V-Flyer

Would V-Flyers be seen slumming it in a Best Western? Well, this may be of interest if you do!

Independent hotel group Best Western says it will match guests' loyalty status of any hotel group.

In a press release Best Western says that “from today... whether you are a gold, platinum or diamond member, a VIP, personal or elite tier member just simply tell Best Western and then get the same status when you stay there too”.

Clicky clicky

I like Best Western when on the road in the US. Never had a bad stay in one yet. Unlike Days Inn. :0

Wish another chain would match my BW Diamond status

Spent 12 weeks in the Sodehotel La Woluwe BW in Belgium, I can sort of recommend it. It's a comfortable, decent hotel, but like so many other hotels in that area, the service can be hit & miss (and woebetide you if you have problems with their internet access!). That said, the clincher to move to another hotel for the last 4 weeks was when they "mislaid" my reservation for week 13! Grrr !

Anyway, thanks to BW Rewards points, I have 3 lovely hotels booked along the PCH for nights 2-4 of the honeymoon, with 70k points to spare.... |:)

Cheers
Michael

locutus wrote:Would V-Flyers be seen slumming it in a Best Western? Well, this may be of interest if you do!

Independent hotel group Best Western says it will match guests' loyalty status of any hotel group.

In a press release Best Western says that “from today... whether you are a gold, platinum or diamond member, a VIP, personal or elite tier member just simply tell Best Western and then get the same status when you stay there too”.

Clicky clicky

Not me - esp after seeing the Channel 4 undercover programme on BW that aired last week :$

hackneyguy wrote:
Not me - esp after seeing the Channel 4 undercover programme on BW that aired last week :$

See I saw that programme also and thought actually the BW brand was not that bad.

The hotel with the golf course and the one in the Lakes actually looked like pretty decent places to stay. Given the lack of "major" chains in locations such as those I certainly would look into staying in a BW.

The CEO seems to be determined to change the brand image which is surely only a good thing. I personally never realised they actually have 4 and 5 star places, I thought they were more akin to Days Inn/Howard Johonson.

However as for the White House in Watford...

As I said, I've stayed in BW's in the US many many times and have yet to have a bad stay. In fact in terms of quality they put some of the upmarket chains to shame. £15 for 24-hours internet access? Pah! BW is usually free. The free breakfasts won't get you fat, but I've had a lot worse in Hiltons.

I stayed at a BW (Crown Hotel) in Boroughbridge last year and apart from the chintzy bedroom decor and no wifi in the bedroom (they did give me a 3 foot long cable though - so no surfing in bed as the data port was accross the room) it was v good.

The food was very high quality as well and a good choice for dinner and breakfast.

Guess (like all things) it depends on the local management / staff etc

Darren Wheeler wrote:As I said, I've stayed in BW's in the US many many times and have yet to have a bad stay. In fact in terms of quality they put some of the upmarket chains to shame. £15 for 24-hours internet access? Pah! BW is usually free. The free breakfasts won't get you fat, but I've had a lot worse in Hiltons.

I am not sure that the above is a fair like for like comparison. Unlike Hilton, BW are not a chain but a marketing company. They do not own any hotels but market privately owned hotels that meet a basic (and yes it is a basic) standard. This marketing under the BW brand brings some revenue to the hotel apart from direct bookings so should be seen as indicator rather like the AA * rating.

My view from the TV programme is that many of this privately owned hotel employees seem to have increased workloads (of over 100&% to over 80hrs + a week) with increased revenue to the management & owners of those privately ownded hotels but no extra staff for renumeration for their personal efforts which I found disturbing - not sure if that would be the case in a chain that has a common salary scale. It was also noted that most staff (if not all) interviewed had never really heard of BW or what it meant to their property apart from fooling the inpectors like went on in the Watford property - if an inspector can be so easlily fooled (like changing room numbers around) then he/she is not very bright and I would value their inpection accordingly.

I personally prefer a hotel where the management are present and care and where my loyality to a particular brand really does matter to both the hotel, brand owner and most importantly me.

Each to their own, and Tonty like you I dont do chinz

hackneyguy wrote:I am not sure that the above is a fair like for like comparison. Unlike Hilton, BW are not a chain but a marketing company. They do not own any hotels but market privately owned hotels that meet a basic (and yes it is a basic) standard. This marketing under the BW brand brings some revenue to the hotel apart from direct bookings so should be seen as indicator rather like the AA * rating.

Thats not quite correct HG. Hilton do not own the vast majority of their hotels either. They will be operated under some sort of franchise agreement with an operator. This is why all of a sudden a hotel will change from say a Marriott to a Hilton. Normally this agreement is kept "closed" so that customers do not realise, however a good example is the Sofitel at T5 that is actually owned and operated by the Aorra who own properties around Gatwick under there own brand.

Where Hilton and BW differ is that when one becomes a Hilton property, Hilton will take over everything in running the hotel. Of course as you point out BW is more for marketing purposes.