KR20150100503A - Automatic auditing system including agency debit memo generation - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method, system, and computer program product for inspecting a transaction in which one business owner sells a ticket for a travel product supplied by other business owner. An application receives data including a fare basis, and a charged fare on a ticket. A plurality of pricing units are corresponded to an itinerary of a ticket, and a cost corresponding to each fare basis is determined. Combinations of pricing units corresponded to the itinerary are defined, and a fare on each combination is determined. The charged fare on the ticket is compared to the fare on each combination, and a matched fare is selected. A pricing rule of a selected unit is compared to a ticket and a pricing context of a ticket, and an error of ticket pricing is determined based on the same. An agency debit memo can be defined based on the error of ticket pricing and an inspection discrepancy.

Description

[0001] AUTOMATIC AUDITING SYSTEM INCLUDING AGENCY DEBIT MEMO GENERATION [0002]

The present invention relates generally to computer and computer software, and more particularly to methods, systems, and computer program products for verification work on the sale of travel goods.

In the travel industry, airline tickets can be sold through indirect sellers (e.g. travel agencies). Indirect sellers typically look for available flights that meet the traveler's travel plans, book flights for travelers with matching flights, and receive payments. Payment is made by an indirect seller acting as a merchant, or by a merchant, a validating carrier.

A transaction can be subject to auditing to ensure that the indirect seller sells the ticket in compliance with the restrictions and rules for calculating the ticket charge. Verification may be to ascertain whether the amount of fare, tax, and commission is in line with the established limits and rules regarding the details of the ticket. For example, if the indirect seller indicates that the product is sold at a lower price, the ticketing provider may recover the deficiency from the indirect seller. The annual revenue of the global aviation industry is so large that if you compensate for even the smallest discrepancy in compensating for all the tickets sold, you will be able to recover a significant amount of lost revenue. Although generally verified against tickets sold by indirect sellers, it is possible to verify the tickets sold by airlines so that they can also perform accounting settlements for other contributors to the loss.

In the current verification system, an operator reviews the transaction data and decides whether to issue a billing document if it finds a deviation between the collected amount and the charge the indirect seller should have calculated. The operator's decision is usually based on the operator's experience with other transaction verification. This generally requires the operator to manually interpret and enter the ticket data. If there is a deviation, the operator writes a comment in the billing document (for example, an agency debit memo corresponding to the settlement memo (ADM)), pointing out what the indirect seller has done wrong and describing the deviation Should be. To do this, the operator typically performs a back-pricing to select the fare based on the fare chosen by the travel agency, and to determine which category has been violated to cause a deviation, The fare note should be read.

If the ticket includes a number of freight, the operator may have to repeat the process for each freight. These procedures should also be performed in the case of exchange and refund. In particular, the operator may need to read the fare table for the existing ticket and know what the exchange conditions and applicable fines are based on category 16 (fine). The operator can then read the fare table and use the facts to generate a billing document. Because this large amount of data must be relied on operator interpretation and input, the existing verification process can be time consuming and error prone.

Therefore, improved transaction analysis and verification document generation systems, methods, and computer program products are needed to support verification management, which can reduce operational costs and increase the total amount recovered by a verifier.

According to one embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a method for verifying a transaction related to a ticket sold by a first business entity for a travel product supplied by a second business entity. The method includes receiving data defining a fare criterion and a first fare charged for the ticket, and determining a plurality of fare calculation units consistent with the itinerary of the ticket. Each fare calculation unit may also include a second fare corresponding to the first fare. The method may also determine a combination of one or more charging units consistent with the itinerary of the ticket. The combination of each charge calculating unit may have a total charge including a sum of each second charge of the charge calculating units in the combination. The first fare may be compared to the total fare for each combination of fare calculation units and one of the fare calculation units may be selected based at least in part on the comparison of the first fare and each total fare. The method may also generate an alternate vehicle disposition (ADM) based at least in part on a selected combination of the charging units.

According to another embodiment of the present invention, a transaction verification apparatus is provided. The apparatus comprises at least one processor and at least one processor operable, upon execution, to cause the device to receive data defining a first fare charged for a fare reference and a ticket, Determine the fare calculation unit. Each fare calculation unit may also include a second fare corresponding to the first fare. The apparatus may also determine a combination of one or more rate calculation units that match the itinerary of the ticket. The combination of each charge calculating unit may have a total charge including a sum of each second charge of the charge calculating units in the combination. The first fare may be compared to the total fare for each combination of fare calculation units and one of the fare calculation units may be selected based at least in part on the comparison of the first fare and each total fare. The apparatus may also generate an alternate disguise based at least in part on the selected combination of the charging units.

According to another embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions. The instructions cause the processor to, when executed by the processor, receive data defining the first fare charged for the fare reference and ticket, and determine a plurality of fare calculation units consistent with the itinerary of the ticket. Each fare calculation unit may also include a second fare corresponding to the first fare. The command may also cause the processor to determine a combination of one or more rate calculation units that match the itinerary of the ticket. The combination of each charge calculating unit may have a total charge including a sum of each second charge of the charge calculating units in the combination. The first fare may be compared to the total fare for each combination of fare calculation units and one of the fare calculation units may be selected based at least in part on the comparison of the first fare and each total fare. The instructions may also cause the processor to generate an alternate disposition based at least in part on a selected combination of the metric units.

Accordingly, the present invention is characterized in that through an improved transaction analysis and verification document generation system and method, it is possible to reduce the operating cost and increase the total amount recovered by the verifier.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate various embodiments of the present invention and, together with specific details of the invention described below and the following detailed description of the invention .
1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary operating environment including a plurality of computer systems communicating over a network.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the exemplary computer system of Figure 1;
FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating a verification process that may be performed by one or more computer systems of FIG. 1, including defining one or more combinations of charge calculation units and determining whether a match between a ticket sold by an indirect seller and a combination . ≪ / RTI >
4 is a flow diagram illustrating a matching process that may be used by the verification process of FIG. 3 to determine whether a combination of charge calculation units and a match between tickets.
5 is a schematic diagram of a user interface that can be used to generate an alternate vehicle address (ADM) based on data generated by the verification process of FIG.
6 is a flow chart illustrating a validation process that may be executed by one or more computer systems of FIG. 1 for a transaction of exchanging an existing ticket for a new ticket.
7 is a flow chart illustrating a verification process that may be performed by one or more computer systems of FIG. 1 for a transaction involving a refund of a ticket.

Implementations of the invention may be implemented by a computing system, such as a global distribution system (GDS). The computing system may provide processing and database functions for interconnection between a plurality of computer reservation systems associated with a travel goods provider and indirect sellers of air tickets. In terms of air travel, this computing system can be configured to allow travelers to book air tickets and other travel products through an indirect sales channel. These indirect sales channels may include a ticket sales business entity for services to be provided by an online travel agency, and / or another business entity (e.g., an airline). Indirect sellers can receive payments from travelers in return for ticket reservations and can offset the service costs from the payments to the airline. Alternatively, the traveler may pay the airline directly.

The computing system may provide a verification function that allows the travel goods provider to verify the transaction including the sale, exchange, or refund of the ticket. By verifying the transaction, the travel goods supplier can determine if the transactions are being properly compensated. To reduce the operator effort required to perform verification, the system can generate data that can automatically generate billing documents, such as an agency debit memo (ADM). To this end, the system has a number of priceable units that may have been used to satisfy the itinerary of tickets based on a fare basis (or ticketed mouse basis) unit can be determined. One or more combinations of these charging units may be defined to suit the ticket itinerary. The one or more combinations may be priced by a fare engine and the resulting fare may be compared to the fare charged for the ticket.

