Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DManA
Presumable they are making the change for competitive advantage.

The advantage is lower cost for cleaning and more rooms for nonsmokers when at capacity.

Unless they are at 100% capacity all the time (which no hotel is), they will still lose smokers to others who allow. If they make the others have to go nonsmoking they will be more competitive while having lower costs and lower unfilled rooms when at capacity for nonsmoking.

267 posted on 07/20/2006 12:58:46 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]


To: Raycpa

If they make the others have to go nonsmoking they will be more competitive while having lower costs and lower unfilled rooms when at capacity for nonsmoking.

Why should they have to make the others go non smoking to remain competitive? Marriott claims they did this because of customer requests. Why shouldn't other hotels have the same choice? Seems kind of strange that everyone accuses smokers of being a small miniscule, poverty ridden , uneducated bunch. Out of the other side of the mouth, a upper scale hotel is so mortified of losing their business, they want to force others to follow their lead.. If their cleaning cost was so high in smokers rooms, why do they care about losing them to someone else?

284 posted on 07/21/2006 9:49:49 AM PDT by Bogey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson