I had a problem with the fee because for the past 5 years at Vdara the coffee maker was included at no charge when you stayed in a suite-about $200 with fees minimum during the week and no comps since they are non gaming. We grocery shopped for pods/creamer before checkin assuming we would have a coffee maker as always--THAT is when I had an issue.

It's certainly possible that the existence of the fee was not fairly conveyed to you. But that is different issue from whether charging a fee or the amount of the fee are fair

What if search sites take 10% of the room and 0% of the fees? They can either list their room for an extra $33 on the site or slap a $30 resort fee. Consumer pays $3 less, hotel gets the same money.

What if search sites list by ascending room rate only? So your twin competitor lists a room at $130 and you list at $100+$30 and get all the business because you appear to be $30 cheaper until the checkout screen?

Agreed, upon booking through VIP the new coffee fee was not mentioned (parking was) and probably not posted on their site but have not checked. Regardless I think it is fair to assume when you pay $200+ a night for a room with a full kichen you assume it is going to have a free coffee maker.

Agree. They could charge a thousand bucks a day if the guest has a choice of using it or not.

Not mentioned yet: Some las vegas restaurants now have a restaurant/concession fee, or a tourist fee. Most show tickets will include a entertainment fees, and ticketmaster is known for charging a convenience fee (wtf).

These are most definitely scam fees.

Ticketmaster has been doing that scam for many years. Tourist fee and entertainment fee sound ridiculous. I think if I went to a restaurant and saw a disclosure of a tourist fee I would walk right out. If I didn't see any mention of it until I got the bill, I would cuss out the manager and refuse to pay it.

Does the 20 dollar trick offset the resort fee? Last time I was in vegas I booked basically the cheapest room but they upgraded me to a really nice room with a view.

Apparently resort fees are an excellent bargain, according to TI's website:

Service/Amenity
Value
High Speed (10 Mb/s) Internet Access
$25-$99+/day
Access to Fitness Center
$17/day
2-for-1 Cocktail (one per stay)
$10.50/each
Newspaper at Guest Services
$1-$2/day
In Room Local/Toll Free Calls
$1/call
Airline Boarding Pass Printing
$5/each
Copies & Faxes (max. 10 pages)
$1/each
$25 Future Stay Credit

$25

Total Value
> $100!

So what?

No, only the people who understand business get to roll their eyes.

You were just trolling.

Your reasoning was a childish "but other people do it too."

Like I said, you can use the same reasoning to stiff dealers. But perhaps you'll respond by saying stiffing dealers makes more money and as a result is good business.

If you want to stiff dealers stiff dealers but that has zero to do with resort fees.

And your repeatedly trying to draw a connection does nothing to advance your position Bout fees.

But I don't want to stiff dealers. That's the point!

The point is that is completely irrelevant the discussion .

False.

False. Read the posts, comprehend the posts, THEN mash the reply button.

Actually kind of true.

If you were a C corporation whose incorporation documents compelled you to seek every advantage possible to make money, your shareholders would definitely make a big stink about all the money you're giving away in tips.

You're not a C corporation. You're not controlled by shareholders. Nobody trades you on the stock market. You don't publish your financials every year for public review.

MGM is. LVS is. WYNN is. I think CET is (they were public once and a private investment group took them off the market, I forget whether they ever had another public offering).

That's why you unabashedly money grubbing is treated differently from major Las Vegas casinos unabashedly money grubbing.

Meh, it's still about filling up their own pockets. The top people get huge bonuses if they succeed. That "controls" them more than anything else.

I'm guessing you don't hate Adelson for many of the same reasons?


Treated differently by who? By you? I don't think the valet workers will buy into that reasoning, and they have gotten hit much harder than any dealers I might stiff. And if this is true I'd say it's pretty significant:

The Board of Directors, elected by the shareholders, generally has to approve C-suite bonuses.

You are semi-correct, I don't hate Adelson because I don't fault him for what Las Vegas Sands does. But he has personally (as a non-corporation) done a bunch of objectionable stuff, which I do fault him for. I don't agree with boycotting the Venetian for being greedy, but I would agree with boycotting the Venetian because Adelson tried to hide his turning of the Review-Journal into a puppet show. I agree with boycotting the Review-Journal because it is a puppet show, but don't agree with boycotting it because it is pro-Republican.

By the 50-70% of people who recognize that their displeasure over the parking fees is something separate from their habit of tipping the valet. Sure, 30-50% of people act as you do, and stiff the valet as retaliation for the corporate policy the valet's boss's boss's boss has enacted. But many don't.

And you should be part of the crowd that recognizes the difference between corporate greed and personal greed.

Greed is Greed.
Casinos coming up with scam fees is no better than stiffing a waiter.

A business is not a person. You keep applying the same set of ethics/principles/etc to both. They're not the same.

Legally, a corporation is often treated in the same way as a person: it's kind of an artificial person. They are also owned by actual persons. I see nothing wrong with holding the same moral standards to a corporation as you would to a person.

In addition to making money a person has social aspects to contend with - making friends, compassion/empathy, etc. A business has no such priorities other than making money. This is why the tipping analogies don't hold up well.

In your humble opinion. Many (most?) people believe differently. Otherwise there would be no such things as boycotts.