When the European Commission, after many years of huffing and puffing, finally produced its revised code of conduct for CRSs, it looked as though commonsense had prevailed.
The required safeguards for a level playing field - necessary because some airlines still had a stake in a CRS - were duly in place.
Then the Commission shot itself in the foot by saying the safeguards did not actually apply to anyone. Airlines with stakes in a CRS could do as they liked.
The EC now has a chance to redeem itself thanks to the proposals of Timothy Kirkhope, a new player on the scene.
In the arcane world of the EU and all its works, the EC proposals on CRS reform must next go to the European Parliament for consideration.
Mr Kirkhope, a UK Conservative MEP and a lawyer, was charged with drawing up a report on the EC's report for the Parliament's transport and tourism committee. (see news story: New proposals will tighten rules on parent carriers).
His report will go before the committee next week (April 7-8) and it seems to restore much of the commonsense which the EC threw out the window.
He agrees with the aim of the revision and with the proposals on Marketing Information Data (MIDT).
The first is the "good" aim of ensuring that airlines and CRSs can negotiate content and fares.
"Currently lack of competition leads to higher CRS booking fees. Under the revision, CRSs would have to compete more aggressively with each other for air carrier participation on the basis of lower booking fees and better service quality," he says. Few would object to that.
Mr Kirkhope also finds that protection of personal data under the EC proposals is "adequate."
Where the two part ways is over the definition of parent carriers.
Mr Kirkhope wants it made clear right from the start of the need for fair competition by the insertion of a new amendment. This reads: "In order to ensure transparent and comparable terms of competition in the market, parent carriers should be subject to specific rules when they participate as capital investors in a CRS."
He goes on to widen the definition of parent carrier to: "any carrier or rail-transport operator which directly or indirectly, alone or jointly with others, participates in the capital, or effectively controls, or has the legal right to nominate any executive or any member of the board of directors, supervisory board or other governing body of a system vendor as well as any air carrier or rail-transport operator it owns or effectively controls."
The difference to the EC version is that Mr Kirkhope proposes that "owns" is replaced by "participtates in the capital" while the phrase "or has the legal right to nominate any executive or any member of the board of directors, supervisory board or other governing body of" is inserted after "controls."
He remarks: "The definition should be clarified and extended to ensure that influence of carriers as a consequence of capital holdings in system vendors is duly taken into account. It is legitimate to conclude that the benefit airlines expect from owning CRSs have more to do with "competition" gains rather than with costs.
"The risk of abuse is particularly high when a dominant airline participates in a dominant CRS.
"It would be hard to indicate the threshold over which the risk of discrimination may be presumed. Therefore the definition should be extended to include airlines that hold any capital in a CRS."
He goes on to enforce this point by several more suggested amendments.
* the "existence and extent" of any capital holding in a CRS by an airline or rail transport operator "shall be publicly disclosed."
* Inventory displays on CRSs should, as the EC said, be neutral and comprehensive and - a new clause - "shall not be mislead the consumer."
* Any CRS with an airline/rail transport operator holding shall submit an "independently audited report detailing its ownership structure and governance model" every three years or when the EC asks for it.
This last measure is to ensure the need for transparency Mr Kirkhope says.
These seem sound and fair suggestions which would eliminate the "potential for abuse" which many in the industry under the ambiguous proposals of the EC.
It remains to be seen whether the European Parliament's transport and tourism committee will accept them next week.