MilesBuzz! - ETHICS - "$0" Rate Errors & Demands to Honor

I just read an e-mail that made me sick. As many of you know Hilton recently had a glitch in their reservations system that allowed people to book an unlimited number of rooms at certain properties for $0/night. Now we're not talking about some crazy reduced rate, but $0/night!!

Hilton recently made, what I think is pretty darn generous, an offer to those holding these reservations - "Everyone will be offered the first night for free, and then the remainder of the nights will be charged at 50% off the best available rate"

That's not bad, right? However some of our fellow members have decided to try to put the hammer to Hilton to honor this $0 rate. One guy even has 300 rooms reserved at one freaking hotel and is upset that they won't honor the glitch. This is not a $29 fare to Paris (which was also crazy) or some great internet price that someone found. If you get a rate of $0/night you know darn well that's it's a pure error.

It reminds me of my newspaper advertising days when something weird would happen and a product on sale for $100 is printed as $00 - so idiots demand that the store give it to them for $00 because it was printed.

Don't get me wrong, I have problems with all of the crap that major hotels and airlines put me through to get decent rates & fares. Just like most people on this board I've been burned on a $2400 fare that they're offering some recreational traveler for $179. But exploiting obvious errors is not the way to even the playing field - it's just dishonest.

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

I feel the same way!

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

Why are you bringing this to FT?? This has nothing to do with FT...and you know what I'm getting at...should be addressed elsewhere...agree or disagree with the e-mail...it's a totally DIFFERENT forum and I think the moderators should lock this one up.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by IM4Travel:
Why are you bringing this to FT?? This has nothing to do with FT...</font>

I beg to disagree -- in fact, it has everything to do with FT since there have been a great many threads here about $0 hotel nights, the UA fare to Paris, etc...

There have also been discussions of the legal/ethical issues involved in expecting the companies to honor such pricing errors.

Since such fares are frequently posted here, it seems fair game for a discussion of this type.

fwiw, I agree with the first 2 posters here on the issue presented.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by IM4Travel:
Why are you bringing this to FT?? This has nothing to do with FT.</font>

I dunno, I think this has to do with FT. It's about travel and hotels and ethics and those fares that get advertised on here from time to time.

I don't see at all how it has anything to do with miles, though.

If the title was amended to say $0 rates and demands to honor or award massive amounts of points in exchange for giving up the reservation, then you would have your connection to the Milesbuzz.... the OP simply left out that part of the demand equation. Thus, IMHO, the thread is appropriate for the forum, same as the other ethics threads concerning the collection of miles/points found in the buzz.

This particular email and action also rubbed me the wrong way, having 300 nights booked at $0 to me is a bit of a stretch (although I am not sure exactly why 300 is wrong but 2,3,or 6 probably wouldnt bother me so much).

Anyone think the $0 rate is a different case than the $29 paris fare? I would have no problem compelling UA to honor that fare or any other, as the airlines can't have it both ways, once you say ticket to the computer system, if you want to change a ticket, $100 fee, and forget about refunding any cheap (and legitimate fares) so why should UA be able to say no, changed my mind? But I find it a little different with a $0 hotel room, hell I might even say a $0 airline fare would be valid, scratch that, I would say it is valid. Maybe it is because the airlines treat everyone like sh*t whereas the hotels don't act quite so despicably (generally speaking of course), in my adopted homeland, they actually usually treat you incredibly well.

People making trips (just because of the rate, or otherwise) and staying a few nights, well, ok, just like some people did/planned to (I don't know how mexico turned out I stopped paying attention) go to Mexico just because of the $0 rate, that seems ok, but I wouldn't expect the hotel to house me for 300 days/nights for free.

Is it different if you planned to go for the free night versus if you just made the res. for the free night to get compensation? discuss... (because I am still thinking about this whole idea).

cheers.

I also agree with the first posters. I must admit that hiltons offer seems very fair. I feel that it is appropriate because we do talk about ethics of deals, airlines and travel in general. Additionally I rarely have time to check all flyer talk areas.

I think that it applys to miles in that anyone who wants this deal honored is also going to think they should get miles for the stay. They will just ask for the miles per stay not hilton points since there is no dollar balance.

------------------
Robert

From a legal point of view, I think that a $0 hotel room (or airfare) and a $29 airfare are different animals.

In the $0 scenario, nothing has been exchanged, so in the eyes of the law, a contract may not exist.

In the $29 scenario, money has changed hands and a contract has been entered into. The provider is thus obligated to honour that contract.

If, somehow, you managed to book 300 $29 fares to France (take *all* your friends) then I feel the airline is obligated to honour all 300 tickets. They have made the conscious decision to move to an automated model -- with all the risks that this entails. If they're letting the computer make contractual obligations, they must abide by those obligations.

Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

Well, I booked a stay for my parents on Hilton.com at the rate of $20/night for a resort in SC.
The hotel was not willing to honour the rate, and Adam Burke / flyertalk@hilton.com did not manage to find a resolution regarding this as of now. I am quite disappointed on that issue - the hotel only offered their full rack rate for the entire stay. Meanwhile, due to this, my parents had to miss out on their vacation in SC.

I think the holder of 300 nights is abusing the "system". Unless one is actually able to use the reserved rooms there need be no compensation.

The situation with a $20 rate for one reservation is quite different. That rate should be Hhonored.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by IM4Travel:
Why are you bringing this to FT?? This has nothing to do with FT...and you know what I'm getting at...should be addressed elsewhere...agree or disagree with the e-mail...it's a totally DIFFERENT forum and I think the moderators should lock this one up.</font>

I'm not quoting to disagree but to say I too think another thread may have been better but, then again, I'm glad its here or I may never had read it.

I know just the tiniest bit about disclosure law, enough to be dangerous. Anyway, I believe it works that Hilton didn't have to give squat if they didn't want to. I was an obvious mistake to any average-thinking person.

With his not readily accepting Hilton's generous offer, I'm afraid the 300-night guy has only served to announce to the world his greed and low character. (Actually, if Hilton wanted to look innocent and willing, against the bad, someone-no-one-wants-to-be tourist, then this was great marketing!)

Uh, that was half off the most inexpensive rate, not rack rate?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">They have made the conscious decision to move to an automated model -- with all the risks that this entails. If they're letting the computer make contractual obligations, they must abide by those obligations.</font>

Does it matter if it is airlines or hotels?

If you buy a $29 UA ticket to France and the airline says we goofed,and we are willing to fly you to France for free but we will charge you 1/2 of the lowest "real" fare to get back.---Would you be happy with this?

Everyone knows that a $29, even a $100 return trip to France is a mistake. I see no differnce between booking this and the $0 hotel rates. 300 rooms may sound excessive but who knows, maybe this person is having a wedding or other family party.


If Hilton wanted to be smart about this they would honor the rate. I doubt this person is going to be able to stay all 300 nights that he/she has booked.


[This message has been edited by Tango (edited 08-31-2001).]

I think they should honor a reservation made in good faith (say a single room for a couple of nights,) but the guy who booked the 300 rooms took those rooms as "hostages" in order to leverage free goodies.

I think Hilton should adopt the credo of the former Soviet Union:

We do not negotiate with hostage-takers.

Why? Because it only encourages more people to take hostages.

I also firmly disagree that this issue shouldn't be discussed here on FT.

When Hilton (or any travel provider) accept a reservation, they make a committment. Period. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts. If a confirmed reservation is not ALWAYS honored by a travel provider, then no one is safe. Ever.

Where is the line to be drawn?

Hotels HAVE in the past offered zero dollar/night rates as part of special promotions, or to attract attention. Should the burden be on the consumer to double and triple check it?

Yes, in this case, the 300 nights person is CLEARLY absuing the system, and I feel that he should be ashamed of himself. His intent was presumably to hold Hilton hostage over this. However, he didn't force Hilton to load a $0/night rate into the system. He requested it, and got a confirmation number. Doing so make him a bad person, but he is a bad person with a committment from Hilton for free rooms.

I see no problem (ethical or otherwise) in trying to get the business to commit to what they advertised. If it was their own glitch, then it becomes their problem. If it was a third party glitch, then they should pass the costs along to the third party that made the glitch. Either way the consumer should get what was advertised. As for the 300 rooms, thats a tough one, from Hilton's perspective, I wouldn't do it, just because the guy is being a total a#$(*&e

$29 airfare to CDG; again same as the hotel rooms.. they should honor it and I would try to get it at the advertised price

Finally YES, this should be discussed here

IMHO

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tango:
Does it matter if it is airlines or hotels?

Everyone knows that a $29, even a $100 return trip to France is a mistake. I see no differnce between booking this and the $0 hotel rates. 300 rooms may sound excessive but who knows, maybe this person is having a wedding or other family party.
</font>

Whether it's hotels or airlines is immaterial -- the same logic applies to both. The difference (and it's crucial) is that in the $29 example, money has changed hands. A contract has been entered into.

In the $0 rate example, nothing "tangible" has changed hands -- hence no contract has been entered into.

These whole issues would disappear if hotels would use half a brain to figure out what prices to post in the reservations system.

I recall working for a major luxury hotel chain that had $0 rates all over the place, yet our reservations provider gave me idiotic excuses about why the $0 rates existed and refused to remove them. Of course we never honored them, but nor were the powers that be at all concerned about them.

I have no idea about whether Hilton should honor the rates, but maybe they should think about automated controls that prevent confirmation numbers being generated for reservations made at $0, without a manual override.

Money does not have to change hands for a contract to be in place. If I reserve a full fare ticket, I am allowed to wait until just before flight departure before I pay for it. Using the logic that money has to change hands would mean the airline would be free to cancel my reservation whenver they want to unless I have given them money.

I agree with both TravelManKen and MatthewClement.

Further, I have seen airlines sell $29 fares to places far and wide. These were not mistakes. They were promotions. So there could be an expectation of this kind of price being real.

I've never seen any hotel or airline sell anything for zero. Buy one, get one free...yes. But just have rooms listed at zero...no.

I think it all boils down to intent and reasonable expectation. In this case, IMHO, there is no question of what's right and wrong. But that's just me.

Hilton did more than enough. In fact, I feel a bit sorry for them. I think that if they weren't overly concerned about bad press (which happened to United), they would have just said no. In that sense, I think they are the victims of a form of extortion.

But hey, it was their error and they are big boys and can handle it. So I'm not crying tears for them.

TravelManKen, I believe the legal term (at least here in the U.S.) to be "consideration." In order for most contracts to be binding, there has to be consideration. An exchange of tangible value between both parties.

Tango, what you are talking about is a "promise to pay" which is a different part of contracts. Many contracts are entered into without funds exchanging until some future date.


[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 08-31-2001).]

A few answers to questions:

- Why Post This Here? I made sure not to expose the identity of the person I referenced and this is an issue that comes up every few months on FT.

- Why Miles? This is all about exploiting programs to earn miles/points in a dishonest method.

- Is $0 the same as a low price (i.e. $20/nt)?
No it is not. It's reasonable to conclude that a hotel/casino/resort is offering some type of promo in the 20's - but not $0.

I understand what people have said about hotels running promos and airline contracts - however if they contact you to make a correction and even make you a reasonable offer, I think it's wrong to hold them hostage. Just my view.

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tango:
Money does not have to change hands for a contract to be in place. If I reserve a full fare ticket, I am allowed to wait until just before flight departure before I pay for it. Using the logic that money has to change hands would mean the airline would be free to cancel my reservation whenver they want to unless I have given them money.</font>


This may vary from airline to airline, but the airline is reserving a seat for you in that class of service until the day of departure, but the actual fare is only guaranteed for 24 hours, or in some situations, until midnight of the same night. Full coach fares don't change all that much, so generally there isn't going to be a difference, but next time you book one, check and see if the fare is held and not just the seat.

------------------
Have a great day!!
~~Missy~~

Just a little bit more of my legal half-knowledge -

Ethically, this thread seems to side with the Hotel and, legally, believe it or not, ethics comes into play as well because, so often, as in this case, intent is an issue.

For example, I personally never would have noticed this "deal" because I have seen it so frequently when I pass over internet promos or ebay offerings that say hotels are free, and then on the next page, if one pays the airfare or v.v. They end up being no-deals if one reads on, as they are instructed to do.

There are many questions here with regards to intent. Were the rooms bought from such a promo or ad, such a place that one may usually find $0 as a price? And, if so, where was the rest of the no-deal one expects to find? Or were they had directly from a travel website or the airline's site itself, where it is certainly not common to find a rate for $0.

Also, what about the airline's intent. What if this was a marketing ploy albeit really, really backhanded, although look at PremEx's post where he states he feels sorry for them. Hey, you can't help it. I do too! Or, did the hotel know this could happen and just let it go?

On a legal level, this could go on forever. I would just like to see the lawyer that wants to go back and forth with Hilton's lawyers. But then again, they would probably settle to reduce costs and notoriety ... and, in the meantime, the lawyer could get some press ...

The real question here is how do we know it's a mistake.

I have legally stayed at hotels for $1 a night. With taxes and fees, I've paid $8.95 for the hotel for a weekend. The hotel was just fine with that.

Of course it's a little different in that I know that Priceline kicked in $20 bucks a night as a special bonus. Of course, I don't technically have to know that -- from my point of view, I paid $1 a night, or $4.50 a night including taxes/fees, for the hotel.

