I reduced the amount of direct quotation.

Bruce
Moderator

My $0.02

If the rate is an obvious error, then I think it is unethical to book it. I have no problem with the hotel correcting it. If it just looks like a good deal, i.e. the rate is reasonable in light of the circumstances, then the hotel should honor it.

It is NOT reasonable to expect to get a major chain hotel in times square for a couple of dollars. That falls under obvious error as it is so far outside of common experience of expectation.

If the rate is $100.00 then you can reasonably believe that is just a low occupancy day and they are having a fire sale.

So, what if the rate is $99? How about $94? Do I hear $67? Are you aware that Marriott associate rates can be as low as $29?

I am appalled that Marriott is reacting the way they are to this episode. It is as if zombies have invaded Bethesda and Bill Marriott is being held hostage somewhere. The "Marriott Way" is to honor this rate and then spend a few months negotiating and bickering with Interstate Hotels on their franchise fees to determine who's responsible for the revenue loss.

It is absolutely against the grain for Marriott to come out, in this one instance only, and tell their guests "we goofed BUT you guests should read our minds and know better; your res is cancelled and we're not talking."

Boo on Marriott. Utter shame.

Totally agree. I reject the "mind reader argument" any notion that any reasonable person would view the mistakenly posted rate as anything other than an error.

But I also agree Marriott handled this badly (and totally out of character for them). Why not just apologize, explain the mistake, and offer a voucher good for a free night or free weekend for a future date at this or another Marriott-branded property on a subject to availability basis?

Why is it so obvious? There have been lots of $0 fares (or GBP 0.01 fares or whatever) out there that are real and intentional. Why is the onus on the passenger or guest to figure out which ones are real and which are an error?

It's the airline or hotel that owns the system, they are the ones that develop the QA test plans when the systems are developed, and they control who has access to the database and what edits each user can make on the database. Why am I expected to attempt to interpret their intentions?

What about $20? $50? $5? Where do you draw the line? I've booked one-way airfares with a base fare of $10 before. I've booked hotel rooms that, with Bonus Bucks awarded on that stay, ended up being about zero dollars. When Hertz first rolled out the #9xxxxx coupons, they had a $20 one that had no minimum rental. I had a couple of days in Hertz cars where I thought to myself "I hope their testers thought of this, because my net bill is going to be a credit." (They had; my bill was simply zero plus any fixed-fee taxes.)

My take is that those who own the systems also own the responsibility that the software has been tested and that their users load the correct rates.

Really. Have you every booked a $10 room at a major US chain in Times Square.?

Because you want to be a fair minded ethical person in your business interactions. If you saw a new BMW or Benz advertised for $600.00 would you arrive at the dealership with 6 crisp $100 bills and expect to drive off with a new BMW?



[QUOTE=pinniped]What about $20? $50? $5? Where do you draw the line? [QUOTE=pinniped]
The line is drawn based upon reasonableness, common sense, and good judgment. Based upon the totality of the circumstances.


Basically they're not allowed to make mistakes because 100 percent perfection and accuracy are commonly attainable goals.

I agree that its difficult to tell if it's a mistake. I once received free accomodation from Holiday Inn during the opening in Bangkok. Yes, $0. I was not even a priority club member, then. The offer was not link to any other membership. No other stay requirements. Its just unconditional 1 night free. Am I suppose to assume its a mistake and not take the opportunity?

[QUOTE=clarkef]Really. Have you every booked a $10 room at a major US chain in Times Square.?



Because you want to be a fair minded ethical person in your business interactions. If you saw a new BMW or Benz advertised for $600.00 would you arrive at the dealership with 6 crisp $100 bills and expect to drive off with a new BMW?



[QUOTE=pinniped]What about $20? $50? $5? Where do you draw the line? Basically, we'll continue to hold their feet to the fire until the sword of "ethics" of mistakes cuts both ways. Since corporations don't care about people, only money, this fire will be a long-burning one, I trust.

The sad thing is the duality of personality it takes to succeed in such an environment. The same person at the other end of the phone making the case that their mistakes are proper and tolerable and mine are not has to go home to their family every night. Socialized schizophrenia might be an accurate descriptor at one end and sociopathy at another.

Regardless, it wil be a battle which will go on until humans manage to evolve beyond their basic instincts of self-involvement and greed. Get used to it.

Pat

Sarcasm aside, there is an argument on both sides, although a courteous, thoughtful response from Marriott is the least one should expect.

On the subject of mistakes, try telling an airline a couple of weeks after you've made the non-refundable ticket reservation, that you made an honest mistake as to the date you needed to travel, or the hotel with a 24 hour cancellation policy that you honestly and mistakenly thought the cancellation policy was 6 pm day of arrival.

Although I haven't really discussed this publicly, this was the real white elephant in the room on the Travelocity Asia deal which no one touched on. Throughout the reservation process, the pages displayed the cancellation policy, showing the reservation could be cancelled up to 6pm local hotel time day of. In reality, on many of the reservations I made, the actual hotel cancellation policies varied from 24 hours to a one night charge in the case of any cancellation at all. Let's just say I fueled that fire pretty well, as my instincts told me Travelocity wouldn't be "guaranteeing" anything, as they continued not to do with the YYZ-LCA fare and Marriott rate issues.

If they would just own up to their mistakes (without qualification) and, more importantly, take care of the customer when the customer makes one, then issues and methodologies such as mine would cease to be an issue. At least for me

When I make a mistake in business, I tell the customer personally that "I screwed up; what can I do to make this right?" Customers are a pretty amazing breed. Out of all the mistakes I've made, only once did I stand my ground and not pay a customer's salesman's commission on a job I had to warrantee. The warrantee itself went without question, even though the job was in service over six months, long after any competitor would've waranteed such a job. The service manager thought he'd look good by extracting a few more bucks out of a vendor and unfortunately ran into a concrete wall

After having been in on nearly all the recent hotel rate issues, I must say that, even though they caught a lot of flack for it, Expedia did the best job. They offered something reasonable for their mistake and made it easy to use.

Pat

No. What does that have to do with anything? I haven't personally been been able to take advantage of any of those Fare Alerts I see on the MR board, nor have I been in the right place at the right time for a free Ryanair flight. But my lack of luck (if you want to call it that) isn't really relevant.

Odd analogy. If BMW wants to sell me a $600 car, I'd probably bite. But I don't trust car dealers...I'd wonder what the catch is. If they actually advertised a $600 price, I'd be very suspicious. But I've seen enough car ads to know they wouldn't do that and them claim "Oh, that was a mistake."

Well, the travel companies have already established that $0 fares are a valid tool to use for a variety of purposes. So I'm still not sure why it's unreasonable for me to jump on them if I find them.

The whole thing, at least to me, revolves around airlines & hotels wanting to have their cake and eat it too; they want to cut their overhead by selling directly to the public online, yet don't want to be held responsible when their own technology is at fault. It's a convenient double standard.

Perfect example just posted (not Marriott, but another chain involved in a recent rate issue):

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=555634

The poster is also a high level IHG elite...

It's why I do what I do

Pat

I should point out to expand on my previous post that this larger issue isn't limited to simple mistakes on air ticket or hotel rates and goes much farther.

Take for example my home province sports book operation that goofed in the over/under predictions a while back and, thanks to the spped of the internet, word quickly spread that the numbers seemed so low on NBA games that everybody who wagered and played would likely win. Sure enough, that's exactly what happened on two consecutive nights. Seeing as there are many provincial laws governing this area, the lottery folks had to swallow and pay out a few million dollars to all ticketholders. But a valuable lesson was learned.

Many companies seem to view the internet as the goose that lays golden eggs, but don't want to admit or accept that occasionally that goose will on rare occasions also produce goose droppings. I wish more would step up and clearly take responsibility for the odd mistake and write it off as a cost of doing business on the web.

At the end of the day, Marriott has to take responsibilty for all content located on their website. That includes Rates. If they don't then anything on marriott.com is open to be dismissed as an error and handled in the same manner.

Having said that...

They have handled this situation rather poorly. In the very least they should have contacted each person and offerred a voucher for a FREE night or for Marriott Reward members the option of Points equal to the FREE night.

Shame on Marriott