Casino doesn't have base rules for comps??
I can play 1 day and 8 hours into playing, with a loss of maybe $100 I will get the comp cigarettes no problem. But then I can play the next week, and 8 hours into playing have a loss of $550 and am told I don't qualify for a free pack of cigarettes.
I'm not sure if the reason for this is because they know I'll continue to come in each week on certain days for a certain amount of hours even if they deny the comp. Or if it's because I do ask every week. I ask for a comp 1 time per week but only after I have played atleast 6 hours. I had asked a couple different employees (a manager and change person) what their formula is for deciding if they comp my cigarettes or do not, so that I would know when to not ask. Si following "their formula"--1 time it would work and the next time following the exact same formula that got me the previous comp did not get the comp the next time.
6 weeks ago I asked after 8 hours of straight play and the comp came very easily-since then I have requested cigarettes 5 different times-each time after 8 hours play and I have been denied. And yes, I have asked management why. I was was told I was denied because I had only lost $40 thus far for that day and it needed to be $100 or more. So the following week I did the same thing keeping track of my losses and when I asked for the comp I was down $550 and I was told I still did not qualify. I tried to give you as much information as I could so that hopefully you'll be able to help me understand because it's completely illogical to me
I can only speak in generalities, not specific to Cannery.
You're at a Boyd Gaming property. I don't often ask them for tobacco, but I do play at their properties.
Tobacco is in a special category of comps. It's easy for them to give out rooms, drinks, and in-house meals. Tobacco comes out of a different expense account, because it's a third-party comp. They have to pay nearly, or the same, as you to give you a pack of cigs most places. They don't have a stash of them somewhere (most places) - the cocktail person has to go and put money in the vending machine, or pay the gift shop or cigarette girl, for the pack, then bring them to you.
Some pits have discretionary comps for tobacco. Most of them have lost the discretion. You're playing slots, so you're one step further removed from a pit person with discretion than a table games player. But even for a table player, some places will only comp tobacco if you're playing $100 a HAND, or some other high threshold.
Also, to them, $1000 coin in is not that much action, really. I've put that much through a penny slot in 20 minutes, and I'm not that big of a slot player. If you take 6 hours to do that same amount, you're worth about $165 coin in an hour, which is a really small blip on their radar, maybe $25 an hour in theoretical loss, against free drink service and other operating costs in providing you a place to play .
In calculating that formula, doesn't matter if you drink or not - they assume you do. But don't let me mislead you into thinking I know the comp formula, or even that a lot of the casino employees know it. Some do, but it's proprietary, changes with each casino brand, and changes further by local practices. Tobacco is also affected further by local and state laws, since it's a controlled substance.
The person to ask, IMO, is a pit supervisor in a not-very-busy Cannery pit, who might or might not be allowed to answer you. But if anyone there has comp discretion for tobacco, it will be them. And it's likely they have to call "upstairs" to get it approved, not decide for themselves.
tl:dr - tobacco is a special category of comp, and not offered easily or cheaply.
Quote: LivinnvegasAnd yes, I have asked management why. I was was told I was denied because I had only lost $40 thus far for that day and it needed to be $100 or more.
Welcome to the forum. This sentence is very hard for me to believe. It has always been my understanding that it is your theoretical loss, not actual loss, that will earn you the comps. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions if a high roller is on a particularly bad streak that he may get a higher comp value, but the casino should not even remotely consider your actual loss ($40 versus$100) to decide if you qualify for smokes.
I find it also hard to believe that anyone playing for 8 hours in a single day won't qualify for a single pack of cigarettes, everytime.
You bet it is! Remember the old days when a pretty girl went around with a tray of cigarettes slung around her? Asking to be comped was like taking money out of her tip jar. Even when the Seminoles first opened their casino in Immokalee and the Gamblers Breakfast Club started meeting there to trade the latest gossip on comps in different casinos in the country they all laughed at the Seminoles. Cigarettes provided on the floor of the casino cost a fortune and you were expected to tip the runner as well, so most dealers just told the gamblers to step into the vending machine area where you would legally be in a non-gaming location. One machine there sold cigarettes and even if it kept your change, as it often did, you were still well ahead financially.Quote: beachbumbabsTobacco is in a special category of comps.
It is probably best for the poster to find a soft comp, any soft comp that he might enjoy.
The Cannery is fun place and thier Buffalo slot just awarded a 32k bonus though most of their slot bonuses hit at about five grand.
Quote: SOOPOOWelcome to the forum. This sentence is very hard for me to believe. It has always been my understanding that it is your theoretical loss, not actual loss, that will earn you the comps. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions if a high roller is on a particularly bad streak that he may get a higher comp value, but the casino should not even remotely consider your actual loss ($40 versus$100) to decide if you qualify for smokes.
I find it also hard to believe that anyone playing for 8 hours in a single day won't qualify for a single pack of cigarettes, everytime.
You are correct, Soopoo.
What I have seen however is casino staff simply state the word "losses" or "lose" without distinction of theoretical vs actual.
Im certain this is to throw off players who think they can just lose $100 (which could easily happen even at slots very quickly) and get a pack of cigarettes
8 hours on a slot machine isnt enough info. He hasnt stated his wager amount. 8 hours at max ber $5 or $25 or 8 hours playing ten cents a pull? I have even seen machines that offer 1/3 penny wagers. Cant imagine what ridiculously low comps 8 hours on that would generate
Finally its possible the casino is demanding an average daily theo for the month (or some other timeframes) to qualify. So his play the first day quaified him but over the course of the weeks he pulled his daily down and no longer qualifies
At the Cannery? Since when did they ever start doing that? Five years ago they were known for 'Your Theo, never adjusted downward and only very, very rarely adjusted upward'Quote: darkoz
Finally its possible the casino is demanding an average daily theo for the month (or some other timeframes) to qualify.
There are two kinds of comps; soft and hard. The former, like a room, doesn't cost them a dime because the room will just sit empty if it's not being used and it's already been paid for many times over from previous earnings. Food is cheap and not a big deal from them and they know that gamblers will go across the street if they cut out the free drinks.
Tobacco is another categrory since it's a hard comp. The casino has to pay real money for it. Their standards will be higher anywhere for it and, like I said, the rules and decisions are capricious from one joint to the next.
Last of all (despite my screen name) it'll be a lot cheaper to pay for the smokes yourself. I think it's $7 a pack. Never play for comps.
Quote: MichaelBluejayLivinnvegas, BeachBumBabs nailed the answer. Basically, it's not a good use of your comp credit to redeem for hard merchandise like cigarettes. Your comp credit will go farther when redeeming for buffets. To get an idea of how much credit you earn for how much play, see my Comp Calculator.
And the shilling for his website continues. What a joke.
IDK if the cig prices are jacked up. Many casinos offer good prices on cigs.
I also find it weird that the staff would just come out and say "you need to lose $100 to get a pack of cigs."
About the only negative factor I have to contend with is second hand smoke.
Quote: MDawgSmoking should be banned from all casinos.
About the only negative factor I have to contend with is second hand smoke.
I can't believe this MDawg but I agree with you 100%!
I guess there is a first for everything :P
Quote: MDawg
About the only negative factor I have to contend with is second hand smoke.
Certainly not the house edge
We already have threads discussing gambling and correlations with smoking, left handedness and other traits. I won't add to them here, but often spouses smoke even if gamblers do not.Quote: MDawgSmoking should be banned from all casinos. Only negative factor is second hand smoke.
I find smoke free casinos and smoke free hotels refreshing. Owners find them profitable.
