Which Sites ChatGPT Cites for Travel Prompts: What Skyscanner and Going.com Tell Buyers
Promptwatch's October 2026 travel citation report puts Skyscanner first and Going.com ahead of Tripadvisor; here is how a travel brand should read it before buying GEO software.
Skyscanner holds 0.78% of all ChatGPT citations for organic travel prompts, according to Promptwatch's travel and tourism citation report. It combines skyscanner.net and skyscanner.com. Going.com, a flight-deal service, comes second at 0.52%, ahead of Tripadvisor at 0.49%. Kayak follows at 0.37%, then Airbnb and Reddit at 0.27% each.
Those are small percentages, and that is the first thing a buyer should notice. Travel citations are spread thin. The window is also short: September 28 to October 4, 2026, one week in ChatGPT.
The numbers in context
The 17 domains in the chart together account for 4.18% of all travel citations. The grouping by source type looks like this:
- Booking and search sites: 2.42%
- Reviews and advice (Tripadvisor, Trustpilot, Which?): 0.86%
- Travel guides and reference: 0.37%
- Reddit: 0.27%
- Tours: 0.16%
- transportation.gov: 0.1%
Expedia sits at 0.13%, level with Lonely Planet and Time Out. The report highlights that Going.com earns more than Tripadvisor.com, which is a useful reminder that a narrow service with a clear job can beat a famous brand with a broad one.
What it does not tell you
This is not a ranking of who is best for travellers. It is a count of which domains ChatGPT cited for a set of organic prompts in one week. Several limits apply.
The week matters. Travel is seasonal, and a single seven-day window cannot show how citations move through a booking calendar. The engine matters too: this is ChatGPT, and the report does not cover Google AI Overviews or Perplexity. Do not assume the same mix holds in other languages or markets, for example for a German-language tour operator or a regional hotel group.
The charted domains are also a fraction of the whole. With 4.18% sitting in 17 domains, most travel citations go to sites that are not in the chart. If you run a boutique hotel or a local tour company, the question is whether you appear in that remainder, and a public chart cannot answer it.
Finally, correlation again. The report shows who is cited, not why. Treat any advice built on it as a hypothesis to test.
Actions that need no software
The report's advice, which we are passing along and not claiming as ours, is to keep listings accurate on Skyscanner, Kayak, Airbnb and Expedia, to collect reviews on Tripadvisor and Trustpilot, and to get featured in Lonely Planet and Time Out.
Turn that into a checklist your team can run on Monday:
- Compare your public listing details across every booking and search site: prices, dates, amenities, cancellation terms, photos. Mismatches are the easy thing to fix.
- Decide who replies to reviews. Unanswered reviews on Tripadvisor and Trustpilot read as neglect, whether or not they affect citations.
- Pitch a specific, checkable story to a guide publisher. A new route, a restored property, a seasonal offer with real dates.
- Check your own site for pages that answer travel questions in plain language: what is included, how to get there, what it costs.
One more point on scale. Because every share here is under one percent for a single domain, a move of a few hundredths of a point is well within what ordinary week-to-week variation could produce. Do not build a quarterly plan on whether Kayak edged past Airbnb. Look for gaps between source types, and for whether your own pages appear at all.
Why buyers should care about the booking-site share
The biggest block in the chart is booking and search sites. For a travel brand, that means your visibility in ChatGPT may depend partly on pages you do not own and cannot edit directly. That changes the buying question. A GEO tool that only reports whether your domain is cited misses the intermediaries that carry your offer.
So when you compare software, look for these things:
- Citations by domain and by exact URL, so you can see which listing page was used.
- Competitor and intermediary visibility, not just your own domain.
- Per-prompt detail, because "cheap flights to Lisbon" and "family resorts in Crete" will draw on different sources.
- Repeated tracking, since one run proves little.
The measurement step: Promptwatch
For a travel team, we would start with Promptwatch. Its citation analytics break citations down by domain and page, with URL positions, so you can see whether an answer to your prompt used your site, a booking engine or a review page. Citation Trends classifies each citation by content type and source type, and Page Tracker follows specific URLs, including a competitor's. If your brand is named on third-party pages without a link, offsite mentions show that too. Prompt tracking supports country-level monitoring on every paid plan, and state and city tracking starts on Business ($579 a month) and sits on every agency plan, which matters for destination marketing that targets specific origin markets.
Pricing is worth knowing before a pilot. Explore is free, with 10 prompts and ChatGPT only. Essential is $95 a month for 50 prompts, and Professional is $245 a month for 150 prompts. See our Promptwatch review for what each tier includes.
Related guides on this site: GEO tools for travel and hospitality brands, tools to track citations and sources in AI answers and where ChatGPT gets citations.
The recommendation
Do the listing and review hygiene first, because it is cheap and the report suggests it. Then measure with your own prompts, not the public chart. Promptwatch is where we would do that: it is the platform that connects which pages get cited to what your own prompt set returns, and the free tier is enough to run a first test.