Would You Trust AI to Plan Your Next Trip

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

VHValue Hacker

I think the better counter is this: AI is most useful when the trip has price traps, not just choice overload. If I’m comparing OUIGO against SNCF Connect, or checking whether a “cheap” fare becomes junk once seat choice, baggage, and change fees stack up, AI can save real money fast. That’s not generic convenience — that’s catching hidden cost before it bites you. But once the AI starts acting like a travel agent, I’m out. It can’t tell you that a 7:12 train kills your dinner plan unless you know the local rhythm, and that’s where humans still win.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

I’d flip it this way: AI isn’t winning because it knows travel better — it’s winning because it can do the annoying fare math faster than I can. On SNCF Connect, an OUIGO looks like a bargain until you tack on seat choice, extra luggage, and Wi-Fi, and suddenly the “cheap” option isn’t cheap anymore. That’s where AI actually earns its keep: not by planning your romance with Paris, but by catching the hidden fees before you’ve committed. For a bucket-list trip, that matters. I’m not handing it the soul of the itinerary, but I absolutely want it in the booking war room.

Sources:

HHost

What can AI do faster or better than humans in travel planning: finding hidden fees, comparing lots of fares quickly, and turning messy booking details into a single decision?

CPCulture Purist

AI’s best move here isn’t replacing the planner, it’s being ruthless about the fine print. I’ve watched OUIGO look like a steal until you price in seat selection, extra bags, and a change option, and that’s exactly where AI helps faster than a human with a tab open and a headache. But once it starts choosing the trip for you, it misses the part that actually changes the day: whether that 18:07 train blows up your dinner, your neighborhood walk, or your whole rhythm.

Sources:

VHValue Hacker

Culture Purist, you’re missing the trap that actually bites bucket-list travelers: base fares like OUIGO’s 19€ start, but add-ons for seat choice, power sockets, and big bags explode the cost fast. AI nails that math instantly—SNCF Connect can show you a 30€ ticket that becomes 54€ with extras, while humans tab it slowly and miss the real total. Ouigo Spain’s 20€ gate fee for unlabeled bags? AI flags it before booking. But once it picks your dinner spot after an 18:07 train, it fails—humans know the Tuesday market closes early and the café only locals use. That rhythm breaks generic plans. AI wins on fees, not texture.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

No, and the OUIGO example is exactly why I don’t let AI handle the whole trip. It’s great at catching the €5 baggage add-on, the €3 seat choice, the €9 Plus bundle, and the nasty €20 gate charge if you show up wrong, but that’s still just price math, not judgment. The minute the app starts making the call for you, it can’t tell you whether a 7:12 train wrecks your evening in a city where timing matters more than savings. I want AI as my accountant, not my conductor.

Sources:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

HHost

What are some examples of real-world travel details AI still gets wrong, even when the overall itinerary looks good?

CPCulture Purist

AI still gets the station logic wrong, and that’s not a tiny miss. OUIGO doesn’t always leave from the obvious center-city station; some Paris–Lyon trains use Marne-la-Vallée or CDG, and if you’ve built your day around Gare de Lyon, the whole plan collapses before you’ve even boarded. That’s the kind of mistake I don’t forgive. A model can price the ticket, but if it can’t tell you where the train actually starts, it’s not planning travel — it’s just shuffling numbers.

Sources:

VHValue Hacker

That station point is exactly where AI gets people: not the station name, the station logic. OUIGO can sell a Paris–Lyon trip that’s “Gare de Lyon” on one service, Bercy on another, and even Marne-la-Vallée or CDG depending on the departure, so if the model doesn’t pin the exact origin and platform flow, it’s not helping — it’s gambling with your transfer margin. And that’s the part humans catch fast: one wrong station and your “cheap” ticket turns into a taxi plus stress plus a missed dinner.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

It’s not just the station name, it’s whether the whole transfer chain is real. Gare de Lyon can be easy on paper, but if the train lands you on the wrong side of Paris, or the platform walk is brutal, AI still glosses over the friction that eats your margin. I use it to catch the cheap fare, then I verify the exact station on OUIGO or SNCF Connect myself. For me, that’s the line: let AI do the comparison, but don’t let it fake confidence about the logistics.

Sources:

HHost

How do you verify the exact departure station and platform flow before trusting an AI itinerary, and what other hidden trip risks do you check so a “good-looking” plan does not fail in practice?[1][2][3]

CPCulture Purist

I check the booking page, not the AI summary, because OUIGO will hide the nasty part in plain sight: the exact station and the add-on logic live in the fare flow, not in the headline price. If I’m seeing a Paris departure, I want the origin and the baggage/seat bundle in the same screen, because that’s where a cheap ticket turns into a false bargain fast. And I don’t stop at the train. I verify whether the station is actually where my day is anchored — Gare de Lyon is one thing, Bercy or CDG is another, and that changes the whole arrival rhythm before I’ve even left the platform.

Sources:

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

VHValue Hacker

You can’t trust the itinerary until you’ve checked the exact station line on the operator’s own flow. OUIGO’s Paris–Lyon service can leave from Gare de Lyon, Marne-la-Vallée Chessy, CDG 2, Bercy, or even Villeneuve-Saint-Georges and Melun, so an AI that says “Paris to Lyon” without the departure point is handing you a fake certainty. That’s where I use AI as a filter, not a planner. It can compare the fare, but it can’t tell you whether your morning transfer still works if the train leaves Bercy instead of Gare de Lyon, and that’s the difference between a clean trip and a missed connection.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

That’s exactly why I don’t let AI “pick” the day — because OUIGO’s own flow changes the stakes in a way a summary won’t catch. Paris departures can mean Gare de Lyon, Montparnasse, or Gare de l’Est depending on the route, and OUIGO says the extra-services bundle is where the seat choice and luggage get decided, not in some neat itinerary card. I want AI doing the price scrape, then I’m checking the operator page myself before I lock anything. If it can’t surface the exact station and the boarding rules, it’s not planning — it’s just giving me confidence I haven’t earned.

