KRSW

What do you think "reasonable" extra fees are, if any, and what amount would be reasonable?

When flipping through the Marriott site, I see a hotel which is asking $128/night. PLUS $25/day for a "resort" fee, PLUS $22/day for parking. So the fees create an almost 40% markup on the advertised rate. Adding insult to injury, the property is a ratty 1970s Sheraton in need of an overhaul. Likewise, there's plenty of parking and many nearby hotels are offering free parking. It just feels completely misleading at this point.

margarita girl

Aren't there hotels in Vegas where the nightly rate is less than the resort fee?

Eujeanie

$25 can be reasonable for a resort fee - depends on what you get for that.

I just paid $45, but got that value back with parking and an F&B credit, so not all resort fees are created equal.

And it's not "misleading" if it's disclosed during the booking process.

I dislike resort fees, too, but you can vote with your wallet and not stay wherever this place is.

ElevatorEnthusiast

KRSW seems to have decided this morning was the time to post a bunch of generic thread responses without naming the hotels they are so mad about. Plenty of hotels have parking fees, but plenty of guests don't drive or rent cars. This is not a unique issue to Marriott. The only thing unique and negative about Marriott in the fee space is the addition of resort fees to award bookings, which is a negative compared to other competing programs. That being said, there are some markets (Waikiki) where I would rather pay the resort fee to stay at a nice Bonvoy property like the Moana Surfrider rather than save the resort fee to stay at an uncomfortable zoo like the Hyatt Regency Waikiki. On cash stays, resort fees dominate some markets, no matter the chain - in fact, there are some markets, like Chicago, where it seems like a higher percentage of the Hyatt options charge destination fees (fees at Thompson Chicago, Hyatt Centric Mag Mile, etc.) than the Marriott properties do (no fees at Westin River North, The Gwen, etc.).

myperks

awaiting for this thread to turn into a Hyatt is better thread…

Horace

Resort fees, destination fees, amenity fees, recreation fees, meal packages, and other fees along those lines are reasonable if they're voluntary and the guest sees value in accepting the deal.

Such fees are unreasonable if they are mandatory. If a fee is mandatory, it should be part of the room rate. Such fees make booking more complicated and deprive the guest of loyalty points (such as Marriott Bonvoy points). Widespread mandatory add-on fees are a relatively new phenomenon in the U.S. lodging industry. I can only assume that such hotels and resorts don't play it straight and really don't want my business.

Charging mandatory fees is a slimy practice.

Parking charges can a justified, but not always.

It's reasonable for downtown hotels, where only a fraction of the guests have cars and where parking requires expensive parking structures, to charge for parking. As a guest, if I'll have car, I'm likely to have other parking options nearby. I can decide if I want the convenience of using (and paying for) the hotel's parking facility or parking my car a block or two away, usually at a lower cost.

On the other hand, there are suburban hotels that were built with plenty of parking spaces but that now see their parking lots as new revenue sources. Almost all guests have a car. Some guests don't, but that just means some empty spaces in the lot. The parking lot is part of the hotel's cost structure anyway. We used to call such suburban lodging "motor hotels," and parking was, of course, part of the room rate -- along with a bed, a shower, and a TV.

At suburban hotels that now charge for formerly free parking, guests have a choice of paying, usually at an above-market rate, or dealing with the annoyance of finding other overnight parking (if there even is any in the area), while leaving empty spaces in the hotel lot. Some hotels use unattended gates for this, with guests using key cards to enter and exit, but these don't always work. Others just add a parking fee and you're supposed to go back to your car to leave a ticket on the dashboard, under the threat that your car will otherwise be towed. It's annoying. It's hostile to guests.

It should be a lot easier to see destination fees and parking fees on Marriott.com.

LiqAlchemy

Vegas we all expect the dreaded resort fee but Marriott else where I would avoid. No need to make it a norm elsewhere.

sethb

Disagree. It has to be revealed on the first (price comparison) page. If I'm booking on price, I don't want to select a hotel and only five pages later find out that the $78 rate is actually $123+tax.

ElevatorEnthusiast

With "Taxes and all fees included" checked off on the Marriott site or app, Marriott is the most forthcoming with the all-in price for comparison purposes. Neither Hilton nor Hyatt provide such a feature. Parking fees are excluded, but as discussed upthread, are not mandatory for all guests.

Eujeanie

I didn't mean you had to go through 5 pages....it's been my experience that any fees are disclosed on the first "booking" page - the first time you put in your destination, dates, etc. (what you called the first price comparison page). Usually a banner up the top disclosing the price and what is included.

Have you found that Marriott usually hides these fees until the end? I haven't.

clarkef

Mostly agree. Two small nits.

• I don't believe I've ever seen a voluntary "...Resort fees, destination fees, amenity fees, recreation fees, meal packages"
• Unexpected, gotcha fees should be disclosed on the landing page so as to allow for reasonable comparison shopping.

For US and EU hotels, Marriott's US website's default setting doesn't display fees on the landing page, i.e. the page were you see multiple hotels from which to choose. It displays the base rate. You can, of course, click on the show all fees and taxes. I am told this is different when accessing Marriott's site from outside of the US, but I do not recall if that is correct.

ElevatorEnthusiast

My experience is that the app defaults when signed in from a US account and accessing inside the US to showing all taxes and fees - I don't have to check that box and the rates shown on the page with all of the hotels after a search are the full rates with taxes and fees. I do not have that option or default behavior with Hyatt or Hilton.

clarkef

Normally I would. In SF the Westin San Francisco had a resort fee and I promptly booked at a different hotel. The problem comes in when the entire area imposes resort fees. Recently, I went to Vegas for a conference. Every hotel near the conference site imposed a resort fee.

I wish the website did as well.

EuropeanPete

What is “reasonable” is of course a matter of opinion. Being in the EU I think any fees not disclosed on the first page should be banned.

What hotels want to do in terms of fees above their “base rate” beyond that is ultimately that call, but clearly it’s an aggressively anti-consumer move to seek to cut “points spent” and to be able to charge top-ups to awards bookings.

As a Hyatt Globalist, I just don’t worry about this kind of stuff.

Horace

Such fees and packages take two forms.

It's common to be offered deals at the time of booking. If you pick the tab for packages, you can get extras for a fixed amount above the regular room rate. This could be a "romance package" (with sparkling wine and roses); or "two for breakfast"; or, at a resort, access to bicycles, kayaks, floats, and such; or at a tourist destination, admission to a local attraction; or, at an airport, parking while you're away. It's becoming rare, but "Modified American Plan" would provide breakfast and dinner. These extras are all voluntary. I have no complaints about them.

Then there are voluntary recreation fees that you're offered after you arrive, such as beach rental deals at beach resorts. Again, voluntary. No complaints with them.

Not sure how this represents a nit in relation to what I wrote, which was "It should be a lot easier to see destination fees and parking fees on Marriott.com." I think we're agreement here.