Did this e-mail originate from that "list clique" or one of its members? What is the punishment if one of its members breaks their covenant and speaks out about lack of ethics? Do you omit them from the "List" and "kick'em to the curb"? I am only inquiring, because that's the "feeling" that I am getting. Please correct me if I'm reading this all wrong.

It takes character to speak up when your peers won't, and worse yet, be ostracized for doing the right thing.

Enjoy the first week-end of September (it's Labor Day week-end here in the US) and reflect on the rewards of our labor.

Hey anim8r - This post is in reference to the general attitude of some (very few) FT'ers. Not towards any particular group or individual person.

Agree here.

Whatever the legalities, it strikes me as "moral fraud."

As for this person's demands: if (s)he doesn't have 300 friends to show up, then Hilton will just overbook the hotel by a couple of hundred rooms and be done with it. If (s)he brings 10 people, they walk those 10 people to a "similar" property with empty rooms - some other hotel would help out. And if it had been a US property with a state-imposed $1/night occupancy tax and a $2/night energy surcharge, they'd have charged him $900 for the no-shows to boot.

$0 for the room.
$15 resort fee
$3.50 energy charge
$3 to turn on phone
$.12 a minute on 800#'s
$.50 local calls
$3.50 delivery charge for room service +18% service charge
$25 for parking,
and & on
Not so "free" after all.

I am currently at the DT Mission Valley and actually can see the Hilton Mission Valley hotel in question from my window. I tried to book the Hilton but it was too pricey. I now understand why since it was booked by many $0.00 no-shows for fun and that procedure drove the yield management driven pricing system nutty. Big deal for some but a loss to this hotel. BTW many computer systems default to a "00" if problems occur in coding.

My best guess if the Hilton lawyers researched the 1728-ish written laws re "defrauding an innkeeper...." found posted in the closets, it probably would be an defraud-type offence in many states. Now the joker with his hostage-holding 300 booked rooms may have to explain to his 10th grade science teacher why he was not in class last week. He was in jail.

MisterNice

A tale of 2 people:

1 - some guy who wants to book 300 rooms at a Hilton, at $0 per night,

and

2 - Ascension Franco Gonzales - who probably could never afford to stay at a Hilton in his life. But, this illegal alien, making $1,300 a month - found $203,000 in cash on August 27 - and turned it in.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...2901loot.story

Forget about the legalities for a minute - if you could be one of these 2, and get your story on the front page of the Times - which would you want to be?

If the 300 room FT member wasn't ashamed of it, then he or she would have no problem posting it here. They also would have posted the e-mail on FT.

But, I don't think threatening to complain publicly if you are less than satisfied is at all wrong, so long as you are honest. It's called word of mouth. All businesses know or should know that many satisfied customers refer other customers, and that unsatisfied customers tell friends and family about it. And if the this person complained and was honest about what happened, well, it wouldn't hurt Hilton's business at all, because it's clear who is being reasonable and unreasonable here.

Finally, the operative legal term that people have been avoiding here is "consideration".
A $0 room rate has no consideration on the part of the consumer. A $29 flight doesn have consideration- $29. A bad deal for United, maybe, but still consideration? Yes.

That 300 room 'er might just be an "ex-FT'er" who can't post here any longer.

I was shocked that Hilton is offering them 50% off for the length of the stay. That only encourages such behavior. If I were Hilton, I would have not only offered them no freebies, but initiated a call to the 300-night grubbers from the company lawyers, citing extortion etc. A way to lose customers, you say? I don't think anyone wants these kinds of customers.

Interesting note on the front of buydig.com:

Boy, a lot of people have a lot to say on this topic. It occurred to me that the
e-mail referenced by everybody that contains
a 'demand letter' to Hilton regarding
Diamond status, etc. may simply be a joke
written for the amusement of the 300 room
guy's correspondents about the absurdity of
the $0 rate situation.

Just my 2 cents.

(if that were the case, wouldn't we all feel
silly?)

Something that occurs to me is that all of these $0, $29, $19 offers whatever are coming through the internet which all of these companies are doing everything possible to get us to use in regards to their products for the simple reason that it costs them less money that way.

As a result of saving that money, there are going to be screwups, like this one, that would not have occured if they had left the human element of a representative of their interests intact.

(That said, I'm not condoning or passing judgement on those who take advantage of these offers.)

TravelManKen,
I appreciate your position. My questions were alluding to why a few FT'ers want to shut down this thread, suggesting that you had no right to post it in the first place. They have aroused my curiosity.

Oh O.K., now I understand and agree with you. It's crazy to argue that this should be a closed thread just because some people find it to be an uncomfortable subject.