Lina Nguyen

I agree that local events have a real impact on stays, it's obvious to everyone here, but saying that flight search tools are the main way to make this info concrete is forgetting who truly benefits.
Many people, especially the most vulnerable, do not have easy access to the internet or the means to navigate complicated platforms to anticipate price hikes.
Here in Senegal, information circulates by word of mouth or through local networks, like during Tabaski when everyone knows that transport prices increase.
These modern tools only formalize knowledge that already existed, often better shared at the community level, without needing a screen.
The fair sharing of information, crucial for everyone to prepare, is sometimes better ensured by traditions than by technology.

Search engines for flights can show price spikes around local events, that's true, but it doesn't really empower the small traveler.
These tools mainly reflect speculation and the interests of large companies, not a fair distribution of opportunities.
Who really benefits when prices soar for the Grand Magal of Touba here in Senegal? It's not the family saving for their pilgrimage.
Instead, shared information from the community and local networks are needed to find fair options, not just observe the increases.

Thinking that we can escape bias by adding just one or two points is like believing that a small sip more will change the taste of an entire glass. It's not a matter of "more" or "less" when talking about selection, but rather understanding why these specific points were chosen. It would be better to consider the diversity of use cases to see if the three platforms cover all real needs, or if we only look at what these three have to offer.

Historically, the idea of an 'optimal' trip is always viewed from the tourist's perspective, not the community's. We have the same problem with the pricing display of Airbnb accommodations in Paris, which never reflects what residents can afford. It's always been like that.

Talking about a trip standardized by a single image is really missing the complexity of preparation. The Grand Canyon and The Wave are two destinations classified among the must-see, but this is only a starting point. For foreign visitors, obtaining lottery permits for The Wave can take years, and accommodation at the Grand Canyon is often booked six months in advance, which clearly shows that a single photo is not enough to guide the entire trip.

Talking about an optimal search with these tools ignores who really benefits from this "optimality". When a major event causes prices to skyrocket, it's the small local businesses that are often most affected, as their cost of living becomes unsustainable, like in Dakar during FESMAN where rents increase excessively. Platforms show prices, but they do not compensate for the unequal distribution of benefits or the costs borne by the local community. A cheap flight ticket does not make a trip "optimal" if residents can no longer afford to live at home.

Selecting just three travel platforms for analysis is like judging all Italian cuisine by only tasting three types of pasta; it’s a starting point, but it lacks depth. One can easily overlook an innovative solution or a customer need just because they haven't looked far enough. For example, if the three chosen tools are all oriented towards luxury travel, one will never see the demand for budget vacations which is still huge. The analysis can only be robust if the initial selection truly represents the market. It’s a matter of whether we tell the truth or just part of it.