Starwood Preferred Guest - Curious about room inventory management - better empty than cheaper?

Headed to HNL this weekend on official govt business. All *wood properties full except Royal Hawaiian which has LOTS of availability. Unfortunately the "govt rate" there is $83/nt MORE than govt perdiem.

I emailed the hotel directly to request a rate that matched govt per diem, thinking that significant room availability would mean some consideration for a *wood Plat. After all... isn't SOME revenue better than NONE? No dice ... in fact a very cold and generic response:

"Aloha:

Regret, govt. rate at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel is $195.00 daily. We are not
able to match your per diem.

Thank You"

That's fine... I guess it's HHV for me this trip. I'm still a devoted *wood bubba, as they've taken great care of me over the last couple of years, but don't necessarily understand the business decision....

ok ... done venting ... I'm not a smart man, but I can lift heavy things.... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

How can a hotel offer a "government" rate that is not consistent with the per diem???

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PHL:
How can a hotel offer a "government" rate that is not consistent with the per diem???</font>

Actually, quite a few "upscale" hotels have their government rates above the allowed per diem (e.g., St. Regis DC, many Embassy Suites, etc). A traveler has the option of covering the difference out of his/her pocket if he/she insists on staying at such a property.

I have never understood how someone can gripe that a discounted government rate is higher than the allowed per diem. Nobody is forcing you to stay in an upscale hotel. Pay the difference or stay somewhere else! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

As an upper-bracket taxpayer, I urge you to choose the cheapest room you can find... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Happened to me last week in Westminster, CO. Hotel allowance for Boulder is $89, but the Westin and Hyatt have $112 gov't rates. I went for it and ate at Rubios. Free breakfast and shuttles helped defray the cost. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Hotels don't have to adhere by what GSA decides to quote for the gov't rate. For those of us who travel to DC, the gov't rate won't make a dent in the hotel rate unless you share a room.

lala

If you want the per diem rate, you need to be polite.
Politely ask the front desk person their name. Also ask if irs audits nmake them nervous.
Ask politely when the hotel had its last osha inspection.
Politely tell them your going to go into the kitchen and yell "immigration."

Don't have that discount and suite upgrade yet???

In response to many of your comments:

- All *wood properties on Oahu completely full during my stay there EXCEPT Royal Hawaiian, hence my request there for a better rate
- to PHL: The hotel can offer any rate it wants, it's just that many will offer a govt rate that matches per diem - especially if they have available inventory (usually number of rooms at govt rate are limited anyway)
- to CactusPete: I'm certainly not complaining that they're not offering the rate... just amused that they'd rather have NO revenue. It's true that noone is forcing me to stay at a higher end hotel, but given a choice (and if the price is the same), why NOT live it up a little!
- to CactusPete and Tino: Don't really see the difference if I pay the same amount (i.e. the allowed govt per diem rate and stay at a Days Inn or Luxury Hotel ... we the taxpayers - and that INCLUDES ME - are paying the same amount per night)
- Jakester: I'm hoping/assuming that your comments were made tongue in cheek.... and by the way, yes, if I DO stay at a *wood property at govt rate I DO hope for a suite upgrade...after all I've been on the road more than 150 nts this year... and that's my lowest rate in almost 20 yrs!
- All: again...the question was merely one of "which is better ... less money or NO money?!"

and finally, why not give us military slobs a break from time to time. After all, a SIGNIFICANT amount of our time away from home is spent been living in tents in deserts around the world, or living in cramped quarters on a ship, or living in substandard base housing! A Heavenly Bed (or similar digs) would be quite a treat from time to time! I know that in my wife's business she's HONORED to give a vet a break from time to time....

btw...this is a property that sometimes (though not often) comes up on PRICELINE!

yeah but does the govt reimburse you on a priceline stay?&gt;

actually I WOULD get reimbursed on a priceline stay, however if the trip cancelled I'd end up paying for the room out of MY pocket...so not an option

wow...just checked *wood.com again, and inventory has finally come available at two more *wood properties (after 4 weeks of checking)... of course one of them is the Moana Surfrider...ALSO $75/nt over perdiem! and even the Princess Kaiulani is $13/nt over perdiem!

I guess it's the HHV and their free bfast (and potential Gold upgrade) for me this trip...

I think this only reflects how shamelessly cheap the US government is and how it demeans its employees -- public servants -- and forces the majority of them to act as if they were welfare recipients. No other modern first world government treats their employees in this disgraceful fashion, and when travelling ensures their accommodation is kept separate from their per diem for meals and other expenses, so they can stay at at least mid-level properties.

Maybe Bush and company should do their trips on the same per diem as you lowly trolls, and see what happens with the rates when they get back to their somewhat upscale public housing project on Pennsylvania Avenue. [HUD take note of minimal standards...]

Wow. . .I am surprised that people think it's OK that *wood meets or should meet the government rate. Yes, these rates may be "below" market value in certain cities. And, I am one of the most patriotic/supportive people for the military personnel btw - cookies, letters, etc. However; as a taxpayer I do not feel that you are supposed to be staying at "high" properties on what is my dime!

I work for a software company. Even before the recession that we're currently in we had to watch what we spend while travelling e.g., sharing rooms with colleagues when there are many of us, not renting cars or sharing, etc. It just makes good business sense. I don't know if it's related or not, but my company has not had to lay anybody off in the last 2 years.

I understand that you want to "live it up" and agree that is a most enjoyable thing to do (we all love being pampered), but why do you feel that in HAWAII you should get a lower rate from *wood? Please - no flaming - this is just part of the discussion. I guess I agree with the other poster and figure that if it's that important to you you will pay for the difference out of your own pocket.

