MilesBuzz! - FlyerTalk in Today's Wall Street Journal!

There is an article in today's (3/26/01) Wall Street Journal on the "Hilton on $0 a Day" glitch. I can't give the URL, since it's subscription only. But it should be in the hard-copy newspaper, and FlyerTalk actually gets the following mention:

"Despite the fact that Travelocity was only one of many avenues of distribution, 60% of the zero-rate reservations were booked through the service, presumably because the tip posted via FlyerTalk, the online bulletin
board frequented by travelers...."

Flyertalk, a legend in its own time! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Did the article cover the followup discussion found elsewhere on FT, and that it appears this was a deliberate deception by the property itself? And what action Hilton International is taking with the management of that property. I'd be very interested in this side of the story.

Here is the article's explanation for the glitch:

"When personnel in Mexico City uploaded the hotel rates to Hilton's reservation system during the last week in February, one specific room and rate code was inadvertently left blank, which translated by the computer into a room rate of zero."

That's about as deep as they go into the technical aspects of the glitch. They also point out that Hilton's official policy is that, as an act of goodwill, they will allow one free night to those who made the $0 reservations, but won't honor multiple nights.

By the way, the article also includes a quote from Joe Brancatelli, who I believe is an InsideFlyer contributor.

I have the print version of the Journal but could not find this article at all...



------------------
Al

Originally posted by BBRebozo:
Here is the article's explanation for the glitch:

"When personnel in Mexico City uploaded the hotel rates to Hilton's reservation system during the last week in February, one specific room and rate code was inadvertently left blank, which translated by the computer into a room rate of zero."

That's about as deep as they go into the technical aspects of the glitch. They also point out that Hilton's official policy is that, as an act of goodwill, they will allow one free night to those who made the $0 reservations, but won't honor multiple nights.




That is the smartest thing from Hilton's perspective to do. It sets them apart from United as to honoring the "reservation," and yet, if anyone is really going to take them up on the offer, they will have to pay for the airfare to get there! Not a very worthwhile trade off!!



[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 03-26-2001).]

Computer Glitch Allows Travelers
To Book Free Hilton Hotel Rooms
By JANE COSTELLO
WSJ.COM


Marc Tacchi wants to spend a few cheap nights at the Mexico City
Airport.

Mr. Tacchi, a pilot for an air-ambulance service in Winnipeg, Canada,
logged
on to Travelocity.com on March 11 to take advantage of a pricing glitch
he'd
learned about from an online discussion group. He clicked on the
hotel-reservation section of the site and booked a total of three hotel
rooms
for two separate stays at the Hilton Mexico City Airport Hotel in July
and
August. The online service quoted a nightly room rate of zero.

Mr. Tacchi printed out the confirmation codes and called Hilton's
central
reservation service to verify the rate.

United Airlines Reverses Course, Will Honor Web-Glitch Fares (Feb. 19)

United Site Quotes Super-Low Fares, Balks at Honoring the Ticket Prices
(Feb.
15)

* * *
United Airlines www.ual.com (http://www.ual.com)


Travelocity.com www.travelocity.com (http://www.travelocity.com)


Hilton Hotels www.hilton.com (http://www.hilton.com)


FlyerTalk www.flyertalk.com (http://www.flyertalk.com)

"I explained to the agent that I had booked the rooms online for
nothing, due
to a glitch," he says. "She laughed and asked me to hold."

After speaking with a supervisor, the Hilton agent confirmed the
reservation
and faxed Mr. Tacchi a copy of the confirmation.

"She asked if there was anything else she could help with," Mr. Tacchi
says.
"I laughed and said 'Hilton had done enough.' "

But Mr. Tacchi's hopes of a romantic room for two overlooking the
runway were
dashed when he received an e-mail note from Travelocity on March 19
indicating that the hotel was unable to confirm the room, and that he
should
"go back online to re-book a new reservation."

Hilton plans to contact the individuals who booked between one and 30
nights
at the hotel to determine if they plan visit Mexico City. "We want to
find
out if their intention is real," says Carlos Behnsen, the hotel's
director of
sales. "We had people booking 10, 15 even 30 nights. This is an airport
property; the average length of a stay is 1.1 nights."

