Interesting answer I get from hotel managers when I call about the rates now
Mar 27, 20, 8:35 pm
#31
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Tacoma, WA
Programs: UA MileagePlus, Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 52
Although I think the idea of balancing price per night to overhead as the most reasonable explanation.
Consider this....
Occasional binge doper dude looking for a room for the weekend to smoke some meth away from his family. $59 a night at the Motel 6 off the highway or $59 a night at the W downtown. The party grows after he starts boasting about his dope room at the W.
You want that dude next door?
Selective on clientele? Yep. Discrimination on a protected class? No.
Consider this....
Occasional binge doper dude looking for a room for the weekend to smoke some meth away from his family. $59 a night at the Motel 6 off the highway or $59 a night at the W downtown. The party grows after he starts boasting about his dope room at the W.
You want that dude next door?
Selective on clientele? Yep. Discrimination on a protected class? No.
Mar 27, 20, 10:13 pm
#33
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 527
Originally Posted by mikebor
The theme seems to be that they don't want to make the rate too low to attract a different type of clientele to stay there. When I press them on what that means they pretty much tell me to read between the lines in so many words.
Mar 27, 20, 11:20 pm
#34
Join Date: Jul 2017
Programs: IHG spire ambassador, SPG/Marriott Gold(new plat), Virgin Atlantic
Posts: 138
IMHO the hotel is thinking more about risk mitigation than it is of any sort ot discrimination. And, furthermore when considering what actions an individual does that is not really discriminatory as that individual has an active choice as to what they do or do not do... I believe the definition of discrimination is when someone is penalized due to some characteristic they did not have a choice in, such as gender or country of origin etc
So if the hotel is trying to prevent, say a group people joining together to rent a room for a party, or say self isolation like others have noted, etc etc then no that doesn't fit the definition of discrimination rather it fits the definition of wise business decision 🤔
So if the hotel is trying to prevent, say a group people joining together to rent a room for a party, or say self isolation like others have noted, etc etc then no that doesn't fit the definition of discrimination rather it fits the definition of wise business decision 🤔
Last edited by somedudefromFLa; Mar 27, 20 at 11:32 pm
Mar 28, 20, 2:19 am
#36
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Represa CA
Programs: Hilton LT diamond, Hyatt diamond, Marriott LTte, AA LT plat, Seabourn diamond elite
Posts: 2,742
Currently staying in a hotel on points. Let 'em get reimbursed $30/night versus paying $190. I've tried to negotiate at hotels where I am known and have had little success. Zero success at hotels where I am not known.
Regarding Priceline......very few hotels where I travel are discounting much. When I see a bargain price, PL has added fees that I refuse to pay. Haven't been able to do a PL booking the past six months.
Regarding Priceline......very few hotels where I travel are discounting much. When I see a bargain price, PL has added fees that I refuse to pay. Haven't been able to do a PL booking the past six months.
Mar 28, 20, 4:32 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: Platinum: KL Gold: A3 Rust: BA
Posts: 25,371
Originally Posted by mikebor
So I still have to travel
Genuine curiosity - there cannot be many people with a genuine need to "travel" right now.
Mar 28, 20, 4:56 am
#38
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 76
I don't stay in $159 hotels, but where I stay <$50 in good times, I've been able to negiotate directly with the owner to get discounts, at minimal I want the 15-18% they save on OTA fees (agoda) but aim higher and gotten 40% on latest hotel, of course I'm booking multiple nights. There was someone trying it at reception the other day for 1 night - and of course they refused to budge - the cleaning, the admin (for immigration etc..), the risk of disturbing other guests doesn't make it worthwhile.
Mar 28, 20, 5:49 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, SW Florida, and Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Discovery Black, and assorted others
Posts: 28,643
I have no idea why refusing to lower rates is discrimination.
If an Aman Resort didn’t lower its rate to $99 would that be discrimination as well?
If an Aman Resort didn’t lower its rate to $99 would that be discrimination as well?
