YVRStarFlyer

Airline I always stick within the alliance just because of the extra perks. When I'm travelling within NA I will stick with the big chain for points just because its hard to find independent hotels in NA and I don't like AirBnB. However, after Fairmont totally screwed me over with their new program I'm really second guessing the hotel points. When I'm travelling outside of NA I like to look for more unique places to stay but sometimes still end up at a big chain.

DenverBrian

Best Western is unique in that it's more of a buyer's club for independent owners and operators. It's not a regular franchise model. It's where a heck of a lot of mom-and-pop hotels have gone to get pricing power on sheets and towels, amenities, etc.

The "I won't stay in a soulless chain" meme has always smacked of rampant elitism and #firstworldproblem to me. I guarantee you the housekeeper in the chain hotel needs to put food on the table just as much as the one in the B&B or the boutique hotel. @:-)

cblaisd

Exactly. Made my point better than I did.

mlin32

It depends where I am going.

I have a thing for staying at B&Bs (chambres d'hôtes) in France and Germany where I'm comfortable with the language, customs, and consistent quality of such accomodations, and I like supporting the small guy. Gives much more flavour to my holiday. And in a similar vein, if I feel comfortable with mom-pop hotels in western Europe, I'll do that over a chain.

But I feel in places like the United States and Asia, I'd rather stick with the consistency of a major chain.

melmike

We do both: chase points and stay at boutique hotels, it just depends where. We travel for pleasure only: heading to Europe we will stop for a few nights in Singapore or HK, and stay at a chain, usually Starwood. Within Europe it depends on the city or area, once again. Smaller areas we go for boutiques, bigger cities the chains. This way we accumulate points and get the benefits of a free night here and there

dulciusexasperis

At the risk of taking my own thread off-topic, I have to comment on 'free nights'. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Getting one night 'free' after paying for 10 or whatever, whether from a hotel chain or from a third party booking parasite, is not free. Businesses of whatever kind, do not offer Loyalty Rewards for the benefit of customers, they are for the benefit of the business. Just as a casino isn't there for the customer to win money, they're there for the house to make money. The only difference is that with Loyalty Programs, you pay in advance fora future stay at a hotel or flight on a plane or a bag of groceries.

If I sell you a bag of potatoes for $5.50 and then 10 bags down the line I give you a 'free' bag for your 'loyalty points', all that happened is you bought 11 bags at $5.00 each. None of them were free.

That is not to say no one should use Loyalty Programs. A frequent flyer with an airline or shopper at a supermarket would be foolish to not join the program since the price is going to be $5.50 whether you are in the program or not. But the program does not 'reward' the participant, it simply punishes those who are not participants. There is a difference.

I don't try to fool myself that I get anything free from Loyalty Programs however.

dulciusexasperis

I agree there are some exceptions like Relais et Chateaux. However, they are exceptions, not the rule and 'the exceptions prove the rule' as the saying goes. As a general rule I don't think there is anything inconsistent in my original point that having tunnel vision about chasing chain hotel 'loyalty points' is not necessarily the travellers best choice all the time.

On a side not regarding cancellation terms MSPeconomist, today those standard terms tend to vary from 24 hours advance cancellation to totally non-cancelable, non-refundable third party bookings. I recently booked 2 hotels in 2 different countries. Both independent hotels. One wanted 24 hour advance notice of a cancellation and the other wanted non-refundable cancellation terms for a 'special package price'. Typical of what you find today. In both cases I refused the terms and told them I would only book with a 6pm on arrival day cancellation term. Both were 7 night bookings.

In your Father and Grandfather's day MSPeconomist, that was the standard terms unless you asked for a 'guaranteed late arrival' in which case you agreed to them charging you for one night if you were a 'no show' and only in that case would you then give them a credit card number to 'hold your reservation.' Those are the terms I still adhere to. Both of the hotels immediately agreed to my terms. One reception clerk even suggested, 'oh, that was a mistake, of course you can cancel without penalty Mr. X'. It is also interesting to note that neither asked me for a credit card number. I did volunteer it to one of them as it is likely I will arrive after 6pm. 'Standard terms' are simply a guideline, not a law.

The real question is why have 'standard cancellation terms' changed. https://skift.com/2017/08/16/hotel-c...-more-to-come/

They've changed because the customers today don't behave as your Father and Grandfather did MSPeconomist. They make multiple bookings and then cancel them as their plans change and/or they no show. The same as they do with flights. This may suit today's traveller but it plays havoc with the hotel and airline's management of their inventory. As a result, the hotel has to put in cancellation terms to combat those factors. The people get what the people deserve, as always.

Imagine if every hotel today still adhered to the 6pm on day of arrival as a standard policy. No credit card info required and no penalty for just not showing up! As the Hilton CEO said in the link above, "but just because customers, many of them, ultimately have been trained to do multiple bookings and do things that have created a scenario where cancellations have, in some markets, skyrocketed. They’ve got, they’ve gone way up.”

While I understand why the chains have changed their policies and do not blame them for doing so at all, I do not wish to change my policies. If I tried to tell a Hilton Hotel receptionist on the phone (I always book by phone direct with the hotel) what my terms would be for booking, how far do you think I would get? It is highly unlikely the receptionist would even have the authority to accept my terms if s/he wanted to. With an independent hotel however, that is quite different.

