The trust of Chinese users has significantly boosted Ctrip's (携程) business. However, the deficiencies in Ctrip's outbound tourism services have resulted in chaotic incidents, subjecting loyal Chinese customers to substandard treatment abroad. Despite the promising outlook under favorable visa-free policies in multiple countries, Ctrip faces growing concerns among users about whether it should take responsibility for industry governance during this period of rapid growth.
For both business trips and overseas travel, Chinese users tend to prioritize Ctrip. According to the latest financial report released in late August 2024, Ctrip's Q2 net revenue reached RMB 12.8 billion, showcasing significant growth. Notably, Q1 2023 marked the first full quarter after China lifted COVID-19 restrictions, leading to a dramatic rebound in domestic travel demand and a revenue growth rate of 124%.
Even with such a high base, Ctrip has maintained steady growth, largely thanks to its robust expansion in the outbound tourism sector. However, despite its leading position in this area, Ctrip has faced widespread criticism on social media for issues in after-sales service and customer safety guarantees.
With more Chinese companies venturing into international markets across industries such as tourism, finance, and technology, Ctrip has capitalized on this trend to become the go-to platform for Chinese travelers abroad. As a beneficiary of the first wave of globalization among Chinese enterprises, Ctrip has the responsibility to safeguard the experiences of outbound travelers. However, operationally, the company has often neglected to ensure customer safety and satisfaction, resulting in unpleasant travel experiences for many.
EqualOcean previously published an article titled The Unrestrained Ctrip: Discriminatory Pricing Worldwide, which analyzed the severe issue of price discrimination in Ctrip's development. This article will further analyze the loopholes and shortcomings in Ctrip's business system, and the negative experiences these cause for users, and call on Ctrip to take up its social responsibility, improve its business standards, and prioritize user safety and property.
To ensure objectivity and fairness in this analysis, EqualOcean analysts have relied solely on publicly available information for interpretation. All data comes from disclosed sources, with clear order numbers as evidence, ensuring authenticity and verifiability of the content. We strictly avoid using any undisclosed trade secrets or internal information to ensure the independence and legal compliance of the analysis.
Ctrip's Overseas Dealer Network: Large Scale, Major Gaps
In Ctrip's outbound flight and overseas tourism services, users have consistently reported issues with its service chain, including slow after-sales response, inadequate supply chain coordination, and poorly designed activities. Users frequently face challenges in handling flight delays, itinerary changes, and refunds due to Ctrip's inefficient customer service and complex refund processes. Additionally, its overseas group tours and airport transfer services suffer from poor execution and incomplete rules, leading to unsatisfactory user experiences. These issues highlight the urgent need for improvements in Ctrip's overseas service system.
As an OTA platform, Ctrip has built a robust moat relying on its supply chain and service system. According to publicly available data from Ctrip, its platforms currently have over 7,000 resource suppliers, 2,500 travel agencies, and more than 10,000 travel consultants, with products covering more than 100 countries and over 2,000 cities worldwide. OTA platforms hold significant bargaining power within the industry chain and should exercise strong control over the upstream and downstream industries. However, a quick glance at social media platforms such as Xiaohongshu, Douyin, and Weibo reveals that most negative content about Ctrip revolves around after-sales service issues in group tours, overseas partnerships, and outbound flights.
Incomplete Service Chain for Outbound Flights: User Complaints Unresolved
Compared to domestic flights, outbound flights involve foreign airlines as partners, requiring users to use visas, passports, and other documents. This makes the process more complex and demands users to allocate more time. Feedback from outbound travelers shows that many users face unresolved complaints due to Ctrip's incomplete service chain for outbound flights and issues in pre- and post-sales services.
The incompleteness of Ctrip's service chain for outbound flights is primarily evident in the slow response to after-sales complaints. Many users report encountering delayed or canceled flights during their trips abroad but receiving no assistance from Ctrip's after-sales support, further aggravating dissatisfaction and distrust toward the platform.