The system may also be configured to compare the pricing context parameters of the one or more tickets and / or tickets to one or more of the pricing context parameters of the one or more tickets and / or tickets used to calculate the charges for each of the combinations of priceable units. And can be compared with a corresponding rule (or a pricing rule). This comparison between the fare calculation context parameter and the fare calculation rules can be used to match one or more combinations to a ticket. In addition to the difference between the fare, the tax, and the amount of the fee, the cause and the amount of the fee calculation error can be determined using a conflict between the ticket and charge calculation context parameter and the charge calculation rules of the matched combination of charge calculation units. The system can then populate data fields within the ADM based on errors generated by the indirect seller. These processes can be applied to transactions that include the originally issued sale of a ticket, an exchanged ticket, a refunded ticket, or other appropriate transaction.

1, an operating environment 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention includes a Global Distribution System (GDS) 12, one or more travel goods supplier systems, such as an airline system 14, one or more indirect sellers, A travel agency system 16, one or more operator systems 18, and a billing and settlement plan (BSP) system 19. Each of the GDS 12, the airline system 14, the travel agency system 16, the operator system 18, and the BSP system 19 may communicate via the network 20. Each airline system 14 includes a computer reservation system (CRS) and / or a billing system (CRS) to allow the GDS 12 and / or the travel agency system 16 to reserve and pay for air tickets ) May be included for each airline. The airline system 14 may also interact with the GDS 12 either directly or through the GDS 12 in order for the validating carrier to sell the tickets for the seats provided by the operating carrier . Accordingly, the operator can charge the ticketing provider for the service provided. Claims between a business entity acting as an indirect seller and a business entity acting as a travel goods supplier may be provided by the BSP system 19. Also, the amount of revenue may be recovered directly from the indirect seller (ie, without using the BSP), in which case the travel goods supplier (eg, ticketing operator) may ensure that all issued agency invoices are paid . The network 20 may include one or more private and / or public networks (e.g., the Internet) that enable the exchange of data.

The GDS 12 may be used by the airline system 14 and the travel agency system 16 to enable the travel agency, ticketing operator, or other indirect merchant to make reservations via this GDS 12 to one or more airline systems 14 Can communicate with each other. To this end, the GDS 12 may maintain a connection to each aircraft system 14 via the network 20. With this connection, the GDS 12 can forward reservation requests from the airline system 14 and / or the travel agency system 16, which are the ticketing providers, to the corresponding airline system 14, which is the operating company. The airline and travel agency systems 14, 16 can then book flights to multiple airlines with only one connection to the GDS 12. The GDS 12 sends a copy of the passenger name record (PNR) generated by the airline system 14 and, together, a fee calculation context parameter and a ticket fee associated with the reservation in the one or more searchable databases You can store the data you define. This data can allow PNRs to be stored in the GDS (12), which contains a complete set of flight data for each itinerary, including segments from multiple airlines. In addition, the stored data can more accurately validate transactions involving the sale of tickets by indirect merchants.

The operator system 18 may communicate with the GDS 12 via the network 20 or other suitable connection and the operator system may be equipped with a terminal or other suitable interface with the GDS 12. The operator can then communicate with the GDS 12 via the operator system 18 and perform operations related to transaction verification. The operator can also perform tasks related to the actions to be taken to recover the deviations revealed by the verification.

The BSP system 19 can be configured to receive data from a ticketing provider reporting the ticket sales to the operator name or data from the ticketing office of the travel agency. In the United States, the Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC) typically does this. In some cases, the BSP can act as a business process outsourcer (BPO), providing a clearing house for accounting settlement between the travel agency and the ticketing provider. Other systems (not shown), such as systems operated by the IATA Clearinghouse (ICH) or Airline Clearinghouse (ACH), may also be connected to the network 20 for accounting settlement between the operator and the ticketing operator. In any case, these various clearinghouse systems allow operators to easily collect fares for the provision of services sold by other business entities.

2, the GDS 12, the airline system 14, the travel agency system 16, the operator system 18, and the BSP system 19 in the operational environment 10 may be implemented as one or more computer devices or systems, For example, within the exemplary computer system 22. The computer system 22 includes at least one processor 24, a memory 26, a mass storage memory device 28, an input / output (I / O) interface 30, a human- . ≪ / RTI > The computer system 22 may also be operatively coupled to one or more external resources 34 via the network 20 and / or the I / O interface 30. External resources may include, but are not limited to, servers, databases, mass storage devices, peripherals, cloud-based network services, or any other suitable computer resources that may be used by computer system 22.

The processor 24 may be a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a central processing unit, an electric field programmable gate array, a programmable logic device, a state machine, a logic circuit, (Analog or digital) based on the computational instructions stored in memory 26. In one embodiment, The memory 26 may be a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a volatile memory, a non-volatile memory, a static random access memory (SRAM), a dynamic random access memory , Or any other device capable of storing information (including, but not limited to) any number of memory devices. The mass storage memory device 28 may include a data storage device such as a hard drive, an optical drive, a tape drive, a non-volatile semiconductor device, or any other device capable of storing information. The database 36 may reside in the mass storage memory device 28 and may be used to collect and organize the data used by the various systems and modules described herein.

The processor 24 may operate under the control of an operating system 38 resident in the memory 26. The operating system 38 may be configured to store computer resources such that the computer program code embodied as one or more computer software applications, such as the verification application 40 residing in the memory 26, Can be managed. In another implementation, the processor 24 may execute the verification application directly. In this case, the operating system 38 may be omitted. One or more data structures 42 may also reside in the memory 26 and may be used by the processor 24, the operating system 38, and / or the verification application to store or manipulate data.

The I / O interface 30 may provide a machine interface that operatively couples the processor 24 to other devices and systems, such as the network 20 and / or external resources 34. Thus, the verification application 40 can communicate with the network 20 and / or external resources 34 by communicating via the I / O interface 30 to provide various features, functions, applications, processes, And / or modules. The verification application 40 may also be program code that is executed by one or more external resources 34 or that relies on functions and / or signals provided by other systems or network components external to the computer system 22 Lt; / RTI > Those skilled in the art will recognize that many other computer or other external resources 34 may be located outside of the computer system 22, (Hardware and software) distributed over a network 20 or provided as a service (e.g., a cloud computing service) over the network 20.

The HMI 32 may be operatively coupled to the processor 24 of the computer system 22 in a known manner so that the user can interact directly with the computer system 22. The HMI 32 may include a video and / or alphanumeric display, a touch screen, a speaker, and any other suitable audiovisual display capable of providing information to the user. The HMI 32 also includes input devices and controls such as a letter-number keyboard, pointing device, keypad, push button, control knob, microphone, etc., that can receive commands and inputs from the user and transmit the input content can do.

An airline ticket purchased through one of the airline or travel agency systems 14, 16 may be involved in fare calculation, reservation, and ticketing. Tickets can be charged at the ticketing office with the help of the freight engine. The freight engine may calculate the fare for each of one or more fare accounting units that satisfy the itinerary of the ticket, and may sum these freight to determine the ticket fare.

The freight engine may reside in the GDS 12 and may determine a ticket fee based on a rate calculation context that includes a rate calculation context parameter. The rate calculation context parameter may define a set of conditions that determine the fare of the ticket, i. E. A ticketing condition. (For example, infant, child, adult, adult standby, soldier, etc.) of the fare calculation office, the fare calculation date, the office code for identifying the ticketing office issuing the ticket, (E.g., first class, business class, economy class) for identifying a service class, and a company code for identifying a business discount, But are not limited to these.

