Downgraded: Inflight booze limits
How much is too much booze to drink on a flight? How about 17 mini bottles of wine between London and Doha? (Thanks, Dr. Vino!)

Upgraded: Deals to Europe
Jared Blank may have posted this on May 27, but if you’ve procrastinated your summer travel plans, you can still (!) book roundtrip flights from Newark to several European cities for only $399 including all taxes, for travel through June 30, 2010. I found seats to Oslo, Berlin, and London, with relative ease. The catch, if you want to call it that: You have to fly via Iceland, with Iceland Express. Be sure to check that volcano ash forecast…

Downgraded: EasyJet’s name
Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the founder of British discount airline EasyJet, has parted ways with the company he built, and is now preparing to sue to have them remove the “easy” prefix in their name. Sir Stelios wants to set up an online travel agency with the same name, which sounds like it’s going to be a delightful time for everyone involved. Haven’t the trademark battles over classic rock band names like Pink Floyd, Yes, and Black Sabbath taught us anything?

Upgraded: Me
Yes, this blog has been out of commission for two weeks, and I apologize for the unannounced absence. After some time fine-tuning the work-work balance, traveling to conferences, and grappling with an unpleasant illness, we’re back on the beat, baby! Thanks to those who wrote expressing concern.

As predicted here, Expedia has decided to make its temporary elimination of the airfare booking fee permanent. This follows in the steps of Priceline and Hotwire, which stopped adding a surcharge over a year ago.

The Expedia fee was scheduled to go back into effect on June 1. The company had two choices: Quietly reinstate the fees, and face the marketing wrath of the no-fee competition, or “permanently” kill the fee with a big fanfare. How’s the fanfare sound on your end?

The big agencies still get a cut of the sale, unlike most mom-and-pop travel agencies, so the extra booking fee monies were additional revenue. Many customers (31%, according to here) were doing their searches on the major agencies’ sites, and then going to the airline to book directly and save the fee. Now, the agencies’ fares should be on the same level as the airlines’ own websites.

Interestingly, Expedia also cut change fees in the same breath:

Other fee changes also were announced Wednesday. Expedia.com said it will eliminate the change-and-cancel fees on hotel, car rental and cruise reservations and on most flight reservations. Flights that are part of certain package deals will still be subject to a fee when reservations are changed or canceled. Expedia.com said it will resume charging $20 [on June 1, 2009] to make a flight booking over the phone, a fee that was halted during the promotion.

Eliminating change-and-cancel fees is nice, but it’s just the surcharge, not the totality of relevant fees. Airlines are charging $100, $150, or more to change itineraries for non-refundable booking classes, and Expedia can’t waive those fees. The elimination only applies to the surcharges which Expedia tacked on.

In any case, this puts pressure on Travelocity and Orbitz to make fee cuts permanent as well. Both of those sites’ fee-elimination policies have a sunset clause, and fees are scheduled to re-emerge on June 1. Neither site is commenting on whether they’ll follow Expedia’s lead or not. We’ll see if there are more announcements of newly-permanent fee reductions in the coming days…

Two weeks ago, George Hobica of Airfarewatchdog posted about a seemingly dramatic new change in the ways airfares are collected and disseminated, which he claimed would throw a wrench into the already-frustrating system of regularly fluctuating prices. “[A]irlines will be able to change their fares more often and more quickly than ever before, and consumers will need to keep on their toes like never before.” His suggestion caught my attention. The problem is, it’s a non-problem. The more I thought about it, his post just didn’t add up.

Under the title, “Airfares may change more often than ever in the near future,” George writes that “ATPCO, the folks who act as the airfare intermediary between the airlines and you, the consumer, via airfare distribution systems such as Travelocity, Expedia, and your local travel agent, will soon be implementing real time, instantaneous airfare updates, according to a person who is familiar with the matter.” The consequence of such a change, according to George:

What it means for you is that fares can fluctuate much more frequently than before, which may make shopping for airfares even more of a challenge.

