Originally Posted by
SkiAdcock
Does anyone else find it ironic that JWs are supposed to be 'better', but the JW Washington is just a basic biz hotel? I can't think of one thing that makes JWW a JW other than they named it after the founder. IMO they should strip this hotel of that moniker, but due to why it was named that I get why they don't.
I doubt that will happen due to its history.
Originally Posted by
socrates
which is exactly why MI purchased RZ (originally before JW WAS opened Bill had wanted to honor his father, that's where the name actually came from but it had been decided to move into the Luxury segment short after...)
As noted by Soc, the Washington DC JW was built before Marriott decided to make JW a luxury chain segment. I agree that the Washington DC JW would not become a JW today based on JW standards.
FWIW, this discussion seems to come up on FT every few years.