Each fare calculation unit may include a combination of one or more segments, including flights between a source and a destination served by a business. The fare calculation unit is thus the simplest combination of the tickable segments. The simplest fare calculation unit is a one way fare calculation unit, which may include one segment. Other fare calculation units may include round trips and circle trips where two or more segments constitute a closed loop. An 'open jaw priceable unit' can also be defined, which can be similar to a round trip with one segment missing. Thus, a departure flight may include one or more rate calculation units including one or more segments.

Each segment can connect two cities to define a flight that constitutes a "market". As such, the segment can define a specific flight that provides one-way travel within the market. Representative segments that make up the fare calculation unit include non-stop direct flights (e.g., flights with one leg connecting the market), direct flights with stop-over, and / or multiple legs But not limited to, one or more connecting flights.

The itinerary of a ticket can define a segment in which a ticket can be used to obtain a boarding pass. Each segment defined by the itinerary can include one or more sequential legs, each leg linking a scheduled departure to a scheduled destination. The market may thus include the initial and final destinations of one or more flight legs. Thus, each tariff unit may comprise a combination of one or more legs that define a segment that satisfies at least a portion of the itinerary. Thus, the itinerary is the driver of what combination of fare units can be chosen for ticketing. As an example of the journey, a one-way flight including one-way nonstop direct flights, one-way direct flights with stopover points, one-way flights with one or more connection connections, non-stop non-stop flights, non-stop round trips with waypoints, But are not limited to these.

Fares can cover one or more flights servicing the market. The ticket may consist of one fare calculation unit in the case of a one-way ticket, and two or more fare calculation units in the case of a round-trip ticket. A ticket that has been correctly charged may have a fare selected to match the fare calculation context of the ticket. In other words, a tariff may define more than one pricing rule, which must comply with these pricing rules to qualify for freight. The ticket and charge estimation context can define a number of conditions for ticket reservation, each of which corresponds to one of the charge estimation context parameters. If the ticketing fare is correctly selected, neither the ticket nor the fare calculation context parameters can conflict with the fare calculation rules defined by the ticketing fare.

The fare for each fare calculation unit (and hence the ticket) can be determined, at least in part, based on the fare calculation rules. The fare calculation rules are based on a reservation grade, a ticket purchase requirement (for example, a pre-purchase request, a refundable fee, a non-refundable fee, a web-exclusive fare, etc.), a stay requirement, Requirements, day-of-week requirements, flight restrictions, etc., and other rules that must be met to qualify for freight. In general, there will be a number of freight standards covering a number of possible fares available in each market.

As an example, a round trip fare for a specific fare calculation unit may be less than a one way fare for a fare calculation unit. Therefore, using a round-trip fare to rate flights on a journey that includes only one fare calculation unit may be prohibited by business rules. Thus, in order to satisfy the fare including the round trip condition, the journey needs to include at least two fare calculation units in the same market to meet the round trip requirement. The round-trip fare may also impose a light rail restriction, for example, a Saturday night pass requirement. Therefore, fares that include round-trip requirements and Saturday night pass requirement must include two fare calculation units that are separated by Saturday night on the flight date in that market.

The booking of a ticket may include a procedure for confirming the availability of a flight, including a ticket, in the list of operators' products. This verification procedure may include transmitting a reservation request from the airline or travel agency system 14, 16 to the GDS 12. The GDS 12 may then query the airline system 14 for flight availability. A flight can be booked when the seat of the requested flight is available, and the list of goods of the operator carrier is reduced to reflect this reservation. If the traveler approves the transaction, the fare for this ticket may be charged to the traveler's account, which includes the total fare, taxes, and fees for the fare units that make up the ticketed flight.

In the case of a verification transaction for ticket sales by an indirect seller, the audit amount (i.e., total fare, tax, and fee) indicating the charge to be billed for the ticket may be determined by the computing system. The verification amount can be calculated based on the fare and the market that should have been used for the ticket, in addition to the amount calculating context of the ticket and the ticket. Verification amounts can also be divided into separate verification tariffs, verification taxes, and verification fees. Validation of some transactions, such as refunds or exchanges of tickets, may require calculation of an audit penalty. The verification penalty may reflect the amount to be charged as a penalty for ticket exchange and may be used to determine whether the indirect seller has imposed the correct penalty for the transaction.

Although verification generally refers to the process of verifying the charge for a ticket sold by a travel agency on behalf of a ticketing agent and the corresponding claim to a traveler, the same principle is applied to the case where the ticketing operator sells It can also be applied to interline billing related to tickets. In this case, the verification by the operator that the ticketing provider has sold the ticket at a reasonable amount can be referred to as an external verification, and the verification by the ticketing provider that the operating company has claimed a reasonable amount can be referred to as internal verification have. In the case of external verification, the actual fee charged by the indirect seller may be compared to the verification amount. In the case of internal verification, the amount claimed by the operator may be compared to the amount proportionate to the rights of the operator.

In any case, if there is a deviation in the verification amount, the verification side may take steps to recover the deviation. In this case, if the issuing ADM is issued from the ticketing business operator to the ticketing office of the travel agency, if the operator issues an interline invoice to the ticketing provider (ie, charges the customer outside the interline) There may be cases where the operator issues a rejection memo (ie, an interline internal claim). Other procedures that may occur in the course of restoring deviations may include filing an ADM dispute, and filing a dispute investigation.

Referring to FIG. 3, there is shown a flow diagram of a process 50 that may be executed by a verification application 40 to determine the type of error that the indirect seller made in calculating the ticket fee. This process 50 may be executed in response to a determination of whether to verify the ticketing transaction. This determination may be made in response to identifying the audit discrepancy V between the charge the indirect seller has charged for the ticket and the verification amount. The decision as to whether to issue an ADM can also take into account the magnitude of the verification deviation V and the expectation of issuing and / or continuing execution of the ADM. Methods, systems, and computer program products for determining the verification deviation V and ADM issuance expectations are disclosed in U.S. Patent Application No. 13 / 926,136 (filed June 25, 2013 entitled "OPTIMIZING GENERATION OF AGENCY DEBIT MEMOS ", Attorney Docket No. AMS -143US) and US patent application Ser. No. 14 / 025,054 (filed on September 12, 2013 entitled "AUDITING RULES OPTIMIZER ", Attorney Docket No. AMS-152US). The entire disclosures of each of these applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes.

At block 52, the process 50 may receive the ticket data. The ticket data may be received, for example, as part of the data received at the time of its issuance or data received from a transaction reporting file (such as a handoff tape (HOT) or business accounting tape (CAT) file). The ticket data includes data (e.g., a fare reference code) identifying the ticketing fare reference used to determine the ticket fare, data indicative of the fare, taxes, and fees calculated by the indirect seller at the time of calculating the ticket fee, Routing, and / or any other suitable parameters. Upon receipt of the ticket data, in response, the process 50 proceeds to block 54.

At block 54, the process 50 may determine a set of possible priceable units based on ticketing fare criteria of the tickets to be analyzed. For this purpose, it is possible to remove the fare calculation unit having a fare standard different from that of the ticketing fare standard, or to filter out a group of the available fare calculation units. The group of possible charging units may include one or more charging units each including a segment that can be used to meet the journey of the ticket. That is, a group of fare calculation units may include any fare calculation unit with ticketing fare criteria that could be used to generate a ticket that satisfies the itinerary. In an embodiment of the invention, a group of fare calculation units may include all fare calculation units that could be used to satisfy the itinerary of a ticket. However, the present invention is not limited thereto, and in another embodiment of the present invention, a group of charge calculating units having only a part of all possible charge calculating units may be defined. In response, the process 50 may proceed to block 56 if a group of possible charging units is defined.

