Now this error has been written in the WSJ by Jane Costello. Here's the link-

http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/...4800185459.htm

September 4, 2001 - Business Fare

Hilton Hotels' Pricing Mistake Gives Free Rooms to Guests Booking Online

By JANE COSTELLO
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Hilton Hotels Corp. can't seem to stop giving away free hotel stays.

For at least the third time in six months, hotel personnel inadvertently loaded a room rate of $0 into the Hilton reservation system. Net-savvy travel shoppers could book the rate through Hilton's Web site (www.hilton.com) or other travel-booking sites.

During a two-week period during the end of July and the beginning of August, travelers were able to book free rooms at eight Hiltons in the U.S., including properties in Flagstaff, Ariz., San Diego, Calif., and Hilton Head, S.C. Earlier this year, the hotel experienced a similar problem with travelers booking free room nights at hotels in Mexico City and Vancouver, British Columbia.

"What can I say -- this is very embarrassing," says Hilton spokeswoman Jeanne Datz. "We don't understand it. It obviously shows a terrible attention to detail."

The first zero-rate incident took place in March, involving Hilton's airport hotel in Mexico City. Word of the free rate spread through online message boards, and by the time the rates had been corrected, more than 80 people had booked hundreds of free nights at the hotel.

After that incident, Hilton officials sent a memo to its hotels warning them to be more careful when loading room rates into the computer reservation system. Another glitch occurred in June at a hotel in Vancouver, but only a few people booked rooms before the problem was fixed.

But the boards lit up once again this summer when word of the zero rate hit cyberspace. Hilton won't confirm the number of people who booked free rooms, but it is thought to be significantly higher than the number of people who took advantage of the Mexico City mistake. One man, who wishes to remain anonymous but now is well-known to Hilton, says he has booked 300 rooms.

Some travelers, who participate in an e-mail list that keeps subscribers abreast of Web-pricing glitches, are planning to throw a "List Party" at the Hilton San Diego Mission Valley hotel next March to celebrate their good fortune. John Joyce, a retiree from Prairie Village, Kan., is a member of the list who jumped on the chance to visit his relatives in California next spring. He booked two rooms for seven nights at the hotel.

But these travelers won't party for free every night of the week: Hilton has agreed to honor the zero rate for first night only. Each subsequent night will be billed at a 50% discount of the best available rate.

Officials at Hilton are looking forward to the day when these glitches are in the past. The company is in the process of creating a filter that would prevent the system from accepting a rate of $0.

"Until the day we're technologically foolproof, these things can happen," says Ms. Datz.

But while most guests who took advantage of the glitch don't expect Hilton to give away every room free of charge, some think the offer isn't generous enough to make up for the error.

Mr. Joyce says he would like Hilton to throw in an upgrade to elite Diamond status for a limited period of time as compensation for relinquishing the remainder of the free nights. He points out that Hilton is responsible for the error, and officials wouldn't let him off the hook had he made a similar mistake when booking a room.

"If I made a reservation and forgot to cancel it, they'd hit my credit card," he says.

Write to Jane Costello at mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

A "List Party"???

Yuk. Bean, come back.

I do not buy the argument that the zero rate is not OK but the low "error" airline fares are ok. Anyone knows that the super low airfares to Europe for $25.00 or even $135 are mistakes. If you have a problem with the zero Hilton rate but not with the $35.00 UA fare to CDG, then your logic fails me and your double standard smells of being a hypocrite. There is no way to convince me that United inteneded to have a fare for $35.00--period. The fact that one has money that changes hands and the other does not is irrelevant. Both companies made a mistake in their pricing and one honored it and the other is not.

Several years ago Alaska made a mistake with their companion fare being loaded into Sabre as a zero rate that could be booked by itself. Many travel agents grabed this zero rate only to have their clients turned away at check in unless they were willing to pay up to the lowest published fare at the time the original booking was made. The city pair involved was PDX to Palm Springs. United could have taken the same path Alaska did but decided not to. That says alot about United.

Please spare the legal talk, the core issue is customer service and how different companies respond to it.

The "List" folks were paranoid of spies on FT; now the spies are within the "List". Thank you Jane for your revealing report.

Would this "List Party" eventually been added to FT's Community events or has this new faction outgrown FT? What's becoming of Randy's community?

