Why You Should NOT Book flights with Booking.com or GoToGate.com

[SYD]

The problem is not with Malaysian and if you want seriously good satay I suggest you do!

Yes, the satays are good but they do have a habit of running out of wine in J…

The apparent excess baggage charges in whY (whatever that is), do seem draconian regardless of booking channel.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Yes, the satays are good, but they do have a habit of running out of wine in J…

The apparent excess baggage charges in whY (whatever that is), do seem draconian regardless of booking channel.

Well, that’s a totally different issue. An airline from a Muslim country running out of wine …who would have thought?

We used to run out of wine on QF half way across the Nullarbor…..

 

[SOPOOR]

something is going on with booking.com, there are multiple reports of people/hotels not getting paid for weeks for their bookings, over recent weeks

eg in Japan,

im no expert but given the wide scale of it, this kind of behaviour happens when a company is about to go into administration/liqudation

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Credit Card provider doesn't support the chargeback as the transaction was legal and consider such event as a civil case on the service deficiency.
I am not waisting my time on reporting to ACCC but by this post spreading awareness about risk to other potential customers.

Avoid the Booking.com for flights....

Fraud ?
False Advertising ?
As I understand the chargeback rules you paid for a service that you did not receive - clearly a valid reason for a charge back.
Having had an experience with a charge back not long ago I
found that after an initial rejection continuing pressure on the bank achieved the result I wanted.
Doubtful that the Bank can offer you legal advice such as "consider such event as a civil case".

 

[latawiec]

Fraud ?
False Advertising ?
As I understand the chargeback rules you paid for a service that you did not receive - clearly a valid reason for a charge back.
Having had an experience with a charge back not long ago I
found that after an initial rejection continuing pressure on the bank achieved the result I wanted.
Doubtful that the Bank can offer you legal advice such as "consider such event as a civil case".

Yes, I agree. However, the merchant strategy or game is to refuse compensation and the banks being in the middle with understaffed resources also refuse chargeback on a basis of correct transaction but ignoring customer protection rights on insufficient service delivery. Below are the first and the second replies from the bank.
I agree that if the bank is pushed harder it may reimburse the claim rather as a goodwill, because they may have insufficient resources to handle too difficult or complex cases.

 

[latawiec]

While I agree another warning on this forum does no harm and probably helps some people. I’m not overly a fan of the I’m so much smarter than you attitude, flyers have a variety of experience and we should cater to all such levels on this forum, save that attitude for Flyertalk where it seems to be the norm these days.

Thanks.

 

[JohnK]

I love Skyscanner but most of the OTAs offered are very questionable and not worth the hassle.

I book accommodation via Qantas hotels or Agoda. I see that booking.com owns Agoda. Explains the awful customer service I get from Agoda.

By the way I do not understand how some of these OTAs are allowed to continue operating.

 

[latawiec]

I love Skyscanner but most of the OTAs offered are very questionable and not worth the hassle.

I book accommodation via Qantas hotels or Agoda. I see that booking.com owns Agoda. Explains the awful customer service I get from Agoda.

By the way I do not understand how some of these OTAs are allowed to continue operating.

Hi John, thanks for your comment.
Re:

how some of these OTAs are allowed to continue operating.

The Booking Holdings is a very big company with many foreign partners. For victims of their operation is almost impossible to get refunds or compensation from these usually foreign OTAs. Although there is an australian booking.com.au website the ACCC could be toothless as all transactions are processed abroad.
See also what is bank's attitude regarding any insufficient services from such OTAs
It seems that banks are understaffed to be able addressing claims which are not full chargeback cases.

 

[JohnK]

@latawiec there are even issues with local OTAs.

Flight Centre owns Aunt Betty yet there are lots of issues with Aunt Betty. Customer service is almost non existent.

The saving not worth the risk of not having a seat when you turn up to airport or like you being charged for luggage that was never included in booking.

 

[latawiec]

@latawiec there are even issues with local OTAs.

Flight Centre owns Aunt Betty yet there are lots of issues with Aunt Betty. Customer service is almost non existent.

The saving not worth the risk of not having a seat when you turn up to airport or like you being charged for luggage that was never included in booking.

Yes, correct.

We all have to be aware that sites ending with ".com.au" are not necessarily local but very often foreign OTAs....

Therefore, we should avoid booking flights via OTA service, as there are too many risks and hussles with rebooking or refunds.

Be aware, and consider direct flights bookings with airlines...

 

[dajop]

I believe the eyes wide open approach is best. Booking a flight to other side of the world 9 months in advance is different to booking a short sector in 2 days time. Wouldn't do the former, but would (and have done) the latter.

We've successfully used some of the suspect OTA's for some very last minute bookings, without luggage, to travel on some short flights within SE Asia. Would not do so if it involved luggage, when the airline is charging $25 to add a bag and the OTA is adding $75 ... huge red flag.

 

[anyonebutqantas]

Credit Card provider doesn't support the chargeback as the transaction was legal and consider such event as a civil case on the service deficiency.
I am not waisting my time on reporting to ACCC but by this post spreading awareness about risk to other potential customers.

Avoid the Booking.com for flights....

You should be persistent with the chargeback request - it is a fairly blatant case of failing to deliver the service as described.

 

[latawiec]

You should be persistent with the chargeback request - it is a fairly blatant case of failing to deliver the service as described.

Thanks for your advice.

I agree that if the bank is pushed hard, ie.. telling them that I will not give up on this claim, than they may consider to reimburse my claim rather as a goodwill, but not as a chargeback because they may not have enough qualified staff to handle difficult or complex cases that refer to the deficient services as our case.

