FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Marriott | Marriott Bonvoy (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy-766/)
-   -   Marriott to Eliminate Single-use Toiletry Bottles (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy/1984883-marriott-eliminate-single-use-toiletry-bottles.html)

WillBarrett_68 Aug 30, 19 10:20 am


Originally Posted by Zeeb (Post 31473490)
1) Public Restrooms and Airport lounge showers don't provide someone multiday private access in an entirely uncontrolled environment.

I'm picturing that scene in Pacific Heights where Michael Keaton is drilling and sawing and hammering in his rental unit, except he's in a hotel trying to break into the shampoo

GUWonder Aug 30, 19 10:31 am


Originally Posted by chipmaster (Post 31473791)
A new superbug is being developed and soon it will jump out of your bulk soap/shampoo/conditioner, then after another a few generations of mutation a strain will emerge and it will grow teeth or enzymes to burrow thru your skin and the end will have arrived.

Sorry maybe that is why I find water good enough unless I'm covered is something really nasty and need a little something to break it loose.


Originally Posted by chipmaster (Post 31473798)
Shower with lots of water not clean enough?

Undermining of infection prevention measures — and a move to manual-pump shared toiletry dispensers does that — means increased antibiotic use. And what does increased antibiotic use mean? It means more drug-resistant bacteria in an environment where investing in new antibiotics isn’t as productive as it used to be 40+ years ago.

Water by itself doesn’t decrease bacterial count on skin surfaces anywhere close to as well as the use of warm high-pressure, soapy water derived from rather clean soap. Queue a lesson about ionization and phase behavior of fatty acids in water? ;)

s0ssos Aug 30, 19 10:44 am


Originally Posted by Zeeb (Post 31473490)
1) Public Restrooms and Airport lounge showers don't provide someone multiday private access in an entirely uncontrolled environment.
2) Nobody is talking about an epidemic. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think that 99.9% of the time there will be no issue at all. The whole objection is that when I go to a name brand hotel I don't want to have to wonder if I'm running in to that 0.1% situation.

I'm pretty sure when you stay at your multiple hundreds of dollars a night hotel you are already in the 0.1% in the world.

s0ssos Aug 30, 19 10:47 am


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31473839)
Undermining of infection prevention measures — and a move to manual-pump shared toiletry dispensers does that — means increased antibiotic use. And what does increased antibiotic use mean? It means more drug-resistant bacteria in an environment where investing in new antibiotics isn’t as productive as it used to be 40+ years ago.

Water by itself doesn’t decrease bacterial count on skin surfaces anywhere close to as well as the use of warm high-pressure, soapy water derived from rather clean soap. Queue a lesson about ionization and phase behavior of fatty acids in water? ;)

I don't think you understand infection prevention/control measures. It isn't about "sanitizing" everything. In fact, the prevalence of hand sanitizers probably is worse for antibiotic resistance (as in creates more) than anything else.
Cleanliness is not next to godliness. And not a goal to be achieved by everyone.

As for "investing" in antibiotics, pharmaceuticals don't "invest" in things to help or be productive. They do it to make money. If there were money in it ...

cmd320 Aug 30, 19 10:56 am


Originally Posted by WillBarrett_68 (Post 31473793)
Right, this is all psychological. You're worried about shampoo when the entire room (not to mention trillions of other things you come in contact with every day) is already a "potential infection vector" or whatever.

For me this is less about the bacteria aspect of it and more about the tampering aspect of it. Many of the mini bottles have tops that are extremely difficult to remove, plus, they're replaced after every stay. In contrast, when you look at these large dispensers, they have tops that are easily unscrewable and I'm guessing they're not going to be replaced after each guest. I suppose I have the option to unscrew the top myself, empty all of the contents down the drain and request a new bottle, however this seems tedious and wasteful.

With things people can tamper with who knows what could be in there. Urine, semen, fecal matter, acid, Nair, whatever. Yes, in 99.9% of cases there will probably be no issue, however there's plenty of sick people out there and I'm not really willing to risk it. Personally.

