They all saw through the empty threats that customers made against MGM when their business didn't drop even a percent. So why not charge for parking when customers never voted with their wallets?

LOL

they are sort of forced to start charging, even if they don't want to. tons of cheap people will U-turn at aria and park at cosmo if it's free. they will be totally sandwiched in by paid parking lots, it would be totally illogical to stay free.

It's been a few years, but one evening spouse and I was dining at Jasmine (Bellagio), Petula Clark showed up and appeared to be treated like royalty ... respect for the elderly

It sounds like they will charge everyone, including guests staying at their hotel. Caesars is using the same excuse and we know it's bs.

I wonder how this will affect Vegas in a few years. It takes time for a lot of people to find out about this. I ran into a tourist just a few days ago that was shocked, upset, confused and wondering if he should pay.

I was in the Venetian poker room a few times recently and despite the fact that news of the room going downhill is at least a year old, tourists were shocked the room isn't what it used to be and were wondering what happened. Those people aren't keeping up with what's going on in Vegas and it takes a while to learn how much of an impact the changes will make.

MGM also hasn't started charging locals yet. Looks like they will soon though.

Vegas has more ways of making money now so it's misleading IMO when they say a lower percentage of their profit is from gambling.

Also, I hear about millenials not being into gambling as much. But that shouldn't be a surprise when the comps are lower and the casinos win more often. Usually my experience with machines is I put money in, and I win so little that it's not even fun. It discourages me from putting more money in there.

There will be temporary outrage but it will pass. Reminds me of when they started adding resort fees. Everybody still hates resort fees but it's just sort of expected now. I'm guessing they'll just start adding it to your total when you book a room.

Yep, just like the airlines and all of their ridiculous fees. First it was checked bags, and now United has started charging for use of the overhead compartments if you just want to carry-on a bag. I'm sure the other airlines will soon follow suit.

And the airlines have even started charging you extra if you just want to select a seat when you purchase your ticket rather than taking what's left when you arrive at the airport. (And I'm not talking about the extra charge for seats with a few inches of extra legroom that they also charge for.) I'm flying to Europe on Saturday and had to pay Lufthansa & Austrian Airlines an extra $162 just to ensure that my wife and I aren't given middle seats several rows apart when we check in.

Hotels implement a resort fee, forcing you to pay for things you don't want. You get mad. Airlines implement a la carte pricing, making only people who use each service to pay for it. You get mad. Make up your mind. If a business wants to raise prices, would you prefer they make everyone pay it, even for services they don't use, or only the people that use certain services?

I have a Lufthansa flight to Frankfurt next week and can change my seat without additional cost.
Easy. I want everybody to pay for the things I use and individual pricing for everything I don't use.

I am OK with resort fees because I would pay for internet and gym anyway and I have no problem with paid parking because I don't drive.

I think the issue in both cases is that they are misleading consumers with a base price that is not accurate to what the vast majority of consumers will pay. Most people that stay at a hotel will want internet service. This is typically included in the base price of the hotel as a normal amenity. Most people that fly on an airplane will carry on a bag. This is typically included in the base price of the flight as a normal amenity.

Even more fundamental than that is the fact that most people book through search sites that initially report the base price. So hotels, airlines, and car rental companies list their prices without fees, taxes, or anything else you'd pay.

Why don't they just list a $1 rate and stack on $99 of fees? Because they've done market research to know exactly what peoples' pain points are. People will readily pay $1 in fees on a $99 bill; they'll raise hell if they pay $99 on a $1 bill. So they pick a value in between so they get listed lowest in a search but tack on just enough fees to milk it.

The obvious solution is to change the search algorithms. But sites are private companies so either the government steps in or people organizr a boycott.

Wow, that's ridiculous. And yet, if you show up without any luggage they will surely give you the stank-eye.

They already have some form of regulation in place that forces websites to show things like resort fees as additional costs. Before that, most first time customers through sites like expedia didn't even know about the resort fees before showing up at the hotel.

In a perfect world they would have to show the lowest possible total price instead of the base rate though.

i didn't mean to suggest that because visitors don't gamble that much that it justifies all vegas fees.\\

my thought was more that the very old vegas model was that most things were cheap even free and then the casinos made it back on most of those people gambling........... not the case today. now they have to charge more for those other things because that's most of visitors' spending.

on one hand resort fee if well disclosed should just be added to room price in making our decisions.

where it's a problem is people not knowing about it or getting a reservation without a resort fee and then them charging, both of which i know of recently.

the worst case is "package travel deals". i suppose it is disclosed somewhere but people either don't notice, don't understand significance or plain forgot by time they get to casino....... it's quite a shock for your "package deal"

i understand room comps paid it too... nice "comp"

is that true that at one time - maybe recently - people weren't even aware of the fee?

