Jun 4, 2014, 6:07 pm
Last edit by: TWA884
ITA Matrix Search: http://matrix.itasoftware.com
You can sometimes see flights, fares and detailed fare rules that may not be reflected on an airline's website. Please read the thread for some tips and tricks, screen shots, etc.
A related thread, ITA-Matrix-PowerTools - Userscript for Orbitz/DL/UA/AA/BA/CZ/IB/LA/LH/LX/TK, discusses a user script which is maintained by fellow flyertalk members to enhance the already powerful Matrix of ITA Software by providing new features and booking links.
Additional details and tips on the use of ITA's advanced routing code feature can be found in the following long-standing Mileage Run Discussion threads:
You can sometimes see flights, fares and detailed fare rules that may not be reflected on an airline's website. Please read the thread for some tips and tricks, screen shots, etc.
A related thread, ITA-Matrix-PowerTools - Userscript for Orbitz/DL/UA/AA/BA/CZ/IB/LA/LH/LX/TK, discusses a user script which is maintained by fellow flyertalk members to enhance the already powerful Matrix of ITA Software by providing new features and booking links.
Additional details and tips on the use of ITA's advanced routing code feature can be found in the following long-standing Mileage Run Discussion threads:
ITA Software Matrix Airfare Search Consolidated Information and Help Thread
Mar 11, 2015, 5:06 pm
#916
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Indeed. The five cities is sufficient for me but unless you are given the opportunity to specify what fare basis you want, ITA usually misses 70% of the results so I cannot imagine what a hash google flights would make
Mar 11, 2015, 8:31 pm
#917
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,993
It's working fine for me - but I am filtering by "Business Class or higher", not specific fare classes as I am more interested in GAP type fares on DL/AA ...
Mar 12, 2015, 9:08 am
#918
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MSP/DEN/GVA
Programs: DL PM, FB PM, Gamer/Trickster.
Posts: 189
I wish Flyertalk, or ThePointsGuy, or even (gasp) George Hobica would pick up on this and write about it.
We're basically being forced to use Google Flights, and yegods, is it bad....
We're basically being forced to use Google Flights, and yegods, is it bad....
Mar 13, 2015, 10:56 am
#919
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
.
Mar 15, 2015, 2:39 am
#922
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: MUCCI
Posts: 245
I still find Matrix useful, even if it is much more glitchy than it was. But I was never a power user, looking to use all of the more sophisticated elements of searching. And I would point out that the cost per mile function is still accessible - I used it about 30 seconds ago. When you get the list of flights after a search, press SHIFT + click on the "Price" button, top left side of the page.
Some weeks ago I found it unusable, but for me there is some improvement.
Some weeks ago I found it unusable, but for me there is some improvement.
Mar 16, 2015, 11:42 am
#923
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Programs: AA Plat, UA Silver, DL Silver, Marriott Titanium, etc.
Posts: 4,210
Did mothership Google ever announce that they were going to let the matrix tool fade away or are they just letting it happen without telling us?
When was the last time anyone from Itasoftware (by Google) posted on Flyertalk (I see a post from ITA Hacker in Nov. 2014) or has been interviewed by one of the travel enthusiast blogs?
Anyone been able to contact anyone on the developer team to discuss our fondness of Matrix and our concerns for its future?
Google Flights is a good product in its own way, but is generally way too restricted for my tastes.
When was the last time anyone from Itasoftware (by Google) posted on Flyertalk (I see a post from ITA Hacker in Nov. 2014) or has been interviewed by one of the travel enthusiast blogs?
Anyone been able to contact anyone on the developer team to discuss our fondness of Matrix and our concerns for its future?
Google Flights is a good product in its own way, but is generally way too restricted for my tastes.
Last edited by GrizShel; Mar 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Mar 19, 2015, 8:31 am
#925
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,438
No kidding. This was once a fantastic product that has now been run into the ground. Very hard not to wonder if it is being done deliberately. It would probably take the most junior of Google's staff to fix the bugs in about an hour
Mar 19, 2015, 1:00 pm
#926
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
So a very weird bug today.