Although I would not have taken advantage of a $0 rate at Hilton prior to the publication of Jane's article, her report has proved to be most enlightening.

Apparently Hilton has decided to treat these "prices" as true room rates and therefore, if I ever happen to see such a rate at a Hilton family hotel I will now book it because of their business practice.

Arguments about the presence or a lack of consideration are now beyond the point, as Hilton has manifestly "advertised" that these rates are valid. As such, they are now bound by that business practice and better had hope that their filter really works. I, for one, now have no compunction about booking such a rate and expecting Hilton to honor it.

I have to admit that we have all those List people to thank for this, even though I personally think that Hilton is quite foolish with respect to that business decsion.

However, I still think that the individual who booked 300 rooms (at various properties?) is a bit much, and I would be careful that Hilton does not revoke their HHonors membership over their ultimatum.

my 2 cents.

Im on The List,and I didn't make a res for any amount of nights. Yes I could have but I felt that it was wrong to,so I didnt.
To those who made one for up to a week for 1 or 2 rooms I feel Hiltons offer is more than fair.To those who went crazy I feel Hilton should tell you where to take those res,since your intent was way different to the others.

I just came back from a stint in LA,I booked my car on-line at a discount travel site.The $$ amount was $82.16 for the 5 days,when I called the car company they told me their screen said it was $119.70.I called C.S. at the travel site who quoted a 3rd price. Yes I held my ground and got the $82.16,yet the next quoted company(Alamo)was $97 for the 5 days so $82 wasnt too far off. What got to me was the travel sites C.S. dept didnt want to deal with the price differences Iwanted them to call their web divison ,they said we just want to deal with your res. only and dont worry about anything else. If the price had been $8,I wouldnt have expected them to honor it but rather to offer me a price that was better than the least quoted price.

So to those with the res,think thru it again.

The purpose of this post was not to attack a group of people on a private "list". That was never referenced in the original post. The people who utilize that "list" simply help one another find great deals that are usually only available for a few hours. It's not about $0 rates, but also great, legitimate Int'l & Domestic fares as well. Most people who participate in the FT community don't check the boards every few hours, but they do check their e-mail quite often. So why does anyone care if a few people want to share quick tips with one another?

This discussion is not a Hilton or United discussion - those were just points of reference. This is more about what jetsetter spoke to - what is in your character? How do you handle these types of opportunities or situations? That's all - a general discussion on Ethics, nothing more.

Just came across this and wasn't gonna comment. But.............

I can see where Hilton might want to honor this. My partner and I just returned from one of those Starwood free weekends. Stayed at the Phoenician in PHX. We arrived Late Fri nite, left Sun pm. The room rate was $0.

My final bill with meals, drinks, massages, etc came to $1400.00.

We never would have gone and payed for the room at this time.

Starwood won!

Nobbi

DOC 2 BE writes: I see absoulutly nothing in Hilton's statements that indicate that these are valid rates or that they should, in the future, be considered such. The fact that they are only honoring the first night free is clear proof of that.

Rather, I see them as honoring the first night as free and subsequent nights at 50% off as merely a gesture of goodwill and admission that the mistake was theirs, and that mistake may have inconvienced some of it's customers.

That, and probably wanting to avoid bad press.

IMHO, this does not set any sort of "binding" legal precedence or some sort of legal (or conscience) waiver to jump on these sort of things in the future and expect fulfillment.

Frankly, at this point I'm a bit amazed anyone would even remotely think these were any sort of valid rates. Hilton clearly admitted it was a mistake! If they considered these valid rates, then Mr. 300 would be getting all 300 nights free.

And everyone else too.

'Mr 300' appears to be the only person to have been offered anything by Hilton, simply as he asked direct. In effect they have offered him as a first negotiation response, 300 free rooms.

It appears Hilton have not contacted anyone else, and those with a 3 night weekend stay booked, which is the great majority, are pretty confident Hilton will Honor (!) that entire double confirmed booking, and why not?

TravelManKen,

I maintain that I appreciate your position and am responding due to that respect. I agree that it's wise to e-mail great offers amongst each other first, and later share the wealth with all of FT (I witheld comments all thru the "list" and "new list" threads and never once sought inclusion with either, although Bean's thread was a riot).

