Global travel agents’ bodies – the United Federation of Travel Agents’ Associations (UFTAA) and the World Travel Agents Associations Alliance (WTAAA) -have mounted a strong challenge to a decision by International Air Transport Association (IATA) member airlines to impose globally standardised remittance periods under the Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP), warning that the move could drive up ticket prices, weaken competition, and expose the global airline settlement system to competition-law risks. The opposition has garnered early support from national associations, including the Kenya Association of Travel Agents (KATA), which has cautioned that the decision overlooks critical local market realities.
The objections follow a recently concluded mail vote by the IATA conference adopting amendments to Resolution 812, Section 6.5.3.7, mandating uniform BSP remittance timelines across all countries. The change dismantles long-standing arrangements under which credit terms were determined locally through joint governance, reflecting domestic banking systems, payment habits, and established commercial practices.
Industry players, including KATA, note that the move to impose uniform remittance terms across all markets fails to adequately take into account local market realities, financial systems, and long-established commercial practices that have enabled the travel trade to operate sustainably within national economies such as Kenya’s. KATA has said the current BSP remittance framework in Kenya has, over time, provided a balanced mechanism that supports both airline settlement security and the viability of travel agencies serving the domestic and international market.
UFTAA said the decision goes far beyond a procedural update. “By centrally dictating credit and remittance terms worldwide, airlines acting collectively through IATA are exercising structural monopoly power over the global airline clearing system,” the federation said in a press release issued last week. It added that the BSP is a “mandatory and indispensable settlement infrastructure” and that unilateral changes to its credit conditions “meet established definitions of abuse of collective dominance.”
Describing the move as a market-wide intervention, UFTAA said, “This decision is not a technical adjustment but a fundamental market intervention,” warning that its effects would ripple across the aviation value chain. According to the federation, shortened and rigid remittance periods would force travel agents to pre-finance airline revenues, significantly increasing liquidity and working-capital costs. “These costs inevitably translate into higher prices, reduced choice, and diminished service resilience for passengers,” it said.
UFTAA also framed the issue as one of economic sovereignty. “Credit terms are a core element of economic policy. Imposing uniform conditions across diverse markets effectively overrides local commercial practices, financial systems, and payment cultures, intervening in national economies without regulatory mandate or democratic legitimacy,” the statement said. The federation noted that “no evidence-based economic justification has been presented to support a one-size-fits-all approach,” adding that there is “no precedent in any other global industry where suppliers collectively dictate credit terms to intermediaries across all markets through a private association.”
Concerns were also raised over governance. “Binding resolutions are adopted exclusively by airlines, while agents—who bear the financial consequences—have no voting rights. Combined with monopoly control over settlement infrastructure, this creates a systemic competition-law risk,” UFTAA said, calling the conduct exceptional and damaging to market fairness and competitive balance.
On their part, WTAAA stated that the decision undermines collaborative governance and exposes a long-standing structural imbalance within the Passenger Agency Programme, where binding resolutions are adopted exclusively by airlines, while agents retain only consultative status. “By depriving national markets of their ability to tailor remittance schedules to local needs, the global alignment decision disregards long-standing local relationships between airlines and agents and ignores the operational realities of diverse business models, including high-volume corporate and tour operator accounts,” said WTAAA Executive Director Otto de Vries.
Commenting on the decision, KATA Chairman Dr. Joseph Kithitu said, “We are disappointed by IATA’s unilateral decision to change a system that has worked well and served the Kenyan market effectively for many years. Any global intervention that overlooks local market conditions risks destabilizing the travel distribution ecosystem, particularly in markets where agencies play a critical role in supporting air travel demand.”
UFTAA has called for the immediate reconsideration of the global remittance decision and urged a return to locally governed payment arrangements that are economically justified and proportionate. It said such a step is necessary to protect competition, market integrity, and the long-term interests of passengers, warning that the consequences of the current approach will be felt far beyond the travel trade.