What is means for airlines is that in order to respond to their competition’s airfare increases and decreases, they could conceivably have their pricing analysts work in a 24 hour environment. On the plus side for airlines and the online travel agencies such as Travelocity, they’ll be able to eliminate fare mistakes almost instantaneously instead of waiting for the next fare update, which could be hours away. On the minus side, airlines might have to add staff to their pricing and fare analysis departments, and really keep on their toes.

Right now, airlines file fares continuously throughout the day with the ATPCO clearinghouse, who then distributes those fares to reservation systems at set times (3 times daily for domestic fares on weekdays; once daily for domestic fares on weekends; up to 8 times daily for international fares on weekdays; and 3 times daily for international fares on weekends). Subscribers to those ATPCO feeds — airlines, and the global distribution systems such as Galileo, Amadeus, etc. — pass the information on to their clients, usually agencies. As long as inventory holds up (and if fares are low, that’s a big if), fares will be stable for a several-hour window.

On the surface, George’s account of the possible shift from periodic updates to real-time updates of airfares sounds like a plausible tale, and a big shift in the way the business works. (Except for the “pricing analysts” working 24-7… They have computers that do this sort of thing these days, you know…) But the more you think about it, the more it just doesn’t make sense for anyone to worry about this.

For starters, the concept of live-updated fares in ATPCO isn’t new, so George’s post is a few years too late. It’s been around for at least five years, and I can find evidence of it on the ATPCO website going back to at least February 2007. It’s currently pitched under the name “Instant Subscriptions.” It’s an option for subscribers, not a new standard. So the service is available, but it’s not being implemented. Which begs the question, why not?…

I called Rick Seaney, CEO of FareCompare, who works closely with ATPCO and knows more about their airfare products than any person really should. I asked Rick about the prospects of a shift to an instant-fare-update world. He confirmed my skepticism.

For starters, Rick pointed out, the technical challenges of implementing a system like this are huge. Huge hardware investments. Rewriting software. In today’s environment, this is highly unlikely.

Then there’s a collective action problem, and the issue of fare variation: Let’s assume that some agencies subscribing to ATPCO feeds would opt for the live updates, but others don’t. Then assume Airline A raises some of its fares. If Agency XYZ gets its fares through a live-updated feed, but Agency ABC doesn’t, then ABC will show the old (lower) fares. Now XYZ’s low-fare-guarantee would kick in, because its competitor ABC would be offering the same flight for less. So XYZ could lose money if it offers the live-updated fares. Unless everyone opts for live updates at once, it’s going to be a problem.

More to the point: Even if — if — airlines were signed on to constantly update new fares in real-time, would they want to? What’s the benefit in doing so, if you’re an airline? There are already multiple updates, only a few hours apart, so when one airline lowers or raises fares, their competitors don’t have long waits before they can respond.

And finally, even if the published fare changes, there’s still the matter of inventory. Airlines can publish all the fares they want, but if there’s no inventory of seats to back it up, any fare war is moot.

So is it possible that we’ll see live-updated fares someday, with prices bouncing around like a bank stock on options-expiration day? Sure, if every subscriber to airfare prices joins the fun, and if there’s plentiful inventory to back up each price point. None of this is happening anytime soon.

So let’s not fearmonger (or faremonger)…

Nearly three years ago, this site reviewed the then-burgeoning field of airfare aggregators, also known as metasearch sites. These sites let you compare the fares available across multiple airlines and across multiple booking sites, to help you find the lowest fare. Last time, Kayak came out on top. How much has changed in the last three years?

For starters, there are sites which have folded, some new competitors, and sites that changed their model significantly. At the same time, there has been pushback from airlines and suppliers, some of which have resisted the aggregator model. (The lawsuits between American Airlines and Kayak, which initially resulted in American Airlines no longer being listed in Kayak results, was perhaps the most prominent case of pushback. Since October 2008, aa.com results are back in the results. More on that below.)

The result: The golden ring of a truly complete search, covering all the options and all the providers, is still a ways away. No single site actually finds every flight option, every fare, or every seller.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t differences between the aggregators. It’s time to disaggregate the aggregators again.

