Originally Posted by
boolean64
A focus on naming the property draws attention away from what is the bigger issue...that an ambassador seems quite ok with the idea that hotels don't have to offer any suites as part of the upgrade pool. That to me is much much bigger than finding out which property this is.
Originally Posted by
boolean64
Identifying the hotel may help us understand whether the hotel's no suite policy is credible or not. But knowing the hotel has no impact on the credibility of the Ambassador's statement, which as I stated previously is the real troubling part of this thread.
The ambassador (which i interpret as a written response in an e-mail) wrote "I am not sure why the hotel chose not to [include any suites in their upgrade pool] but that is the hotel's decision." How on earth would identifying the property change the validity of what the ambassador wrote? If it was the Westin then "that is the hotel's decision" is a credible response from an Ambassador but if it was the Sheraton then the Ambassador's blanket statement about hotel discretion about suites is not credible? Doesn't make sense to me.
If the hotel in question has very few suites (less than 5% or perhaps 10%) then it isn’t inconcievable that the upgrade pool doesn’t include suites. Not knowing what hotel it is makes this all an exercise in assumption and futility. That’s how on earth it might matter.
If the hotel does have few suites and therefore doesn’t have suites in its upgrade pool, then the Ambassador is being honest and accurate. That makes a big difference, and we can’t know that unless we know what hotel we are discussing. How convenient that the hotel remains unidentified.
Marriott terms below clearly indicate that a hotel can decide on its own what rooms or suites are in its upgrade pool. They don’t have to include suites. If the hotel has few suites, that is actually reasonable and appropriate to not necessarily have suites in the upgrade pool. If the hotel has many suites proportional to the overall room total, that is much less reasonable and appropriate.
Not identifying the hotel IMO is the first hint that the hotel likely has few suites proportionally and isn’t behaving so badly, after all. That leaves some pie on the face for those who want to assume the hotel and Ambassador are doing something nefarious. Until shown otherwise, I don’t think so.