Re: Hotel situation

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB901A8915 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESAc4zOJRhUx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7321A8886 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2774; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450294508; x=1451504108; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=G3Xz4fZhPdpMKdvOZt0p6f/PKYlHP1fTMXvLOGwMMWE=; b=C/FglpJ2AoTNioYXY9jTxzszOlUU74lRhj0l8mYS5aisAnytt7a3FnN8 bp08wmcn1VbnrYErHXBhr/O+ewqDlXIHauDSsrYPXdqvUa/KEhvd25AQ6 pDrfW3cVgnittgwcydbrMzrmOZuBwCjSVkvCpD5B3inH553+N/hs3Iy9a M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DOAgA8vHFW/4MNJK1egzpSbb10AQ2BYxmCNINAAoEtOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBBDIBRhALGAklDwVJMYgRvhsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYi1OENINygRoFjiyIUIU5iAYJgiWadh8BAUKCER2Bdx00g0eBSwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,437,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="59849621"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Dec 2015 19:35:07 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBGJZ7sr031987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:35:07 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBGJZ6bB030295; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:06 -0800
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id tBGJZ6dR030294; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:06 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:35:06 -0800
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Message-ID: <20151216193506.GD22068@cisco.com>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719B42.2040902@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1512160924570.39773@rabdullah.local> <D296DF8F.8DA39%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D296DF8F.8DA39%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X9I-7SX8S2jTwFiJuxqG1W9O31s>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:35:09 -0000

+1 on the analysis. Which is yet another reason why i avoid
booking conf hotel at higher rates. It would just support their rigged scheme.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 05:54:27PM +0000, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> I don¹t think the fault lies in either out volunteers or AMS, I suspect we
> are quite simply not being treated well by hotels.
> 
> I just now booked the Hilton, however not via the IETF link, because the
> IETF link had no rooms available for the days of the week I needed one.
> 
> When I used the IETF rate link, it said there was NO availability for the
> week at the IETF rate.    I then logged onto to Hilton.com directly,
> checked the hotel and was offered the $270 rate (plus 21% tax -wow!), but
> it gave me the Internet Society rate - which was weird.   So to get a
> room, I booked through directly through hilton.com at the higher rate.
> 
> I had to do the same in Yokohama.  I tried to book the Yokohama hotel via
> the IETF within about 30 minutes of the announcement of booking being
> open.   ZERO rooms where available, but when I booked directly (at a much
> higher rate), I was able to get a room.
> 
> 
> >From a user¹s perspective this is great for the hotel.  They can offer a
> limited ³IETF² rate, that is very limited and hard to get, but they can up
> sell attendees who are willing to spend more to get into the hotel at much
> higher rate.  This creates a false impression that the IETF isn¹t filling
> the hotel because many people are booked in directly and not in the IETF
> block.  So the hotels can justify small blocks in the future.
> 
> The hotel¹s are the ones that win here.  They get the IETF meeting rooms
> and food costs.  They sell a limited set of IETF rate teaser rooms. Then
> they fill up the hotel with high rate rooms which are still taken by IETF
> attendees.    That seems like a very bad faith behavior on the part of the
> hotel.
> 
> I¹d like to understand what¹s going on with the room blocks the hotels are
> giving us.  I know that hotels used to give us very good sized blocks and
> they would take a while to fill up.  Now they are filling up immediately -
> or are they?  
>   
>     Q- What¹s the room block size we are getting at the recent venues
> compared to what we got at previous ones like Vancouver, or Berlin?
>     
>     Q - Are hotels artificially limiting availability of the IETF block by
> only releasing parts of it to the web booking?
>         I¹ve seen hotels do this for other events.  While the whole block
> maybe 500 rooms, they release them in 50 room blocks as the
>         reservation block fills.  This creates the lucky 10th caller
> scenario, where if you hit it at just the right time you win.
> 
> -glenn
>