GUWonder Aug 30, 19 11:27 am

Higher end hotels that used to have wall-mounted dispensers for hand soap, for shower gel and for shampoo and for conditioner end up moving slowly but surely to streamlining to fewer wall-mounted dispenser and making toiletries multi-purpose (and not just multi-use). For example, instead of having hotel shampoo & hotel conditioner and shower gel dispensers in the tub/shower area, they end up having two products instead of three there and you may end up with the same product being deliberately provided (by the hotel) for use as shampoo and shower gel. And guess what else may happen, the shower gel-come-shampoo ends up being the same exact liquid that is used in the hand-soap dispenser. This reduces the hotel costs and makes things easier for hotel housekeepers but it’s really a down-grading of the product provided to customers in hotel rooms.

JBord Aug 30, 19 11:34 am


Originally Posted by chipmaster (Post 31473798)
Shower with lots of water not clean enough? What you been sleeping in, or eating and sweating????

I can't even make sense of this comment. Are you suggesting that Marriott should get rid of soap (bar, bottle, or dispenser) all together because one only needs water to be clean? The whole thread is about different types of soaps and you now suggest that they're totally unnecessary.

I won't question your hygiene habits, but most of us use soap when we bathe or shower, regardless of what we've ate or slept in.

Antarius Aug 30, 19 12:37 pm


Originally Posted by Zeeb (Post 31473490)
1) Public Restrooms and Airport lounge showers don't provide someone multiday private access in an entirely uncontrolled environment.
2) Nobody is talking about an epidemic. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think that 99.9% of the time there will be no issue at all. The whole objection is that when I go to a name brand hotel I don't want to have to wonder if I'm running in to that 0.1% situation.

Airport lounge showers provide uncontrolled access for a period of time, during which anyone can put anything they want. Contaminating a dispenser isnt a multi day activity.

0.1% seems awfully high, for something we have no scientific evidence to prove. Technically, brand new vacuum sealed sheets for each customer would be safer than washing them, but no one is clamoring for that.

Antarius Aug 30, 19 1:39 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31473949)
With things people can tamper with who knows what could be in there. Urine, semen, fecal matter, acid, Nair, whatever. Yes, in 99.9% of cases there will probably be no issue, however there's plenty of sick people out there and I'm not really willing to risk it. Personally.

seemingly untouched minis are not always replaced. Also, the pile on the cart is neither secured, nor guarded, making tampering oh so easy.

Given that rooms are merely cleaned and not sanitized, if the fear is sick people, you may not want to stay in a hotel at all.

cmd320 Aug 30, 19 2:23 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 31474478)
seemingly untouched minis are not always replaced. Also, the pile on the cart is neither secured, nor guarded, making tampering oh so easy.

Not really, have you ever tried taking the top off of one of those mini Thann or (whatever the new one is) bottles? It's pretty much impossible without destroying the bottle.

Troopers Aug 30, 19 3:04 pm

The health and safety comments are fascinating. Given the frequency that this FT community travels, I would think health and safety risks concerns (from non-single use toiletries) would be at or near zero. But apparently I'm wrong.

KRSW Aug 30, 19 3:49 pm


Originally Posted by JBord (Post 31473658)
These are two problems I expect as well, although I think it will probably be only 1-2 times per year. I often get into my hotel the night before a meeting and get up and go the next day. No way I'll think to check the soap dispenser in each room. So a 30 min delay in the morning likely means I'm not showering, because I won't be late to my client's meeting. That bar of soap never lets me down, and I feel cleaner than with the liquid soap. :)

Besides the moldy dispensers I encountered last month (and posted the photo above), separately I've also encountered non-functional/empty dispensers.

GUWonder Aug 30, 19 3:55 pm

L

Originally Posted by s0ssos (Post 31473907)
I don't think you understand infection prevention/control measures.

