ETHICS - "$0" Rate Errors & Demands to Honor
 

I just read an e-mail that made me sick. As many of you know Hilton recently had a glitch in their reservations system that allowed people to book an unlimited number of rooms at certain properties for $0/night. Now we're not talking about some crazy reduced rate, but $0/night!!

Hilton recently made, what I think is pretty darn generous, an offer to those holding these reservations - "Everyone will be offered the first night for free, and then the remainder of the nights will be charged at 50% off the best available rate"

That's not bad, right? However some of our fellow members have decided to try to put the hammer to Hilton to honor this $0 rate. One guy even has 300 rooms reserved at one freaking hotel and is upset that they won't honor the glitch. This is not a $29 fare to Paris (which was also crazy) or some great internet price that someone found. If you get a rate of $0/night you know darn well that's it's a pure error.

It reminds me of my newspaper advertising days when something weird would happen and a product on sale for $100 is printed as $00 - so idiots demand that the store give it to them for $00 because it was printed.

Don't get me wrong, I have problems with all of the crap that major hotels and airlines put me through to get decent rates & fares. Just like most people on this board I've been burned on a $2400 fare that they're offering some recreational traveler for $179. But exploiting obvious errors is not the way to even the playing field - it's just dishonest.

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

I feel the same way!

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

Why are you bringing this to FT?? This has nothing to do with FT...and you know what I'm getting at...should be addressed elsewhere...agree or disagree with the e-mail...it's a totally DIFFERENT forum and I think the moderators should lock this one up.

I beg to disagree -- in fact, it has everything to do with FT since there have been a great many threads here about $0 hotel nights, the UA fare to Paris, etc...

There have also been discussions of the legal/ethical issues involved in expecting the companies to honor such pricing errors.

Since such fares are frequently posted here, it seems fair game for a discussion of this type.

fwiw, I agree with the first 2 posters here on the issue presented.

I dunno, I think this has to do with FT. It's about travel and hotels and ethics and those fares that get advertised on here from time to time.

I don't see at all how it has anything to do with miles, though.

If the title was amended to say $0 rates and demands to honor or award massive amounts of points in exchange for giving up the reservation, then you would have your connection to the Milesbuzz.... the OP simply left out that part of the demand equation. Thus, IMHO, the thread is appropriate for the forum, same as the other ethics threads concerning the collection of miles/points found in the buzz.

This particular email and action also rubbed me the wrong way, having 300 nights booked at $0 to me is a bit of a stretch (although I am not sure exactly why 300 is wrong but 2,3,or 6 probably wouldnt bother me so much).

Anyone think the $0 rate is a different case than the $29 paris fare? I would have no problem compelling UA to honor that fare or any other, as the airlines can't have it both ways, once you say ticket to the computer system, if you want to change a ticket, $100 fee, and forget about refunding any cheap (and legitimate fares) so why should UA be able to say no, changed my mind? But I find it a little different with a $0 hotel room, hell I might even say a $0 airline fare would be valid, scratch that, I would say it is valid. Maybe it is because the airlines treat everyone like sh*t whereas the hotels don't act quite so despicably (generally speaking of course), in my adopted homeland, they actually usually treat you incredibly well.

People making trips (just because of the rate, or otherwise) and staying a few nights, well, ok, just like some people did/planned to (I don't know how mexico turned out I stopped paying attention) go to Mexico just because of the $0 rate, that seems ok, but I wouldn't expect the hotel to house me for 300 days/nights for free.

Is it different if you planned to go for the free night versus if you just made the res. for the free night to get compensation? discuss... (because I am still thinking about this whole idea).

cheers.

I also agree with the first posters. I must admit that hiltons offer seems very fair. I feel that it is appropriate because we do talk about ethics of deals, airlines and travel in general. Additionally I rarely have time to check all flyer talk areas.

I think that it applys to miles in that anyone who wants this deal honored is also going to think they should get miles for the stay. They will just ask for the miles per stay not hilton points since there is no dollar balance.

------------------
Robert

From a legal point of view, I think that a $0 hotel room (or airfare) and a $29 airfare are different animals.

In the $0 scenario, nothing has been exchanged, so in the eyes of the law, a contract may not exist.

In the $29 scenario, money has changed hands and a contract has been entered into. The provider is thus obligated to honour that contract.

