Candidate workflows for changes and disruptions across suppliers, with what each needs from your systems and the authority your operations team keeps.
Travel service is rarely one conversation. A booking change touches a supplier, a fare rule and a traveller who may be in another time zone with a poor connection. A disruption produces a burst of contacts that all need the same answer and a few that need a specialist. And before any of that, an enquiry can arrive without the budget, dates or airports an agent needs to build an offer.
Tour operators, attractions, intermediaries and mobility providers run different service models, and the page below separates them rather than assuming one travel workflow. Typewise agents read and write in connected CRM, ERP and ITSM systems, sensitive actions wait for approval, hand-offs carry the full context, and every action is logged. Whether any workflow below can run end to end in your organisation depends on what your systems expose and on the data behind them, so each is presented as a candidate design to evaluate, with what it needs, not as a promised capability.
Candidate design
Ask for the missing pieces of an enquiry (dates, travellers, budget, departure points) so the agent builds the offer once, and read the structured fields a contact form carries.
What it needs from your systems
Access to the enquiry record including its structured fields, and a defined list of what an offer needs.
What stays with people
The offer itself, and any judgement about what suits the traveller, stays with the agent.
Candidate design
Answer questions about an existing booking for a verified traveller, resend documents, and explain what a fare or product allows.
What it needs from your systems
Booking data with the fare and booking identifiers the answer depends on, reachable from the connected system; a verification step your booking system recognises.
What stays with people
Where a fare or booking identifier is missing in the connected system, the design does not guess a cancellation answer.
Candidate design
Collect the request, check what the product rules permit, and prepare or execute the change where the supplier connection and your policy allow.
What it needs from your systems
Supplier connections for the products in scope, or a defined partial-handoff step where they do not exist; product rules in a queryable form.
What stays with people
Changes that depend on a supplier without a connection are handed to a person as a specific task, with the result returned to the case rather than the whole conversation being abandoned.
Candidate design
Give consistent, current information to everyone affected, and route the cases that need rebooking or compensation decisions to the right specialist queue.
What it needs from your systems
A current source of disruption information and routing rules per case type.
What stays with people
Compensation and goodwill decisions follow your policy and your approvers; the design does not improvise entitlements.
Candidate design
Verify the traveller against booking data before sharing or changing anything, in a way that works on a phone with a weak connection.
What it needs from your systems
A verification method agreed with your security owners for each task risk; booking data to verify against.
What stays with people
A reservation flow with its own controlled experience is pointed to, not reproduced in chat.
Candidate design
Answer routine information requests from agencies, OTAs and partners about specific bookings, where the questions are standard and the consequences of an error are lower.
What it needs from your systems
Partner identity and entitlements, and booking data for the requests in scope.
What stays with people
Bespoke, relationship-led service is centralised and assisted, not automated, where that is the service you sell.
Agents read and write only in the systems and scopes you connect. Sensitive actions wait for approval, hand-offs carry the full context, and every action is logged. Hosting, access control and certifications are described on the security page.
Security and compliance →See how it works →Attractions, packaged tours, mobility and intermediaries have different data, suppliers and risk. Scope the first workflow inside one model rather than across all of them.
Travellers are non-experts who ask several things at once and wander. Build the evaluation set from anonymised real conversations, including multi-intent and off-path cases, and rerun it on every change.
Routine partner information requests and booking questions are reasonable first steps; changes with supplier dependencies come once those connections exist.
Writing-time savings do not become handling-time savings while agents still research in the reservation system. Baseline per cohort and count reopens and partial handoffs before drawing a conclusion.
A published customer story from a travel operator; it describes its own setup, not the candidate designs above.
Only where a supplier connection exists and your policy permits the change, with approval gates where you set them; that is established in the evaluation. Where the connection does not exist, the candidate design collects the request, hands the specific task to a person, and continues the case once the result is back.
Against booking data, with the strength of verification matched to the task and agreed with your security owners: reading a departure time needs less than changing a name. The verification happens in your systems, not by the AI believing a claim in chat.
For a bespoke service, the first value is more likely to be centralising channels and giving agents context than automating replies. Routine partner requests and document resends may be the only automated part, and that is a legitimate scope.
Book a demo and we’ll walk through these candidate workflows against your service models, supplier connections and the decisions your team keeps.