So what's not to say that if I see a $1 rate availably conventionally at another hotel, that it's not valid? Maybe the booking agency is kicking in some bucks as a promotion, just like Priceline did. Or I just don't care -- it says a $1, so it's a $1.

I'm not sure what side I am on in these sort of issues; I just don't think no mistake necessarily needs to be 'obvious'. I've paid a much as 95% off regular rates using various techniques -- when I tell people my rate, they don't believe me -- and the front desk does a double take (though they take it!) .. so I've had my share of 'unbelievably REAL' good deals.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx:
I think that if they weren't overly concerned about bad press (which happened to United), they would have just said no. In that sense, I think they are the victims of a form of extortion.

</font>

In my book, it's not a form of extortion-- it's outright extortion. Referring to the 300-room guy here, only.

I certainly understand that different folks might see it from different points of view, but in my business when someone says "give me what I want or I'll expose you to bad publicity and/or tie you up in court with nuisance lawsuits"-- I never give in to people who try that with me.

I'd rather spend 100x the amount on a lawyer to defend against that kind of extortion than give even a modest settlement to the threat-maker.

But I suppose a publicly-held company can't take such a position, as it may not be in the best interests of the shareholders.



[This message has been edited by JonNYC (edited 08-31-2001).]

Tango,
For a contract to be valid, nothing has to change hands immediately, it can state a future date for the exchange. For example, I could offer you $10 to wash my car on December 1, and if you agree, then we are both stuck to that contract even though I won't pay you until after the work is done. In the case of a full fare airline ticket, that contract allows you to back out of it any time before the flight. That's why it costs so much more. However, a contract can't be legally valid if it is one sided. An exchange must be made. If I offer to give you $10 on December 1 with nothing required from you in return, and you accept, this is not a binding contract. I do not have to give you the money. That is why a $29 airfare must be honored, and a $0 hotel room doesn't. If it were $.05 instead of $0, then it would be valid because both sides would get something and exchange something. Both parties must get something out of the deal.

Well, everyone is going on about the fact that no money exchanged hands, but these rooms were guaranteed to a credit card, and after that, WRITTEN confirmation was given to the asinee (the customer), so in a way, through electronic commerce a valid contract has been entered into. As for the guy with 300 rooms, I think that would be viewed as excessive. I mean there r question you have to look at. How long was this rate available? Was this found on Hilton's website or a 3rd party.

I've already thrown in my 2 cents on previous threads about this issue, so I won't repeat it here. However, many of you are talking wish fulfillment re the hotel's obligations and not reality, legal or otherwise, concerning same.

However, I would like to know just who among us has reserved the 300 rooms? I dont' think that they should have any "reservation" in doing so, inasmuch as they feel it appropriate to Hilton "pay" them in points for the release of the rooms. Should they fail to identify themselves, I think that will tell you alot about them and how they really feel about what they are doing.

If any of you know about this "e-mail" I would be happy for you to post it, or for you to send it to me (as some of you know my home e-mail address)

Thanx and have a good holiday!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by DOC 2 BE:
...However, I would like to know just who among us has reserved the 300 rooms? I dont' think that they should have any "reservation" in doing so, inasmuch as they feel it appropriate to Hilton "pay" them in points for the release of the rooms. Should they fail to identify themselves, I think that will tell you alot about them and how they really feel about what they are doing.

If any of you know about this "e-mail" I would be happy for you to post it, or for you to send it to me (as some of you know my home e-mail address)

Thanx and have a good holiday!</font>

That's not the intent of this post and I would ask that this request not be honored. This is a post about the ethics of taking advantage of obvious errors for the purpose of gaining points/miles in a dishonest way. This is not a "ratting out someone type post" - that's wrong.

This discussion does not center around any one person, hotel property or airline - they were simply used as an expample of extreme exploitation (without names or whrere they live).

Let's stay away from this type of "investigative posting" - thanks.

I pretty much come down on Hilton's side here, too. Like Premex, I remember $19.85 flights DCA-LGA and $29 flights EWR-SFO. That is not unreasonable. A $0 flight is just silly.

And as for calling 300 nights excessive, well, IMHO, it is either right or it is wrong.

I, too, am interested as to the content of the email. Was it telling you about the $0 deal and telling you to book one, or was it from someone complaining that they were told hilton would not honor their $0 rate? In other words, what does the email you got have to do with this issue? Was it from 'the list' that was so widely jumped upon a few months ago???

My curiosity is piqued!!!

It's not exactly a form of extortion, at least not in the traditional sense.

If we go to a business and tell them that if we don't get satisfaction, we will tell the world about the poor service we got, that's extortion? I don't think so. Extortion really means that you're spreading damaging information that serves no purpose other than to smear the image of the extortee.

This is different. Everyone has a right to tell other potential customers of their own experiences with a business. This is how businesses establish reputations, good or bad. Giving the business a chance to make things right before their reputation is damaged is hardly extortion.

TravelManKen...why did YOU receive this e-mail?...has anyone else?? I know I've received it too...but the reality is that I received it because I'm a member of another forum...unrelated to FT...that's why I was concerned with why you posted it here...if it was a completely different forum...it should've went there....then again...I could be wrong.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mweiss:

If we go to a business and tell them that if we don't get satisfaction, we will tell the world about the poor service we got, that's extortion?</font>


You're right, that wouldn't be extortion, IMHO.

But this is something completely different. The 300-room guy (and let's just say he's a hypothetical 300-room guy-- there's NO WAY we should detail the events that led us here,) booked as many nights as he humanly could at a $0 rate purely and explicitly for the purpose of squeezing the hotel for money, points, program-status, etc. There were no "promotions" in place-- the $0 rate was a computer mistake and everyone who booked it knew that full well as they booked it (and booked it and booked it...)

300-room guy had NO intention of using the reservations (or most of 'em anyway) he made. And, his recourse would presumably be the threat of legal action-- otherwise Hilton has virtually no reason to make even the modest offer that they did.

I'm most certainly not claiming that the above described comports with what would get someone put in jail for extortion-- or even that a district attorney would take an interest, just that in my personal book of ethics, it's extortion.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mweiss:

If we go to a business and tell them that if we don't get satisfaction, we will tell the world about the poor service we got, that's extortion? I don't think so. Extortion really means that you're spreading damaging information that serves no purpose other than to smear the image of the extortee.
</font>

mweiss,

When you tell somebody that you will spread damaging information about them if they don't do what you want, how is that different than what you defined above? Admit it or not, the only purpose you have in spreading the info is to smear the image of the company.

Another poster commented about how they like to stick companies with the 'advertised' price. I don't know the ins and outs of bait and switch, but there is a world of difference between making a company stick to a price that's been advertised and making a company stick to the terms of a contract that has been entered in to.

I am totally missing the point of the 'secrecy' being invoked here. Are folks embarassed that they are sticking it to Hilton with $0 rooms? If so, I have to wonder why.

If one has no moral problems with what one is doing, then be proud. Proclaim it from the highest mountaintop. Or admit that you are being sneaky and be ready to let it go if you are called on it.

We all do some things in travel and in life that we know are not right. Take the UA upgrade bait and switch. Sure, I try it. But I dont like to talk about it. And if it doesn't work, I dont go crying like chastity raped.

Of course, the reason is probably that folks are worried that if the world (or, specifically, the service provider) finds out about the loophole, it may go away. OK, but just remember, the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

I'm glad Travelmanken brought this up. Nothing like shining a little light on a topic to make the roaches scurry...

Just a few simple points.

First, I think Hilton is making a big mistake in honoring these $0 rates. Whenever one of these computer pricing mistakes comes up, someone inevitably provides an example of another "low rate" that they found that was legitimate. But this wasn't a "low rate", this was a ZERO RATE.

Second, the "300-room-guy" sure has a lot of chutzpah. Hilton could easily blacklist him, his mother, his ex-wife's boyfriend, and his neighbor's daughter for life for his extortion. Personally, that's what I hope they will do. I wouldn't be surprised if "300-room-guy" is actually a 13-year-old "30-kilogram-boy".

Third, how tough is to tell right from wrong here? This isn't a fuzzy gray area. I can't believe there isn't complete consensus on this.

In insurance law, there is a concept called "scrivener's error" which can be used to invalidate an obvious incorrection.

For example, if an insurance company agrees to sell you $10,000 if insurance for $x, and when you get your policy, it reads $100,000 for the same rate, the insurance company is not bound by the contract.

Obviously this is a different industry, but the point is that when there is an obvious and blatant error (which $0 for a hotel would certainly be), I would be shocked if the hotel would not prevail in court for not honoring it.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

I've got a feeling that those who take advantage of these mistakes by hotels, airlines, etc. are the same people who expect an exception to the non refundable rate rule when they make an error or have a change of plans.

I have just come home after three days of university party. Great fun.

I have only one thing to say:
I agree with IM4Travel

For once something that should be shut down my the moderators (oh dear Moderator1 where art thou? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

kokonuts: YGM!

The other difference, I think, betweenthe $29 United flights to Paris and the $0 Hilton reservations is that in the case of the United flights, United made the offer and collected payment for it: the people who booked on the website did not just make a reservation, they bought a ticket, gave UA their credit card information, and were promptly charged for the ticket. UA accepted their offer and their money.

The people who took up the Hilton reservation offer didn't pay anything.

Also, though it's not strictly a legal point, they shoulda known better. Cheap is promotional; free is a mistake.

------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

I, too, received this email. I was surprised. It was forwarded to me by another FT'er. I won't name that person. I won't post the email (per TMK's request).

I guess I don't care whether it is legal or moral the bottom line for me is that I wouldn't feel right about doing it.

That makes me right in the sense that I am following my conscience, but doesn't make others wrong who disagree with me.

My 2 cents,
-levi aka eastwest

Ken,

It's just plain wrong to take advantage of Hilton for such an error.
While some may argue that United's $27 fare to Paris was promotional, you certainly can't say Hilton was offering a free night, just like this. If Hilton advertised $0 for the first night, and regular rate the 2nd night, that would be ok.

Ken...this discussion (or at least a variation of same) was discussed once upon a time. Maybe you're trying to boost your post count buddy. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif wink

Getting back to the discussion at hand: some of us are guilty of taking advantage of the system; some of us are guilty of abusing the system.

The real question here is how many of us are guilty of one of the above? My guess is most of us are guilty of something we've done. My guess is the excuse would be, "Oh, it's only miles (or points).
Come on...admit it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Dan

I see this differently than all of you, maybe it's my age, maybe it's my job in the cutthroat consulting industry, but it's obvious Hilton made was a mistake, but in life when people make mistakes someone has to pay. And if people found this and jumped on it (except the 300 room guy that's crazy) I think Hilton should honor the reservations. Perfect example, Firestone made an error didnt used enough steel in the tread on tires, and now people are suing them. Just my opinion which i'm entitled too.

My understanding is that United did not receive ANY money on those tickets - the whole $24/27/29 (depending on the ticket) went to taxes! So in this respect, the folks differentiating between UA and Hilton saying that UA received money are not on track.

As for the person that booked 300 rooms, well ....

The Firestone analogy is preposterous. Firestone produced defective tires which produced accidents, or so it seems. People sustained damages, to make the understatement of the century. Nobody sustains any damages if Hilton does not honor the $0 reservations, unless you count the lost opportunity to get something for free, which I reject.

I also got the e-mail, and had to read it twice because I thought the demands were so ridiculous. As soon as I finished re-reading it I deleted it, thinking this person has more balls than a bowling alley!

As someone else mentioned, there was a demand for Hilton to offer x amount of points for every night returned to Hilton (not used). But the real chutzpah came with the demand to be elevated to Diamond for 10 years if they don't/won't honor the rate.

Puhleeeeeze......... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif

Did this e-mail originate from that "list clique" or one of its members? What is the punishment if one of its members breaks their covenant and speaks out about lack of ethics? Do you omit them from the "List" and "kick'em to the curb"? I am only inquiring, because that's the "feeling" that I am getting. Please correct me if I'm reading this all wrong.

It takes character to speak up when your peers won't, and worse yet, be ostracized for doing the right thing.

Enjoy the first week-end of September (it's Labor Day week-end here in the US) and reflect on the rewards of our labor.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anim8r:
[b]Did this e-mail originate from that "list clique" or one of its members? What is the punishment if one of its members breaks their covenant and speaks out about lack of ethics? Do you omit them from the "List" and "kick'em to the curb"? I am only inquiring, because that's the "feeling" that I am getting. Please correct me if I'm reading this all wrong. B]</font>

Hey anim8r - This post is in reference to the general attitude of some (very few) FT'ers. Not towards any particular group or individual person.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dhammer53:

It's just plain wrong to take advantage of Hilton for such an error... </font>

Agree here.

Whatever the legalities, it strikes me as "moral fraud."

As for this person's demands: if (s)he doesn't have 300 friends to show up, then Hilton will just overbook the hotel by a couple of hundred rooms and be done with it. If (s)he brings 10 people, they walk those 10 people to a "similar" property with empty rooms - some other hotel would help out. And if it had been a US property with a state-imposed $1/night occupancy tax and a $2/night energy surcharge, they'd have charged him $900 for the no-shows to boot.