The thing about the doom & gloom predicted by opponents of regulation is that it never happens. Safety features for cars were supposedly going to make them really expensive. Ditto for improved fuel economy. Same deal for energy standards for refrigerators. And when Austin passed a smoking ban for bars, that was supposedly gonna be the end of live music here. (If you think there's a correlation between gamblers and smokers, have a gander at the bar demographic before the ban.)Quote: FleaStiffI find smoke free casinos and smoke free hotels refreshing. Owners find them profitable.
But none of that happened. As fuel economy improved, cars got *cheaper*. Same deal for fridges. And the bar business in Austin is booming after the ban. Here's a quote from just one bar owner: "I’m very pleasantly surprised that the turnout that’s happened since then....[W]e deterred people from coming in because of the smoke. But because of the ban, it’s definitely increased our sales. I think that people who wouldn’t have come in are now coming in because it’s not smokey … I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the smoking ban. It’s helped my businesses for sure." The nonsmoking nonprofit lists hundreds of gaming venues in the U.S. that are nonsmoking. There's enough patronage to keep them going.
So, when naysayers claim that consumer costs will explode or business will dry up because of increased regulation, all I have to say is, their track record on such predictions is pretty poor.
They base the comp off of several factors there.
For one-they do track your wins and losses. For example-if you have played say $100 and out of that you only lost $20--they do not consider the fact you put in $100-they only see it as $20 lose, and will not consider any comp until the patron is at $100 lose or more. Two-they do take into account the time you have played, however, the amount of time by itself does not warrant the comp in any way. Three-they do take into account what time of day, whether the casino is busy, and what day during the week into consideration when approving or denying the comp-which I thought was interesting. And lastly-this one I found the most interesting (and the most aggravating!)-they said since they have "officially" switched over to Boyds rules the casino now keeps track (they make a note of it on your players card file) of when you ask for a comp and the comp that was requested-and here's the kicker with that--they will deny your comp request based on how often you request that comp, regardless if it was approved or not! So the manager made a suggestion that I have decided I'm going to test. They said to keep playing the same way I am and have been, but to not ask for a comp for 3 weeks and they guarantee as long as everything stays the same I will be approved for a ciggerette comp just because I simply did not request one for 3 weeks. I'll post when the 3 weeks are up and let you know if they're theory was correct
Much of what the host told you flies in the face of the general understanding about how the comp system works. I'm sure we're all very interested in updates of your experience to see how this plays out.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe thing about the doom & gloom predicted by opponents of regulation is that it never happens. Safety features for cars were supposedly going to make them really expensive. Ditto for improved fuel economy. Same deal for energy standards for refrigerators. And when Austin passed a smoking ban for bars, that was supposedly gonna be the end of live music here. (If you think there's a correlation between gamblers and smokers, have a gander at the bar demographic before the ban.)
But none of that happened. As fuel economy improved, cars got *cheaper*. Same deal for fridges. And the bar business in Austin is booming after the ban. Here's a quote from just one bar owner: "I’m very pleasantly surprised that the turnout that’s happened since then....[W]e deterred people from coming in because of the smoke. But because of the ban, it’s definitely increased our sales. I think that people who wouldn’t have come in are now coming in because it’s not smokey … I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the smoking ban. It’s helped my businesses for sure." The nonsmoking nonprofit lists hundreds of gaming venues in the U.S. that are nonsmoking. There's enough patronage to keep them going.
So, when naysayers claim that consumer costs will explode or business will dry up because of increased regulation, all I have to say is, their track record on such predictions is pretty poor.
Casinos are already the most regulated establishments in America (not including Native American casinos and unregulated online casinos...), except for maybe banks. It would be hard for somebody to think normal casinos are under regulated.
A good anecdotal example in NJ, was the Revel it was opened to be a smoke free casino (the only in AC, granted briefly) , their profits were nonexistent, it quickly went back to 25% of the casino floor smoking (as all other casinos were). When other casinos have smoking, it puts at a huge disadvantage one if they do not. You can argue, that many other factors other than the non smoking contributed to its failure, but the revenue did change after unbanning smoking (granted not enough to save it)...
