Several folks point above to a $27 International ticket error from United that they honored. I recall reading that some FT'ers booked and were able to use multiple flights on that fare if they wished? I do not know if it has been reported in the United Forum, but in May this year United Airlines discovered they had customers who booked $2,700 International round trip tickets for 25c on the United website.

In view of the debates above, some may be interested to learn United readily honored all those tickets, (and they were not necessarily on United metal), and absorbed the taxes, hence were way LOSING on every ticket they honored. See:

United 25c Ticket Story

On May 17 2001, 23 United customers found they could fly internationally for less than a dollar.

"Those customers purchased tickets on several different carriers for 25 cents," Chris Nardella, spokesperson for United said. "It was a decimal-point problem with the system. The tickets were worth about $2,500 and $2,700. We discovered the problem, and also in that case the company honored the fares."

In the latest glitch, Nardella said the company also gave the customers the option to cancel their greatly reduced fares.

Nardella said there have been no takers so far.

"We're working to fix the problem and to make sure it won't happen again," said spokeswoman Chris Nardella.

Perhaps the bottom line is that alert folks finding these price glitches in relatively small numbers assists the airlines or Hotels tighten and eliminate bugs in their system, as per the last paragraph?

And a final note. WHY with the current Moderator activity here in The Buzz has this thread after a few days not been moved to another Forum? It has nothing whatever to do with "Miles".




[This message has been edited by CoachClass (edited 09-02-2001).]

That may be the case, but had this been posted, in say, the Hilton forum, where I and many others never tread, it wouldn't have caught the attention of many of us, and not have spurred this much valuable discussion and attention.

I frankly miss the old buzz.

BoSoxFan - I miss the old format too - it just seems weird that as this topic which more correctly belongs in the "Travel" forum, discussing hotel and car deals that threads on this Forum HAVE been closed and moved there in recent days by The Moderators, and this one has not. Seems oddly inconsistent.

I disagree; in order to get a confirmed reservation, you have to provide a credit card number -- you've authorized Hilton to pre-authorize you for the charges, in effect.

Holland is right. And others are right, that this thread does not belong on The Buzz.

The Hilton website confirmed my booking, after I selected "show me all rates" and chose the "$0.00" one and entered my credit card. The website warned I was obliged to pay that rate if I clicked on "I agree". And pay I will all incidentals that I accrue and sign for like mini bar and meals and parking etc on my free weekend.

Hilton later emailed me the confirmation that the rate was $0.00 for ALL 3 nights of the booking for that property. And I went to the Hilton website just now and it re-confirmed the booking was held at $0.00 against my credit card for all nights. So the stay will not in fact be "FREE" and I will ensure that. There are dozens of folks planning for a specific Flyer weeekend in California early 2002. Those not privy to another regulated board's info need not and should not be appraised the details or date but it is sad some there spilled the beans.

The multi night post above is one person's extreme spin - most others simply booked what they could use themselves, or offered surplus rooms free for others to use that weekend. I do not see the problem - it was a Hilton website glitch, and Hilton need take it on the chin.

Flyboy: I'll say it again, because apparently I was too subtle before: the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. I gotta tell ya, your 'regulated' deals deal has more holes then a spagetti strainer....

No matter how you spin it, these are shady dealings.


[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 09-03-2001).]

...and in this case, there's a $3/nite energy surcharge, plus taxes and any other charges they can drum up (local phone calls, etc...)

I got a copy of the email too, but before deleting it I read that those 300 nights were for various Hilton properties well in to 2002, not 300 nights on one night at one property. Still doesn't excuse the behavior, IMHO.

I completely agree with you and am saddened to see another example that we are living in the Age of Entitlement.

Where's Bean? His "new List" thread had the right perspective. Give'm Hell Kokonutz.

edited to apologize for too many Labor Day libations....don't mean to sound like a rabble rouser

[This message has been edited by anim8r (edited 09-03-2001).]

I think people have already (at least nearly) stated the pros and cons of each argument in terms of whether one of these companies should be compelled to honor what appear to be mistakes to most people.

In thinking about this, something that has never been brought up (I don't think) is what are the characteristics of different people holding different opinions. For example, population sample group X., basically is on the corporations side, while sample population group Y. is on the side of the person(s) who try to book $0 or $29 goods and services. What are the characteristics of aperson that determines whether they fit more closely with group X or Y? E.g. income, education, age, sex, area of country, childhood, type of job, type of life experience, ,kind of car ddriven, rent/own, how many credit cards, etc? Are there demographic, sociographic, or other variables that broadly can be used to put a person in these hypothetical group X or Y?

