inpd

So there is a general pecking order in the status of hotels in the Hilton Brand.

Hilton > ES > HGI > HI

But is it always the case in the *same* city that a moderately rated Hilton will be better than a really well rated HI?

I'm asking this, because I passed up staying at the Hilton Glendale (rated about 3.5 in Tripadvisor) to stay at the 4.7 rated in Tripadvisor HI Burbank.

But the HI Burbank is kind of crap. The "suite" is just a large room ...

emrdoc

IME, the best HI I have ever stayed in was not better than the worst Hilton.

smmrfld

Absolutely no consistency at all...though HIs and HGIs are the most consistent of HH brands IMO. In fact, some of the best FD service I've received has been at Hamptons, while some of the worst has been at Hiltons. 2Trees are a complete crapshoot.

eponymous_coward

The Hilton Glendale is kind of "meh", and it costs money for onsite parking. The Hampton Inn over on Sepulveda is fine (free parking, though tiny lot), though I didn't get a Gold upgrade to a suite.

I like the Hilton Woodland Hills over both of them as hotels (though parking there is $9 on weekends).

tkelvin69

No they are not.

indufan

Seriously? This is not my experience at all.

xenole

I've stayed at a few Hiltons, Doubletrees and Hamptons and at the end of the day, it's what you want from them that counts.

I generally travel solo so have no need for fancy restaurants charging $200 for a meal; spas charging $200 a treatment etc.
I don't want to be paying $15-$20 a day for breakfast and Wi-Fi or, ideally, some ridiculous amount for valet parking.

Hamptons for me are clean and tidy, provide breakfast and Wi-Fi at decent rates. Usually free parking (may be because they aren't quite as centrally located all the time?)

I generally want a clean room, good bed and a fridge for drinks / food rather than a hotel where everything is $$$ extra and whilst more luxurious, is complete overkill when I'm not going to use anything.

Staff wise, Hamptons are more down to earth i.e. they seem more like normal approachable people than in say a Hilton where they tend to put on a more formal persona as they're dealing with people who are possibly spending more $$$ and are therefore seen as a posher, more affluent clientele.

Some Hiltons I've seen are fairly old and run down. That said, sometimes they are decent in one renovated part designated for higher tiered persons and the cheap rooms are in the older bits.
Some are weird i.e. like some Radisson Blus, they have strange furnishings or try to be "trendy", "arty" rather than simple and eloquent.

Stayed at the Hilton Copenhagen Airport recent and that's a really nice hotel. Good room pricing, got a decent room from them and breakfast. Highly recommended
Probably the best Hilton I've stayed in.

Hamptons are pretty consistent so you know what to expect.

Doubletrees. Stayed at a couple of these.
The one in Kuala Lumpur was great. Lovely hotel, location not too bad, got upgraded as gold and use of the lounge, and well priced. Friendly / helpful staff.
Heathrow. Airport hotel with good staff, clean and comfortable. Didn't really use the restaurant as I begrudge paying loads for a meal when I can pop across the road for a fraction of the price.

Haven't stayed at a Garden Inn or an Embassy Suites yet so can't comment there.

I do tend to think Hamptons are the best out of the Hilton portfolio as they offer what I want at a competitive price but there are some gems out there depending on where you are and what at the end of the day you want from a hotel.

sleasure

I agree with you, Indufan. There are a few "lower-tier" properties out there that are quite nice. Overall, the OPs ranking of properties is right, but there are exceptions everywhere. And, OP, thank you for not including DT in your ranking. That would have been a point of contention since the DT brand is plagued with inconsistency.

BearX220

Certainly not. The Hampton Inn Crystal City is a much nicer property than the Crystal City Hilton a quarter-mile away, and normally priced accordingly. There are all sorts of examples like this.

djk7

Exactly. For example, when I stayed at the Cocoa Beach Hilton it was a dive (might still be) and far worse than many Hampton's I've stayed in.

inpd

Thank you all for your feedback.

Just to clarify, how is the CC hilton a "nicer" property than the HI CC?

Is it the quality of rooms, service, amenities something else?

Thanks.

jerry a. laska

Review the threads on the properties and for DCA and you will see:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilto...t=crystal+city
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilto...t=crystal+city
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilto...roperty-3.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilto...l-airport.html

sbams

Probably better to keep this discussion to US properties. As soon as you venture towards Europe or Asia it's a totally different comparison.

BlondeBomber

"IME, the best HI I have ever stayed in was not better than the worst Hilton. "

Clearly you haven't stayed at a really bad Hilton

Agree with the comment that it depends what you want and ALSO the specific property. There are plenty of crappy HI, Hilton and ES but also many consistently good HIs with large suites that I get upgraded to. Hilton's overseas tend to be consistently better than other brands in the chain in the same locale.

I find ES to be inconsistent and more old fashioned (in need of update!), HIs consistently OK and Hilton's a mixed bag in UK and USA but generally excellent overseas.

TRAVELSIG

Head over to the Holiday Inn resort on Phi Phi Island in Thailand, then to any of the monstrous old USA Hiltons that were last updated in the 1970s, and please tell me if you can really confirm that statement.

http://www.phiphi.holidayinn.com

I do like Hilton and I think the entire group has improved significantly in the last 4 years or so- however I can think of many Hilton examples that don't come close to a few real jewel Holiday Inn properties.