Last edited by LondonElite; Mar 28, 20 at 5:54 am
Mar 28, 20, 7:21 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 33,176
Originally Posted by mikebor
So I still have to travel but 1 thing I have noticed is that a lot of hotels that are open are still charging a decent amount for a room. I mean they have 2% occupancy but their rates don't seem to reflect that. Not all but some. So I have noticed a general theme by the managers when I call and ask why their rates are so high when nobody is traveling. Or not many are traveling.
The theme seems to be that they don't want to make the rate too low to attract a different type of clientele to stay there. When I press them on what that means they pretty much tell me to read between the lines in so many words.
So I'm asking here, does this kind of response sound prejudice or biased or discriminatory in any way? Like who don't they want staying there, people that can afford a $59 dollar rate but not $159? And I've gotten this same type of answer from multiple managers at multiple hotels I have called.
Again to me it reeks of hidden discrimination. They don't want low income people(and a lot of other adjectives) staying there as it would bring down the reputation of the property. So these hotels would rather have a 2% occupancy at a $159 rate than a 10-15% occupancy at a $69 rate because of the different kind of people who would stay there smh. Unbelievable this goes on in 2020.
The theme seems to be that they don't want to make the rate too low to attract a different type of clientele to stay there. When I press them on what that means they pretty much tell me to read between the lines in so many words.
So I'm asking here, does this kind of response sound prejudice or biased or discriminatory in any way? Like who don't they want staying there, people that can afford a $59 dollar rate but not $159? And I've gotten this same type of answer from multiple managers at multiple hotels I have called.
Again to me it reeks of hidden discrimination. They don't want low income people(and a lot of other adjectives) staying there as it would bring down the reputation of the property. So these hotels would rather have a 2% occupancy at a $159 rate than a 10-15% occupancy at a $69 rate because of the different kind of people who would stay there smh. Unbelievable this goes on in 2020.
Furthermore, it's logical to refrain from pricing rooms below cost (about $50 per night at many full service hotels).
However, if you're okay staying at nonbranded hotels, rates are very low in many markets these days. Hong Kong comes to mind, for example.
Mar 28, 20, 8:00 am
#41
Join Date: Mar 2011
Programs: Delta Skymiles
Posts: 1,410
I think there are so many reasons they don’t want to do it
1. Many states have come after various industries and shut them down during this time. Some revenue is better than none. If there is a great “let’s go on a vacation sale” strategy pursued, it could backfire and the regulators could close the hotels.
2. Some people really need to travel, there are few, but they exist. Having the hotel not overrun makes them feel safer, and also allows you to have a smaller staff.
3. Preserve profit margin
4. Preserve brand integrity for on the other side of this.
Now, it is once we reopen, the hotels will have to reassess. If travel patterns change permanently, then they may have to get creative with their promotions to remind people about the joys of staying in Marriot hotels.
1. Many states have come after various industries and shut them down during this time. Some revenue is better than none. If there is a great “let’s go on a vacation sale” strategy pursued, it could backfire and the regulators could close the hotels.
2. Some people really need to travel, there are few, but they exist. Having the hotel not overrun makes them feel safer, and also allows you to have a smaller staff.
3. Preserve profit margin
4. Preserve brand integrity for on the other side of this.
Now, it is once we reopen, the hotels will have to reassess. If travel patterns change permanently, then they may have to get creative with their promotions to remind people about the joys of staying in Marriot hotels.
Mar 28, 20, 11:22 am
#42
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Programs: Marriott Platinum, Starwood Platinum
Posts: 219
Appreciate all the replies and I agree with some on here and their thoughts. But when I had 2 high level managers tell me straight up they don't want "the bad element" coming there which would happen if they dropped the rate a lot, well you can read between the lines. It ain't rocket science.
I'm in a city right now where there are a large population of african americans. I know what both of those managers meant. And I just think it's wrong.
I'm in a city right now where there are a large population of african americans. I know what both of those managers meant. And I just think it's wrong.
Mar 28, 20, 11:58 am
#44
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Programs: Marriott Platinum, Starwood Platinum
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by moondog
Do you expect half price rates from other businesses you frequent as well?
You can agree or disagree no problem.