Emphasizing the fact that this was clearly a mistake, Hilton stands by
its
decision not to honor the zero rates. As an "act of goodwill" they will
offer
each person one free night at the hotel. Those who wish to stay
additional
nights will be offered the lowest available rate.

And while some guests may be disappointed to learn the corporation
won't be
underwriting their entire stay, Hilton spokeswoman, Jeanne Datz, points
out
that a free room at the chain's Mexico City hotel may not be such a
steal,
after all.

"The restaurant has a wonderful French chef, but there's really no
reason to
stay there unless you're in transit," she says.

Mr. Tacchi is one of a group of travelers who were quick to take
advantage of
the latest online computer glitch to offer travelers something for
little or
nothing. Last month, United Airlines' Web site mistakenly quoted
customers
fares as low as $27 for international flights. At first, the airline
refused
to honor the tickets, but reversed its decision after an outcry from
the
ticket holders.

Christina Nielson, a computer technician from Salt Lake City, also
reserved a
room at the Mexico City hotel at the zero rate on March 11. When she
checked
her e-mail the next day, she had a note from Travelocity saying that
her
rooms couldn't be confirmed. Undaunted, Ms. Neilson logged back on to
Travelocity on March 12 and found that the zero rate was still
available. She
booked two rooms for the end of September.

"At first, I felt like it was a fun Sunday afternoon gamble; nothing
ventured
nothing gained," says Ms. Nielson, who notes that the rate was posted
online
from Sunday through Wednesday. "I feel that the reservations should be
honored. Both Travelocity and Hilton knew about the glitch on Sunday.
If they
didn't intend to honor it, I shouldn't have been able to book it on
Tuesday."

But while the customer service agents on duty at both companies may
have been
familiar with the problem, executives at both Travelocity and Hilton
were
unaware of the situation for several days.

When the issue was brought to the attention of officials at Hilton's
headquarters in Los Angeles, it took time to sort out the details and
determine how to proceed, given that the Mexico City property is a
franchise
hotel not operated directly by Hilton. By the time the mistake had been
identified and corrected, Hilton had a total of 80 reservations booked
at the
zero rate.

When personnel in Mexico City uploaded the hotel rates to Hilton's
reservation system during the last week in February, one specific room
and
rate code was inadvertently left blank, which translated by the
computer into
a rate of zero. That information was then transmitted into the system
that
supplies data to Web-based travel services, as well as Hilton's own Web
site.
The bargain rate remained in cyberspace for a total of three weeks.

Despite the fact that Travelocity was only one of many avenues of
distribution, 60% of the zero-rate reservations were booked through the
service, presumably because the tip posted via FlyerTalk, the online
bulletin
board frequented by travelers like Mr. Tacchi. A spokesman for
Travelocity
had no comment on the situation.

Before the advent of e-commerce, only travel industry insiders had
access to
all the airfares and hotel rates available to consumers. Having a
finite
number of experienced users interfacing with the computer systems meant
that
any glitches or mistakes in loading data could be easily contained. The
proliferation of online travel sites during the past three years has
now put
this raw data directly in the hands of customers, some of whom will
immediately seize upon any obvious errors in order to try and get
something
for nothing.

"People have to know that 'free' is not a reasonable option," says Joe
Brancatelli, a consultant to Biztravel.com. "But if any of them
received a
confirmation from a human being, Hilton should honor it.

[This message has been edited by mtacchi (edited 03-26-2001).]

mtacchi,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think Jane Costello's employers would appreciate your posting her personal email to you along with the entire text of a copyrighted article.

It commendable that you wanted to share some good info with the FT community, but it would be best if you edited your post a bit.

Thanks.

Originally posted by essxjay:
mtacchi,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think Jane Costello's employers would appreciate your posting her personal email to you along with the entire text of a copyrighted article.

It commendable that you wanted to share some good info with the FT community, but it would be best if you edited your post a bit.

Thanks.

Unless asked not to (or live in Oz), I see no reason to expect the email not to be forwarded or re-distributed.
Freefaller12k



[This message has been edited by freefaller12k (edited 03-26-2001).]