If going 100% non smoking was profitable, smoking would be banned overnight. Casino owners don't care about public satisfaction, they will do whatever increases their revenue.
Honestly, I think the NJ model of 25% smoking is a reasonable compromise. But, that rule only exists because of law, or else most casino would have well over 25%.
You can argue that regulators should do what is in the best health interest of the public and not worry about profits. But smoking is profitibale for casinos (or else the free market would have already banned it).
Smoking does seem to be good for casinos by all metrics that can be evaluated.
(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.Quote: GandlerA good anecdotal example in NJ, was the Revel...
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.Quote: GandlerWhen other casinos have smoking, it puts at a huge disadvantage one if they do not.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?Quote: Gandler...the revenue did change after unbanning smoking...
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?Quote: GandlerIf going 100% non smoking was profitable, smoking would be banned overnight....smoking is profitibale for casinos (or else the free market would have already banned it).
Quote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
Quote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after 14 months of adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...
But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.
Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...
But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.
Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.
However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.
With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.
If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.
There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.
Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...
But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.
Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.
However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.
With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.
If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.
There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.
Well NV already has the most profitable and popular casinos within the U.S. and has the least restrictive smoking laws in gaming establishments of any non Native American land/state (you can smoke pretty much anywhere in casinos, not restricted to certain percentages of the gaming floor).
If you want to make the argument about health that is one thing. But pretending it is about increasing profits, it's not, if it did, casinos would already be throwing smokers to the curb.... Casinos spend millions to do everything they can to make players feel more welcome and spend more money, trust me, if there was an argument for banning smoking from a revenue standpoint, casinos would have already experimented with it..... Casinos are specialists in endless psychological tricks to make everyone spend more, if banning smoking was one of those tricks, it would be in place....
Quote: DeMangoAll of you ignore the success of The Palace in Biloxi. Non smoking in a sea of smoking casinos. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Great, so surely more casinos will follow suite.
(1) Go to Yelp and see the wide swath of horribly-reviewed businesses. Is pissing off your customers in myriad ways good for business? It must be! Because they're doing it! Companies never act in ways that would hurt their profits!
(2) Volkswagen rigged its emissions tests, something they couldn't possibly keep secret, and wound up not only tarnishing their brand but being on the hook for DOZZENS of BILLIONS in dollars in penalties. Great example of a company seeking to maximize its profits.
(3) Sears failed because they didn't modernize to compete with the likes of Target, Walmart, and Amazon. It clearly would have been in their interest to do so, but they didn't.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Claiming that "if it were profitable, they'd do it" flies in the face of all available evidence.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe idea that every company will almost make the best business decision is simply comical.
(1) Go to Yelp and see the wide swath of horribly-reviewed businesses. Is pissing off your customers in myriad ways good for business? It must be! Because they're doing it! Companies never act in ways that would hurt their profits!
(2) Volkswagen rigged its emissions tests, something they couldn't possibly keep secret, and wound up not only tarnishing their brand but being on the hook for DOZZENS of BILLIONS in dollars in penalties. Great example of a company seeking to maximize its profits.
(3) Sears failed because they didn't modernize to compete with the likes of Target, Walmart, and Amazon. It clearly would have been in their interest to do so, but they didn't.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Claiming that "if it were profitable, they'd do it" flies in the face of all available evidence.
1. And, many companies do.
2. Brilliant example of a company putting aside public health and the law to maybe increase profits.
3. Sears is an interesting example. It did a lot to innovate for most of its existence. In the early 90s it got rid of its catalogue (including the infrastructure of people who filled cstalgoue orders), which is why it took them so long to get on the online store going. Sears modernized for most of their history, unfortnely, their last couple decades they had some issues and made some choices that did not work out. But, saying they failed to innovate is also not true.
But, yes, companies will do what increase profits. Showing examples of some unlucky companies, and some scandals is not representative of most.
