Airline Hotel Booking UX Audit: Why These Hidden Features Deserve Better Design

Most travelers don't expect to finish a hotel booking on an airline website, and honestly, I didn't either. But I do think these pages matter. Even if the final purchase happens on Booking or Expedia, airline “Stays” pages are great for quick price checks and availability. If the UX is clear and inclusive, people will stay; if it's clumsy, they bounce. That's why I spent time auditing the hotel flows on Delta, American, and United: to see whether these “hidden” features are leaving value on the table.

My opinion up front: better design here could convert more customers. If airlines make these flows trustworthy—accurate search, persistent language/currency, and a clean checkout—more travelers would book hotels right after booking flights. It's convenient, and convenience wins.

How I Ran the Audit

I asked participants to complete three realistic tasks while I recorded their screens, actions, and times. I wanted to capture both the numbers and the “why” behind the friction.

• 1. Book any room in Los Angeles
• 2. Book a suite at W Boston
• 3. Try booking in a non-English language and foreign currency

What the Numbers Whispered

On Delta, booking a single room averaged 3.3 minutes. Similar tasks on American and United averaged 1–2 minutes. Attempts to use other languages/currencies were often unsuccessful or only half-working across all three. The headline isn't just “slow vs. fast”, it's that internationalization issues compound friction.

Where Things Fell Apart (and Why)

Delta Airlines

• Ambiguous IA (like “Cars & Stays”) sent users to the wrong place.
• Search showed partner brands instead of real hotel results.
• No “special request” field at checkout for basics like late check-in.
• Language quietly reset to English when entering Delta Stays.
• No currency selection beyond USD.

American Airlines

• Missing/outdated listings (e.g., W Boston not surfacing).
• Only four supported languages across the experience.
• Search relevance felt inconsistent and incomplete.

United Airlines

• Language switching unreliable; currency labels caused confusion.
• Prices varied inconsistently across currencies.

My Take: These Pages Are Quietly Useful

Even if travelers don't always convert here, they still use these pages to compare prices and check availability. That's valuable. A clean airline flow can build trust and keep the traveler in the ecosystem. In other words: this isn't just a partner integration; it's a brand experience.

The moment a user checks price and availability is a moment to earn trust. If the UX is smooth, users will happily book without opening another tab.

What I'd Change Tomorrow

• Delta: Split “vacation,” “cars,” and “hotels” into clearly named, independent flows. Add a visible “Special Request” module. Ship full multi-language support and persist the chosen language into Stays.
• American: Refresh hotel data more frequently and fix gaps (like major properties not showing). Tighten search to match user intent.
• United: Clean up translation taxonomy, ensure currency conversion is consistent, and keep i18n controls persistent in the header.

How I Prioritized Issues

I timestamped every friction point and mapped it to a finding for traceability. Prioritization used a simple triad: frequency (how often it happened), severity (how much it blocked progress), and impact on completion. This borrows from classic heuristic evaluation, but keeps the outputs actionable for a roadmap.

Why This Matters for Airlines

Travelers already trust the airline with the hardest part: the flight. If the hotel flow feels equally trustworthy—accurate inventory, clear language/currency, predictable checkout—many people (including me) would just finish the booking there. It's not about adding more features. It's about removing friction at the moment of decision.