At block 56, the process 50 flags (applies) flagging to the fee calculation units that are not applicable at the fare level. An unacceptable rate calculation unit may include any fare calculation unit with a fare that includes the rules violated by the ticket and ticket charging context. That is, the non-applicable rate calculation unit may include one or more rate calculation rules that conflict with one or more rate calculation context parameters of the ticket. The non-applicable rate calculation unit can be identified by comparing the fare calculation rule of the fare calculation unit with the fare calculation context parameter of the ticket and the ticket. The non-compliant rate calculation unit may then flag with one or more corresponding tickets and data indicative of one or more rate calculation rules of the rate calculation units that are violated by the rate calculation context parameters of the ticket. As such, the flag of the rate calculation unit may indicate the number and type of rule violations associated with the flagged rate calculation unit. All fare calculation context parameters applicable at the freight level can be used to flag non-applicable fare calculation units. If the flag process is applied to the non-applicable rate calculation unit at the freight level, the process 50 may proceed to block 58 in response.

At block 58, the process 50 may define one or more sets of combinations of priceable units. Here, each combination in the combination group is composed of the charge calculating units selected from the available charge calculating units of the first group. Each combination in the combination group may be defined such that this combination satisfies the itinerary of the ticket. In an embodiment of the present invention, this process may define all possible combinations of charge metering units that satisfy the itinerary of the ticket. The fare calculation unit for each combination can be calculated by the fare engine and can be summed to generate a fare for each combination. Accordingly, the process 50 may generate a total fare (or "combination fare") for each combination of fare units that satisfy the itinerary of the ticket. The process 50 may then proceed to block 60.

At block 60, the process 50 may determine a combination of charge calculation units that are not applicable at the itinerary level. These combinations can be flagged by determining whether one or more of the ticket and charge calculation context parameters violates one or more of the charge calculation rules of the combination of charge calculation units. All fare calculation rules applicable on the itinerary dimension can be used to flag non-applicable fare calculation units. The flag may then indicate the number and type of rule violations associated with the flagged combination of the rate calculation units in both the freight dimension and the itinerary dimension. The process 50 may then proceed to block 62.

At block 62, the process 50 may determine a combination of fare calculation units that match the ticket. This determination can be made by (1) comparing the fare charged for the ticket (ie, the "ticket fare") and each combined fare, and (2) by the number of rule violations for a combination of fare calculation units. In response, the process 50 automatically adds one or more data fields (e.g., private memo data fields) in the ADM to the ADM in response to selecting a combination of fare calculation units that best match the ticket fare and / You can fill in the explanations that describe why you are. This reason may be based on the difference between the fare calculation rule of the combination of matched fare calculation units and the fare calculation context indicated by the ticket and / or ticket data. Once the appropriate data fields of the ADM are filled, the process 50 proceeds to block 64 either manually by the verification application 40 or manually by the operator to generate the ADM.

Process 50 may be performed for all verifications, or only for verification of a ticket that includes specific ticket parameters or audited mouse basis. This optional application of the process 50 allows to reduce the computational overhead by skipping processing for tickets without history that generated the wrong ticket fare. For example, some validated fare standards or ticketing offices may be less relevant to the wrong ticket. In an implementation that selectively applies the process 50, the process 50 may be configured to flag the charging unit for a given rule violation and ignore other rule violations. A fare calculation unit that does not include a fare with proven rules can be analyzed using a conventional verification fee calculation process.

Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart of a matching process 70 that may be executed by the verification application 40 to determine the combination of the charging units matched to the ticket at block 62 of the process 50 is shown. At block 72, the process 70 may determine if the combination of charge calculation units is populated with any combination. If this combination is empty or not filled ("NO" branch of decision block 72), the process may proceed to block 74. An empty group can be an indication that ticketing fare criteria are not valid fare criteria. This may occur, for example, if the freight basis is handled by an indirect seller.

At block 74, the process 70 may generate a comment that indicates that the indirect seller has selected an invalid fare criterion. This description may be one of a plurality of predefined comments stored in the memory used to describe the verification scenario. For example, the process 70 may be terminated as "an indirect seller has used an invalid fare standard to calculate the ticket charge. The fare must have been calculated using the fare standard YIF, and the fare calculation line is LON 6X SIN 4876.23NUC4876. 23END R0E0.621791. " Process 70 may then proceed to block 76.

If the combination of charging units is filled with at least one combination ("YES" branch of decision block 72), then process 70 may proceed to block 78. At block 78, the process 70 may compare the combined fares and the ticket fares for each combination of the fare calculation units in the combined group. Process 70 may also determine a deviation threshold. This deviation threshold can be configured to take into account the currency conversion (currency exchange) approximation and / or rounding error, which allows the indirect seller to change the chosen rate slightly compared to the calculated value for the combination rate. For example, the deviation threshold can be set to 0.1% of the ticket fare or the combined fare.

Process 70 then proceeds to block 80 to determine the number of combinations of fare calculation units having the same combined fare as the ticket fare. YES "branch of decision block 80), then the process 70 proceeds to block 82 to select the only combination fare as the matching fare, Proceed to 84. If the non-single combined fare equals the ticket fare ("NO" branch of decision block 80), then process 70 may proceed to block 86.

At block 86, the process 70 may determine if more than one combination rate is equal to the ticket fare. If more than one combination fare equals the ticket fare ("YES" branch of decision block 86), then process 70 may proceed to block 88. If the ticket fare is not equal to more than one combination fare, for example, if no combination of fare calculation units has a total fare equal to the ticket fare ("NO" branch of decision block 86), the process proceeds to block 90 .

At block 90, the process 70 determines if there is any combination fare within the ticket fare deviation threshold. In other words,

은 티켓 운임이고,

은 조합 운임이고,

는 편차 임계값이다. 이에 의해,

는 편차 구간(discrepancy interval)을 정의할 수 있다. 편차 구간 내에 조합 운임이 없다면(판정 블록 90의 "NO" 분기), 프로세스(70)는 블록 92로 진행할 수 있다. 편차 임계값 내에 적어도 하나의 운임 조합이 있다면(판정 블록 90의 "YES" 분기), 프로세스는 블록 88로 진행할 수 있다. Of the combined fares. here

Is the ticket fare,

Is a combination fare,

Is a deviation threshold. As a result,

Can define a discrepancy interval. If there are no combined fares within the deviation period ("NO" branch of decision block 90), process 70 may proceed to block 92. If there is at least one fare combination within the deviation threshold ("YES" branch of decision block 90), the process may proceed to block 88.

At block 88, the process 70 may select a flagged combination fare having the lowest number of rule violations that is equal to or within the deviation threshold of the ticket fare. This can be determined based on how many billing units or the billing unit itself has been flagged at blocks 56 and 60 of process 50. The process 70 may then determine the reason for the verification deviation V using the rules for the selected combination of the rate calculation units violated by the rate calculation context. The determination of the combination of the fare calculation units having the smallest number of rule violations may be performed if the plurality of combination fares is equal to the ticket fare (i.e., if process 70 enters block 88 at block 86) If the fare is within the deviation interval (i.e., when the process 70 enters block 88 at block 90). Next, the process 70 may proceed to block 84. If there is only one combination fare within the deviation interval, then selecting the combination fare with the fewest number of rule violations can be a simple operation. In this case, the process 70 may simply select only the available combinatorial fares and proceed directly to block 84 at block 90.