Full smoking bans simply do not increase revenue. There are some niche examples of an individual casinos banning smoking working (but these are very rare), casinos are more likley to have no smoking areas.
Can you smoke inside movie theaters and bars, restaurants?
Or do casinos share some special exemptions?
I certainly wouldn't go to movie theaters that allowed smoking. It would be nothing but a cough box.
And they used to allow smoking in theaters so its not beyond credulity
Quote: darkozSo what are indoor smoking laws in vegas and AC?
Can you smoke inside movie theaters and bars, restaurants?
Or do casinos share some special exemptions?
I certainly wouldn't go to movie theaters that allowed smoking. It would be nothing but a cough box.
And they used to allow smoking in theaters so its not beyond credulity
In NV you can smoke in most bars (I think they have to be screened from minors) and anywhere in a casino where minors are prohibited (so most bars, clubs, etc...)
Pretty much anywhere minors are not allowed in NV you can smoke (strip clubs, brothels, bars, tobacco stores, etc....) . You cannot smoke in movie theatres or restaurants.
NJ is much more restrictive, you can only smoke on 25% of the casino floor, you cannot even smoke in bars (in casinos some bars get around this by being on the casino floor). However, casinos are one of the few indoor exceptions, NJ has one of the strongest smoking bans, smoking is banned in virtually all indoor locations. Casinos are a very rare exception to the smoking ban (limited to 25% max for smoking areas.).
I'm pretty sure you can't smoke anywhere in California.Quote: GandlerIn NV you can smoke in most bars (I think they have to be screened from minors) and anywhere in a casino where minors are prohibited (so most bars, clubs, etc...)
Pretty much anywhere minors are not allowed in NV you can smoke (strip clubs, brothels, bars, tobacco stores, etc....) . You cannot smoke in movie theatres or restaurants.
NJ is much more restrictive, you can only smoke on 25% of the casino floor, you cannot even smoke in bars (in casinos some bars get around this by being on the casino floor). However, casinos are one of the few indoor exceptions, NJ has one of the strongest smoking bans, smoking is banned in virtually all indoor locations. Casinos are a very rare exception to the smoking ban (limited to 25% max for smoking areas.).
That's obviously a joke, but it sure seems like they're fairly strict in some places. Some hotels/motels won't even let you smoke outside anywhere on their property. Some cities or counties won't even sell menthol cigarettes.
I remember something here in Nevada about not being able to smoke inside your car in the hospital parking lot.
If I recall correctly Oklahoma casinos don't allow smoking.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm pretty sure you can't smoke anywhere in California.
That's obviously a joke, but it sure seems like they're fairly strict in some places. Some hotels/motels won't even let you smoke outside anywhere on their property. Some cities or counties won't even sell menthol cigarettes.
I remember something here in Nevada about not being able to smoke inside your car in the hospital parking lot.
If I recall correctly Oklahoma casinos don't allow smoking.
California is pretty strict as well, NJ and CA led the charge in State level smoking bans. Probably the two strictest.
As far as hospital parking lots in NV, that sounds like more of a campus policy than a law.
Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...
But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.
Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.
However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.
With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.
If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.
There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.
Wasn’t the Revel no smoking in the entire place ?
Quote: michael99000Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerQuote: MichaelBluejay(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.
(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.
(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.
(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.
(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.
What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?
Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...
Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.
However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....
Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...
All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.
I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....
Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/
'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'
It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section
So it didn't add revenue?
It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...
But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.
Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.
However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.
With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.
If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.
There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.
Wasn’t the Revel no smoking in the entire place ?
It was upon opening, it quickly reversed course to the standard 25% when revenue was far below expectations.
I like non smoking casinos but many gamblers smoke and many are left handed.
It is nice when a smoker considers the people sitting down wind, though strange that they ignore their own lungs.
