“What can I do to get them to honor this rate?”

As for the infighting: let me suggest a few things to consider.

First: Sticking to the topic at hand can be difficult at times, but we should try. Personally, if the subject is “why can’t I get my discounted rate at a hotel extended to an earlier arrival date?”, then posts about how much money in tax dollars are wasted at conferences is (probably) irrelevant. At best, one could argue that if the hotels are raking in tons of money from this kind of conference, soaking the taxpayers, they should have more flexibility to lower the rates for leisure travelers. But even that’s a stretch.

On the flip side, when the Person With A Problem (PWAP) makes a point of saying “we are both teachers so we can’t afford X”, it’s reasonable to examine the underpinnings of that claim; two teachers in a state where the minimum salary each is $41,000 can’t really claim poverty. They may have other expenses (a too-large house note? excessive credit card debt? car notes too high?) that make this particular expense difficult to afford at this time, but a household with $82,000 in income is not poor, period, and that relevant (in my view) point undermines the PWAP’s case a bit.

Second: bear in mind that nonetheless, all posts here are moderated – Chris could easily choose not to allow certain posts to be visible if he felt they were off-topic. And it’s HIS call as to what’s relevant and on-topic, not mine, not anyone else’.s

Finally: as others have suggested, focus on the post, not the person. If John Doe believes that Jane Roe’s post on something is a bigoted, ignorant, offensive rant, then say that: the POST is bigoted, and ignorant, and offensive. But when one makes the step to saying that Jane herself is bigoted, ignorant, or offensive, it’s crossing a line and it becomes about the people, not the thoughts expressed. It’s a fine line, but it’s there, and it’s one we ought to all avoid crossing.

@arizona

Read your definitions closer. The Wiki definition, which is the first one a google search presents, is that he … “May for example, investigate complaints” It clearly shows that invstigation of complains is only one of the many duties, hence the term MAY. However, you and others are intent upon making that the sole duty.

But it’s still a red herring. Whatever term you use, the nature of scope of Chris’ job is defined by Chris. Neither you nor I have that perogative. Chris has clearly defined his job broader than dealing in complaints. You simply have to accept that fact.

Compassion? Humanity? We’re not talking about someone looking for a bereavement fare, no death in the family, didn’t lose his job. We’re talking about someone who booked a flight in a day early because it was cheaper and then complained about the room rate being higher than the other days. He asked for a lower rate, he was told no, and then he got a journalist with a name and authority and the reputations of MSNBC, CNN, National Geographic, Washington post etc behind him to call and ask nicely on his behalf.

Many of us who have an issue with this would have had no problem if Chris had instructed the guy to call the manager or some other form of consumer education. We’re not saying he shouldn’t have written about it. But when he throws his weight behind the request and a company gives in because they’re afraid of negative publicity on CNN, MSNBC etc then what it does is tell people that the rules don’t matter and you can get around them for no good reason at all.

@Annette.

You’re assuming that Marriott caved due to pressure. That’s almost certainly not true. I realize that there are 106 comments but if you read the post by Kevin Fields, a former night auditor, you’ll see how unlikely that is.

Besides, not one poster, including me, has suggested that Marriott would have been viewed negatively had they refused the OP. So its unlikely that they would be worried about negative publicity.

My $0.02

Noticed the title change, too. If the title is exactly what the OP said, though, it’s arguably still disturbing just the same.

Not that many of us don’t try to get our way with others…

Kevin M. Thank you for your constructive critcism concerning my post. You are correct on this particular post. The analogy was not really a good one. I also applaud When a post is made on an opinion the OP should not have their character maligned .Your post suggests that you are a person with class .

@ Carver – ” Read your definitions closer. The Wiki definition, which is the first one a google search presents, is that he … “May for example, investigate complaints” It clearly shows that invstigation of complains is only one of the many duties, hence the term MAY. However, you and others are intent upon making that the sole duty.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
Just because the Wiki definition is first in a Google search doesn’t mean that it is the best definition or etc, it means that Wiki paid money to get their website listed first. Also, it is well documented that the information on Wiki is not already correct; information has been replaced with erroneous information and etc.

It is my opinion that Chris acted like an agent in this situation instead of an ombudsman. At Chris’s other website, Consumer Traveler, several of the long-term posters and even those who write articles for Consumer Traveler, posted that he acted like an agent, over stepped his bounds in this situation and etc. You are right that Chris can define the scope of his job, broaden his scope and etc. Chris can act like an agent but it is hard for a travel provider to forget that he is a travel ombudsman with a name and authority; the reputations of MSNBC, CNN, National Geographic, Washington Post and his columns appear in 50 newspapers while Chris is acting as an agent.

Recently, I read an online post\article\column about a person who works at the Department of Homeland Security that had a problem with his airline flight while on a PERSONAL vacation. He wrote to the airline asking for compensation using his Homeland Security e-mail address instead of his personal e-mail address. Based upon the facts presented, the airline didn’t have to compensate him but they gave him the compensation that he asked for. Did other passengers on the same flight received compensation? No! Most people believed that if he used a personal e-mail account, he won’t have been compensated. Everyone believes that he received compensation because he works for the Department of Homeland Security and the airline didn’t want to cause problems with the DHS.

As a compliance officer for 10 years in a regulated industry, I have “issues’ with both situations because of the implied threat of bad press in the case of Marriott or increased scrutiny from the DHS in the case of the airline.

After more than 13 years of heavy travel, I’ve learned it doesn’t hurt to ask for something, understanding that the provider can say “yes” or “no” or offer a compromise.  It was nice that Marriott honored his wedding rate, but I don’t get the logic here of our traveler.  He says he saved about $200 on the airfare by flying in early, then plans to spend $169 plus tax, meals, etc. to come in that day earlier.  More than the $200 savings on the airfare, by my math.  What probably really happened is he wanted the extra day but didn’t want to pay what that would cost.  So he asked Marriott for a favor, which they did.  Great hotel chains like Marriott try their best to accomodate their guests.  But that can’t always be done.

And, as many others noted, he could have stayed nearby at a cheaper hotel if that request wasn’t honored.