Then what do you think, for surely you just “don’t think”? Or maybe what you say is what you mean? ;)

Your post proclaims “Cleanliness is not next to godliness. And not a goal to be achieved by everyone.” Surely, dipping one’s hands in a public facility’s heavily-used toilet bowl isn’t what anyone here would suggest be the goal along with other things to get away from “cleanliness”?


Originally Posted by s0ssos
As for "investing" in antibiotics, pharmaceuticals don't "invest" in things to help or be productive. They do it to make money. If there were money in it ...

I understand the pharmaceutical business well enough. Investing in new drugs — antibiotics in particular in this case — isn’t all that productive for pharma when the costs of discovery of new antibiotics with higher efficacy levels have been de facto hiked up and compromised as a consequence also of increased (and increased variety of) drug resistance due to use/overuse of more and more antibiotics.

If Marriott really cared about the environment and public health — not that they really do — they would be willing to cut back on the hotel gross margins from food and beverage sales/service. But they don’t really care, and they are really just cherry picking to maximize their profits and/or to virtue signal to gullible audiences that don’t fully appreciate that there can be negative environmental and public byproducts from moves that at first blush may seem to be positive overall but really may or may not be.

With or without any appreciation for anything beside a simple-minded “stop single-use toiletry containers” when it comes to this Marriott move, there are going to be practical problems that this kind of move will lead to for hotel customers.

There is a reason why one of the first things I do upon entering a bathroom with fixed toiletry dispensers is to check to make sure that:

1. there is actually stuff in the dispensers to come out; and

2. the stuff comes out; and

3. it seems to be like soap rather than body lotion or who knows what else.

It’s because the hotels mess up way more extremely with dispenser toiletries than single-use toiletries and because cleanliness does matter enough that it’s a public health benefit to have people make more of a habit of properly washing their hands and doing so rather frequently at that. ;)

Washing hands without soap is just a very poor substitute to washing hands with proper soap without manual pump dispenser issues. ;)

CPH-Flyer Aug 30, 19 5:18 pm

I did not get to the articles yesterday as work took my day, will see if I can get some time this weekend.

I will skip the MSN one though, I doubt the scientific value of that one. Maybe slight higher than News of the World? :D

GUWonder Aug 30, 19 5:26 pm


Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer (Post 31475015)
I did not get to the articles yesterday as work took my day, will see if I can get some time this weekend.

I will skip the MSN one though, I doubt the scientific value of that one. Maybe slight higher than News of the World? :D

I wouldn’t skip the MSN one, which is but a redistribution of what is indeed akin to News of the World; but it mentions some names that are useful to follow-up on for those who find information valuable in a world where otherwise things are packaged to grab attention as part of the vulgar orders of the day.

chipmaster Aug 30, 19 6:12 pm


Originally Posted by Troopers (Post 31474674)
The health and safety comments are fascinating. Given the frequency that this FT community travels, I would think health and safety risks concerns (from non-single use toiletries) would be at or near zero. But apparently I'm wrong.

Golden post, but it is the internet

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...4235343453.jpg

s0ssos Aug 30, 19 7:44 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31473949)
With things people can tamper with who knows what could be in there. Urine, semen, fecal matter, acid, Nair, whatever. Yes, in 99.9% of cases there will probably be no issue, however there's plenty of sick people out there and I'm not really willing to risk it. Personally.

Well, the good news is that you won't have a choice.
Policy decisions aren't made at the individual level. There are always different preferences. But that's not how policy works. It is for the good of the whole. Not for 0.01% of the people.

s0ssos Aug 30, 19 7:48 pm


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31474853)
L

Then what do you think, for surely you just “don’t think”? Or maybe what you say is what you mean? ;)

Your post proclaims “Cleanliness is not next to godliness. And not a goal to be achieved by everyone.” Surely, dipping one’s hands in a public facility’s heavily-used toilet bowl isn’t what anyone here would suggest be the goal along with other things to get away from “cleanliness”?


So, do you think the ideal scenario for "infection prevention" is sterilizing the hotel rooms? Do you think having disposable everything is a great solution short of that?