If, somehow, you managed to book 300 $29 fares to France (take *all* your friends) then I feel the airline is obligated to honour all 300 tickets. They have made the conscious decision to move to an automated model -- with all the risks that this entails. If they're letting the computer make contractual obligations, they must abide by those obligations.

Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

Well, I booked a stay for my parents on Hilton.com at the rate of $20/night for a resort in SC.
The hotel was not willing to honour the rate, and Adam Burke / [email protected] did not manage to find a resolution regarding this as of now. I am quite disappointed on that issue - the hotel only offered their full rack rate for the entire stay. Meanwhile, due to this, my parents had to miss out on their vacation in SC.

I think the holder of 300 nights is abusing the "system". Unless one is actually able to use the reserved rooms there need be no compensation.

The situation with a $20 rate for one reservation is quite different. That rate should be Hhonored.

I'm not quoting to disagree but to say I too think another thread may have been better but, then again, I'm glad its here or I may never had read it.

I know just the tiniest bit about disclosure law, enough to be dangerous. Anyway, I believe it works that Hilton didn't have to give squat if they didn't want to. I was an obvious mistake to any average-thinking person.

With his not readily accepting Hilton's generous offer, I'm afraid the 300-night guy has only served to announce to the world his greed and low character. (Actually, if Hilton wanted to look innocent and willing, against the bad, someone-no-one-wants-to-be tourist, then this was great marketing!)

Uh, that was half off the most inexpensive rate, not rack rate?

Does it matter if it is airlines or hotels?

If you buy a $29 UA ticket to France and the airline says we goofed,and we are willing to fly you to France for free but we will charge you 1/2 of the lowest "real" fare to get back.---Would you be happy with this?

Everyone knows that a $29, even a $100 return trip to France is a mistake. I see no differnce between booking this and the $0 hotel rates. 300 rooms may sound excessive but who knows, maybe this person is having a wedding or other family party.


If Hilton wanted to be smart about this they would honor the rate. I doubt this person is going to be able to stay all 300 nights that he/she has booked.


[This message has been edited by Tango (edited 08-31-2001).]

I think they should honor a reservation made in good faith (say a single room for a couple of nights,) but the guy who booked the 300 rooms took those rooms as "hostages" in order to leverage free goodies.

I think Hilton should adopt the credo of the former Soviet Union:

We do not negotiate with hostage-takers.

Why? Because it only encourages more people to take hostages.

I also firmly disagree that this issue shouldn't be discussed here on FT.

When Hilton (or any travel provider) accept a reservation, they make a committment. Period. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts. If a confirmed reservation is not ALWAYS honored by a travel provider, then no one is safe. Ever.

Where is the line to be drawn?

Hotels HAVE in the past offered zero dollar/night rates as part of special promotions, or to attract attention. Should the burden be on the consumer to double and triple check it?

Yes, in this case, the 300 nights person is CLEARLY absuing the system, and I feel that he should be ashamed of himself. His intent was presumably to hold Hilton hostage over this. However, he didn't force Hilton to load a $0/night rate into the system. He requested it, and got a confirmation number. Doing so make him a bad person, but he is a bad person with a committment from Hilton for free rooms.

I see no problem (ethical or otherwise) in trying to get the business to commit to what they advertised. If it was their own glitch, then it becomes their problem. If it was a third party glitch, then they should pass the costs along to the third party that made the glitch. Either way the consumer should get what was advertised. As for the 300 rooms, thats a tough one, from Hilton's perspective, I wouldn't do it, just because the guy is being a total a#$(*&e

$29 airfare to CDG; again same as the hotel rooms.. they should honor it and I would try to get it at the advertised price

Finally YES, this should be discussed here

IMHO

Whether it's hotels or airlines is immaterial -- the same logic applies to both. The difference (and it's crucial) is that in the $29 example, money has changed hands. A contract has been entered into.

In the $0 rate example, nothing "tangible" has changed hands -- hence no contract has been entered into.

These whole issues would disappear if hotels would use half a brain to figure out what prices to post in the reservations system.

I recall working for a major luxury hotel chain that had $0 rates all over the place, yet our reservations provider gave me idiotic excuses about why the $0 rates existed and refused to remove them. Of course we never honored them, but nor were the powers that be at all concerned about them.

