Originally Posted by
gengar
Nope.
- signed, someone who has worked for Hyatt
The mere fact that you have to name tiny boutique / luxury-only chains like FS, MO, Rosewood, Pen, etc. just proves my point. Those are specialist luxury brands that no one in the industry (nor anyone seeking an honest discussion) would compare to Hyatt - a brand with over 50% limited service hotels not to mention a luxury sub-brand that isn't even as big as some of the brands you named.
Let me also add that I don't at all understand the defensiveness on this point. Referring to Hyatt as a "small chain" doesn't mean that there aren't smaller chains (or that there aren't literally independent hotel properties) and it certainly doesn't mean Hyatt is a bad chain.
Honest discussion: wouldn't you compare Hyatt to all chains when determining which chain is small and large? Did you leave off Loews and Fairmont because they didn't fit your "tiny / luxury boutique" segment? Why wouldn't someone in the hotel industry compare Hyatt to Rosewood, just as they'd compare Hyatt to Marriott, when figuring out which to call a small chain and which to call a large chain?
There's no defensiveness at all, just baffled by your absolute statements on the opinion of every last person in the hotel industry. The housekeeper at the Plaza NY is in the hotel industry. Would s/he think the Hyatt is a "small" chain? A friend is a GM at a PH in Asia, he doesn't think the Hyatt chain is small. Another friend is a GM at a Hilton in Asia, in a city with five Hyatt properties (and "only" five Hilton properties) - he would also dispute your statement that "Hyatt is absolutely a small chain".
My only point is that to some, both in and out of the hotel industry, the Hyatt chain is small, sure. To others, it's not. If you haven't done a formal survey of the entire hotel industry, you can't really speak for them.