilities which GDS do support then it would be on them.
Whenever you make a major change involving numerous parties which you have little control over you will have to draw a line in the sand at some point (you need the stick if the carrots are not working). You would never implement anything if you don’t.
Take credit card chip/EMV for instance. While widely adopted outside US, it wasn’t getting much traction despite the carrot of less fraud until VISA/MC drew a line (the stick) and said after a certain date whichever party in a fraudulent transaction that did not adopt EMV will be liable for the transaction.
Contrast that with Real ID Act of 2005
. DHS kept pushing out the deadline. Sure COVID further impacted it but the states dragged it out over and over again.
But to your point, maybe it's an issue with a particular TMC haven't fully adopt to this standard.