spurg

Please do not reserve these rooms. The little money you might be saving is certainly not worth the karmic repurcussions.

squeakr

please confine your remarks to opinions of the issues, not of individual posters.

(although I fear we could debate this all day without any resolution - definitely strong feelings on both sides)

I have had the situation where the ONLY room offered at a particular Hilton is an accessible room - so Hilton offers these rooms rooms on a regular basis to folks who don't need them. It's a sticky issue - if its the only room type offered, do I not book it because someone might need it?

I made sure when I booked that room, that I added a note that I did not NEED an accessible room.

squeakr

mod hilton

karthik

There's one other thing to consider here though: when you're in a metered area or garage, parking spots for disabled people cost the same as the rest of the parking spots. So why is Hilton charging far less in some cases for an accessible room that is in other respects the same as a regular room?

It seems to me that Hilton should fix its policies and charge the same price for the same type of room, accessible or not. (And this comment is in no way intended to excuse the type of behavior resulting in denying an accessible room to someone who actually needs it; by making consistent policies that keep people from reserving these rooms just based on price, you remove one major factor that might cause people to book them over a regular room.) I'm guessing the vast majority of people who've booked accessible rooms would NEVER park in a disabled parking spot. They simply did so because the price was significantly lower. I've never been in that situation, but if I was presented the choice of an accessible room at $150/night or a regular room at $250/night, I could see myself booking the accessible room. (And then calling Hilton or the hotel directly and making absolutely sure they knew I did not specifically need an accessible room in case it was needed for a later booking.)

I'm don't even get why these rooms are even listed as a different type. Why not just have a "I have specific needs - please reserve an accessible room for me" checkbox when you make a reservation? As I see it, this isn't very different than, say, requesting a special meal on an airplane due to religious/dietary/etc restrictions. They don't have you book a special "Low-gluten Seat" in a different, cheaper fare class. (The booking process, that is. Obviously they can serve as many special meals as required, vs a hotel with a fixed number of accessible rooms.)

kmj37

Personallly, I applaud Hilton (and some other chains, ICHG for example) for listing accessible room availability separately from other room availability. This tells me whether a room that probably meets my needs is available without having to call the hotel and determine that myself. Those that list such availability get my business unless no hotel in the area of that brand is available.

Other chains (Marriott comes to mind, Wyndham is even worse) don't do this, which could mean any of the following:

(1) I can't book online, losing out on prices/promotions/points, etc.
(2) I must deal with an untrained reservations rep who may not be aware of all of the terms people/chains use to describe this type of room (ADA, accessible) and the sub-categories (roll-in shower, chair-level toilet)
(3) Some chains, especially at properties not under corporate management, will not GUARANTEE the availability of an accessible room on any given night. A Wyndham timeshare property in Orlando did this to me. It was painful enough that I complained to the general manager.

Nonetheless, I agree that if Hilton does, in fact, reduce the price because the room is accessible, they shouldn't. We can start an entirely different discussion on the classes of room available to the wheelchair-using patron, but I would bet that at these hotels, the room is the most standard, most low-end room they've got. Perhaps it merits a discount because it doesn't have some of the features many rooms will. However, if I was to stay at one of these hotels, I would be the first to inquire about the reasoning.

In the end, reducing the price on these rooms actually hurts the disabled traveller. I want a hotel chain to see that I have money to spend and business to bring, no matter why I travel. The more money we bring to the table, the better the variety and number of room choices, and then everyone can focus on what they're in a city to do, rather than working so hard just to find a place to sleep.

That said - there is progress. I stayed at the IC Chicago last month and was upgraded (as a Gold Ambassador) to an accessible junior suite (my first). Two rooms, 1 1/2 baths, plenty of space.

karthik

Part of the reason I suggested something like a checkbox (which should be a part of the search, and instantly tell you whether or not such a room is available, since I agree that is very important) is so that the rooms DON'T show up unless you specifically request them, making it less likely that someone else will book an accessible room if not required. Makes the search results simpler and easier to read as well for both groups of people. Also, it makes it easier to combine it with other room features, specifically smoking/non-smoking. Some chains seem to do the same with smoking as they do with accesibility; make it a "preference", whereas others make it actually part of the room type. So then one could search for a non-smoking accessible room with ease. (Or are all accessible rooms non-smoking by default? That'd certainly make things easier than juggling smoking and non-smoking accessible rooms.)

Having been forced into smoking rooms a couple times when it was simply a "preference" and not something you could be confirmed for ahead of time, I certainly place value on having that confirmed. I just have minor allergies myself, so the worst a smoking room will do (other than the smell) is make me end up with irritated eyes and a runny nose, but of course there are people who could have life-threatening allergic reactions if forced to stay in a previously-smoked-in room.

Of course there's an even simpler solution to THAT problem: just ban smoking indoors altogether. I applaud Westin North America as well as the various smaller properties that have done just that.

I find that pretty sad. That says to me that upper management is just doing the absolute minimum to comply with the ADA or other legal requirements, and couldn't care less past having to do that.

I would be curious to know that as well. Are some hotels perhaps not keeping their accessible rooms renovated to the same level as the rest of their rooms, and discounting them due to that? That seems abhorrent as well. If a guest wants a cheaper room, that can be accomplished by staying in a cheaper property; picking a discounted accessible room should not be an option. I think we're on the same page as far as agreeing that, as a minimum, the accessible rooms should be kept to the same standard as the standard base level rooms at a property, and priced the same.

BigLar

I checked in on line this morning (for tonight) and I've been upgraded to an accessible jr. suite again.

