Courtyards: Are they worth it?
 

Lifetime Platinum Member. It might just be me, but it seems over the last couple of years, by experiences at courtyards have been less than stellar. This is from the point of amenities offered as they do not have a club, nor provide free breakfast, instead they have generally an expensive cafe. For the costs of a courtyard stay it seems you get more bang from your buck at a Springhill or another brand. At times they cost is the same at a courtyard as a full service Marriott that has a larger gym , pool, room service, nice lounge, club, etc. Also, for whatever reason it seems that I never get any upgrades at a courtyard. I know this is a rant, but I do not understand the market that they are targeting with this chain. What is the perks they have over other brands in the offering? Thoughts?

The brand has been around for 35 years. That's more than enough time for you to figure out the brand. Maybe it doesn't work for you. In my experience, Courtyard is very reliable in delivering the brand standards.

I only book Courtyards when I am outside of the America Continent. Booked the Courtyard Hong Kong, no problem getting free drinks and food at the Lounge. Booked Bangkog Courtyard, no problem getting free buffet breakfast and late checkout. Good thing that when I need to book one in the USA, there is always either a Fairfield Inn (New York) or another Marriott Brand for almost the same price, where I can push Elite Benefits a little more.

I think the answer is, "it depends."

With 1,156 open properties and 282 pipeline properties, Courtyard is the most plentiful Marriott brand.

Sometimes, Courtyard is great choice. It can be the best hotel in town, especially in smaller cities. Or it could be less than half the price of a full-service property for a room that's not that different.

Sometimes, Courtyard is a poor choice. I stayed at the spectacular JW Marriott at L.A. Live at a lower rate than what the Courtyard across the street was charging for the same dates.

The Platinum benefits at Courtyard will improve in August 2018.

As hotel guests, we can pick what looks best to us. With the full integration of Starwood into Marriott in August 2018 (presumably with the ability to see availability across all brands from the reservation website), we'll easily see all properties that participate in the new loyalty program. In some cases, Courtyard will be the best option. In other cases, not.

I think Courtyards can make sense in many situations for the casual traveller in small cities. For Platinums I always thought the value proposition is lacking for the most part, particularly if there is a full-service hotel in town. That said, breakfast will start being offered to Platinums on August 1st so the equation will change. There will be a greater number of cities where I will consider CY as a decent option instead of just ignoring it. But it won't replace a Club Lounge, and I would be surprised if room upgrades become plentiful. It is just not a good fit for Plats in my opinion.

Most years, I spend more nights at Courtyard than at any other brand, precisely because it has a much wider reach than mainline Marriott or other higher end brands. That will likely continue to be true -- those smaller cities are where Starwoods are sparse. It's true that there are very few membership perks at Courtyard -- I think I've been upgraded just twice in the last five years -- but I think it would be tough for me to maintain status without it.

I'm posting this response from a Courtyard hotel room, so apparently my answer is "yes". :D

That said, my hotel is in an out of the way location. The nearest full service MR or SPG property is about 15 miles farther from where I need to be and it's 50% more $$$. In these sorts of situations CYs make a lot of sense.

Exactly. This is why it's positioned mainly as a lower cost business hotel. I probably wouldn't stay at a Courtyard on a pleasure trip, except in Asia. But I can usually find one within a mile of where I need to be, it's a comfortable room, and there's breakfast on site before I leave for my meeting. No reason to stay in a downtown full service hotel when my meeting is 15 miles outside that big city.

To many (non-elite) younger travelers and business travelers, some benefits not related to breakfast include:

• being lower-cost, no-frills alternative to the FS properties
• more work space
• more locations
• consistency

Granted, most the whining here on FT stems from the limited elite perks.

Found a relevant thread that includes an FT'ers take on CY's DNA:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marr...ess-model.html

Courtyards in Asia are like the full service Marriotts in the USA.
My experience has been mostly in India (Mumbai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Chennai, Kochi). All provide full breakfast (MR Gold and higher), free internet, free water bottles, free local calls, lounge access (when there is one).

Regarding Courtyard, I hope to see more ACs, Alofts, and Elements built out in the coming years

I think any specific property of any brand can be "worth it" at the correct price point. And not "worth it" at the wrong price point.

