Hotel rates

[WageSlave]

Have to agree with Not So Wise; it's pretty shameful. Whatever happened to decency and concern for one's fellow man?

[Lucifer Box]

Have to agree with Not So Wise; it's pretty shameful. Whatever happened to decency and concern for one's fellow man?

Joking apart, yes, of course, it is quite distasteful.

[insight14]

Morally wrong yes, and could yet bring a lot of bad press to those hotels involved.

Its not going to stop me applying for the glut of Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery jobs that will be appearing on Jobserve at inflated rates over the coming week though.

[IR35 Avoider]

Economics versus PR

Ken cancels congestion charge at a time when it is especially necessary to keep the roads clear (and people will least mind paying because it's a one-off emergency.) As I was expecting gridlock, I would have put it up for the day, if that was possible. Ken's action was good politics/PR but bad economics/traffic management. (Though as it turned out, the roads were clear anyway. Maybe because the police closed roads into London.)

Hotels put up prices: this is exactly the correct thing to do when demand starts rising above expected level, to maximise your profit, which is what you have an obligation to do; and the computers/managers making the decisions probably aren't the owners so don't have the right to give those profits away, unless they can justify it on PR grounds. If we assume there aren't going to be enough hotel rooms to go round (though in fact I think most people found in the end they could get home) then it is right that rooms be "rationed" so that the people who "need" them most get them, and the right way to do that is to raise prices. (As I alluded earlier, though knowing nothing about hotel trade, I would imagine that hotels have computers that automatically vary prices with demand.)

Managers who could PR-justify giving away profits in this case because of the exceptional reasons for the unexpected demand increase should have given the extra money to charity; and made it very clear to all and sundry they were doing so; but they should definitely not have kept prices down. (Keeping prices down would also have solved the PR problem, but would not have resulted in the rooms going to those who needed them most.)

[The Lone Gunman]

Didnt they hang or shoot profiteers in the last war, hopefully nobody repealed the legislation and terrorism is covered.

[threaded]

They invented special taxes for people and companies who were deemed to have made excessive profits.

It was used by the Labour party to chop the legs out of several industries, notably the Steel industry, so that they could be nationalised.

[WageSlave]

The normal concerns of the market economy shouldn't apply at such moments. At such times, I'd like to think that we were able to transcend mercenary thoughts and instead concentrate on helping people in desperate need. I'm all for making money, but there has to be dignity, compassion and sensitivity as well.

My God, I'm turning into a pinko leftie

[Not So Wise]

Hotels put up prices: this is exactly the correct thing to do when demand starts rising above expected level, to maximise your profit, which is what you have an obligation to do;

Under normal circumstances yes.
Under extream circumstances like war, terrorist attacks or widescale emergancy when mass amounts of people are being extreamly affected in negative ways and taking advantage of it to make excessive profits beyond what they could expect normally or even abnormaly (as all hotels would have 100% occupancy anyway last night anyway) is profiteering.

[hyperD]

While I agree the very essence of a business is to maximise profits, I feel disheartened to think that while there is still human interaction in business that under extreme conditions such as yesterday, some people might not be a little more sympathetic.