dcchi

I had asked about what the $25 could be used for, but ultimately decided to go with a different hotel (Midtown Ren) because the rate was right and the location was perfect for our needs. That being said, I've stayed at the Essex probably about 10 times over the past few years, and have never had a "good view" room; it's always been a view of the space between the hotel and the next building. However, the location (at Central Park South directly across from Central Park) is nice if you'd spend time nearby, and the exec lounge is the best in the US (at least among those I've been to) in terms of the spread available.

transportprof

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Essex House cannot provide a straight answer on what the $25 daily destination fee is good for?

If nobody posts the answer in 2018, I promise to fill that gap based on firsthand experience at year's end.

Chewie

hockeyinsider

Time to contact the state attorney general's consumer protection division.

https://ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/Fi...umer-Complaint

scubadu

I know this is probably crazy talk... but you know... another option would be if the terms and conditions of the property don't meet your needs you could do something really crazy like don't stay there...

Regards

hockeyinsider

This is precisely the attitude that allows properties to charge fees and not provide amenities or services. This property is charging a $25 fee and can't say what it covers nor is it fully disclosed. Presumably, it includes amenities and services (like internet access) that are supposed to be complimentary.

scubadu

That "attitude" if exhibited by enough aggregate customers who actually materially care about this fee, as opposed to a handful of FTer's who endlessly pick apart ever little nuance of everything, when executed in a capitalistic, market driven economy particularly in a city such as NYC which has countless choices (you are hardly trapped into staying there) will cause the property to lose business. If that becomes material, you can bet they will change course.

You're welcome to question my "attitude" if you desire, but in my years on FT I've made the observation that those who tend to "vote with their wallet" often seem happier with their travel outcomes than those whose first inclination is "contact the attorney general" because they are blinded by loyalty programs and act as if they are forced to stay in a property that doesn't suit there needs.

But hey, knock yourself out, please keep us posted on the the specific outcome and resolution. I'm sure the $25 destination fee at the JW Marriott Essex House facing Central Park in Manhattan will be very high on the New York Attorney General's "to do" list.

Regards

Kacee

Actually, I'm surprised no AGs have taken a serious run at this practice yet. It is a deceptive practice, and challenging the hotels could generate good "pro-consumer" publicity for an attention-seeking AG (which most of them are).

dayone

The current New York Attorney General is a career prosecutor and about as far from "attention-seeking" as she could be.

Kacee

Well there are 49 more of them out there

scubadu

Your surprised and yet... they haven't taken it seriously. Why do you suppose that is? Is it possible that FTers might perhaps have a moderately inflated sense of the importance of this particular issue in the grand scheme of things? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the mass of mainstream America isn't going to get too worked up and excited about the problem of travelers that can afford to stay at the JW Marriott Essex House, facing Central Park in Manhattan, getting dinged with a $25 "destination fee." I'm really not sure how much pro-consumer "publicity" an AG is going to squeeze out of that one.

It people on FT were not so blinded by loyalty programs they would simply look at the total cost of a room and make their decision from there. There are plenty of hotels in NYC (and the world) that do not add a fee like this. If this matters deeply to someone then give your business to those other properties. That is how a free market is supposed to work! It's utterly perplexing how that is such a difficult concept for so many people on FT to grasp, even people who in the course of their professional lives practice the concept day in and day out, but in regards to travel someone have a completely different mindset.

Regards

C17PSGR

I think of it slightly differently ... while I get the loyalty program blinding issue ... I think this is a bigger problem to the family who travels to NYC who don't regularly travel so they don't realize the hotel has tapped on an extra $25 a day from the published rate. Of course, this is the JW on Central Park but the same stupid fee applies to a number of lower level properties in NYC, and even in places like Spokane. (Spokane is OK but just don't get the destination amenity fee)

Its legally defensible since its fully disclosed at the end but probably missed by most non-FTers.

Kacee

No, I really don't think that's it. As consumer issues go, this is a substantial one. In the air travel arena, DOT adopted a rule which expressly forbids, as a deceptive practice, airlines from doing exactly what the hotels do with resort fees.

Not sure why you're being so obnoxious about this.

Old Hickory

I will but I'm not going until mid-November so I'll wait until then as the answer may change a few times before our arrival. :-)

mplflyer