I don't think there are any global "worth it" statements that can be made for any brand with many, many properties with prices that vary very frequently.

Agreed, each of these brands blow CY out of the water

I'm sure you'll both get your wish.

AC Hotels and Aloft, both of which Marriott classifies as "distinctive" brands, are clearly growth brands for Marriott. As far as blowing "classic" brand Courtyard out of the water, much of this is because new hotels tend to look better than hotels built 20 or 30 years ago, even if they've been renovated multiple times in the period. New Courtyards tend to blow old Courtyards out of the water too.

Element gives Marriott a "distinctive" extended-stay growth brand. That's good too, especially because there are so many Residence Inns already.

Ten years from now, I wonder how we'll perceive AC Hotels, Aloft, and Element properties from the past few years. Will they appear horribly dated? It seems that the more a hotel is designed according to the latest hotel "fashion" trends, the more it looks dated when styles change.

I concur, mostly stayed at CY due to their wide spread in locations near to my client offices, whereas full service properties are usually more than a 10 mile radius away. It's just an extra hassle and cost on my company to travel even more just to capitalize on the free breakfast or lounge perks. So convenience is usually the biggest factor for my travel needs.

I noticed some CY properties in my recent stays at Cali do try to make my stay more comfortable with their own "self-made" goodie bags with odd fruit/water kinck-knacks for gold/plat elites.
It's a nice gesture, but for most of the time, I check in late after my all day meetings, sleep and check out.

Another interesting fact though, the few newer properties I had stayed in, all have CY and Residence Inns merged together as 1 building with the combined lobby/front desk checking guests in.
I still always book under CY for the 10 MR pts per $ > outweighs the 5 MR pts for $ in RI.
The rates and benefits do not differ much (ie no breakfast or other nice elite perks like lounges), maybe with the upcoming merger this might change.

Courtyard was my top choice early in the brand's life (going back to the 80's when they targeted Holiday Inn, which was an absolute mess). They did a fantastic job of combining value, quality, service, consistency, location, and focus on business travelers' needs in a way that no other hotel brand achieved at first. Many other brands looked at Courtyard, borrowed the good parts of it, and found ways to differentiate that were hard for Courtyard to match financially. Courtyard became a victim of its own success, where there was a tendency to rest on their laurels and past reputation rather than invest in change and improvement. Some newer and remodeled Courtyards have made significant improvements in their look and style, but many look run-down and dated. The brand has become so much more inconsistent than when it started. It is surprising that they still get the price premiums they do in some locations and markets. There is always a segment that sticks with what they were familiar with and the tried and true, that does not seek out change. I bet the average age of a Courtyard guest is higher than most of the other Marriott Brands, as I am not sure what would attract newer and/or younger guests. Clearly the value proposition is often not as strong as in other brands, but somehow they get away with it. Personally, Courtyard's share of my business started decreasing about 10-15 years ago and has continued to decline. They are still worthy of consideration, but there are often better options as most markets are so competitive. The price/value of Courtyard is rarely competitive for me.

There was a long thread here about when Marriott changed in the early 2010s.

I don't like the Courtyards for the lack of microwave and refrigerator (and the lack of free breakfast, which I guess might change come August?).

However, I like the new setup where the bed is against the bathroom wall rather than your neighbor's wall where if people are humping next door...

Also like the tall wall/divider between the toilet and the sink.

This.

Courtyard started as an alternative to full service hotels for business travelers. I'd say it's still true today.

Full-service hotels are traditionally located in downtown or airport locations. Courtyards are often located in/near office parks. I like getting pampered like anyone else does, BUT, I value my sleep more -- I'll take a limited service hotel next to the suburban office park my client is in rather than a full service property downtown, some 20-60 minutes out.

Keep in mind many business travelers are traveling on someone else's dime, so expensing breakfast isn't any big deal to them -- and represents extra income for the hotelier. This is also why full service hotels used to charge for internet and the limited-service ones gave it away free.

I'm with the OP -- I'm more often inclined to stay in a Springhill or Residence Inn (my fav.) rather than a Courtyard. Residence Inns can vary widely in experience due to age of the property, but some of them blow full-service Marriotts out of the water in terms of the room. Sure, no bellhop, but I'm usually traveling with a carry-on.

