skywalkerLAX

To be honest I don't see what the head of maintenance would have to offer in terms of blame or input regarding the collapse of a ceiling.

That's nothing he has influence on, it's a structual failure.

whimike

It is not a structural failure, where do you come up with this? A water leak caused sheetrock to deteriorate. Sheetrock is not structural.

The head of maintenance is responsible for maintenance and up-keep of the hotel. If a water leak existed that caused sheetrock to deteriorate, it is his responsibility to have dealt with it.

skywalkerLAX

And you know that how?

whimike

Well, it seems pretty obvious looking at the photos, since the sheetrock paper is discolored/darker from some liquid, 99.9999% likely water. What is also obvious, to anybody that knows construction, is that a structural problem would not cause this sort of issue.

Now, my question back to you, why do you state it is a structural failure?

IcHot

He's not making an engineering report. Was it a service failure? A housekeeping failure? No, it was the room falling apart. You know, the structure...

struc·ture [struhk-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, struc·tured, struc·tur·ing.
noun
1.
mode of building, construction, or organization; arrangement of parts, elements, or constituents: a pyramidal structure.
2.
something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.

DiverDave

Since we're giving lessons today, here is one on "structural failure":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_failure

"Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself. "

David

IcHot

I understand what it means in engineering vernacular. That was why I made the point of differentiating in my post.

Trying to make an engineering argument with a hotel customer as to whether the ceiling collapsing is a structural collapse is irrelevant to the issue. The way he or she means the phrase needs to be understood in his or her implied context.

The structure in which they were residing had the ceiling collapse. They were in a structure and the ceiling did fail to remain in the state in which it is intended to stay.

I think the argument that it isn't a structural failure is a red herring. It would be the same as a mechanical engineer arguing about the use of the word motor rather than engine.

whimike

So, if a 1cm square piece of tile falls off from the shower wall then the room had a structural failure?

Really?!

IcHot

Is that what happened? Did a tiny tile fall? If a leaf falls on your head is it the same as a tree falling on your head? Is static electricity the same a being struck by lightning?

The ceiling coming down in a room cannot be considered a success.

I'm not sure what then thrust of your argument is. To diminish what occurred? Why?

whimike

Actually, this thread is going far OT.

My point is that the term structural failure is being used incorrectly. Your argument was that any part of the building coming down is a structural failure, and thus I am trying to show the ridiculousness of such a statement. Your further hyperbole is shown by the leaf vs tree falling on you (when in fact nothing fell on the OP), this would be roughly equal to a piece of sheetrock falling vs the entire building collapsing.

Nobody said anything about this issue being a success nor is this discussion on structural failure designed to diminish what occurred. But, please, let's keep this all in proper perspective. Claiming structural failure, when that is not what occurred, is not helping anybody. Let's stick to the facts and use terminology properly.

IcHot

I understand your point. If this was being discussed in a technical forum, you'd have a great point. This isn't a technical forum. It isn't a court of law. Making a point of the poster's word choice is nit picky, IMO. I think the poster's intent was clear. The physical state of the room deteriorated while the OP resided there.

The hyperbole was yours in comparing a tile to a hunk of ceiling. Furthermore, I never said it was structural failure. It isn't structural failure. The failure is that one poster refuses to understand what others are trying to communicate because he or she is stuck on a technical definition and not accepting the words as a non professional would.

It is clear to me that the poster meant the room was physically deficient and not giving an engineer's inspection report.

whimike

My using a 1cm tile was directly in response to your statement:

If you define the room falling apart as anything in the room falling down then the 1cm tile example is appropriate. Ceiling sheetrock has as much do to structurally as a 1cm tile on the wall, and neither are indicative of the "room/structure falling apart".

The reason I believe it is important to get terminology correct, and lets make a note that the OP that had this happen to him is not the one using it incorrectly, is that if there was a "structural failure" then the room most likely would be falling apart. What happened to the OP is not the room falling apart, but rather a small section of the ceiling sheetrock (likely weighing a few pounds), falling down.

This is, in no way, minimizing what happened to the OP. He is due compensation for what happened. But if posters are stating there has been a structural failure (or structural integrity as stated by a previous poster), and nobody corrects it, the OP may start believing that is what happened, when it hasn't.

I also very much disagree that using proper terms would only be appropriate on a technical forum and that it is nit-picky. These are not terms limited to the technical engineer, when somebody states there is a structural failure or the structural integrity has been compromised, it simply isn't accurate or correct. Considering all sorts of people read these forums, some technical, some mildly technical, some non-technical, doesn't it makes sense to use the proper terms so there is no confusion?

TheChallenge

Either way whatever you call this accident; structural failure, mishap, improper maintenance, the hotel could have easily been liable for $100k+ in damages if the person had been in the shower and slipped with major injuries when this had happened. The hotel should refund the night along with additional compensation such as points just as a goodwill gesture at the least. The cost of the gesture versus what could have been the liability of an accident is fractions of a penny on the dollar. The hotel is lucky that besides the damage to repair the physical room, the loss related to the guest is only a few hundred dollars at most. Instead the hotel has turned this into being a costly PR mistake that could have easily been solved.

I too once had an issue at a Hilton property, specifically the Embassy Suites San Juan, were I felt I had to call their corporate customer service to seek a solution. The representative attempted to contact the hotel while I was on the line with her. The MOD told her he was too busy to discuss the matter at the time, after she waited on hold 30 mins. That's when she told me "I seem to be receiving the exact same quality of service you've been having, do you know about our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee at Hilton properties? I feel your situation would best be resolved by taking that course of action" She then gave me three options 1) She'd continue to wait on the line in hopes that the MOD answered again, 2) She'd would personally process the guarantee claim at the corporate end and mail a check out, or 3) I could tell the front desk the next morning I was invoking the guarantee and see if they handled it internally at the hotel. I picked the third option, but she gave me her work extension and insisted I call her back if the hotel refused. The hotel reluctantly agreed the next morning at check out after I told them Hilton corporate already knew of the problem, insisted I invoke the guarantee, offered to cut me a check, and I was to immediately call if the problem was not resolved. From my experience Hilton corporate does stand by their guarantee if the property fails in it's response to a problem.

NDDomer86

After reading through the ensuing conversation, as the poster of the quoted post in the above post, let me answer by saying because it is about relaying acceptance of responsibility and apologies to the guest affected.

Regardless of whether one wants to think of it as a structural failure, engineering failure, whatbeit, the guest sees it as a failure on behalf of the hotel, and engineering/maintenance is the department MOST LIKELY to handle these types of concerns.

Would it make sense to request that the developer, contractor, construction crew of the original building apologize to the guest? Most certainly not. Therefore at my disposal are the Sales Department, Accounting Department, Housekeeping Department, Food and Beverage Department, Engineering/Maintenance, and the Front Office. Of course as a General Manager and/or owner, I am going to apologize, but I think the choice of who else should offer an apology is quite obvious here.

IcHot

I'm sorry, but you are putting up a straw man. Sheetrock being intact and sound is not the same as a small tile falling from the wall and you are being ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to badger a fellow poster for a word usage like a layman as if he's a structural engineer with a professional definition.

The technical word that is important is dump. This place is a dump. Nice places can have accidents, but dumps suffer from neglect and poor management.