I have no idea about whether Hilton should honor the rates, but maybe they should think about automated controls that prevent confirmation numbers being generated for reservations made at $0, without a manual override.

Money does not have to change hands for a contract to be in place. If I reserve a full fare ticket, I am allowed to wait until just before flight departure before I pay for it. Using the logic that money has to change hands would mean the airline would be free to cancel my reservation whenver they want to unless I have given them money.

I agree with both TravelManKen and MatthewClement.

Further, I have seen airlines sell $29 fares to places far and wide. These were not mistakes. They were promotions. So there could be an expectation of this kind of price being real.

I've never seen any hotel or airline sell anything for zero. Buy one, get one free...yes. But just have rooms listed at zero...no.

I think it all boils down to intent and reasonable expectation. In this case, IMHO, there is no question of what's right and wrong. But that's just me.

Hilton did more than enough. In fact, I feel a bit sorry for them. I think that if they weren't overly concerned about bad press (which happened to United), they would have just said no. In that sense, I think they are the victims of a form of extortion.

But hey, it was their error and they are big boys and can handle it. So I'm not crying tears for them.

TravelManKen, I believe the legal term (at least here in the U.S.) to be "consideration." In order for most contracts to be binding, there has to be consideration. An exchange of tangible value between both parties.

Tango, what you are talking about is a "promise to pay" which is a different part of contracts. Many contracts are entered into without funds exchanging until some future date.


[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 08-31-2001).]

A few answers to questions:

- Why Post This Here? I made sure not to expose the identity of the person I referenced and this is an issue that comes up every few months on FT.

- Why Miles? This is all about exploiting programs to earn miles/points in a dishonest method.

- Is $0 the same as a low price (i.e. $20/nt)?
No it is not. It's reasonable to conclude that a hotel/casino/resort is offering some type of promo in the 20's - but not $0.

I understand what people have said about hotels running promos and airline contracts - however if they contact you to make a correction and even make you a reasonable offer, I think it's wrong to hold them hostage. Just my view.

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

This may vary from airline to airline, but the airline is reserving a seat for you in that class of service until the day of departure, but the actual fare is only guaranteed for 24 hours, or in some situations, until midnight of the same night. Full coach fares don't change all that much, so generally there isn't going to be a difference, but next time you book one, check and see if the fare is held and not just the seat.

------------------
Have a great day!!
~~Missy~~

Just a little bit more of my legal half-knowledge -

Ethically, this thread seems to side with the Hotel and, legally, believe it or not, ethics comes into play as well because, so often, as in this case, intent is an issue.

For example, I personally never would have noticed this "deal" because I have seen it so frequently when I pass over internet promos or ebay offerings that say hotels are free, and then on the next page, if one pays the airfare or v.v. They end up being no-deals if one reads on, as they are instructed to do.

There are many questions here with regards to intent. Were the rooms bought from such a promo or ad, such a place that one may usually find $0 as a price? And, if so, where was the rest of the no-deal one expects to find? Or were they had directly from a travel website or the airline's site itself, where it is certainly not common to find a rate for $0.

Also, what about the airline's intent. What if this was a marketing ploy albeit really, really backhanded, although look at PremEx's post where he states he feels sorry for them. Hey, you can't help it. I do too! Or, did the hotel know this could happen and just let it go?

On a legal level, this could go on forever. I would just like to see the lawyer that wants to go back and forth with Hilton's lawyers. But then again, they would probably settle to reduce costs and notoriety ... and, in the meantime, the lawyer could get some press ...

The real question here is how do we know it's a mistake.

I have legally stayed at hotels for $1 a night. With taxes and fees, I've paid $8.95 for the hotel for a weekend. The hotel was just fine with that.

Of course it's a little different in that I know that Priceline kicked in $20 bucks a night as a special bonus. Of course, I don't technically have to know that -- from my point of view, I paid $1 a night, or $4.50 a night including taxes/fees, for the hotel.

So what's not to say that if I see a $1 rate availably conventionally at another hotel, that it's not valid? Maybe the booking agency is kicking in some bucks as a promotion, just like Priceline did. Or I just don't care -- it says a $1, so it's a $1.