$0 for the room.
$15 resort fee
$3.50 energy charge
$3 to turn on phone
$.12 a minute on 800#'s
$.50 local calls
$3.50 delivery charge for room service +18% service charge
$25 for parking,
and & on
Not so "free" after all.

I am currently at the DT Mission Valley and actually can see the Hilton Mission Valley hotel in question from my window. I tried to book the Hilton but it was too pricey. I now understand why since it was booked by many $0.00 no-shows for fun and that procedure drove the yield management driven pricing system nutty. Big deal for some but a loss to this hotel. BTW many computer systems default to a "00" if problems occur in coding.

My best guess if the Hilton lawyers researched the 1728-ish written laws re "defrauding an innkeeper...." found posted in the closets, it probably would be an defraud-type offence in many states. Now the joker with his hostage-holding 300 booked rooms may have to explain to his 10th grade science teacher why he was not in class last week. He was in jail.

MisterNice

A tale of 2 people:

1 - some guy who wants to book 300 rooms at a Hilton, at $0 per night,

and

2 - Ascension Franco Gonzales - who probably could never afford to stay at a Hilton in his life. But, this illegal alien, making $1,300 a month - found $203,000 in cash on August 27 - and turned it in.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-082901loot.story

Forget about the legalities for a minute - if you could be one of these 2, and get your story on the front page of the Times - which would you want to be?

If the 300 room FT member wasn't ashamed of it, then he or she would have no problem posting it here. They also would have posted the e-mail on FT.

But, I don't think threatening to complain publicly if you are less than satisfied is at all wrong, so long as you are honest. It's called word of mouth. All businesses know or should know that many satisfied customers refer other customers, and that unsatisfied customers tell friends and family about it. And if the this person complained and was honest about what happened, well, it wouldn't hurt Hilton's business at all, because it's clear who is being reasonable and unreasonable here.

Finally, the operative legal term that people have been avoiding here is "consideration".
A $0 room rate has no consideration on the part of the consumer. A $29 flight doesn have consideration- $29. A bad deal for United, maybe, but still consideration? Yes.

That 300 room 'er might just be an "ex-FT'er" who can't post here any longer.

I was shocked that Hilton is offering them 50% off for the length of the stay. That only encourages such behavior. If I were Hilton, I would have not only offered them no freebies, but initiated a call to the 300-night grubbers from the company lawyers, citing extortion etc. A way to lose customers, you say? I don't think anyone wants these kinds of customers.

Interesting note on the front of buydig.com:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Attention valuable customers,
We regret to inform you that a price error has occurred on the Sony DAVS-500 on 08/30/01. The correct price is $444.00. Our advertised policy and automated order confirmation clearly state that "The order confirmation does not constitute a final offer or contract. All orders are subject to management review and approval and if found to be invalid due to any reason, are subject to cancellation by management." Any order placed for this item will not be charged, billed or shipped. We sincerely apologize for this error, and any inconvenience this error may have caused. Thank you,
Buydig.com.. management.
</font>

Boy, a lot of people have a lot to say on this topic. It occurred to me that the
e-mail referenced by everybody that contains
a 'demand letter' to Hilton regarding
Diamond status, etc. may simply be a joke
written for the amusement of the 300 room
guy's correspondents about the absurdity of
the $0 rate situation.

Just my 2 cents.

(if that were the case, wouldn't we all feel
silly?)

Something that occurs to me is that all of these $0, $29, $19 offers whatever are coming through the internet which all of these companies are doing everything possible to get us to use in regards to their products for the simple reason that it costs them less money that way.

As a result of saving that money, there are going to be screwups, like this one, that would not have occured if they had left the human element of a representative of their interests intact.

(That said, I'm not condoning or passing judgement on those who take advantage of these offers.)

TravelManKen,
I appreciate your position. My questions were alluding to why a few FT'ers want to shut down this thread, suggesting that you had no right to post it in the first place. They have aroused my curiosity.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anim8r:
TravelManKen,
I appreciate your position. My questions were alluding to why a few FT'ers want to shut down this thread, suggesting that you had no right to post it in the first place. They have aroused my curiosity.</font>

Oh O.K., now I understand and agree with you. It's crazy to argue that this should be a closed thread just because some people find it to be an uncomfortable subject.

Several folks point above to a $27 International ticket error from United that they honored. I recall reading that some FT'ers booked and were able to use multiple flights on that fare if they wished? I do not know if it has been reported in the United Forum, but in May this year United Airlines discovered they had customers who booked $2,700 International round trip tickets for 25c on the United website.

In view of the debates above, some may be interested to learn United readily honored all those tickets, (and they were not necessarily on United metal), and absorbed the taxes, hence were way LOSING on every ticket they honored. See:

United 25c Ticket Story (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20010821/tc/united_fliers_swoop_in_after_pricing_glitch_1.html )

On May 17 2001, 23 United customers found they could fly internationally for less than a dollar.

"Those customers purchased tickets on several different carriers for 25 cents," Chris Nardella, spokesperson for United said. "It was a decimal-point problem with the system. The tickets were worth about $2,500 and $2,700. We discovered the problem, and also in that case the company honored the fares."

In the latest glitch, Nardella said the company also gave the customers the option to cancel their greatly reduced fares.

Nardella said there have been no takers so far.

"We're working to fix the problem and to make sure it won't happen again," said spokeswoman Chris Nardella.

Perhaps the bottom line is that alert folks finding these price glitches in relatively small numbers assists the airlines or Hotels tighten and eliminate bugs in their system, as per the last paragraph?

And a final note. WHY with the current Moderator activity here in The Buzz has this thread after a few days not been moved to another Forum? It has nothing whatever to do with "Miles".




[This message has been edited by CoachClass (edited 09-02-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CoachClass:
And a final note. WHY with the current Moderator activity here in The Buzz has this thread after a few days not been moved to another Forum? It has nothing whatever to do with "Miles".

]</font>

That may be the case, but had this been posted, in say, the Hilton forum, where I and many others never tread, it wouldn't have caught the attention of many of us, and not have spurred this much valuable discussion and attention.

I frankly miss the old buzz.

BoSoxFan - I miss the old format too - it just seems weird that as this topic which more correctly belongs in the "Travel" forum, discussing hotel and car deals that threads on this Forum HAVE been closed and moved there in recent days by The Moderators, and this one has not. Seems oddly inconsistent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the $0 rate example, nothing "tangible" has changed hands -- hence no contract has been entered into.[/B]</font>

I disagree; in order to get a confirmed reservation, you have to provide a credit card number -- you've authorized Hilton to pre-authorize you for the charges, in effect.

Holland is right. And others are right, that this thread does not belong on The Buzz.

The Hilton website confirmed my booking, after I selected "show me all rates" and chose the "$0.00" one and entered my credit card. The website warned I was obliged to pay that rate if I clicked on "I agree". And pay I will all incidentals that I accrue and sign for like mini bar and meals and parking etc on my free weekend.

Hilton later emailed me the confirmation that the rate was $0.00 for ALL 3 nights of the booking for that property. And I went to the Hilton website just now and it re-confirmed the booking was held at $0.00 against my credit card for all nights. So the stay will not in fact be "FREE" and I will ensure that. There are dozens of folks planning for a specific Flyer weeekend in California early 2002. Those not privy to another regulated board's info need not and should not be appraised the details or date but it is sad some there spilled the beans.

The multi night post above is one person's extreme spin - most others simply booked what they could use themselves, or offered surplus rooms free for others to use that weekend. I do not see the problem - it was a Hilton website glitch, and Hilton need take it on the chin.

Flyboy: I'll say it again, because apparently I was too subtle before: the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. I gotta tell ya, your 'regulated' deals deal has more holes then a spagetti strainer....

No matter how you spin it, these are shady dealings.


[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 09-03-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by freakflyer:
[B]My understanding is that United did not receive ANY money on those tickets - the whole $24/27/29 (depending on the ticket) went to taxes...</font>

...and in this case, there's a $3/nite energy surcharge, plus taxes and any other charges they can drum up (local phone calls, etc...)

I got a copy of the email too, but before deleting it I read that those 300 nights were for various Hilton properties well in to 2002, not 300 nights on one night at one property. Still doesn't excuse the behavior, IMHO.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TravelManKen:
I just read an e-mail that made me sick. As many of you know Hilton recently had a glitch in their reservations system that allowed people to book an unlimited number of rooms at certain properties for $0/night. Now we're not talking about some crazy reduced rate, but $0/night!!

Hilton recently made, what I think is pretty darn generous, an offer to those holding these reservations - "Everyone will be offered the first night for free, and then the remainder of the nights will be charged at 50% off the best available rate"

That's not bad, right? However some of our fellow members have decided to try to put the hammer to Hilton to honor this $0 rate. One guy even has 300 rooms reserved at one freaking hotel and is upset that they won't honor the glitch. This is not a $29 fare to Paris (which was also crazy) or some great internet price that someone found. If you get a rate of $0/night you know darn well that's it's a pure error.

It reminds me of my newspaper advertising days when something weird would happen and a product on sale for $100 is printed as $00 - so idiots demand that the store give it to them for $00 because it was printed.

Don't get me wrong, I have problems with all of the crap that major hotels and airlines put me through to get decent rates & fares. Just like most people on this board I've been burned on a $2400 fare that they're offering some recreational traveler for $179. But exploiting obvious errors is not the way to even the playing field - it's just dishonest.

</font>


I completely agree with you and am saddened to see another example that we are living in the Age of Entitlement.

Where's Bean? His "new List" thread had the right perspective. Give'm Hell Kokonutz.

edited to apologize for too many Labor Day libations....don't mean to sound like a rabble rouser

[This message has been edited by anim8r (edited 09-03-2001).]

I think people have already (at least nearly) stated the pros and cons of each argument in terms of whether one of these companies should be compelled to honor what appear to be mistakes to most people.

In thinking about this, something that has never been brought up (I don't think) is what are the characteristics of different people holding different opinions. For example, population sample group X., basically is on the corporations side, while sample population group Y. is on the side of the person(s) who try to book $0 or $29 goods and services. What are the characteristics of aperson that determines whether they fit more closely with group X or Y? E.g. income, education, age, sex, area of country, childhood, type of job, type of life experience, ,kind of car ddriven, rent/own, how many credit cards, etc? Are there demographic, sociographic, or other variables that broadly can be used to put a person in these hypothetical group X or Y?

I would theorize (and perhaps we even have people in the market research industry who could ellaborate) that it has something to do with the member of the populations overall experience in his/her life with corporate America. Like let's give a good example of the point:

We take two groups of 100 people, and tell them in 15 minutes the story of how 300-room-guy booked 300 rooms for $0. Or how whatever-girl booked 100 tickets to CDG for $29 each.

100 of our research subjects are employed by major corporations, and are paid $250,000 or more each year.

The other 100 research subjects are homeless, and all have recently been arrested for loytering in a bank ATM kiosk/doorway.

I theorize the the first group of 100 would side with the corporation, while the second group of 100 would side with 300-room-guy and whoever-girl. Both would feel very strongly about the position they hold.

This is a far-flung example, but it illustrates, how one's life experience with corporate Ameirca may impact how one views such ethical issues. Most people don't make $250,000 plus, and most people haven't gotten arrested for loytering in an atm kiosk...but everyone overall probably has either had generally good or generally bad experienced overall with corporate America. Maybe its not even just corporate America. Has the person had a generally good or generally bad experience with "the system," which means the institutions of society. Those are family, education, employment, politics, and religion.

Most Flyertalkers (at least the people that post to the board) seem to fit in to group X which sides with the corporations generally in questionable situations. I don't know much about the people that read and do not post. It would also seem, that in general, people with status in all of these programs would generally have higher incoems than average. Otherwise how would the people travel so much, etc. to be say Plat/Diamond/etc. Also we cannot forget about age. If we had 100 19 year olds, and 100 49 year olds and we told them the stories about our mysterious guy and girl...would the 49 year olds be more likely to side with corporate America all other factors being equal. Does anyone know of any research studies done in these areas? Is it broadly life experience with the institutions of society that puts a person in these groups, or is something else a much more important factor in assigning group membership?

I'm more inclined to believe that the differing characteristics between the two groups is income/assets.

In other words, you're only as moral as the options you can comfortably afford.

And there are always exceptions to such generalizations.

I may be completely wrong, but I may be somewhat right.

Just my humble opinion.

[This message has been edited by anthonyanthony (edited 09-03-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jetsetter:
... &lt;snip&gt;

In thinking about this, something that has never been brought up (I don't think) is what are the characteristics of different people holding different opinions. For example, population sample group X., basically is on the corporations side, while sample population group Y. is on the side of the person(s) who try to book $0 or $29 goods and services. What are the characteristics of aperson that determines whether they fit more closely with group X or Y? E.g. income, education, age, sex, area of country, childhood, type of job, type of life experience, ,kind of car ddriven, rent/own, how many credit cards, etc? Are there demographic, sociographic, or other variables that broadly can be used to put a person in these hypothetical group X or Y? &lt;snip&gt; ... </font>

jetsetter, your study may be an interesting theoretical and academic exercise. However, as VolleyBallFerd pointed out in highlighting the story of Ascension Franco Gonzales (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-082901loot.story), I don't think social and economic status have anything to do with one's side on this particular issue.

