Originally Posted by
vuittonsofstyle
Shangri-La? Do we really believe that they will ever understand that size should never be more important than quality? They seem to start off with a reasonably sized hotel, then they add to it and add to it until it resembles a small town. Quantity is what Shangri-La is all about, and those hotels/resorts that do manage to maintain standards only do so because they have exceptional GMs and management teams at the time.
Shangri-La in Europe and N. America? They lost their head of Europe and N. America - Didier le Calvez - after a year. Can we guess why? Because he understands about quality, whereas Shangri-La only see it as cost.
I don't think they CAN expand Palais d'Ilena when it opens in Paris, but I bet they try.
Sounds a bit too harsh to me but I can understand where you are coming from judging by your criteria. Shangri-las do tend to be big and pomous and tries to offers "variety" and "value for money".
The thing is I don't think Shangri-la actually position themselves as exclusive luxury chain. I've stayed at quite a number of Shangri-las and I've always like Shangri-La as business hotels, because they often do deliver the basics for me when on business trip, ie a good bed, good bathroom, large buffet breakfast, internet ( included free now chain-wide ) and generally efficient services when I need anything. I will prefer to think of them basically as business hotels with "added luxury" and I don't think their focus is really as a luxury chain though individual properties have exceptions. Along with Westin and Intercon, they are my preferred chains when on business. When I'm on business, I want all the basics without any fuss and for service, I prefer fast and efficient over excessive politeness and friendliness.
It will be totally different if I'm on vacation and want luxury. I will then prefer to choose a Ritz, a Four Seasons, Pen or MO.