Exploring cultures and communities – the slow way

hidden europe Notes

  • — Posted on

by hidden europe

Meta-search engines and route indexing services for tracking down flight connections are becoming ever more popular. They are the focus of much uncritical media attention. Devotees of such sites argue that a good flight meta-search engine or route indexer can save travellers a lot of time by providing information on flight options. But how reliable is that information?

article summary —

Meta-search engines and route indexing services for tracking down flight connections are becoming ever more popular. And they are the focus of some very uncritical attention from the travel media. Devotees of such sites argue that a good flight meta-search engine or route indexer can save travellers a lot of time by providing information on flight options.

False leads and poor data

That is true in principle of course. But when we reviewed a number of such services in issue 22 of hidden europe in 2008, the results were very mixed. The performance of some services was truly awful. And the wooden spoon for the most appalling false trails and misinformation went to a route indexer called Harefares which we first examined at the invitation of Kim and Scott Dejmal, the couple based in Oregon who run the site.

We have taken another look at Harefares this week, and it is still wanting. By way of example, we checked flight options from Geneva (Switzerland) to Bourges (France). Harefares suggests flying direct from Geneva to La Mole airport on the south coast of France, noting that the small airfield is just 47 km from the city of Bourges.

Too good to be true, it seems. But La Mole airport (near Saint-Tropez) is not near Bourges at all. It is 768 km by road from Bourges. Get the logic? Take a flight from Geneva and end up twice as far away from your destination as when you started.

the business model

An isolated case? We realised when we conducted the research for hidden europe 22 that it is not. Anyone can set up an online information service. With no regulatory oversight, and nobody reviewing the accuracy of the information provided by such services, it behoves the user to check, cross-check and then check yet again.  The datasets that underpin such services may be woefully inaccurate - as in that case from Harefares which locates La Mole Airport in quite the wrong part of France.

Some users might take solace in the fact that most indexing services are free of charge. Some are essentially created as a hobby. The providers of some services recoup the set-up and maintenance costs by effectively promoting the airlines that fly the routes. Each time someone enters an airline or travel agent’s website through the flight indexing service, and then makes a purchase, a small commission is paid to the service provider.

In some ways, it is exactly that underlying business model that renders so many of these services utterly unreliable. Airlines that do not agree to pay for inclusion in the listings will often not be featured. Fair enough you might say, but a clear explanatory note on the search engine website would be a huge asset. That note should highlight the partial nature of the information on offer and detail which flights are included and which are not.

A new service: Zugu

Just last week, a new search engine for the UK market was unveiled to predictable media hype. We've had a quick look at the new kid on the block which is called Zugu. We were amazed that their system lists airports which no longer have any flights (for example, Coventry), but fails to include airports with scheduled services. Look for listings of the admittedly sparse air services from Oxford and the potential traveller is invited to consider instead the merits of Gloucester, Luton or Heathrow. Handling such large databases is surely not easy (not to mention keeping them up-to-date), but it would certainly be more useful for travellers if any media attention were to be matched by a thorough critical evaluation of new services.

Zugu is cagey as to its scope, unlike Harefares which makes a grand claim as to their comprehensive coverage. The Harefares blurb suggests that the site is Europe’s ‘most complete and current free route indexer’.

Zugu makes no such bold claim, but neither does it offer any clear indication as to what to expect. Now we do not fly a lot, and when we do it is usually between minor airports where the alternatives by rail or ferry would take too long. So we checked Zugu for an upcoming journey from Jersey to the Isle of Man, a route for which we know there is a daily direct flight by Blue Islands. But because Blue Islands is not part of the Zugu flock, Zugu shows no direct flights. Instead Zugu offers circuitous and more expensive routes requiring one or more en route changes of plane.

Similarly, for a hypothetical journey tomorrow afternoon from the Scottish island of Benbecula to Inverness, Zugu gives no hint of any direct flight. It offers just one option, advising would-be travellers that it will be an eight hour journey, with two changes of plane along the way. Zugu suggests that the cheapest fare is GBP 440. The truth is that there is an afternoon direct flight with Highland Airways tomorrow for which plenty of seats are still available at GBP 130 a shot.

the bottom line

The value of meta-search engines and route indexing services should stand or fall by their attention to detail. It is easy to find out which major airlines fly on European trunk routes like London to Munich or Milan (though Harefares even manages to get both those wrong). It is on lesser routes that the value to the consumer of such endeavours might properly be judged.

Nicky Gardner and Susanne Kries
(hidden europe)

This article was published in hidden europe notes.

About the authors

hidden europe

and manage hidden europe, a Berlin-based editorial bureau that supplies text and images to media across Europe. Together they edit hidden europe magazine. Nicky and Susanne are dedicated slow travellers. They delight in discovering the exotic in the everyday.

Comments (4)| write a comment

  1. Jeremy Head
    23 February 2010

    Hello both

    Interesting post. I don't really agree though. It is easy to choose really offbeat airlines flying less travelled routes and use that as a reason to dismiss the product. And your comment that "It is easy to find out which major airlines fly on European trunk routes like London to Munich or Milan" misses the point. Flight comparison sites aren't just about finding who flies which route - they do (if they work) do far more by allowing you to compare fare data too. This is a far more onerous task than just finding out who flies where.. and something that takes time to do yourself.
    I do agree though that flight comparison engines (pretty much all of them) are far from brilliant. I tried Zugu for a routing I know well (London to Seville - I write a guidebook to the city) and was underwhelmed with the results and prices.

    I wouldn't write it off that quickly though... smart team of people behind it. It's in beta and will get better.

    [disclosure: I do some work with these guys from time to time]

  2. Hugo Burge
    23 February 2010

    Thanks Hidden Europe for the gritty analysis; some fair points.

    We are very open about the fact we are in beta; in fact we are only 5 days in. We welcome suggestions for improvement or indeed bugs we have on the site (yes they exist too).

    We have focussed mainly on OTA partners so far but look forward to bringing more partners/information on as soon as we can. Very much looking forward to adding Blue Islands and Highland Airways. There is no doubt that these are specialist niche airlines but our mission is to include these types of airlines. As you rightly point out they make a big difference to those people making the flight and do build ultimate trust (lacking in the industry). We want to have them. We don't want users to require local knowledge. Watch this space.

    Good point on accuracy of airports too. We are investigating how we can be better at this.

  3. hidden europe
    23 February 2010

    Jeremy and Hugo

    Our thanks to you both for your perceptive and useful comments. Of course we realise that new sites take time to get those glitches ironed out. And in truth Zugu looks terrific - a very neat site. Perhaps we could return to this topic when Zugu has had a chance to bed down.

    One aspect of Zugu that troubles us is that it is limited to trips that originate in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We appreciate that allowing other departure points potentially raises currency issues, but it would be a great asset if we could use Zugu to check for one way flights into Britain, or return flights originating on the continent.

    And, yes, there are a heap of database issues that demand attention (but you are already far better than Harefares on that front!). We've mentioned the Oxford issue in our original post. But suppose we look for flights originating at Tingwall Airport. Tiny place, we know, but just the sort of oddball airport that features in hidden europe magazine. Tingwall (in Shetland) has scheduled flights to four other Shetland airports. Yet when we enter Tingwall, the Zugu database does not recognise the place and then assumes we mean Kirkwall - a quite different airport and not in Shetland at all, but in Orkney.

    We hope these thoughts are of help, and we'd be more than happy to talk more with folk at Zugu. We wish the Zugu team every success.

    Susanne and Nicky

  4. Hugo Burge
    23 February 2010

    Many thanks Susanne & Nicky

    Valuable feedback, love to talk to you more and get your eagle eyes/ bright ideas to help us make a better search. Glad you like the design of the site - now got to nail the nitty gritty Tingwall type details. I also think you will like the future product releases. Watch this space.



    If you come via Marylebone in next 3 weeks let me know. We then move to Fitzrovia, so happy to welcome you then too!

Write a comment

All fields are required. Your email-address will not be published when you leave a comment.

Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: