They need to let their phone check in work with OTAs. I just stayed at a Hilton and couldn’t use my phone as a key because I booked through hotels.com and the front desk refused to add my hhonors info to set it up. I know you can call in but not something I want to deal with after traveling all day.

I usually book through Concur (corporate booking site) and have never had any trouble.

Hotels.com might not be a supported OTA however, since they are a consolidator. You can't even get HHonors points with hotels.com.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilton-hilton-honors/1887120...

There is a big difference between booking business travel through Concur and using hotels.com. You get all of the benefits of booking directly - points, nights count toward status, your credit card is charged directly by Hilton - ie I get 14 points per dollar by paying with my Amex Hilton Aspire.

You're essentially saying there are different tiers of travel agents.

But you're right. There's no particular disadvantage to me booking Marriott through Amex than directly other than an (expensed) booking fee for work travel.

There is a huge disadvantage. You don’t get loyalty points are status upgrades.

In the case of Hilton, that can be worth from 24% to 38% back in loyalty points per dollar spent.

When Hilton isn’t running a special, I get 34 points per dollar at around .7 cents per point:

- 10x base points

- 10x Diamond bonus (automatic for having the Amex Hilton Aspire)

- 14x Amex Hilton Aspire card

But Hilton ran a 3x special May through September (54x total) and now they are running a 2x special (44x) through March 2023.

The other advantage from booking directly is that it’s easier to change or modify a booking.

I guess I don't see the disadvantage with Marriott or United with my company booking agency. I do prefer to book directly in general but I'm not traveling a lot now and also prefer to generally adhere to travel policy when there's not a good reason not to.

I’m referring to this statement;

> There's no particular disadvantage to me booking Marriott through Amex

There is a big difference between booking through Concur and booking through the Amex portal.

We use Egencia which is owned by Amex. And it has all my loyalty program info.

Ahh. You’re not talking about the public AmexTravel portal.

Your company pays the booking fee instead of the hotel. On that case, you’re probably directly charged by the hotel and Egencia charges the company/end user the fee.

Right. Egencia charges us booking fees which we expense.

The one rule I learned while traveling over the years for work is to only ever book with the hotel directly. You open yourself up to much more annoying problems when dealing with third party booking regarding any sort of problem resolution with the reservation.

That applies to airlines too

It pretty much always costs more going direct though, which is counterintuitive and annoying. Unless you call and negotiate which I ain’t doing.

All the hotel brands offer best price guarantees where they will give you a discount if you are able to reserve with a lower price elsewhere.

The reservation systems are setup so that the pricing that goes out to priceline and Expedia is higher than what is on the hotel brand’s website.

https://www.marriott.com/look/claimForm.mi

https://www.hyatt.com/info/best-rate-guarantee

https://www.hilton.com/en/p/price-match-guarantee/

https://www.ihg.com/content/us/en/customer-care/best-price-g...

https://www.choicehotels.com/deals/best-rate

https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/hotel-deals/best-rate-guarante...

https://www.radissonhotels.com/en-us/best-rate-guarantee

Unless you do a “mystery” deal, where you can save a ton in exchange for some uncertainty.

It’s always worked pretty well for me, tbh.

Those are called opaque rates in the business, but not comparable to being able to reserve a hotel room directly via a website for less than the hotel’s own website.

It does mean when people/hotels say “you’ll get the lowest/best rates direct so don’t use an OTA”, that’s a lie/not exactly true.

They don’t like it when you book through a travel agent, but they really have a love/hate opinion when you book an express/mystery deal

A reasonable context of “you’ll get the lowest/best rates direct so don’t use an OTA” is reserving a specific type of room at a specific hotel at a specific time.

It is unusual to be willing to gamble on which hotel one is reserving in exchange for an uncertain amount of savings.

They usually publish what the discount is, but yes, there is uncertainty in which hotel you’re getting.

The problem with that is they don't honor most of the deals. A lot of the OTAs do the 'member only' 'mobile only' etc style deals which are not covered.

That said I would book direct from Hilton but every time I do they only allow pay later which in certain currencies, I'd rather not risk (Looking at Japan right now). I'd rather pay now and lock in the rate.

Can you give an example?

I have never been able to find an Expedia/Priceline price that is lower than the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott/IHG/etc rewards member price. And being a rewards member is free, so effectively you get cheaper prices directly.