One Xiaohongshu (小红书) user shared a disappointing experience with a Ctrip-booked flight to Thailand. Excitedly planning a family trip, the user faced significant flight delays on the day of departure, disrupting the entire travel schedule and forcing multiple reservations to be canceled. Despite filing complaints and requesting compensation for losses caused by the delay, the user received no clear response from Ctrip after multiple attempts to communicate with customer service. The lengthy wait left the user feeling helpless and frustrated, with the entire complaint process nearly at a standstill.
Another Xiaohongshu user shared her experience: She had planned a trip to Thailand with her family and purchased round-trip tickets from Shenyang to Bangkok via Ctrip. However, her husband fell ill with a high fever, vomiting, and diarrhea shortly before the trip.
Although her condition improved slightly on the 21st, she remained unwell, prompting her to cancel the trip and apply for a refund. Despite submitting a hospital diagnosis report and having the outbound ticket refunded promptly, she faced delays with the return ticket refund. Customer service insisted on additional medical proof with specific wording such as "recommended rest for 10-20 days" or "unfit for travel," which she found unreasonable.
Despite her explanation that the content of the diagnosis report was beyond her control, Ctrip insisted on additional documentation. This made her feel frustrated, as the inability to commence the outbound journey should logically justify the cancellation of the return ticket. The incident highlights the inflexibility of Ctrip's refund policies and its lack of customer-centric approaches.
Ctrip’s overseas supply chain appears inadequate, failing to provide effective after-sales service. In another case, a user participating in a Ctrip-organized group tour in Thailand discovered that certain key activities explicitly listed in the contract were omitted. Despite repeated queries, neither the tour guide nor Ctrip's customer service provided a satisfactory response. This reflects significant shortcomings in Ctrip’s management of its overseas supply chain, particularly its inability to monitor and ensure the quality of services provided by local partners.
In another instance, a user reported that a shopping stop listed in the contract as lasting 120 minutes was extended to 3.5 hours, severely impacting subsequent plans. These lapses illustrate Ctrip’s inability to enforce agreements and manage service expectations, further undermining user trust.
A separate Xiaohongshu user recounted a frustrating experience with Ctrip's international airport transfer service during a trip to Italy over the National Day holiday. To avoid long queues for taxis at the airport, the user pre-booked a transfer service via Ctrip. However, upon arrival, they could not reach Ctrip’s customer service for assistance. Despite repeated attempts to contact the driver, calls went unanswered, or when answered, the driver's attitude was dismissive. In one instance, the driver simply responded with a curt "No" before hanging up and becoming unreachable.
Ultimately, the couple had to abandon the pre-booked service, wasting time and energy waiting and eventually queuing for a taxi. Ctrip’s lack of response to this incident left the users disappointed and disillusioned, shaking their confidence in the platform’s service reliability.
Despite numerous complaints from users, Ctrip has neither provided reasonable explanations nor offered appropriate compensation. These recurring issues expose significant weaknesses in Ctrip's overseas supply chain, particularly in service coordination and customer feedback management, leaving users' travel experiences far below expectations.
Poorly Designed Promotions: Negative Impact on User Experience
As a leading OTA, Ctrip has partnered with numerous airlines to launch various user-oriented promotions. However, in actual implementation, flaws in promotion designs have caused significant negative impacts on user experience.
For example, in April this year, Ctrip collaborated with China Eastern Airlines to offer a "Buy One Get One Free" ticket promotion. However, the program’s operational and rule-related issues reduced its attractiveness to international travelers. The participation process was relatively complicated, requiring users to book and claim the free ticket through the Ctrip app. For international travelers unfamiliar with Chinese apps, this process became an additional barrier. Furthermore, the program rules seemed to favor Chinese user habits and overlooked the needs of international users, such as restrictions on ticket usage, designated flights, and time limitations. These constraints made the promotion less user-friendly and failed to cater to the diverse requirements of international travelers, diminishing its appeal.
Why Does Ctrip Fail in Outbound User Safety Oversight?
As a leading OTA platform, why does Ctrip face so many oversight and safety gaps in key scenarios? EqualOcean believes these issues stem from Ctrip’s "one-off transaction" model and inadequate mechanisms for risk warnings and evaluations.