At block 84, the process 70 may generate a statement describing the reason for the ADM. The comment may be generated based at least in part on a rate calculation rule of the matching combination that has been violated by the fare calculation context of the ticket. The comment may include text indicating the number and / or type of violation rules. If more than one rate calculation rule is violated, the process 70 may include logic to select one of the violated rules as the primary cause of the ADM issue or as the title of the ADM. The statement can specify all violations or only one or more violations identified as the primary or primary cause of the verification deviation V. For example, "A purchase condition prior to 14 days has been violated. The fare that should have been used to calculate the ticket fare is a fare with a freight basis YIF, and the fare calculation line is LON 6X SIN4876.23NUC4876 .23END ROE should be 0.621791. " In response, process 70 may proceed to block 76 when process 70 generates a comment.

At block 92, the process 70 may determine whether the verified fare reference determined from the back-pricing of the ticket is equal to the ticketing fare reference. As the process 70 reaches block 92, it can be said that none of the combination fares need to have a value in the deviation interval. In embodiments of the present invention that selectively apply process 50, this problem may arise because pricing units with proven fare criteria are excluded from a group of possible pricing units. If the verified fare standard is not the same as the ticketing fare criteria ("NO" branch of decision block 92), the verification deviation V may be determined to be due to an unknown fare rule violation. The process 70 may then proceed to block 94.

At block 94, the process 70 may generate a textual statement indicating that the unknown fiduciary rule is violated. The process 70 may also include calibrated fare information within the comment based on the verified fare criteria. For example, the ADM rule violation statement that a ticketing fare standard violates an unknown fare rule rule must be stated that "the fare has been calculated using the fare standard YIF and the fare calculation line is LON 6X SIN4876.23NUC4876.23END ROE0.621791 It must have been. "

If the verified fare criterion is the same as the ticketing fare criterion ("YES" branch of decision block 92), process 70 may proceed to block 96. Reaching block 96 indicates that the indirect seller manually calculated the fare and entered the ticket fare incorrectly. When calculating the fare manually, you may be able to choose the correct fare and fare for the fare standard. Indirect sellers may also have manually changed the amount of fare output from the freight engine. Thus, at block 96, the process 70 may determine that the indirect merchant manually entered an incorrect amount for the ticket fare. The process may then proceed to block 98.

At block 98, the process 70 may generate a textual description indicating that the indirect seller has selected a valid fare criterion but entered an incorrect ticket fare amount. For example, a description of the ADM's incorrect fare, with the ticketing fare standard being the same as the verified fare standard, may be "the chosen fare standard is correct, but the collected fare amount is incorrect". Process 70 may then proceed to block 76.

At block 76, the process 70 may populate the comment data field of the ADM with the generated comment. Process 70 may also populate additional data fields of the ADM (e.g., monetary value data fields (e.g., charges and tax items)) based on the selected combination rate. The description entered in the ADM may be based on rules violated by ticketing fare criteria, and the description may include the number and type of violation rules. Certain portions of the ADM may also be populated by the operator, or may be edited by the operator as part of the ADM automatically populated by the process 70.

To this end, the verification application 40 may generate (1) verification amounts for freight, taxes, and fees, (2) freight criteria and freight calculation lines for the verified fare, and (3) verification deviation V. The verification variance V can be divided into the tariffs, taxes, and fees calculated by the verification application 40 and the individual verification variances between the corresponding fares, taxes, and fees collected by the indirect vendor. The verification application 40 may use this information to automatically generate portions of the ADM by entering deviations and generated comments into the appropriate data fields of the ADM. The reason for entering the Memo Data field of the ADM may also be filled with explanatory text indicating specific reasons for tax deviations, fee deviations, and / or freight deviations. In an embodiment of the present invention, the verification application 40 may be configured to provide generated comment and numerical values to the user interface of the ADM generating application to facilitate generation of the ADM.

5, an exemplary user interface 100 for creating an ADM includes a header window 102, an airline contact window 104, an associated document window 106, a currency selection window 108, (110), a private memo window (112), and a monetary amount information window (114). The header window 102 includes fields for entering and / or displaying information, for example, a type memo field 116, a status memo field 118, an issue date memo field 120, an agency identification (ID) field 122), and the like. The airline contact window 104 may include an operator identification field 124, a telephone number field 126, and an e-mail address field 128. The associated document window 106 may include an associated document identification field 130, an associated document issue date field 132, and a passenger name field 134. The currency selection window 108 may include a currency information item field 136 for displaying and / or entering the type of currency in which the transaction is being performed. The associated transaction window 110 may include buttons 138 and 140 for selecting the type of transaction represented by the memo, for example issuing or refunding a ticket, and the like.

The private note window 112 may include a reason code field 142 and a reason text field 144. The reason code field 142 may be configured so that an alphabetic-numeric code that roughly indicates the reason for the memo is written. An example of a code is a code indicating that an ADM has been issued in response to an error in a fare calculation or a fare rule, a violation on a reservation, a mistake in management administration, and the like. The reason text field 144 may be configured to receive a comment describing the reason for the note from the verification application 40. The reason text field 144 may also configure the text and / or comment received from the verification application 40 to be input and / or editable by the operator. This description can provide indirect sellers with more specific reasons why the ADM was issued and how the verification variance V was determined.

The money information window 114 may include a numerical item field indicating the amount calculated by the indirect seller, the amount calculated by the travel goods provider (e.g., airline), and the difference therebetween. Accordingly, comparisons can be made in the freight dimension, the tax dimension, and / or the fee dimension. For this purpose, the money information window 114 may include a money amount window 146 and a tax details window 148. [ The amount window 146 includes a freight column 150, a tax column 151, a commission column 152, a tax column 153 for commissions, an additional commission (SPAM) column 154, (MF) column 156, and a gross column 157. In this case, Each column 150-157 may include an airline calculation row 160, an agency calculation row 162 and a difference row 164 and each row 160,162 and 164 may include a data field 170 -177, 180-187, 190-197). The amount of money window 146 may also include a remittance data field 198 that indicates the amount owed to the travel goods supplier, which may be equal to the amount of the total difference data field 197. The tax refinement window may include data fields 200-209 that provide additional information regarding the tax amount at the origin and tax code levels.

The verification application 40 may be configured to automatically populate the fields of the user interface 100 with numeric and descriptive text to reduce the operator ' s data input burden. Whereby the user interface 100 can provide a mechanism by which the verification application 40 can automatically populate the data fields of the ADM (e.g., private memo data fields). The numerical value can be determined based on the received data and the verification amount determined by the verification application 40. The comment statement can be provided by selecting among the previously set comment statements based on the analysis result of the transaction by the verification application 40. The verification application 40 may also include a portion of the predefined comment template in the form of a description of the reason for the verification deviation V, the violation rate calculation rule, the verified fare criterion information, and / Or the like.

By way of example, the reason provided for a tax deviation may depend on the reason why the deviation exists. For example, if some taxes are collected less and other taxes are not, then a comment may be selected based on these conditions and written in the reason text field 144. An illustrative explanation in this situation is that "some taxes are collected less and other taxes are not, so total deficit tax is $ 100." If all taxes have been collected less, the selected statement can specify which taxes have been collected less and which taxes have not been collected. An example statement in this case is "Tax 'AB' was collected less, Tax 'CD' should have been collected but not collected. ' The verification application 40 may fill in the respective data fields 171, 181, and 191 in the tax column 151 with the tax value calculated by the airline, the indirect seller, and the difference therebetween. If possible, additional details of the tax may also be automatically entered into the data fields 200-209.

