teemuflyer

I assume you're meaning in "central" Paris That topic is worthy of a whole different thread. It is so incomprehensible, I don't even like thinking about it!

travelexpert

Many outside the travel industry do not realize that location of a hotel is not really driven by the hotel chains and their brands.

Almost all hotels within the major brands are owned by franchisees (often but not always independent companies that develop hotels)--the chains are the franchisors.

So the chains have to wait reactively until they are approached by a potential owner interested in having the brand be the hotel marketer and manager.

A brand becoming part of a hotel property may be a new-build, or conversion (such as Holiday Inn changes to a HGI).

Clearly, no owner currently believes that a Conrad of WA is the flag they want to fly over one of their hotels in exclusive London areas such as Mayfair or Knightsbridge. Ditto for Hilton in Paris.

sbams

Widening the topic, the same logic applies to various brands in various cities: Hong Kong only has one Conrad and nothing else. There must be room for more in such a vibrant city. Other Asian locations (BKK, KL) are branching out to include Doubletree, maybe more will follow.

I guess it's all about obtaining the right properties in the right locations.

pauleeepaul

I would expect the chains are more proactively engaged in sussing out potential new build/conversion opportunities rather than just reactively waiting around for Donald Trump/etc to come calling.

But your general premise about the franchisee/franchisor relationship is valid.

rknicker

Does the actual Waldorf not count for some reason? Aside from the terrible service I mean.

cjd

No, that hotel is not classed as a Waldorf Astoria, it's the Waldorf Hilton and you're entitled to Hilton benefits at the hotel, not the poorer W-A benefits.

FinalCallDXB

The general premise of the brands not owning the properties may be true but it is far from unknown for companies to invest to get their brands into prime cities like London.

In recent years Hyatt bought the Great Eastern to get Andaz into London and Marriott bought the Berners to secure a London property for Edition (although this was sold on last week). Peninsula's parent company also recently invested in a building to secure a London property. Even IHG, which is the most asset light of the major brands, has a policy of owning the InterContinental in prime cities until it has a second property - hence the sell off of the Barclay and Park Lane after the openings of the IC Times Square and IC Westminster.

travelexpert

You're correct--but for most of the big chains, it is uncommon to own the properties they manage. Exception among the US-headquartered hotel megachains I believe is Starwood, which owns a few of the properties it manages.

For example, Marriott put its own money into launching three Edition properties since the brand is new (the one they did not own was a disaster--they were booted out of managing the Waikiki Edition). This past week, Marriott announced they are selling these three properties to a Middle East company--but will still manage these hotels.

soy

Could be worse, could be Paris where there is no city center Hilton, never mind Conrads or W-A's

scubaccr

Which London Hotel as HHGold ? Thinking of Canary Wharf or London Tower Bridge

I see both upgrade HH Golds to Exec Floors with lounge access. So where i can get a Friday night on PR13CB for CW=�70 and Tower=�99 which should I choose when booking a basic room as HH Gold?

Is either lounge or breakfast a better option and decisive enough to tip the choice one way or the other, room price not coming into equation.

Also do either have better TV channel choices for sport eg Skysports1/2/3/4?

Thx
CB

JerseySlime

Canary Wharf. You're only about 10-15 minutes further out via walking/Jubilee Line. Use the �29 for dinner.

nicholasashaw

Two of the best hiltons in London so not much in it. CW has great lounge with views over river to London, whilst tower had better EL food but no views - unless weather is good and you can sit outside overlooking the shard. Breakfast at both is great, with choice of either EL or restaurant. I've stayed at both over 30 times but only choose CW because normally get junior suite upgrades whilst tower only executive rooms as they don't have junior suites. I agree with previous post though, if you don't mind a ten min tube ride on jubilee Line then save 29 pounds and stay at CW.

wizla

Both are very good.......i favor CW as i love the area and i've got 100% executive upgrade success here ( i stay there a lot and i'm a gold too)......i do agree the TB has slightly better food offerings but in my opinion CW is a better hotel ( car parking, onsite sauna/steam room, and j suites available).

wizla

I go to London a lot, but all my family/friends/business needs are in east london , so i stay at Canary wharf or docklands Hiltons........The other ones i've used are T bridge and Park lane.
Im taking my girlfriend shopping at portobello road ( notting hill) and fancy trying one of the nearby Hiltons ie- Kensington, olympia, metropole or hyde park.....one with a lounge may be handy too, so we have somewhere to relax in the evening....any suggestions?......many thanks.

Cymro

I've only stayed in the one at Olympia.

The hotel is pretty good, not outstanding - rooms were good, there's a Starbucks, the service was excellent.

Location is not great though; it's safe, but not pretty, and out of the way for High Street Kensington (about a mile from the tube) though around the corner from Olympia station (which doesn't have trains to central London).

If you tend to drive or take taxis, the location is reasonable though.