Andreas:
As to your "bigger is better" notion, your suggestion that I subscribe to it is simply wrong.
I believe, and vehemently, that CHEAPER is NOT the only yardstick to measure anything by. Yet you suggest that there is something horrendous about me (the taxpayer) paying for a service INFRASTUCTURE that results in *better*, if not always *cheaper*, service. Case in point: AA is usually more expensive than WN. I have yet to experience a flight where the service was *worse* on AA than on WN. Since I want *service*, not minimum cost, what I want is integrated interline connections, etc.
In the UK, rail *used* to be integrated; for all its faults, British Rail was damn good at making and guaranteeing connections. Then, in the name of your vaunted "price is everything" gods, they de-integrated everything, and now connections between trains aren't guaranteed, etc. In other words, service has decreased as competition has increased. This shouldn't be a surprise, but the alleged "consumer groups" all seem to forget that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
From all this, it follows obviously that I have NO problem with paying for service, and *if* a travel agent provides value, I'm quite happy to pay for it. What I'm NOT happy about paying for is the TA that doesn't provide value (which, in my experience, is the majority of same), yet who then -- like you -- whine about the cuts in the airline commissions.
IF, as you allege, you are so wonderful, people will pay for your service. And if you like commissions that much, then simply tack them onto the client's invoice. That, then, is all fair and above board, and those who know (or think they know) that they don't need the service can save themselves the hassle by booking direct.
Your other point included a bogus attempt to compare a paid-by-the-supplier commission scheme (airlines, in this case) with a "cost plus" scheme (the plumber). The insurance agent looks the same as the airline at first glance, but since few insurance issues are like same-day return tickets, it's clear that there are huge differences.
BUT... if a travel agency wanted to agree a "inverse" commission scheme, I'd be all over that. This is a scheme where the agent gets a percentage of the difference between the full fare and the fare paid (usually subject to a minimum, so they still get paid for full fare ticket. This scheme tracks the value of an agent much better: the trivially easy full-fare ticket, needing zero special expertise to obtain, netts the agent the minimum, but if they can save you thousands, they make lots of loverly lolly...
And to that other respondent: I was, and periodically still am, a "professional traveller". I've had, as I've said, exactly *one* good agent, and even then the scenario you outline would leave me talking to some call center type in the small hours.
So, speaking as a professional traveller, I'll say that the most important thing is to have the resources to do the job yourself... when the plane is taxi-ing back to the gate and the airfones aren't on and cell phones are forbidden, you can still look in the OAG and call the carrier as soon as the door opens...
Malc.