Google Defends ITA Deal Against Competitor Attacks
#1
Original Poster

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Programs: AA Plat, UA Silver, DL Silver, Marriott Titanium, etc.
Posts: 4,214
Google Defends ITA Deal Against Competitor Attacks
Very interesting stuff in a blog from Andrew Silverman (10/26/2010) Senior Product Manager at Google and an interesting article in response on a WSJ blog. (I couldn't find this posted anywhere on Flyertalk yet.) Provides some insight into the relationships of the major players in the airfare sales and technology fields.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/...titor-attacks/
It starts off this way:
See also:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...competing.html
An excerpt:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/...titor-attacks/
It starts off this way:
Google responded to an effort by players in the online travel industry to oppose its acquisition of airfare search provider ITA Software. The Internet giant rejected their arguments that the deal would reduce competition and innovation in the market.
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...competing.html
An excerpt:
We’ve been encouraged by the travel industry support we’ve seen for this acquisition -- from airlines, online travel agencies, and also ITA’s competitors. Even longtime travel guru Arthur Frommer has weighed in. That said, it’s disappointing that a number of travel companies have today announced their concerns about the deal.
Our reason for making this acquisition is simple: ITA will help us provide better results for our users. When someone searches for “flights from San Francisco to London,” we'd like to provide not just “ten blue links” but exact flight times and prices as well -- just as our competitors do today.
Our reason for making this acquisition is simple: ITA will help us provide better results for our users. When someone searches for “flights from San Francisco to London,” we'd like to provide not just “ten blue links” but exact flight times and prices as well -- just as our competitors do today.
#3
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: MTA NYCTA Super Plutonium Elite
Posts: 107
The mere fact that competitors oppose a deal is very strong evidence that the deal is in fact pro-competitive. If a deal was going to lead to reduced competition, competitors should be jumping for joy over it: they would benefit just as much from reduced competition, at the expense of consumers. If they're against it, it must be because they think that the combined company will in fact be more competitive, forcing them to cut prices or do other pro-consumer things to keep up.
If Toyota was planning to buy Ford, and the rest of the auto industry was talking about what a great thing that was for consumers, that would be something for consumers to worry about.
If Toyota was planning to buy Ford, and the rest of the auto industry was talking about what a great thing that was for consumers, that would be something for consumers to worry about.
#4
In memoriam
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,020
Just a tad simplistic. 
Consider: competitors might be too dumb to see what is really going on; competitors might not represent interests of consumers (in fact, almost certainly do not); big G might be using this to consolidate monopolistic/oligopolistic power, or maybe something else is going on.
Hypothetically, if Microsoft opposes something does that automatically make it bad? Or, should we actually do some analysis on our own? @:-)

Consider: competitors might be too dumb to see what is really going on; competitors might not represent interests of consumers (in fact, almost certainly do not); big G might be using this to consolidate monopolistic/oligopolistic power, or maybe something else is going on.
Hypothetically, if Microsoft opposes something does that automatically make it bad? Or, should we actually do some analysis on our own? @:-)
#5




Join Date: Mar 2006
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K, F9 Elite, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,323
It's pretty much the same as every other single thing in the airline industry:
If airlines oppose it, then it's generally a good thing for pax (example: tarmac rule, DOT compensation increases) ^
If airlines are for something, it generally screws over pax (example: baggage and every other punitive fee)
So, I usually go opposite to every 'want' the airlines have, and in this way I am all for the Google/ITA deal. I know why Google wants ITA and it will be excellent for pax and comparing the competition (basically take Kayak and expand the potential and search power x10).
If airlines oppose it, then it's generally a good thing for pax (example: tarmac rule, DOT compensation increases) ^
If airlines are for something, it generally screws over pax (example: baggage and every other punitive fee)
So, I usually go opposite to every 'want' the airlines have, and in this way I am all for the Google/ITA deal. I know why Google wants ITA and it will be excellent for pax and comparing the competition (basically take Kayak and expand the potential and search power x10).
#6




Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: BZN
Programs: AA:LT Platinum DL:LT Gold UA:1P MAR:LT Titanium
Posts: 8,292
Unrelated to that specific issue, has anyone given the ITA mobile apps a try? I don't use an iPhone (is anyone buying them, still?), but I've just tried out the Android version and it *kicks bootay*. On Android, go to Market>Search and look for "onthefly" (without the quotes, and without spaces, to find the proper app). It's free and works flawlessly for me. Impressive UI that is intuitive and allows for a lot of the "matrix" functionality present on the website.
#7

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ICT
Programs: AA ExP
Posts: 1,860
The mere fact that competitors oppose a deal is very strong evidence that the deal is in fact pro-competitive. If a deal was going to lead to reduced competition, competitors should be jumping for joy over it: they would benefit just as much from reduced competition, at the expense of consumers. If they're against it, it must be because they think that the combined company will in fact be more competitive, forcing them to cut prices or do other pro-consumer things to keep up.
OT, but I disagree. I like how baggage fees put costs where they actually are and give incentive for responsible behavior. And I say this as someone who would take two 50 lb bags every time if it was free. This allows them to increase cargo profits and lower base ticket prices. It's a competitive, cutthroat market out there, so it's not going to send overall ticket prices up, it just shifts costs to where they actually are and allows them to actually lower the base ticket cost and if people can travel without luggage (or with carry-ons).
#8

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Brussels, EU
Posts: 279
Yeah, I love it. Once I find my flight, I generally then hop on the orbitz app to quickly book - easy
Bingo!
Unrelated to that specific issue, has anyone given the ITA mobile apps a try? I don't use an iPhone (is anyone buying them, still?), but I've just tried out the Android version and it *kicks bootay*. On Android, go to Market>Search and look for "onthefly" (without the quotes, and without spaces, to find the proper app). It's free and works flawlessly for me. Impressive UI that is intuitive and allows for a lot of the "matrix" functionality present on the website.
Unrelated to that specific issue, has anyone given the ITA mobile apps a try? I don't use an iPhone (is anyone buying them, still?), but I've just tried out the Android version and it *kicks bootay*. On Android, go to Market>Search and look for "onthefly" (without the quotes, and without spaces, to find the proper app). It's free and works flawlessly for me. Impressive UI that is intuitive and allows for a lot of the "matrix" functionality present on the website.

