Quote:
"Revenue for the three months ended March 31 was $2.34 billion, up from $2.26 billion a year ago and matching Wall Street expectations.

The improvement was driven by a 6.6% increase in revenue per available room (RevPAR) and franchise fees. It also continued to expand its timeshare fleet, with EBITDA expanding by 44% to $85 million.

Citing confidence for the rest of the year, Hilton raised its fiscal 2014 adjusted earnings outlook to between 64 cents and 67 cents, above the consensus view of 60 cents.

CEO Christopher Nassetta said the company sees strong global RevPAR growth with systemwide comparable RevPAR growing by as much as 7%. It also continues its aggressive expansion, opening more than 9,000 new rooms in the first quarter, and getting approved for a total of 15,000."

Based on this they are renting less rooms. The revenue is up by 3.5%, yet the room rates are up by 6.6%, and enough of the revenue increase came from Franchise Fees for them to make note of that. So it looks like Hilton is charging more, filling less rooms to me, and the increase in rates made up for the loss in business.

It looks as though Starwood had roughly the same increase in rates, but they had higher Occupancy as well: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0NG3GZ20140424

Marriott's rate only rose 3.3%, but they increased occupancy as well: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3S18E20140429

So it looks to me like Hilton has less people staying at their properties, while SPG and Marriott both saw an increase based on the earnings reports.

Flyertalk is a forum for people that are really into Rewards and Travel, and trying to maximize their experiences. I am more so curious as to what the take is from this forum. It doesn't sound like I am alone in my thoughts, but it doesn't sound like I am in the overwhelming majority either.

I do think that the devaluation effected Hilton in the number of people staying with them based on the financial numbers the big 3 are reporting. At the very least we have a correlation.