FLYR pulls data at a granular, transactional level — every individual booking — and aggregates those records to calculate totals and KPIs. Because data is ingested at this level of detail, small variances between FLYR and your PMS are possible. We consider data accurate within a threshold of 1% at the monthly level.
If you notice a difference, the first step is to make sure you're pulling the correct report from Protel — not all reports reflect the same data that FLYR receives via the integration. This article covers which reports to use for validation, as well as known data gaps specific to the Protel integration, their causes, and suggested workarounds.
If any of these discrepancies were identified during your onboarding process, our team would have proactively flagged and discussed them with you.
Validating data against Protel reports
The correct report depends on your Protel deployment type. Pull reports in Excel where possible, using net values throughout and excluding virtual/account rooms in all cases. When selecting your date range, go slightly beyond the affected dates — for example, if the discrepancy appears around October 12–15, pull the full month of October.
For Protel onPrem, pull the DQE Report day by day, excluding virtual/account rooms.
For Protel Air, pull the Data Validation Report, excluding virtual/account rooms.
1. Postings on accounts and PM rooms are not traceable
Description
Revenue posted directly to accounts or PM rooms in Protel is not accessible via the integration in a way that allows FLYR to trace or attribute it. Because there is no booking-level reference attached to these postings, the revenue cannot be surfaced in FLYR reporting.
Suggested workaround
Post revenue directly to the booking rather than to an account or PM room. This ensures FLYR can retrieve and correctly attribute the revenue.
2. Tentative and optional bookings appear as confirmed in FLYR
Description
Protel's "Tentative" and "Optional" booking statuses are not differentiated from confirmed bookings at the integration level. As a result, reservations carrying these statuses in Protel are treated as Confirmed in FLYR, which may cause a mismatch for future dates depending on which data you are looking at in Protel.
Suggested workaround
Be aware that Tentative and Optional bookings contribute to on-the-books figures in FLYR. Properties that use these statuses frequently should account for this when reviewing forward-looking data in FLYR.
3. Only the correct report is valid for data validation
Description
Not all Protel reports reflect the same data that FLYR receives via the integration. Other reports — including the Manager Report and any custom-created reports — may include revenue sources (such as account room revenues) that FLYR does not receive. Comparing FLYR against these reports will produce apparent discrepancies that do not reflect a real data issue.
Suggested workaround
Always use the report specified in the validation section above for your deployment type. If you are unsure how to generate it, contact your Protel support team.
Summary
FLYR's integration with Protel captures the majority of operational and financial data accurately. The scenarios above reflect specific structural limitations within Protel that can cause persistent discrepancies. Following the suggested workarounds and using the correct validation report will significantly reduce confusion around data differences between the two systems.
For information on temporary discrepancies, see PMS–FLYR data discrepancy: data not matching. If you have any questions or encounter a discrepancy not listed here, reach out to our support team. We're here to keep your reporting as accurate as possible.