Corporate Travel Teams Expand Into AI, Meetings and Risk

By Tom Whitfield

Two-thirds of travel managers report understaffed corporate travel teams, even as those teams take on work that extends well beyond booking trips.

GBTA, in partnership with Cvent, released “A View From the Inside: How Are Modern Travel Programs Structured, Staffed and Managed.” The association surveyed 270 travel managers in North America and Europe from Sept. 22 through Oct. 1.

GBTA CEO Suzanne Neufang said: “Corporate travel management is becoming more connected and strategic, even as teams remain lean.” She added: “As travel managers take on broader responsibilities, companies need to provide the right structure, skills and support to help them succeed.”

The survey measures staffing, duties and buyer perceptions. It does not provide booking totals, transaction values, supplier revenue, market-share shifts or a market-size denominator.

What does the staffing gap look like?

The average travel program had 4.9 full-time employees and counted at least 75% of their time as travel work; the median team size was three.

• Programs spending less than $10 million annually on travel averaged 2.8 employees, compared with 7.6 at programs spending $30 million or more.
• Travel teams managed risk at 88% of organizations, selected payment products and providers at 66%, and managed expenses at 63%.
• Forty-five percent of managers said most team members had varied duties; 20% said most were specialists. Data analysis and reporting was the skill most often identified for improvement, at 35%.

For airlines, hotels and booking platforms, this concentration of purchasing decisions in small teams raises the importance of each corporate account. Payment providers face particular exposure because two-thirds of teams choose their products and providers. Yet the survey does not identify which suppliers gained influence or what revenue moved.

The travel buyer’s role is expanding without a matching rise in headcount.

How are travel and meetings converging?\n

• Thirty-nine percent of travel buyers said travel and meetings were more connected than before; 7% said they were less connected.
• Travel teams managed meetings at 58% of organizations and handled meetings sourcing at 57%. At 23%, one team managed both functions.
• Fifty-five percent of teams sometimes managed room blocks for meetings. Forty-eight percent negotiated meeting space or group room rates through the regular hotel request for proposal process.

These practices put travel managers closer to group-room decisions traditionally handled by meetings teams. For hotels, that can consolidate more of the group demand discussion in one RFP and give rate negotiations greater cross-functional weight. The findings do not show how many bookings moved or whether hotels earned more revenue.

Respondents expected benefits rather than reported achieved savings: 82% said greater collaboration would offer at least some benefit, and 64% expected some or significant benefits. The most common expected gains were keeping travel and meetings data together, cited by 76%, and securing greater savings and discounts, cited by 74%.

Hotels and travel sellers should expect travel managers to carry more weight in group-room and meeting business.

Who is leading AI work?

• The travel team led AI efforts at 28% of organizations and worked with another department at 21%.
• At 27%, no one led the work; at 13%, another team, such as IT or information security, was in charge.
• Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT were the most widely used general-purpose AI tools. Custom-built tools and Model Context Protocols were less widely used or understood.

AI governance remains incomplete. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said their travel program followed a company-wide AI governance policy; 15% said it did not, and 17% were unsure.

For booking platforms and travel suppliers, unclear ownership can delay integrations and leave teams unsure which tools can handle sensitive booking, payment or policy data. The survey did not measure bookings generated by AI, conversion changes or service costs, so adoption cannot yet be tied to revenue.

Clear ownership, rather than tool adoption alone, will determine whether AI improves travel workflows.

What should travel sellers watch?\n

A recent FCM Consulting report adds cost pressure: rising airfares, changing hotel rates and travel disruptions make business travel costs harder to manage.

Together with the staffing data, that backdrop raises the value of negotiated rates and disciplined supplier choices for companies with lean teams. It also means hotels and booking platforms may encounter a travel manager who controls more of the transaction, from risk and expenses to group-room RFPs and AI policy.

The study offers directional evidence about corporate buyer authority, not proof of commercial gains. A supplier-facing measure of change would include corporate booking volumes, average room rates, payment mix and the share of hotel RFPs managed jointly by travel and meetings teams.

The next test is whether clearer AI rules and closer travel-meeting coordination produce measurable savings and booking growth, rather than merely adding duties to understaffed teams.