This year, each site was put through multiple tests. Four kinds of itinerary were tested: A large-city to medium-city domestic US flight with multiple carriers offering direct service; a medium-city to small-city domestic US flight with at least one change of plane required; an international flight with a US origin; and international flights (from Paris to Dubai, and Manchester to Madrid) to test how sites do for non-US flights. For each of these flights, I tested a short-term booking (7 days advance purchase) and a longer-term booking (30 days advance purchase).

This time, I compared Kayak, Sidestep, Mobissimo, TripAdvisor Flights, Momondo, Skyscanner, WeGo (formerly Bezurk), Trax, Farecast, Fly.com, and Dohop. Sites which were on the list last time but either folded or stopped doing metasearch include FareChase (bought by Yahoo, then abandoned in March 2009), PriceGrabber, and Qixo.

So which aggregator came out on top in 2009? Here’s the summary, with site-by-site reviews thereafter… (more…)

Gary Leff points to a post by lucky, who caught a change in United’s terms and conditions: They’re eliminating the complimentary fare repricing policy. It’s the end of an era, and it’s shame to see it go.

What this used to mean: If the price of a ticket would drop in the time after you bought it, and if you were alert enough to notice the change, you could go online or call the airline and “refare” the ticket. You’d receive a voucher for the difference in the mail. Three years ago, I detailed the process here.

Repricing a ticket at a lower fare will now involve a reticketing fee — you’re cancelling the earlier “nonrefundable” ticket, paying a penalty, and using the credit from that transaction toward a new ticket.

United was the biggest airline to be doing free re-faring of an identical itinerary. Alaska, JetBlue, and Southwest still offer it for free. Most other airlines allow you to reticket, but there’s a fee of between $75 and $150. (It could still pay off if the fee is less than the fare difference.)

One warning to anyone repricing tickets, with fees or not: If you’re waitlisted for an upgrade, you’ll lose your place in line, and you may need to reapply. It’s a new ticket, so you’re starting fresh.

On the one hand, United’s abandonment of free refaring makes economic sense. Why give voucher refunds to people who have already paid for their (nonrefundable) tickets? The airline has your money, so there’s no incentive to give it back.

On the other hand, the voucher system is a way of guaranteeing future business. This is what the folks at Yapta, the service that tracks price drops after you’ve purchased the ticket, argued when they first launched their fare-drop tracking service:

Look, as an airline I still keep your cash. I’m taking a short-term hit, and over the next 12 months I have the opportunity to turn that $100 coupon into a $500 ticket. I’ve locked in your loyalty.

The voucher logic isn’t being abandoned entirely, after all. United and other airlines still give vouchers when there’s a customer service issue, and that voucher is designed to both show goodwill and lock in a future sale.

United’s change also means that they’re reneging on a benefit they offered as part of their “customer commitment.” As Gary points out, this was launched in order to ward off a passengers’ bill of rights, nearly a decade ago. Perhaps they’re planning to play the same card again: If pressure builds for another PBOR, then United can trot out a re-faring policy, just like they did last time.

The online travel agency battle royale is on. Just a few days after Travelocity and Expedia eliminated their booking fees for airline tickets, Priceline, the first agency to cut the fee, is fighting back with some copycatting of its own.

The agency is now offering price guarantees that mimic Orbitz’ “Price Assurance” for airfare and Travelocity’s “PriceGuardian” for packages:

That’s why starting today [we're] backing up every Flight AND Vacation Package purchase with Free Pricedrop Protection for orders booked by June 1st. Now you, and your users, are automatically covered if prices drop before the trip!

Up to $300 Cash Back if Flight Prices Drop:
If another priceline customer books the same flight for a lower price, we’ll automatically refund the difference in cash…up to $300.

Up to $600 Cash Back if Vacation Package Prices Drop:
If another priceline customer books the same vacation package for a lower price, we’ll automatically refund the difference in cash…up to $600.

As I’ve expressed before, I don’t think that a price guarantee that relies on another customer booking exactly the same itinerary is worth that much, unless you’re booking a really, really common route (and, in the case of a package, a midrange mainstream hotel). But hey, if it’s not costing you anything and doesn’t take any effort on your part, why the heck not.

Bottom line: The competition for your business is heating up. Who’s next?