I'm still lost as to how this thread has nothing to do with milesbuzz..."Discussion of the latest frequent flyer buzz..." since there seems to be pretty good buzz around this topic...


Anyway, I've been screwed by corporate america plenty. I've had to do major surgeory to my credit rating after a credit card company mistook me for my brother. I've had my share of injustices and slights. At the same time, I've never worked directly for a for-profit corporation since I worked grocery check out in college.

But my perspective on this is simple: I view the frequent travel game as just that: a game. Like a friendly game of poker. So while I am not laying any claim whatsoever to being a particularly moral or even upstanding person, I just dont think it's cricket to 'cheat'.

Play the game to my advantage, yes. Demand everything that has been promised and try to work in a little more, yes. Even count cards if I can! But put an ace up my sleeve or deal from the bottom of the deck, no.

And my motivation is more selfish then altruistic. I feel like a get a darn good deal out of the frequent travel game. I dont want to be cheated out of what I consider to be a good thing, so I'm not going to cheat first.

And yes, 'cheating' is a matter of moral relativism. Some might blanche at some of my common practices.

IMHO, a lot of it goes to intent. If people are actively LOOKING for what they KNOW are mistakes, then how can you get mad when those mistakes are caught and corrected. If one innocently stumbles upon a mistake and simply takes it as a great deal then there is less culpability...

JMHO...

Disagree- This is not Jean Valjean situation here. Noone needs 300 rooms. And also, in my non-scientific experience, some of the wealthiest people in the world are among its most immmoral. It's why we need antitrust laws.

That's NOT consideration. You don't have to pay anything. YOU ARE NOT OBLGATED TO DO ANYTHING.

As much as the $0 army wants the rest of us to believe the emporer is fully clothed, its painfully obvious to the rest of us is that he is both naked, and not particularly well-endowed.

I agree with jetsetter that you should look at how the company treats you. I stay at Hilton quite often and am treated, on the whole, very well. Most often when I forget to cancel a reservation they take off the no-show charges. Their rates tend to be quite reasonable compared to comparable hotel chains. They offer great promotions. Finally, they always take care of me when I'm planning an award leisure vacation.

I don't think it is wrong to take advantage of a mistake and see what happens, but I do think it is wrong to expect them to honor an unreasonable request such as booking three hundred rooms and demanding recompense.

Couldn't help posting my $.02.

Good point. Many seem not aware that the great bulk of those booking these "$0.00" rooms did so for their own personal use and/or that of friends/family who were unable to get in when the glitch was going. There is a large weekend gathering of 30+ folks planned at a certain west coast city from those holding those 100% confirmed "$0.00" rates. Many of those holding bookings are Gold and Diamond HH members. I doubt Hilton will fail to honour such legitimate "personal use" bookings, similar to United cheerfully honoring the $2,000.00 fares above that were booked for 25 cents on their website! Booking 300 rooms and not attending the gathering is a different story.

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.