This distresses me to hear government employees NOT staying in the least expensive places when they travel. I'm not talking Motel 6, but wow. . .I wonder if there's a direct correlation between government travel expenses and our growing deficit? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I can't claim to know how the US govt sets their per diems, but for Canada, all the hotels in a given city send in their rates, and if most are above the daily blanket $90 CAD the rate is set higher for that city. It can also vary by hotel chain. Example is Delta hotels, which in every city except YQR is within the limits. You need managers approval to stay in a hotel above the limits, but if you get it, you're reimbursed.
Most cities have hotels that are over the 90CAD rate.

MC

Even though my employer is not the government, 95% of the time, my client is a federal or state agency. If I'm travelling on their business and want them to pay for the trip, I have to stay at their perdiem. I usually have (or can get upon request) a letter from the agency's contracting officer stating that we are on government business and qualify for the perdiem rate.

What makes it interesting is that there are many properties, especially in my experience most Marriotts, that won't honor government rate for contractors. In bigger cities, the perdiem won't even cover a Four Points at AAA rates.

Eventually we find acceptable lodging, sometimes even really good places, through a mix of trial-and-error with perdiem rates and judicious use of Priceline. But it shouldn't have to be that complicated.

Wow ... didn't mean to start a flame war on here! If you all look at the title of the post I hope my point was clear enough... which is better...some revenue or NO revenue?!

Idsant ... I certainly didn't mean to imply that I should live high on the hog at taxpayers' expense (again, I"M a taxpayer, too). Nor did I mean to suggest that *wood owes me anything.

I DO believe that govt perdiem should cover reasonable lodging (Not too much available for $112/day in Hawaii without it either being marginal or having a non-refundable clause).

I also think that as a *wood (or Hilton, etc) SHAREHOLDER I'd like to see rooms filled with SOME revenue coming in. That's why so many chains offer rooms through priceline/hotwire/etc.

As for govt employees staying in the least expensive place, you can't get much cheaper than the tents I lived in for 17 out of 23 months in 1996-1998 (as well as similar stats in other years). And as a govt employee I AM expected to take cheapest (rarely upgradeable) flights, share cars, travel on holidays so I'm not missing time in the office, etc..

When I sent my initial email to the Royal Hawaiian it was because they were the only *wood property with rooms available. Now there are two more, but these ALSO are above the allowed perdiem (and have you stayed at the Princess Kaiulani?!). The Marriott and Hyatt are the same. Only the Hilton matched my perdiem rate this time around (ok...so did a couple of roach motels, but I hope you don't want me staying there).

But again, and hopefully my last post on this issue, the question comes back to which is better...empty rooms or a lower rate?

(as an aside, while on leave recently I stayed at the Sheraton Bal Harbour on a Priceline bid of 60/nt and was given an AMAZING $925/nt rack rate villa. I couldn't have stayed in their CHEAPEST room on govt per diem)

Well, I'll take a stab at why it may be that a hotel would rather have an empty room than a low rate.

1) not to cheapen the image, although if they allow Priceline, that doesn't seem to wash.

2) need financial details to really quantify. Say that they average a certain percentage occupancy, say, X%. At that X%, they employ just enough maids, bellmen, frontoffice staff, etc. to provide their customary level of service. If lower rates attract more guests, increasing occupancy to(X+Y)%, they may need to hire a certain number of more employees, offsetting a certain amount of whatever increase in revenue is generated. Also offsetting the revenue to some degree is the increased use of electricity, water, laundering of sheets, towels, use of amenities, etc. Without knowing any of the financial details, its difficult to really say if there is or is not a net gain....but what do I know, I'm no bean counter, just an engineer

And, its not that just giving one person the per diem rate would have this effect, but if they do it for one, then they would do it for many.

A bit OT, but during my stay at the RH this past August I was at the front desk inquiring about something and I was able to sneak a glance at the night auditor's worksheets laying on top of the counter. Average room rate for the historic wing was somewhere around $238 and average room rate was around $325 for the tower, I guess maybe that is why they didn't want to release rooms at a lower per diem rate? Granted, the mentioned rates were during peak tourist vacation season and the hotel was fully jam packed booked during our stay.

Government employees include all sorts of occupations: teachers, military, FBI, support personnel, professors,firefighters, policemen. Why shouldn't government employees be allowed perks. They certainly receive subpar salaries in most cases, and without them where would we be?. We don't have a problem with our companies paying for many of us to fly first or business class and to stay at luxury properties. Of course, in many instances, these costs are passed on to the consumer. Its time to give our government personnel the pay and benefits (within reason) they deserve! Its absurd to say that they should stay in Days Inn or Motel 6.


QUOTE]Originally posted by ldsant:
Wow. . .I am surprised that people think it's OK that *wood meets or should meet the government rate. Yes, these rates may be "below" market value in certain cities. And, I am one of the most patriotic/supportive people for the military personnel btw - cookies, letters, etc. However; as a taxpayer I do not feel that you are supposed to be staying at "high" properties on what is my dime!

I work for a software company. Even before the recession that we're currently in we had to watch what we spend while travelling e.g., sharing rooms with colleagues when there are many of us, not renting cars or sharing, etc. It just makes good business sense. I don't know if it's related or not, but my company has not had to lay anybody off in the last 2 years.

I understand that you want to "live it up" and agree that is a most enjoyable thing to do (we all love being pampered), but why do you feel that in HAWAII you should get a lower rate from *wood? Please - no flaming - this is just part of the discussion. I guess I agree with the other poster and figure that if it's that important to you you will pay for the difference out of your own pocket.

This distresses me to hear government employees NOT staying in the least expensive places when they travel. I'm not talking Motel 6, but wow. . .I wonder if there's a direct correlation between government travel expenses and our growing deficit? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif[/QUOTE]