Causes for fee deviations may include: (1) a wrong fee rate applied, (2) the fare is incorrect due to incorrect fare criteria, (3) incorrect fees and incorrect fares A combination of criteria. If the ticket fare is correct but the fee is not, the verification application 40 may determine whether the fee has been calculated by applying the wrong percentage percentage. At this time, the verification application 40 may fill in the reason text field 144 of the user interface 100 with explanatory text indicating such a condition. For example, the statement at this time may be "Incorrect commission rate applied, exact commission rate is 3%". The verification application 40 may also populate the data fields 172, 182, 192 of the commission column 152 with commissions calculated as a difference between a travel goods supplier, an indirect seller, and the two. Similarly, if the ticket fare is wrong and the correct fee rate is applied, the comment might include the text "The wrong fare is applied to the wrong fare amount, resulting in a miscalculation". In the event that both the ticket fare and the fee rate are incorrect, the text of the statement of explanation will be "The wrong commission rate has been applied, the correct commission rate is 3%, this wrong commission rate also applies to the wrong amount of fare".

In addition to the validation transaction for the originally issued ticket (i.e., the transaction in which the ticket is sold in exchange for the traveler's currency payment), implementations of the present invention may also be used for validation transactions for exchange or refund of tickets. One common transaction involves the traveler exchanging an existing ticket for a new ticket. This may occur, for example, if a traveler is delayed in returning from his trip and needs a new return ticket. In this case, the traveler may wish to partially exchange the existing ticket with a new ticket. During a partial exchange, the unused portion of an existing ticket may be exchanged for a later flight or a flight to another destination. If no part of an existing ticket is used, all exchanges can be made.

Referring to FIG. 6, the verification process 210 shown in this flow chart can be executed to determine whether the indirect seller has successfully charged in the exchange transaction of the ticket. At block 212, the verification process 210 may determine whether the existing ticket was an exchangeable ticket. If the existing ticket is exchangeable ("YES" branch of decision block 212), verification process 210 may proceed to block 214. If the existing ticket is not exchangeable ("NO" branch of decision block 212), verification process 210 may proceed to block 216.

At block 216, the verification process 210 may exchange the existing ticket to determine the amount of verification for the new ticket by calculating a charge for the new ticket to be issued. Since the existing ticket was not exchangeable, the fare for the new ticket must have been charged as the initial issue by the indirect seller. Therefore, the verification amount may be an amount equal to the charge (e.g., fare + tax + commission) that should have been charged for the new ticket determined irrespective of the existing ticket.

Once the verification amount for the new ticket is determined, in response, the verification process 210 proceeds to block 218 to determine the verification deviation V. [ Process 210 may also fill in the total amount data field 177 of the airline calculation row 160 with the verification value of the new ticket and add the total amount data field 177 of the airline calculation row 160 to the total amount data field 187 of the agency calculation row 162, You can fill in the gross amount. The total amount is the sum of the amount collected (or "additional amount") to reflect the difference from the price of the existing ticket plus the exchange fine determined by the indirect seller. If the price of an existing ticket is higher than the price of a new ticket, the additional amount may be a "residual amount" that is credited to the traveler or used to offset the exchange penalty. Conversely, if the price of a new ticket is higher than the price of an existing ticket, then the additional amount may be a "few" amount collected by the indirect seller. The verification process 210 then sends to the remittance data field 198 of the difference row 164 the amount of the total amount data field 177 of the airline calculation row 160 and the total amount data field 187 of the agency calculation row 162 ) Of the difference between the amount of money can be filled. The verification process 210 may then proceed to block 220.

At block 220, the verification process 210 may generate a comment that indicates that the existing ticket was an unchangeable ticket. An illustrative explanation is that "the exchange ticket was a non-exchangeable ticket, the required amount is (total fare, tax, fee for new tickets) - {(additional charge) + (evaluated exchange fine)}" You can include text. The process may then proceed to block 222.

At block 214, the verification process 210 may determine the exchange fines (or "verification fines") that should have been billed to exchange existing tickets and the verification amount for new tickets. The verification amount can be the total fare of the fare, tax, and fee of this new ticket if a new ticket is issued as the initial issue. The verification process 210 may then proceed to block 224.

At block 224, the verification process 210 may determine the verification variance V in the following equation.

In the above equation, ADC is the additional amount, PENF is the exchange fine, and RV is the residual value. If the verification variance V is zero or less than the predetermined amount ("NO" branch of decision block 224), the verification process 210 may determine that there is nothing owed and ends without generating an ADM. If the verification deviation V is greater than zero or greater than a predetermined amount (the "YES" branch of decision block 224), the verification process 210 may proceed to block 226.

At block 226, the verification process 210 may determine whether the exchange fine has been correctly calculated by the indirect seller. This may include comparing the verification fines to the exchange fines claimed by the indirect seller, which may be determined from the received ticket data. If the exchange fine has been correctly calculated by the indirect seller ("YES" branch of decision block 226), the process may proceed to block 228. If the exchange fine has not been correctly calculated by the indirect seller ("NO" branch of decision block 226), the verification process 210 may proceed to block 230.

At block 230, the verification process 210 may add an indication to the statement that the wrong exchange penalty has been assessed by the indirect seller. For example, the verification process 210 may add the text "The wrong exchange fine has been assessed, the correct exchange fine is $ 100 " in the description. The verification process 210 may then proceed to block 228.

At block 228, the verification process 210 may determine that the correct amount has been calculated by indirect selling for the fare, taxes, and fees for the new ticket. This determination is made by comparing the fare, taxes, and fees (eg, verification fees, verification taxes, and verification fees) for the new ticket against the corresponding amount claimed by the indirect seller. For example, the correct amount of the additional amount (or "verification addition amount") may be the difference between the verification value of the new ticket and the billing charge of the existing ticket. Thus, the incorrect addition amount may be the sum of the wrong amount charged for the new ticket (e.g., the amount of verification for the new ticket), or an incorrect calculation by the indirect seller (e.g., Which is different from the existing ticket charge). If the additional amount has been successfully calculated by the indirect seller ("YES" branch of decision block 228), then verification process 210 may proceed to block 231.

If the addendum is not calculated correctly ("NO" branch of decision block 228), then verification process 210 may proceed to block 232. At block 232, the verification process 210 may add an indication to the statement that there is an error in the add-on calculation. This description may be selected depending on whether the deviation is due to a difference between the verification fare, the verification tax, and / or the verification fee and the corresponding fare, tax, and / or fee charged by the indirect seller. For example, if there is a deviation between the verification fare and the charge fare, the process 210 may add the text "The fare for the ticket is wrong, resulting in an incorrect addition " to the statement. In any case, if such an indication is added to the comment, in response, the verification process 210 may proceed to block 231.

At block 231, the verification process 210 may determine whether additional reimbursement has been properly calculated for the fare, taxes, fees, and / or fines that the indirect merchant has claimed. That is, the verification process 210 may determine whether a miscalculation is causing the verification deviation V. For example, based on the amount of verification and the amount claimed by the indirect seller, the verification process 210 may determine that the indirect seller has received an error that occurred while calculating one or more of the additional amount, the exchange fine, and / Can be determined. If the calculation for the additional amount is performed correctly for the amount charged for the ticket ("YES" branch of decision block 231), the verification process 210 may proceed to block 222. If the calculation for the additional amount is not calculated correctly ("NO" branch of decision block 231), the verification process 210 may proceed to block 234.

