Jan 21, 2015, 10:55 am
Last edit by: hillrider
Here are some more hidden features of the ITA software.
The extensions to the itasoftware routing language are accessed by postpending commands after a '/'. There's a wide set of commands available, but there's no description of them available on the ITA web site. Unfortunately, each command applies only to one part of the trip, so they must usually be entered in each box.
EXCLUDE SPECIFIC AIRLINES
Command is "-airlines XX ..."
Ex: prohibit jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ -airlines B6 DL
to: LAX ::/ -airlines B6 DL
LIMIT TO SPECIFIC AIRLINES
Command is "airlines XX ..."
Ex: consider only jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ airlines B6 DL
to: LAX ::/ airlines B6 DL
LIMIT TO A SINGLE ALLIANCE
Command is "alliance star-alliance|oneworld|skyteam"
Ex: oneworld carriers only
from: BOS ::/ alliance oneworld
to: LAX ::/ alliance oneworld
EXCLUDE CODESHARES
Command is "-codeshare"
Ex: prohibit jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ -codeshare
to: LAX ::/ -codeshare
LIMIT DURATION OF ITINERARY, IN MINUTES
Command is "maxdur XXX"
Ex: no more than 5hrs for each part of trip
from: BOS ::/ maxdur 300
to: LAX ::/ maxdur 300
EXCLUDE OVERNIGHT STOPS, AIRPORT CHANGES, REDEYES, PROPELLER PLANES, TRAINS, HELICOPTERS, ANY KIND OF SURFACE TRAVEL
Commands are "-overnight", "-change", "-redeye", "-prop", "-train", "-helicopter", "-surface"
Ex: no overnight stops, no airport changes, no redeyes, no propeller planes
from: BOS ::/ -overnight, -change, -redeye, -prop
to: LAX ::/ -overnight, -change, -redeye, -prop
SET MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM TIME FOR CONNECTIONS, IN MINUTES
Commands are "minconnect XX", "maxconnect XX"
Ex: no less than one hour, no more than two hour connections
from: BOS ::/ minconnect 60, maxconnect 120
to: LAX ::/ minconnect 60, maxconnect 120
EXTRA CONNECTION TIME
Command is "padconnect XX"
Ex: require at least 20 minutes more than airline specified minimum connection time
from: BOS ::/ padconnect 20
to: LAX ::/ padconnect 20
PUTTING LOTS OF THINGS TOGETHER
Separate with commas.
Ex:
from: BOS :: UA UA / f bc=l|bc=y, -redeye, -prop
to: LAX :: UA+ / f ua.bos+lax.yup, padconnect 20, -overnight
The extensions to the itasoftware routing language are accessed by postpending commands after a '/'. There's a wide set of commands available, but there's no description of them available on the ITA web site. Unfortunately, each command applies only to one part of the trip, so they must usually be entered in each box.
EXCLUDE SPECIFIC AIRLINES
Command is "-airlines XX ..."
Ex: prohibit jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ -airlines B6 DL
to: LAX ::/ -airlines B6 DL
LIMIT TO SPECIFIC AIRLINES
Command is "airlines XX ..."
Ex: consider only jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ airlines B6 DL
to: LAX ::/ airlines B6 DL
LIMIT TO A SINGLE ALLIANCE
Command is "alliance star-alliance|oneworld|skyteam"
Ex: oneworld carriers only
from: BOS ::/ alliance oneworld
to: LAX ::/ alliance oneworld
EXCLUDE CODESHARES
Command is "-codeshare"
Ex: prohibit jetBlue or Delta
from: BOS ::/ -codeshare
to: LAX ::/ -codeshare
LIMIT DURATION OF ITINERARY, IN MINUTES
Command is "maxdur XXX"
Ex: no more than 5hrs for each part of trip
from: BOS ::/ maxdur 300
to: LAX ::/ maxdur 300
EXCLUDE OVERNIGHT STOPS, AIRPORT CHANGES, REDEYES, PROPELLER PLANES, TRAINS, HELICOPTERS, ANY KIND OF SURFACE TRAVEL
Commands are "-overnight", "-change", "-redeye", "-prop", "-train", "-helicopter", "-surface"
Ex: no overnight stops, no airport changes, no redeyes, no propeller planes
from: BOS ::/ -overnight, -change, -redeye, -prop
to: LAX ::/ -overnight, -change, -redeye, -prop
SET MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM TIME FOR CONNECTIONS, IN MINUTES
Commands are "minconnect XX", "maxconnect XX"
Ex: no less than one hour, no more than two hour connections
from: BOS ::/ minconnect 60, maxconnect 120
to: LAX ::/ minconnect 60, maxconnect 120
EXTRA CONNECTION TIME
Command is "padconnect XX"
Ex: require at least 20 minutes more than airline specified minimum connection time
from: BOS ::/ padconnect 20
to: LAX ::/ padconnect 20
PUTTING LOTS OF THINGS TOGETHER
Separate with commas.
