The American Society of Travel Advisors (ASTA) has been championing advisors for decades, stalwart in its mission to impact the business of selling travel by representing members anywhere and everywhere that would be impactful. That often means that members of ASTA’s advocacy team are talking to politicians in Washington, D.C., and beyond, and that they’re watching carefully to see what regulations and bills will affect the everyday work of advisors.
Last month, ASTA wrote letters to the House of Representatives about issues of concern for the advisor community. We spoke with Jessie Klement, vice president of advocacy at ASTA, to better understand what ASTA is fighting for, and to find out how advisors might get involved.
Can you give us a refresher on why the work ASTA does is so important to the advisor community?
When people ask why travel advisors need ASTA, my common refrain is they don’t have anybody else. Prior to joining ASTA myself, I worked at two different associations that represented federal employees and retirees. There were any number of organizations that did that — my organization was one of over 30. There were options for those people, but there aren’t options for advisors.
If you’re not active in ASTA, if you’re not paying dues, if you’re not going to the Hill for Legislative Day, you are, in essence, weakening the voice of advisors. We go to the Hill to advance policies that are going to affect you positively. We go to the Hill to stop bad policy ideas — particularly on the state level when it comes to taxes — that are going to negatively affect your business. ASTA is the only game in town that does that for travel advisors.
Right now, ASTA is focusing on a few issues central to advisor work. What can you tell us about those issues?
The first is FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reauthorization, which is done by Congress every five years. It authorizes the FAA to do any number of things, the biggest of which is to collect taxes from airlines. So, if the FAA is not authorized, the federal government can’t collect taxes from airlines, which has a big impact on the government’s budget. They go through this exercise every five years, and this is the one opportunity that we know we have to affect aviation policy.
So, we put our heads together in February, went to the Hill and said what we wanted in the reauthorization process — things that are appropriate for this bill that will streamline processes for advisors, or protect consumers. The biggest thing ASTA asked for is that travel advisors not be responsible for airline refunds due to their clients when they were never in possession of the funds
The rule that came out from the Department of Transportation last year, in some instances, put travel agencies on the hook for providing refunds even though they never had that money. They would have to refund their client, with funds from their own bank account, then fight the airline to get that money back. It adds a step in the process, instead of the advisor going to the airline on behalf of their client — which of course, travel advisors are going to do — but they shouldn't be responsible for paying, especially when they never had those funds in the first place.
ASTA members at Legislative Day in Washington, D.C., this year.
Credit: 2023 Jason DixonWas there more in the FAA reauthorization related to advisors?
ASTA also asked for the streamlining of offline disclosures. These two things combined should be acutely felt by advisors in their day-to-day work: that they are not held responsible for providing refunds, and that they do not have to read a lengthy list of disclosures when booking airfare over the phone.
A third component we asked for is related to the Department of Transportation’s Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee; it's a four-person committee dedicated to consumers of airfare. It has an airport authority on it, it has an Airlines for America rep, but no one who really speaks for the consumer. So, the House bill adds a ticket agency seat to that committee. Now should that become law, we will fight for that seat to go to an advisor, versus, say, an online travel agency.
This is such important work, and we know advisors are grateful that you do it. How can they help ASTA in these efforts?
I’m expecting that this bill will move from the Senate by Dec. 15. Then, the two chambers will have to reconcile these bills and their differences. Next, I imagine a press from ASTA members, who can ask their Senators to include provisions in the bill. It’s easier to ask members to support, oppose or co-sponsor a bill; this is tough, because it’s a lot more nuanced and policy heavy.
But what I constantly ask our members to do is to talk about their work. Talk about the amount of business they do, which means revenue for that member of Congress’ district, the state, the country. Talk about the increase in business they're seeing coming out of COVID-19, and how they don’t expect it to slow down. Talk about the role advisors play in the greater ecosphere, so that when these things come up, that congressional office already knows about advisors and the economic role they play.
Our members can also go to events in their district. Check in with staff they’ve met on Legislative Day. Stay in front of them in a non-overwhelming way, to remind them that advisors are there, and that they play a role in the economy in the district and the state
And there was another issue ASTA took up, regarding overtime. Can you tell us more about that?
Right now, any worker who makes under a certain threshold (around $36,000 a year), qualifies for overtime pay. But it doesn't fully account for commission, and we exist in a profession that sometimes is 24/7. Our members do work outside 9 to 5, which would count as overtime, because a client is overseas, etc. So, our industry is built on flexible work hours that accommodate clients.
Currently, if you have an employee who’s making under $36,000 a year, they qualify for overtime pay. The proposed regulation wants to raise that to just over $55,000. So that's telling all these travel agencies that they need to pay workers who make less than $55,000 overtime pay, when the nature of the business is not 9 to 5. From the agency standpoint, this could have huge effects on their salary lines, because either they’re paying those people overtime, or they’re going to raise their salaries to avoid the new overtime threshold
In our letter, we asked them to take a more modest approach to the increase, or to let commission play a greater role in that salary threshold, to account for the fact that we work in a commission-based industry.
Any other words for advisors?
Remember that this is a long-term thing — keep beating that drum. Grassroots is always a lot of relationship building. But it’s exciting to see those members who have done the work and their congressman is now taking that meeting and they go to the Hill with those relationships.
