'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.