They have relented in some ways, rolling out stuff in the widget like: "The airline has issued a change fee waiver for this flight. See what options are available on American's website"
But obviously, that kind of stuff isn't shown on Google for quite some time after it exists on the source site. And the widget pushes the organics off the fold unless you have a huge monitor.
As for Wikipedia, I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26487993
"Airlines are, obviously, extremely pleased to disseminate this information"
In the same way that publishers love AMP, yes. They don't actually like it, but they are forced to make the best of it.
In this case, I want to be sent literally anywhere but aa.com.
One example...
If you back up a bit, the widget didn't used to tell you there was a change fee waiver when the flight was full, while aa.com did.
That's an actual, tangible benefit that a consumer might want, worth real money. You can also even often "bid" on a dollar amount to receive if you're willing to change flights. Google doesn't present that info today.
There are more examples. My perspective isn't that Google should lead you to aa.com, but I do feel it's a bit dishonest that the widget is so large it pushes aa.com below the fold. It doesn't need to be that large.
As for Wikipedia, the WMF is quite happy that most of their traffic is now served by Google. WMF is in the business of distributing knowledge, not in the eyeballs business. Serving traffic is just a cost for them. The main problem has been that the average cost for Wikipedia to serve a page has gone up, because many readers read it via Google, and more people who visit Wikipedia are logged-in authors, which costs them more to serve. I'm sure there's an easy solution to this problem (for example, beneficiaries of Wikipedia can donate compute facilities and services, or something along those lines).