Your post raising the ethics question, without betraying anything sensitive, came under fire by the "list" police as they wanted to shut you down. Their attempts to dismiss this issue kept non"list" FTers out of the loop.

There was mention of a get-together of select FTers in SAN, but no posts to Randy's FT Community Events. The WSJ knew of this "event" when, where, and by who before your original post. Thank you for posting the article.

My previous post was nothing more than reactionary questions to Jane Costello's article. Sharing info within the "list" is fine as long as this info can later be shared with all of FT; holding out on FT only diminishes Randy's open to all community.

ETHICS

I have considered "Ethics" the past days, and there is another point I am interested in.

• Where is the ethics in publishing references to a private email message without the author's consent?
• Where is the ethics in joining a group, taking advantage of what the group's offers and thus being trusted by a number of people, and then publishing statements criticizing the very group one is a member of?
• Where is the ethics in criticizing a group openly and then trying hard to join it in disguise?

The fact is that to do any of the above one must either be a very unethical person or a complete narcissist.

I do not mind discussing ethics with regards to zero rates at all! I do mind someone starting such a discussion using information not intended for the general public and with a cry of outrage so hypocritical that I cannot believe any grown person (or lawyer) could stand behind such a post.

If someone is against a specific group and states this position openly that is a thing I can respect. To join it, pretend to be against it, but still benefit from its offers is so much what a completely looser would do that I have great difficulty describing my disgust.

I will, in the future, consider more carefully which FlyerTalkers to email, since I would not want my personal correspondence put on display. No, I am not the author of the "300 rooms" email, and I do not want Diamond for years, I have few rooms but this should not be the issue.

While as I have stated above the discussion is interesting, the fact that it originated through current events in people's personal lives makes it less gratifying to participate. As before, some people here have difficulty starting or participating in a debate without getting personal or using personal references (or private correspondence for crying out loud). It is an invasion of privacy, purely.

I actually think the demands in the referenced message were somewhat excessive. If it really bothered me this much I might start a theoretical discussion on the ethics of $0 rates on FlyerTalk. What I would not do is start a topic in such a critical, hypocritical and narcisistic way as done here, apparently I have a decency that must be lacking in others.


[This message has been edited by Goldlust (edited 09-06-2001).]

So, by your logic joining a group means never making any critical comments of the group or be labled an untethical and hypocritical narcicist?

I don't for one second buy your position which justifies being witness to all sorts of unethical (or even illegal) behavior and doing nothing for the "sake of the group." (What is this, the freemasons or the Skulls?!? It's an email list!)

There is, in any case, a difference between criticizing "the group" and the behavior of a few members of that group.

Your "for or against the group" position is a simplistic one that gives itself the illusion of a high ethical stance in exchange for tolerating all abuses committed by some in your "precious" group.

We all belong to all sorts of groups, in our personal and private lives -- the idea that my membership precludes me from criticizing the behavior of some of its members is ludicrous. Time to get off the high horse you're on...

[Edited for clarification.]

[This message has been edited by SMessier (edited 09-06-2001).]

What is "illegal" about booking a hotel zero rate if it occurs?

Nothing, as far as I know. But the position outlined above justifies doing nothing ever for the sake of "ethics."

Thank You. Clear as Mud to me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goldlust:
[b]ETHICS

[list][*]Where is the ethics in publishing references to a private email message without the author's consent[QUOTE]


Describing an email sent to all the people on "the list" as a private email message is truly funny.

Say, Jane, it sure would be appreciated if you'd use those dandy investigative skills of yours to seek out some good air deals for us.

Well, I, for one, surely want to know what's going on and specifically whatever "deals" are available out there. I'd ideally like to select from everything for myself!

Before the birth of FT, HHonors offered free nights to Las Vegas and Reno to its many members on very slow nights during the slow season months a few times. One needed to only know of it - and the HHonors statements and ads often arrived a bit late as we all know. My wife and I could each have enjoyed several $0 free nights then. Yet I neglected to take advantage of 'em because I either had to be, or chose to be elsewhere.

Are these "mistakes" different? Probably, but it is still an individual choice whether or not to partake, isn't it?

