We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 5.23.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.23.1, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Price keeps rising
Scammed us — Me and my family purchased 5 tickets 6 months before leaving the country. We had our trip planned ahead of time. After paying all five tickets in full, we get a call 9 days before our departure saying we needed to pay an…
The Best! — I have more than twenty flight finders on my phone, some well known, and others not. I tried to book this flight on many, and couldn’t find it for less than 200 anywhere. On one site it got me the same price, but I was…
If I could give zero stars I would — So now when you find a good price you type in your credit card info and you hit process but it won’t do anything else. Then you call their 800 number and they tell you in broken English that it’s…
Reports of unexpected charges
Worst Call Center Ever — I had an emergency got hospitalized, lost my fly and apparently this people make policies that even on an Emergency event they won’t give a refund or credit back. Don’t buy fly ticket on this App.
I don’t know how this app or site can be 4.9 star reviews SCAM SCAM SCAM — This app/site is a joke I booked a ticket on Christmas 12/25/2025 and I bought all the insurance in case of cancellation if something came up then on 12/27/2025…
They are not clear about the charges — I am writing to express my profound dissatisfaction with your company's service and billing practices. The initial challenge was the extraordinary difficulty in reaching your Customer Service…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.