TRIP.COM WEBSITE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONCLUSION

11. Booking Experience on "Trip.com"

Exhibit: O. “Trip.com Website Analysis and Findings!”

The booking experience on Trip.com was analyzed in detail, revealing several critical issues that impacted on transparency, user experience, and compliance with consumer protection standards. Below is a structured breakdown of the findings:

1+ Website Access

· Ease of Access: While the website was accessible across devices, the mobile version suffered from poor optimization, with overlapping text and misaligned visuals. This hindered users from clearly viewing critical booking details.

· Navigation Challenges: The cluttered layout and lack of a search bar made it difficult for users to locate specific policies or terms, forcing them to navigate through multiple pages.

2+ Flight Selection

· Limited Filtering Options: Users faced challenges in narrowing down flight options due to insufficient filtering tools. For example, there were no clear filters for baggage-inclusive flights, leading to confusion during selection.

· Misleading Labels: Certain flights were labeled as “best deals” without clarifying what made them advantageous, such as baggage inclusions or flexible cancellation policies.

3+ Inputting Travel Details

· Error-Prone Fields: The input fields for passenger details lacked validation checks, allowing users to proceed with incomplete or incorrect information. This led to issues during check-in and additional charges for corrections.

· Ambiguity in Seat Selection: The seat selection process did not clearly indicate whether seats were included in the base fare or required additional payment.

4+ Searching for Flights Departing to Antalya

· Inconsistent Pricing: The displayed prices for flights departing to Antalya fluctuated significantly during the search process, creating uncertainty about the final cost.

· Hidden Fees: Taxes and additional charges were not disclosed upfront, appearing only at the final payment stage.

5+ Searching for Flights Returning to London

· Lack of Clarity on Return Policies: The platform failed to specify whether return flights included the same baggage allowances as outbound flights, leading to unexpected charges at the airport.

· Confusing Layout: Return flight options were presented in a separate section without clear links to the outbound flight details, making it difficult for users to compare and confirm their selections.

6+ Price Discrepancies: Hidden Taxes and Fees, A Breakdown of Costs

· Unexplained Price Increases: The final booking price often exceeded the initially quoted amount due to hidden fees. For instance, a flight advertised at £205 was charged at £216.90, with no explanation for the additional £11.

· Ambiguous Tax Breakdown: Taxes and fees were grayed out in the payment summary, preventing users from understanding the composition of the total cost.

7+ Baggage Allowance Confusion

· Misleading Visual Aids: Graphics depicting baggage allowances were unclear, leading users to believe their baggage was included when it was not.

· Inconsistent Policies: The platform failed to clarify whether purchased baggage allowances applied to both outbound and return journeys, resulting in additional charges at the airport.

8+ Pop-Up Policy Information Sections

· Transient Notifications: Critical information, such as baggage policies and additional charges, was conveyed through fleeting pop-ups that disappeared without user acknowledgment.

· Lack of Prominence: These pop-ups were not accompanied by permanent textual descriptions, leaving users unable to revisit the information.

9+ Once You Select the Button in Blue with the Text “Book”

· Final Confirmation Issues: After selecting “Book,” users were not provided with a comprehensive summary of their selections, such as baggage inclusions or cancellation policies.

· Hidden Terms: Key terms and conditions were buried in fine print, making them easy to overlook.

10+ 10+ The “Booked Page” Screenshot

· Incomplete Information: The booked page failed to display critical details, such as baggage allowances and seat selections, leaving users uncertain about what was included in their booking.

· Misleading Confirmation: The confirmation message implied that all services were finalized, even when additional charges were pending.

11+ Itinerary

· Lack of Detail: The itinerary provided minimal information about baggage policies, seat assignments, and cancellation terms, forcing users to rely on separate emails for clarification.

· Inconsistent Formatting: The itinerary format varied between outbound and return flights, adding to the confusion.

12+ The 3rd Flight Cancellation & Change Policies

· Ambiguous Terms: The cancellation and change policies were not clearly outlined, with key details hidden in hyperlinks or pop-ups.

· Inflexible Options: Users were often required to pay high fees for changes, even when the airline’s policies allowed for free modifications.

13+ Within the Bottom Header of the Webpage Is the Following Text

· Lack of Visibility: Important disclaimers and terms were placed in the bottom header, where users were unlikely to notice them.

· Contradictory Statements: Certain disclaimers contradicted information provided elsewhere on the platform, creating further confusion.

14+ Flights Price Guarantee

· Unclear Conditions: The price guarantee policy lacked transparency, with no clear explanation of how users could claim refunds for price discrepancies.

· Limited Applicability: The guarantee applied only to specific flights, which was not disclosed upfront.

15+ All Personal Items Can Be Suitcases for 99% of Airlines in Here

· Misleading Claims: The platform suggested that personal items could include suitcases for most airlines, but failed to specify size and weight restrictions, leading to additional charges at check-in.

16+ “EasyJet” “Look at the Video” Suitcases for 100%

· Faulty Links: The video link provided for EasyJet’s baggage policies was broken, preventing users from verifying the information.

· Incomplete Guidance: The platform did not clarify how EasyJet’s policies differed from other airlines, leaving users to make assumptions.

17+ “Ryan Air”

· Inconsistent Information: The platform provided conflicting details about Ryanair’s baggage policies, with certain sections suggesting that all baggage was included while others indicated additional charges.

18+ Baggage Revenue Analysis

· Excessive Charges: The analysis revealed that a significant portion of Trip.com’s revenue came from baggage fees, highlighting the platform’s reliance on unclear policies to generate additional income.

· Lack of Transparency: Users were not informed about the breakdown of these charges, making it difficult to understand the true cost of their bookings.

Conclusion

The findings from this analysis demonstrate systemic issues with Trip.com’s booking platform, including misleading visuals, hidden fees, and inadequate communication of policies. These flaws not only violated transparency standards but also caused significant financial and logistical harm to users. Addressing these issues is essential to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws and improve user experience.