Sources:

HHost

How do you keep AI from flattening your trip into “optimized” but generic choices, and where do you want to override the machine with your own taste?

CPCulture Purist

I don’t let AI decide anything that has a neighborhood in it. If it sends me to a “best-rated” place in Le Marais instead of a bar in the 11th where nobody’s performing for Instagram, it’s already failed me. I use it for the ugly part — fares, baggage rules, station changes — then I override it with one human choice that matters: where I actually want to sit after the train. That’s where taste lives, not in the prompt. One good AI search can save twenty minutes; one bad generic dinner can waste the whole night.

Sources:

VHValue Hacker

That’s why I don’t let AI make the final call on rail days: OUIGO’s own flow can move the departure from Gare de Lyon to Montparnasse or Gare de l’Est depending on the route, and that changes your whole transfer plan before the train even leaves. The machine can crunch fare add-ons, but it won’t feel the difference between a clean station handoff and a scramble across Paris. I want it doing the price scan, not pretending the logistics are identical. On travel, the last 20 minutes before departure are where cheap trips either stay cheap or turn into a taxi receipt.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

No, I wouldn’t let AI plan the whole trip, because the failure mode isn’t the headline fare — it’s the station handoff. OUIGO can look simple in the app, but its own flow matters: you may get extra services like seat choice and luggage bundled for €9 more, and the boarding rules can change by Paris station, so a clean-looking itinerary can still blow up your margin. I want AI doing the fast arithmetic, not pretending Gare de Lyon, Montparnasse, and Gare de l’Est are interchangeable. If it can’t nail the departure point, it’s not a planner; it’s a shortcut with confidence.

Sources:

HHost

What’s the single biggest takeaway here for listeners: use AI for the logistics and fast filtering, but keep a human hand on the choices that shape the actual experience? What’s one practical test they can try on their next trip to spot where the machine should stop and their own taste should take over?

CPCulture Purist

The test I use is simple: if the AI can’t name the exact station, the baggage rule, and the boarding window from the operator’s own page, I don’t trust it with the day. OUIGO’s booking flow is where the real trip lives, because the cheap fare can change fast once you add the €9 extras bundle, and the Paris departure might be Gare de Lyon, Montparnasse, or Gare de l’Est depending on the service. That’s where human taste has to take over. AI can do the arithmetic; it can’t tell you whether you want to arrive with enough slack for a slow dinner in the 11th instead of being shoved into the nearest “best-rated” place and calling it culture.

Sources:

VHValue Hacker

That’s why I don’t trust the pretty itinerary card. OUIGO’s own pages show the real failure point is the station and the cut-off, not the city name: Paris departures can be Gare de Lyon, Bercy, Montparnasse, Austerlitz, or CDG, and the train can close boarding 5 minutes before departure. If AI can’t tell me the exact station and give me enough slack to hit that window, it’s not saving time — it’s borrowing trouble. I want it doing the fare math, then I’m the one checking the platform flow.

Sources:

BTBucket-List Tourist

I’d push the “AI plans the trip” idea down one notch. It’s best as a booking sniper, not a decision-maker. OUIGO’s own flow makes that obvious: you’ve got a 30-minute arrival rule, and access isn’t guaranteed 5 minutes before departure, so one sloppy assumption can wreck the whole day. I want AI catching the fare math and the add-ons, then I’m still checking the exact station and the boarding window myself on SNCF Connect. That’s the line for me. If the machine can’t protect the margin, it hasn’t planned anything.

Sources:

HHost

What’s the biggest unresolved question for part two: if AI is great at fare math and filtering, where exactly should it stop so the traveler still owns the real decisions? And do you want to keep pressure-testing that line with another OUIGO example or widen it to other trips too?

CPCulture Purist

The line is simpler than people want to admit: let AI do the fare hunt, then stop it the second the trip depends on station-specific timing or service rules. OUIGO isn’t a single clean Paris departure anyway; if the plan doesn’t nail the exact station and boarding window from the operator’s own flow, the itinerary is already bluffing. That’s where part two should go: not “can AI plan travel,” but “how much friction can it actually model before it starts inventing confidence.” I’d keep pressure-testing with rail first, because rail exposes the lie fast. If it can’t handle OUIGO, it definitely can’t handle a night train, a late dinner, and a neighborhood that doesn’t forgive bad timing.

Sources:

VHValue Hacker

The part two question should get more ruthless: AI shouldn’t be judged on whether it can “plan” a trip, but on whether it can survive the operator’s weird edge cases. OUIGO’s own pages already show the catch — adults start from €10 or €16 depending on the product, kids aren’t always flat-rate in the same way, and station-specific pricing changes the whole supposedly cheap deal. That’s where I stop trusting the machine. If it can’t tell me whether I’m dealing with Paris Gare de Lyon, Montparnasse Hall 3, or Gare de l’Est before I commit, then it’s not optimizing travel — it’s compressing risk into a pretty screen.

Sources: