Hi Guest, welcome to the help forum. You can get fast answers to your customer service questions here. We have a dedicated team of advocates who are ready to help. Just go to the section that matches your question and ask us!
If you've posted a question or issue for our advocates to assist with, please be sure to check back frequently for responses and requests for clarification.
Did you know you can get email notifications when something new posts to your favorite forum? It's easy. Just click the "watch" link right next to the "post new thread" button at the top of your favorite forum. The rest is easy. Now you'll never miss another conversation.
Want to become an expert user? Drop by the How to use this forum section and all will be revealed. We'll show you how to make the most of your experience.
I fully understand that. But the writer complained about our advocacy- or “reverse advocacy”. My explanation was if he wants to affect change, he needs to go to his congress person- this is beyond what we advocate here.
I understand the concept of overbooking, it’s not rocket science. I simply disagree about the advantages some here think it provides to travelers. I’ve been on the negative end, and I did not enjoy it. There was no benefit for me, like the people who get upgraded immediately. After driving for 15 hours and being turned away, I was angry. I still am. I feel they broke their word. Please don’t talk down to me about comprehension, it’s rude. I fully “comprehend” every time it has been written that it happens at HOTELS OTHER THAN MARRIOTT. I still contend that does not make it right, nor is it an advantageous situation to everyone who goes through it.
How about changes to the way hotels overbook? What if the hotels took deposits for guaranteed reservations up to a certain percentage of their rooms? A percentage calculated by the hotel, based on what they predict they need to hold back for overstays or possible mechanical issues, etc. People would have the option of making a deposit or not, but without a deposit, they are automatically in a “standby” queue with no guarantee. At the point when the hotel has filled this percentage by reservations with deposits, they take no more “guaranteed” reservations requiring the deposit. All reservations made after this threshold has been reached would be clearly communicated to the reservation maker that it is a “standby” or “overbook” reservation and is subject to availability at time of arrival. Wouldn’t this help eliminate some of the reservations made by people who don’t show up? I would think this would be a positive to the hotel bottom line by cutting out unplanned vacancies. Does this sound transparent and fair? It does to me.
If I had known we were essentially in a “standby” queue, I would have looked elsewhere. If I could have made a deposit to guarantee my room, I would have.
I’m not trying to drive the hotels out of business. It’s just a really crappy thing to do to travelers, especially considering the additional confirmation email we received less than 24 hours before check-in.
There are ways to fix broken systems. Accepting broken things just because “that’s the way it is” seems ridiculous to me. Not fixing an “everybody does it” broken system that is driving away customers is even more absurd.