I agree that Dirk abused the system in an attempt to take advantage of Hilton. 318 rooms, even in a years' time, come on... Actually, you will be getting a good score from HH because you didn't book 300 rooms at one property, but spaced out the stays over time... lots of free nites at everyone else's expense. Moreover, I see your "willingness to negotiate" when hilton doesn't legally owe you a dime as indicative of your true motive in all this: greed, however framed. (BTW budding legal scholars out there-- that the reservation is revokable up to 24 hours prior means that it does not create a binding legal obligation on HH).

Who will ultimately pay for this? Innocent guests to whom the cost of your shake-down is passed onto.

Who is going to pay for the rooms "sold" @ $0/night, including djohannw's 318 room-nights? Me.

I'm the customer who pays the rack or negotiated rate for my hotel stays. I don't search for or take advantage of computer glitches in hotel rates.

When the hotel abosorbs the cost of giving away hotel space because several people took advantage of a computer glitch, the hotel will pass the cost on to other customers through price increases, holding off on discounts, or cutting back on services.

I'll think about this when I don't have a chocolate on my pillow next week.




------------------
He who dies with the most miles ... is dead.

Analogy: does negotiating with terrorists legitimize terrorism? Nope.

Hilton was more than gracious in asking Dirk what he would accept in exchange for dropping the multitude of free rooms. If I were Hilton, I would cancel every single booking, and tell Dirk to get lost (i.e., "we don't negotiate with terrorists"). No business, no matter how desperate, ever needs a "customer" like this.

Then, instead of bargaining in good faith as Hilton has done, Dirk continued to squeeze Hilton for everything he can. If Hilton had taken the same position as Dirk, they would have simply cancelled every reservation and not even bothered letting him know, just to "teach him a lesson". Isn't that what you're doing to Hilton, teaching them a lesson about not loading $0 rates into your system?


Suppose you go into a jewelry store, and you see that the salesperson is not there, and all the display cases are unlocked. Would you be justified in taking as much jewelry as you can carry out of the store, and later saying you taught them a lesson about not locking the cases? After all, now they know to lock the cases, and in fact you've "saved" them the jewelry they might have lost to all those future un-locked cases.


Dirk, I appreciate your "coming out". However, I sharply disagree with what you've done, and I am stating my opinion.

I appreciate that DJohannw has shed some light on his actions. Peeling back the curtains of secrecy was all I was really after. FT is an open-to-all community willing to share and discuss all things travel related.

IMHO, some members of the "list", who also benefit from FT, want to regulate the flow of information. Sharing info amongst an e-mail list is great, as long as info is allowed to proceed later on and not be dammed up for more than a month. First report of Hilton's glitch was July 21st; window of opportunity closed on August 8th, 18 days later.

We allow some time (2 or 3 days at most) to make as much use of "specials" before we post to FT, but to not even post that there was such a deal or try to cover-up when TMK made his original post more than a month later; BAD KARMA.

FT as a community has been there for us. I know that I've benefitted and tried to return the favor... now we have to be part of a faction whose "covenant" diminishes FT?

Now, what happens to those commendable folks like TravelManKen, SMessier, and others who allow info to proceed on its natural course onto FT? Why try to diminish FT?

Please try to understand that I am not anti-"list" as I am really pro-FT community. I have only one handle or alias, anim8r, and have only posted as anim8r. I stand behind my posts.

Contributing useful "specials" or advice to FT should continue and not be discouraged by some "list" Commandant. Sorry cheap shot, the adolescence in me slipped out.

edited --Nothing was subtracted, only added to clarify myself

[This message has been edited by anim8r (edited 09-08-2001).]

I don't understand where Jane Costello at WSJ did anything wrong. She heard about the error, thought it newsworthy (and it is), contacted and interviewed a consumer who booked a $0 room, contacted and interviewed Hilton, then wrote an accurate article (see page 3 of this post) that referenced her one-on-one conversations. I've never been a journalist, but I can't see anything wrong with what she did.

If someone has a problem with the article, don't blame Jane - talk to the List member and the spokesperson at Hilton who gave the interviews.

Not sure, but what is exactly that kind of "customer like this"? At this very moment, I do not feel any different than anybody else than somebody booking one, four, nine or twenty nights at this rate, and I can asure you that there are a lot of people who have done this, and many of them have EARNED status with Hilton, including me.

Well, obviously they thought they had to do differently, and as you can expect from a global operating company they will have their reasons for that.

Just imagine that there are other countries outside the USA that may have different legislation, and as long Hilton operates in that country, they have to obey these laws as well...

Actually the sequence of events is:

1: Hilton asks for "my price"
2: I name my price (knowingly over the top)
3: They offer something
4: I tell them I do not like it

What the hell is wrong with that??? I am not of the kind to usually accept the first offer I receive. If you feel diffenrently, you may do so and miss out a lot of deals, but it is my FIRM believe that this the way business is done.

This is something I can live with. However comparisons with terrorists etc. looks pretty much over the top to me...

Greetings - Dirk

There is a big difference between booking a few free nights and booking 318 free nights. Your Hilton status is irrelevant.

This is NOT the way business is done. Businesses cannot give away the store, literally, and continue to operate.

It was an analogy, not a comparison.


[This message has been edited by JS (edited 09-07-2001).]

First, this was the 2nd time not the third time this has happened. Second, you appear to have been aware of the prior problem and the proposed remedy for same -- first night free and remaining nights at 1/2 price. Therefore, Hilton may argue that that is their standard response and that you had notice of the remedy before you booked the room. Third, I think Hilton's offer is quite generous and that far from considering it lame, you should accept it.

IMHO, Hilton could very easily tell you to stuff it and blacklist you from earning HHonors points. And, may I ask, what would be your remedy??