At block 234, the verification process 210 may add an indication to the comment that there was a calculation error. This description can be selected based on which calculation has been performed erroneously. For example, the verification process 210 may add a text in the description saying "The exchange is correctly charged but the calculation of the additional amount or the remaining value is incorrect ". The verification process 210 may then proceed to block 222.

At block 222, the verification process 210 may fill in the comment in the proprietary memo data field of the ADM. This can be done, for example, by inserting comment text into the reason text field 144 of the user interface 100. [ The operator can then either edit the comment before issuing the ADM, or simply accept the automatically generated comment. In another embodiment of the present invention, the comment may be added directly to the ADM without using the user interface 100. [ This may be done, for example, by an application programming interface (API) between the verification application 40 and the ADM generation program, or by a verification application 40 that generates the ADM directly.

If there is a change in the plan prior to the departure of the traveler, the traveler may request that the existing ticket be processed in the form of a monetary reward or in the form of a refund. As with exchanging existing tickets, refunds can also be made partially in the case of partially used tickets in the case of unused tickets. Referring to FIG. 7, a flow diagram is shown in which the verification process 240 determines whether the indirect seller has successfully refunded the ticket. At block 242, the verification process 240 may determine whether the ticket was a refundable ticket. This can be determined, for example, based on a fare criterion used for the fare calculation of the ticket. If the ticket is refundable ("YES" branch of decision block 242), verification process 240 may proceed to block 244. If the ticket is non-refundable ("NO" branch of decision block 242), verification process 210 may proceed to block 246.

At block 246, the verification process 240 may determine the verification magnitude and the verification variance V of the ticket as the initial issuance. Since the ticket was non-refundable, there is no money to refund. The verification variance V can therefore be (the verification amount of the ticket) - (the cancel fine collected by the indirect seller). Assuming that a portion of the ticket is used to refund only a portion of the ticket, the verification variance V can be (the verification value of the ticket) - {(harvested cancellation fine) + (indirect seller's hold on the flight portion of the ticket)} have. The process may then proceed to block 248.

At block 248, the verification process 240 may generate a comment that includes text indicating that the ticket was a non-refundable ticket. For example, this statement states that "the ticket was not refundable. The required amount (total fare, tax, and fee for the ticket) - (collected assessed fine)". If a comment is generated, in response, the verification process 240 may proceed to block 250.

At block 244, the verification process 240 may set a verification penalty equal to the correct cancellation fee for a refund of an existing ticket. The verification process 240 may then proceed to block 252 to determine if the refund is a full refund. If the ticket is a full refund ("YES" branch of decision block 252), the verification process 240 may proceed to block 254.

At block 254, the verification process may determine the difference between the verification penalty and the cancellation charge imposed by the indirect vendor. The difference may also be seen as the difference between the verification refund (ie, the ticket's charge minus the verification penalty) and the actual refund (ie, the ticket's charge minus the cancellation charge imposed by the indirect seller). The verification deviation V may be equal to this difference. The verification process 240 may fill in the verification penalty in the airline calculation row 160 and fill the cancellation fine that the indirect seller has claimed in the cancellation fine field 185 in the agency calculation row 162, Can fill in the cancellation fine field 195 in the cancellation field 164 with the verification deviation V. [ These values may be duplicated in each data field 177, 187, 197 of the gross column 157. The verification process 240 may also generate a comment that indicates that the cancel penalty is incorrect. For example, the explanation might be that "the cancellation penalty is incorrect, the cancellation penalty should have been $ 100." As another example, if the cancellation penalty is correct, but the inaccurate charge is used for the original ticket, the comment may be "the refund does not correspond to the fare of the original ticket ". Next, the verification process 240 may proceed to block 250.

At block 256, the verification process 240 may determine the verification amount for the operated portion of the ticket as if it had been sold as the first issued ticket by calculating the fare calculation unit (i. E., Used for the flight). Thus, the correct amount of refund can be determined by the difference between the amount charged for the entire ticket and the verification amount. If the difference is negative (i.e., the verification amount is greater than the original charge billed for the ticket), the verification process 240 may set the correct refund amount to zero. In other words, it is unrealistic to attempt to collect additional amounts from travelers who have not used the rest of the ticket for navigation. In this case, the verification deviation V may be equal to the amount of refund by the indirect seller. Because there is no need to refund any amount. The verification process 240 may also fill the data fields 170-177 of the airline calculation row 160 with the corresponding verification values and populate the data fields 180-187 of the agency calculation row 162 with the corresponding billing values. , And the difference value can be filled in the data fields 190-197 of the difference row 164. The verification process 240 may also generate a comment that includes an indication of whether the cancel penalty is correct. For example, if the cancellation penalty is not correct, the verification process 240 may generate the statement "Cancellation penalty is wrong, cancellation penalty should be $ 100 ".

At block 250, the verification process 240 may populate the comment text with the commentary data field of the ADM. 6, this may be done, for example, by inserting the comment text into the reason text field 144 of the user interface 100. [ The operator can then have the opportunity to edit the comment before issuing the ADM, or simply accept the automatically generated comment.

The program code embodying all implementations of the present invention may be distributed as various types of separate or aggregate program products. In particular, the program code may be distributed using computer readable media including computer readable (readable) storage media and communication media. An essentially non-volatile, computer-readable storage medium is any volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable storage medium embodied in any method or technology for storage of information, e.g., computer readable instructions, data structures, Type < / RTI > media. The computer-readable storage medium may be any of a variety of types, including RAM, ROM, erasable and programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other semiconductor memory technology, CD-ROM), or any other optical storage device, magnetic cassette, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage device, or any other medium that stores and can be read by a computer have. Communication media may be used to implement computer readable instructions, data structures, or other program modules. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media may include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared, and other wireless media. Any combination of the above may also be included within the scope of computer readable media.

The methods described herein may be implemented by computer program instructions that are input to a processor of any type of computer, thereby creating a machine with a processor that executes the instructions that implement the functions / behaviors specified herein. These computer program instructions may also be stored on a computer readable medium that can direct the computer to function in a particular manner. To this end, the computer program instructions may be loaded (supplied) into a computer to perform a series of computation steps to create a process that is executed by the computer. As such, the instructions to be executed provide a process for implementing the functionality / behavior specified herein.

In addition, the program code described herein may be based on an application or software component in which the program code is executed in a particular implementation of the invention. However, it should be understood that any particular program name is used for convenience only. Thus, the invention is not limited to use solely in the specific application identified and / or implied by this name. In addition, it is to be understood that the various features, applications, and apparatuses disclosed herein may be used alone or in any combination. It should also be noted that a computer program may reside within a common computing system (e.g., operating system, library, API, application, applet, etc.), in the myriad of typical ways in which a computer program can be structured into routines, procedures, It is to be understood that the present invention is not limited to any particular structure and allocation of program functionality described herein, given various software layers (layers) and / or in various ways that one or more hardware platforms can be assigned program functions.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the present invention. As used herein, the singular form "a", "an", and "the" are intended to include the plural, unless the content clearly dictates otherwise. Also, the term "comprise and / or comprising" as used herein should be interpreted as specifying the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, components, and / , Steps, operations, components, components, and / or groups thereof. In addition, when terms such as "include, having, having, composed of ", or derivatives thereof, are used in the detailed description or the claims, these terms are intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to & Relationship. ≪ / RTI >

Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described in the context of a number of illustrative embodiments and these embodiments have been described in considerable detail, it is not intended that the intent of the present application be limited thereto, The scope is not limited in any way. Additional advantages and modifications will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the invention in its broader aspects is not limited to the specific details, representative methods, and illustrative embodiments shown and described herein. Thus, departures from the above details may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of applicant's broad inventive concept.

