Advice Needed, Hotel Breach of Contract - W New York - Union Square
Apr 1, 2015, 11:00 am
#211
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 1,134
I also think that I've been good about telling both sides of the story (although I don't really understand the hotel's argument), I think I was really reasonable to not include the names of hotel employees on this thread, which could have potentially hindered future career opportunities for them.
As for not including the person's name, it does not take much to take the title you provided multiple times - "W Insider" - and find the page on the W Union Square website with her profile on it. You may not have included it directly, but you did disclose enough information for anyone with basic knowledge of a search engine or the ability to browse a website to discover the real name of the employee. I don't believe that was directed at me (as I don't care one way or the other), but just as an FYI on the courtesy you were providing to her...
I really resent that fact that you continue to say 30+ (in some previous posts you've said 32), I stated that I intended to have 25-30 people at the celebration, which was including myself. On the first round of invites that were sent out, I only received 18 yes RSVPs.
Last edited by jibi; Apr 1, 2015 at 11:06 am
Apr 1, 2015, 11:53 am
#212
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,324
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2; en-us; LGL31L/V100 Build/KOT49I.L31L10d) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/30.0.1599.103 Mobile Safari/537.36)
The fact that you do not understand their argument (and perhaps do not truly know their argument) is the basis of you not being able to tell both sides of the story. They could have decided to pull the rug simply because they needed the extra space. They could have decided that you came across as a prick who would likely not live up to your agreement to be polite and courteous to other guests. They could have decided that they simply did not want the potential liability. They could have decided that they should be able to make some additional money on an informal event at the hotel. None of these could be the reason they provided to you, of course, and thus you would be unable to tell their side of the story.
As for not including the person's name, it does not take much to take the title you provided multiple times - "W Insider" - and find the page on the W Union Square website with her profile on it. You may not have included it directly, but you did disclose enough information for anyone with basic knowledge of a search engine or the ability to browse a website to discover the real name of the employee. I don't believe that was directed at me (as I don't care one way or the other), but just as an FYI on the courtesy you were providing to her...
I'm not really sure the number of people matter, although that number certainly will cause the individual impact of each guest to be heard/felt exponentially. One question to you (and perhaps you've already answered, although that is unclear), did you discuss the potential maximum number of guests (up to 30) when you first called central reservations to put this together (you said you mentioned "small party" or "small gathering" or something along those lines) or did that first come up a couple weeks ago when you began speaking to the W Insider (or some other time)?
Thank you jibi for your posts on this thread. Are you the GM or an employee of this W Hotel?
Originally Posted by jibi
I also think that I've been good about telling both sides of the story (although I don't really understand the hotel's argument), I think I was really reasonable to not include the names of hotel employees on this thread, which could have potentially hindered future career opportunities for them.
As for not including the person's name, it does not take much to take the title you provided multiple times - "W Insider" - and find the page on the W Union Square website with her profile on it. You may not have included it directly, but you did disclose enough information for anyone with basic knowledge of a search engine or the ability to browse a website to discover the real name of the employee. I don't believe that was directed at me (as I don't care one way or the other), but just as an FYI on the courtesy you were providing to her...
I really resent that fact that you continue to say 30+ (in some previous posts you've said 32), I stated that I intended to have 25-30 people at the celebration, which was including myself. On the first round of invites that were sent out, I only received 18 yes RSVPs.
Apr 1, 2015, 12:22 pm
#213
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 1,134
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2; en-us; LGL31L/V100 Build/KOT49I.L31L10d) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/30.0.1599.103 Mobile Safari/537.36)
Thank you jibi for your posts on this thread. Are you the GM or an employee of this W Hotel?
Thank you jibi for your posts on this thread. Are you the GM or an employee of this W Hotel?
Apr 1, 2015, 2:16 pm
#214
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
The fact that you do not understand their argument (and perhaps do not truly know their argument) is the basis of you not being able to tell both sides of the story. They could have decided to pull the rug simply because they needed the extra space. They could have decided that you came across as a prick who would likely not live up to your agreement to be polite and courteous to other guests. They could have decided that they simply did not want the potential liability. They could have decided that they should be able to make some additional money on an informal event at the hotel. None of these could be the reason they provided to you, of course, and thus you would be unable to tell their side of the story.
As for not including the person's name, it does not take much to take the title you provided multiple times - "W Insider" - and find the page on the W Union Square website with her profile on it. You may not have included it directly, but you did disclose enough information for anyone with basic knowledge of a search engine or the ability to browse a website to discover the real name of the employee.