I'm not sure what side I am on in these sort of issues; I just don't think no mistake necessarily needs to be 'obvious'. I've paid a much as 95% off regular rates using various techniques -- when I tell people my rate, they don't believe me -- and the front desk does a double take (though they take it!) .. so I've had my share of 'unbelievably REAL' good deals.

In my book, it's not a form of extortion-- it's outright extortion. Referring to the 300-room guy here, only.

I certainly understand that different folks might see it from different points of view, but in my business when someone says "give me what I want or I'll expose you to bad publicity and/or tie you up in court with nuisance lawsuits"-- I never give in to people who try that with me.

I'd rather spend 100x the amount on a lawyer to defend against that kind of extortion than give even a modest settlement to the threat-maker.

But I suppose a publicly-held company can't take such a position, as it may not be in the best interests of the shareholders.



[This message has been edited by JonNYC (edited 08-31-2001).]

Tango,
For a contract to be valid, nothing has to change hands immediately, it can state a future date for the exchange. For example, I could offer you $10 to wash my car on December 1, and if you agree, then we are both stuck to that contract even though I won't pay you until after the work is done. In the case of a full fare airline ticket, that contract allows you to back out of it any time before the flight. That's why it costs so much more. However, a contract can't be legally valid if it is one sided. An exchange must be made. If I offer to give you $10 on December 1 with nothing required from you in return, and you accept, this is not a binding contract. I do not have to give you the money. That is why a $29 airfare must be honored, and a $0 hotel room doesn't. If it were $.05 instead of $0, then it would be valid because both sides would get something and exchange something. Both parties must get something out of the deal.

Well, everyone is going on about the fact that no money exchanged hands, but these rooms were guaranteed to a credit card, and after that, WRITTEN confirmation was given to the asinee (the customer), so in a way, through electronic commerce a valid contract has been entered into. As for the guy with 300 rooms, I think that would be viewed as excessive. I mean there r question you have to look at. How long was this rate available? Was this found on Hilton's website or a 3rd party.

I've already thrown in my 2 cents on previous threads about this issue, so I won't repeat it here. However, many of you are talking wish fulfillment re the hotel's obligations and not reality, legal or otherwise, concerning same.

However, I would like to know just who among us has reserved the 300 rooms? I dont' think that they should have any "reservation" in doing so, inasmuch as they feel it appropriate to Hilton "pay" them in points for the release of the rooms. Should they fail to identify themselves, I think that will tell you alot about them and how they really feel about what they are doing.

If any of you know about this "e-mail" I would be happy for you to post it, or for you to send it to me (as some of you know my home e-mail address)

Thanx and have a good holiday!

That's not the intent of this post and I would ask that this request not be honored. This is a post about the ethics of taking advantage of obvious errors for the purpose of gaining points/miles in a dishonest way. This is not a "ratting out someone type post" - that's wrong.

This discussion does not center around any one person, hotel property or airline - they were simply used as an expample of extreme exploitation (without names or whrere they live).

Let's stay away from this type of "investigative posting" - thanks.

I pretty much come down on Hilton's side here, too. Like Premex, I remember $19.85 flights DCA-LGA and $29 flights EWR-SFO. That is not unreasonable. A $0 flight is just silly.

And as for calling 300 nights excessive, well, IMHO, it is either right or it is wrong.

I, too, am interested as to the content of the email. Was it telling you about the $0 deal and telling you to book one, or was it from someone complaining that they were told hilton would not honor their $0 rate? In other words, what does the email you got have to do with this issue? Was it from 'the list' that was so widely jumped upon a few months ago???

My curiosity is piqued!!!

It's not exactly a form of extortion, at least not in the traditional sense.

If we go to a business and tell them that if we don't get satisfaction, we will tell the world about the poor service we got, that's extortion? I don't think so. Extortion really means that you're spreading damaging information that serves no purpose other than to smear the image of the extortee.

This is different. Everyone has a right to tell other potential customers of their own experiences with a business. This is how businesses establish reputations, good or bad. Giving the business a chance to make things right before their reputation is damaged is hardly extortion.

TravelManKen...why did YOU receive this e-mail?...has anyone else?? I know I've received it too...but the reality is that I received it because I'm a member of another forum...unrelated to FT...that's why I was concerned with why you posted it here...if it was a completely different forum...it should've went there....then again...I could be wrong.

You're right, that wouldn't be extortion, IMHO.