Claims (20)

A method for verifying a transaction related to a first ticket sold by a first business entity for a travel product supplied by a second business entity,
At the processor, data defining a fare criterion and a first fare charged for the first ticket;
Determine, by the processor, a plurality of fare calculation units that are consistent with the journey of the first ticket and include a second fare corresponding to the fare criteria;
Determine, by the processor, a combination of one or more fare calculation units corresponding to the itinerary;
Wherein the total freight is a sum of each second rate of the combination, the processor comparing the first freight with the total freight for each combination of the rate calculation units;
The processor selecting one of the combinations of the charging units based at least in part on the comparison of the first and each total charge;
And generating an Agency Debit Memo based at least in part on the combination selected among the combination of the charging units. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein each charge calculating unit comprises at least one segment, and each combination comprises at least one charge calculating unit. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting, based at least in part on a comparison of the first freight and each total freight,
Selecting one total fare among the total fares to match the first fare;
Selecting a combination of charging units having a selected total fare. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a fare calculation unit consistent with the journey of the first ticket comprises:
Determine, by the processor, each charging unit consistent with the itinerary based on the fare criteria; And
Wherein the processor comprises determining all possible combinations of charge metering units determined to match the journey of the first ticket. The method according to claim 1,
Determining, for each total fare, whether the total fare is not applicable to the first fare calculation context;
Further comprising: flagging the total fare in response to the total fare not being applicable to the rate calculation context,
Selecting a selected total fares at least partially based on whether the total fares have been flagged. 6. The method of claim 5, wherein a number of rules apply to each total fare,
Wherein flagging the total freight comprises providing an indication to identify one or more total fare rules violated by a rate calculation context. The method according to claim 6,
Generate a comment according to one or more identified rules in response to the selected total fare being flagged; And
And populating the comment field with the comment field in the de facto debit field. The method according to claim 6,
Responsive to determining that the one or more total fares are within the deviation threshold of the first fare, determining the number of violated rules for each of the one or more total fares,
Wherein the selected total fares are selected based at least in part on the number of violated rules of the selected total fares. The method of claim 1, wherein the first ticket is sold by a first business entity in exchange for a returned second ticket that has collected the additional amount and has a third fare,
Determine, by the processor, a verification fee for the first ticket;
The processor determines if the second ticket was interchangeable;
In response to the second ticket being non-exchangeable, determining a first deviation minus an additional amount in the verification fare; And
And in response to the second ticket being exchangeable, determining a validation penalty for the exchange, a verification addition amount, and a second variance. 10. The method of claim 9,
The additional verification amount is determined by adding the verification fines to the verification tariffs and deducting the third tariff from this sum,
And the second variance includes the difference between the supplemental amount of verification and the additional amount collected by the first business entity. 10. The method of claim 9,
In response to the second ticket being non-exchangeable, generating a first indication comprising a first indication indicating that the second ticket was a non-exchangeable ticket and a first description describing how the first deviation was determined;
In response to the second ticket being exchangeable, generating a second indication comprising a second indication indicating that the second ticket was an exchangeable ticket and a second description describing how the second deviation was determined; And
Further comprising filling the first comment or the second comment into the reason memo data field of the proxy debit field. The method of claim 1, wherein the first ticket is refunded for a refund amount,
The processor determines if the first ticket is a refundable ticket;
If the first ticket is non-refundable, in response, the processor determines a first deviation equal to the amount of refund;
In response to a first ticket being refundable and a full refund, the processor determining a second deviation, which is a verification refund minus a verification penalty, a verification refund minus a verification penalty from the first fare, and a refund amount minus a verification refund; And
In response to the first ticket being refundable and partially refunded, in response thereto, the processor determines the remaining amount of the first fare minus the verification fare of the operated portion of the first ticket, the verification fines, and the verification fines And subtracting the verification amount from the amount of the refund to determine a second deviation. An apparatus for verifying a transaction associated with a first ticket sold by a first business entity for a travel product supplied by a second business entity, the apparatus comprising:
At least one processor; And
Comprising: a memory including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the device to perform the following operations:
Receive data defining a fare criterion and a first fare charged for the first ticket;
Determine a plurality of fare calculation units that are consistent with the journey of the first ticket and that include a second fare corresponding to the fare criteria;
Determine a combination of one or more rate calculation units that match the itinerary;
The total freight is a sum of each second rate of the combination and the first freight is compared to the total freight for each combination of the fare calculation units;
Selecting one of the combinations of the rate calculation units based at least in part on the comparison of the first fare and each total rate; And
And to generate an Agency Debit Memo based at least in part on the selected combination of the charging units. 14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the device to:
Selecting one total fare among the total fares to match the first fare;
And to select a combination of charging units having a selected total freight. 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the device determines a fare calculation unit consistent with the journey of the first ticket,
Determine each fare calculation unit consistent with the itinerary based on the fare criteria; And
And determines all possible combinations of the charging units determined to be consistent with the journey of the first ticket. 14. The method of claim 13, wherein a plurality of rules apply to each total fare and selects a selected total fare based at least in part on whether the total fare has been flagged,
Determining, for each total fare, whether the total fare is not applicable to the first fare calculation context;
If the total fare is not applicable to the rate calculation context, flag the total fare by providing an indication identifying one or more total fare rules violated by the rate determination context;
Generate a comment according to one or more identified rules in response to the selected total fare being flagged; And
And causes the statement to be filled in the private memo data field of the proxy debit field. 17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the device to:
Responsive to determining that the one or more total fares are within the deviation threshold of the first fare, determining the number of violated rules for each of the one or more total fares,
Wherein the selected total fares are selected based at least in part on the number of violations of the selected total fares. 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the first ticket is sold by a first business entity in exchange for a second ticket that has collected a further amount and has a third rate, ,
Determine a verification fee for the first ticket;
Determine if the second ticket was exchangeable;
In response to the second ticket being non-exchangeable, determining a first deviation minus an additional amount in the verification fare;
And in response to the second ticket being exchangeable, to determine a verification penalty for the exchange, a verification addition amount, and a second deviation. 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the first ticket has been refunded for a refund amount,
Determining if the first ticket is a refundable ticket;
If the first ticket is non-refundable, in response thereto, determining a first deviation equal to the refund amount;
If the first ticket is refundable and in the case of a full refund, in response thereto, determining a verification penalty, a verification refund minus a verification penalty from the first fare, and a second deviation minus a verification refund, from the refund; And
If the first ticket is refundable and partially refunded, the remaining amount of the first fare minus the verification fare of the operated part of the first ticket, the verification fine, and the verification refund minus the verification fine from the remaining amount And a second variance, minus the verification refund, from the refund. Non-volatile computer readable storage medium; And
A computer program product comprising instructions stored on the non-transient computer readable storage medium, the instructions comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
Receive data defining a fare criterion and a first fare charged for the first ticket;
Determine a plurality of fare calculation units that are consistent with the journey of the first ticket and that include a second fare corresponding to the fare criteria;
Determine a combination of one or more rate calculation units that match the itinerary;
The total freight is a sum of each second rate of the combination and the first freight is compared to the total freight for each combination of the fare calculation units;
Selecting one of the combinations of the rate calculation units based at least in part on the comparison of the first fare and each total rate; And
And to generate an Agency Debit Memo based at least in part on the selected combination of the charging units.

Images