Travel Tools - ITA Matrix

Is it just me, or is ITA not showing the best offer? I'm constantly seeing options available on other online booking sites that are better than what I can get on ITA, even if I force connections or flight numbers. Does anyone have any advice here?

Thanks

I believe this may be posted in the wrong forum. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/454485-welcome-mileage-run-forum-important-information-how-mr-forums-work.html

As for the validity of your statement, ymmv. ITA is but one tool in the MRs pocket.

It might be more appropriate in the travel tools forum. As to the OP's question, my advice would be to give an example.

Oops... sorry about wrong forum - I am such a scatterbrain :eek:

For example, I've found fares for much lower on Vayama than ITA, even when entering the exact same flight numbers to force an identical routing. :confused:

For example, I've found fares for much lower on Vayama than ITA, even when entering the exact same flight numbers to force an identical routing. :confused:

Unless you give flights and dates, any response is pure speculation.

Matrix provides good results, not perfect. Its goal (especially since the Google acquisition) is good results quickly, and it does that very well.

Try adding more filters to help it along. For example, rather than search YYZ-LAS, I think about what airline or routing I'd like or is often cheaper, and I add those instructions: "UA ORD UA" (or whatever). Then I often get different prices because it has less searching to do and get better results in the same time.

YMMV of course.

I agree with c_9. I think the quality of results has decreased noticeably since the Google acquisition. In particular, I often see results that violate fare rules such as connections > 4 hours. ITA does time out after a certain time, and narrowing your initial query is important to prevent this from happening.

I agree with c_9. I think the quality of results has decreased noticeably since the Google acquisition. In particular, I often see results that violate fare rules such as connections > 4 hours. ITA does time out after a certain time, and narrowing your initial query is important to prevent this from happening.

Yes - I got a lot of 25-hour international connections suggested last week. Wouldn't that be nice!

I agree with c_9. I think the quality of results has decreased noticeably since the Google acquisition. In particular, I often see results that violate fare rules such as connections > 4 hours. ITA does time out after a certain time, and narrowing your initial query is important to prevent this from happening.

Could it have been processing these under last-in, first-out connection rules (rather than the 4 hour rule)? I've seen that on a few itineraries lately (but the airlines disagree about pricing it this way).

is there a way to search with ITA much like skyscanner searches or kayak/explore where you put departure city and it provides results for a wide array of destinations and prices?

is there a way to search with ITA much like skyscanner searches or kayak/explore where you put departure city and it provides results for a wide array of destinations and prices?

Yes and no. Give it too much to search and it will give up and hand you bad results. Best to decide a few airports you're interested in, and use those in the destination field. "SFO, LAX, ONT" for example.

ITA is but one tool in the MRs pocket.

What is left for a MR to use? The FT page on farecompare is long gone, and the present version of ITA gives itns that are unbookable, as they do not comply with fare restrictions.

I have had to resort to "brute force" searches, which is extremely time consuming.

Would you care to share what MR tools you have in your pocket? Perhaps I have missed something, but there seems to be very few accurate tools for MR useage these days.

Do any FTers offer their services to search mileage runs for people who do not have enough time to invest in researching themselves?

It might be more appropriate in the travel tools forum.

Agree as that forum is the better venue for what is a question about the travel tool itself rather than a MR of some kind.

Note that the "Travel Tools" forum discusses ITA regularly so members seeking input on the tool might be best to start there with future queries.

tcook052
MR Forum Moderator

This morning I was pounding (manually, no scripts) ITA matrix quickly with rt's JFK-(various Europe cities), and got this message:

"Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later.

This page appears when Google automatically detects requests coming from your computer network which appear to be in violation of the Terms of Service. The block will expire shortly after those requests stop.

This traffic may have been sent by malicious software, a browser plug-in, or a script that sends automated requests. If you share your network connection, ask your administrator for help — a different computer using the same IP address may be responsible.

Sometimes you may see this page if you are using advanced terms that robots are known to use, or sending requests very quickly."

Giving ITA a few min of rest allowed me to continue. This kind of sucks. I don't think Google understands that they have some very heavy, but completely legitimate, users.