I'm not really sure the number of people matter, although that number certainly will cause the individual impact of each guest to be heard/felt exponentially.
Apr 1, 2015, 5:34 pm
#215
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 1,134
One person in a room makes a certain amount of noise. Two people in a room make more noise. Three people in a room make more noise. So on and so forth. As more and more guests arrive in a single room, the number of separate conversations grows and groups naturally form. Natural social patterns will cause noise levels to increase, exponentially. ^
Apr 1, 2015, 7:26 pm
#216
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: Hyatt Glob; UA 1K; BonVoyage LTT (RIP SPG); HH Dia; JX Insighter
Posts: 1,643
One person in a room makes a certain amount of noise. Two people in a room make more noise. Three people in a room make more noise. So on and so forth. As more and more guests arrive in a single room, the number of separate conversations grows and groups naturally form. Natural social patterns will cause noise levels to increase, exponentially. ^
Apr 1, 2015, 8:17 pm
#217
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Programs: Etihad Guest
Posts: 1,549
Sorry OP, I meant no offence. But if you invite 30 people, you have to factor in that they might all come!
Apr 1, 2015, 8:43 pm
#218
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Programs: Etihad Guest
Posts: 1,549
As a number of us have written the $5000 quote was probably intended:
A) to make a price-sensitive visitor elect to cancel of his own volition, and
B) failing that, to allow the property to leave the rest of the floor unsold to minimise complaints from other guests.
This is not a case like the notorious St Regis bespoke suit one. The OP sounds like a nice guy who thinks - wrongly in my opinion - that a room booking entitles a person to host a party in it. I think a whole-floor booking might, with the property's explicit written consent.
I feel sorry for the OP but I am delighted that one of the outcomes is a clear affirmation of the no-party policy.
As far as I'm concerned, any gathering in a hotel room or suite containing more than double the maximum permitted number of registered guests for that room is anti-social and unacceptable.
A) to make a price-sensitive visitor elect to cancel of his own volition, and
B) failing that, to allow the property to leave the rest of the floor unsold to minimise complaints from other guests.
This is not a case like the notorious St Regis bespoke suit one. The OP sounds like a nice guy who thinks - wrongly in my opinion - that a room booking entitles a person to host a party in it. I think a whole-floor booking might, with the property's explicit written consent.
I feel sorry for the OP but I am delighted that one of the outcomes is a clear affirmation of the no-party policy.
As far as I'm concerned, any gathering in a hotel room or suite containing more than double the maximum permitted number of registered guests for that room is anti-social and unacceptable.
Apr 1, 2015, 10:07 pm
#219
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
I've attended a number of parties for about 50 people in Starwood suites in major USA cities during large conventions. In some cases, the hosts procured alcohol off the property and brought it in and out of the hotel discretely, although the suite that I remember most was in the historic part of the Westin St Francis facing Union Square and I don't remember whether or not those hosts sourced the alcohol through the hotel's room service or banquet operations.
I also attended a similar sized gathering in a suite (with living room, dining room, and large parlor plus IIRC two bedrooms) at the Plaza (NYC) which was clearly catered by the hotel's F&B department with the blessing of hotel management. My impression was that the wine and passed heavy appetizers weren't outrageously expensive, but I didn't see the bill.
Personally, I've hosted perhaps a dozen considerate people for pre dinner drinks (supplied by me) in suites at the Westin Michigan Avenue (Chicago) and the Grand Hotel (not SPG) in Stockholm.
Plus I've participated in FT DO parties in Hyatt suites in at least three countries as well as the Sheraton Libertador's Presidential Suite in Buenos Aires. All of these events were self catered and had mostly drinks with little food.
There's a annual post-party party in a suite at a Westin I know, implicitly with very much the blessing of management. The host and guests supply the wine. This follows a large charity event in the hotel for which the hotel is a co-sponsor. Everyone seems well behaved and I've never heard of this group causing much trouble.
So I would disagree that hotels generally don't permit parties in suites, although I know one Starwood hotel that explicitly prohibits it--by strictly limiting the number of people that may be in the room or suite at any time--and threatens to charge penalty fees if guests of guests ever cause any other guests to complain. (My impression is that this place really means it and does enforce the rules.)
Thus IME the rules aren't so obvious or uniform across hotels. Still, I can very much understand the W Union Square being very concerned about 25-30 guests for a 25th birthday party with 100% self catering, including alcohol.