From a practical point of view, I am fairly certain in saying that folks who took advantage of the zero-dollar rates are closer to your $250,000-a-year sample than your homeless sample. So, if one were actually able to get the demographic information on the bookers of these rates and if we used the example of Mr. Gonzales above, then I could come to the conclusion that higher income folks are more likely to lie, cheat and steal (or, as they would say, know a good deal when they see one).

If you can't afford to stay at a Hilton, then stay at a Motel 6. If you can't afford a Motel 6, then stay at a youth hostel. If you can't afford a youth hostel, then stay at home. We all love to travel, but at what cost to our values.

[edited for UBB errors]

[This message has been edited by fallinasleep (edited 09-03-2001).]

fallinasleep ,
Thank you for the link to the Gonzale's story...I have read it, and would recommend that others do the same.

I'm not sure the deciding factor is economic status alone. E.g. Gonzale's had what many would term a tough life. Is the determining factor, more so than economic status, one's experience with societies institutions. Remember, in my hypothetical, the 100 homeless people had gotten arrested for loytering in a bank ATM. Such an arrest and experience would quite likely leave the person with a bad experience with the institution of politics (e.g. the government), as well as the institution of economics (the bank/corporate America).

Or for a better example, would someone who had been laid off 5 times be more, neutral, or less likely to condone the booking of $29 trips to CDG or $0 room nights.

Personally I think that Hilton was correct in making the offer that it did in response to its computer system error. If I understand correctly, they offered guests 1 night free, and subsequent nights at 50% off lowest rates. This is reasonable, and I would expect them to do this. I agree with the above post that they are "bib boys," and that they recognize the business risk in deploying a computer system that processes transactions unattendedly. Any system, whether human or computer based, has certain vulnerabilities and is prone to fail at certain times...and the business is obligated to deal with situations where the system fails to run as it was expected too operate. Particularly since the system provided a confirmation number and confirmation email, I feel this compells Hilton or whatever the company is to either honor the rates or negotiate a mutually agreeable settelement between the guest and the industry service provider. I am guessing that 300-room-guy wanted to net the 500 miles per stay for the 300 rooms, even if the guest no showed. Let's say just for argument sake they are running double miles, so thats 300,000 miles that this mystery guy or girl would get.
How much would this cost Hilton? $.02 * 300,000 miles = $6,000.00. Now for a big company like Hilton, $6,000 is not an extraordinary sum of money. Let's say the whole system screw up cost them $100,000...thats still with in the ranges used for contingencies and business risk. In other words, I don't think it is un heard of for a computer glitch to cost a corporation $100,000. How much did the Y2K glitch cost major corporations?

All businesses assume risks, and incorporate the cost of the risks in to the products and services you and I buy. But I don't think it is unreasonable for Hilton to work with 300-room-guy to reach a mutually agreeable settlement for the glitch in the computer system. And if the glitch was via some distribution chanel, then Hilton should pass those costs on to the provider or chanel. I have not read this secret email, but I would say perhaps (and this is only speculation) that maybe 300-room-guy may have gotten a little greety in his or her demands to Hilton, but such can easily be worked out in a negotiation.

So if all of you want to be angry with 300-room-guy, then perhaps you have a small right to be angry with him or her because Hilton is going to have to pay this person and they are going to pass those costs on to you when you stay. But then again, if 300-room-guys didn't exist, would Hilton pass along the savings from not having to pay out as a result of business risks to you...the rate paying guest? Thats why I say you only have a little right to be angry...because I don't think Hilton would drop its rates by 10% because the public rolled over when its systems made mistakes.

I will also point out that it is my understanding that an airline must honor an advertised rate in the newspaper for the day it is advertised. I remember a $48 BOS-California CO mis-print that was supposed to be $148.

I also agree that legally with a $0 rate, I'm not sure how the guest could argue that they are providing consideration...but I am not a lawyer. But then again what if the computer show a rate of $.01? Would that change things?

Also imagine how much time 300-room guy must have had to spend in doing this. Does anyone know how long it would take to book 300 reservations? And are all of you trying to say that this person should have gotten nothing? Its not like 300-room-guy hacked into the system and created the $0 rate, he or she simply found the rate and booked it, and received written/email confirmation of the transaction. Also the travel industry, at least on paper, is not forgiving of consumers mistakes. Like if a consumer fails to cancel a reservation, then by the book, they are charged a no show fee. In analyzing this ethically I would have to ask myself, how sympathetic has the Hilton Corporation been when I made a honest mistake? How has the Hilton Corporation treated me overall? How understanding is the Hilton Corporation of my needs? Has the Hilton Corporation ever really helped me out in a big way or really screwed me over? Does the Hilton Corporation treat me fairly and reasonably, or do they nickel and dime me wherever and whenever they can? These would be the most important questions if I faced a situation of what to do with a rate mistake such as a $0 room rate or a flight to Europe for $29. In general, Hilton has been slightly sometimes sympathetic if I make a mistake (like forgetting to cancel a res), they have never really helped me out or really screwed me, they generally treat me well, the rates are usually fair as long as you know how to shop, they don't charge me for 800 number calls like some people do, and they nickel and dime me a little for things in the mini bar and for drinks in the executive level. I usually get my breakfast free, and usually get an upgrade. When I have a problem, the property usually makes it right. So based on this, I think there offer is reasonable, but it is unreasonable for them to refuse to do anything for me if I booked one of these rooms which they advertised. As someone said, what if they are doing the $0 rooms to get attention? Look at how Biztravel got attention when they offered refunds on delayed flights? Maybe they will some day run a promotion where evry 1000 rooms booked, someone gets one for free? That might not be a bad way to spur online transactions.

All of you are wrapped up in this right and wrong quandry. Is it right or wrong for 300 room guy to do what he did? Is it right or wrong for a hotel to charge $4.50 for a can of coke? Or $6 for a candy bar? Actually I think what 300-room-guy did and what hotels do in terms of mini bar charges are really similar. In both cases, someone is getting wripped off, and both people know it. Both really are "cheating." In both cases, the parties are exploiting known vulnerabilities. If Hilton thought they could charge $50 for a can of coke, they probably would do it. And if 300-room-guy could have easily booked 3000 rooms for $.01 and gotten 3,000,000 miles...maybe he would have done it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I also agree that legally with a $0 rate, I'm not sure how the guest could argue that they are providing consideration ... but I am not a lawyer. But then again what if the computer show a rate of $.01? Would that change things? </font>

Jetsetter - interesting points. Perhaps I have the 'Wisdom Of Solomon' answer here. (Or more like, The Wisdom Of Homer Simpson.) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

You ask how does the $0.00 a night guest provide Hilton with a 'consideration'?

Why simple, guest needs to consume a $4.50 can of Coke from the mini bar a day, so the actual cost of his/her Hilton stay is not $0.00 but $4.50 a day plus tax. Thus Hilton screws the $0.00 Army on the Cokes, who in turn they think they are screwing Hilton on the room rate. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

PS ... I cannot believe this thread has been allowed to run so long here in this Forum when it has zilch to do with "Miles Buzz" - so much for the new "Moderators" and the alleged strict guidelines. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif



[This message has been edited by goldelite (edited 09-03-2001).]

I'm still lost as to how this thread has nothing to do with milesbuzz..."Discussion of the latest frequent flyer buzz..." since there seems to be pretty good buzz around this topic...


Anyway, I've been screwed by corporate america plenty. I've had to do major surgeory to my credit rating after a credit card company mistook me for my brother. I've had my share of injustices and slights. At the same time, I've never worked directly for a for-profit corporation since I worked grocery check out in college.

But my perspective on this is simple: I view the frequent travel game as just that: a game. Like a friendly game of poker. So while I am not laying any claim whatsoever to being a particularly moral or even upstanding person, I just dont think it's cricket to 'cheat'.

Play the game to my advantage, yes. Demand everything that has been promised and try to work in a little more, yes. Even count cards if I can! But put an ace up my sleeve or deal from the bottom of the deck, no.

And my motivation is more selfish then altruistic. I feel like a get a darn good deal out of the frequent travel game. I dont want to be cheated out of what I consider to be a good thing, so I'm not going to cheat first.

And yes, 'cheating' is a matter of moral relativism. Some might blanche at some of my common practices.

IMHO, a lot of it goes to intent. If people are actively LOOKING for what they KNOW are mistakes, then how can you get mad when those mistakes are caught and corrected. If one innocently stumbles upon a mistake and simply takes it as a great deal then there is less culpability...

JMHO...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anthonyanthony:
I'm more inclined to believe that the differing characteristics between the two groups is income/assets.

In other words, you're only as moral as the options you can comfortably afford.

And there are always exceptions to such generalizations.


[This message has been edited by anthonyanthony (edited 09-03-2001).]</font>

Disagree- This is not Jean Valjean situation here. Noone needs 300 rooms. And also, in my non-scientific experience, some of the wealthiest people in the world are among its most immmoral. It's why we need antitrust laws.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by goldelite:
Jetsetter - interesting points. Perhaps I have the 'Wisdom Of Solomon' answer here. (Or more like, The Wisdom Of Homer Simpson.) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

You ask how does the $0.00 a night guest provide Hilton with a 'consideration'?

Why simple, guest needs to consume a $4.50 can of Coke from the mini bar a day, so the actual cost of his/her Hilton stay is not $0.00 but $4.50 a day plus tax. Thus Hilton screws the $0.00 Army on the Cokes, who in turn they think they are screwing Hilton on the room rate. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by goldelite (edited 09-03-2001).]</font>

That's NOT consideration. You don't have to pay anything. YOU ARE NOT OBLGATED TO DO ANYTHING.

As much as the $0 army wants the rest of us to believe the emporer is fully clothed, its painfully obvious to the rest of us is that he is both naked, and not particularly well-endowed.

I agree with jetsetter that you should look at how the company treats you. I stay at Hilton quite often and am treated, on the whole, very well. Most often when I forget to cancel a reservation they take off the no-show charges. Their rates tend to be quite reasonable compared to comparable hotel chains. They offer great promotions. Finally, they always take care of me when I'm planning an award leisure vacation.

I don't think it is wrong to take advantage of a mistake and see what happens, but I do think it is wrong to expect them to honor an unreasonable request such as booking three hundred rooms and demanding recompense.

Couldn't help posting my $.02.

Good point. Many seem not aware that the great bulk of those booking these "$0.00" rooms did so for their own personal use and/or that of friends/family who were unable to get in when the glitch was going. There is a large weekend gathering of 30+ folks planned at a certain west coast city from those holding those 100% confirmed "$0.00" rates. Many of those holding bookings are Gold and Diamond HH members. I doubt Hilton will fail to honour such legitimate "personal use" bookings, similar to United cheerfully honoring the $2,000.00 fares above that were booked for 25 cents on their website! Booking 300 rooms and not attending the gathering is a different story.

Now this error has been written in the WSJ by Jane Costello. Here's the link-

http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB999280394800185459.htm

September 4, 2001 - Business Fare

Hilton Hotels' Pricing Mistake Gives Free Rooms to Guests Booking Online

By JANE COSTELLO
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Hilton Hotels Corp. can't seem to stop giving away free hotel stays.

For at least the third time in six months, hotel personnel inadvertently loaded a room rate of $0 into the Hilton reservation system. Net-savvy travel shoppers could book the rate through Hilton's Web site (www.hilton.com) or other travel-booking sites.

During a two-week period during the end of July and the beginning of August, travelers were able to book free rooms at eight Hiltons in the U.S., including properties in Flagstaff, Ariz., San Diego, Calif., and Hilton Head, S.C. Earlier this year, the hotel experienced a similar problem with travelers booking free room nights at hotels in Mexico City and Vancouver, British Columbia.

"What can I say -- this is very embarrassing," says Hilton spokeswoman Jeanne Datz. "We don't understand it. It obviously shows a terrible attention to detail."

The first zero-rate incident took place in March, involving Hilton's airport hotel in Mexico City. Word of the free rate spread through online message boards, and by the time the rates had been corrected, more than 80 people had booked hundreds of free nights at the hotel.

After that incident, Hilton officials sent a memo to its hotels warning them to be more careful when loading room rates into the computer reservation system. Another glitch occurred in June at a hotel in Vancouver, but only a few people booked rooms before the problem was fixed.

But the boards lit up once again this summer when word of the zero rate hit cyberspace. Hilton won't confirm the number of people who booked free rooms, but it is thought to be significantly higher than the number of people who took advantage of the Mexico City mistake. One man, who wishes to remain anonymous but now is well-known to Hilton, says he has booked 300 rooms.

Some travelers, who participate in an e-mail list that keeps subscribers abreast of Web-pricing glitches, are planning to throw a "List Party" at the Hilton San Diego Mission Valley hotel next March to celebrate their good fortune. John Joyce, a retiree from Prairie Village, Kan., is a member of the list who jumped on the chance to visit his relatives in California next spring. He booked two rooms for seven nights at the hotel.

But these travelers won't party for free every night of the week: Hilton has agreed to honor the zero rate for first night only. Each subsequent night will be billed at a 50% discount of the best available rate.

Officials at Hilton are looking forward to the day when these glitches are in the past. The company is in the process of creating a filter that would prevent the system from accepting a rate of $0.

"Until the day we're technologically foolproof, these things can happen," says Ms. Datz.

But while most guests who took advantage of the glitch don't expect Hilton to give away every room free of charge, some think the offer isn't generous enough to make up for the error.