 

[PaulyB]

It’s been interesting looking at this conversation. We have booked several hotels in the last 3 months with QANTAS. While I have no complaints (in fact their support has been exemplary) I discovered that it is another example of a 3rd party relationship. In Narita the hotel kept referring to Expedia rather than Qantas which led me to think maybe I should be giving THEM the positive wrap!

It also made me wonder whether we were down the food chain regarding room requests. For example, we had previously booked several hotels direct and were able to lock in a King bed. However in Frankfurt (Booking.com) and Narita and BKK we really had to ask multiple times as the default was a twin.

Really just an observation. The cheaper prices rather than booking direct must impact our status with a hotel should it come to choosing between a direct customer or one through an agency. A bit like flying with a partner airline rather than booking direct.

 

[Ade]

I'm a bit late to this thread. But I sympathise with the @latawiec here. This is not the first time customers were caught in the baggage allowance with a variety of airlines, not just MH.

It is also worth mentioning that, MH introduced 3 fare types - Lite, Saver & Flex. When this classification was introduced (early 2023, from what my TA says), there was 0kg allowance when purchasing a Lite fare. Customers have the option to upgrade to a Saver fare for as low as $30 and to a Flex fare from as low as $150. Now obviously, these $ to upgrade will vary with the route.

With the 0kg fare, passengers (and TAs) had issues. So MH has now introduced Lite fares with 10kg allowance. So purchasing the cheapest ticket now gives at least 10kg allowance.

It wasn't really MH at issue here.

The problem is not with Malaysian

Agree with this. The issue is not with the airline itself. The issue is with the supplier that booking.com uses that automatically reverts the fare to the lowest fare bucket - so that they can retain the sale and be advertised as having the lowest fare. The issue with the lowest fare (in most cases, IME) is that, all that the pax get is a seat on the plane (and meals too, in the case of MH). I have had friends, colleagues who do the same thing.

They checked our tickets on their airline system and informed us that they have a different version of tickets on their system, which includes only the "Light economy luggage allowance" without the checked bags although our "check and pay" screenshot showed two 20kg checked bags allowance.

The airline will go after what it says on their system. I have had this happened to a mate. He booked & paid for the 20kg allowance on MH, but the consolidator that his TA uses, booked the pax on the 10kg fare. When the ticket was issued, I was with my mate and I noticed that the allowance was only 10kg. My mate alerted is TA and the TA alerted the consolidator (I initially thought the that TA mucked the booking, but later confirmed that the consolidator mucked it up).

From my perspective, the issue is not even the baggage allowance (10kg). The issue is the terms of the ticket itself. A Lite fare is very restrictive. Any change that needs to be done on a Lite fare warrants a $150 change fee, which is effectively set to $0 on a Saver fare, for the first change. So when my mate wanted to do a change of travel dates, he was slapped with a $150 change + fare difference + consolidator fee (which we argued to be waived off because we are in the pickle because of the consolidators' incompetence) and my TA waived off his service fee for the booking. He somehow felt responsible even though the issue was with the consolidator.

In any case, my mate later paid all the penalties to change his travel date.

IME the issue with all these Online TAs is that they are a money making business (which business isn't eh?) and have very little for their customers. I have been lucky that my TA is good.

 

[Ade]

Please be aware that the Booking Holdings owns the following brands: Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, Rentalcars.com, KAYAK and OpenTable, as well as through a network of subsidiary brands including Rocketmiles, Fareharbor, HotelsCombined, Cheapflights and Momondo and also GoToGate.

Flight Centre

Aunt Betty

Goes without saying, all the brands above operate on a big margin and commissions, which is not wrong. As I mentioned, it is a business (that is expected to make money), but what would be nice is along with their penchant to make money, it would be good if they also thought about their customers once in a while.

As I mentioned earlier, buying a cheap ticket from a cheap online website/company is akin to just paying for a seat on the plane. That is all there is to it. If you are looking for customer service, someone that can understand what you like as a customer, then online websites aren't the way to go.

I mostly book direct with the airline, simply because, given my status (which ain't that much, for I'm a lowly WP with QF) I get access to a better call centre (whether they can solve the issue or not is different) and it is easy for me to talk to the airline. However, most of my colleagues and mates use TAs and they don't seem to run into such issues, often. They do sometimes, but not as much as or as big an issue as the OP. I mean, $1500 in excess baggage fee is just ridiculous (especially, when you are starting a trip and that $1500 could have been put to good use on the trip, instead of paying some airline)

 

[CaptJCool]

It’s been interesting looking at this conversation. We have booked several hotels in the last 3 months with QANTAS. While I have no complaints (in fact their support has been exemplary) I discovered that it is another example of a 3rd party relationship. In Narita the hotel kept referring to Expedia rather than Qantas which led me to think maybe I should be giving THEM the positive wrap!

It also made me wonder whether we were down the food chain regarding room requests. For example, we had previously booked several hotels direct and were able to lock in a King bed.

That’s because QF hotels appears to be a “skin” overlaid someone else’s booking site

 

[SYD]

That’s because QF hotels appears to be a “skin” overlaid someone else’s booking site

QF Hotels uses Expedia.

 

[NamarrgonFlyer]

QF Hotels uses Expedia.

Not in Australia at least, they use their own subsidiary company Hooroo.

 

[JohnK]

Not in Australia at least, they use their own subsidiary company Hooroo.

Maybe not in Australia but Hooroo manages both QF and JQ hotels groups and bookings the hotels receive are actually Expedia bookings.