Originally Posted by
Always Flyin
It is not all negative. He is a hands-on manager and is frequently on the floor and readily available to guests. He is amiable and addresses issues.
His management style, however, is somewhat like Smisek's at United. He gives Platinums (and I assume all guests) what he is obligated to give and no more. The hotel, however, was well managed.
What he was unwilling to do was incur additional costs he didn't need to or cut profit items (e.g., internet costs), even though the direct competition was doing so (at the time, it was the Conrad that had started providing internet for free on the Club level).
For me, the effect was that I stopped staying at the Westin and the Conrad saw more of my business. Was the internet the only reason? No, but it was indicative of why I left.
That's the problem with such management styles. When you cut below what the competition is offering, and prices are similar, a percentage of customers will leave. Based on the posts I am seeing here about the W Bangkok, that seems to be happening there.
That is exactly the issue. He is allowed to provide us to the letter what benefits we're entitled to. And in the States, most hotels do this so you are left with no choice. But in Bangkok, competition is fierce and many luxury hotels go above and beyond. So why would we stay with Hardie when we can go to an alternate hotel where they treat us better? As well, I do not believe I'm spoiled. I stayed 113 nights in 2013 - and these nights could go to any chain - but I choose Starwood because they do go above and beyond for me. And when I run into a Hardie, I steer well clear of him, even going to an alternate chain if need be. In his specific case (Bangkok) he runs his hotel incorrectly because there is so much competition. Sure, he may fill his rooms today - but over time, this sort of behavior and attitude costs his property via reviews and ultimately business.