Newsstand - Westin goes smoke free at 77 properties

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Westin Hotels & Resorts announced that it was becoming smoke-free at 77 hotels in the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean, beginning in January 2006.


More at the link here (http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/05/news/fortune500/westin_smoking/index.htm)

As a non-smoker myself, this is good news (more non-smoking room availability), but I'm intrigued by whether this will genuinely affect other travelers' choice of hotel. What's your take?

More at the link here (http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/05/news/fortune500/westin_smoking/index.htm)

As a non-smoker myself, this is good news (more non-smoking room availability), but I'm intrigued by whether this will genuinely affect other travelers' choice of hotel. What's your take?

I like it. I'm keep in mind to book a few Westins from now on. I don't really think it will make a really significant difference in terms of whether or not I get a non-smoking room (and I've never not gotten one), but as a non-smoker I think moves like this need to be supported by those who would rather not reek of smoke.

Westin said that 92 percent of its guests request a non-smoking room when travelling and do not smoke in the hotel.
So they're happy to discriminate against the 8% who do want a smoking room? I have no complaints - it's a free market and if Westin wants to flush 8% of its business down the toilet then so be it.

I wonder how this will affect conference bookings however?

So they're happy to discriminate against the 8% who do want a smoking room? I have no complaints - it's a free market and if Westin wants to flush 8% of its business down the toilet then so be it.

I wonder how this will affect conference bookings however?

I'm sure that Westin have done an analysis of the pros and cons of making such a move and have probably discovered that they will earn more income from this than they will lose.

Decisions to ban smoking by private enterprises are never about public health, it's always about the bottom line (unless legislated). You think the ban on aircraft smoking was due to public health? Think again! It's cheaper to maintain an aircraft which no one smokes on!

I'm sure that Westin have done an analysis of the pros and cons of making such a move and have probably discovered that they will earn more income from this than they will lose.
I'm sure that they have, I just wonder whether they got it right.

Decisions to ban smoking by private enterprises are never about public health, it's always about the bottom line (unless legislated). You think the ban on aircraft smoking was due to public health? Think again! It's cheaper to maintain an aircraft which no one smokes on!

Obviously.

So they're happy to discriminate against the 8% who do want a smoking room? I have no complaints - it's a free market and if Westin wants to flush 8% of its business down the toilet then so be it.
Why should those 8% tell the other 92% that they have to breath their smoke? :confused:

I'm sure that they not only smoke in their "smoking" room - but also in the hallways, elevator, lobby, restraurant, bar. etc... - anywhere in (and around) the hotel! :( And we 92% have no choice! :mad:

Why should those 8% tell the other 92% that they have to breath their smoke? :confused:

I'm sure that they not only smoke in their "smoking" room - but also in the hallways, elevator, lobby, restraurant, bar. etc... - anywhere in (and around) the hotel! :( And we 92% have no choice! :mad:
You see this is exactly the santcimonious, self serving crap that you rabid anti-smoking facists come out with all the time. You want to ban smoking in airports, you want to ban it in bars and now you want to ban it in our own fsking bedrooms?!!! :mad:

Why don't you all just bugger off to some totalitarian dictatorship somewhere and take your freedom hating prejudice with you? :p

I've very rarely seen anyone smoking in a hotel corridor or elevator/lift. In fact, I've mostly seen them smoke in designated smoking areas, funnily enough.

TBH, I can't really see the point in this - I'm not sure what effect not having designated smoking rooms actually has on hotels apart from saving them some money..which of course, is probably the point. Corporations rarely do anything for the good of our collective health.

You see this is exactly the santcimonious, self serving crap that you rabid anti-smoking facists come out with all the time. You want to ban smoking in airports, you want to ban it in bars and now you want to ban it in our own fsking bedrooms?!!! :mad:

Why don't you all just bugger off to some totalitarian dictatorship somewhere and take your freedom hating prejudice with you? :p

By making you stand out in the cold while you smoke your fag, you're much less likely to want one hence reducing your risk of lung cancer. I think you should thank us non-smokers for doing you a favour! :p :D

It won't make a bit of difference. Smokers will continue to smoke in the rooms. Trying to enforce some kind of fine on the smokers will require all guests to sign a legal document when they check in. I don't see that happening. This story is nothing more than a publicity stunt IMHO. Nothing to get upset about.

By making you stand out in the cold while you smoke your fag, you're much less likely to want one hence reducing your risk of lung cancer. I think you should thank us non-smokers for doing you a favour! :p :D

I love nothing better than walking to the back of an airplane and seeing the people suffer in the rear rows near the toilets. I keep hoping that some of them are Health Fascists who wanted smoking banned on airplanes.

When that was the smoking area of flights, I always sat there -- even if it meant taking the middle seat in the last row. I was not the only one -- other smokers were also freeing up more desirable seats in order to be able to endulge.

Now, when I am not allowed to smoke anywhere on the flight, I always arrange an aisle seat either at an exit row or, failing that, as far forward as possible.

The Health Fascists not only screwed me but themselves, too. That last thought gives me great pleasure.

The Health Fascists not only screwed me but themselves, too. That last thought gives me great pleasure.

As a reformed smoker I can see both sides of the arguement. But on this point I don't see that you've screwed anyone, I am sure non-smokers would prefer to have a smoke free environment in exchange for middle row seats.

However, we all benefit from your inability to smoke on the plane. The tar from the cigarettes seriously clogged up the air exhausts meaning higher maintenence costs when they needed cleaning or replacing more often. While it won't make a dramatic difference to your airfare, it does help so your not smoking on board makes all our tickets that bit cheaper.

The tar from the cigarettes seriously clogged up the air exhausts meaning higher maintenence costs when they needed cleaning or replacing more often. While it won't make a dramatic difference to your airfare, it does help so your not smoking on board makes all our tickets that bit cheaper.

You know better than that. Cost has nothing to do with determining the price of a ticket. If it did, a ticket purchased 6 months in advance would cost the same as one purchased two days before the flight.

Ticket prices are determined solely by supply and demand -- not by clogged air filters.

You know better than that. Cost has nothing to do with determining the price of a ticket. If it did, a ticket purchased 6 months in advance would cost the same as one purchased two days before the flight.

Ticket prices are determined solely by supply and demand -- not by clogged air filters.

It's still a cost that has to be met by the airline which has to be met from revenue. Well in theory anyway :p

in addition to publicity, the ban probably helps them reduce insurance rates. atlest homeowners insurance is several % higher if someone in the home smokes vs a similar home without smoking. There's probably also the ease of room management where you run out of a particualr smoking class of room and have to force the smoker into a non-smoking room or vice versa.

As far as having to "sign a legal contract", I don't think so. Have you seen those signs saying if you take our robes/towels we'll charge you $25. Same idea - if the room has been smoked in, you'll get a cleaning charge assessed.

Honestly, I do think smokers are getting one ramming after another under the guise of public health. If that was really the case, it would be regulated like any other drug. It's all PR. But then, I do like being able to go to the bar and pass out in bed without having to first take a shower. In a hotel, it's never been a big deal.

Ticket prices are determined solely by supply and demand -- not by clogged air filters.Anyone who has taken an economics class knows that the price is set where the demand and supply curves intersect. The cost of maintaining filters affects the supply curve.