I 18 Combinations of offers onto one fulfillment - UnionInternationalCheminsdeFer/OSDM GitHub Wiki

I-18: Combinations of Offers onto One Fulfillment

Description

Enable to combine offers of different distributors on to one fulfillment (i.e. ticket).

This feature needs rules on how to combine e.g. conditions and group security elements of different fulfillments on to one.

Owner

  • Patrick Heuget (Amadeus)
  • Jonas Glanzmann / Schlapbach Andreas (SBB)
  • Jan Vavra (CIT)

Business Value

For Railways (direct) or for 3rd party (indirect) distributors

who are selling multiple Railways that provide combined offers whether or not under a single transport contract regime

the combination of tickets (one for each offer combined into a global offer or for each fare juxtaposed)

is a functionality that allows to create a combined ticket for the customer (as defined in TAP/TSI annex 7) integrating in this unique “end user” ticket all tickets (one for each offer combined into a global offer or for each fare juxtaposed) information of the Railways involved in the journey.

that provides the capability to issue only one combined ticket showing easily the evidence that the end user has or not a “through ticket” providing added value service in case of disruption along the journey (reference to the new PRR that will be soon coming in force)

unlike today the customers will have to manipulate multiple tickets and he cannot identify easily which tickets can be a through ticket,

our solution is providing the capability to provide a simple and light way to generate through ticket when combined offer mechanism is used.

Business Outcomes

The measurable benefits that the business can anticipate if the epic hypothesis is proven to be correct.

Happy customers and less use of value paper and shorter printing times.

Leading Indicators

The early measures that will help predict the business outcome hypothesis. For more on this topic, see the Innovation Accounting advanced topic article.

To do

Nonfunctional Requirements

Nonfunctional requirements (NFRs) associated with the epic.

One important NFR is the ticketing response time from each Railways to avoid a too long ticketing process leading to a ticket time out with partial ticketing to be reverted.

Context

Comments of the CIT GS (Jan Vavra, Sandra Dobler):

Legal requirements

Ticket and contract of carriage

  • The ticket “shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage” between the passenger(s) and the carrier(s) (art. 6, § 3 CIV). PRR is relying on the CIV regarding this definition (art. 4, appendix I of PRR).
  • It means that the ticket has an evidential value: to confirm the existence of the contract and the content of it (i. e. to carry passenger from – to, via etc.). It means that the ticket doesn’t represent just the itinerary or a guidance for the passenger regarding his/her journey, but the ticket has a very important evidential value.
  • From this legal background derives the ground principle that one ticket represents one contract of carriage. This principle is expressly stated in the General conditions of carriage (GCC-CIV/PRR developed by CIT), which is complemented by functional and technical standards (CIT MIRT, UIC IRS) and confirmed by legal technical specifications (TAP-TSI).
  • As exception, several tickets can represent one contract of carriage, as well as one ticket can represent several contracts of carriage. In this case, this must be indicated in the specific conditions of RU.

Through-ticket and new PRR

A through-ticket, according to the EU Passenger Rights Regulation (PRR) revised, means a ticket or tickets representing a transport contract for successive railway services operated by one or more railway undertakings (art. 3 PRR revised, by reference to Art. 3 point (2) Directive 2012/34/EU). This means one contract of carriage covering one or several tickets.

During the revision of the PRR, the Commission as well as the Parliament and some passenger associations pushed to develop the offer of through-tickets, even if that meant to make it mandatory by law. The CER supported by the CIT explained that this would go against the ground principle of contract law, which is the contractual freedom. Offering through-tickets means that the different carriers involved in a journey encompassing different legs accept to be bound in a single contract of transport towards the passenger and this has consequences, in particular as regards liability if something goes wrong during the journey. Such offers need thus commercial agreements in place between the different carriers involved, to set the rules of this collaboration. Imposing through-tickets to carriers would therefore be like imposing them a forced marriage.

The PRR revised precises now the conditions, under which one or more tickets represent a “through-ticket” and thus one contract of carriage (art. 12 PRR revised):

  • In case of long distance or regional rail services operated by a sole RU (or a 100% subsidiary), the RU shall offer a through-ticket for those services.

  • If a journey includes one or more connections, the passenger must be informed prior to purchase that this ticket or those tickets constitute a through-ticket (= one contract of carriage).

  • As a principle, a ticket or tickets purchased in a single commercial transaction from a RU represent a through-ticket (= one contract of carriage); RU are in this case liable (re-routing and reimbursement, assistance, compensation) if something goes wrong during the journey.

    BUT the ticket or the tickets purchased under one commercial transaction are not considered as a through-ticket if a passenger was informed about that on the ticket or on another document or electronically in such a manner that allows the passenger to reproduce the information for future reference.

  • If the TV or TO combined on its own the tickets in a single commercial transaction (that means without the agreement of the RU involved), it is liable to reimburse the total amount paid for that transaction for the ticket or tickets and to pay compensation equivalent to 75% of that amount in case of missed connection.

Functional and technical requirements on OSDM

OSDM must be flexible enough for both scenarios: through-ticketing and separate contracts. This means to:

  • enable to send a request on OSDM for connections covered by a through-ticket: In this case, one ticket or tickets will display only connections and offers constituting a through-ticket and thus one contract of carriage;
  • enable to send a request on OSDM with full range : In this case, the system must indicate in an adequate way to the passenger prior to purchase if the ticket or the tickets are not representing a through-ticket, while this information will also have to be indicated on the ticket(s), in the conditions of carriage or electronically in such a manner that allows the passenger to reproduce it. It is recommended to use different means to inform the passenger. It must also be possible to retrieve the proof that the passenger was properly informed.

Currently there are ongoing works within the UIC Ticket Lay-out Group (UIC TLG) on how to indicate on the Universal Rail Ticket (URT), which connections are representing a separate contract of carriage. The UIC TLG is preparing the solution of how to display this information, but not the technical means of how to deliver this information from the system.

Currently NRT tickets in most of the cases are representing through-tickets (passenger can use a NRT ticket for several legs/train connections), while IRT tickets normally are covering only one leg/train.

Discussion status and impact on API model

Modelling of Contracts

Dependency

Needs I-1 Enable combination rules between offers.

Merged: https://github.com/UnionInternationalCheminsdeFer/OSDM/pull/184