Originally Posted by
MikeFromTokyo
Disagree here re telephone issues. Even a fully occupied hotel should have adequate staffing and telephone systems to ensure that calls are answered promptly. There is no excuse for dropped calls or inability to contact operator or departments within the hotel.
I agree that not answering the telephone reflects bad service! That being said, I've been at Peninsula properties in Beverly Hill and New York where that has happened, as well as at the RC Boston and FS Beverly Hills--almost always when they were full due to some sort of convention or major conference in town.
I am only saying that if the hotel is full, service almost always suffers to some degree at most (but necessarily all) luxury hotels (as with almost all hotels).
This poster in question indicated that the FS was better than the MO in Boston, and I had asked for the reasons. It turns out the reasons against the MO were salient--if circumstantial IMO--and the reasons for the FS were nonexistent--as the poster had never even stayed there and was relying on the FS "brand" status alone.
IMO, this mini-thread has more to do with the people assuming that one brand (FS in this case) is better everywhere because of good experiences at some (which is extremely misrepresentative to me) and that another brand (MO in this case) is bad because of a poor example at a single property--and that is what I am calling out.
I also am calling out that circumstances such as being full can have a deleterious impact on any stay...and that taxi service is bad in Boston in general when compared with most other major cities. :-)