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31474853)
I understand the pharmaceutical business well enough. Investing in new drugs — antibiotics in particular in this case — isn’t all that productive for pharma when the costs of discovery of new antibiotics with higher efficacy levels have been de facto hiked up and compromised as a consequence also of increased (and increased variety of) drug resistance due to use/overuse of more and more antibiotics.

Actually, I don't think you understand pharmaceutical companies nor research. It isn't so much "discovering" new antibiotics, and efficacy doesn't even make any sense if you know what you're talking about (I've never heard the term "efficacious" antibiotic. What is an efficacy level of an antibiotic?)
It isn't so much about drug resistance, though that is usually the impetus for developing a new antibiotic. It is about the adverse effects/side effects and the fact drugs have to be super-duper safe nowadays. Otherwise it is hard to get approval, with the double whammy of lawsuits. Which can easily wipe out your profits from a blockbuster drug (look at Merck and Vioxx)

GUWonder Aug 30, 19 8:33 pm

I think some need to first understand what “I don’t think” means in this context, as the phrase may or may not be intended to mean “I think you don’t ......”.

Providing questionable lessons about the pharmaceutical industry, antibiotic development pipelines or health and hygiene science related to this Marriott move is of diminished utility when they come packaged with grammar which doesn’t facilitate a meaningful, good-faith discussion about this Marriott move and topics related to it. But good-faith discussions about all of this are far and few between when one or more idea about this Marriott change is rooted in an ideological or financial self-interest to defend Marriott on this move come whatever may from it.


Originally Posted by s0ssos
So, do you think the ideal scenario for "infection prevention" is sterilizing the hotel rooms? Do you think having disposable everything is a great solution short of that?


Actually, I don't think you understand pharmaceutical companies nor research. It isn't so much "discovering" new antibiotics, and efficacy doesn't even make any sense if you know what you're talking about (I've never heard the term "efficacious" antibiotic. What is an efficacy level of an antibiotic?)
It isn't so much about drug resistance, though that is usually the impetus for developing a new antibiotic. It is about the adverse effects/side effects and the fact drugs have to be super-duper safe nowadays. Otherwise it is hard to get approval, with the double whammy of lawsuits. Which can easily wipe out your profits from a blockbuster drug (look at Merck and Vioxx)

It almost seems like I might have to provide a lesson in my meaning of “also” in the post of mine quoted by the above.

But I’ll let Wikipedia be your guide about “efficacy”. ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy

If Marriott went only to touch-less toiletry dispensers, there would be less of a concern about pathogen exposure via the dispensers. But Marriott hotels are probably too cheap to do that and do it in a way that has them always fully functional for hotel guests.

cmd320 Aug 30, 19 10:58 pm


Originally Posted by s0ssos (Post 31475297)
Well, the good news is that you won't have a choice.
Policy decisions aren't made at the individual level. There are always different preferences. But that's not how policy works. It is for the good of the whole. Not for 0.01% of the people.

I absolutely do have a choice. I can stay elsewhere. I can bring my own travel size products. I can request the large ones be replaced with new ones on arrival.

Badenoch Aug 31, 19 5:36 am

What is surprising is the inordinate terror generated in some FT posters in response to something as simple as a soap dispenser in a hotel room. Forget nukes, Ebola, climate change, auto accidents and handguns. The real threat to life and limb is soap dispensers. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rolleyes:

GUWonder Aug 31, 19 8:06 am


Originally Posted by Badenoch (Post 31476191)
What is surprising is the inordinate terror generated in some FT posters in response to something as simple as a soap dispenser in a hotel room. Forget nukes, Ebola, climate change, auto accidents and handguns. The real threat to life and limb is soap dispensers. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

It’s not terror that is generated by this move by Marriott. It’s just acknowledgment that this kind of move by Marriott isn’t without it’s own set of problems and really isn’t a “save the world” panacea no matter how it’s packaged by those with unqualified support for this Marriott move.

