Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which we are a party specify the amounts claimed, these amounts may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The amount of the accrual may change in the future due to new information or developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. Antitrust Litigation and Investigations US Airways Antitrust Litigation In April 2011, US Airways filed suit against us in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Sherman Act Section 1 (anticompetitive agreements) and Section 2 (monopolization). The complaint was filed fewer than two months after we entered into a new distribution agreement with US Airways. In September 2011, the court dismissed all claims relating to Section 2. The surviving claims included claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, relating to our contracts with US Airways, that US Airways claimed contain anticompetitive provisions, and an alleged conspiracy with the other GDSs, allegedly to maintain the industry structure and not to compete for content. We strongly deny all of the allegations made by US Airways. Sabre filed summary judgment motions in April 2014. In January 2015, the court issued an order granting Sabre's summary judgment motions in part, eliminating a majority of US Airways' alleged damages and rejecting its request for injunctive relief to bar Sabre from enforcing certain provisions in our contracts. In September 2015, the court also dismissed US Airways' claim for declaratory relief. In February 2017, US Airways sought reconsideration of the court's opinion dismissing the claim for declaratory relief, which the court denied in March 2017. US Airways estimated its damages in a range of $317 million to $482 million (before trebling), depending on certain assumptions; this quantification was substantially reduced following the court’s summary judgment ruling described above. The trial on the remaining claims commenced in October 2016. In December 2016, the jury issued a verdict in favor of US Airways with respect to its claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act regarding Sabre's contract with US Airways and awarded it $5 million in single damages. The jury rejected US Airways' claim alleging a conspiracy with the other GDSs. Based on the jury’s verdict, in March 2017 the court entered final judgment in favor of US Airways in the amount of $15 million, which is three times the jury’s award of $5 million as required by the Sherman Act. As a result of the jury's verdict, US Airways was also entitled to receive reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Sherman Act. As such, it filed a motion seeking approximately $125 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, an amount that we strongly disputed. In January 2018, the court denied US Airways' motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs, without prejudice. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we accrued a loss of $32 million, which represented the court's final judgment of $15 million, plus our estimate of $17 million for US Airways' reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. In April 2017, we filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking a reversal of the judgment. US Airways also filed a counter-appeal challenging earlier court orders, including the above-referenced dismissal and/or summary judgment orders as to portions of its claims and damages. In connection with this appeal, we posted an appellate bond equal to the aggregate amount of the $15 million judgment entered plus interest, which stayed the judgment pending the appeal. The Second Circuit heard oral arguments on this matter in December 2018. In September 2019, the Second Circuit issued its Order and Opinion in which it vacated the judgment with respect to US Airways’ claim under Section 1, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of US Airways’ claims relating to Section 2, and remanded the case to district court for a new trial. In addition, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling limiting US Airways’ damages. The judgment in our favor on US Airways' conspiracy claim remained intact. The lawsuit was remanded to federal court in the Southern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the Second Circuit's Order and Opinion. The retrial began in April 2022. US Airways quantified its damages for the retrial in a range of $204 million to $299 million (before trebling), based on its payments of GDS booking fees to Sabre, alleged lost profits, and certain other assumptions. In May 2022, the jury rejected US Airways’ claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, finding that Sabre’s contractual terms were not anticompetitive, and found in favor of US Airways with respect to its monopolization claim for the period from 2007 to 2012 under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The jury, however, only awarded US Airways $1.00 in single damages. Based on the jury’s verdict, in June 2022 the court entered final judgment in favor of US Airways in the amount of $3.00, which is three times the jury’s award of $1.00 as required by the Sherman Act. We have paid US Airways $3.05 to satisfy this portion of the judgment. Neither party has filed an appeal, and the period to file a timely appeal has passed. In addition, the court’s entry of judgment regarding the monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act entitles US Airways to receive reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Sherman Act. The court has referred the issue of the attorneys' fees and costs to a magistrate judge. The magistrate issued a recommendation, which the court has adopted in full, that US Airways is entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fees award, but that the award is subject to a reduction to reflect their nominal recovery. In June 2023, US Airways filed a motion seeking approximately $139 million in attorneys' fees and costs, an amount that we strongly dispute. During the quarter ended September 30, 2022, we accrued an estimated loss in selling, general and administrative expenses for these attorneys' fees and costs, which did not have a significant effect