They better not take away free drinks! That would have to be the last ditch effort for them and a sign the casinos are struggling worse than they're letting on. The booze is the fuel for the debauchery.

that's what Mesquite/Laughlin/Primm are for

I am pretty sure millennials just like to do other things than gamble. I'll never understand why somebody would sit in front of a slot machine for hours.
Several states have laws that prohibit casinos from offering free alcohol and their casinos are full of (old) people anyway.

They wouldn't be able to compete because the vast majority of visitors will just shop for the cheapest base rate. If one hotel room is $90 and a comparable hotel room is $60 the consumer will nearly always feel the $60 room is the better deal even if there is a $35 resort fee tacked on to it which results in a more expensive nightly stay.

BTW, this is a really bad PR problem for the strip casinos. I was just perusing through some yelp reviews of Vegas casinos and resort fees really really piss a lot of people off. Unforunately, none of the casinos can really do away with them unless there is some legislation that requires the resort fee to be included in the advertised rate.

Because they have these things called a jackpot. Sitting around a blackjack table or standing around a craps table is even worse because there's no jackpot.

Yeah, they have to be 21 or older. I've never heard of a poker room more filled to capacity and with longer lists than Bay 101 in San Jose. No free booze.

Yeah and that's why people from those states flock to Vegas. I live in California with no free booze allowed and the 15 freeway up to Vegas is always packed on the weekends even though there are plenty of local casinos.

How long have resort fees been around in Vegas?
How long have Coronas been $7+ at the bar in ****holes like the Excalibur?
When did the crappy buffets on the strip start charging $30+?
When was the last time CET had bartop vp with > 98% payout?
How long has 6/5 BJ been going?

This nickel and diming has been going on for awhile. When exactly are the people going to stop going back? They're going in record numbers.

They had free parking and free valet when they were doing all that. And a difference is with some of that stuff at least I'm paying for stuff I want, and I don't need to pay for a buffet or a beer to get into a casino. The parking thing is much more annoying because I don't get anything out of it other than an experience that is really annoying. MGM says they upgraded my parking experience though.

And with Caesars charging parking just got more expensive for people who like to hop around in a car on the Strip. Instead of $10 (or nearly $20 to valet) at an MGM property, and then going to other places for free, they will need to pay around double that if they stay at an MGM property and drive to a Caesars property, and more if they want to go to Cosmo. Parking also is getting more expensive for people who were avoiding the MGM garages to avoid the fees.

There's a difference between choosing to go to the bar for some reason and choosing to pay $30 for a buffet for some reason and choosing to pay 6/5 bj for some reason and being FORCED to pay for parking and resort fees. All those things you mentioned, I don't do. But the resort fees and parking fees might be enough for me to just stay home and play locally. It's not the money, it's the principle. Free parking was nice so you can casino hop and it felt like they wanted you there so you can gamble in their casino. Now I'll be more inclined to stay at one casino and will grumble knowing these a-holes are taking my money AND making me pay just to park there. That's if I even go back.

Here's what I believe:

Past performance (giving **** away) is not necessarily indicative of future results (revenue).

Vegas is a tiered market - there are plenty of joints catering to customers on fixed incomes, but you are not going to find them on the Strip (any longer). Skimming quarters from social security checks is not a viable strategy to cover interest payments on the previous decade's big investments.

Vegas is not 'changing', because for Vegas yesterday only exists as an urban myth (and piles of junk in the neon museum) - the World has changed, and in response the big corporations, who all are struggling to manage huge debt loads, are re-focusing their customer profiles.

Caesars and MGM couldn't care less about how many people come to Vegas - all they care about is how many visitors represent a profitable market segment for them, and their own bottom lines.

If they could get away with doubling the cost of everything, in the process losing 75% of their current customers, but still managing to come out ahead, they would do it in a heartbeat. What we see now is not about long-term sustainability - it's about appeasing share holders with black numbers on the bottom line.

more like they're banking on the fact that most people are absolute morons.

And also in the West free parking is traditional, except for crammed together downtowns where everything is arseholes to elbows, because we have the space for it. Vegas does too, this is just greed beyond greed. These places would be making mountains of money if not for the irresponsible double mountain of debt they took on to buy these joints.

That might be more likely to hurt the bottom line, but it would be dishonest and possibly criminal. I realize that consumer organizations are frequently ignored, but sometimes they work (think seat belts and air bags).

I wasn't advocating it as a good thing, just something that could happen. Based on what? The will of the people. Politicians pass laws that aren't necessarily good for society, just good for appeasing the voters. And it's not just some random law against some random businesses. Casinos are licensed by the government and operate subject to its will. There are all kinds of crazy laws concerning casinos in many different jurisdictions all over the world. Prohibiting parking fees at casinos wouldn't be that far fetched (A hotel without a casino would be a different matter and such a law would be deemed by most as interfering with the free market).

And with almost every property a "resort", they've priced most of their old customer base out of the market. And they have to keep reinvesting to renovate and update their rooms and other areas to keep up with their newest competitor, or risk losing their new customer base.

The gaming commission in Nevada mandates that casinos be open 24 hours a day, that they have to have a 24-hour dining option, that they allow anyone with the funds to play anything they want, that they have a camera over every inch of gaming space, etc etc. So yes, they could mandate free parking. They won't of course, but it's not like it would take an act of congress to do it.

It could be something as simple as: "If the property is over XX acres, then parking shall be provided for free." So the small land owners, like those properties downtown, can still charge for parking while these huge ass mega resorts are prevented from nickle and diming consumers just because they have to please a bunch of share holders.

Well, I was right about other airlines following United's lead. I just received an email from AA this morning stating that they are going to be charging for overhead use beginning sometime next month.

Actually, they didn't announce it that way of course. They said that they'll be introducing a new class of service called "Basic Economy" in order to save people money. With Basic Economy, you can't use the overhead, you can't reserve/choose your seat, and you get to board the aircraft last.

Somehow, they're trying to frame this change as a positive for the traveling consumer. Except I guarantee you that this new Basic Economy fare won't be any cheaper than their current economy fares; it will just be the new baseline. IOW, you'll pay what you did before, but now you'll pay extra for the overhead. Just like what happened with the implementation of checked baggage fees.

Southwest will still be cheaper and they will still offer all of these "great perks".

Smh. These other airlines really need to be smacked back to reality.

All the news articles are indicating that the price point will save customers money.

What has changed that has made bin space become such a problem in recent years? Is this simply because people are carrying on more to avoid paying fees?

Anyways, I don't get why anyone would ever fly a legacy carrier unless they absolutely had to (ie small city with a population of like 80k, or flying international). All the major metro areas have multiple low cost carriers.

Older aircrafts are designed for people to check their luggage and mostly use the cabin space for the thing that's called "personal item" now. Of course, when airlines introduced fees for checked bags, people started to bring their stuff into the cabin to save money.

That's not even only a problem with smaller aircrafts. Within the last month, I've been in an A380, Dreamliner (both new) and a 747 (older). The 747 had significantly less space in the overhead bins and therefore people had to check their larger bags at the gate.
I wonder if airlines prepare themselves to charge for checked luggage on international flights too.

Perhaps for you, but this hasnt been my experience in a long, long time.

And do you actually believe that?

No, I absolutely don't believe that. However, it's what's being reported all over the place (citing United as a previous example of saving customers money).

Looks like it's coming soon. Spotted these at Paris today, and looks like they're about to put the booth up at the front.



Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Staying at Ballys. They're putting gates on Ballys' side now.