This morning I was pounding (manually, no scripts) ITA matrix quickly with rt's JFK-(various Europe cities), and got this message:

"Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later.

This page appears when Google automatically detects requests coming from your computer network which appear to be in violation of the Terms of Service. The block will expire shortly after those requests stop.

This traffic may have been sent by malicious software, a browser plug-in, or a script that sends automated requests. If you share your network connection, ask your administrator for help — a different computer using the same IP address may be responsible.

Sometimes you may see this page if you are using advanced terms that robots are known to use, or sending requests very quickly."

Giving ITA a few min of rest allowed me to continue. This kind of sucks. I don't think Google understands that they have some very heavy, but completely legitimate, users.


How annoying! I've seen messages like that on other services, but they are usually are only triggered when they should be-- when some automated tool is harvesting data. They must have set it to be extra sensitive or something. Glad it came back for you.

Matrix seems to have a feature that's maybe not up and running yet? The departure and arrival menus give you and option for airports within different radiuses (radii?) of a city. Can't seem to make it work on my end. It still wants specific airports even if input more than one.

Has anyone gotten that drop down to work before?

Matrix seems to have a feature that's maybe not up and running yet? The departure and arrival menus give you and option for airports within different radiuses (radii?) of a city. Can't seem to make it work on my end. It still wants specific airports even if input more than one.

Has anyone gotten that drop down to work before?

Many times, works just fine. (you mean the "Nearby" link, which brings up a yellow panel, right?) if its not working for you try another browser - you may have anti-scripting software or something similar blocking the correct behaviour.

If that's not it, please type out the precise steps you follow (each click) to help us help you!

Works in Chrome!

But weirdly, it doesn't include even close to all airports. Searching from Baton Rouge, LA doesn't show me BTR, MSY or any other airport in Louisiana. The map tells me the closest airport is IAH. Looks like I really will have to manually input airports!

Can't win 'em all.

Works in Chrome!

But weirdly, it doesn't include even close to all airports. Searching from Baton Rouge, LA doesn't show me BTR, MSY or any other airport in Louisiana. The map tells me the closest airport is IAH. Looks like I really will have to manually input airports!

Can't win 'em all.

You have to change the search distance. MSY and BTR show up just fine at 75+ km, but I don't know why BTR requires such a distant search. Funny bug!

Funny bug!

Indeed. What I'm doing is a lower radius search by region. Seems to work fine that way.

I'm so American that it annoys me when I'm not often offered instant gratification. I find myself essentially saying- Damnit, machines do my bidding.

Works in Chrome!

But weirdly, it doesn't include even close to all airports. Searching from Baton Rouge, LA doesn't show me BTR, MSY or any other airport in Louisiana. The map tells me the closest airport is IAH. Looks like I really will have to manually input airports!

Can't win 'em all.

Could you help me reproduce the problem you're seeing?

When I type in "Baton Rouge" the first option it shows me is BTR. MSY shows up at 75 miles (or 150 km) or greater.

Type in Baton Rouge to find nearby airports at a larger radius, like 1000 miles. 1000 mile radius doesn't give you any airports in Louisiana.

I know it sounds crazy, but I'm trying to find the lowest price from any American airport regardless of location.

Type in Baton Rouge to find nearby airports at a larger radius, like 1000 miles. 1000 mile radius doesn't give you any airports in Louisiana.

I know it sounds crazy, but I'm trying to find the lowest price from any American airport regardless of location.

The "nearby" box only shows the largest airports within the radius. I do still get MSY even with 1000 miles though, it's a large airport in Louisiana.

Unfortunately, our system is not designed to do such a broad query. In fact, the more airports you ask for, the less effort is expended on each one. This means that asking for more airports decreases the likelihood that we'll find the best deal from any particular airport.

My experience is that for international trips, the best pricing is found from major gateway airports. Often the price from small airports is exactly the same, sometimes a bit more, but never a lot less. This also in line with how international fares are usually filed. Have others here had different experiences?

I agree with c_9. I think the quality of results has decreased noticeably since the Google acquisition. In particular, I often see results that violate fare rules such as connections > 4 hours.