Basically, ITA will find a flight if I leave the fare specification empty. But when I try to force the fare (using its own suggestion), it returns no flights found.
Reproduction steps:
1. Search leaving the routing specifier devoid of fare constraints (flights 1 & 2; I am happy with flight 3):
2. Get results, find an acceptable fare code covering the first three sectors is IB IOFR2D
3. Enter the fare specifier to restrict the route a bit further. (I do this because I intend to complicate the route later and the Matrix is struggling already to price this simple itinerary.)
4. Despite the fact I am using the Matrix's own suggestion ... it can no longer price the route.
What is going on? Is this a bug or am I missing something obvious?
Separately, the fare that it did find does not actually appear to permit the route in its the routing table!
Basically, ITA will find a flight if I leave the fare specification empty. But when I try to force the fare (using its own suggestion), it returns no flights found.
Reproduction steps:
1. Search leaving the routing specifier devoid of fare constraints (flights 1 & 2; I am happy with flight 3):
2. Get results, find an acceptable fare code covering the first three sectors is IB IOFR2D
3. Enter the fare specifier to restrict the route a bit further. (I do this because I intend to complicate the route later and the Matrix is struggling already to price this simple itinerary.)
4. Despite the fact I am using the Matrix's own suggestion ... it can no longer price the route.
What is going on? Is this a bug or am I missing something obvious?
Separately, the fare that it did find does not actually appear to permit the route in its the routing table!
Mar 19, 2015, 7:40 pm
#927
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Loud, dark, warm, lots of ethernet cables, and in some rack space.
Programs: AA:EXP
Posts: 369
Though I did create myself a nice client for sifting through airfare sites. Still in testing and the legality of which is questionable. When life gives you lemons, back to the seeds and grow a lemon tree.
Mar 19, 2015, 8:00 pm
#928
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Firstly, thanks for the screen shots. Without them it would be hard to figure this one out.
IOFR2D is a PAR to BUE fare (see detail). You're entering it as if it were a PAR to SCL (Flight 1) and then as if there were a separate one, also called IOFR2D, from SCL to BUE (Flight 2).
For flights 1 and 2, try entering the full specification for the fare you want: /f.IB.PAR+BUE.IOFR2D
Please let us know if that works!
Also, from my notes, don't specify "/ f" by itself, as it’s a post-processing filter; to get more results also specify an alliance (restricts the possible routes as well as carriers), carrier, and/or route/connecting points as well. Or at least try it both ways.
IOFR2D is a PAR to BUE fare (see detail). You're entering it as if it were a PAR to SCL (Flight 1) and then as if there were a separate one, also called IOFR2D, from SCL to BUE (Flight 2).
For flights 1 and 2, try entering the full specification for the fare you want: /f.IB.PAR+BUE.IOFR2D
Please let us know if that works!
Also, from my notes, don't specify "/ f" by itself, as it’s a post-processing filter; to get more results also specify an alliance (restricts the possible routes as well as carriers), carrier, and/or route/connecting points as well. Or at least try it both ways.
Mar 20, 2015, 3:55 am
#929
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Curiously it does work (with and without the PAR+BUE) if I untick "Only show flights with available seats"! (I actually managed to do what I wanted which was also to include a stop in RIO on the way back under the second fare at the same price, but only without checking for availability.)
Now I inspected the availability (as seen in LON) across each segment by hand with Expert Flyer and then as married segments: there's availability throughout. I couldn't actually check the ORY-MAD-SCL-EZE as one through married segment check though because of the stopover.
It also doesn't explain why the Matrix only finds the fare if you don't tell it where to look!
Mar 20, 2015, 4:23 am
#930
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Correct, sorry for the typo.
It cannot be married availability because of the stopover (married segments only apply to connections!)
I'm pretty sure you've found a bug. Or a use case that's not supported by Matrix (stopover on a specified through fare).
BTW why do you want to specify that particular fare? From a functional standpoint, you can bypass the bug by simply specifying the alliance or a subset of airlines and then picking what works for you best.
BTW why do you want to specify that particular fare? From a functional standpoint, you can bypass the bug by simply specifying the alliance or a subset of airlines and then picking what works for you best.