So in your mind, if resort fees were outlawed these giant corporations would just say "darn it, I guess we'll just have to take the loss."

Corporations don't work that way. Yes there will be price pressure, but since every hotel on the strip charges a resort fee they will still be roughly on even footing.

It's absurd to think that a room at Flamingo would go from $50+25 to $50 instead of $75. Corporations don't make it a habit of just walking away from huge chunks of their revenue.

correct, but a comped room at Flamingo would be $0 and not $25 due to the resort fee..plus what the resort fee is allegedly for, (fitness center, wifi, fax service) most of us don't need or won't use so we should be able to have the resort fee waived, and those that do use the service can be charged accordingly

CET charges resort fees on comped rooms? That's bogus. Nobody else does that.

You realize they'd just comp less instead of giving you the additional $25?

The fundamental mistake that many people are making is that they think the reasons given for having the resort fee are the actual reasons for having the resort fee.

It's simply another way to charge you. Does the airline's fuel surcharge have anything to do with fuel prices? No. Does restaurant gratuity have anything to do with service? No. Go to an oil change place and they offer an at-cost oil change and upsell you on the valve cleaner. These are all simply ways of making things seem less expensive from afar (when people are price-comparing) and more expensive once you've committed.

Get rid of the "resort" fee and they'll charge an "oxygen" fee for using up all the air conditioning. It's 100% absolutely a total bull**** fee designed because they've done psychological-economic studies that charging $50+$25 makes them more money than charging $75. Sure, some people get pissed off and go vacation elsewhere. But if for everyone they lose $75 from, they can rope 3 people into paying an extra $25, they've broken even.

The biggest complaint about the resort fee is that it is perceived as a hidden junk fee. Some places, like Golden Gate, offer absolutely nothing for this fee. Golden Gate has no gym, spa, pool, or anything else, yet still charges a $20/night resort fee.

It is hard to think hotels with resort fees that offer zero amenities are being honest.

This all started with one resort using it as a way to appear in searches with lower rates and others followed. The only way to get rid of them, or at least stop more from going that route, is to force online travel sites to include them in the quotes when people search for rooms.

Bally's is without question the most old school in regard to customer service of all the CET properties. It does not surprise me in the least that she waived the fee. Even though the place is showing it's age, it is in a great location and the staff makes it worth staying at if you are playing poker at Bellagio or Aria and don't want to get killed on room rates and fees.

Eo's Law Of Resort Fees: If the fee is for an amenity that you might actually use or value, it's not a resort fee.

Creative descriptions of the non-services included in the resort fee are a literary art form. For example: Use of the gym machine, a copy of USA Today, free local and toll-free calls, bell service, French milled soap. Free use of a one-size-fits-all robe. I'm sure there are meetings where hotel executives make a game of coming up with new non-services.

If it was as easy as charging 75 in this case they would do that instead of charging 50 plus a bs resort fee

Totally agree with the Golden Gate example. That's garbage.

I also think the opportunity to charge the fees to generate revenue and appear competitive in rate search results kind of fell in their laps. I blame Enron. I remember back in the early or mid '00s the first additional fee that was tacked on to my room rate was for a $5 "energy surcharge" at the Palace Station back when California, and maybe other parts of the country, we're starting to deal with rate increases, demand issues, and rolling blackouts that turned out to be the result of blatant manipulation by those corrupt dickheads in Texas. Once those small energy fees were started the genie was out of the bottle.

So somebody finally filed a class action lawsuit regarding these "resort fees."

According to IBtimes.com a man named Benjamin Brin is suing Venetian for that $28 resort fee that was not disclosed at the time of booking.

You can read it at the ibtimes.com and search "resort fees" I would put up a link, but I think it is not allowed.

I ain't skeered.

http://www.ibtimes.com/class-action-...t-fees-1855860

While we are at it, this may be useful as well.

http://www.resortfeechecker.com/

How easy is it to lodge these? How expensive is it to do it?

Problem is they disclose them now. In the event a bunch of these suits happen, I'm guessing the end result will be for hotels to raise the current resort fees to cover legal expenses.

The Eco argument is not thought out enough.

Some of the resort fee is for legitimate goods and services. For the people that want them, they'll end up paying just as much or more paying ala carte. Other people will get water elsewhere, will use a cell phone tether for internet, and will never use the gym. There's simply no way, they are going to make as much off of those people if they are no longer forced to pay the fee.

Worth noting, CET prices did not drop the equivalent to the resort fee when they instituted it - as in they really didn't drop at all.

yea well ive never paid a resort fee yet and i always stay minimum 2 weeks, complain tons at checkout about everything = no resort fees

it is fleecing the public who dont know about this ****, pretty weak

Which is a totally valid business strategy which has made more than a handful of billionaires and is universally rewarded on Wall Street.

If you want your resort fees "back" you can always invest a bunch of money in MGM / LVS / WYNN / CZR and be a fleecer rather than a fleecee.

how so? you can get bent over on these fees and then lose money on the stock.

Well, my statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I got my lifetime resort fee refund during the City Center crisis and haven't paid attention since.

But as far as "fleecing the public" is concerned, this is what corporations do and if any one of these companies is gouging the public more effectively than others, the proper exploit is to buy their stock, not complain about the gouging.

that would be true if this exploitation was guarranteed to increase profits which its not. and even if it increases profits the stock can still be a ****ty buy.

the proper play is to not let companies **** you in the ass.

But it's not the same thing. If they comp a free room, then the price you pay is zero. With the pseudo-comp they offer now if they offer 2 nights "free' at Caesars you still have to pay the resort fee even if you only use the comp for a 1 night stay.

It's the same as them saying "Golds and Platinums are no longer eligible for free rooms, but can get $25 rooms".

Sure. Maybe if you add "cherry on top" to "pretty please," they'll just stop charging a hugely profitable surcharge that most people are totally willing (even if unhappy) to pay.

Got a groupon deal to Rio for 29 dollars a night (some nights) and the resort fee was 28 dollars a night paid upon arrival. I mean still a decent deal, but yikes.

Didn't think of this angle. It is a way to screw the travel and coupon sites out of commissions that are based on room rates. Its like the old eBay days when they didn't collect commission on shipping, of charging a dollar for a CD and 12.95 for shipping.