stupidhead

I think they should be required to disclose the all-in price from the get-go. I care about the all-in cost, I couldn't care less how that cost is split up.

Boggie Dog

Never stayed at the Stratosphere, seemed a long way from the heart of the strip.

My last stay was at a mid strip property across the street from the Cosmopolitan. Check in is virtually all self service kiosk, non-existent house keeping, stupid pool lounger rules, and overall a money grab for any and everything. Really a very disappointing experience. My last time setting foot in that place. The owners should be embarrassed to open their doors. And yes, they have the audacity to charge a resort fee.

The Cosmo, while more expensive, is a nice stay and I recommend giving them a look.

RustyC

Gaming the system with the OTAs is one of the most irksome aspects about resort fees. You'll see the "bait" price (like $21/night at Circus Circus on weekdays) in big type on the Google ad, but that's next to meaningless with resort fees well in excess of that.

Expedia sites have pushed a final cost with the mandatory fees rolled in up to the sort-results screen to save a lot of clicking through (and even almost-reservations) that you USED to have to do just to get the real price, but they STILL do sorts based on the unadjusted rate per night (i.e. the $21 in the example above, not the $21+40) and they don't give you an option to sort based on the more useful total cost after fees. So they're still aiding and abetting opacity somewhat and are still rewarding the bad actors by having their own ads keyed to the meaningless "bait" prices.

If you've done a sort on price in Las Vegas, for example, hotels like Excalibur or Circus Circus might be near-first because of the bait prices, but if you pay attention to the total in much smaller type it won't be in proper order. Places with the lower resort fees like the Mardi Gras or the Longhorn will be disadvantaged even though their totals will be lower. The Four Queens also might easily be lower than others in front of it in the rankings. They're rewarding the bad actors, and that's how you get so many others to adopt the same bad practices

(BTW, Vegas hotels have a history of this kind of stuff. Back in the olden days it'd be the "PPDO" hustle where the price on the billboard was only half the actual room cost because it was represented as "per person double occupancy" Another misleading number to make something appear to the unwary like it was cheaper than it actually was.

Airlines - especially ones like Spirit - used to play the same kind of game until the DOT under Obama required all-in pricing for anything mandatory. The current system still defies common sense in many ways (like assuming you can travel without bringing very much at all). But if Spirit had its way they'd advertise $0 fares in the large type and cram in a ton of mandatory airline-imposed fees that'd only show themselves in the very last stages of the booking process, and that's BEFORE "optional" ones like the seat selection, bags, etc. So the $0 advertised would really be more like $50 or $60, minimum, even without going for any of the "optional" stuff.

Clearly there are many in the travel industry who just firmly and unwaveringly believe that people won't buy their product if they see the straightforward, actual price upfront. Southwest Airlines has been among the few notable exceptions.

BamaVol

I think some hotel-specific websites are up front about resort fees. Maybe IHG or Hilton? I feel like it’s disclosed on the main property page, although not when you get a list of properties for you desired destination.

I’m just as bothered by the Kayaks and Expedias listing VRBO type accommodations with a one night price that quadruples when they add all their fixed and variable fees. These don’t have “come-on” type nightly prices of $16, but $80 becomes $320 by the time you’re ready to click the “reserve” button. I’m not interested in paying a $200 cleaning fee for a single night.

erik123

Just use an OTA in the UK, EU, Australia and the rate will include all fees as it is legally mandated to do so.

BuildingMyBento

The resort fee bs isn't so different from most prices listed in the states. The $9.99 lunch deal, the $1.00 Arizona iced tea...the concept represents yet another middle finger to folks in the US.

Traveling abroad bothered me more about this; in Japan, for example, you can see the zeinuki (tax-excluded) and zeikomi (including tax) prices very clearly written in shops and restaurants.

quick_dry

in Australia they have to include every mandatory element in the price so you could ostensibly see that price and get it for that much, tax included, fees included - and if they don't they've had some places get in trouble for the bait and switch.

I wish US lawmakers would simply make "all in" pricing a requirement, if the OTA pricing engine can build in the taxes at the point you pay, it can also figure out the relevant parts earlier (they already have to for their Aus presence, so it can be done)

HarryHolden68

+1 for this.
But then the US concept of advertising a price that bears no resemblance to what the cashier will ask for is baffling to the rest of the world. Go anywhere in the US and the price advertised is not the price you pay whether for a beer, a meal or a hotel. Why not just be transparent? And don't get me started on slave wages (not Corporate ones of course) that the customer is expected top up through a gratuity.

honest_abe

I agree wholeheartedly that all mandatory monies not for government fees and taxes (and possibly even those) need to be in the up-front price, whether it be the hotels, the rental cars, the purchase of a car (destination fee, e.g.). I'd even include the taxes except that they vary so much based on location and local tax rates. For advertising, I'd require the vendor to advertise including taxes and "typical" not just mandatory charges. Like foods, that require the "portion size" to be realistic for calculating calories and such, all those places would need to be realistic about whether the average customer purchases specific seats, checks bags, has carry-on charges, and makes reservations with an (additional fee) credit card.

The government shouldn't be setting prices but should insure fair competition and honest, ethical pricing.

It's just a scam.

derekno

Both hotel vendors and cruise lines do this. In theory, they both claim to offer a 10% commission to the travel agency that promotes their product but in reality their commission rate is more like 3%. The hotel "resort fees" (come on -- at a Holiday Inn Express?) are classified as "non=commissionable" and so they do not pay agents their fair share of the proceeds from the bookings. Cruise Lines do it too as a "non-commissionable cruise fare" portion. I sold some $500 cabins on Royal Caribbean recently and my commission was less than $10 each. And to add injury to insullt, when they do send out their meagre commission cheques they charge a $15 processing fee. May your fleet founder!

Berniecfc

This underhand practice has been going on for years and the consumer protection agencies has been running scared. Why? maybe the don't want to lose their potential freebies. The simple fix would be to show and Mandatory prices upfront with the room rate and not hide it until you turn up at the property. Booking sites could change the way they present room costs but this would have to be mandated for them all to do that to keep a level playing field. Until then we will still see low room rate outrageous Resort Fees.

not2017

In Las Vegas, resort fees were a way that the casinos made some revenue on all the free rooms they give to customers. "In the order of fairness", they charge every guest the resort fee. I know excuses, but that is the unofficial line from Vegas casinos. Of course every other hotel in the US jumped on the gravy train. Other commenters mention that resort fees are untaxed. I think that depends on the taxing jurisdiction. The sad thing is, only legislation would eliminate this fee. Even sadder is that we all know it won't be fixed.

Boggie Dog

To put your statement in simplistic words, those whose who dont spend enough gambling pay for the rooms of those who do spend enough gambling.

Azamaraal

Group action can occasionally reverse a trend. Just ignoring it allows it to spread. Remember "temporary income taxes" during the first world war (you probably don't :-) ) Strong action of the myriad of new fees earlier on might have slowed or stopped the spread. Remember the "new coke" fiasco.

lhrsfo

Just use the UK site which, by law, includes all mandatory charges.