TravelinSperry

This happened to a coworker in the past. He had them set up a cot in one of their meeting rooms and slept there. A much better solution imo than a car.

jjmoore

I'm not sure how you are connecting my statements as being a defense to the hotel or Marriott.... I'm just saying I would be satisfied with the negotiation for points in place of the $$.....

C17PSGR

+1. And something a remotely competent FD agent should have offered.

catocony

It took me 15 minutes to check into a SHS a few months ago when they lost their internet connection. They had to call in to Marriott reservations to verify reservations. They did have printouts of some, but only for reservations that had been made before that morning.

catocony

JJ, when you use words like "windfall", to me that sounds like you get a lot more than the minimum. The Marriott Plat guarantee is the minimum. Not "up to 90k points" or "up to $100". It's 90k points, $100 and a free night at another hotel. This is not so much as to enrich a customer as it is to be punitive towards Marriott and it's franchisees. Self flagellation, basically, so that the company feels the pain. The combo of three really amplifies to everyone involved on the Marriott side that a mistake was made to a high value customer, and it should not be allowed to happen. Having a hotel cut checks to the customer and the other hotel (assuming it's a different franchisee or different chain) is far more punitive than the points. As I stated before, points are basically monopoly money for hotels. $100 cash or check to a customer, and bigger check to another hotel is real money that shows up directly on the books.

RogerD408

Sounds like an inherent problem with cloud PMS. However, I'm pretty sure the server they use is not the same one that is used for the client-facing web pages, that's just too big of a security risk. So even then, there is probably a sweep process that refreshes the property inventory with the web server data. Hoping the failure rate is very low, I would still expect the property to have a backup plan in play to mitigate such problems, even if it's merely a printout or local file with pertinent data to allow them to process guests. And of course, proper training for staff on how to keep things moving.

Not that they really practice it here, but there are laws to deal with traffic lights going out so we're not at a dead stop until power restored (no jokes about certain hair colored people stuck on escalators please).

C17PSGR

I have a slightly different spin ... the hotel made the decision to sell more rooms a night than they actually had available with the expectation that someone wouldn't show. By doing so, they maximized their revenue because those with reservations who didn't show were charged (and didn't get points). Here, they are compensating the guest for that decision. Even if they had put the guest up in the Four Seasons, they'd likely still be ahead for the week.

dsquared37

But their compensation was half asssed and didn't even approach what was mandated.

C17PSGR

Correction on my part ... the compensation they were supposed to provide Not to mention additional compensation they ought to provide because the FD agent didn't remotely do his/her job -- or even act as a basic human by trying to figure out a solution.

CJKatl

Totally irrelevant to anyone's point, but I have collected the $100 once and was handed it once but declined because after I showed the clerk my reservation was for a King room they found one. Both times it was cash, not a check.

RogerD408

Yes, the terms, at one time called for a cash payout, and I did get a $100 bill after the FDC called his manager. But I have read many reports of people having to wait for a check and sometimes a credit to their CC. Pretty close to rebates where they hope you will forget to send it or that it's been more than 6-8 weeks since request. You snooze, you lose.

catocony

Roger, at least at the mid and lower end chains, I don't think they have a local server. Nothing is stored locally as far as reservations data is concerned. Most have a single ISP circuit and some have single private WAN circuit, usually low-speed MPLS (less than 1mb). Most properties don't have a private circuit at all, they just tunnel everything via VPN over their single ISP circuit. So, one or two CPE boxes, a proxy/firewall for guest internet access, a box for the security cameras and that's about it.

RogerD408

No telling at all. If the owner is a franchisee with multiple properties then I can see them with something that that ties them together. If it's a onesie-twosie type operation then they may not want to invest in the hardware and support that goes along with having local servers. But it's their business and they have to assess what risks they can handle and how much they want to put out to reduce that risk.

catocony

The number of properties doesn't really matter. The central res system is what they all use now. It's much cheaper, much more secure, much easier to maintain. The problem is that properties should have 2-3 ISP circuits instead of what most have, which is one.

jayer

So Pooker buddy; I'm curious. Did you ever get past the dueling finger-pointing and blame game and get a sense what actually happened? Or just drop and roll on with life? Or did I just miss that?