I would theorize (and perhaps we even have people in the market research industry who could ellaborate) that it has something to do with the member of the populations overall experience in his/her life with corporate America. Like let's give a good example of the point:

We take two groups of 100 people, and tell them in 15 minutes the story of how 300-room-guy booked 300 rooms for $0. Or how whatever-girl booked 100 tickets to CDG for $29 each.

100 of our research subjects are employed by major corporations, and are paid $250,000 or more each year.

The other 100 research subjects are homeless, and all have recently been arrested for loytering in a bank ATM kiosk/doorway.

I theorize the the first group of 100 would side with the corporation, while the second group of 100 would side with 300-room-guy and whoever-girl. Both would feel very strongly about the position they hold.

This is a far-flung example, but it illustrates, how one's life experience with corporate Ameirca may impact how one views such ethical issues. Most people don't make $250,000 plus, and most people haven't gotten arrested for loytering in an atm kiosk...but everyone overall probably has either had generally good or generally bad experienced overall with corporate America. Maybe its not even just corporate America. Has the person had a generally good or generally bad experience with "the system," which means the institutions of society. Those are family, education, employment, politics, and religion.

Most Flyertalkers (at least the people that post to the board) seem to fit in to group X which sides with the corporations generally in questionable situations. I don't know much about the people that read and do not post. It would also seem, that in general, people with status in all of these programs would generally have higher incoems than average. Otherwise how would the people travel so much, etc. to be say Plat/Diamond/etc. Also we cannot forget about age. If we had 100 19 year olds, and 100 49 year olds and we told them the stories about our mysterious guy and girl...would the 49 year olds be more likely to side with corporate America all other factors being equal. Does anyone know of any research studies done in these areas? Is it broadly life experience with the institutions of society that puts a person in these groups, or is something else a much more important factor in assigning group membership?

I'm more inclined to believe that the differing characteristics between the two groups is income/assets.

In other words, you're only as moral as the options you can comfortably afford.

And there are always exceptions to such generalizations.

I may be completely wrong, but I may be somewhat right.

Just my humble opinion.

[This message has been edited by anthonyanthony (edited 09-03-2001).]

jetsetter, your study may be an interesting theoretical and academic exercise. However, as VolleyBallFerd pointed out in highlighting the story of Ascension Franco Gonzales, I don't think social and economic status have anything to do with one's side on this particular issue.

From a practical point of view, I am fairly certain in saying that folks who took advantage of the zero-dollar rates are closer to your $250,000-a-year sample than your homeless sample. So, if one were actually able to get the demographic information on the bookers of these rates and if we used the example of Mr. Gonzales above, then I could come to the conclusion that higher income folks are more likely to lie, cheat and steal (or, as they would say, know a good deal when they see one).

If you can't afford to stay at a Hilton, then stay at a Motel 6. If you can't afford a Motel 6, then stay at a youth hostel. If you can't afford a youth hostel, then stay at home. We all love to travel, but at what cost to our values.

[edited for UBB errors]

[This message has been edited by fallinasleep (edited 09-03-2001).]

fallinasleep ,
Thank you for the link to the Gonzale's story...I have read it, and would recommend that others do the same.

I'm not sure the deciding factor is economic status alone. E.g. Gonzale's had what many would term a tough life. Is the determining factor, more so than economic status, one's experience with societies institutions. Remember, in my hypothetical, the 100 homeless people had gotten arrested for loytering in a bank ATM. Such an arrest and experience would quite likely leave the person with a bad experience with the institution of politics (e.g. the government), as well as the institution of economics (the bank/corporate America).

Or for a better example, would someone who had been laid off 5 times be more, neutral, or less likely to condone the booking of $29 trips to CDG or $0 room nights.

Personally I think that Hilton was correct in making the offer that it did in response to its computer system error. If I understand correctly, they offered guests 1 night free, and subsequent nights at 50% off lowest rates. This is reasonable, and I would expect them to do this. I agree with the above post that they are "bib boys," and that they recognize the business risk in deploying a computer system that processes transactions unattendedly. Any system, whether human or computer based, has certain vulnerabilities and is prone to fail at certain times...and the business is obligated to deal with situations where the system fails to run as it was expected too operate. Particularly since the system provided a confirmation number and confirmation email, I feel this compells Hilton or whatever the company is to either honor the rates or negotiate a mutually agreeable settelement between the guest and the industry service provider. I am guessing that 300-room-guy wanted to net the 500 miles per stay for the 300 rooms, even if the guest no showed. Let's say just for argument sake they are running double miles, so thats 300,000 miles that this mystery guy or girl would get.
How much would this cost Hilton? $.02 * 300,000 miles = $6,000.00. Now for a big company like Hilton, $6,000 is not an extraordinary sum of money. Let's say the whole system screw up cost them $100,000...thats still with in the ranges used for contingencies and business risk. In other words, I don't think it is un heard of for a computer glitch to cost a corporation $100,000. How much did the Y2K glitch cost major corporations?

