Flews

Personally, I would rather have the government LESS involved in my life, not more. And I certainly don't want the government regulating my hotel costs thank you very much - it has already made enough of a mess in the airline industry.

There's a real easy way to avoid resort fees folks. DON'T STAY THERE! It's called consumer pressure. As long as enough people continue to stay and pay these fees, they are going to charge them. If enough folks stop staying at these properties, and let the offending properties know they are losing our business, then we might get change.

And enough of this nonsense suggesting resort fees being somehow unique to *wood. Pretty well all the majors have them. So you need to find creative ways to stay at places that don't.

Cayman - mentioned above - is case in point. DON'T STAY THERE. And don't stay at the Hilton or Marriott either if they are charging resort fees. Instead, stay at the Sunshine Suites across the road from the Westin. Bonus two-fer - you get a suite

Cheers,

sc flier

It's worked well so far.

I have not suggested that they are unique to Starwood. They are a problem throughout the industry, and the industry is refusing to police itself. They are mostly unique to the North American/Caribbean, though. Why is that?

lerasp

it's not really unique to NA/Carib. Have you seen that many/most resort hotels in Asia have 10% service charge on the room rate? that's just resort charge renamed and 10% on room rate often higher than a fixed $ charge is. And in those cases, it doesn't even explictly include anything specific, such as internet, parking or other actual amenities.

sc flier

I am fully aware of that, and I consider those to be an entirely separate issue. No, it's not just a resort charge renamed.

Edited to add:
Just as one example of the 10% service charge that is customary in many AP countries, here's info about how it developed in Nepal only a few years ago:
Nepal hotel workers claim victory: agreement on service charge implementation

mahasamatman

I've always just taken the service charge as "forced tipping" in cultures where tipping is (supposedly) not customary. It's too bad it doesn't all go to the employees.

controller1

And what part of in my message did you not understand?

Flews

Well, since I was agreeing with your message, apparently none of it...?

Cheers,

azepine00

Don't know about you but I am VERY thankful that the government finally stepped in and forced the airlines to quote all-in prices instead of bait and switch marketing of "base" fares ^^

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newss...on-merged.html

I would love to see the same for hotels.

mahasamatman

Too bad they have no control over foreign carriers, so we'll continue to see base fares from them.

azepine00

Can't figure out this one - I hope the ruling regulates the fares advertized in US (or perhaps with US located origin or destination) even if they come from foreign carriers. I would not expect the government to put US carriers at a disadvantage by allowing foreign airlines market "lower" base fares instead of all-in on the same routes

mahasamatman

You can't do anything about the advertising because it's impossible to regulate what appears on the Internet. However, linking it to landing rights in the US could have some force...

dmgt

Resort Fees are like airlines charging fuel surcharges. Make no sense to me.

It just hides the real room cost and makes the price seem lower.

controller1

If you were in marketing it would make perfect sense because