3 ms·
> They're unimportant wording nit-picks. They're false statements of fact. > if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for
by BugsJustFindMe 2mo ago
> They're unimportant wording nit-picks.
They're false statements of fact.
> if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel
I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline.
> The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking?
A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
- ryandrake 2mo agoI made that edit specifically to clarify that I'm not "flock bad" in this scenario, I'm more surprised that the hotel will just comply with a request to cancel someone else's booking.
- BugsJustFindMe 2mo agoI too am surprised that the person wasn't contacted by the hotel and asked to choose between paying more money and canceling the booking. It seems like it would have been in the hotel's interest to offer to negate the group rate discount instead of canceling.