Are you going to sue Hilton over a $0 rate?? I am quite aware of the liberal attitudes amongst jurors, but do you really think that the poor idiot in the juror box is going to sympathize with you, especially since Hilton has given you a generous offer? Further, you may not obtain much sympathy since I assume you are a German national. In addition, you would have to sue in Federal Court because of diversity problems, and this is well known to be a far less hospitable place for plaintiffs. Finally, I think it quite doubtful that you will find an attorney who would be willing to take this case on a contingency basis. Therfore, you would have to put your own $$ up front to see that this was actually litigated. Although I think that the American court system has some flaws, it would be interesting to noted how you value your claim, by actually putting your money where your mouth is -- if you think it so valid and that Hilton's offer is so lame, then I hope that Hilton reneges on their offer to just you, and then we will see if you actually feel that your claim is justified.

My 2 pfennings (soon to be .02 Euros)

There has been a lot of talk here about the legal and moral issues surrounding '318 man'.

I really don't care about the legal issues - North America has already reaped the 'benefits' of their overly litigious society - and still not learned that they are shooting themselves in the foot! (but thats a thread for another day).

What I am more concerned about is the relationship that we frequent travellers build up with our primary 'suppliers' - airlines, car rental companies, and hotels. Let us not forget that we all rely on their goodwill sometimes. Forgot to cancel a room, flight, or car rental when plans change - I have - and always been treated well by the people I rely on to make my life on the road a little less stressful. When I no longer make mistakes, or can walk across Lake Ontario, maybe I can look down on them, until then, (don't hold your breath), it's live and let live.

These relationships are jeopardized by the actions of '318 room man'. No-one would build an expensive hotel just to give away the rooms free, so why don't we just accept that they made a mistake - and instead of booking lots of rooms, give them a call to let them know!

Next time '318 room man' makes a mistake, I for one would like to hear all his excuses as to why the aggrieved party should not nail his b**ls to the floor until he compensated them.

These relationships are jeopardized by the actions of '318 room man'. No-one would build an expensive hotel just to give away the rooms free, so why don't we just accept that they made a mistake - and instead of booking lots of rooms, give them a call to let them know!
----------------

Yes! As anyone who lost money on the dot.bombs knows.... Had the error been pointed out to HH, they probably would have given Honors points or a free mistake as a reward.

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

Next time '318 room man' makes a mistake, I for one would like to hear all his excuses as to why the aggrieved party should not nail his b**ls to the floor until he compensated them.
----------------

It really irks me that in the internet age one slob sitting on his fat a** in Germany or wherever can screw up things for the rest of us. Hilton doesn't need that kind of customer. (Haven't the airlines banned certain folks?)

I am sure it may have been said, but I totally disagree with situational ethics. I believe you have to have a heart and insight to do what is right.

What is right is to honor people when they make a mistake. Hilton and Sheraton have both done this the other way... (get to the hotel and the wrong rate comes up, they reduce it and appologize). I think that we have to be reasonable. ZERO is definitly a mistake....

Also, I am certain that Hilton has something on their site about rates quoted or mistakes. I do think they can fix this by putting in some checking rule that if the rate comes back under $1 error the screen. But they didn't.

What they did is offer a reasonable offer. The are giving the first night free and other nights at 1/2 off the best rate. So if you were honestly looking for the best rate for that hotel.. you are saving over 50%. I would ask for maybe hotel credit for all nights, since you want to keep your status,etc... but that is all I would do.

I do not know if Hilton is legally obligated past that. And also, in the court of public opinion, they handled this alot better than United...

Kudos to Hilton for a job well done. I hope others understand that they did make a good faith gesture!

This thread is absolutely fascinating, especially since the "300-room man" came forward and gave an account of what he did.

Over a year ago, while searching on an internet travel site, I stumbled across a $0 rate for a hotel room (don't remember which hotel or chain) in Paris. I assumed it was a mistake and didn't dream of trying to reserve it to see what would happen. Similarly, if I were to encounter an insanely cheap but non-zero rate, like less than one dollar for a flight that normally costs over $2,000 (which has not yet happened to me), I would dismiss it as an error. Maybe it's not so much my ethical nature, but a fear that not only would the rate NOT be honored, but I would be without a reservation or flight!

So I'm pretty amazed at the chutzpah that some people have. But then, it turns out that the "300-room man" is not necessarily COUNTING on these reservations to materialize. They are more in the nature of a speculation.

Also, although I do occasionally report bugs or erroneous information on websites, the response I get is usually less than reinforcing. Either no response, a useless canned response, and/or a message that they were "unable to reproduce the problem." So I would NOT have high hopes of any kind of reward for reporting a $0 (or insanely low) hotel rate or airfare.

Kathy

Bet those folks who just had United honour those 25 CENT International $2,700 fares (including all taxes) are glad they did not take your view and dismiss them as "an error".

Here we go -- Dirk at least has the courage to come out here and engage in a civil discussion about the situation, but for some such discussion proves impossible without engaging in personal attacks.

What is also striking about the internet age is how one person sitting some random place can just label a perfect stranger a "slob" sitting on his "fat ..." for allegedly "messing things up" for the rest of us.

The impact on Hilton's bottom line will be non existent. They will fix their programming so that $0 rates no longer appear, and that will be the end of that. And yes, airlines have banned certain folks -- then again, so has FT!

Why does Dirk's nationality have anything to do with this for some of the people here?

If you were referring to my post, his nationality has a great deal to do with where he might be able to sue Hilton, as diversity restrictions would likely place him in Federal court. Further, I would think that a foreign individual would have even more trouble convincing a jury composed of Americans as to the validity of his claim. His nationality only was of interest to me on those 2 accounts, and nothing more. He could have been from Naaru, and that would still not change the likelihood of his success or his venue for such a lawsuit.