All businesses assume risks, and incorporate the cost of the risks in to the products and services you and I buy. But I don't think it is unreasonable for Hilton to work with 300-room-guy to reach a mutually agreeable settlement for the glitch in the computer system. And if the glitch was via some distribution chanel, then Hilton should pass those costs on to the provider or chanel. I have not read this secret email, but I would say perhaps (and this is only speculation) that maybe 300-room-guy may have gotten a little greety in his or her demands to Hilton, but such can easily be worked out in a negotiation.

So if all of you want to be angry with 300-room-guy, then perhaps you have a small right to be angry with him or her because Hilton is going to have to pay this person and they are going to pass those costs on to you when you stay. But then again, if 300-room-guys didn't exist, would Hilton pass along the savings from not having to pay out as a result of business risks to you...the rate paying guest? Thats why I say you only have a little right to be angry...because I don't think Hilton would drop its rates by 10% because the public rolled over when its systems made mistakes.

I will also point out that it is my understanding that an airline must honor an advertised rate in the newspaper for the day it is advertised. I remember a $48 BOS-California CO mis-print that was supposed to be $148.

I also agree that legally with a $0 rate, I'm not sure how the guest could argue that they are providing consideration...but I am not a lawyer. But then again what if the computer show a rate of $.01? Would that change things?

Also imagine how much time 300-room guy must have had to spend in doing this. Does anyone know how long it would take to book 300 reservations? And are all of you trying to say that this person should have gotten nothing? Its not like 300-room-guy hacked into the system and created the $0 rate, he or she simply found the rate and booked it, and received written/email confirmation of the transaction. Also the travel industry, at least on paper, is not forgiving of consumers mistakes. Like if a consumer fails to cancel a reservation, then by the book, they are charged a no show fee. In analyzing this ethically I would have to ask myself, how sympathetic has the Hilton Corporation been when I made a honest mistake? How has the Hilton Corporation treated me overall? How understanding is the Hilton Corporation of my needs? Has the Hilton Corporation ever really helped me out in a big way or really screwed me over? Does the Hilton Corporation treat me fairly and reasonably, or do they nickel and dime me wherever and whenever they can? These would be the most important questions if I faced a situation of what to do with a rate mistake such as a $0 room rate or a flight to Europe for $29. In general, Hilton has been slightly sometimes sympathetic if I make a mistake (like forgetting to cancel a res), they have never really helped me out or really screwed me, they generally treat me well, the rates are usually fair as long as you know how to shop, they don't charge me for 800 number calls like some people do, and they nickel and dime me a little for things in the mini bar and for drinks in the executive level. I usually get my breakfast free, and usually get an upgrade. When I have a problem, the property usually makes it right. So based on this, I think there offer is reasonable, but it is unreasonable for them to refuse to do anything for me if I booked one of these rooms which they advertised. As someone said, what if they are doing the $0 rooms to get attention? Look at how Biztravel got attention when they offered refunds on delayed flights? Maybe they will some day run a promotion where evry 1000 rooms booked, someone gets one for free? That might not be a bad way to spur online transactions.

All of you are wrapped up in this right and wrong quandry. Is it right or wrong for 300 room guy to do what he did? Is it right or wrong for a hotel to charge $4.50 for a can of coke? Or $6 for a candy bar? Actually I think what 300-room-guy did and what hotels do in terms of mini bar charges are really similar. In both cases, someone is getting wripped off, and both people know it. Both really are "cheating." In both cases, the parties are exploiting known vulnerabilities. If Hilton thought they could charge $50 for a can of coke, they probably would do it. And if 300-room-guy could have easily booked 3000 rooms for $.01 and gotten 3,000,000 miles...maybe he would have done it.

Jetsetter - interesting points. Perhaps I have the 'Wisdom Of Solomon' answer here. (Or more like, The Wisdom Of Homer Simpson.) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

You ask how does the $0.00 a night guest provide Hilton with a 'consideration'?

Why simple, guest needs to consume a $4.50 can of Coke from the mini bar a day, so the actual cost of his/her Hilton stay is not $0.00 but $4.50 a day plus tax. Thus Hilton screws the $0.00 Army on the Cokes, who in turn they think they are screwing Hilton on the room rate. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

PS ... I cannot believe this thread has been allowed to run so long here in this Forum when it has zilch to do with "Miles Buzz" - so much for the new "Moderators" and the alleged strict guidelines. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif



[This message has been edited by goldelite (edited 09-03-2001).]