tom-schmitt

brandonpkt

ScubaRoo

Are the resort and Hilton attempting to stick their collective heads in the sand over this?

Such an ignorant approach will surely result in a huge loss of faith in them both.

I would not be surprised if the resort is actively censoring/deleting related questions on their Facebook page?

jphripjah

It's not newsworthy at all. Maybe the NY Times will do a story titled "Rich Luxury Resort Guests Flip Out Over Visit from Richer Cruise Ship Guests." I doubt it though.

I agree with those people saying it's a mistake for an exclusive resort like Conrad Maldives to allow a cruise ship to disrupt their guests' experience. I totally reject the suggestions here that the visitors from The World are dirtier, more racist, more crass, more ill-mannered or more dangerous to children than Conrad Maldives guests.

The resort allowed itself to be overcrowded for a day in order to make money. That's it. It wasn't particularly fair to the paying guests, but it happens every day around the world that hotels have weddings, photo shoots, ceremonies, parties and other events that are loud and disruptive to paying guests. This is not news.

The _Banking_Scot

Hi,

Perhaps the news sections would not be interested in reports of this dreadful experience but perhaps the travel sections of the newspapers especially the Sunday editions ( in the UK the travel sections of the Sunday Times and sunday Telegraph have occasional articles about poor travel experiences/serivces) and the major US papers might have a Weekend travel section.

Regards

TBS

jphripjah

The rhetoric here is just over the top. "Barbarians" from The World. "Dreadful" experience.

People in Venezuela and Haiti are literally fighting each other for food, and posters here are apoplectic about a single day's inconvenience of not being able book tables at their preferred restaurants at a $1,000 a night luxury resort.

ScubaRoo

So the gross intrusion of privacy didn't bother you then?

How about the damage to the coral reef?

How about the reports of a suspicious suspected pedo?

How about the lack of response from the resort or Hilton to adequately address these concerns?

jphripjah

It's all hysterics to me. Gross invasion of privacy because someone walked near someone's rented villa?

Suspected pedophile?? The resort is full of people taking photos all day long. If the 15 year old girl and her parents don't want her to be seen in a bikini then she shouldn't be wearing a bikini in common areas of a resort.

The notion that patrons of The World are more dangerous to children or to coral than are guests staying at Conrad is absurd.

"History will remember" Hilton's handling of this? That's bonkers. Hilton let a single resort be overcrowded for a single day. That's it.

EuropeanPete

Don't feed the troll people.

brandonpkt

lhrhappy

pineapple_09

llfoster

ncSam

I spoke to people in the front office when I was at the resort a few days ago and asked about the renovation plans. It sounded like discussions were ongoing with regards to the water villas, and that the priority was to finish the beach villas that they weren't able to renovate before the high/festive season began.

MaldivesFreak

I'll be honest. That's a very one-sided and simplistic view of what happened. The point is - and should I really need to make this clear?! - that the Maldives is special because you have one resort per island, no locals hassling you to buy souvenirs and sell you stuff, no locals or staff allowed on the beaches, in the spas, in the restaurants or at the bars (except for maybe the HM and GM who you sometimes see at a bar). That's what you're paying for when you go to one of these resorts. One can look at the property one wants to visit, its size, number of dining options, number of rooms and spacing between them, staff to guest ratio and a whole bunch of other stuff. You can work out how crowded it will be and how much privacy you can expect to have - and even then we are pleasantly surprised when we find out it's even less crowded than we thought it was going to be. Note that Rangali has an especially good reputation for this, and that's why it's mentioned regularly. So when you say "it happens every day around the world that hotels have weddings, photo shoots, ceremonies, parties and other events that are loud and disruptive to paying guests", you conveniently leave out the facts that the vast majority of those hotels you are talking about have streets outside them with footpaths, public transport and other hotels and places of interest that you can go to for however long is necessary should you decide you don't like the place you're currently staying in or whoever is there temporarily. There are almost always nearby restaurants that you can walk, bus, catch a cab to if you can't find a table or if some rowdy group is in there when you walk in. You have choice. I shouldn't need to spell out that in the Maldives you do not have those choices, bar changing the resort you are currently in and we all know how practical and expensive that is!
The owner of Sun Siyam Irufushi is building a 600-room resort - the biggest of any resort planned to open in the Maldives thus far. If it were to be on an island measuring 2km * 500m with a room to restaurant & bar ratio of 15 or 20:1 then I might consider it. If it was to be on Irufushi with 3 massive buffet restaurants and 5 ŕ la carte restaurants then you'd have to pay me to go there! As for Rangali and other 5-star/+ properties, exclusivity and privacy is what they advertise and it's all part and parcel of your stay. If 80-100 guests simultaneously invade the resort when it is at full capacity then Hilton are not living up to their end of the bargain. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If you aren't concerned about floods of people then go to a non-resort island where there are guest inns.....and pay the going rate for it! End of story.