Flight search with 'via'

[Theo Markettos]

I've been doing some messing about with flight searches recently, and
spotted a pricing anomaly in the fares I'm looking up.

Let's say I want to go to Ulan Bator (just an example). I can change in
places like Seoul or Beijing. But the fares quirk is that it's several
hundred pounds cheaper to go Amsterdam-Beijing-Ulan Bator than it is to go
London-Beijing-Ulan Bator. So what I want to do is do AMS-PEK-ULN and then
add on LON-AMS on top. Of course I could ticket that leg separately, but
then I'd have to do the baggage reclaim dance at AMS, and be in big trouble
if the connecting flight was late.

So do any flight search websites have a 'via' field, as in 'A to B via C'?
This is common on railway journey planners. Some have 'multistop' searches,
but these are usually too specific - you have to list all the indirection
points and their dates: if an intermediate flight goes into the next day,
it will mess up the search. A 'multistop' ticket might not book through
baggage appropriately. They also aren't very good at finding actual
flights.

Any suggestions?

Thanks
Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo Markettos
I've been doing some messing about with flight searches recently, and
spotted a pricing anomaly in the fares I'm looking up.
Let's say I want to go to Ulan Bator (just an example). I can change in
places like Seoul or Beijing. But the fares quirk is that it's several
hundred pounds cheaper to go Amsterdam-Beijing-Ulan Bator than it is to go
London-Beijing-Ulan Bator. So what I want to do is do AMS-PEK-ULN and then
add on LON-AMS on top. Of course I could ticket that leg separately, but
then I'd have to do the baggage reclaim dance at AMS, and be in big trouble
if the connecting flight was late.
So do any flight search websites have a 'via' field, as in 'A to B via C'?

Individual airline sites often let you book A-B, B-C, C-D etc, and issue
'through tickets'.

But they should also offer an indirect route automatically if it's
cheaper. KLM/AF, for example, will offer routings which are direct, via
AMS, via CDG etc, for you to select from.

I have often found that BHX-AMS-X is significantly cheaper than LHR-X,
and you might try that.

The same is true of sites like Expedia, who will offer an indirect route
if it's cheaper (they even have boxes to tick for 0, 1, 2+ legs).

I just tried London-Beijing on July 10th, and the cheapest is 1-stop in
Abu Dhabi (followed by Doha, Rome etc), then the next is 2 stop in
Amsterdam and Shanghai, the most expensive are direct flights.

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo Markettos
I've been doing some messing about with flight searches recently, and
spotted a pricing anomaly in the fares I'm looking up.
Let's say I want to go to Ulan Bator (just an example). I can change in
places like Seoul or Beijing. But the fares quirk is that it's several
hundred pounds cheaper to go Amsterdam-Beijing-Ulan Bator than it is to go
London-Beijing-Ulan Bator. So what I want to do is do AMS-PEK-ULN and then
add on LON-AMS on top. Of course I could ticket that leg separately, but
then I'd have to do the baggage reclaim dance at AMS, and be in big trouble
if the connecting flight was late.
So do any flight search websites have a 'via' field, as in 'A to B via C'?

Individual airline sites often let you book A-B, B-C, C-D etc, and issue
'through tickets'.
But they should also offer an indirect route automatically if it's
cheaper. KLM/AF, for example, will offer routings which are direct, via
AMS, via CDG etc, for you to select from.
I have often found that BHX-AMS-X is significantly cheaper than LHR-X, and
you might try that.
The same is true of sites like Expedia, who will offer an indirect route
if it's cheaper (they even have boxes to tick for 0, 1, 2+ legs).
I just tried London-Beijing on July 10th, and the cheapest is 1-stop in
Abu Dhabi (followed by Doha, Rome etc), then the next is 2 stop in
Amsterdam and Shanghai, the most expensive are direct flights.
--
Roland Perry

I think what Theo has discovered is, at least in part, related to the taxes
levied here in the UK. As soon as you put all the flights on one ticket UK
taxes kick in even if you've separated the actual fares. And if you
separate the fares onto separate tickets you run into the "baggage claim
dance".