on our results of operations for 2022. At this time, we do not have sufficient information to estimate a range of reasonably possible or probable attorneys' fees and costs in excess of the amount recorded. The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded is subject to the final decision by the trial court, which may be appealed. The ultimate resolution of this matter may be greater or less than the amount recorded and, if greater, could adversely affect our results of operations. We have incurred and will incur significant fees, costs and expenses as long as the lawsuit continues. Indian Income Tax Litigation We were a defendant in income tax litigation brought by the Indian Director of Income Tax (“DIT”) in the Supreme Court of India. The dispute arose in 1999 when the DIT asserted that we have a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between the United States and the Republic of India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999. The DIT later issued further tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2006. The DIT has continued to issue tax assessments on a similar basis for subsequent years; however, the tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2007 and later are not material. We appealed the tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 through March 2006 and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals returned a mixed verdict. We filed further appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”). On June 19, 2009 and July 10, 2009, the ITAT ruled in our favor, stating that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and from March 2000 through March 2006. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Delhi High Court, which found in our favor on July 19, 2010. The DIT appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India which upheld the Delhi High Court ruling on April 19, 2023. We have appealed the tax assessments for the assessment years ended March 2013 to March 2018 with the ITAT and no trial date has been set for these subsequent years. In addition, Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd ("SAPPL") is currently a defendant in similar income tax litigation brought by the DIT. The dispute arose when the DIT asserted that SAPPL has a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between Singapore and India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2005. SAPPL appealed the tax assessments, and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) returned a mixed verdict. SAPPL filed further appeals with the ITAT. The ITAT ruled in SAPPL’s favor, finding that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2005. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Bombay High Court and our case is pending before that court; the High Court dismissed the case for assessment years ending March 2001 through March 2004. The DIT also assessed taxes on a similar basis plus some additional issues for assessment years ending March 2006 through March 2018 and appeals for assessment years ending March 2006 through March 2016 and March 2018 through March 2020 are pending before the ITAT or the High Court depending on the year. If the DIT were to fully prevail on every claim against us, including SAPPL and other group companies, we could be subject to taxes, interest and penalties of approximately $21 million as of June 30, 2023. We intend to continue to aggressively defend against each of the foregoing claims. Although we do not believe that the outcome of the proceedings will result in a material impact on our business or financial condition, litigation is by its nature uncertain. We do not believe this outcome is more likely than not and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of any of these claims. Indian Service Tax Litigation SAPPL's Indian subsidiary is also subject to litigation by the India Director General (Service Tax) ("DGST"), which has assessed the subsidiary for multiple years related to its alleged failure to pay service tax on marketing fees and reimbursements of expenses. Indian courts have returned verdicts favorable to the Indian subsidiary. The DGST has appealed the verdict to the Indian Supreme Court. We do not believe that an adverse outcome is probable and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of any of these claims. Litigation Relating to Routine Proceedings We are also engaged from time to time in other routine legal and tax proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that any of these routine proceedings will have a material impact on the business or our financial condition. Other Other Tax Matters We operate in numerous jurisdictions in which taxing authorities may challenge our position with respect to income and non-income based taxes. We routinely receive inquiries and may also from time to time receive challenges or assessments from these taxing authorities. With respect to non-income based taxes, we recognize liabilities when we determine it is probable that amounts will be owed to the taxing authorities and such amounts are estimable. For example, in most countries we pay and collect Value Added Tax (“VAT”) when procuring goods and services, or providing services, within the normal course of business. VAT receivables are established in jurisdictions where VAT paid exceeds VAT collected and are recoverable through the filing of refund claims. These receivables have inherent audit and collection risks unique to the specific jurisdictions that evaluate our refund claims. We intend to vigorously defend our positions against any claims that are not insignificant, including through litigation when necessary. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 we accrued $9 million associated with these other tax matters in selling, general and administrative expense. We will continue to monitor and update this estimate as additional information becomes available. We may incur expenses in future periods related to such matters, including litigation costs and possible pre-payment of a portion of any assessed tax amount to defend our position, and if our positions are ultimately rejected, it could have a material impact to our results of operations.