The "One-Off Transaction" Model Lacks Protective Mechanisms
Ctrip’s operational model reveals significant deficiencies in protective mechanisms for users during outbound travel. Many consumers choose Ctrip for booking flights, hotels, and transfer services based on trust in the platform, hoping for reliable travel guarantees in unfamiliar environments. However, when users encounter emergencies abroad, Ctrip’s support is often insufficient, particularly in cases requiring urgent assistance or rights protection.
As China’s largest travel platform by scale and market share, Ctrip has a responsibility to protect user safety and rights during international travel. However, recent user feedback reveals significant gaps in this area. From flight delays and failed airport transfers to emergencies abroad, users frequently face delayed responses or a lack of assistance, leaving them isolated and unsupported. This "sell-and-forget" transactional approach distances the platform from users once the purchase is complete, forcing users to handle problems alone. Such experiences not only erode users' sense of security but also weaken their trust in the platform.
While this approach may save costs in the short term, it ultimately risks depleting user trust and tarnishing the brand’s reputation. As outbound users increasingly view Ctrip as their "safety net," the platform’s continued disregard for users’ actual needs and potential risks abroad poses a greater challenge to its brand image. In the fiercely competitive OTA market, Ctrip must make substantial improvements to ensure the safety and rights of outbound users, thereby retaining long-term loyalty.
Inadequate Risk Warning and Assessment Mechanisms
Ctrip’s lack of robust risk warning and evaluation capabilities in its outbound tourism business exposes users to potential safety hazards. This becomes especially evident when users encounter sudden problems, often exacerbated by a lack of transparency and slow responses. Additionally, the relationship between Ctrip and its suppliers often exists in a "gray area," where unclear responsibility boundaries directly affect the user experience. Users frequently struggle to differentiate between the responsibilities of the platform and the service provider, while Ctrip's lax supplier management further aggravates the issue.
Ctrip’s process for selecting partners lacks stringent qualification reviews and risk control mechanisms, leaving service quality unguaranteed. When users encounter issues abroad, Ctrip often shifts responsibility to third-party suppliers, who may lack communication efficiency or accountability. This blurred responsibility undermines user confidence and weakens the platform's credibility.
Moreover, Ctrip’s insufficient systematic risk assessments and periodic reviews of overseas partners result in inconsistent service standards. Feedback from users indicates that cost control often outweighs service quality and safety in Ctrip’s selection of overseas partners. This loose supply chain management model fails to meet the safety expectations of users during international travel. To genuinely protect user rights, Ctrip must establish stricter standards for supplier selection, safety assessments, and qualification reviews.
Ctrip Must Shoulder Responsibilities Commensurate with Its Industry Leadership
As a benchmark enterprise in the OTA industry, Ctrip must align its responsibilities with its market position and mission. However, as the outbound tourism market expands and consumer needs diversify, Ctrip has revealed shortcomings in user experience and social responsibility. Issues such as weak supply chain oversight, slow emergency response, and inadequate supplier evaluation mechanisms have not only harmed user trust and brand reputation but also highlighted gaps in its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices.
Ctrip’s responsibilities extend beyond the domestic market. As a vital service platform supporting Chinese enterprises and individuals going global, it must ensure user safety and satisfaction abroad. This is particularly critical for business executives and corporate leaders who rely on Ctrip for efficient international travel during China’s globalization push. If Ctrip fails to guarantee the safety and convenience of outbound users, it risks becoming the first barrier to Chinese enterprises entering the global stage, jeopardizing its benchmark status and market trust.
In the future, for Ctrip to maintain its industry-leading position, it must enhance its risk control systems, elevate industry service standards, and embrace ESG principles. By establishing rigorous supplier management mechanisms, strengthening partner supervision, and optimizing emergency response capabilities, Ctrip can become a reliable travel partner for users and a crucial supporter of Chinese enterprises going global. Only through such efforts can it fulfill its commitment as a benchmark enterprise in the OTA industry, offering worry-free travel services to users and reinforcing its competitive edge in the international market.