So when you write, "It's also convenient to book through a chain website and get a standardized confirmation with standard terms for cancellations etc. clearly stated", you may see that as a plus but I see it as a minus.

Kremmen

I treat travel as a value judgement. Non-chain hotels are often more interesting and cheaper. It is easy enough to get a good idea which ones from tripadvisor. If I'm staying a week somewhere, I may well choose an independent hotel.

However, there are some exceptions to this:

* In cheap countries, per-stay or per-night promotions from chains might mean you make back most or all of what your stay is worth. (e.g. IHG's Accelerate or Accor's 6k pts for 3 stays.) I am easily swayed by being able to stay somewhere effectively almost for free.

* Status perks can be enormously valuable. Most non-chain hotels shove you out before noon. If I have a 6pm flight, I consider it quite valuable to be able to come "home" in the afternoon for a shower and a snack in my room before a 4pm checkout. SPG or IHG or Accor will give me that for free, instead of having to pay for another night's accommodation.

You know what else isn't comparable? Accessibility and information about accessibility. It's immediately obvious if you check room types that the Hilton Garden Inn has accessible rooms. The Bellevue doesn't appear to even mention wheelchairs or accessibility anywhere at all. I guess the property doesn't care and the anti-discrimination laws there are poor or ineffective. Maybe the hotel is too small to have been sued, unlike Hilton. However, poor information systems and discrimination are reasons some people avoid such hotels and go for a chain which has some accessibility standards.

dulciusexasperis

I hardly think a rant about wheelchair access is relevant here Kremmen. The hotel was built in 1873. Although it has been totally renovated and is up to today's standards, there are no rooms on the ground floor and nowhere you could possibly install an elevator, so no, there is no provision for wheelchair access rooms. That does not indicate however that 'the property doesn't care' or that Switzerland has poor or ineffective anti-discrimination laws'.

Your rant does indicate something however.

beachmouse

That's assuming that you're generating the points through staying in the property. And hey, some programs have all kinds of non-stay point earning opportunities. Sometimes, it's at a modest financial cost (the infamous original IHG 'Priceless Experiences' AMOE that got you about 50K points for less than $50 in postage); sometimes it's an opportunity cost rather than financial- I do the surveys for fun while my spousal unit is watching a tv show I'm not interested in, and will select a hotel program for that rather than get airline miles. And sometimes it's a straight out giveaway like the Marriott twitter promotions that can add up enough to get you free nights.

I'm on the low end of household incomes on FT; I'm getting good at finding the crumbs on the margin to let us travel more, and non-stay hotel points are a nice chunk of that.

Kremmen

It is totally relevant. Chain hotels' web sites list things like number of accessible rooms and whether parts of a hotel are accessible. There are times when a hotel might not be, but the chain hotels will at least say so. Non-chain hotels can get away with just saying nothing and leaving potential guests to have to ask or look for the information elsewhere.

If it isn't accessible, it has not been totally renovated to today's standards. You are, by definition, incorrect.

pinniped

This.

I love small boutiques in France. I like country B&Bs in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I feel like I know how to navigate those landscapes and get something more interesting than a chain hotel. Elsewhere in Europe, I've been using Booking.com to get apartments or small boutiques. IMHO, Europe is the place where the American brands are the most overpriced, the least interesting, and likely to cause me to miss out on something better.

In Asia, I tend to go with upscale chain hotels (Conrad, JW, Park Hyatt, etc. - or occasionally a true luxury brand). I don't feel skilled enough with local language or customs to find a really good local boutique hotel. In places where there are no/few chains, I browsed English-language online sources to get an idea of what to do, and then contacted guides or lodging options I've found there. I travel for work to India, and although my local colleagues there always offer to have their guy call a guy to set me up with a room at a local place they say is great, I just book the Park Hyatt. It's easier that way.

In U.S./Canadian cities, I go with the business brands I know well. Occasionally I'll do a luxury boutique if I've read about a particularly unique place or had a direct word-of-mouth recommendation. In rural locations, I split between chains (HIX, Hampton), B&Bs, or camping.

HawaiiO

I usually skip chain hotels.

Chain hotels often cost as much if not more than local boutique hotels and chain hotels often all look the same.
Boutique hotels often have interesting decor and such, not found in chain hotels which have to somewhat maintain a "common" design theme.

Staying all the time at a Hyatt or Hilton etc will get perks like nicer or free room, breakfast but those dont outweigh the positives that local boutique hotels provide.

I usually like the local breakfast when traveling which we dont get when eating at a generic hotel breakfast.

dulciusexasperis

Show me one hotel, chain or independent that does not comply with local laws regarding wheelchair access. The laws are the same for both and to try and suggest independent hotels are any different in this regard than chain hotels is simply ludicrious.

Nor am I incorrect "by definition" about anything including "today's standards". You obviously are not knowledgeable about the building codes of the area where the hotel in question is located and judging by your comments, not knowledgeable about building codes in general and how they differ between newly built property and renovation of an existing property. It is common for example for a newly built condominium in my home country to have to have fire sprinklers not only throughout all public spaces but in each room in the individual condos themselves. Yet right next door can be an older building with none whatsoever. Both 'by definition' meeting the existing building codes of the local area.

You need to realize that your narrow viewpoint of the world is what is 'incorrect'. The world does not revolve around you and your issues.

Qwkynuf

As do you.