I peronally think essxjay's comments are right on, but that they also reflect a very interesting divergence of ethics found among those of us who inhabit this virtual world of the internet. Like her, I would never repost, or otherwise distribute, someone'semail correspondence to me, because I consider personal correspondence like this, on the net or elsewhere, to be something shared by the individuals involved. If I wanted to share such a message with friends or others, I would ask if I might do so from the person who sent me the original message, and only upon their consent, retransmit the message. It is quite clear, however, that many others -- and particularly those under 30 -- take the view that anything exchanged over the WWW is open to anyone else to share. This is why some of us think Napster is infringing on people's property, while others embrace it as the greatest way of sharing music yet invented.

More importantly, the agreement you made with FlyerTalk specifically says that you cannot post copyrighted material. Excerpts are fine under the generally accepted copyright rules, but not the entire work. That is why posting links, or clipping a paragraph or two is acceptable. This is considered "Fair Use", or at least leading people to the web site of the copyright owner.

While some of you may think this arcane, and that there is no law on the internet, you are quite wrong. There is a world wide convention on copyright, and the principals can easily be applied to messages on the WWW. Why do you think the courts ruled as they have in the Napster case?

But in this case, I just feel it is simple courtesy to let someone who has emailed you something, know that you plan to post it on a public forum. If they object, then you should respect their decision.

I did consider posting it, but figured that 99% is a news article on the available on the net. As far as the personal email goes, its pretty no discript. If there had been anything personal,it would not have been posted. As it was, I felt it lent to the authenticity.

Regardless, I'm going to Mexico City..

Marc

Of all the people in the world, newspaper reporters know best of all the risks of being quoted. Jane would not have sent the e-mail in the first place if she had been concerned about one single word that she wrote. You can be 100% certain of that.

Posting the article in full is another matter. The WSJ probably doesn't like it, but in the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty minor sin. Just my 2 cents.

Bruce

Originally posted by mtacchi:
I did consider posting it, but figured that 99% is a news article on the available on the net. As far as the personal email goes, its pretty no discript. If there had been anything personal,it would not have been posted. As it was, I felt it lent to the authenticity.

Regardless, I'm going to Mexico City..

Marc


Just for 1 free night??

1 Free night???


You bet. About 10 other couples have all got Res. @ Mexico City. We all get free travel. One big Piss Up.

Originally posted by mtacchi:
1 Free night???


You bet. About 10 other couples have all got Res. @ Mexico City. We all get free travel. One big Piss Up.

Do you work for the airlines, so that you get free travel??

Also, is Mexico where you are going to Honeymoon? If so, I assume you will now extend it to include more than the Mexico City Airport Hilton! Any other places you expect to see?

Work for Gov't Air Ambulance, but have agreements with majors. Z fares (5% of Y). No, I am planning my honeymoon in Rome @ the end of the summer. I just love the St. Regis.

Good for you! Do you plan on spending more than 1 night at the Hilton?

Depends on the rate offered for the other nights. Still nothing from Hilton itself.

Good Luck!!

BTW, make reservations in advance to see the Borghese Gallery and the recently reopened Domus Aureus, which is what remains of Nero's famous Golden Palace. They are well worth it!

A well known FlyerTalker told me in NYC on the weekend Hilton had offered him 50,000 points NOT TO GO to Mexico to use his booking. Any other similar approaches?

Another FT'er at Idlewild Friday night told me UA had given him $2000 for NOT taking his 4 x booked $27 cheap fares to Paris.

------------------
~ Glen ~

Originally posted by mtacchi:
I did consider posting it, but figured that 99% is a news article on the available on the net

Just because it's "on the net" does not mean that it can be copied and posted elsewhere. Copyright law applies on the net just as anywhere else. If I were the WSJ I would consider your post above a violation of my copyright, especially given that you have to be a member to see it on WSJi. They receive no compensation (monetary or otherwise) from their work if it's posted here. Now whether they want to pursue it or not is another matter.

-- jab

Edited for a typo

[This message has been edited by jabber (edited 03-29-2001).]