dw

This actually reminds me of the new cell phone plans from Verizon. "People aren't using their phones to make voice calls anymore? People are bypassing SMS charges using apps like iMessage? Let's just force everyone to sign onto a more expensive unlimited plan, and they can call and text as much as they want (or don't want)!"

3544quebec

I agree with you if the message being transmitted is purely factual eg the hotel is introducing a compulsory facilities fee but when the message is perceived by the majority as spin at best eg THIS CHANGE IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO HELP GUESTS PAY LESS I think that the messenger opens themselves up to be shot. It calls into question the motive for having representation here and I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to expect to be treated with kid gloves.
Provide facts on policy - fine. Provide what seems to be company spin on that policy and open yourself up to being called on it.

dcstudent

So, our LPM rep. admits there are many who won't benefit from this charge, but hey that's cool 'cause we'll be subsidizing those that do!

(Well, not me, I'm never going back.)

Oh, and I'm sure the alternative amenity will come oh-so-close to the value of a $10 a day fee that provides no benefit to many.

itsaboutthejourney

I agree. And as AJLondon said, I will also wait to hear what the Platinum benefit is.

I'm also curious if Starwood brass have given this their blessing.

The bottom line is that LPM is a very popular hotel, not just with the often bargain-driven FlyerTalk crowd, but with business and entertainment people. There are a lot of people who will be able to expense this fee or it will be trivial to them. We need to the understand Lisa has many types of guests with perhaps different needs/opinions that those on FT.

3544quebec

I'm not sure that that is necessary or at least not covered by precedent - there are already other non-resort hotels that charge such a fee:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19210322-post557.html

AJLondon

What he said. ^

It is entirely our choice to stay or not. And yes we can certainly debate the issue, but it really does not help anyone to get unnecessarily personal and be harsh on Lisa here.

And if there really is a real impact to bookings, both thru Starwood as well from other channels, as a result of this change, I'm pretty sure the hotel will react and re visit the issue.

dcstudent

If it makes you feel better, a $10 fee is trivial in as so much as $10 a day would not make or break my ability to stay at a hotel in Manhattan. I just don't like being charged a mandatory fee for things I'm not going to use or that are supposed to be free for me.

Oh, and I don't like being told that this fee is "going to save me money."

RogerD408

It's too bad there is not a comment section for when someone cancels a rez or chooses to not book. Getting stats on why they are loosing revenue will hit home a lot quicker than anything we say on FT. Unfortunately this may go the way of property reviews, competitors post bad stays and property staff posts wonderful stays.

Unlike stated on the State Farm commercial, just because it's on the internet does not make it true.

aCavalierInCoach

Which part of my comment did you disagree with?

vandalby

I agree that the actual, financial impact will be interesting to see. However, it should be noted that the initiation of this fee (1/1/13) coincides with a very strong Le Meridien brand promotion (1,000 bonus points first stay, 2,000 each additional stay - through 2/28/13). Certainly the promotion has the ability to skew the reaction to the fee.

Given that the fee is buried in the "Special Conditions" of the SPG website (I'm not sure how presented on 3rd party websites), it's likely that many guests won't know about it until they check in - or worse, until they see the folio at check out. At that time they'll be forced to swallow...

tcook052

The part where you find the way LPM rep. is using FT to be "impertinent".

RogerD408

Yeah, kinda buried, on the first page for the property:
However, NOT disclosed on the Term & Details pop-up (there is a City Occ Tax $2.00, a City Tax 5.88%, an Occ Tax $1.50, and State Sales Tax 8.88%). NOT at Step 2: Review Your Reservation page. And NOT under See Details when viewing your rez online. However, the confirmation eMail does prominently show:
I don't think this would pass muster if the FTC gets involved, but they are trying. Two out of five opportunities to disclose. And NOT in the estimated total.

For the record I am against any add-on mandatory fees. If it's got to be paid, it should be in the room rate. My SWAG is they are trying to avoid paying out points, some taxes, and doing some other shenanigans with the books. Not any different than other properties and resorts. A money grab, plain and simple.

aCavalierInCoach

Think this has much less to do with points on the margin as it does with the impact of being able to advertise a "lower" rate (even though it is not all-inclusive).

There's certainly an "all-you-can eat" argument here that, on a welfare basis, makes both hotel and the average consumer better off under certain conditions. But that intent is belied by the fact that it is hidden in a mandatory fee, rather than in inclusion in the rate.

dingo

I'm not making idle threats...I won't be going back. Then again, I'd only stay 1-3 nights each year any way so I doubt it is a big deal.

But if the next decision is to assess a $10 fee at the W Times Square for Attitude and No Platinum Room Upgrades, I will really be bent out of shape.

traveler18

Originally Posted by LPMguestRelations
THIS CHANGE IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO HELP GUESTS PAY LESS.

That is insulting. Used to stay there. Will avoid LPM. I hope this invites regulation and FTC intervention. If mandatory, should be part of the room rate so the hotel does not benefit from false comparative rates.

I will vote by staying elsewhere.