Mr. Joyce says he would like Hilton to throw in an upgrade to elite Diamond status for a limited period of time as compensation for relinquishing the remainder of the free nights. He points out that Hilton is responsible for the error, and officials wouldn't let him off the hook had he made a similar mistake when booking a room.

"If I made a reservation and forgot to cancel it, they'd hit my credit card," he says.

Write to Jane Costello at mailto:jane.costello@wsj.comjane.costello@wsj.com</A>

A "List Party"???

Yuk. Bean, come back.

I do not buy the argument that the zero rate is not OK but the low "error" airline fares are ok. Anyone knows that the super low airfares to Europe for $25.00 or even $135 are mistakes. If you have a problem with the zero Hilton rate but not with the $35.00 UA fare to CDG, then your logic fails me and your double standard smells of being a hypocrite. There is no way to convince me that United inteneded to have a fare for $35.00--period. The fact that one has money that changes hands and the other does not is irrelevant. Both companies made a mistake in their pricing and one honored it and the other is not.

Several years ago Alaska made a mistake with their companion fare being loaded into Sabre as a zero rate that could be booked by itself. Many travel agents grabed this zero rate only to have their clients turned away at check in unless they were willing to pay up to the lowest published fare at the time the original booking was made. The city pair involved was PDX to Palm Springs. United could have taken the same path Alaska did but decided not to. That says alot about United.

Please spare the legal talk, the core issue is customer service and how different companies respond to it.

The "List" folks were paranoid of spies on FT; now the spies are within the "List". Thank you Jane for your revealing report.

Would this "List Party" eventually been added to FT's Community events or has this new faction outgrown FT? What's becoming of Randy's community?

Although I would not have taken advantage of a $0 rate at Hilton prior to the publication of Jane's article, her report has proved to be most enlightening.

Apparently Hilton has decided to treat these "prices" as true room rates and therefore, if I ever happen to see such a rate at a Hilton family hotel I will now book it because of their business practice.

Arguments about the presence or a lack of consideration are now beyond the point, as Hilton has manifestly "advertised" that these rates are valid. As such, they are now bound by that business practice and better had hope that their filter really works. I, for one, now have no compunction about booking such a rate and expecting Hilton to honor it.

I have to admit that we have all those List people to thank for this, even though I personally think that Hilton is quite foolish with respect to that business decsion.

However, I still think that the individual who booked 300 rooms (at various properties?) is a bit much, and I would be careful that Hilton does not revoke their HHonors membership over their ultimatum.

my 2 cents.

Im on The List,and I didn't make a res for any amount of nights. Yes I could have but I felt that it was wrong to,so I didnt.
To those who made one for up to a week for 1 or 2 rooms I feel Hiltons offer is more than fair.To those who went crazy I feel Hilton should tell you where to take those res,since your intent was way different to the others.

I just came back from a stint in LA,I booked my car on-line at a discount travel site.The $$ amount was $82.16 for the 5 days,when I called the car company they told me their screen said it was $119.70.I called C.S. at the travel site who quoted a 3rd price. Yes I held my ground and got the $82.16,yet the next quoted company(Alamo)was $97 for the 5 days so $82 wasnt too far off. What got to me was the travel sites C.S. dept didnt want to deal with the price differences Iwanted them to call their web divison ,they said we just want to deal with your res. only and dont worry about anything else. If the price had been $8,I wouldnt have expected them to honor it but rather to offer me a price that was better than the least quoted price.

So to those with the res,think thru it again.

The purpose of this post was not to attack a group of people on a private "list". That was never referenced in the original post. The people who utilize that "list" simply help one another find great deals that are usually only available for a few hours. It's not about $0 rates, but also great, legitimate Int'l & Domestic fares as well. Most people who participate in the FT community don't check the boards every few hours, but they do check their e-mail quite often. So why does anyone care if a few people want to share quick tips with one another?

This discussion is not a Hilton or United discussion - those were just points of reference. This is more about what jetsetter spoke to - what is in your character? How do you handle these types of opportunities or situations? That's all - a general discussion on Ethics, nothing more.

Just came across this and wasn't gonna comment. But.............

I can see where Hilton might want to honor this. My partner and I just returned from one of those Starwood free weekends. Stayed at the Phoenician in PHX. We arrived Late Fri nite, left Sun pm. The room rate was $0.

My final bill with meals, drinks, massages, etc came to $1400.00.

We never would have gone and payed for the room at this time.

Starwood won!

Nobbi

DOC 2 BE writes: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Apparently Hilton has decided to treat these "prices" as true room rates and therefore, if I ever happen to see such a rate at a Hilton family hotel I will now book it because of their business practice.

Arguments about the presence or a lack of consideration are now beyond the point, as Hilton has manifestly "advertised" that these rates are valid. As such, they are now bound by that business practice and better had hope that their filter really works. I, for one, now have no compunction about booking such a rate and expecting Hilton to honor it.</font>

I see absoulutly nothing in Hilton's statements that indicate that these are valid rates or that they should, in the future, be considered such. The fact that they are only honoring the first night free is clear proof of that.

Rather, I see them as honoring the first night as free and subsequent nights at 50% off as merely a gesture of goodwill and admission that the mistake was theirs, and that mistake may have inconvienced some of it's customers.

That, and probably wanting to avoid bad press.

IMHO, this does not set any sort of "binding" legal precedence or some sort of legal (or conscience) waiver to jump on these sort of things in the future and expect fulfillment.

Frankly, at this point I'm a bit amazed anyone would even remotely think these were any sort of valid rates. Hilton clearly admitted it was a mistake! If they considered these valid rates, then Mr. 300 would be getting all 300 nights free.

And everyone else too.

'Mr 300' appears to be the only person to have been offered anything by Hilton, simply as he asked direct. In effect they have offered him as a first negotiation response, 300 free rooms.

It appears Hilton have not contacted anyone else, and those with a 3 night weekend stay booked, which is the great majority, are pretty confident Hilton will Honor (!) that entire double confirmed booking, and why not?

TravelManKen,

I maintain that I appreciate your position and am responding due to that respect. I agree that it's wise to e-mail great offers amongst each other first, and later share the wealth with all of FT (I witheld comments all thru the "list" and "new list" threads and never once sought inclusion with either, although Bean's thread was a riot).

Your post raising the ethics question, without betraying anything sensitive, came under fire by the "list" police as they wanted to shut you down. Their attempts to dismiss this issue kept non"list" FTers out of the loop.

There was mention of a get-together of select FTers in SAN, but no posts to Randy's FT Community Events. The WSJ knew of this "event" when, where, and by who before your original post. Thank you for posting the article.

My previous post was nothing more than reactionary questions to Jane Costello's article. Sharing info within the "list" is fine as long as this info can later be shared with all of FT; holding out on FT only diminishes Randy's open to all community.

ETHICS

I have considered "Ethics" the past days, and there is another point I am interested in.

Where is the ethics in publishing references to a private email message without the author's consent? Where is the ethics in joining a group, taking advantage of what the group's offers and thus being trusted by a number of people, and then publishing statements criticizing the very group one is a member of? Where is the ethics in criticizing a group openly and then trying hard to join it in disguise?


The fact is that to do any of the above one must either be a very unethical person or a complete narcissist.

I do not mind discussing ethics with regards to zero rates at all! I do mind someone starting such a discussion using information not intended for the general public and with a cry of outrage so hypocritical that I cannot believe any grown person (or lawyer) could stand behind such a post.

If someone is against a specific group and states this position openly that is a thing I can respect. To join it, pretend to be against it, but still benefit from its offers is so much what a completely looser would do that I have great difficulty describing my disgust.

I will, in the future, consider more carefully which FlyerTalkers to email, since I would not want my personal correspondence put on display. No, I am not the author of the "300 rooms" email, and I do not want Diamond for years, I have few rooms but this should not be the issue.

While as I have stated above the discussion is interesting, the fact that it originated through current events in people's personal lives makes it less gratifying to participate. As before, some people here have difficulty starting or participating in a debate without getting personal or using personal references (or private correspondence for crying out loud). It is an invasion of privacy, purely.

I actually think the demands in the referenced message were somewhat excessive. If it really bothered me this much I might start a theoretical discussion on the ethics of $0 rates on FlyerTalk. What I would not do is start a topic in such a critical, hypocritical and narcisistic way as done here, apparently I have a decency that must be lacking in others.


[This message has been edited by Goldlust (edited 09-06-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Goldlust:
Where is the ethics in publishing references to a private email message without the author's consent? Where is the ethics in joining a group, taking advantage of what the group's offers and thus being trusted by a number of people, and then publishing statements criticizing the very group one is a member of? Where is the ethics in criticizing a group openly and then trying hard to join it in disguise? </font>

So, by your logic joining a group means never making any critical comments of the group or be labled an untethical and hypocritical narcicist?

I don't for one second buy your position which justifies being witness to all sorts of unethical (or even illegal) behavior and doing nothing for the "sake of the group." (What is this, the freemasons or the Skulls?!? It's an email list!)

There is, in any case, a difference between criticizing "the group" and the behavior of a few members of that group.

Your "for or against the group" position is a simplistic one that gives itself the illusion of a high ethical stance in exchange for tolerating all abuses committed by some in your "precious" group.

We all belong to all sorts of groups, in our personal and private lives -- the idea that my membership precludes me from criticizing the behavior of some of its members is ludicrous. Time to get off the high horse you're on...

[Edited for clarification.]

[This message has been edited by SMessier (edited 09-06-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">which justifies being witness to all sorts of unethical (and illegal) behavior</font>

What is "illegal" about booking a hotel zero rate if it occurs?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CoachClass:
which justifies being witness to all sorts of unethical (and illegal) behavior</font>

What is "illegal" about booking a hotel zero rate if it occurs?

Nothing, as far as I know. But the position outlined above justifies doing nothing ever for the sake of "ethics."

Thank You. Clear as Mud to me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goldlust:
[b]ETHICS


[list] Where is the ethics in publishing references to a private email message without the author's consent[QUOTE]


Describing an email sent to all the people on "the list" as a private email message is truly funny.

Say, Jane, it sure would be appreciated if you'd use those dandy investigative skills of yours to seek out some good air deals for us.

Well, I, for one, surely want to know what's going on and specifically whatever "deals" are available out there. I'd ideally like to select from everything for myself!

Before the birth of FT, HHonors offered free nights to Las Vegas and Reno to its many members on very slow nights during the slow season months a few times. One needed to only know of it - and the HHonors statements and ads often arrived a bit late as we all know. My wife and I could each have enjoyed several $0 free nights then. Yet I neglected to take advantage of 'em because I either had to be, or chose to be elsewhere.

Are these "mistakes" different? Probably, but it is still an individual choice whether or not to partake, isn't it?

Being on a "list" is the next best thing to seeing it posted publicly for all to see, IMHO. If some folks want to create a "private" email list, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and am happy to partake - even if I do not seize each and every opportunity - or any at all.

As with the earlier "opportunites" noted, I was again able to book this one but I choose not to. Importantly, however, it was my personal choice - no one else decided the level of usefulness for me, or the ethics/comfort level for me. To each his/her own, IMHO. We are an eclectic group to say the least. Situation ethics works for a lot of people.

Businesses surely need to be very careful and guests/pax should ideally be true to themselves and their individual moral/ ethical compasses.

Who are we to throw stones after all?

Regarding the comment by DOC2BE, I agree that Hilton has perhaps set a somewhat dangerous precedent, yet their manifest kindness in offering a fair resolution and showing some goodwill/good faith here after admitting a "mistake" actually very much endears them to me and surely makes me want to patronize their properties more.

Having said all this, maybe I too would book the next great "deal" should it ever present itself and feel "right" for me! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

PremEx

Posts: 4539
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Registered:
posted 09-05-2001 11:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC 2 BE writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently Hilton has decided to treat these "prices" as true room rates and therefore, if I ever happen to see such a rate at a Hilton family hotel I will now book it because of their business practice.
Arguments about the presence or a lack of consideration are now beyond the point, as Hilton has manifestly "advertised" that these rates are valid. As such, they are now bound by that business practice and better had hope that their filter really works. I, for one, now have no compunction about booking such a rate and expecting Hilton to honor it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see absoulutly nothing in Hilton's statements that indicate that these are valid rates or that they should, in the future, be considered such. The fact that they are only honoring the first night free is clear proof of that.

Rather, I see them as honoring the first night as free and subsequent nights at 50% off as merely a gesture of goodwill and admission that the mistake was theirs, and that mistake may have inconvienced some of it's customers.

That, and probably wanting to avoid bad press.

IMHO, this does not set any sort of "binding" legal precedence or some sort of legal (or conscience) waiver to jump on these sort of things in the future and expect fulfillment.

Frankly, at this point I'm a bit amazed anyone would even remotely think these were any sort of valid rates. Hilton clearly admitted it was a mistake! If they considered these valid rates, then Mr. 300 would be getting all 300 nights free.

And everyone else too.


--------------------------------------------

PREMEX --

Unfortunately, you are very much mistaken. Call it whatever you like, a valid rate or a gesture of good will, even though Hilton has declared this incident to be a mistake, their REMEDY to this error of theirs will be binding on them should another such error arise. One may argue that the handling of this solitary incident does not make a business practice; that is debateable. In any event, many might recall that Hilton handled the first of these snafus in Mexico City in a similar manner -- the first night would be free and the next nights would be at 1/2 off.