Are you sure they are actually violating the fare rules? >4 hour for a "connection" can be fine under a number of circumstances, such as :
* No flights are available within 4 hours, and that's the next available flight (especially happens overnight)
* It's being priced in as a stopover
* The flights on either side are a different fare, being booked end-on-end.

There's probably more, but those are the obvious ones.

My experience is that for international trips, the best pricing is found from major gateway airports. Often the price from small airports is exactly the same, sometimes a bit more, but never a lot less. This also in line with how international fares are usually filed. Have others here had different experiences?

Me, actually. My flight from BTR to SGN three weeks ago was about $200 per paasenger cheaper than it would have been flying out of MSY, despite the next connecting flight being in IAH in both cases. It's likely because of the circumstances- I booked a scant 10 days before departure.

So far, ITA is working really well if I search by region. I found a round trip to SGN for only $865 departing from RIC. I would have never thought to look at RIC.

Me, actually. My flight from BTR to SGN three weeks ago was about $200 per paasenger cheaper than it would have been flying out of MSY, despite the next connecting flight being in IAH in both cases. It's likely because of the circumstances- I booked a scant 10 days before departure.

Right, I wasn't saying that the price from different airports doesn't vary. My hypothesis in this case would be that the trip starting in IAH is at least as cheap as either one of those other airports.

I can't get ITA Matrix to work on my iPad. I've tried using it through various browsers on the iPad - Chrome, Apollo, Safari - and every time I search it just reloads the original splash screen, with the fields empty.

The Matrix iPad App is useless. There's no multi-city search option and no option to search for business class fares...

Palmer

I can't get ITA Matrix to work on my iPad. I've tried using it through various browsers on the iPad - Chrome, Apollo, Safari - and every time I search it just reloads the original splash screen, with the fields empty.

The Matrix iPad App is useless. There's no multi-city search option and no option to search for business class fares...

Palmer

The matrix website works perfectly on Safari on my iPad. Maybe it's time for a reboot?

I lately have noticed what I thought was a HUGE decrease in the quality of the results, which turns out to be a learning experience on which extensions to use.

I was searching MIL-SIN, outbound on 11FEB and return on 15FEB, business class, with advanced routing code "/ f BA" in both segments, and ITA completely missed a return SIN CX BKK BA LHR BA MXP connection than brings the total down from ITA's EUR 3486 to EUR 2551.

The connection in BKK is pretty long (9:15), but even modifying the advanced routing code on the return to "/f BA; maxconnect 720" won't bring out this best solution. "N* BKK N* / f BA; maxconnect 720" won't return anything, and one MUST spoonfeed "N* BKK N* LHR N* / f BA" before it brings the EUR 2551 solution.

It turns out that it's probably an issue isolated to using the "/ f xx" carrier fare extension. Using a "/ alliance oneworld" marketing carrier extension alone will return the EUR 2551 quote rapidly, as it does if you use a "/ alliance oneworld, f BA" or if you use a "BA,CX /f BA".

Lesson learned (and shared): don't start your searches with using "/ f xx" alone, and if you do, always specify the potential carriers (or an alliance) as well!

Incidentally, what I do find a problem is when matrix tells me (when I used "/ f BA") that the lowest cost is EUR 2710, when those itineraries are downgraded from the requested J to W on a 13 hours flight!! Poster definition for junk returns.

A comment on the puzzling "/f xx" behavior: I am surprised that this is not a refined extension, as I thought that this would be the primary way for a private label solution. I.e. if carrier XX uses ITA to power its front end, it want to maximize its revenues by not restricting to sell only services that are entirely on itself, but also all options where there's an interline but it takes the share of the revenues (e.g. when its own fare governs the fare component). So I would have presumed the logic of the /f extension to be more mature, and really work.

I guess that's room for ITA to improve, and I guess that this type of feedback is the reason why matrix is free -- to get the type of feedback that makes it stronger.

I was searching MIL-SIN, outbound on 11FEB and return on 15FEB, business class, with advanced routing code "/ f BA" in both segments, and ITA completely missed a return SIN CX BKK BA LHR BA MXP connection than brings the total down from ITA's EUR 3486 to EUR 2551.