Of those who aren’t financially in bed with Marriott (more as a non-customer than as a customer), who really wants Marriott hotels to fail to clean the dispensers properly; to fail to refill the dispensers properly; to hassle or charge customers for wall-dispensers broken in the course of normal wear and tear; to have the dispenser solutions mislabeled and/or adulterated by accident or by unscrupulous intent? I would hope nobody here wants any of that, but this is FT where most any corporate move that annoys one or more customers probably has a defender to come along to exhort customers to not complain or voice concerns and to buy into the corporate/industry PR game.

JBord Aug 31, 19 8:23 am


Originally Posted by Badenoch (Post 31476191)
What is surprising is the inordinate terror generated in some FT posters in response to something as simple as a soap dispenser in a hotel room. Forget nukes, Ebola, climate change, auto accidents and handguns. The real threat to life and limb is soap dispensers. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rolleyes:

I think fear would be a better word than terror. But right or wrong, facts & evidence or not, hotel rooms and soap dispensers are things that most of us have much more real and direct exposure to on a daily basis. They're also things that are easily remedied (or in this case, not placed to begin with). So we discuss the pros and cons.

There's also little I can do on a daily basis to prevent the other things you list. The one that I can prevent is auto accidents, and therefore I drive as little as possible.

Whether it's natural to fear things that we encounter every day is another issue. I don't oppose the dispensers because of typical germs we encounter every day. I am concerned with tampering to a small extent, but my opposition is based on functionality and effectiveness.

cmd320 Aug 31, 19 9:18 am


Originally Posted by Badenoch (Post 31476191)
What is surprising is the inordinate terror generated in some FT posters in response to something as simple as a soap dispenser in a hotel room. Forget nukes, Ebola, climate change, auto accidents and handguns. The real threat to life and limb is soap dispensers. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rolleyes:

With the possible exception of auto accidents, these items affect me in about zero ways on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm in hotels 50+ nights a year which means on average at least once a week I have to use these products.

chipmaster Aug 31, 19 10:12 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31476698)
With the possible exception of auto accidents, these items affect me in about zero ways on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm in hotels 50+ nights a year which means on average at least once a week I have to use these products.


Originally Posted by JBord (Post 31476568)
I think fear would be a better word than terror. But right or wrong, facts & evidence or not, hotel rooms and soap dispensers are things that most of us have much more real and direct exposure to on a daily basis. They're also things that are easily remedied (or in this case, not placed to begin with). So we discuss the pros and cons.

There's also little I can do on a daily basis to prevent the other things you list. The one that I can prevent is auto accidents, and therefore I drive as little as possible.

Whether it's natural to fear things that we encounter every day is another issue. I don't oppose the dispensers because of typical germs we encounter every day. I am concerned with tampering to a small extent, but my opposition is based on functionality and effectiveness.

I found several posts concerned about tampering, but as road warriors the inconvenience or danger of removal of the little personal amenities if that is what the road warrior fears from the prior guest, should he be worried about the bed, the remote control, what might be in the ventilation vent, what my the tampering be in the buffet line, or kitchen, good god the conspiracy fear has no bounds :D

jrich7970 Aug 31, 19 10:43 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31476698)
With the possible exception of auto accidents, these items affect me in about zero ways on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm in hotels 50+ nights a year which means on average at least once a week I have to use these products.

But you don't have to use these products. As a 100+ nights a year person as well...if I had an issue with these dispensers, I would just bring my own. And I might start. A little bottle of shampoo lasts me more than the 5 days I'm there. So, filling one up and tossing it in my bag before I leave isn't exactly a big deal.