Ex:
from: BOS :: UA UA / f bc=l|bc=y, -redeye, -prop
to: LAX :: UA+ / f ua.bos+lax.yup, padconnect 20, -overnight
TIP: More hidden features of ITA
Oct 25, 2011, 1:25 pm
#151
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 286
The dijkstra algorithm is an approximation. That's why it gets an answer that is good enough in an acceptable amount of time.
Last edited by garyschmitt; Oct 25, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Oct 25, 2011, 1:35 pm
#152
In memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 692
Just to throw in two more cents... ITA Software (based in Cambridge, Mass) is packed with MIT and Harvard computer engineers. (Check out some of their staff: http://www.itasoftware.com/careers/l...ur-people.html)
I point this out in support of what igopogo wrote above-- I'm sure they already know the way to shave computing cycles off searches. I think ITA's real challenges are all in product management (i.e. specific user experience and featureset), not computing cycles, search timeouts or other raw horsepower issues.
(And they're probably staying awfully busy with Google integration, too...)
I point this out in support of what igopogo wrote above-- I'm sure they already know the way to shave computing cycles off searches. I think ITA's real challenges are all in product management (i.e. specific user experience and featureset), not computing cycles, search timeouts or other raw horsepower issues.
(And they're probably staying awfully busy with Google integration, too...)
Oct 25, 2011, 1:44 pm
#153
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 286
Just to throw in two more cents... ITA Software (based in Cambridge, Mass) is packed with MIT and Harvard computer engineers. (Check out some of their staff: http://www.itasoftware.com/careers/l...ur-people.html)
This doesn't support igopogo's point, it supports mine. If one could simply apply an algorithm as common as dijkstra, you could hire high-schoolers for the job.
I disagree. Look at their job applications. They're computational and programmatic puzzles. They're looking for more good engineers.
Oct 25, 2011, 1:51 pm
#154
In memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 692
Perhaps I misunderstood your original post.
I see their open positions, but that doesn't dissuade me from thinking they need to focus on product management at least as much as the engineering side of things. Currently ITA looks like a fantastic power-tool that is designed and built by engineers.... that's awesome, and we all love it, and use it all the time. But in taking that power tool and making it part of Google (unsurprisingly, another company [and set of products] designed and built by engineers), they will want to be thinking more "big picture" about the features more mainstream customers want and how to make them more user-friendly.
(Of course, for those of us here on Flyertalk... we probably want more powertool-y functionality... damn the interface, full speed ahead!
)
(Of course, for those of us here on Flyertalk... we probably want more powertool-y functionality... damn the interface, full speed ahead!
)
Oct 25, 2011, 2:04 pm
#155
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 286
The bottom line is that finding the definitively cheapest airfare is an unsolved problem. There is simply not enough processing power available to tackle the problem, even with the most sophisticated algorithms that find exact answers. Hence why adding restrictions to your search can sometimes reveal a better price. All aggregators apply a "lossy" algorithm, which very quickly finds something that is likely to be close to the best airfare. It's generally good enough, but it's a trade-off.
They can only let you leech so much CPU. Some search tools out there offload some of the processing into the visitors machine (e.g. dohop), so the server gives you a small database, and you run javascript to find the best route from a small number of relevant records.
Certainly there are copious limitations of ITA software (even though it's the most powerful all-around search tool). Perhaps the biggest limitation is that it cannot handle multi-booking flights. This means it often does not find the cheapest route (it finds the cheapest convenient flights). I would hate to see resources wasted on management as opposed to improving a tool that clearly has plenty of room to evolve.
They can only let you leech so much CPU. Some search tools out there offload some of the processing into the visitors machine (e.g. dohop), so the server gives you a small database, and you run javascript to find the best route from a small number of relevant records.
Certainly there are copious limitations of ITA software (even though it's the most powerful all-around search tool). Perhaps the biggest limitation is that it cannot handle multi-booking flights. This means it often does not find the cheapest route (it finds the cheapest convenient flights). I would hate to see resources wasted on management as opposed to improving a tool that clearly has plenty of room to evolve.
Oct 25, 2011, 2:12 pm
#156
In memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 692
http://ds.dohop.com/search/?lang=en&...1211&d2=141211
Oct 25, 2011, 6:29 pm
#157
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 710
And skilled Flyertalkers. I use ITA as an iterative search engine. e.g.
I first search MSP to ONT (and include neighboring airports and +/- 1 day) to get an overall idea of general fares
I then limit it to the cheapest airport/day combinations and add in DL+ and/or DL, DL, DL
I then try forcing it between certain city pairs (usually those that are served by competitors) For example for ONT, I might force it through LAX.
I often throw in different hub cities to see if I can bring the mileage up, etc.
I definitely find that often more search criteria = cheaper fares, but of course, not always.
Oct 25, 2011, 6:34 pm
#158
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SFO
Posts: 305
My only point was, the search is not an unsolved problem in **math**, and the cheapest route can be solved quickly. But finding the absolute cheapest route is not necessarily what ITA wants to do. The cheapest route may not have seats available, or may not be one that the average Joe wants to take (i.e. may involve a couple 23 hour layovers and a trip to Alaska and back, or maybe a 5-minute connection at DFW). Sure, we'd like to find the lowest fare even it means spending some time 2000 miles off our path...might prefer it actually. But ITA is in the business of serving average joes (or helping airlines serve average joes) so I'm gonna guess that more "thought" goes into determining what constitutes a reasonable, available route, and finding those routes. Working in the squishy, social, computer-guessing-what-a-human-wants is exactly what google (whoops, ITA) engineers are supposed to be doing. This is almost an unsolved (or perhaps un-optimized) problem in social science.
They like us to bang on their system and see if it works, but they are really not designing the system for us. And certainly they are not going to give us access to an algorithm that takes one full minute of real server time, that would be way too expensive.
Oct 25, 2011, 9:57 pm
#159
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
Currently ITA looks like a fantastic power-tool that is designed and built by engineers.... that's awesome, and we all love it, and use it all the time. But in taking that power tool and making it part of Google (unsurprisingly, another company [and set of products] designed and built by engineers), they will want to be thinking more "big picture" about the features more mainstream customers want and how to make them more user-friendly.
ITA's matrix is a publicly-accessible testbed with access to the raw data and technology they offer, but it is far from the core market and focus of ITA's resources.
I'd still like (and would pay for!) a power-user tool, though.
Nov 13, 2011, 10:21 am
#160
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 389
I've noticed that if you look at the booking details of an itinerary using Matrix 2, the base fare is displayed in the currency of the sales city, whereas in Matrix 1 it's always displayed in the airline's currency of record. Is it possible to force Matrix 1 to change the currency in which it displays the base fare?
(I see that the fare construction at the bottom of the booking details page in Matrix 1 does display the equivalent in the sales city currency, but this is rounded off to the nearest unit, and so it is usually slightly different from the amount displayed by Matrix 2.)
Alternately can anyone suggest a way to look up the current NUC conversion rates?
(I see that the fare construction at the bottom of the booking details page in Matrix 1 does display the equivalent in the sales city currency, but this is rounded off to the nearest unit, and so it is usually slightly different from the amount displayed by Matrix 2.)
Alternately can anyone suggest a way to look up the current NUC conversion rates?
Nov 13, 2011, 11:53 am
#163
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
I've noticed that if you look at the booking details of an itinerary using Matrix 2, the base fare is displayed in the currency of the sales city, whereas in Matrix 1 it's always displayed in the airline's currency of record. Is it possible to force Matrix 1 to change the currency in which it displays the base fare?
(I see that the fare construction at the bottom of the booking details page in Matrix 1 does display the equivalent in the sales city currency, but this is rounded off to the nearest unit, and so it is usually slightly different from the amount displayed by Matrix 2.)
Alternately can anyone suggest a way to look up the current NUC conversion rates?
(I see that the fare construction at the bottom of the booking details page in Matrix 1 does display the equivalent in the sales city currency, but this is rounded off to the nearest unit, and so it is usually slightly different from the amount displayed by Matrix 2.)
Alternately can anyone suggest a way to look up the current NUC conversion rates?
[KVS Availability Tool 6.7.0/Diamond - Sabre: Fares/DotRes/US]
Code:
LON London Metro UK = LHR LGW STN LTN LCY QQS QQW ZLS ZEP NYC New York Metro NY US = JFK LGA R/T 01 Dec 2011 | 15 Dec 2011 | Economy Carrier From To Fare Cur Fare Basis/TD --------- ------ ---- -------- ---- -------- --- -- ------------- TP LON NYC 119 NUC ALLNTAP BA LON NYC 120 NUC OLXUKJB CO LON NYC 120 NUC KLXNNZGB VS LON NYC 120 NUC OLXMGA DL LON NYC 120 NUC TLXPRGB KL LON NYC 120 NUC NLXPRGB US LON NYC 120 NUC SLXEU0WD AZ LON NYC 120 NUC LLXPRGB FI LON NYC 120 NUC UQRZSPEC SN LON NYC 120 NUC ELXNNZGB UX LON NYC 120 NUC PLXPRO20 5W LON NYC 159 NUC NVIEXRT BA LON NYC 184 NUC QLXUKJB CO LON NYC 184 NUC LLXNNZGB VS LON NYC 184 NUC NLXMGA DL LON NYC 184 NUC ULXPRGB US LON NYC 184 NUC LLWEU0WD SN LON NYC 184 NUC ELWNNZGB UX LON NYC 184 NUC QLXPRO20 FI LON NYC 194 NUC NQRZSPEC TP LON NYC 207 NUC KPROMOUK FI LON NYC 249 NUC OQRZSPEC SN LON NYC 249 NUC LLWNNZGB 5W LON NYC 253 NUC OVIEXRT UN LON NYC 265 NUC VSALE2M 5W LON NYC 273 NUC OVIEXOW TP LON NYC 273 NUC ALTPGB KU LON NYC 298 NUC TLE6MGB1 5W LON NYC 311 NUC SVIEXRT 5W LON NYC 343 NUC SVIEXOW UX LON NYC 343 NUC ALXSX1YS SK LON NYC 346 NUC TLUKECO FI LON NYC 346 NUC SQRZECON SU LON NYC 353 NUC LLPX TP LON NYC 361 NUC KLTPGB AB LON NYC 366 NUC EFLYRT BA LON NYC 375 NUC NLXUKJB CO LON NYC 375 NUC TLXNNGBW VS LON NYC 375 NUC XLXGB DL LON NYC 375 NUC ULXAPGBW DL LON NYC 375 NUC ULXSXUK KL LON NYC 375 NUC TLXSRGB US LON NYC 375 NUC WLXEUNW1 UX LON NYC 394 NUC ULXSX1YS 5W LON NYC 414 NUC QVIEXOW 5W LON NYC 414 NUC QVIEXRT KU LON NYC 423 NUC LLE6MGB1 BA LON NYC 427 NUC SLXUKJB CO LON NYC 427 NUC SLXNCGBW VS LON NYC 427 NUC QLXGB
http://www.IATA.org/ps/publications/pages/iroe.aspx
Nov 14, 2011, 12:05 pm
#164
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: DEN
Posts: 15
I've been looking for the cheapest possible one-way flight from basically anywhere in Europe to SYD between 1 - 10 Dec 2011. I found LIS-BRU-AUH-SYD for $521 on Dec 2, 3 & 5 after a very long search. But now I'm trying to replicate it on ITA by putting 4 other EU airports in the "Departing from" field (LHR, CDG, FRA, MAD, LIS) and SYD as the destination, however the lowest price shows up as $999. What am I missing? Is there a limit of 3 airports that you can search? The $521 (and a recent $515 addition) from LIS show up when it is one of 3 airports, but not when it's the last of 4 or any thereafter.
However, if I put a list of 30 airport codes in, I come out with $665 as the cheapest, but the search finds some flights with some airports that I listed at the end of the line (i.e. LHR, CDG, FRA, MAD, AMS, FCO, MUC, IST, LGW, BCN, ORY, ZRH, DME, AYT, CPH, PMI, VIE, SVO, OSL, DUS, MXP, STN, DUB, MAN, BRU, ARN, ATH, TXL, LIS, HAM, HEL).
Ultimately I'd like to be able to search a number or airports at the same time, instead of one by one and know that I've covered all bases. I've also tried different things in the adv routing codes box as well, like X+, and EY+ (for X+ the cheapest is still $665, and interestingly for EY+ the exact $521 flight comes up but for $579?)
Any wisdom would be greatly appreciated.
Nov 14, 2011, 7:01 pm
#165
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR
Posts: 5,898
why dont you just try to add 5 key cities in Europe to cover the entire region and then expand your search by 300 miles radius?
MAD | DUB | FRA | ARN| FCO should allow you cover most European airports...
MAD | DUB | FRA | ARN| FCO should allow you cover most European airports...