There used to be a bar restaurant in Vegas that defiantly stopped serving food just so they could remain a smoking establishment. They were proud of accepting people and never once discriminated against a white heterosexual non-smoker though they sure didn't get very many of them.
Quote: Livinnvegas. I was was told I was denied because I had only lost $40 thus far for that day and it needed to be $100 or more. So the following week I did the same thing keeping track of my losses and when I asked for the comp I was down $550 and I was told I still did not qualify. I tried to give you as much information as I could so that hopefully you'll be able to help me understand because it's completely illogical to me
Lots of good stuff already given to you here. But I'll add that the first step you could take is to ask at the players club before you play what the requirements are, rather than after. I would say something like "In August I was given a pack of cigarettes after playing. Is that still available for players? And if so, how much do I need to play to earn them?"
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe idea that every company will almost make the best business decision is simply comical.
It shouldn't be about every casino making the profitable decision to ban smoking, it's about having even one make that choice. Have there been any in the US to voluntarily ban all smoking? What were the results?
Quote: TomGIt shouldn't be about every casino making the profitable decision to ban smoking, it's about having even one make that choice. Have there been any in the US to voluntarily ban all smoking? What were the results?
Two actually far as i know.
Revel - disaster
The Palace in Biloxi - quite a big success
Also the Island View in Biloxi built an entire new building which is smoke free. I suppose you could argue thats still a casino with a smoking section but it was seen as enough of a profit potential to build an expensive new wing and make it clear air only
BOTH Island View and the Palace make the no smoking aspect a part of their advertising campaigns
Good advice, because different staff might tell you different things. Bear in mind, the people behind the desk at the player's club typically have to rigidly follow rules, while the hosts have the freedom to be more generous (or more stingy).Quote: TomG...the first step you could take is to ask at the players club before you play what the requirements are, rather than after. I would say something like "In August I was given a pack of cigarettes after playing. Is that still available for players? And if so, how much do I need to play to earn them?"
You might be correct. I know there are signs at places like SeaWorld and other places in California, I wonder if that's enforceable by law?Quote: GandlerCalifornia is pretty strict as well, NJ and CA led the charge in State level smoking bans. Probably the two strictest.
As far as hospital parking lots in NV, that sounds like more of a campus policy than a law.
With a quick look actually found this: Loma Linda, July 25, 2008, banned on all sidewalks, streets, common areas in shopping centers, bus stops, parks, restaurant patios, theaters, City Hall, and 80% of motel rooms and apartment units. Exempts the federally controlled VA hospital grounds, and smoking in cars traveling in the city.[47]
Is this typical? What are your experiences?
Incidentally, before this I'd always maintained that the casino couldn't claim that a resort fee was tied to certain benefits since everyone had to pay the fee, but now that I found that at least for comped rooms at Encore you don't have to pay the fee, I'll have to rethink that.
and get room offers for three nites every month of the
year never have I paid a fee.
Quote: MichaelBluejayHere's a comp question, since I'd like to add this to my comps article: When you get a comped room, does the hotel generally spring for the resort fee? I don't generally take comped rooms because I'm typically in Vegas for weeks at a time in an apartment, but this year we took the room at Encore for a short vacation. I didn't get charged the resort fee, but neither did the Wynn spring for it, so I wound up paying the $39/night so we could get Internet for our four devices. Is this typical? What are your experiences?
In my personal experience: Cannery, Eastside Cannery, and Sam's Town have never charged me any fees for my comped rooms. I did find this on :
"HR 4489 – the Hotel Advertising Transparency Act of 2019 – says US hoteliers will collect more than $3 billion in hidden resort fees this year alone.
“Consumers should be able to enjoy their vacation without being ripped off and financially burdened. This bill would require that the prices advertised by hotels and online travel agencies must include all mandatory fees that will be charged to a consumer, excluding taxes,” Congresswoman Johnson explained.
The legislation wouldn’t ban the practice of resort fees, but simply require the costs be included in the up-front advertised price."