I also do not see how it would be technically possible. The hotel brands’ reservations systems are surely set to offer a discounted price on their own website than they send out to Expedia/Booking.

> they only allow pay later which in certain currencies, I'd rather not risk (Looking at Japan right now). I'd rather pay now and lock in the rate.

Hiltons are usually individually owned and managed. I would try emailing the front desk and see if they will accept a prepayment from you. I was able to prepay a Hilton in Hawaii earlier this year by contacting the front desk.

my experience is the opposite. i want to book direct, but OTAs are 70% of the time cheaper. Its "technically possible" because the OTAs in most cases have contract terms that prevent the hotel from undercutting their negotiated rates, at least in advertised online prices.

OTAs do not have negotiated rates.

The hotel owner/management sets the price, or the automating rate setting programming sets the price based on its parameters and shop of other hotels in the “comp set” (competing hotels in the area). This rate is the “best available rate” (BAR) or “best flexible rate” (BFR), and there may be a prepaid non refundable discount rate option too.

The OTAs then get this pricing information via the central reservation system and then either sell a reservation where the guest pays the OTA the BFR, and the OTA pays the hotel 85% (typically). Or the OTA offers the guest to pay the the hotel directly, in which case the hotel pays the OTA 15% commission.

Either way, it is all very automated, and there is no specific negotiated pricing. But the big brands will typically offer 2% to 6% or so discount (depending on how much hotel management wants to do) on their BFR/BAR pricing as a “rewards member” discount, as a way to avoid paying 15% to Expedia/Booking.

Restricting it to rewards members avoids the hotel from violating any agreement with the online travel agent that they also get the same BFR/BAR as everyone else.

i mean you're just proving my point. They all involve onerous claim forms, or having to call... and just read and try and navigate all the conditions and caveats on those links. No thanks, i never want to navigate that mess, who has time for that? So it ends up being, you can instantly and effortlessly book for _cheaper_ with an OTA vs the hotel website, or you can navigate some byzantine claims process and _maybe_ it ends up being cheaper if your claim is accepted.

Its not a real option for most people who value their time, and thats by design.

Can you show me an example of an Expedia or Booking price that is cheaper than a rewards member price from the hotel brand’s official website? A specific major branded hotel, on a specific date, specific room type, where the price is less on OTA versus the official hotel brand website.

Note that it is free to be a member of a hotel rewards programs, and requires giving the hotel brand no additional information, so the rewards member price is the effective price for a hotel brand.

For work travel, you may not have a choice. (I can and do book directly when I sort of have to but I shouldn't and don't make a habit of it as it's against policy.) And you run into small foreign hotels that aren't really set up to take direct reservations especially from those who don't speak/read the language.

When you book with an OTA, you're the OTA's customer, not the hotel's customer.

You realize that’s part of the terms and service? Hotels pay third party OTAs around a 20% commission. You aren’t going to get extra benefits from the hotel for booking through a third party service.

Another app to install and leak my privacy. No thanks. I’ll wait in line for a key card.

What information will the app have that the hotel wouldn’t have at check in?

IP address, browser/device fingerprint.

Precise locations, time spent at each location. And device information (model, OS), super cookie association. And if it asks permissions: contacts and photos, etc. sounds like parent would grant these permissions out of app love.

You know, Phone OSs these days have a "allow location only while using the app" permission. I only need the app while I'm at my room or while checking out.

You can also reject contact and photos permissions to apps. None of the hotel apps have asked me for these.

Answered the same question here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34091783

Everything you can grab from a silent push in those months when you don't check in but still have the app installed out of convenience. In other words: not much, but something (e.g. the company can know that the app is still installed).

I wouldn't go to lengths avoiding installation (just remember to uninstall if it really bothers you), but I'd prefer a purely web based implementation. How about clearing arbitrary NFC UID for access? (From a self-serve counter if taking humans out of the equation is so much of a goal) The credit card form factor is certainly not inconvenient at all, but dealing with them can still be surprisingly annoying when that happens to coincide with oddities from the very long tail of luggage situations.

The precise amount of tin foil you are carrying to protect yourself, in pounds, for one. /s

You have to provide location access to enable bluetooth which means things like this story of the most unethical thing this former Twitter employee was asked to build are possible: https://twitter.com/stevekrenzel/status/1589700721121058817

Wow, what a story!