Being on a "list" is the next best thing to seeing it posted publicly for all to see, IMHO. If some folks want to create a "private" email list, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and am happy to partake - even if I do not seize each and every opportunity - or any at all.

As with the earlier "opportunites" noted, I was again able to book this one but I choose not to. Importantly, however, it was my personal choice - no one else decided the level of usefulness for me, or the ethics/comfort level for me. To each his/her own, IMHO. We are an eclectic group to say the least. Situation ethics works for a lot of people.

Businesses surely need to be very careful and guests/pax should ideally be true to themselves and their individual moral/ ethical compasses.

Who are we to throw stones after all?

Regarding the comment by DOC2BE, I agree that Hilton has perhaps set a somewhat dangerous precedent, yet their manifest kindness in offering a fair resolution and showing some goodwill/good faith here after admitting a "mistake" actually very much endears them to me and surely makes me want to patronize their properties more.

Having said all this, maybe I too would book the next great "deal" should it ever present itself and feel "right" for me! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

PremEx

Posts: 4539
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Registered:
posted 09-05-2001 11:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC 2 BE writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently Hilton has decided to treat these "prices" as true room rates and therefore, if I ever happen to see such a rate at a Hilton family hotel I will now book it because of their business practice.
Arguments about the presence or a lack of consideration are now beyond the point, as Hilton has manifestly "advertised" that these rates are valid. As such, they are now bound by that business practice and better had hope that their filter really works. I, for one, now have no compunction about booking such a rate and expecting Hilton to honor it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see absoulutly nothing in Hilton's statements that indicate that these are valid rates or that they should, in the future, be considered such. The fact that they are only honoring the first night free is clear proof of that.

Rather, I see them as honoring the first night as free and subsequent nights at 50% off as merely a gesture of goodwill and admission that the mistake was theirs, and that mistake may have inconvienced some of it's customers.

That, and probably wanting to avoid bad press.

IMHO, this does not set any sort of "binding" legal precedence or some sort of legal (or conscience) waiver to jump on these sort of things in the future and expect fulfillment.

Frankly, at this point I'm a bit amazed anyone would even remotely think these were any sort of valid rates. Hilton clearly admitted it was a mistake! If they considered these valid rates, then Mr. 300 would be getting all 300 nights free.

And everyone else too.


--------------------------------------------

PREMEX --

Unfortunately, you are very much mistaken. Call it whatever you like, a valid rate or a gesture of good will, even though Hilton has declared this incident to be a mistake, their REMEDY to this error of theirs will be binding on them should another such error arise. One may argue that the handling of this solitary incident does not make a business practice; that is debateable. In any event, many might recall that Hilton handled the first of these snafus in Mexico City in a similar manner -- the first night would be free and the next nights would be at 1/2 off.

Two examples of remedying the problem do make a practice, especially since they were resolved in exactly the same manner.

You may contend that the $0 rate is not a valid rate, but Hilton's actions speak otherwise. They have chosen (foolishly IMHO) to honor this rate for even a day, and then give you a 50% discount for the rest. They are now obligated to follow this pattern should this problem arise again. The only question that remains is whether one will get HHonors points for the 50% off rate. One would say no as the Entertainment discount which is similar does no do so, but who knows?

In summation, contrary to PremEx's view, inasmuch as Hilton has now twice decided to reward those who book a $0 rate with a 1 ngiht free stay and a 505 discount for the rest, I would now feel comfortable booking these types of rates as their view is that it is entirely legitimate to do so, as is evidenced by their prior response to same.

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 09-06-2001).]

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 09-06-2001).]

I guess the programmers aren't good enough to disallow a $0 rate being accepted. Seems pretty simple to me. How many times does this have to happen to Hilton before they get a clue.

Only a person with no knowledge of the size or nature of the list (and a total of 9 posts) would make such an absurd comment.

I happen to know pretty well what I am talking about, FYI.

Notwithstanding that any first-year law student could recognize that there is no contract formed by booking a zero dollar reservation, a private business can refuse service to anyone as long as the refusal is not predicated on a protected (i.e., race, etc.) ground. The remedy? Mr. 300 rooms can have his money ($0) back!

