Retraso de vuelo y falta de atención al cliente tras retraso de vuelo.

Me pongo en contacto con ustedes en relación con la reserva de un vuelo Shanghái (PVG) – Madrid (MAD), operado por Etihad Airways, originalmente previsto para el 27 de abril de 2026 (referencia de reserva 40-830604158), con un importe de 845 €. El 9 de marzo de 2026, con menos de dos meses de antelación, Etihad nos notificó por email una modificación sustancial del itinerario: un retraso de 24 horas sobre la salida original, que resultaba inasumible por compromisos laborales ineludibles el 29 de abril de 2026. Ante esta situación, intentamos contactar de forma reiterada con el servicio de atención al cliente de Booking, tanto por chat como por teléfono, durante varios días, sin obtener respuesta ni asistencia alguna. Disponemos de prueba de ello: una captura de pantalla del chat en directo, donde el sistema cierra la conversación de forma automática y unilateral, y una grabación de vídeo de la llamada telefónica, en la que el sistema automático informa de que solo se atienden vuelos con salida en menos de 5 días y cuelga la llamada. También contactamos con Etihad, que nos confirmó que, al haber adquirido los billetes a través de Booking, no podían gestionar directamente nuestra solicitud, quedando la gestión exclusivamente en manos de Booking. Ante el silencio de Booking, el riesgo inminente de quedarnos sin transporte de regreso y viendo que el precio de los billetes seguía subiendo, tras 11 días de incertidumbre nos vimos obligados a comprar dos billetes nuevos, también a través de Booking (referencia 40-917320639), por un importe de 1.727 €, es decir, más del doble del coste original. Booking solo ofreció una solución pasados más de 10 días sin que pudiéramos contactar con ellos ni por teléfono, ni por chat, ni por email, limitándose a reembolsar el importe del billete original (845 €) Tenemos pruebas visuales de como la operadora nos colgaba el telefono reiteradas veces.. Dicho reembolso no compensa el sobrecoste que tuvimos que asumir como consecuencia directa de la falta de asistencia. Enviamos una reclamación formal a Booking el 10 de abril de 2026, que reiteramos el 8 de mayo de 2026, sin obtener respuesta satisfactoria en ningún caso. SOLICITO el reembolso de 880 €, diferencia entre el coste del billete sustitutivo (1.727 €) y el del billete original ya reembolsado (845 €), así como una respuesta diligente ante la falta de atención al cliente sufrida durante todo el proceso. La conducta descrita constituye un incumplimiento del deber de diligencia y asistencia que corresponde a Booking.com como agencia de viajes/intermediaria frente al consumidor, en los términos del Texto Refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007) y del artículo 1101 del Código Civil, al haber causado un daño económico cuantificable derivado directamente de la falta de respuesta y de la imposibilidad de gestionar el cambio de vuelo en un plazo razonable

------------------------------------ Lorizer Bortie (CS Global) 23 jul 2026, 15:41 CEST Your ref: Case Number:15186484 Our ref: 40-830604158 Dear Sir/Madam, Firstly, please accept our sincere apologies for the unintended delay in coming back to you. In response to the above-referenced claim, please find attached our statement. We hope and trust to have informed you sufficiently Kind Regards, Ms L.Bortie CS Legal Support Advisor Copyright © 1996–2026Booking.com. All rights reserved This e-mail was sent byBooking.com, Herengracht 597, 1017 CE Amsterdam, Netherlands [K73KE4-3REK5]

Following receipt of your formal response dated 23 July 2026 (Case No. 15186484), we hereby formally rebut the version of events provided by GotoGate International AB, which contains serious inaccuracies contradicted by the evidence in our possession. Regarding the date of notification of the major schedule change GotoGate states that they received notice of the major schedule change from the airline on 25 March 2026. However, Etihad Airways notified us directly of this change on 9 March 2026, as evidenced by Etihad's email in our possession. During the 16 days between these two dates, we attempted to manage the change with the intermediary, which did not even have the change registered in its system. This gap is a systemic failure of the intermediary chain, not attributable to the consumer. Regarding the number of contact attempts GotoGate states that we made only one contact attempt on 16 March 2026. This is false. We made between 4 and 5 attempts via live chat and phone calls, for which we hold documentary and audiovisual evidence: A screenshot of the chat on 16/03/2026 proving that it was GotoGate's own system that automatically closed the session after 30 minutes of waiting, without any agent attending the query. GotoGate describes this as the customer "voluntarily disconnecting", which is false and directly refuted by this screenshot. Video recordings of phone calls in which the automated system stated that only flights departing within 5 days were handled, hanging up without allowing access to any human agent. The fact that GotoGate has no "records of successful contact" does not evidence a lack of attempts: it evidences that their systems were inaccessible. Regarding the alleged "voluntary cancellation" of 25 March 2026 GotoGate characterises the cancellation as a free choice. It was not. By that date, after more than two weeks without being able to obtain any assistance, we had already been forced to purchase replacement tickets for €1,727 due to unavoidable work commitments on 29 April 2026. The financial damage was already an irreversible fact by the time GotoGate finally received the airline's notification. The cancellation of the original ticket was the only reasonable option available, not a free decision. Regarding Booking.com's responsibility as platform operator Until receiving your formal response, we were unaware that the actual intermediary for our ticket was GotoGate International AB. This information was not clearly communicated during the booking process, which may constitute a breach of the transparency obligations under EU Regulation 2019/1150 and the Digital Services Act. Spanish consumer protection law (TRLGDCU) protects consumers against all agents in the commercial chain regardless of contractual arrangements between them. We fully maintain our claim of €880 as compensation for the additional cost caused directly by the inaccessibility of customer service during the critical period (9 to 25 March 2026), pursuant to Articles 1101 and 1124 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article 21 of the TRLGDCU. We make available the evidence referenced above: Etihad's email dated 9 March 2026, the screenshot of the automatically closed chat session, and video recordings of the phone calls. Samuel Martín Canoura and Lúa Mansilla Álvarez