Just my opinion. Others may differ.

bhrubin Aug 31, 19 12:01 pm


Originally Posted by Badenoch (Post 31476191)
What is surprising is the inordinate terror generated in some FT posters in response to something as simple as a soap dispenser in a hotel room. Forget nukes, Ebola, climate change, auto accidents and handguns. The real threat to life and limb is soap dispensers. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rolleyes:

I love you. :D:D:D

Hysteria and FlyerTalk go hand in hand for far too many. It tends to come from those who also are terrified of travel to Mexico, are upset the lounge isn't open 24/7, believe they are entitled to the Presidential Suite upgrade as a Gold elite, think the hotel owes them compensation after the power goes out because of a storm, are furious that they can't get Coca-Cola products, etc.

rickg523 Aug 31, 19 12:12 pm

Like the modern Western world in general, FT has its share of excessive germaphobes. And a smattering of projectionists who seem to believe that someone somewhere will actually live out their dark fantasies (never, ever them, of course; they would never!)

cmd320 Aug 31, 19 1:25 pm


Originally Posted by chipmaster (Post 31476843)
I found several posts concerned about tampering, but as road warriors the inconvenience or danger of removal of the little personal amenities if that is what the road warrior fears from the prior guest, should he be worried about the bed, the remote control, what might be in the ventilation vent, what my the tampering be in the buffet line, or kitchen, good god the conspiracy fear has no bounds :D

Linens on the bed are changed after each guest, though I do usually give the bed a little inspection when I get into a room to ensure there isn't any presence of bed bugs or anything else that looks questionable. The remote I'll usually hit with a Clorox wipe. I don't ordinarily contact the vents in any way.


Originally Posted by jrich7970 (Post 31476911)
But you don't have to use these products. As a 100+ nights a year person as well...if I had an issue with these dispensers, I would just bring my own. And I might start. A little bottle of shampoo lasts me more than the 5 days I'm there. So, filling one up and tossing it in my bag before I leave isn't exactly a big deal.

Just my opinion. Others may differ.

No disagreement. I sometimes do bring my own but its obviously far more convenient for the hotel to provide this which is something I expect paying anywhere from $200-$500+/night.

GUWonder Aug 31, 19 2:05 pm


Originally Posted by bhrubin (Post 31477114)
I love you. :D:D:D

Hysteria and FlyerTalk go hand in hand for far too many. It tends to come from those who also are terrified of travel to Mexico, are upset the lounge isn't open 24/7, believe they are entitled to the Presidential Suite upgrade as a Gold elite, think the hotel owes them compensation after the power goes out because of a storm, are furious that they can't get Coca-Cola products, etc.

Want hysteria? Should we just wait until Marriott hotels throttle the hotel room air condition in even the hot parts of summer and just claim that the money-saving measure keeping the rooms hot is being done to “save the world” and should not be challenged by customers? :D

Not happy with a “hot” room at night? Well, think of it just as “saving the world”? :eek:

chipmaster Aug 31, 19 2:05 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31477310)
Linens on the bed are changed after each guest, though I do usually give the bed a little inspection when I get into a room to ensure there isn't any presence of bed bugs or anything else that looks questionable. The remote I'll usually hit with a Clorox wipe. I don't ordinarily contact the vents in any way.



No disagreement. I sometimes do bring my own but its obviously far more convenient for the hotel to provide this which is something I expect paying anywhere from $200-$500+/night.

You really sure they change linens, maid sure could save some time and effort just making the bed, get her shift done earlier, management push to save on a lot of water and soap too.

Sure they washed the dishes,lots of things you can conspire, you heard about the things that happen or are speculated to happen in China?

bhrubin Aug 31, 19 2:24 pm


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31477396)
Want hysteria? Should we just wait until Marriott hotels throttle the hotel room air condition in even the hot parts of summer and just claim that the energy saving keeping the rooms hot is being done to “save the world”? :D

Not happy with a “hot” room at night? Well, think of it just as “saving the world”? :eek:

Can we get a red herring/straw man fallacy alert?

I ask every hotel in advance if they can cool to 67 F or below. There's no hysteria. Not being pleased and holding a hotel accountable when a hotel is unable to deliver on what was promised is not hysteria.

Experts confirm that sleeping between 60-67 F is best for most humans--since lower temperatures lower our blood pressure, which also helps us go to sleep. (That's the same principle used by most prescription sleep aids, by the way.)

No one's comfort or ability to wash themselves is in any way impaired by this change to avoid so many small plastic containers. Oops. Nice try. but no one is buying.