I also attended a similar sized gathering in a suite (with living room, dining room, and large parlor plus IIRC two bedrooms) at the Plaza (NYC) which was clearly catered by the hotel's F&B department with the blessing of hotel management. My impression was that the wine and passed heavy appetizers weren't outrageously expensive, but I didn't see the bill.
Personally, I've hosted perhaps a dozen considerate people for pre dinner drinks (supplied by me) in suites at the Westin Michigan Avenue (Chicago) and the Grand Hotel (not SPG) in Stockholm.
Plus I've participated in FT DO parties in Hyatt suites in at least three countries as well as the Sheraton Libertador's Presidential Suite in Buenos Aires. All of these events were self catered and had mostly drinks with little food.
There's a annual post-party party in a suite at a Westin I know, implicitly with very much the blessing of management. The host and guests supply the wine. This follows a large charity event in the hotel for which the hotel is a co-sponsor. Everyone seems well behaved and I've never heard of this group causing much trouble.
So I would disagree that hotels generally don't permit parties in suites, although I know one Starwood hotel that explicitly prohibits it--by strictly limiting the number of people that may be in the room or suite at any time--and threatens to charge penalty fees if guests of guests ever cause any other guests to complain. (My impression is that this place really means it and does enforce the rules.)
Thus IME the rules aren't so obvious or uniform across hotels. Still, I can very much understand the W Union Square being very concerned about 25-30 guests for a 25th birthday party with 100% self catering, including alcohol.
Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 1, 2015 at 10:17 pm
Apr 2, 2015, 1:23 am
#220
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Programs: AA EXP, SPG Plt
Posts: 2,607
Wirelessly posted (Blackberry8700c: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 5.0.2; HTC6525LVW Build/LRX22G) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/41.0.2272.96 Mobile Safari/537.36)
That's not exponential growth but linear growth. Google it.
Originally Posted by jibi
One person in a room makes a certain amount of noise. Two people in a room make more noise. Three people in a room make more noise. So on and so forth. As more and more guests arrive in a single room, the number of separate conversations grows and groups naturally form. Natural social patterns will cause noise levels to increase, exponentially. ^
Apr 2, 2015, 10:52 pm
#222
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
One person in a room makes a certain amount of noise. Two people in a room make more noise. Three people in a room make more noise. So on and so forth. As more and more guests arrive in a single room, the number of separate conversations grows and groups naturally form. Natural social patterns will cause noise levels to increase, exponentially. ^
Hint: if each person got twice as loud when there were twice as many people in the room (so, overall 4 times as loud) that would be merely quadratic growth. For exponential growth, each person would have to get twice as loud for each additional person, and human vocal cords aren't up to the task.
Apr 3, 2015, 2:18 am
#223
Join Date: Oct 2000
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Ambassador/Lifetime Titanium, Accor Silver, Club Carlson Gold, BW Diamond
Posts: 2,432
I consider that proof that you don't understand what "exponentially" means.
Hint: if each person got twice as loud when there were twice as many people in the room (so, overall 4 times as loud) that would be merely quadratic growth. For exponential growth, each person would have to get twice as loud for each additional person, and human vocal cords aren't up to the task.
Hint: if each person got twice as loud when there were twice as many people in the room (so, overall 4 times as loud) that would be merely quadratic growth. For exponential growth, each person would have to get twice as loud for each additional person, and human vocal cords aren't up to the task.
Another stupid tangent. Not tangentially stupid. Actually full-on stupid.
Time to close this thread?
Apr 3, 2015, 6:47 am
#224
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,324
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2; en-us; LGL31L/V100 Build/KOT49I.L31L10d) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/30.0.1599.103 Mobile Safari/537.36)
good to know, but......
Another stupid tangent. Not tangentially stupid. Actually full-on stupid.
Time to close this thread?
Not time to close thread its time to jump the shark and take this thread in a new direction while we wait for OP to report back after his big bday bash.
Originally Posted by clublounger
I consider that proof that you don't understand what "exponentially" means.
Hint: if each person got twice as loud when there were twice as many people in the room (so, overall 4 times as loud) that would be merely quadratic growth. For exponential growth, each person would have to get twice as loud for each additional person, and human vocal cords aren't up to the task.
Hint: if each person got twice as loud when there were twice as many people in the room (so, overall 4 times as loud) that would be merely quadratic growth. For exponential growth, each person would have to get twice as loud for each additional person, and human vocal cords aren't up to the task.
Another stupid tangent. Not tangentially stupid. Actually full-on stupid.
Time to close this thread?
