TravelManKen...why did YOU receive this e-mail?...has anyone else?? I know I've received it too...but the reality is that I received it because I'm a member of another forum...unrelated to FT...that's why I was concerned with why you posted it here...if it was a completely different forum...it should've went there....then again...I could be wrong.

You're right, that wouldn't be extortion, IMHO.

But this is something completely different. The 300-room guy (and let's just say he's a hypothetical 300-room guy-- there's NO WAY we should detail the events that led us here,) booked as many nights as he humanly could at a $0 rate purely and explicitly for the purpose of squeezing the hotel for money, points, program-status, etc. There were no "promotions" in place-- the $0 rate was a computer mistake and everyone who booked it knew that full well as they booked it (and booked it and booked it...)

300-room guy had NO intention of using the reservations (or most of 'em anyway) he made. And, his recourse would presumably be the threat of legal action-- otherwise Hilton has virtually no reason to make even the modest offer that they did.

I'm most certainly not claiming that the above described comports with what would get someone put in jail for extortion-- or even that a district attorney would take an interest, just that in my personal book of ethics, it's extortion.

mweiss,

When you tell somebody that you will spread damaging information about them if they don't do what you want, how is that different than what you defined above? Admit it or not, the only purpose you have in spreading the info is to smear the image of the company.

Another poster commented about how they like to stick companies with the 'advertised' price. I don't know the ins and outs of bait and switch, but there is a world of difference between making a company stick to a price that's been advertised and making a company stick to the terms of a contract that has been entered in to.

I am totally missing the point of the 'secrecy' being invoked here. Are folks embarassed that they are sticking it to Hilton with $0 rooms? If so, I have to wonder why.

If one has no moral problems with what one is doing, then be proud. Proclaim it from the highest mountaintop. Or admit that you are being sneaky and be ready to let it go if you are called on it.

We all do some things in travel and in life that we know are not right. Take the UA upgrade bait and switch. Sure, I try it. But I dont like to talk about it. And if it doesn't work, I dont go crying like chastity raped.

Of course, the reason is probably that folks are worried that if the world (or, specifically, the service provider) finds out about the loophole, it may go away. OK, but just remember, the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

I'm glad Travelmanken brought this up. Nothing like shining a little light on a topic to make the roaches scurry...

Just a few simple points.

First, I think Hilton is making a big mistake in honoring these $0 rates. Whenever one of these computer pricing mistakes comes up, someone inevitably provides an example of another "low rate" that they found that was legitimate. But this wasn't a "low rate", this was a ZERO RATE.

Second, the "300-room-guy" sure has a lot of chutzpah. Hilton could easily blacklist him, his mother, his ex-wife's boyfriend, and his neighbor's daughter for life for his extortion. Personally, that's what I hope they will do. I wouldn't be surprised if "300-room-guy" is actually a 13-year-old "30-kilogram-boy".

Third, how tough is to tell right from wrong here? This isn't a fuzzy gray area. I can't believe there isn't complete consensus on this.

In insurance law, there is a concept called "scrivener's error" which can be used to invalidate an obvious incorrection.

For example, if an insurance company agrees to sell you $10,000 if insurance for $x, and when you get your policy, it reads $100,000 for the same rate, the insurance company is not bound by the contract.

Obviously this is a different industry, but the point is that when there is an obvious and blatant error (which $0 for a hotel would certainly be), I would be shocked if the hotel would not prevail in court for not honoring it.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

I've got a feeling that those who take advantage of these mistakes by hotels, airlines, etc. are the same people who expect an exception to the non refundable rate rule when they make an error or have a change of plans.

I have just come home after three days of university party. Great fun.

I have only one thing to say:
I agree with IM4Travel

For once something that should be shut down my the moderators (oh dear Moderator1 where art thou? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

kokonuts: YGM!

The other difference, I think, betweenthe $29 United flights to Paris and the $0 Hilton reservations is that in the case of the United flights, United made the offer and collected payment for it: the people who booked on the website did not just make a reservation, they bought a ticket, gave UA their credit card information, and were promptly charged for the ticket. UA accepted their offer and their money.

The people who took up the Hilton reservation offer didn't pay anything.

Also, though it's not strictly a legal point, they shoulda known better. Cheap is promotional; free is a mistake.

------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

I, too, received this email. I was surprised. It was forwarded to me by another FT'er. I won't name that person. I won't post the email (per TMK's request).

I guess I don't care whether it is legal or moral the bottom line for me is that I wouldn't feel right about doing it.

That makes me right in the sense that I am following my conscience, but doesn't make others wrong who disagree with me.

My 2 cents,
-levi aka eastwest

Ken,

It's just plain wrong to take advantage of Hilton for such an error.
While some may argue that United's $27 fare to Paris was promotional, you certainly can't say Hilton was offering a free night, just like this. If Hilton advertised $0 for the first night, and regular rate the 2nd night, that would be ok.

Ken...this discussion (or at least a variation of same) was discussed once upon a time. Maybe you're trying to boost your post count buddy. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif wink

Getting back to the discussion at hand: some of us are guilty of taking advantage of the system; some of us are guilty of abusing the system.

The real question here is how many of us are guilty of one of the above? My guess is most of us are guilty of something we've done. My guess is the excuse would be, "Oh, it's only miles (or points).
Come on...admit it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Dan

I see this differently than all of you, maybe it's my age, maybe it's my job in the cutthroat consulting industry, but it's obvious Hilton made was a mistake, but in life when people make mistakes someone has to pay. And if people found this and jumped on it (except the 300 room guy that's crazy) I think Hilton should honor the reservations. Perfect example, Firestone made an error didnt used enough steel in the tread on tires, and now people are suing them. Just my opinion which i'm entitled too.

My understanding is that United did not receive ANY money on those tickets - the whole $24/27/29 (depending on the ticket) went to taxes! So in this respect, the folks differentiating between UA and Hilton saying that UA received money are not on track.

As for the person that booked 300 rooms, well ....

The Firestone analogy is preposterous. Firestone produced defective tires which produced accidents, or so it seems. People sustained damages, to make the understatement of the century. Nobody sustains any damages if Hilton does not honor the $0 reservations, unless you count the lost opportunity to get something for free, which I reject.

I also got the e-mail, and had to read it twice because I thought the demands were so ridiculous. As soon as I finished re-reading it I deleted it, thinking this person has more balls than a bowling alley!

As someone else mentioned, there was a demand for Hilton to offer x amount of points for every night returned to Hilton (not used). But the real chutzpah came with the demand to be elevated to Diamond for 10 years if they don't/won't honor the rate.

Puhleeeeeze......... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif