I was trying to suggest that some of the cities are picked in an arbtitrary fashion.

Irrespective of fares, surely we could all build 100s of itineraries from Point A to Point B. Given that this would be ridiculous, what I don't understand is how it just picked some of them. *AND* the valid routings from the fare rules are not listed, but these are?

i.e. certainly I could fashion a trip from EWR/ANC via FLL/IAH, but that option is not there... but BWI is?

that's what I am trying to get across... like the EWR/PNS via SJC... there are 100s of other places to route thru, where did that one come from?

and that is to say nothing of the fact the the palmOS timetable provides routes that the PC version doesn't and vice versa...

EWR/COS via MEX is not on the PC version...

---
perhaps my biggest gripe is that these eTimetables provide all of these options, but no one can book 'em... granted the palmOS ones are over the top, but go into the eTimetable and plug in standard city pairs, say EWR/LAX... there are 100+ routings available... is it really that hard to compare the "schedule" routings with "valid" fare base routings?

after all, this is just a relational database... is it really that hard to link the systems so that connections are only generated between cities permitted in the fare rules? it's not like we're solving pi here...