What privacy do you think you’re giving up by using an application? The hotel may find out you are staying there and when you come into your room - ie something they already know?

It would link it to other pseudonymous identifiers that don’t (yet) know who you are but would very much like to.

And what are these “pseudononymous” identifiers that you worry about? It’s much easier to track across the web than apps.

And how is installing the Hilton app going to allow another app to find out information about you?

Web/apps have a lot of pseudonymous data points but rarely have a link to your real-life identity. Real-life things like hotels have the latter but rarely the former. Installing an app allows data brokers to bridge the two identities.

> And how is installing the Hilton app going to allow another app to find out information about you?

Both apps rat out whatever they have on you to a data broker which then does the matching.

Don’t be handwavy, exactly what can an installed app find out about you without you giving it explicit permission?

Anything and everything the app and its 30 social, ad, and analytics SDKs are able to capture and exfiltrate from the phone.

Maybe they won't upload the list of my installed apps (which can leak information like religion or medical issues), maybe they won't track my location through the entire hotel (or everywhere), maybe they won't snoop on my pictures... but maybe they also will, and I don't like maybe.

Almost certainly I'll have to agree to lengthy ToS that will then be used as justification to inundate me with spam.

The Android permission model is particularly messed up because it changes every few SDK target versions, so it's hard to build a mental model what exactly you're allowing. Many apps that had a built-in photo-taking capability required storage access and wouldn't work without. Any app using bluetooth had to request and be granted location access (because Bluetooth could be used to track location... so any app acting as a key automatically also got to track you via GPS on top of that, and even if the app maker didn't want to they had to request the permission for Bluetooth to work).

I've seen too many companies pushing their apps aggressively and with massive rewards. They're clearly getting something out of it, and probably not something I want to give them. If you're very, very lucky, the main goal is only to make them more "sticky" (make it easier to use them over someone else next time), but that's the thing - I don't want past service providers to stick to me.

> Anything and everything the app and its 30 social, ad, and analytics SDKs are able to capture and exfiltrate from the phone.

I’m asking about iOS. If you have an Android device - using an operating system written by an ad tech company, the Hilton app is the last thing you should worry about.

Instead of being hand wavy, what exactly do you think an analytics SDK can “exfiltrate* from your phone outside of the app sandbox without your explicit permission?

> Maybe they won't upload the list of my installed apps (which can leak information like religion or medical issues),

Not possible with iOS. There was a loophole that Twitter used where they would try to send a message to another app. But Apple closed that a few versions ago.

> Almost certainly I'll have to agree to lengthy ToS that will then be used as justification to inundate me with spam

You mean the same TOS you have to sign when booking from their website? But I use the built in “Hide My Email” feature on iOS and give each app/website that I don’t care about a separate email that gets forwarded to my main email address.

> “ The Android permission model is particularly messed up because it changes every few SDK target versions, so it's hard to build a mental model what exactly you're allowing

“I care about my privacy yet I use an operating system with a poor permission model written by an adTech company”

And what if the app asks for access to your contacts? Would you grant it out of the convenience of the app, or would you deny it permission and ask for a card key?

No you don’t have to. When you share it, it creates a message with a link and brings up a share sheet controlled by iOS. You can then send the message block with the link either via email, text, or any other relevant third party app that registers a share extension.

It is all done outside of the apps process. iOS sends the message on the apps behalf to the other app.

There is no option to share your contact with the app.

I find installing the app likely means more Privacy

When I travel, and in the App I provide my Work address and contact info, not my personal info

When checking in at the desk they take my government ID, often scan it into go knows what system or what security, and then replace my Work info with my personal address in their systems

No thank you, I will take the app instead

In the US, I'm not sure I've ever had a desk worker more than glance at an ID. Many places do require one though--had a heck of a time checking into a Travelodge of all things once because I had lost my license. Not sure how much of this is hotel rules and how much local regulation.

Makes me wonder how this works when you use digital check-in.

It's true in Europe they often copy your license and, in some countries, I believe there's some registration with the police that the hotel handles.

Checking in at Vegas casinos can be a nightmare if there's a big event going on--and that's pretty much the only reason I'd be there. But if there's not a line--and there usually isn't otherwise--I'll just check-in. More likely to get some sort of upgrade that way at the chain where I usually stay. And often I'll have a question or two.