Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review

Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> Thu, 15 August 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AE811E815E for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1lSoY3kQQpu for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3FE21E815C for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r7FFQKoG032517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:26:21 GMT
Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7FFQJfM002191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:26:20 GMT
Received: from abhmt112.oracle.com (abhmt112.oracle.com [141.146.116.64]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7FFQJXV007541; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:26:19 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.125] (/24.86.29.34) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:26:18 -0700
References: <C4413723-4E83-44D8-967D-C61564F33843@isoc.org> <CAKKJt-dCsJKzkuWmtPYaLct_9zzbe2HCXBB52QNerC4hHKaqWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org> <D1CEAB47-2B80-4FA9-9B18-C018BF10E794@checkpoint.com> <20130814153327.GK3865@mx1.yitter.info> <CAH1iCipcmf6baef+Ehys-OCQ1E6AqStCxYXDDJS8TLW1z+G=_Q@mail.gmail.com> <60958B6B-A77C-4A83-A5CD-336432DBA8D7@ericsson.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308150927240.39997@joyce.lan> <1DE0D0DF-A90C-4B27-804D-FEBA8098BCD4@ericsson.com> <520CF14D.2060006@alum.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <520CF14D.2060006@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32ED7C56-65FE-4AB0-BFC8-FEAB9789E71D@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:26:03 -0700
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]
Cc: "87attendees@ietf.org" <87attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-BeenThere: 87attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <87attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/87attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:87attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:26:52 -0000

I wonder if we are adding to the problem. So many IETFers book as soon as the meeting is announced but then change their reservation to adjust to actual travel. 

Is this leading hotels to think they have more rooms than they think? Particularly on mondays?

Phil

On 2013-08-15, at 8:18, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I don't think we should imagine that we can have a major influence on the booking policies of hotel chains. I'm sure they think long and hard about this, and the tradeoffs that overbooking entails. (Just as airlines clearly do.)
> 
> Do major hotel chains differ in a significant way about how they handle this? If so, maybe we could insist on being told what the policy is, and then use that as a factor in which hotels we choose.
> 
>    Thanks,
>    Paul
> 
> On 8/15/13 11:13 AM, Jakob Heitz wrote:
>> Don't book more people than rooms.
>> If a booked person doesn't show, let the hotel charge that person a cancellation fee to cover revenue lost due to empty rooms.
>> 
>> --
>> Jakob Heitz.
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Don't bump anyone.  Apply a cancelation fee.
>>> 
>>> Not an option.  If the hotel has more people than rooms, they have to bump someone, and there's no way to force a person who's checked into a room out of it.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>>> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 87attendees mailing list
>>> 87attendees@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees
>> _______________________________________________
>> 87attendees mailing list
>> 87attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 87attendees mailing list
> 87attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees