[22c]

I didn't know they weren't listed on flight aggregator services and I almost certainly did not consider Southwest when flying to FL for this very reason.

Seems to me that Southwest are learning the hard way that not being competitive and transparent with consumers about their pricing is bad for business.

[catapart]

I don't know how you would have come to that conclusion, after reading the article? It says pretty plainly that the new government regulations, which force airlines to show all "additional" charges alongside the ticket price, means that Southwest's bundled price will now SHOW as cheaper, rather than showing as a larger base price (but less without the added additional 'baggage check' fees, or whatever) than other airlines.

Basically, they took a principled stand to not show their prices in place where it would LOOK worse (without being worse) and they have stuck to it. The world changed to be more in alignment with their price honesty; they didn't cave to showing their prices unfairly in an effort to be more "competitive" or "transparent".

[lxgr]

> they took a principled stand to not show their prices in place where it would LOOK worse (without being worse)

I bet they weren't too unhappy about not paying an agent/referral fee to these "price comparison sites" (that are really often travel agents themselves, or are at least getting a commission from those or the airline directly).

For related reasons, Easyjet or Ryanair (I forgot which one) was not available for booking through the regular GDSes for the longest time, which made them unavailable for booking through traditional travel agents not directly integrating with their proprietary inventory system. I bet that was as much about not wanting to pay the incumbents' fees as much as it was about being "modern API forward".

[pradn]

Every commodity service like flights needs to be available through a standard API. We need to maximize the impact of market forces, via price discovery and then competition, for the benefit of passengers.

[catapart]

"principled", in this context, meaning "they have rules that they have abided by", rather than "a set of rules that are morally just or otherwise generally appreciable for their merits".

Not saying SW wasn't benefiting from the arrangement, or that they weren't playing coy for selfish reasons. Just saying that they had rules and stuck to them, rather than acquiescing to consumer forces as OP suggested.

[ApolloFortyNine]

Google flights has had the no checked bags allowed icon for years. And still shows it, I was originally afraid the government decided every ticket price has to include a checked bag, as that what your comment sounded like.

So not too sure what's changed.

[catapart]

From the article: it appears that Southwest has started allowing its prices to be listed on aggregators.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>I don't know how you would have come to that conclusion, after reading the article? It says pretty plainly that the new government regulations, which force airlines to show all "additional" charges alongside the ticket price, means that Southwest's bundled price will now SHOW as cheaper, rather than showing as a larger base price (but less without the added additional 'baggage check' fees, or whatever) than other airlines.

You said this. I said that's how Google Flights has been all along. So the full verbose question would be "What changed that made Southwest decide to allow their flights to appear on Google flights?"

It doesn't look to be simply 'government regulations'.

[catapart]

>It doesn't look to be simply 'government regulations'.

As evidenced by what? Your own summary makes it seem as if the only changed factor was the government regulations, so why wouldn't that be the "what changed"?

But to be more charitable: if you would like to know what - exactly - changed, I would suggest googling it? I'm honestly not trying to be snarky; what possible information could I have that you couldn't get easier by googling it? The thing you are asking about is a point of fact. The law is written text, and the changes are clearly defined. In my experience, whenever I don't understand the finer effects of a new law, I've found that there are a ton of nuances and complications and party interests that make the outcome more understandable to me. But I have never, in my life, had those nuances and complications made more clear or obviously true by way of a response from some forum commenter. It has ALWAYS been by seeking out the information, myself, from direct sources. So that's my suggestion to you, if you're earnestly asking.

But, either way, this is about all I have to say on the subject. Carry on as you will, and have a good one!

[mushufasa]

As someone who's often flown southwest exactly for that reason, now I'm a little worried the "secret is out..." though they've had enough issues over the last few years that I should probably be happy they'll just get more business generally.

[toast0]

It certainly appears as a principled stance now, but they opted out of OTAs back when any ticket on any airline got you two checked bags.

They didn't want to be easily compared back then on a level playing field. So it's a bit surprising that they want to be easily compared now, but the industry is also different.

Most likely if there was a principle, it was that they didn't want to pay Sabre to be in it, especially since Sabre was part of American Airlines until 2000.

[catapart]

Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456196

[lotsofpulp]

Google flights has long shown the total price including taxes and bag fees if you specify number of carry on and checkin bags.

I would bet it was just a negotiation of travel agent commission paid to Google.

