Gonna have to side with Chelsea on this one. Expedia has no obligation to adjust travel plans based on anything other than what the user chooses. Flights are customer-chosen, not Expedia-mandated.
This is where due diligence as a customer comes in. It behooves a person, especially one that is unfamiliar with the airports and connections, to ask. I have no doubt that an Expedia rep on the phone could have answered any question about the flights if questions were asked at the outset prior to booking. I know I've had informative conversations with customer service before when I've booked flights, particularly through Dallas-Ft. Worth, which I read was a larger airport than I was used to.
Being informed is a personal responsibility. It's on the customer. The same way it's imprudent to buy a potentially hazardous product without understanding it, it's imprudent to book flights without being aware of the conditions that will likely impact your travel.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't perceive any "sides" here, just different collections of input, experience, and opinion. I experienced conversations with Expedia that indicated no concern about the construction and terminal situation at O'Hare, even though they knew about it. And of course I did do the research beforehand, which is how I knew the ATS was down Monday through Friday and arrived prepared for the bus haul. What I did not know, and what is not on any of the website info pages that I've found, is that the TSA closes all security checkpoints in the airport except for the one in Terminal 2. This is information that should be readily available through a "travel" broker, but wasn't.
An hour and a half layover should be plenty of time to make a connection. But when extenuating circumstances prevail, the vendor selling any affected product should advise the customer or make adjustments in their product. In this case, the Expedia representative indicated that it didn't matter if they knew about the checkpoint closure and ATS shutdown, because the legal window is what they go by even if it strands their customers. He did agree to open a case on it, but I have little confidence the matter will be pursued because there is no "legal" onus on them to do so.
There was no legal onus on United, either, but they immediately recognized the issue and provided relief out of good business practice and ethics. And this is precisely my point. I'm not arguing that I'd win a case against Expedia in court. I'm arguing that ethics matter, and will guarantee my repeat business with United, and ensure that I will never entrust travel plans for myself or any loved ones to Expedia ever again.-
What, exactly, was unethical about what they did? I agree that it's a much better customer service to offer travel advice, but Expedia doesn't hold itself out for that. It doesn't guarantee anything other than the flight and accommodations you booked. Those are the only things that they have any ethical obligation to provide or refund if not available.
I'm not sure what ethical considerations are not being accounted for or violated by Expedia's conduct.
Posted using Partiko Android
Bottom line is that if a vendor sells a product, there’s an expectation by the consumer that the product will work as advertised. When the product fails or is broken upon delivery, there’s an expectation that the vendor will make a refund or exchange at no cost to the consumer. The Expedia product that I purchased was broken. It doesn’t work. They made no effort to reimburse or exchange and expressed that they would continue to sell a defective product. That’s the ethical concern for me.
That's not the case. The flights you purchased were sold as advertised, and that's the point I'm making. They didn't sell you tickets to flights that didn't exist. That is where their obligation as a vendor starts and stops.
Again, I don't disagree with you that it would have been very helpful and certainly desirable for them to go the extra mile. However, they have no ethical obligation to do so. They sold you the product they advertised, as advertised. No more, no less.
Posted using Partiko Android
Honestly in any sort of airport stranding situation, they will always refer you to the airline as they are directly responsible for the flights. The airlines are the ones who set you up with hotel and food vouchers if youre going to be stranded overnight or for a long period of time, not expedia. An hour and a half when going through security and customs in a huge airport is never enough time. Ever. You set yourself up for some major stress and especially if youre unable to run through the airport to get to a gate in time, which most travellers have had to do at least once. Expedia is just the middle man. Any emergency travel related things that happen and need adjusting during your trip, you will always be refered to the airlines. Because thats all expedia will do, is speak to the airlines. They arent responsible for refunds for missed flights and arent obligated to give complimentary modes of travel to passengers who miss the connections that they, themselves chose. Expedia honestly probably doesnt know the every single protocol of every airport in the world, something as small as a security checkpoint closing after a certain time isnt on their radar considering departure and arrival gates change constantly. Expedia would have no way of knowing that you would be going through that singular checkpoint out of dozens they have in the airport to even warn you if they could. All they do is make it easier for you to see all possible flights, hotels, car rentals etc possible from all companies so you can choose which one is best for you. That's it. Everything after that is your responsibility.