Google has built what's probably the best (and certainly the easiest) flight search engine (https://www.google.com/flights).

However, it seems that CX is anchored in the pre-Internet ages and is publishing some really high fares on Google: see for example https://www.google.com/flights/#sear...4;r=2014-09-27 where CX prices itself at USD 1,305 to SQ's USD 404.

If you go to CX's website the price is SGD 249, or USD 199, properly reflecting the lack of pricing power of CX on this route and its need to get as much traffic as possible from any source.

Why wouldn't CX want to advertise its price on Google, which links back to CX's website for purchase and is therefore much cheaper than say selling through the clumsy Expedia?

The SGD249 fare you're quoting is a market-restricted fare only available with a Singapore point of sale. Since Google Flights uses a US point of sale (for now), you're not going to see the fare on Google.

Also, CX isn't publishing specific fares for Google Flights - Google Flights and ITA (which it acquired) just picks up whatever fares are publicly filed.

I find google flight engine very poor, at least for non-US departures. They seem not to have access to many discounted fares/promo.

I, too, am unimpressed by Google Flights. Not nearly as detailed or as many options as ITA Matrix, which is now likely to go away.

Well, thanks. Looks like CX is still stuck in the era of brick and mortar ("point of sales") and has not wised up to the global internet.

I guess it's the airlines' fault according to Axey.

Within the US and EU, Google Flights is the fastest and easiest accurate engine out there, and it takes you to the airline's website to complete the purchase ^.

A search that would take 3-4 minutes to do on Expedia/Kayak etc. (including navigating their awful interface and dodging all sort of upsales and ads ("do you want a hotel/car with that?") takes less than 60 seconds on Google flights. And in those markets all airlines (with the usual exception of WN in the US and FR in EU, and partial exception of U2 which requires an extra click) are available, and they publish all of their fares with the earth as a "point of sale".

I think those are two different products.

Google Flights is for the masses, ITA's Matrix is for the nerds who populate FT (and I'm one of them, so don't take the term as a derogatory one, rather one to describe "a single-minded expert in a particular technical field"). And Google Flights is a far faster engine for simple roundtrips.

Agreed (and I'm not in the least insulted). I just wish that Google would keep and support both. I'm fairly certain that they won't.

Hong Kong as a whole is like that. Not just CX ^

I assume/hope that Google will integrate ITA and all its features into Google Flights, as they tend to do when they realise they can just buy something better than they can build.

I would imagine not, I'm sorry to say. Flights was released something like nine months after the Google's ITA acquisition, which included the QPX engine. Seems to me pretty obvious that Flights was built on the IP it got with ITA. They're not going to maintain, let alone enhance, two systems which do essentially the same thing.

Google has a 5-year obligation to keep the ITA software available on the website I believe. Which means you can expect to see it disappear in 2016 much like many other things..... like BufferBox and many other teams.

Does anyone know why CX only publishes very expensive fares in GDS, at least for regional flights, so that you only find these very expensive fares in Google Flight, ITA, Expertflyer and OTAs ?
Is there any more convenient way to look for the normal or discounted fares than on CX website ?