Once again, we're taking this well-pummeled horse out of the barn to beat it anew.

More Moxys pls

Such hip. Much style. Wow

In general, I struggle to understand what to me looks like a large overlap between Ritz Carlton -> JW Marriott -> Marriott -> Courtyard. Obviously RC's are not like Courtyards, but these brands seem pretty much confused across the range. The last Courtyard (Phoenix, AZ) I stayed at was quite expensive but also passably nice. It had just had a partial refurb (but needed more), but had a decent enough room, a pleasant outside area and a passable gym. Where it was different to a "full service" Marriott was the lack of a proper restaurant, and I can't remember if they offered room service.

"Like Beating a Dead Horse" - OJ Simpson 1993 on Howard Stern

The restaurant is often the biggest different between CY and the full service Marriotts, along with architecture. CYs tend to be 2-3 floors in most cases.

But what you've hit on in your example is important. Each property still retains it's individual identity. They can be newer, older, remodeled or not, have extra amenities. I've certainly stayed in CYs that are nicer than FS Marriotts. You can only compare across brands at a general level, there are exceptions within each brand, positive and negative.

Yes, they are worth it.

I book CYs when it is the least expensive option for a 1-night airport stay or for 1-night stays when I do my annual drive to/from my second home as I often have a choice of FFI and CY and am usually on the road before the FFI is serving breakfast. Also, CY usually has better beds and larger rooms than FFI.

Stockholm CY is very nice and includes breakfast for plats.

Depends on the age of the property and the location. Like many things.

RI gets you (generally) full size fridge, microwave, free breakfast, etc. - can be nicer if the property is new or newly renovated enough.
A lot of the Springhill Suites are newer and still free breakfast so I pick those.
CY depends on the property age, a lot of them in the US market are older. The Bistro kind of sucks without breakfast, but it might be more tolerable with free breakfast. However even if breakfast is free, the Bistro can be slooooow. Likely more of a problem during the breakfast rush on Mon-Thurs at locations with a lot of business travelers, especially since 50/75 night levels in new programs will have breakfast voucher as an option for welcome gift.

I tend to avoid CY unless the property is much more newly renovated. Some of the older ones can be pretty dire.

As others have already pointed out, proximity can be key. Nearest CY to my employer's major office is 12 minute drive, nearest full service is 25 minutes in ideal traffic, and up to 45 minutes in rush hour traffic. That extra sleep counts a lot even though the CY and FS Marriott have similar rates.

Huh. I'm trying to think of my last CY stay that didn't have both.

To a point - I think SPG is much more successful at this. When I stay at an Elements, a Four Points or an A-Loft I have a much clearer idea of what specific proposition the hotel is going to offer me. Sheraton is obviously a mess, but the same is broadly true that I understand what a St Regis is vs. a Westin or a Design Hotel.

Yes this has been discussed several times in the past but with the program changes I think it's worth bringing up again.

Not much has changed for those that are a fan of CY's - the attraction seems to be that it's more "business-friendly" than SHS and FI for example - which I read as not typically overrun with children and families. And the Bistro provides some sort of restaurant option if you want to call it that but of course many FT'ers are not a fan of the Bistro. And now if you if forego the Welcome points, you can have $10/day to use at the Bistro.

For those that are NOT a fan of CY's, I actually think the upcoming changes make that opinion worse. Many such as myself will typically choose SHS in particular due to the free (and quick) breakfast. However previously SHS only provided a Plat Welcome Gift of 200 points OR a F&B item, whereas CY provided 400 points AND a F&B item. Now the points are equal (500), and CY's $10 credit is a choice instead of the previous F&B item being in addition to (and SHS's is still a choice).

Source:
https://www.marriott.com/marriott-re...mi#gtdplatgift
https://members.marriott.com/wp-cont...ift_Final2.pdf

Side note: Current MR golds that are converted to Plat do seem to make out OK with the new program, with things such as now having access to the Welcome Gift

Price....im very price sensitive on personal travel and try to be the same on company travel. CY/FI/Full service doesn't matter that much to me as its just a bed. I'm not in there for much other than sleeping.

