- Swept in from the pub
I have been mulling an idea for some time. It's clear why we don't list aggregators on our sites (by the way, how many g does that word have?), but there are instances where they do provide service to the voyager, for instance I won't look for my flight to Managua primarily using the websites of Delta or American Airlines but using an aggregator (or several) and then comparing the result with the price quote the airline itself gives me.
Now here's my idea; should we have one travel topic that deals with aggregators and lists as many as may be practical while also emphatically stressing that they should not be listed elsewhere? Or is this a bad idea bringing us down a dangerous slippery slope? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's a great idea, providing that the links are annotated and compared for quality, user-friendliness and value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to start the article only after some more people have voiced their opinion, for one because I don't know all that many hotel agregators and would like some help on that, furthermore because I am still unsure of the correct number of gs and finally because I think this is something of a departure from policy in a sense and as such should count with more than the approval of two editors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of this idea, but we should tread lightly. If the article ends up as a long list of aggregator listings with very little in the way of prose to tie the listings together, I think that would be unfortunate. Better that this article should focus mainly on aggregators as a concept, the advantages and disadvantages of using them (and there are disadvantages; speaking as someone who worked in hotels for a long time, it's pretty much a universal practice to treat guests who booked with Expedia/Priceline/Orbitz/etc. as basically second-class citizens), how to compare prices, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So @Ikan Kekek:, @AndreCarrotflower: would you like to help a bit with the article? I'm not saying this should be put into mainspace, but I think we might want it to be more fleshed out before we have this discussion in earnest. Especially with the points Andre raised where we should tread with caution as I am aware of some pitfalls, but certainly not all of them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, you might need a "General" section to cover aggregators that sell air and hotels and cruises so that you can list the heavyweights like Expedia. Trivago should go in the hotels section, although the blogosphere seems to think that they are more expensive that others. Ground Zero (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- In my experience nobody ever reads requests for comment... And sure, we might have a section for "agregators that do multiple things" or something. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying to rehabilitate RfC. The Travellers' Pub is getting too crowded and is becoming the place for all discussions, which I think will cause it to break down. I've cleared old the really old stuff from RfC, and I am posting discussions I've started there. If I don't get input after a while, I take that as agreement to whatever I'm proposing, and go ahead and do it. If people object later, at least I have done my part to make people aware of my proposals. If RfC is limited to new proposals, it will be worthwhile for people to watch and use. Ground Zero (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
> If we get this to some higher degree of usability we can have an informed decision whether we want that specific article in mainspace, or something like it.
- To be frank it has been some time since I last spent effort on this. I think we should have a discussion before we release this into mainspace... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Rail & Fly
Okay, my wording was very misleading, but the current wording isn't all that good either. The thing about rail & fly is, that most package deals and flights booked with a travel agent will include it, whereas none of the aggregators I know of can do it (the IATA code QYG doesn't work with any of them and if there is a box to be ticked "include rail&fly", I have yet to see it). Rail&Fly is more than a discount on a train ticket. It gives you the possibility to take any train (including ICE) for the price of rail&fly and convert the pickup code into the actual ticket mere minutes before booking. That means, you get full flexibility if you miss your train or find your flight departing later/earlier than originally scheduled. Furthermore the cost is sometimes included in the ticket and rarely more than 30€. Additionally rail&fly obviously opens up more airports. I don't know how good aggregators are at the likes of AIRail, which is ICEs with a Lufthansa flight-number which enables you to book "Cologne-main station, Atlanta, via Frankfurt" or the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The article says, in Missed connections, that aggregators "may be the only way to ensure you'll be rebooked [...] in case of a delay". Do aggregators take that responsibility? Always or in some cases? --LPfi (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some aggregators explicitly give it. In some cases it is very murky (according to EU law the "organizer" of a trip is responsible if connections misalign; who that is is often subject to debate). I would say: You can rely on trustworthy aggregators which give that guarantee (a quick Duckduckgo search works wonders in determining who is trustworthy) but the guarantee should never be assumed to be implicit... Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)