[Roland Perry]

In message <gJ6dnVeZi6BB-***@bt.com>, at 14:16:59 on
Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison

Post by Graham Harrison
I think what Theo has discovered is, at least in part, related to the
taxes levied here in the UK. As soon as you put all the flights on
one ticket UK taxes kick in even if you've separated the actual fares.

Yes, but it's still cheaper to fly via AMS/CDG etc, even on one ticket.

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graham Harrison
I think what Theo has discovered is, at least in part, related to the
taxes levied here in the UK. As soon as you put all the flights on one
ticket UK taxes kick in even if you've separated the actual fares.

Yes, but it's still cheaper to fly via AMS/CDG etc, even on one ticket.
--
Roland Perry

As a general rule the fewer stops the more expensive the price so what you
say doesn't surprise me in the least. But that wasn't what Theo was
saying.

[Roland Perry]

In message <***@bt.com>, at 17:43:34 on
Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Graham Harrison

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graham Harrison
I think what Theo has discovered is, at least in part, related to the
taxes levied here in the UK. As soon as you put all the flights on
one ticket UK taxes kick in even if you've separated the actual fares.

Yes, but it's still cheaper to fly via AMS/CDG etc, even on one ticket.

As a general rule the fewer stops the more expensive the price so what
you say doesn't surprise me in the least. But that wasn't what Theo
was saying.

I thought he was trying to construct [cheaper] multi-stop trips via
specific places.

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graham Harrison
I think what Theo has discovered is, at least in part, related to the
taxes levied here in the UK. As soon as you put all the flights on one
ticket UK taxes kick in even if you've separated the actual fares.

Yes, but it's still cheaper to fly via AMS/CDG etc, even on one ticket.

As a general rule the fewer stops the more expensive the price so what you
say doesn't surprise me in the least. But that wasn't what Theo was
saying.

I thought he was trying to construct [cheaper] multi-stop trips via
specific places.
--
Roland Perry

His whole question was theoretical. What he was suggesting was take
advantage of a UK long haul tax-less price from somewhere in Europe (his
example Amsterdam) to somewhere outside Europe (his example Ulan Bator) and
the place a London/Amsterdam/London in the same ticket (thus allowing
through check in and delay protection) rather than separate tickets (which
is the only way of creating the saving - separate tickets).

[Theo Markettos]

Post by Graham Harrison
His whole question was theoretical. What he was suggesting was take
advantage of a UK long haul tax-less price from somewhere in Europe (his
example Amsterdam) to somewhere outside Europe (his example Ulan Bator) and
the place a London/Amsterdam/London in the same ticket (thus allowing
through check in and delay protection) rather than separate tickets (which
is the only way of creating the saving - separate tickets).

It isn't hypothetical... I was looking up flights to Africa that turned out
to be 600 quid from LHR and 400 quid return from AMS. Apparently that works
out at £65 APD (minus whatever tax at AMS), which doesn't account for the
£200 difference.

Theo

[Nomen Nescio]

Post by Theo Markettos
So do any flight search websites have a 'via' field, as in 'A to B via C'?

The site that can handle that is itasoftware.com. This site has a
powerful expression syntax for this sort of thing. E.g., suppose you
want to depart from LHR or LGW, and go to JFK, via MAD. No
consolidator site would suggest connecting in Madrid in this case, but
you can force itasoftware to do that using this syntax:

lhr,lgw :: f+ mad f+
jfk

The "f+" is kind of like a regular expression that means one or more
flights. So the above dictates a flight that leaves london for new
york, via madrid.

Post by Theo Markettos
if an intermediate flight goes into the next day, it will mess up
the search. A 'multistop' ticket might not book through baggage
appropriately. They also aren't very good at finding actual
flights.

If you want to constrain the layover time, you can use the maxconnect
option. So to modify the above and specify no more than a 3 hour
layover, you would use this query on itasoftware:

lhr,lgw :: f+ mad f+ /maxconnect 180
jfk

And suppose you want to go straight to madrid without connecting, and
suppose for some strange reason you want exactly two flights to take
you to new york. Change the f+ to f:

lhr,lgw :: f mad f f /maxconnect 180
jfk

This is the only free tool that gives this much control. I think the
commercial version is called expertflyer.com or something like that.

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Nomen Nescio

Post by Theo Markettos
So do any flight search websites have a 'via' field, as in 'A to B via C'?

The site that can handle that is itasoftware.com. This site has a
powerful expression syntax for this sort of thing. E.g., suppose you
want to depart from LHR or LGW, and go to JFK, via MAD. No
consolidator site would suggest connecting in Madrid in this case, but
lhr,lgw :: f+ mad f+
jfk
The "f+" is kind of like a regular expression that means one or more
flights. So the above dictates a flight that leaves london for new
york, via madrid.

Post by Theo Markettos
if an intermediate flight goes into the next day, it will mess up
the search. A 'multistop' ticket might not book through baggage
appropriately. They also aren't very good at finding actual
flights.

If you want to constrain the layover time, you can use the maxconnect
option. So to modify the above and specify no more than a 3 hour
lhr,lgw :: f+ mad f+ /maxconnect 180
jfk
And suppose you want to go straight to madrid without connecting, and
suppose for some strange reason you want exactly two flights to take
lhr,lgw :: f mad f f /maxconnect 180
jfk
This is the only free tool that gives this much control. I think the
commercial version is called expertflyer.com or something like that.

I've never tried that so thank you. Unfortunately it doesn't resolve the
issue because it will quote the fare/ticket for sale in the UK and the UK
Government have framed the law in such a way that taxes (which are very
high) apply to the whole fare/ticket however the fare is constructed. So
in your example if ITA apply the rules correctly you will get a UK long haul
tax (£120?) rather than the short haul tax to Madrid (£30?). To pay the
lower tax you must issue separate tickets and that has a range of
contractual risks.

[Theo Markettos]

Post by Graham Harrison
I've never tried that so thank you. Unfortunately it doesn't resolve the
issue because it will quote the fare/ticket for sale in the UK and the UK
Government have framed the law in such a way that taxes (which are very
high) apply to the whole fare/ticket however the fare is constructed. So
in your example if ITA apply the rules correctly you will get a UK long
haul tax (£120?) rather than the short haul tax to Madrid (£30?). To pay
the lower tax you must issue separate tickets and that has a range of
contractual risks.

Thanks for that... I've used it before, but hadn't seen the advanced
options.

Telling it my 'sales city' is Amsterdam, explicitly forcing my 'via' point
and unticking 'show only available seats', I get:

AMS-... EUR481 (400 quid give or take)
LHR-... EUR771
LHR-AMS-... EUR1935

So looks like this doesn't work, irrespective of APD.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo Markettos
AMS-... EUR481 (400 quid give or take)
LHR-... EUR771
LHR-AMS-... EUR1935

It's help if you told us the exact destination and rough date.

There's clearly something odd about routes to Africa, because I just
checked AMS-LHR-Nairobi and LHR-AMS-Nairobi (in 30 days time) and the
former is £200 cheaper.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Nomen Nescio
E.g., suppose you
want to depart from LHR or LGW, and go to JFK, via MAD. No
consolidator site would suggest connecting in Madrid in this case

That's simply not the case (unless you know something special about
Madrid [1]). I just tried LHR-JFK on Expedia and got offered flights via
Amsterdam, Rome, Brussels, Warsaw, Frankfurt and Geneva.

[1] My own guess is that MAD-JFK direct a peculiarly expensive leg.