FWIW, priceline and hotwire are very good in their disclosure........ the problem though is that you can book on them sometimes with no resort fee and then they want to charge it to you anyway. and then you can't get back to page that showed no resort fee. you receipt/record is sort of ambiguous and in fact favors the casino although it's not very clear. basically says you may have to pay at casino hotel but your reservation when you made it said "no additional fees"

You defo paid the idiot tax - you'll realize that when the flight's half full must be planning on a late check-in? Remember to buy a ticket for the Euromillions (what odds 2 people need to be sat apart on a 400 seater)

as per airline fees, i'm totally in favour of paying for what you use or what you want.

i think resort fees should have the option of not using anything related to the resort. i think it would be very easy to track. in fact i think they track it today.

and for a place like LINQ to charge a "resort" fee is LOL. where's the resort?... and they don't even offer any nice touches - that i saw - such as nice water color in lobby. in fact they charge $5 for a bottle of water in their gift/food shops.

EDIT: i should add some nice things about LINQ. great suite, maybe the best room i've ever had in hotel. very cheap price and they honored "my reservation had zero resort fee" for which i was very appreciative.

First of all, just how does one determine months in advance how full a flight is going to end up being on the day of departure?

Secondly, you're an idiot if you think flights during the Christmas holiday season are going to be half empty. In fact, how often do you fly at any time of year (other than red eye's out of Vegas) and find out that you're on a flight that's half empty? What a completely ridiculous and asinine comment.

And finally, I wasn't really worried about them sitting us in separate rows, only about not being in a middle seat. The bit about separate rows was hyperbole. Look it up and learn something.

I nearly always fly Southwest Airlines which is open seating..although you can pay extra to board first which I think is fine.

My most recent trip to Vegas was on Virgin America. There they had a flat price for assigned seating in the main cabin, but you could pay a bit more to select your seat. I initially thought they were trying to nickel and dime me but it does make sense. Certain real estate is worth more to customers. I wanted a window seat up front and was willing to spend the $15 extra for each leg. Virgin also offered their Main Cabin Select at a discounted last minute rate or you could use their app to bid on an upgrade to first class right before the flight which I think is a fabulous idea.

When I rent a hotel room I expect amenities such as a swimming pool and internet to be included for no extra charge. These are just normal amenities. Advertising rates without including the resort fee (which isn't really even optional) is extremely disingenuous. Nobody even uses the pool at the Linq. The Linq would need at least 10 pools that size to accommodate all of its guests.

When I view an advertised rate for an airline, I expect that rate to get me from point A to point B and allow me to store a carry on bag and personal item. Everything else after that is gravy. Paying to check a bag makes a lot of sense to me since the airline makes money off the cargo space by utilizing the excess space for package and mail delivery.

I don't mind them charging for carry on luggage. I am so sick of ****tards bringing these barely small enough to be carry on pieces of luggage that take up a whole bin and slow the boarding and deplaning process. Hopefully by charging it will but an end to this ridiculousness

Except that you're not going to be able to do that anymore. You'll be able to place your personal item under the seat in front of you (thus eliminating the space for your legs), but as I wrote above, United (and perhaps the rest of the airline industry) is going to charge you to place your carry-on bag in an overhead compartment. Does that make sense to you, too?

If an airline does that then they won't be meeting my expectations and I probably won't be flying them. You seem to think that United Airlines is some sort of great trendsetter in the airline industry but I certainly don't. Spirit Airlines is one of the most hated airlines because their business model is based on nickel and diming people.

I think it's been pretty well established that the most profitable airlines are the ones that provide good customer service. Doing something that will piss customers off will probably not pay off for them in the long run.

Then you're going to run out of airlines to fly on because, like casinos with resort fees and now paid parking, they're all going to eventually do it.

Spirit is not United, lol. Do you seriously believe that if United is successful with this model that other airlines won't follow suit? Have you forgotten how charges began for checked luggage? It wasn't all at once. One airline (AA IIRC) did it and when other airlines saw that it was profitable, they did so as well.