Two examples of remedying the problem do make a practice, especially since they were resolved in exactly the same manner.

You may contend that the $0 rate is not a valid rate, but Hilton's actions speak otherwise. They have chosen (foolishly IMHO) to honor this rate for even a day, and then give you a 50% discount for the rest. They are now obligated to follow this pattern should this problem arise again. The only question that remains is whether one will get HHonors points for the 50% off rate. One would say no as the Entertainment discount which is similar does no do so, but who knows?

In summation, contrary to PremEx's view, inasmuch as Hilton has now twice decided to reward those who book a $0 rate with a 1 ngiht free stay and a 505 discount for the rest, I would now feel comfortable booking these types of rates as their view is that it is entirely legitimate to do so, as is evidenced by their prior response to same.

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 09-06-2001).]

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 09-06-2001).]

I guess the programmers aren't good enough to disallow a $0 rate being accepted. Seems pretty simple to me. How many times does this have to happen to Hilton before they get a clue.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Describing an email sent to all the people on "the list" as a private email message is truly funny.</font>

Only a person with no knowledge of the size or nature of the list (and a total of 9 posts) would make such an absurd comment.

I happen to know pretty well what I am talking about, FYI.

Notwithstanding that any first-year law student could recognize that there is no contract formed by booking a zero dollar reservation, a private business can refuse service to anyone as long as the refusal is not predicated on a protected (i.e., race, etc.) ground. The remedy? Mr. 300 rooms can have his money ($0) back!

IMHO, Mr.300 rooms was the inevitable result of "the list" mentality. Taking advantage of an obvious error is one thing; crying foul when the error is reasonably corrected is another. Hilton should make a note of all the whiners and make sure they get the "special" rooms (you know, the ones nobody wants b/c noise, smell, location, etc.) the next time they book a stay at a property.

One interesting coda: I just received some paid airline tickets from my travel agency. In the fine print on the back of their receipt is this language: "Unless the term "guaranteed" is specifically stated in writing on your ticket, invoice, or reservation itinerary, we do not guarantee any of such suppliers' rates, bookings or reservations."

Of course, I have never seen the word "guaranteed" on any ticket, invoice or reservation, regardless of the source...

Goldlust,

I witheld comment when you and Empress selected which FTers would be worthy of your "list" and I maintain that I have never sought inclusion in either the "list" or "new list"; only to keep on associating with Randy's FT community.
There are some of us who realized your "terms" might deviate from FT's ideals (open discussions on all things travel-related), so your "list" wasn't that appealing. This is just a difference of opinions and not a personal attack.

WSJ's publishing your SAN "list party" in March must have been disappointing and I'm sorry that I made light of it in my earlier post. Personally, I try to be more reflective and less narcisstic.

Goldlust how many people received the "private" email? Let others judge whose comment is absurd.

If you have a beef with a company and send them an email, that is private. When you then share that email with others, as was obviously done here, it ceases being private.

Since you "know pretty well what I'm talking about" please educate me. Wasn't the origin of the list to ensure that companies didn't close the window on deals before as many people as possible got through. Wasn't this $0 window closed prior to the original post on this thread? If so, why cry about the sunshine? Why lobby to close the thread? The list member's ability to book the secret deal was uncompromised. Is is because something else is at work here?

Just asking.

I wouldn't have responded, but this is how to get the post count up and some seem to think that is important.

Welcome to FT, ilander; it's the quality of posts and not the quantity that matter.
We are all netizen's of Randy Petersen's FlyerTalk community, including the faction known as the "list". Don't ever feel your voice is insignificant to another's, no matter how self-important we make ourselves out to be.

I've read the posts debating the issues of whether Hilton should or should not honor the rates and while I don't necessarily agree completely, all have expressed some veryy valid points. Is booking 300 rooms ethical and a sheer sign of greed? In my opinion, absolutely and this is not intended to be a flame against whomever it was that booked the 300 rooms. Whether Hilton should honor the rate is questionable and if so, should the 300 room guest be entitled to an alternative form of compensation? Hilton offered on it's website the "lowest available rate" which appeared to be zero. In essence, they made an offer and it was accepted. Any company that desires to have an online presence should set in place the necessary safeguards to prevent these types of mishaps from occuring. It's a cost of doing business and Hilton should honor the rates for one booking or perhaps offer a weekend during low peak. Hilton was negligent in loading the rates and it could have been avoided had the responsible individual performed a "test" booking or reviewed the changes.

Likewise, since rates are tied to the occupancy rate and had someone booked a room at the SDMV during the same period the 300 room person did, he or she would have paid a higher than normal rate. Now, when 299 of 300 rooms are empty or the reservation cancelled 24 hrs prior to the date of arrival, is Hilton going to contact the individual who is paying the inflated rate as it was an "error"? Their error caused an inflated rate but I sincerely doubt they will attempt to make any corrections for any guest who had booked a room at a higher than normal rate. Now we have an innocent guest who is truly wronged due to someone's greed of booking 300 rooms.

A $100 energy surcharge and a $30 resort fee will clear the whole problem up for Hilton.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by opus17:
A $100 energy surcharge and a $30 resort fee will clear the whole problem up for Hilton.</font>

How about a $50 urgently needed computer programmer assistance fee as well?

Whilst I agree that Hilton have no legal obligation to provide $0 rooms, I think that their hands-up attitude sounds fair enough. They could have got aroung it perfectly and taught that greedy fool a perfect lesson.

I am aware that in the USA the rates that you quote are exclusive of taxes state city or anything (In the EEC this is forbidden all prices have to be net of VAT, only city Taxe de Sejour may be aded but these should be notified). Hilton should have honoured the rate and added $50 for provision of bed linen, $50 for provision of TV, $50 for providing a telephone (laugh not, Sheraton in Fort Lauderdale did exactly that)...you get the picture.

I would have given anything to have seen this Smartalec to have rolled up and been susequently thrown out on his ear for not providing sufficient credit. I am so bored with this sort of "clever" behaviour.

Had Hilton charged $1, or indeed 1 cent then they would have a far more difficult time. However silly these $29 fares may be, they do sometimes charge "silly" fares to get headlines and publicity. To reduce this to absurdity, if everyone paid this there would be few decent hotels or airlines left.

Oh, and yes I think that this is exactly what should be on these pages and I am deeply grateful for learning that these sort of things go on.

I am the "300-room-guy", 318 room-nights to be precise. And yes, as of September 7th, 2001 - 2:00pm CEST, I think of using them all.

Summary of this post: I hold 318 room-nights in 29 reservations at three different properties for dates all over 2002, not 300 rooms for one night in one property. I could use all reservations I hold theoretically, but will not use all. I have not decided which I will not use. I did not contact Hilton to ask for a freebie, they asked me for my price to give up the reservations when I asked them about a change in one of my reservations.

I have thought long after reading this post if I should post a statement here or not, but finally I decided that I have to clear up some things. I post this that late because I have been traveling the past days, and departed about 30 minutes after I read about the offer from Hilton. The eMail to "The List" was about the last thing I did before getting to the airport.


The reason for booking that many rooms is pretty simple: I am still four to ten month out to the dates I made the reservations for, so I booked every date-combination that may be interesting for me for next year's holiday. I carefully reviewed the cancellation-policy that goes with these rates, and it says that I can cancel them up to 24 hours in advance without penalty if I like to. That's what I am going to do when I finally have decided when and where to go.

I was reviewing my reservation the other day when I found out that three of my reservations had been altered manually by the hotel, and that triggered me to contact Hilton what had happened to this three reservations.

When they replied they did not adress my original question but I was asked what I would ask for giving up my 0$-reservations, and as I am used to negotiating, I asked for something pretty hefty to have something to spare for negotiating. In that response I asked for 10 years comped diamond, honoring all nights I really need at the confirmed 0$-rate and a couple of HHonors points (unspecified amount) for each night I don't. I still think this is a reasonable base to find a mutual agreement benefiting both sides.


I do not see this as "blackmail" or "extortion" as it was posted here, because I did not contact Hilton with a request for any freebies and a threat to do something if they do not do what I want them to do, but they ASKED me for "my price" for giving up the reservations NOW. Before that point, I was still thinking of having the reservations I need to be honored and cancelling those I don't need without anything in return.

So they asked me what I want to get, and I gave them something to negotiate. Their offer was what was posted in the article printed in the WSJ, and it is my opinion that this is pretty lame, especially since this is the third time in twelve month that they had this kind of problems and the rates were in their systems from at least July 21st to August 8th, a span of 18 days. It was not a temporary glitch or system-malfuction judging from that point of view.


318 room-nights, btw., are far different from 300 reservations or 300 rooms. These 318 room-nights are booked in a total of 29 reservations in three properties. But if you are traveling with a family that requires three rooms, each night of your stay counts at three room-nights. So let me do some math:

I booked three weeks in spring next year twice (once for each property in question, each week seperately) for three rooms, making this 126 room-nights in six reservations. The same I have done for the summer, which comes to another 126 room-nights, bringing the total to 252 room-nights and twelve reservations. The rest of the 318 room-nights (66 room-nights) are distributed all over the upcoming year and over the three different properties where I might have the oportunity of visiting the corresponding places.

It is my understanding that this way of booking is a common practice. When you see a good hotel-rate that is refundable, you will likely book that just in case you could use that reservation with a certain likelyhood. If you don't, then you cancel, and that's it. This is also the way many people that use Priceline work: They reserve a cancellable backup until they are successful getting their price at Priceline, and then cancel their backup, and I'm sure many of you do not see anything bad about this.


So while I am risking being flamed all over by posting this here and having a live eMail-adress in my profile, I still stand to what I have done and why. And hopefully in the light of these extra explainations (which I must admit the original poster did not have), my actions do not look deplorable any more.

Greetings - Dirk

Dirk-

Thanks for coming out and trying to clarify and address the issues at hand here. No stones coming your way from me.

While I now better understand your position and intent, and admittedly even agree with some of what you say, your comment that "I still think this is a reasonable base to find a mutual agreement benefiting both sides" did catch my eye! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Reviewing,

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by djohannw:

[B...In that response I asked for 10 years comped diamond, honoring all nights I really need at the confirmed 0$-rate and a couple of HHonors points (unspecified amount) for each night I don't. I still think this is a reasonable base to find a mutual agreement benefiting both sides...
[/B]</font>

Really? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

If the reservation system actually permitted booking further out, would you, or I, or anyone, book say 3,100 rooms - just for good measure?

Don't we need to be somewhat "reasonable" and fair in our booking behavior and in our negotiations as well? i hope so.

Let's not go overboard, and also try to think of the other side/persons involved!

This is not a WAR, is it? As noted previously by boomer and subsequently quoted by me, it is not about world peace her on FT, but rather simply about accumulating and maximizing miles and points.

We ALL like 'em, and want 'em, but IMHO, Hilton has been quite upstanding and fair in response as I noted above and I do hope we ALL can try to do the same.

As I'd joked before, what do I get for NOT booking this rate? I have not yet heard from Hilton! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

All the best to you in obtaining a prompt and hopefully mutually satisfactory resolution.

Have a great weekend everyone! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

After reading Goldlust describe the email Dirk sent as a private message I wrote,

Describing an email sent to all the people on "the list" as a private email message is truly funny.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Goldlust:
Only a person with no knowledge of the size or nature of the list (and a total of 9 posts) would make such an absurd comment.

I happen to know pretty well what I am talking about, FYI.</font>


Dirk,

Thanks for adding perspective to the story. A few facts make a lot of difference.

Goldlust,

Since Dirk said he emailed "the list", whose comment is absurd? What was the point of your original post to which I responded, oh yes, it was ethics. I guess more than one thing was put in perspective.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
If the reservation system actually permitted booking further out, would you, or I, or anyone, book say 3,100 rooms - just for good measure?
</font>

Actually, at one point I wished that I had been able to book anything beyond August 3, 2002, but that was not possible. I hope I made it clear enough that I only made reservations that I could use to a certain degree of likeliness, and I can assure you that this degree is in fact higher than 25% for each reservation I made.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Don't we need to be somewhat "reasonable" and fair in our booking behavior and in our negotiations as well? i hope so.

Let's not go overboard, and also try to think of the other side/persons involved!
</font>

I never expected them to give me everything I asked for, but to have something to negotiate, your first move has to be to request something very big. And to repeat it again: THEY came forward to ask me what I would like to get to drop my reservations. So as a starting-point, I still see it as acceptable to put everything imaginable on the table and the see how it shrinks to something that finally fits everyone.

Greetings - Dirk

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by djohannw:
I am the "300-room-guy", 318 room-nights to be precise. ..So while I am risking being flamed all over by posting this here and having a live eMail-adress in my profile, I still stand to what I have done and why. And hopefully in the light of these extra explainations (which I must admit the original poster did not have), my actions do not look deplorable any more.

Greetings - Dirk</font>

Hey Dirk - First thing is that I believe you should be commended for that kind of stand-up attitude and taking the risk to come in and give some more background information. I do want to make clear to everyone that this post was not intended as an attack on Dirk but I used Dirk (without all of the facts above) as an example of how people abuse obvious errors.

I think Dirk makes some very good points in his post and I so have a better understanding of his response to Hilton. With all that said - I still disagree. I believe that the remedy offered by Hilton is adequate.