GUWonder Aug 31, 19 2:41 pm


Originally Posted by bhrubin (Post 31477448)
Can we get a red herring/straw man fallacy alert?

I ask every hotel in advance if they can cool to 67 F or below. There's no hysteria. Not being pleased and holding a hotel accountable when a hotel is unable to deliver on what was promised is not hysteria.

Experts confirm that sleeping between 60-67 F is best for most humans--since lower temperatures lower our blood pressure, which also helps us go to sleep. (That's the same principle used by most prescription sleep aids, by the way.)

No one's comfort or ability to wash themselves is in any way impaired by this change to avoid so many small plastic containers. Oops. Nice try. but no one is buying.

Sounds like the same kind of hysteria to me: sometimes things go wrong with hotel air condition, just like sometimes things go wrong with wall-mounted, toiletry dispensers.

And hotels throttling the air condition is a cost-saving measure that can also be proclaimed to “save the world”, so why not just accept hot hotel rooms in the same way as accepting wall-mounted toiletry dispensers in hotel rooms? It’s all about “saving the world”, isn’t it? :D

For what it’s worth, I would complain about service degradation and failures related to my hotel room air condition-related interests. Same “hysteria” when it comes to service degradation and failures related to my hotel room toiletry-related interests. Consistency in the “hysteria” approach beggars the above allegations about straw men and red herrings coming from my post.

Antarius Aug 31, 19 3:45 pm


Originally Posted by chipmaster (Post 31477400)
You really sure they change linens, maid sure could save some time and effort just making the bed, get her shift done earlier, management push to save on a lot of water and soap too.

Sure they washed the dishes,lots of things you can conspire, you heard about the things that happen or are speculated to happen in China?

This. We don't know for sure. As a result, we have to either take it on faith or perform a cursory inspection and make a determination based on that.

there is no way to know for sure that the linens were washed at a high enough temperature to kill everything or that there isnt legionnaires disease in the HVAC. Both things I dont worry about, but seem to be far more likely to get you sick than soap dispensers.

jrich7970 Aug 31, 19 8:50 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31477310)
Linens on the bed are changed after each guest, though I do usually give the bed a little inspection when I get into a room to ensure there isn't any presence of bed bugs or anything else that looks questionable. The remote I'll usually hit with a Clorox wipe. I don't ordinarily contact the vents in any way.



No disagreement. I sometimes do bring my own but its obviously far more convenient for the hotel to provide this which is something I expect paying anywhere from $200-$500+/night.

So, the first time I ran in to this situation I was at the Royal Sonesta in Boston (well, Cambridge, to be exact), and didn't think anything of it, although I'm not a fan of body wash, I prefer bar soap. The second time was about six months ago at the Autograph Collection in Annapolis. Again, didn't think anything of it except the annoyance of body wash. Don't know how long they have been doing this....has the Autograph Collection already made the switch everywhere?

But now, FT has gotten me all into a lather (pun intended), and I might start bringing my own stuff.

GUWonder Sep 1, 19 6:10 am

A partial list of “environmentally-friendly”, hotel cost-cutting measures to be expected from hotels that go with wall-mounted toiletry dispensers:

1) hotel room lights and power sockets that only work if room key slot is loaded with a key and/or there is motion detected in the room;

2) hotel room air conditioning system that only works if room key slot is loaded with a key and/or if there is motion detected in the room/bathroom;

3) hotel room air conditioning that is throttled to not allow room temperature adjustments of more than +/- 2C from the central temperature setting even when the room key slot for power activation is loaded with a key and/or there is motion detected in the room/bathroom;

4) bathroom water-dispensing fixtures get metered/throttled to limit water usage/flow/pressure in sink and/or shower/tub;

5) bathroom toiletry-dispensing devices get metered/throttled to limit toiletry usage;

6) daily housekeeping in the rooms not standard included service for multi-night stays and/or eliminated;

7) increased/new fees for hotel parking lots and/or hotel eliminating/reducing their parking lots;

8) surcharge for provisioning of (any/additional) bed and bathroom linens/towels;

9) elimination/cutback on providing hotel stationery/paper/pens/pencils.