It seems that ITA is timing out in the search and doesn't find a fare basis that matches your /f BA before it times out. This seems to be a secondary selection after the results have been collated and not one that filters the flights during the search. To confirm this you can specify this fully as "MIL / f BA.MIL+SIN.IRCJSA" and "SIN / f BA.SIN+MIL.IRCJSA" for the return and it will return no flights found in a fraction of a second. It looks like ITA is now spending a miniscule amount of time on the search compared to what they used to do.

It seems that some routing restrictions are primary and are filtering the results, such as /alliance.

Very odd.

These extensions that we have allowed on matrix are intended for debugging by the developers, and our customers do not use them to limit searches (we have much more sophisticated static configuration that they use instead).

"/f ba" acts as a post filter; we generate a set of routes to consider without taking that restriction into account, then when we attempt to price we force the use of BA fares only. As you can imagine, most of the routes we generate on other carriers cannot be priced only with BA fares, so this is quite wasteful.

Other commands like "/alliance oneworld" restrict the routes considered to only those on oneworld carriers, so we try a lot more routes that can be priced with BA fares.

"/f ba" acts as a post filter; we generate a set of routes to consider without taking that restriction into account, then when we attempt to price we force the use of BA fares only. As you can imagine, most of the routes we generate on other carriers cannot be priced only with BA fares, so this is quite wasteful.

Other commands like "/alliance oneworld" restrict the routes considered to only those on oneworld carriers, so we try a lot more routes that can be priced with BA fares.Thanks so much for sharing these details, and so quickly. You guys (and you yourself) rock!

Could you elucidate as to what the set of pre-filters and post-filters consist of? It would be very useful to know in order to avoid wasting searches.

Some advice from any ITA wizards or ITA Hacker?

I'm trying to research different YYZ-NRT options for late March 2013. For many connections, ITA is giving me >24-hour layovers, sometimes >48-hours. These aren't legal, and in some cases aren't even necessary! It appears to be breaking rules to give me a cheap fare (which I can't book), rather than following the rules and giving me an expensive (but legal) fare.

I'm bumping into this weird situation a lot, but I will give a single example to demonstrate:
- UA3608+UA123, which is YYZ-DEN-NRT, should be possible. ITA, and united.com, refuse to let me book it. ITA offers it over the course of two days, but not same day.
- I can't get ITA to show this on the same day under any of the following routing codes:
-- UA UA
-- UA3608 UA123
-- UA DEN UA
-- DEN
-- UA3608 UA123 / maxconnect 300

Am I crazy? Is there a bug, or am I missing some rule?

Thanks for any thoughts.

The issue can't be replicated as UA 123 does not operate in MAR13; as a matter of fact there's no UA flights from DEN to TYO (any airport) during the month so it's not very helpful.

One issue that would have led to that behavior is that connection not meeting the the minimum connection time -- and there are no earlier flights from YTO without having to overnight.

Do you have anything that can be replicated? Share all inputs: from/to/dates, etc.

I do see UA3608 and UA123 at the end of March and you can got a long layover using them. However there's nothing illegal about it. You have to look at the tickets to see what it's found. In this case it's something like YTO-DEN one-way fare followed by two half-round trips of DEN-TYO and TYO-YTO. If you really want to book it you'd probably have to book it as a multi-city with YYZ-DEN, DEN-TYO and TYO-YYZ as the legs.

If you see something that doesn't seem legal for one ticket, that's probably because it's combining multiple tickets.

UA123 doesn't start flying until March 31, but you can fly YYZ DEN on Mar 31 on UA3608 and UA123 with a 2:22 layover and in this case it's a YTO-TYO round trip.

My search was:
YYZ :: UA DEN UA / maxconnect 300
NRT::UA UA /maxconnect 300
calendar search 3-8 days starting from March 20.

Thanks for the suggestions - I could have sworn that ITA offered UA123 earlier than March 31, but of course this morning I can't reproduce. :)

Will keep exploring, and if I spot a long connection I can't explain I'll bring it here for explanation!

Score another one for ITA. I would have lost my UA miles if not for the creative routing/fare structure I found on ITA.^