IMHO, Mr.300 rooms was the inevitable result of "the list" mentality. Taking advantage of an obvious error is one thing; crying foul when the error is reasonably corrected is another. Hilton should make a note of all the whiners and make sure they get the "special" rooms (you know, the ones nobody wants b/c noise, smell, location, etc.) the next time they book a stay at a property.

One interesting coda: I just received some paid airline tickets from my travel agency. In the fine print on the back of their receipt is this language: "Unless the term "guaranteed" is specifically stated in writing on your ticket, invoice, or reservation itinerary, we do not guarantee any of such suppliers' rates, bookings or reservations."

Of course, I have never seen the word "guaranteed" on any ticket, invoice or reservation, regardless of the source...

Goldlust,

I witheld comment when you and Empress selected which FTers would be worthy of your "list" and I maintain that I have never sought inclusion in either the "list" or "new list"; only to keep on associating with Randy's FT community.
There are some of us who realized your "terms" might deviate from FT's ideals (open discussions on all things travel-related), so your "list" wasn't that appealing. This is just a difference of opinions and not a personal attack.

WSJ's publishing your SAN "list party" in March must have been disappointing and I'm sorry that I made light of it in my earlier post. Personally, I try to be more reflective and less narcisstic.

Goldlust how many people received the "private" email? Let others judge whose comment is absurd.

If you have a beef with a company and send them an email, that is private. When you then share that email with others, as was obviously done here, it ceases being private.

Since you "know pretty well what I'm talking about" please educate me. Wasn't the origin of the list to ensure that companies didn't close the window on deals before as many people as possible got through. Wasn't this $0 window closed prior to the original post on this thread? If so, why cry about the sunshine? Why lobby to close the thread? The list member's ability to book the secret deal was uncompromised. Is is because something else is at work here?

Just asking.

I wouldn't have responded, but this is how to get the post count up and some seem to think that is important.

Welcome to FT, ilander; it's the quality of posts and not the quantity that matter.
We are all netizen's of Randy Petersen's FlyerTalk community, including the faction known as the "list". Don't ever feel your voice is insignificant to another's, no matter how self-important we make ourselves out to be.

I've read the posts debating the issues of whether Hilton should or should not honor the rates and while I don't necessarily agree completely, all have expressed some veryy valid points. Is booking 300 rooms ethical and a sheer sign of greed? In my opinion, absolutely and this is not intended to be a flame against whomever it was that booked the 300 rooms. Whether Hilton should honor the rate is questionable and if so, should the 300 room guest be entitled to an alternative form of compensation? Hilton offered on it's website the "lowest available rate" which appeared to be zero. In essence, they made an offer and it was accepted. Any company that desires to have an online presence should set in place the necessary safeguards to prevent these types of mishaps from occuring. It's a cost of doing business and Hilton should honor the rates for one booking or perhaps offer a weekend during low peak. Hilton was negligent in loading the rates and it could have been avoided had the responsible individual performed a "test" booking or reviewed the changes.

Likewise, since rates are tied to the occupancy rate and had someone booked a room at the SDMV during the same period the 300 room person did, he or she would have paid a higher than normal rate. Now, when 299 of 300 rooms are empty or the reservation cancelled 24 hrs prior to the date of arrival, is Hilton going to contact the individual who is paying the inflated rate as it was an "error"? Their error caused an inflated rate but I sincerely doubt they will attempt to make any corrections for any guest who had booked a room at a higher than normal rate. Now we have an innocent guest who is truly wronged due to someone's greed of booking 300 rooms.

A $100 energy surcharge and a $30 resort fee will clear the whole problem up for Hilton.

How about a $50 urgently needed computer programmer assistance fee as well?

Whilst I agree that Hilton have no legal obligation to provide $0 rooms, I think that their hands-up attitude sounds fair enough. They could have got aroung it perfectly and taught that greedy fool a perfect lesson.

I am aware that in the USA the rates that you quote are exclusive of taxes state city or anything (In the EEC this is forbidden all prices have to be net of VAT, only city Taxe de Sejour may be aded but these should be notified). Hilton should have honoured the rate and added $50 for provision of bed linen, $50 for provision of TV, $50 for providing a telephone (laugh not, Sheraton in Fort Lauderdale did exactly that)...you get the picture.