Even though I and others may strongly disagree with djohannw, let's not turn this into a personal attack flame session with Dirk as the target.


------------------
Ken in Sacramento

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ilander:

Goldlust,

Since Dirk said he emailed "the list", whose comment is absurd?
</font>

Your comment is still the absurd one, since you are of the opinion that emailing "The List" would make one's email part of the public domain. As I state, only a person with very little knowledge of "The List" would make such a bold yet foolish comment.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Goldlust:
As I state, only a person with very little knowledge of "The List" would make such a bold yet foolish comment. </font>

Actually, that's not true either. I am on the list, and I still think you're the one whose comments here have been absurd.

And I agree with those above who have commended Dirk for "coming out of the list" for this discussion. I don't agree with him on all points, but he makes a good case.

As for "The LIST" theres no reason it shouldn't exist.Thanks to those for making it happen and keeping it alive.

As for free nights.IMHO its free if you live close by.Otherwise one is gonna have to fly paying for that tkt or using miles for a free tkt. Yes it would be nice to get together with everyone but that can be done at a P.I.P also,albeit with a cast of different people.

Whats bad is why Jane printed anything especially when it was stated,its not allowed. I can only think what would be the case if I did the same to her sources B4 she printed anything,but then again I sort of doubt anyone at WSJ knows from anything thats not on The LIST or FT.

Dirk --

I commend you on coming forward and providing some additional details.

I do, however, feel that you have tremendously abused the Hilton reservations system and their error. I have a number of friends who apparently have taken advantage of this error, and on that, I just have to say that reasonable minds can disagree as to booking rooms under it. However, given that Hilton has assumed the onus of this error, not once but twice now, and is willing to provide some form of compensation to all who book it in spite of common business sense (IMHO), then as I have said, since they have treated this "rate" as a valid rate, or at the very least, one that should be honored, then I feel no hesitiation on booking such a rate in the future, since this is their business judjgment.

However, that does not mean that one should continue to abuse the system. At the very least, it would be in your collective good sense not to abuse it so that they will not spend the $$ to place a filter on their site to prevent this from occurring again.

I agree that Dirk abused the system in an attempt to take advantage of Hilton. 318 rooms, even in a years' time, come on... Actually, you will be getting a good score from HH because you didn't book 300 rooms at one property, but spaced out the stays over time... lots of free nites at everyone else's expense. Moreover, I see your "willingness to negotiate" when hilton doesn't legally owe you a dime as indicative of your true motive in all this: greed, however framed. (BTW budding legal scholars out there-- that the reservation is revokable up to 24 hours prior means that it does not create a binding legal obligation on HH).

Who will ultimately pay for this? Innocent guests to whom the cost of your shake-down is passed onto.

Who is going to pay for the rooms "sold" @ $0/night, including djohannw's 318 room-nights? Me.

I'm the customer who pays the rack or negotiated rate for my hotel stays. I don't search for or take advantage of computer glitches in hotel rates.

When the hotel abosorbs the cost of giving away hotel space because several people took advantage of a computer glitch, the hotel will pass the cost on to other customers through price increases, holding off on discounts, or cutting back on services.

I'll think about this when I don't have a chocolate on my pillow next week.




------------------
He who dies with the most miles ... is dead.

Analogy: does negotiating with terrorists legitimize terrorism? Nope.

Hilton was more than gracious in asking Dirk what he would accept in exchange for dropping the multitude of free rooms. If I were Hilton, I would cancel every single booking, and tell Dirk to get lost (i.e., "we don't negotiate with terrorists"). No business, no matter how desperate, ever needs a "customer" like this.

Then, instead of bargaining in good faith as Hilton has done, Dirk continued to squeeze Hilton for everything he can. If Hilton had taken the same position as Dirk, they would have simply cancelled every reservation and not even bothered letting him know, just to "teach him a lesson". Isn't that what you're doing to Hilton, teaching them a lesson about not loading $0 rates into your system?


Suppose you go into a jewelry store, and you see that the salesperson is not there, and all the display cases are unlocked. Would you be justified in taking as much jewelry as you can carry out of the store, and later saying you taught them a lesson about not locking the cases? After all, now they know to lock the cases, and in fact you've "saved" them the jewelry they might have lost to all those future un-locked cases.


Dirk, I appreciate your "coming out". However, I sharply disagree with what you've done, and I am stating my opinion.

I appreciate that DJohannw has shed some light on his actions. Peeling back the curtains of secrecy was all I was really after. FT is an open-to-all community willing to share and discuss all things travel related.

IMHO, some members of the "list", who also benefit from FT, want to regulate the flow of information. Sharing info amongst an e-mail list is great, as long as info is allowed to proceed later on and not be dammed up for more than a month. First report of Hilton's glitch was July 21st; window of opportunity closed on August 8th, 18 days later.

We allow some time (2 or 3 days at most) to make as much use of "specials" before we post to FT, but to not even post that there was such a deal or try to cover-up when TMK made his original post more than a month later; BAD KARMA.

FT as a community has been there for us. I know that I've benefitted and tried to return the favor... now we have to be part of a faction whose "covenant" diminishes FT?

Now, what happens to those commendable folks like TravelManKen, SMessier, and others who allow info to proceed on its natural course onto FT? Why try to diminish FT?

Please try to understand that I am not anti-"list" as I am really pro-FT community. I have only one handle or alias, anim8r, and have only posted as anim8r. I stand behind my posts.

Contributing useful "specials" or advice to FT should continue and not be discouraged by some "list" Commandant. Sorry cheap shot, the adolescence in me slipped out.

edited --Nothing was subtracted, only added to clarify myself

[This message has been edited by anim8r (edited 09-08-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by craz:
...Whats bad is why Jane printed anything especially when it was stated,its not allowed. I can only think what would be the case if I did the same to her sources B4 she printed anything,but then again I sort of doubt anyone at WSJ knows from anything thats not on The LIST or FT.</font>

I don't understand where Jane Costello at WSJ did anything wrong. She heard about the error, thought it newsworthy (and it is), contacted and interviewed a consumer who booked a $0 room, contacted and interviewed Hilton, then wrote an accurate article (see page 3 of this post) that referenced her one-on-one conversations. I've never been a journalist, but I can't see anything wrong with what she did.

If someone has a problem with the article, don't blame Jane - talk to the List member and the spokesperson at Hilton who gave the interviews.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
No business, no matter how desperate, ever needs a "customer" like this.
</font>

Not sure, but what is exactly that kind of "customer like this"? At this very moment, I do not feel any different than anybody else than somebody booking one, four, nine or twenty nights at this rate, and I can asure you that there are a lot of people who have done this, and many of them have EARNED status with Hilton, including me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
If I were Hilton, I would cancel every single booking, and tell Dirk to get lost (i.e., "we don't negotiate with terrorists").
</font>

Well, obviously they thought they had to do differently, and as you can expect from a global operating company they will have their reasons for that.

Just imagine that there are other countries outside the USA that may have different legislation, and as long Hilton operates in that country, they have to obey these laws as well...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Then, instead of bargaining in good faith as Hilton has done, Dirk continued to squeeze Hilton for everything he can
</font>

Actually the sequence of events is:

1: Hilton asks for "my price"
2: I name my price (knowingly over the top)
3: They offer something
4: I tell them I do not like it

What the hell is wrong with that??? I am not of the kind to usually accept the first offer I receive. If you feel diffenrently, you may do so and miss out a lot of deals, but it is my FIRM believe that this the way business is done.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
However, I sharply disagree with what you've done, and I am stating my opinion.
</font>

This is something I can live with. However comparisons with terrorists etc. looks pretty much over the top to me...

Greetings - Dirk

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">&lt;&lt; No business, no matter how desperate, ever needs a "customer" like this. &gt;&gt;

Not sure, but what is exactly that kind of "customer like this"? At this very moment, I do not feel any different than anybody else than somebody booking one, four, nine or twenty nights at this rate, and I can asure you that there are a lot of people who have done this, and many of them have EARNED status with Hilton, including me. </font>

There is a big difference between booking a few free nights and booking 318 free nights. Your Hilton status is irrelevant.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">&lt;&lt; Then, instead of bargaining in good faith as Hilton has done, Dirk continued to squeeze Hilton for everything he can &gt;&gt;

Actually the sequence of events is:

1: Hilton asks for "my price"
2: I name my price (knowingly over the top)
3: They offer something
4: I tell them I do not like it

What the hell is wrong with that??? I am not of the kind to usually accept the first offer I receive. If you feel diffenrently, you may do so and miss out a lot of deals, but it is my FIRM believe that this the way business is done.</font>

This is NOT the way business is done. Businesses cannot give away the store, literally, and continue to operate.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">&lt;&lt; However, I sharply disagree with what you've done, and I am stating my opinion. &gt;&gt;

This is something I can live with. However comparisons with terrorists etc. looks pretty much over the top to me...

Greetings - Dirk</font>

It was an analogy, not a comparison.


[This message has been edited by JS (edited 09-07-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by djohannw:

Their offer was what was posted in the article printed in the WSJ, and it is my opinion that this is pretty lame, especially since this is the third time in twelve month that they had this kind of problem....</font>


First, this was the 2nd time not the third time this has happened. Second, you appear to have been aware of the prior problem and the proposed remedy for same -- first night free and remaining nights at 1/2 price. Therefore, Hilton may argue that that is their standard response and that you had notice of the remedy before you booked the room. Third, I think Hilton's offer is quite generous and that far from considering it lame, you should accept it.

IMHO, Hilton could very easily tell you to stuff it and blacklist you from earning HHonors points. And, may I ask, what would be your remedy??

Are you going to sue Hilton over a $0 rate?? I am quite aware of the liberal attitudes amongst jurors, but do you really think that the poor idiot in the juror box is going to sympathize with you, especially since Hilton has given you a generous offer? Further, you may not obtain much sympathy since I assume you are a German national. In addition, you would have to sue in Federal Court because of diversity problems, and this is well known to be a far less hospitable place for plaintiffs. Finally, I think it quite doubtful that you will find an attorney who would be willing to take this case on a contingency basis. Therfore, you would have to put your own $$ up front to see that this was actually litigated. Although I think that the American court system has some flaws, it would be interesting to noted how you value your claim, by actually putting your money where your mouth is -- if you think it so valid and that Hilton's offer is so lame, then I hope that Hilton reneges on their offer to just you, and then we will see if you actually feel that your claim is justified.

My 2 pfennings (soon to be .02 Euros)

There has been a lot of talk here about the legal and moral issues surrounding '318 man'.

I really don't care about the legal issues - North America has already reaped the 'benefits' of their overly litigious society - and still not learned that they are shooting themselves in the foot! (but thats a thread for another day).

What I am more concerned about is the relationship that we frequent travellers build up with our primary 'suppliers' - airlines, car rental companies, and hotels. Let us not forget that we all rely on their goodwill sometimes. Forgot to cancel a room, flight, or car rental when plans change - I have - and always been treated well by the people I rely on to make my life on the road a little less stressful. When I no longer make mistakes, or can walk across Lake Ontario, maybe I can look down on them, until then, (don't hold your breath), it's live and let live.

These relationships are jeopardized by the actions of '318 room man'. No-one would build an expensive hotel just to give away the rooms free, so why don't we just accept that they made a mistake - and instead of booking lots of rooms, give them a call to let them know!

Next time '318 room man' makes a mistake, I for one would like to hear all his excuses as to why the aggrieved party should not nail his b**ls to the floor until he compensated them.

These relationships are jeopardized by the actions of '318 room man'. No-one would build an expensive hotel just to give away the rooms free, so why don't we just accept that they made a mistake - and instead of booking lots of rooms, give them a call to let them know!
----------------

Yes! As anyone who lost money on the dot.bombs knows.... Had the error been pointed out to HH, they probably would have given Honors points or a free mistake as a reward.

----------------

Next time '318 room man' makes a mistake, I for one would like to hear all his excuses as to why the aggrieved party should not nail his b**ls to the floor until he compensated them.
----------------

It really irks me that in the internet age one slob sitting on his fat a** in Germany or wherever can screw up things for the rest of us. Hilton doesn't need that kind of customer. (Haven't the airlines banned certain folks?)

I am sure it may have been said, but I totally disagree with situational ethics. I believe you have to have a heart and insight to do what is right.

What is right is to honor people when they make a mistake. Hilton and Sheraton have both done this the other way... (get to the hotel and the wrong rate comes up, they reduce it and appologize). I think that we have to be reasonable. ZERO is definitly a mistake....

Also, I am certain that Hilton has something on their site about rates quoted or mistakes. I do think they can fix this by putting in some checking rule that if the rate comes back under $1 error the screen. But they didn't.

What they did is offer a reasonable offer. The are giving the first night free and other nights at 1/2 off the best rate. So if you were honestly looking for the best rate for that hotel.. you are saving over 50%. I would ask for maybe hotel credit for all nights, since you want to keep your status,etc... but that is all I would do.

I do not know if Hilton is legally obligated past that. And also, in the court of public opinion, they handled this alot better than United...

Kudos to Hilton for a job well done. I hope others understand that they did make a good faith gesture!

This thread is absolutely fascinating, especially since the "300-room man" came forward and gave an account of what he did.