It's not a matter of money -- I already get a rate so low I'd rather not mention it.

I think I'll make it a point to ask at the front desk what their policy on accessible rooms is. My needs at this point are stay credit and points -- I do one-nighters and an ordinary room is fine.

kmj37

I would appreciate hearing the response to this question.

For what it's worth, if the hotel gives an accessible room to you when you don't need one, that's a mistake on the part of the hotel, not the guest. Hopefully, if they were to ask you to relocate, they would compensate you accordingly and you'd be more than happy to switch out for a larger room or additional points.

kmj37

This is a good idea, and SPG actually does this, I believe. Their interface doesn't work very well, but that's another story.

Actually, there was a time that nearly all accessible rooms were smoking. Non-smoking rooms were considered premium on the basis that they did not smell like smoke, so those of us with access needs were (as was usual) given the lowest room category.


Marriott, especially, is horrible about this. I wanted to reacquaint myself with their website this morning to make sure what I was typing here was correct. This morning, I could not find any means to choose an access preference, so I went so far as to do a google search. What I got out of that search was lawsuit after lawsuit (one against Courtyard for room guarantee, one against a golfing property that was not providing at least one accessible golf cart, and others).


As you might expect, I follow the evolution of the ADA rather closely (maybe this is just my personality - I also read Supreme Court opinions for educational purposes). Over time, thanks to hotels and movie theaters, an unwritten doctrine has come about that some people call "equal experience" in place of "equal access". Translation: it's not enough to provide somewhere to sit or eat or sleep, but you should provide somewhere that allows the disabled person to get an equivalent bang for their buck. "Some hotels" will eventually get dinged for not following this - I just don't give them my money.

loomis

I think that the reason some hotels charge a lower price for these rooms is because for most people there is either a stigma with staying in one of them, or as mentioned before, the traveler just wants to save the room type for someone that truly needs it. By offering them at a lower price the hotel is trying to entice the general public to book them, like it or not.

If you book one, but don't truly need it, the best thing to do is to jot down a note in the "comments" field when you make your reservation to let the hotel know that you don't need the accessible room.

pdhenry

Hilton charges a lower rate for an accessible room because the supply of accessible rooms at the hotel in question exceed the demand. It's all about filling the hotel.

MeNoSay

Did I read this correctly? You, being not a disabled person (physically anyway), reserved a room for disabled people because it was cheaper. The hotel wanted to put you into a normal (more expensive) room because it was needed for a handicapped person, and you said no?

Seriously, I would never admit that to a person whose opinion you cared about. It's the equivilent of taking candy from a child.

MarkMColo

Amen to that.

wakko11

The hotel did not hesitate to reserve an accessible room to a non-disabled person. In fact, they encourage it - otherwise, they would have lots of (usually) empty rooms.

Would I have given up the accessible room in this situation? Probably.

Would I have been real pissed at Hilton for making me move now after they refused to when I told them I didn't need it and wanted to move earlier? Absolutely.

Comparing this situation to handicapped parking spaces and "taking candy from children"? Please... If this was such an issue, why don't we all petition Hilton to make their accessible rooms available only to disabled people - no exceptions. That will make us all happy until we try to reserve a room and are told that there are none left - except that there are 20 unbooked accessible rooms that are not being used and we cannot have one because we are not disabled.

Again, this is not an ethics issue, it's a money issue...

pinniped

(1) Abled-bodied people typically don't want accessible rooms. The issue rears its head at Hiltons because - for better or worse - Hilton's system displays them as a separate room type. Therefore, in some cases, the accessible room is either the only one left or the least expensive room. So, we're somewhat forced to pick that room type and then hope we get "upgraded" out of it. (In fact, there is another thread on this board all about it.)

(2) That other thread discusses somewhat at length the fact that putting your request in the reservation notes doesn't guarantee that you'll get upgraded out of it. In fact, I wonder if they ever read my comments at all. If you book accessible rooms, the hotel policy is presumably to assign your room first to ensure that you really get it, because they assume you really need it. Conclusion: if you book accessible rooms, you might have a hard time getting out of it.

(3) I don't fully understand craz's situation. If I'm in an accessible room for whatever reason - either I booked it or I showed up a 1AM and it was truly the last room available (that's happened to me, too) - and on a subsequent night they call me up and say "Hey, we have a guy in a wheelchair here in the lobby that really needs that room. Would you mind moving to a regular room?", I'm going to move without question. At that point, it's no longer about the hotel or my beef with them - it's about a guy who needs a place to sleep and isn't going to have one if I decide to be difficult.

(4) This is totally unlike parking spaces, both ethically and legally. The accessible rooms are available to the general public - anybody who might prefer them for any reason. Maybe you have limited mobility but aren't legally disabled - you have as much right to book an accessible room as anyone. There are pros & cons to Hilton doing it this way. I suppose the perfect solution would be for Hilton's system to ensure that the accessible rate is always equal to the best available regular rate, thus limiting the number of people who book accessible rooms purely because their corporate policy requires them to book lowest rates or because they want to to save their own money. But for now that's not the way it is, and still, Hilton's system is better than most others.

(5) With today's childhood obesity epidemic, I think more people need to be taking more candy from children. I don't, however, condone tripping old ladies. Except when one is passing me late in a road race, which seems to happen to me all too often...

MeNoSay

I disagree.

The hotel was offering to give him a higher-priced room that was non-accessible. He didn't want the non-accessible room (he had tried to change it previously). So this isn't about money. It's about sticking it to the hotel (and the handicapped person) because he didn't get his way initially.

Tell me how that's a money issue and not an ethics/behavior one.