I would have given anything to have seen this Smartalec to have rolled up and been susequently thrown out on his ear for not providing sufficient credit. I am so bored with this sort of "clever" behaviour.

Had Hilton charged $1, or indeed 1 cent then they would have a far more difficult time. However silly these $29 fares may be, they do sometimes charge "silly" fares to get headlines and publicity. To reduce this to absurdity, if everyone paid this there would be few decent hotels or airlines left.

Oh, and yes I think that this is exactly what should be on these pages and I am deeply grateful for learning that these sort of things go on.

I am the "300-room-guy", 318 room-nights to be precise. And yes, as of September 7th, 2001 - 2:00pm CEST, I think of using them all.

Summary of this post: I hold 318 room-nights in 29 reservations at three different properties for dates all over 2002, not 300 rooms for one night in one property. I could use all reservations I hold theoretically, but will not use all. I have not decided which I will not use. I did not contact Hilton to ask for a freebie, they asked me for my price to give up the reservations when I asked them about a change in one of my reservations.

I have thought long after reading this post if I should post a statement here or not, but finally I decided that I have to clear up some things. I post this that late because I have been traveling the past days, and departed about 30 minutes after I read about the offer from Hilton. The eMail to "The List" was about the last thing I did before getting to the airport.


The reason for booking that many rooms is pretty simple: I am still four to ten month out to the dates I made the reservations for, so I booked every date-combination that may be interesting for me for next year's holiday. I carefully reviewed the cancellation-policy that goes with these rates, and it says that I can cancel them up to 24 hours in advance without penalty if I like to. That's what I am going to do when I finally have decided when and where to go.

I was reviewing my reservation the other day when I found out that three of my reservations had been altered manually by the hotel, and that triggered me to contact Hilton what had happened to this three reservations.

When they replied they did not adress my original question but I was asked what I would ask for giving up my 0$-reservations, and as I am used to negotiating, I asked for something pretty hefty to have something to spare for negotiating. In that response I asked for 10 years comped diamond, honoring all nights I really need at the confirmed 0$-rate and a couple of HHonors points (unspecified amount) for each night I don't. I still think this is a reasonable base to find a mutual agreement benefiting both sides.


I do not see this as "blackmail" or "extortion" as it was posted here, because I did not contact Hilton with a request for any freebies and a threat to do something if they do not do what I want them to do, but they ASKED me for "my price" for giving up the reservations NOW. Before that point, I was still thinking of having the reservations I need to be honored and cancelling those I don't need without anything in return.

So they asked me what I want to get, and I gave them something to negotiate. Their offer was what was posted in the article printed in the WSJ, and it is my opinion that this is pretty lame, especially since this is the third time in twelve month that they had this kind of problems and the rates were in their systems from at least July 21st to August 8th, a span of 18 days. It was not a temporary glitch or system-malfuction judging from that point of view.


318 room-nights, btw., are far different from 300 reservations or 300 rooms. These 318 room-nights are booked in a total of 29 reservations in three properties. But if you are traveling with a family that requires three rooms, each night of your stay counts at three room-nights. So let me do some math:

I booked three weeks in spring next year twice (once for each property in question, each week seperately) for three rooms, making this 126 room-nights in six reservations. The same I have done for the summer, which comes to another 126 room-nights, bringing the total to 252 room-nights and twelve reservations. The rest of the 318 room-nights (66 room-nights) are distributed all over the upcoming year and over the three different properties where I might have the oportunity of visiting the corresponding places.

It is my understanding that this way of booking is a common practice. When you see a good hotel-rate that is refundable, you will likely book that just in case you could use that reservation with a certain likelyhood. If you don't, then you cancel, and that's it. This is also the way many people that use Priceline work: They reserve a cancellable backup until they are successful getting their price at Priceline, and then cancel their backup, and I'm sure many of you do not see anything bad about this.


So while I am risking being flamed all over by posting this here and having a live eMail-adress in my profile, I still stand to what I have done and why. And hopefully in the light of these extra explainations (which I must admit the original poster did not have), my actions do not look deplorable any more.

Greetings - Dirk

Dirk-

Thanks for coming out and trying to clarify and address the issues at hand here. No stones coming your way from me.