But this is something completely different. The 300-room guy (and let's just say he's a hypothetical 300-room guy-- there's NO WAY we should detail the events that led us here,) booked as many nights as he humanly could at a $0 rate purely and explicitly for the purpose of squeezing the hotel for money, points, program-status, etc. There were no "promotions" in place-- the $0 rate was a computer mistake and everyone who booked it knew that full well as they booked it (and booked it and booked it...)

300-room guy had NO intention of using the reservations (or most of 'em anyway) he made. And, his recourse would presumably be the threat of legal action-- otherwise Hilton has virtually no reason to make even the modest offer that they did.

I'm most certainly not claiming that the above described comports with what would get someone put in jail for extortion-- or even that a district attorney would take an interest, just that in my personal book of ethics, it's extortion.

mweiss,

When you tell somebody that you will spread damaging information about them if they don't do what you want, how is that different than what you defined above? Admit it or not, the only purpose you have in spreading the info is to smear the image of the company.

Another poster commented about how they like to stick companies with the 'advertised' price. I don't know the ins and outs of bait and switch, but there is a world of difference between making a company stick to a price that's been advertised and making a company stick to the terms of a contract that has been entered in to.

I am totally missing the point of the 'secrecy' being invoked here. Are folks embarassed that they are sticking it to Hilton with $0 rooms? If so, I have to wonder why.

If one has no moral problems with what one is doing, then be proud. Proclaim it from the highest mountaintop. Or admit that you are being sneaky and be ready to let it go if you are called on it.

We all do some things in travel and in life that we know are not right. Take the UA upgrade bait and switch. Sure, I try it. But I dont like to talk about it. And if it doesn't work, I dont go crying like chastity raped.

Of course, the reason is probably that folks are worried that if the world (or, specifically, the service provider) finds out about the loophole, it may go away. OK, but just remember, the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

I'm glad Travelmanken brought this up. Nothing like shining a little light on a topic to make the roaches scurry...

Just a few simple points.

First, I think Hilton is making a big mistake in honoring these $0 rates. Whenever one of these computer pricing mistakes comes up, someone inevitably provides an example of another "low rate" that they found that was legitimate. But this wasn't a "low rate", this was a ZERO RATE.

Second, the "300-room-guy" sure has a lot of chutzpah. Hilton could easily blacklist him, his mother, his ex-wife's boyfriend, and his neighbor's daughter for life for his extortion. Personally, that's what I hope they will do. I wouldn't be surprised if "300-room-guy" is actually a 13-year-old "30-kilogram-boy".

Third, how tough is to tell right from wrong here? This isn't a fuzzy gray area. I can't believe there isn't complete consensus on this.

In insurance law, there is a concept called "scrivener's error" which can be used to invalidate an obvious incorrection.

For example, if an insurance company agrees to sell you $10,000 if insurance for $x, and when you get your policy, it reads $100,000 for the same rate, the insurance company is not bound by the contract.

Obviously this is a different industry, but the point is that when there is an obvious and blatant error (which $0 for a hotel would certainly be), I would be shocked if the hotel would not prevail in court for not honoring it.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

I've got a feeling that those who take advantage of these mistakes by hotels, airlines, etc. are the same people who expect an exception to the non refundable rate rule when they make an error or have a change of plans.

I have just come home after three days of university party. Great fun.

I have only one thing to say:
I agree with IM4Travel

For once something that should be shut down my the moderators (oh dear Moderator1 where art thou? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

kokonuts: YGM!

The other difference, I think, betweenthe $29 United flights to Paris and the $0 Hilton reservations is that in the case of the United flights, United made the offer and collected payment for it: the people who booked on the website did not just make a reservation, they bought a ticket, gave UA their credit card information, and were promptly charged for the ticket. UA accepted their offer and their money.

The people who took up the Hilton reservation offer didn't pay anything.

Also, though it's not strictly a legal point, they shoulda known better. Cheap is promotional; free is a mistake.

------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

I, too, received this email. I was surprised. It was forwarded to me by another FT'er. I won't name that person. I won't post the email (per TMK's request).

I guess I don't care whether it is legal or moral the bottom line for me is that I wouldn't feel right about doing it.

That makes me right in the sense that I am following my conscience, but doesn't make others wrong who disagree with me.

My 2 cents,
-levi aka eastwest