Over a year ago, while searching on an internet travel site, I stumbled across a $0 rate for a hotel room (don't remember which hotel or chain) in Paris. I assumed it was a mistake and didn't dream of trying to reserve it to see what would happen. Similarly, if I were to encounter an insanely cheap but non-zero rate, like less than one dollar for a flight that normally costs over $2,000 (which has not yet happened to me), I would dismiss it as an error. Maybe it's not so much my ethical nature, but a fear that not only would the rate NOT be honored, but I would be without a reservation or flight!

So I'm pretty amazed at the chutzpah that some people have. But then, it turns out that the "300-room man" is not necessarily COUNTING on these reservations to materialize. They are more in the nature of a speculation.

Also, although I do occasionally report bugs or erroneous information on websites, the response I get is usually less than reinforcing. Either no response, a useless canned response, and/or a message that they were "unable to reproduce the problem." So I would NOT have high hopes of any kind of reward for reporting a $0 (or insanely low) hotel rate or airfare.

Kathy

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">if I were to encounter an insanely cheap but non-zero rate, like less than one dollar for a flight that normally costs over $2,000 (which has not yet happened to me), I would dismiss it as an error. </font>

Bet those folks who just had United honour those 25 CENT International $2,700 fares (including all taxes) are glad they did not take your view and dismiss them as "an error". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by se94583:
It really irks me that in the internet age one slob sitting on his fat a** in Germany or wherever can screw up things for the rest of us. Hilton doesn't need that kind of customer. (Haven't the airlines banned certain folks?)</font>

Here we go -- Dirk at least has the courage to come out here and engage in a civil discussion about the situation, but for some such discussion proves impossible without engaging in personal attacks.

What is also striking about the internet age is how one person sitting some random place can just label a perfect stranger a "slob" sitting on his "fat ..." for allegedly "messing things up" for the rest of us.

The impact on Hilton's bottom line will be non existent. They will fix their programming so that $0 rates no longer appear, and that will be the end of that. And yes, airlines have banned certain folks -- then again, so has FT!

Why does Dirk's nationality have anything to do with this for some of the people here?

If you were referring to my post, his nationality has a great deal to do with where he might be able to sue Hilton, as diversity restrictions would likely place him in Federal court. Further, I would think that a foreign individual would have even more trouble convincing a jury composed of Americans as to the validity of his claim. His nationality only was of interest to me on those 2 accounts, and nothing more. He could have been from Naaru, and that would still not change the likelihood of his success or his venue for such a lawsuit.

In spite of my relatively short tenure here on the boards, I think the points made below by anim8r are of more concern than Dirk's 318 room nights. If this is what FT is evolving into, it's pathetic. Thanks for your comments anim8r.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anim8r:
I appreciate that DJohannw has shed some light on his actions. Peeling back the curtains of secrecy was all I was really after. FT is an open-to-all community willing to share and discuss all things travel related.

IMHO, some members of the "list", who also benefit from FT, want to regulate the flow of information. Sharing info amongst an e-mail list is great, as long as info is allowed to proceed later on and not be dammed up for more than a month. First report of Hilton's glitch was July 21st; window of opportunity closed on August 8th, 18 days later.

We allow some time (2 or 3 days at most) to make as much use of "specials" before we post to FT, but to not even post that there was such a deal or try to cover-up when TMK made his original post more than a month later; BAD KARMA.

FT as a community has been there for us. I know that I've benefitted and tried to return the favor... now we have to be part of a faction whose "covenant" diminishes FT?

Now, what happens to those commendable folks like TravelManKen, SMessier, and others who allow info to proceed on its natural course onto FT? Why try to diminish FT?

Please try to understand that I am not anti-"list" as I am really pro-FT community. I have only one handle or alias, anim8r, and have only posted as anim8r. I stand behind my posts.

Contributing useful "specials" or advice to FT should continue and not be discouraged by some "list" Commandant. Sorry cheap shot, the adolescence in me slipped out.

edited --Nothing was subtracted, only added to clarify myself

[This message has been edited by anim8r (edited 09-08-2001).]</font>

anim8r- if its not to much trouble..could you send me an email? Yours address isnt in your profile.

Grazie mille!

------------------
Have a great day!!
~~Missy~~

This will be my last reply by myself to this topic, because this is about the only post that is trying to exchange arguments in contrast to flames only...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
First, this was the 2nd time not the third time this has happened. Second, you appear
[/QOUTE]

Well, Mexico City and Vancouver make this occurence the third time in my eyes...;-)!

[QUOTE]
to have been aware of the prior problem and the proposed remedy for same -- first night free and remaining nights at 1/2 price. Therefore, Hilton may argue that that is their standard response and that you had notice of the remedy before you booked the room.
</font>

Well, that may be their reaction, yes. We will see how things develop.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Third, I think Hilton's offer is quite generous and that far from considering it lame, you should accept it.
</font>

I understand that everybody has a different understanding of what's appropiate, and I really honor your position as well as I ask you to accept my view. Many people replied to my eMail to the List expressing that they fell the same way as I do, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of people here in this thread that think otherwise.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
IMHO, Hilton could very easily tell you to stuff it and blacklist you from earning HHonors points. And, may I ask, what would be your remedy??
</font>

Again, they could do so, but then again, THEY asked me for a price. I did not ask for any remedy before I was asked!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Are you going to sue Hilton over a $0 rate?? I am quite aware of the liberal attitudes amongst jurors, but do you really think that the poor idiot in the juror box is going to sympathize with you, especially since Hilton has given you a generous offer? Further, you may not obtain much sympathy since I assume you are a German national. In addition, you would have to sue in Federal Court because of diversity problems, and this is well known to be a far less hospitable place for plaintiffs.
</font>

Well, at this point I have no intention to sue Hilton over the 0$-rates, and also so far no real reason to consider to do so. If I had to sue them, you can be sure that I would not sue Hilton in the USA because of the problems you mentioned, but rather in my home-country.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
My 2 pfennings (soon to be .02 Euros)[/B]</font>

Hey, that's inflating your pfennigs...;-)! Two Pfennigs are going to be roughly one cent after January 1, 2002.

Greetings - Dirk

Dirk --

I was unaware of the Vancouver incident. Pray tell when did it occur, how many were involved, and how was it settled? Did Hilton offer the same deal?

Also, I was under the impression that in Germany, you had to pay an attorney for them to bring a case, as contingency fees were not allowed. In addition, I think it unlikely that a German court would take jurisdiction of the case for although you are a German national (?) the venue for the claim was in San Diego.

Finally, I like your comment re the Euros!

PS -- I think you will find that those here on FT are a great deal more representative of the traveling public/road warriors than those who subscribe to the List.

I am sure you are a decent guy. I just think you went way, way, overboard!

As to Hilton contacting you, I think their response to this and the other fiascos has been stupid, but who am I to tell them how to run a business. All I can say is that as for me, since Hilton apparently treats these "mistakes" as valid rates, then I no longer feel there is any problem with booking them. Inasmuch as they have treated those who have booked these rates to a free night and a 50% discount for the rest of the stay, I view these rates and Hilton's response to be nothing more than an extraordinary BounceBack Weekend Rate. Until such time as they do away with this "rate," I will take full advantage of it when my travel plans permit.

However, I think that even you would agree that you have gone a bit overboard?

Regards,

D2B

The simple question is this:

Has a mistake been taken advantage of? Yes.

Commentary:
It saddens me when we try to justify what we know is unethical. I would be hurt if I owned a business and one of my frequent buyers/ flyers/ stayers/patrons did this.

It just isn't nice.

I don't understand why we're giving advice to either Hilton or djohannw. Hilton will make a decision based on its business interests, and djohannw will negotiate on his own behalf. If Hilton wants to tell him where to get off they'll do so; if djohannw wants to settle for 3 upgrades and a copy of "Be My Guest" he can do that too. Of course they aren't going to give him 300 free nights; that's just preposterous.

One more thing: Goldlust said "apparently I have a decency that must be lacking in others."

Yeah, I'm sure you're a friggin' saint. Give us a break!

zrs70 posted

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The simple question is this:
has a mistake been taken advantage of? Yes.

Commentary:

It saddens me when we try to justify what we know is unethical. I would be hurt if I owned a business and one of my frequent buyers/ flyers/ stayers/patrons did this.

It just isn't nice. </font>

Interesting ethics zrs70. Were you not the guy who just posted on the United board that you paid for a Lifetime membership in the Ansett Golden Wing Club (against the apparent Australian citizens only rule) for only $1,500 saving you mega bucks over what you'd need to pay United. Is THAT 'ethical' back-door behaviour in your judgement? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Every time you walk into a Red Carpet Club from now on, for the rest of your life Ansett is billed $US25 a visit. "I would be hurt if I owned a business and one of my frequent buyers/ flyers/ stayers/patrons did this". Wonder how Ansett feels? Let he without sin cast the first stone. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by flyboy1:
zrs70 posted

Interesting ethics zrs70. Were you not the guy who just posted on the United board that you paid for a Lifetime membership in the Ansett Golden Wing Club (against the apparent Australian citizens only rule) for only $1,500 saving you mega bucks over what you'd need to pay United. Is THAT 'ethical' back-door behaviour in your judgement? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Every time you walk into a Red Carpet Club from now on, for the rest of your life Ansett is billed $US25 a visit. "I would be hurt if I owned a business and one of my frequent buyers/ flyers/ stayers/patrons did this". Wonder how Ansett feels? Let he without sin cast the first stone. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

</font>

Interesting ethics zrs70. Were you not the guy who just posted on the United board that you paid for a Lifetime membership in the Ansett Golden Wing Club (against the apparent Australian citizens only rule) for only $1,500 saving you mega bucks over what you'd need to pay United. Is THAT 'ethical' back-door behaviour in your judgement? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Every time you walk into a Red Carpet Club from now on, for the rest of your life Ansett is billed $US25 a visit. "I would be hurt if I owned a business and one of my frequent buyers/ flyers/ stayers/patrons did this". Wonder how Ansett feels? Let he without sin cast the first stone. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Interesting comparison, but innacurate. There was no mistake in any advertised fees. Further, Ansett promotes the use of RCC. I've never heard of the "Australian Citizens only" rule.

CO sells lifetime PC memberships for much less than NW does. HP's is even lower. Yet all allow you access to all clubs. Which will you buy?

Nevertheless, I decided in the end not to get the membership. (Actually, I got it then reconsidered and voided it).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I was unaware of the Vancouver incident. Pray tell when did it occur, how many were involved, and how was it settled? Did Hilton offer the same deal?
</font>

See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum57/HTML/001751.html for details. If I remember correctly, the hotel contacted everybody after the incident and negotiated a deal with them. This incident was the reason to set up "The List" btw..

If you want to discuss this further, feel free to eMail me. You don't have an eMail adress on your profile...

Greetings - Dirk

Schlimm, schlimm.


Bitte hört auf, auf Dirk rumzuhacken. Er hat die Dummheit einiger Programmierer ausgenutzt. Das geschieht denen nur recht.

Bitte: nichts gegen bestimmte Nationalitäten richten.

[This message has been edited by Nobbi (edited 09-10-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Nobbi:
Schlimm, schlimm.

Diejenigen, die dies nicht verstehen, zählem sowieso nicht.

Bitte hört auf, auf Dirk rumzuhacken. Er hat die Dummheit einiger Prorammierer ausgenutzt. Das geschieht denen nur recht.

Bitte: nichts gegen bestimmte Nationalitäten richten.</font>

Stimmt! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Cette conversation a continue trop longtemps en anglais. Maintenant vous voulez la faire encore en Allemand? Pourquoi? Persone ne changront n'importe qui esprit en ce moment de toute facon!

Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir?
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?
Voulez-vous couchez avec moi ce soir?
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?
Mmm, Hmmm

Itchi Gitchi Ya Ya Da Da
Itchi Gitchi Ya Ya Here
Mocha-choco-lata Ya Ya

ROFLMAO @ Opus http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Have a great day!!
~~Missy~~

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kokonutz:
Cette conversation a continue trop longtemps en anglais. </font>

Tu l'as dit! Mais si tu preferes le faire en francais: Bon! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Nu må I altså tage jer sammen! Det giver ikke så meget mening (faktisk: ingen mening) at føre denne diskussion på andre sprog end engelsk. Dette er min ærlige mening.

for those of us who have met opus, just imagine him dancing and shaking his,errr, booties singing that song.... (with a red boa?) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
sorry patti labelle...

Jag håller med Goldlust och tycker att vi kan skriva på engelska i fortsättningen. Om jag skriver på Svenska så förstår inte så många vad jag skriver eller hur Goldlust?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kempis:
....tycker att vi kan skriva på engelska i fortsättningen. </font>

Boy, I sure started something. Well, at least this thread is much more fun now. But I agree, let's go on in English the universal Lingua Franca

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

No podia resistir !! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif No olvidemos el español. Quiero saber que dijeron de Dirk en aleman, me interesa saber ?
Otra nota: Opus, me hiciste reir bastante. Estuvo chistoso. (that was so funny )
Bueno, adios y buenas noches a todos.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

ootay unnyfay http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Avehay a ategray ayday!

Issymay

Why do people persist in thinking that companies have feelings? "How do you think Ansett feels?"

ABSURD!

All of you sympathizing with a company seriously do not comprehend American capitalism.