Sweet Willie

Agreed.

Any hotel chain’s min rate should be the min rate AND there should be a clear checkbox or some other means (as mentioned in above posts) for an accessible room to be reserved. There is no reason why an accessible room should be cheaper than a regular room.

As the actual day of the stay approached if all reg rooms were filled then the property could put guests who don’t need an accessible room into one so that the hotel would be filling all the rooms.

--

cali99boy

i definitely would see it as inconsiderate and selfish to occupy a handicap room when you're able-bodied. Like taking a wheelchair to monkey around in or doing whatever you want to do with it, because you can.

highgamma

Hilton has decided to create accessible rooms for its patrons. Suppose they expect the "peak capacity" of accessible patrons to be 10 on any given night, so, they create 10 accessible rooms.

On any given night, the number of patrons who actually need an accessible room lilkely will be less than 10, hence Hilton has every right to try to rent these rooms to patrons who do not value their accessibility features. If they were somhow bound not to rent these room out to able-bodied patrons, they would likely build FEWER rooms in the first place. Let's say 5 rooms, the average number, not peak number of patrons requiring accessible rooms.

Hence, Hilton's ability to rent these rooms to able-bodied patrons is critical to having enough accessible rooms in the first place.

The lower price for these rooms on the website is a clear indication that having these rooms is a significant cost to Hilton. (They cannot get the same rate as for a standard room, yet they probably spent more building the rooms in the first place.) One way to defray that cost, ethically and financially, is to keep the room full as much as possible.

Now, I would give up an accessible room in a heartbeat (in mid-stay or otherwise and at great inconvenience to me, if necessary). That's my decision. However, Hilton has the right to fill their rooms. People needing accessible rooms also want Hilton to fill them or Hilton will make fewer accessible rooms. Of course, if Hilton has the right to fill its rooms, patrons, able-bodied or not, have the right to occupy these rooms.

Parking places are completely different because the "cost" (i.e., opportunity cost) of an empty parking place is so much lower than that of an empty hotel room. It's not fair to Hilton to expect them to keep 5 hotel rooms empty every night. (Going back to my example with 10 rooms at the peak and 5 rooms on average.)

kazakie

I see no issue with booking the lower rate room, but not giving it up, especially when asked, is of course rude and inhumane. Sad, very, very sad.

Sweet Willie

Why is it that few here are mentioning that the rate for an accessible room should not be any different than a reg room?

Just because one is handicapped should not mean that they pay a lower rate for a room than the average Joe.

--

Snoopy

We've discussed hotel rooms and parking spots...but what about lavatories? What do people think about using the accessible loo if all the regular ones are "in use"? Is that also considered a no-no, or is that acceptable?

DeafFlyer

That's a topic for the disability forum It should be the last choice. If another is available use it. If one isn't, then I see no problem with using the accessible one. Just be mindful that someone who needs it might be waiting while you are reading that 500 page book.

pdhenry

It's

Not

A

Handicapped

Room.


It's an accessible room - this is the term used by Hilton. An accessible room is a room that happens to have features that are better suited for those with special mobility needs. Hilton has never represented that such a room is intended only for handicapped guests.

The rate is lower because the hotel sees a lower rate of occupancy on an accessible room than a room without these features. There are probably at least two resaons for this - one is that the living accomodations are smaller, having given up some space for the accessible bathroom. Another is that people may think they are not "entitled" to a room with a walk-in shower and a wide bathroom door.

If one assumes that the rooms are only to be occupied by people who can't manage a non-accessible room, then it may be easier to conclude that it's somehow unfair or unreasonable for Hilton to be charging a lower rate for an accessible room. I conclude since Hilton freely provides these rooms to the general public, that charging a lower fee for the room is simple supply and demand. Hotels understand yield management.

Sweet Willie

accessible room is the term I used, so why the poignant response?

Matt1

I think the main grip is that the hotel are charging a much lower rate for the accessable room. I cannot see any reason for this and it causes the problem here where the cheap rate is too attractive not to take up. I would take it if it was $100 less.

How can you have a law so abled bodied people cannot book a hotel room? - I walk up wheelchair ramps into shops sometimes and sometimes use a dissabled toliet.

pdhenry

please stop shouting.

Your second statement communicates an assumption that an accessible room is only to be used by handicapped guests.

Sweet Willie

my second statement communicates my belief that no person should be allowed to pay a cheaper rate for a room due to being handicapped. Take the accessible room but not at a cheaper rate than the reg room rate for the property.

pdhenry

If the room is available to anyone (and it is) then a lower room rate for an accessible room is not a special benefit for handicapped people, it's just yield management.

It's when you asusme that only handicapped people are entitled to the cheaper room that it appears to be unfair. Hilton never represents that an accessible room is only intended for handicapped guests. Certainly there are people who can only make use of an accessible room, just as there are situations where people can only make use of a room with more than one bed. That doesn't make it wrong for someone else to occupy one of the accessible rooms.

Do we now start thinking bad thoughts about single travelers who book a 2-Queen room because it's available at a cheaper rate than the King Deluxe? It might deprive someone traveling with their spinster aunt from getting a room at the hotel.

I'm not defending refusing to relinquish an accessible room when the hotel requests it.

toomanybooks

Interesting discussion.

Just to toss out something else, there are certainly degrees of disability. While I would never try to claim that I have severe problems, I do suffer from gout attacks in my big toe joints from time to time, and have a knee which acts up sometimes.

If you have never had gout, I envy you. Feels like somebody is stabbing a knife into your joint every time you move it.

On these occasions, I'd estimate that I am about 10% disabled and a higher toilet seat and grab-bars are definitely comforts, but not totally necessary. Possibly even a sit-down shower.

Of course, I never know far enough ahead of time when these things are coming on, so never manage to reserve an accessible room.

kipper

You bring up a good point. Just because someone isn't in a wheelchair or walking with a cane, it doesn't mean that they don't need the room for some reason. A former co-worker suffered from heart problems, and as such, his ankles and feet would swell up like balloons if he'd been on his feet for a while. As he was a trainer, he could be on his feet for 8 hours, if not more. Once, and only once, was he booked into a Sleep Inn that only offered shower stalls, without bathtubs. After that, he was always booked into other hotels, and a note was always put into his comments when making the reservation that he required a room with a full bathtub, and typically a call to the hotel was made just to verify. He required the bathtub so he could soak his feet so as to help with the swelling.