Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Flights

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Google Flights

#111

Post by gwillen »

cynwoody wrote: post #8
gwillen wrote: post #4

I don't use it because, last I checked, it's unable to handle what I think of as basic corner cases, like booking a roundtrip going out from one airport in a metro area and coming back to a different one.

E.g., depart Chicago from O'Hare to Denver, then return to Chicago from Denver, arriving at Midway? Choose Multi-city, and specify specific airport codes at the originating / terminating metro area. E.g., American 1017 ORD to DEN on 7 Jan and Frontier 534 DEN to MDW on 14 Jan for $211.

See my self-reply.

Re: Google Flights

#112

Post by CKKim »

cloudwalking wrote: post #102
asdkl234890 wrote: post #83

A few days ago my gf tried to book a flight. Like most people, she starts with googleing flight tickets. And sees Google flights for the first time and starts using it. Gets to the point where Google kicks you off to the airline's own page, and that's where the trouble starts. She is forced to pick seats but can't, because the only ones available require being a specially background checked and known passenger. Event…

I'm confused. In your second paragraph you say the airline page won't let your gf book the flight, but in your third paragraph you blame it on Google. Sounds to me that the airline webpage has additional (read: useless?) security features that Expedia doesn't have.

It is a confusingly-written comment, and I think the final bit especially is simply the wrong wording for what the author means, but beneath all that there's still a valid criticism of Google Flights over Expedia.

The unambiguous part is that Google Flights failed to account for the nature of the seats it had identified as "available", and went ahead with the recommendation when in fact they were not appropriate. The unclear part is whether Expedia did actually find the same flight and seats (as the author appears to be saying) but has some way around the security features (an agreement with the airline?), or whether Expedia was aware of the inappropriateness of the seats Google Flights recommended and in fact provided different ones on a different flight.

It would be nice if the parent had been clearer in the explanation but it seems that either way: Expedia 1, Google 0.

Re: Google Flights

#113

Post by jrockway »

asdkl234890 wrote: post #83

A few days ago my gf tried to book a flight. Like most people, she starts with googleing flight tickets. And sees Google flights for the first time and starts using it. Gets to the point where Google kicks you off to the airline's own page, and that's where the trouble starts. She is forced to pick seats but can't, because the only ones available require being a specially background checked and known passenger. Event…

What airline? I've never heard of requiring documentation to select a seat (check-in is another thing altogether, especially if the flight is international), but I have heard of airlines reserving seats for passengers with elite status.

(It's typical to not get a seat assignment at booking time, BTW, especially if you're booking a few days before the flight.)

Re: Google Flights

#114

Post by jrockway »

CKKim wrote: post #112
cloudwalking wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. In your second paragraph you say the airline page won't let your gf book the flight, but in your third paragraph you blame it on Google. Sounds to me that the airline webpage has additional (read: useless?) security features that Expedia doesn't have.

It is a confusingly-written comment, and I think the final bit especially is simply the wrong wording for what the author means, but beneath all that there's still a valid criticism of Google Flights over Expedia. The unambiguous part is that Google Flights failed to account for the nature of the seats it had identified as "available", and went ahead with the recommendation when in fact they were not appropriate. The…

"Seats" is a terrible word to use. Airlines sell "inventory", not seats. You can easily buy a ticket when all seats are assigned: someone will probably not show up and you will get their seat instead. (If everyone shows up, then they'll pay you, or another volunteer, money to take the next flight instead.)

Re: Google Flights

#115

Post by jrockway »

mda wrote: post #88
rabble wrote: post #80

So sad to see matrix.itasoftware.com's amazing search engine get most of it's features ripped out and replaced with a pretty UI that does so little. For folks who like hipmonk? Do you really travel? Their search engine also fails to find most good fares. Pretty but useless. Most people who are serious use expertflyer.com and matrix.itasoftware.com to find fares. Yes you have to learn a bit about how air fares are con…

May I ask which feature in Matrix you like is not available in Google Flights?

Matrix and ExpertFlyer also let you search fare classes, so if you know your upgrade instrument is based on the availability of X inventory, you can look for flights with available X inventory so you can upgrade.

Re: Google Flights

#116

Post by extesy »

mda wrote: post #88
rabble wrote: post #80

So sad to see matrix.itasoftware.com's amazing search engine get most of it's features ripped out and replaced with a pretty UI that does so little. For folks who like hipmonk? Do you really travel? Their search engine also fails to find most good fares. Pretty but useless. Most people who are serious use expertflyer.com and matrix.itasoftware.com to find fares. Yes you have to learn a bit about how air fares are con…

May I ask which feature in Matrix you like is not available in Google Flights?

For me three features are missing in Google Flights: 1. International flights 2. Flexible dates (simple +-3 or the whole month overview) 3. Ability to specify connecting airport

Re: Google Flights

#117

Post by pretoriusB »

fastball wrote: post #105
pretoriusB wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe a 2/10. It's 2012. A US-only service when there are TONS of international alternatives?

I don't think that "this is bad software because I am not yet the target audience" is a good metric for measuring the worth of a product.

Well, it's an excellent metric of measuring the worth of a product for the only "market segment" that matters to us. That is, us.

Second, intentional coverage just goes with the domain for a flights application. Are Americans supposed to just switch back and forth to some competitor for non domestic flights?

Re: Google Flights

#119

Post by bdcravens »

pretoriusB wrote: post #73
fastball wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the US only for now. I don't think that should warrant a 1/10...

Well, maybe a 2/10. It's 2012. A US-only service when there are TONS of international alternatives?

By that logic, all of the startups that begin only serving their local market (many start in SF and expand beyond once it's viable; true in many other locations as well) would be 1/10 or 2/10.
Post reply on HN