While I now better understand your position and intent, and admittedly even agree with some of what you say, your comment that "I still think this is a reasonable base to find a mutual agreement benefiting both sides" did catch my eye! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Reviewing,

Really? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

If the reservation system actually permitted booking further out, would you, or I, or anyone, book say 3,100 rooms - just for good measure?

Don't we need to be somewhat "reasonable" and fair in our booking behavior and in our negotiations as well? i hope so.

Let's not go overboard, and also try to think of the other side/persons involved!

This is not a WAR, is it? As noted previously by boomer and subsequently quoted by me, it is not about world peace her on FT, but rather simply about accumulating and maximizing miles and points.

We ALL like 'em, and want 'em, but IMHO, Hilton has been quite upstanding and fair in response as I noted above and I do hope we ALL can try to do the same.

As I'd joked before, what do I get for NOT booking this rate? I have not yet heard from Hilton! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

All the best to you in obtaining a prompt and hopefully mutually satisfactory resolution.

Have a great weekend everyone! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

After reading Goldlust describe the email Dirk sent as a private message I wrote,

Describing an email sent to all the people on "the list" as a private email message is truly funny.


Dirk,

Thanks for adding perspective to the story. A few facts make a lot of difference.

Goldlust,

Since Dirk said he emailed "the list", whose comment is absurd? What was the point of your original post to which I responded, oh yes, it was ethics. I guess more than one thing was put in perspective.

Actually, at one point I wished that I had been able to book anything beyond August 3, 2002, but that was not possible. I hope I made it clear enough that I only made reservations that I could use to a certain degree of likeliness, and I can assure you that this degree is in fact higher than 25% for each reservation I made.

I never expected them to give me everything I asked for, but to have something to negotiate, your first move has to be to request something very big. And to repeat it again: THEY came forward to ask me what I would like to get to drop my reservations. So as a starting-point, I still see it as acceptable to put everything imaginable on the table and the see how it shrinks to something that finally fits everyone.

Greetings - Dirk

Hey Dirk - First thing is that I believe you should be commended for that kind of stand-up attitude and taking the risk to come in and give some more background information. I do want to make clear to everyone that this post was not intended as an attack on Dirk but I used Dirk (without all of the facts above) as an example of how people abuse obvious errors.

I think Dirk makes some very good points in his post and I so have a better understanding of his response to Hilton. With all that said - I still disagree. I believe that the remedy offered by Hilton is adequate.

Even though I and others may strongly disagree with djohannw, let's not turn this into a personal attack flame session with Dirk as the target.


------------------
Ken in Sacramento

Your comment is still the absurd one, since you are of the opinion that emailing "The List" would make one's email part of the public domain. As I state, only a person with very little knowledge of "The List" would make such a bold yet foolish comment.

Actually, that's not true either. I am on the list, and I still think you're the one whose comments here have been absurd.

And I agree with those above who have commended Dirk for "coming out of the list" for this discussion. I don't agree with him on all points, but he makes a good case.

As for "The LIST" theres no reason it shouldn't exist.Thanks to those for making it happen and keeping it alive.

As for free nights.IMHO its free if you live close by.Otherwise one is gonna have to fly paying for that tkt or using miles for a free tkt. Yes it would be nice to get together with everyone but that can be done at a P.I.P also,albeit with a cast of different people.

Whats bad is why Jane printed anything especially when it was stated,its not allowed. I can only think what would be the case if I did the same to her sources B4 she printed anything,but then again I sort of doubt anyone at WSJ knows from anything thats not on The LIST or FT.

Dirk --

I commend you on coming forward and providing some additional details.

I do, however, feel that you have tremendously abused the Hilton reservations system and their error. I have a number of friends who apparently have taken advantage of this error, and on that, I just have to say that reasonable minds can disagree as to booking rooms under it. However, given that Hilton has assumed the onus of this error, not once but twice now, and is willing to provide some form of compensation to all who book it in spite of common business sense (IMHO), then as I have said, since they have treated this "rate" as a valid rate, or at the very least, one that should be honored, then I feel no hesitiation on booking such a rate in the future, since this is their business judjgment.

However, that does not mean that one should continue to abuse the system. At the very least, it would be in your collective good sense not to abuse it so that they will not spend the $$ to place a filter on their site to prevent this from occurring again.