Agreed. Other than in Asia, CY's have a pretty standard offer. But they're not exactly cookie-cutter style hotels. The CY in downtown Montreal is in a modern building with big, modern rooms, but all the same amenities you'd expect. The CY in Charlotte-University (where I've probably stayed the most) is the classic style -- long, low building, but still has a pool, gym, bistro, etc. There are amenity exceptions here and there, but I've never seen a CY offer less than the standard, just a little more sometimes. For example, I've stayed in one that had a small restaurant (not the bistro). I forget the city, may have been Atlanta. So you know what to expect, but sometimes you are pleasantly surprised.

I actually wouldn't call myself a CY fan at all. Just that it serves a purpose within the Marriott family of brands. For example, in Charlotte, there's a full service Hilton across the street. I stay there when I need that type of hotel. When I just need a room to sleep and a quick breakfast before going to a meeting, the CY allows me to keep my Marriott status and accumulate points.

Might depend on the properties you go to, but as someone who has stayed at a lot of domestic US CY properties I've had a microwave at only one.

Fridges are pretty common, but not universal. (The fridges being kind of cheap/crappy is a separate issue, but it beats not having a fridge at all.

One thing for me personally regarding CY is my choice is typically CY vs RI. RI only gets 5 points/$ and CY gets 10. If i am working night shift 6p-6a breakfast isn't a big deal at all and I generally choose CY. If i am on days it gets harder but even then if i have to be at work by 6am, breakfast won't be up and running in time for me to eat before leaving so VoV - still stay at CY.

So just curious, what makes you choose the CY over the SHS which is essentially across the street as well? IMO most would not call the Bistro "quick." The CY is right next to Nakato though so I'll give them that...

That's a good question, and a very fair one. I stay at SHS too. They're not always across the street from each other, and I travel throughout the US for work. In the Woodlands, TX, for example, I often stay in the new(er) SHS. I take into account location and price most often when I'm choosing the hotel. If everything is about equal, I'll stay at a FS Marriott or Ren over the budget brands, for the lounge.

In Milwaukee recently, the CY was significantly lower priced than the SHS and the RI, which were both nearby. I suspect that was the case in Atlanta too but it was a couple years ago, so I have no idea.

I've personally found the beds at the CY to be more comfortable for me than at SHS. But that may be unfounded in any truth, and just my crazy opinion.

And good point about the speed of the bistro. I should have said the convenience of having it in my hotel. Free vs. bistro price doesn't matter much to me when I'm traveling for work.

I think the OP's argument is much more valid if there's a SHS next to every CY, but that's not always the case.

Put me in the group of not actively staying at CY properties. Out of 120-150 nights a year, typically in a Marriott, less than 15 or 20 would be in a CY. RI and TPS are much less and for some years even 0.

Most of the CY properties I've stayed in are the older, brown-ish buildings with the red and yellow interiors. The Bistro is nice, but not something I actively seek out. I typically only stay in a CY if it's the only Marriott property available, and sometimes that's the case on more than 1 occurrence.

Are they worth it? Depends on what you're looking for. If you're going after earning points/stays/nights etc. then obviously that makes it worth it for some.

I have found this to be the case also and have wondered what is wrong with SHS beds. Some are fine, but in my experience, there is a higher than average chance the bed will be uncomfortable. I don't remember a bad bed at CY.

Count me as another not-a-fan of Courtyards. No refrigerator. No microwave. No free breakfast. Bistro is terrible -- limited menu, slow service. And my experience is that the atmosphere is not warm, not welcoming, not open to requests of any sort. There are exceptions, of course, but I have found Courtyards to be consistent --in the US and abroad -- in the worst way. I'll almost always choose another Marriott brand.

Unless they're running a cheap weekend special I'll always avoid domestic Courtyards over any other Marriott brand. No real elite benefits and usually almost as expensive as a full service brand. And half of them are due for being sold off for conversion to a cheaper off brand.

That said, I'm currently in a Courtyard in Asia and wish the Marriotts I frequent stateside were like this. Wonder what international Marriott loyalists (if they exist) think when they visit a domestic Courtyard.

The one Courtyard I'm familiar with gives off "necessary evil" vibes when they acknowledge elite status at check-in.