Any other such moves that Marriott has or should entertain in the name of “save the world” measures as part of a more expansive hotel cost-cutting culture?

CPH-Flyer Sep 1, 19 6:27 am


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31478948)
A partial list of “environmentally-friendly”, hotel cost-cutting measures to be expected from hotels that go with wall-mounted toiletry dispensers:

1) hotel room lights and power sockets that only work if room key slot is loaded with a key and/or there is motion detected in the room;

2) hotel room air conditioning system that only works if room key slot is loaded with a key and/or if there is motion detected in the room/bathroom;

3) hotel room air conditioning that is throttled to not allow room temperature adjustment by more than +/- 2C key from the central office setting slot even when the room key slot for power activation is loaded with a key and/or there is motion detected in the room/bathroom;

4) bathroom water-dispensing fixtures get metered/throttled to limit water usage/flow/pressure in sink and/or shower/tub;

5) bathroom toiletry-dispensing devices get metered/throttled to limit toiletry usage;

6) daily housekeeping in the rooms not standard included service for multi-night stays and/or eliminated;

7) increased/new fees for hotel parking lots and/or hotel eliminating/reducing their parking lots;

8) surcharge for provisioning of (any/additional) bed and bathroom linens/towels;

9) elimination/cutback on providing hotel stationery/paper/pens/pencils.

Any other such moves that Marriott has or should entertain in the name of “save the world” measures as part of a more expansive hotel cost-cutting culture?

1+2 is already there in many hotels, except for the motion sensor bit.

I saw 4 in form of no plugs in the sinks or tubs and some of the most drastic water saving on the shower heads in Cape Town. Though for a very good reason.

I am sure that 3 probably is already there. Though I can't say I have noticed it. My most frequent fights over aircon is usually in Singapore where housekeeping seems to adjust it down to 17 degrees from my more comfy 23.

6 is already there in form of make a green choice.

Some LA hotels has already taken your advice on parking fees to heart.

9 is probably not going to happen, as that is more advertising than

Stay in a Courtyard or Four Points and you are probably close to 50% there. Depending a bit on the specific hotel.

GUWonder Sep 1, 19 6:47 am


Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer (Post 31478986)
1+2 is already there in many hotels, except for the motion sensor bit.

I saw 4 in form of no plugs in the sinks or tubs and some of the most drastic water saving on the shower heads in Cape Town. Though for a very good reason.

I am sure that 3 probably is already there. Though I can't say I have noticed it. My most frequent fights over aircon is usually in Singapore where housekeeping seems to adjust it down to 17 degrees from my more comfy 23.

6 is already there in form of make a green choice.

Some LA hotels has already taken your advice on parking fees to heart.

9 is probably not going to happen, as that is more advertising than

Stay in a Courtyard or Four Points and you are probably close to 50% there. Depending a bit on the specific hotel.

The motion sensor bit and the hotel stationery cutbacks have already hit in bits at some hotels.

All 9 have already hit in some way at hotels, and the hotels are laughing all the way to the bank about customers being exhorted to go along with the so-called virtue signaling.

CPH-Flyer Sep 1, 19 6:57 am


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 31479033)


The motion sensor bit and the hotel stationery cutbacks have already hit in bits at some hotels.

All 9 have already hit in some way at hotels, and the hotels are laughing all the way to the bank about customers being exhorted to go along with the so-called virtue signaling.

How does the motion sensor work when you sleep?

GUWonder Sep 1, 19 7:24 am


Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer (Post 31479050)
How does the motion sensor work when you sleep?

It works when someone moves. I’ve seen hotels keep the bathroom light/power sockets tied to motion detector-based activation since doing it in the rest of the hotel room got complaints during testing.

The motion detectors can activate the lights and/or the power. And the duration for which any given motion keeps the power running and/or lights on can vary.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:49 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.