[catapart]

Understood, but trusting Google to do something (in perpetuity) that it is not legally obligated to do is a hard sell to shareholders wondering why you would let your prices be misrepresented (in relation to other airline tickets) in that way.

[lotsofpulp]

What was the misrepresentation? The lowest price offered by Southwest is still the same.

Southwest having a different pricing strategy does not make it misrepresentation.

Edit to respond to fragmede below:

If a customer selects 0 or 1 checked bags, would it be better for the customer if Google flights did not show Southwest as an option at all?

[fragmede]

The UI displaying the SW price for two checked bags next to the Delta price for zero checked bags is the issue. it's like comparing "the cheapest Mac laptop vs the cheapest windows laptop" vs "the cheapest Mac laptop vs equivalently spec'd windows laptop", and not trusting consumers or the price comparison UI to know the difference.

[catapart]

I certainly appreciate the effort as valiant, but the commenter responded to a generalized summary of the issue with anecdotal tunnel-vision about their pet issue, completely ignoring the context (an entire US law was passed - no small feat - to fix an issue ne is insisting doesn't actually exist) and the other types of issues that contribute to the misrepresentation of prices (checked bags aren't the only 'hidden fee').

In response to "you can see how THIS is a misrepresentation, right?" they said "actually, I've never had that problem, so..."

At some point, you have to recognize who and what you are dealing with and cut bait. But, hey, YMMV! Godspeed, if you're willing, I suppose!

[catapart]

If I look up a price for Delta compared against a price for Southwest and the Delta price is cheaper, that is a "representation".

If I go to Delta to buy the ticket, but cannot actually purchase the ticket for the price quoted (which was the problem), then there has been a misrepresentation of the actual cost of a Delta ticket.

Compounding that, if the actual price I pay for a Delta ticket is more than the comparison price for a Southwest ticket that would have allowed me to get the same fare, then the comparison is a misrepresentation. The comparison is no longer apples to apples. That's not a problem with Southwest having an issue with pricing model, that's a problem with the comparison sites not being forced to show comparisons between like products. That comparison, between unlike products, is a misrepresentation, if a reasonable person could believe that they were looking at a comparison of like products.

I'm not going to belabor the point further; the law was changed for exactly this type of nonsense. It's a misrepresentation.

[lotsofpulp]

>If I go to Delta to buy the ticket, but cannot actually purchase the ticket for the price quoted (which was the problem), then there has been a misrepresentation of the actual cost of a Delta ticket.

The price I see on Google flights has always been the price I pay on Delta.com

If I pick 2 checked bags on Google flights, then Google flights shows me the price for 2 checked bags with Delta.

[22c]

I'm aware of plenty of airlines who are not transparent with their fees and are often advertised as much cheaper than some of my preferred airlines.

I don't trust the price I'm quoted until I get to checkout, but if I don't even SEE them in my list of flights to compare, they're not likely to be a consideration.

A lot of flight aggregators also support filtering in/out airlines and I often do this with those who are sneaky about their fees.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Seems to me that Southwest are learning the hard way that not being competitive and transparent with consumers about their pricing is bad for business.

As the other comments said, that's highly doubtful. Also, you have to balance that against the fact that for many people (myself included) Southwest was always the first site I checked, specifically because they "trained" me to know I always had to go to their site, and that for many destinations they were by far the best option for me due to price and flight times, even given their "cattle call" seating.

[lxgr]

I suspect that the commission that Google presumably gets for each referral played a much larger role than a desire to not be transparent. Google Flights is not just a search engine – they get paid by the airlines, as far as I know!

As far as Southwest being listed on OTAs is concerned: I'm pretty sure they always have been, or I wouldn't have bought a ticket with them a while ago. They're just apparently not on all of them.

[rockostrich]

AFAIK they aren't on any OTAs. I just checked Expedia and Booking for a route that I know they have inventory on (PHL to DEN).

[lxgr]

Not sure what Chase Travel uses, but I booked a Southwest ticket on that back a few months ago.

[lotsofpulp]

I’ve always had them at the bottom of my list because I like to pick my seat in advance.

I also used to think Google flight search would show the lowest prices, but I recently saved a few hundred dollars by buying on Expedia. Same everything, just cheaper than even the airline’s website.

[toomuchtodo]

I fly them exclusively in the US because of two free checked bags, no change fees, and anytime I have had a life event that required them extend non corporate grace (held the plane while trying to get to someone dying and I would’ve missed the door by a few minutes), they have been patient and humane. I’ll fly them until I die or they go out of business. Some brand value and corporate values are real.