Subject: Re: [86all] Caribe Overbooking

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:17 -0400

Ray,

(moving this to IETF list because it raises issues more general
that one screwup with one hotel.

Below... 

--On Monday, 11 March, 2013 08:49 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> All
> 
> Hotels overbook.  It's an unfortunate fact of the industry.

For the same reason that tolerating a certain amount of fraud is
a fact of life in the credit card industry -- it is cheaper (or
more profitable) than avoiding doing it.

> We have contract provisions with the Caribe Royale under these
> circumstances.  I want to share those provisions with you so
> that you understand the hotel's responsibility to you should
> this happen to you.  
> 
> 8.10  Hotel Booked Beyond 100% Capacity.   Hotel agrees not to
> relocate any conference attendee holding a guaranteed
> reservation only after it has relocated any other guests
> required to be relocated. 

I tried reading the sentence above several times and have
concluded it isn't me -- it doesn't parse properly.  Was this a
copying error?  Should it have been "Hotel agrees not to
relocate any conference attendee holding a guaranteed
reservation until after it has relocated..."

> If, after walking all transient
> guests, the Hotel does not or cannot honor all reservations
> accepted and/or confirmed by the Hotel to the Group or its
> attendees, the Hotel shall be considered booked beyond 100%
> capacity and, at the Hotel's sole expense, the Hotel shall
> (with a Group's representative approval) provide: 
> 
> a.  Alternative accommodations at the closest hotel of equal
> or better quality for said attendee at no charge to the guest
> for the length of stay the guest is displaced.  For the
> purpose of this contract, the closest comparable Hotel is the
> Buena Vista Suites.  
> 
> b.  Two (2) complimentary round-trip ground transportations
> between the Hotel and the alternate hotel for each day the
> guest is displaced.  
> 
> c.  Two (2) 5-minute phone calls world-wide each day guest is
> displaced and necessary arrangements for forwarding the
> displaced guest's telephone messages and mail.  
> 
> d.  An offer to relocate the displaced guest back to first
> available room.  If room becomes available and guest elects
> not to return to the Hotel, the Hotel shall have no further
> obligations under this Section.  
> 
> e.  Upon return to the Hotel, upgraded accommodations (if
> available) and a "welcome back" amenity from the General
> Manager.  
> 
> f.  Credit to the Group for any guests displaced toward its
> roomblock pick-up for purpose of this contract and for
> calculation of the Group complimentary room credits.  
> 
> g.  Promptly, a list to the Groups Representative of any and
> all relocated guests. 
>....

These are mostly generic "don't overbook and, if you do, be
nice" provisions and I'm very pleased that they are in this
contract and, I assume, most of the other hotel contracts.  Two
observations:

(1) Given the special requirements of this community, it would
be good to require that the hotel guarantee satisfactory
Internet access for the "walked" participants.  That doesn't
just mean complementary network access (or access at the
overbooked hotel's expense) at the alternative accommodation,
although I'm surprised that was omitted, because we know how
badly a handful of IETF participants can overload random hotel
networks.  Depending on what site visits turn up, it might be
nice to require the conference hotel to also supply 3G/4G cards
to "walked" participants at the time they are pushed out.  If
the costs of doing that provide a disincentive for the to "walk"
IETF participants, so much the better.   Good access may be even
more important for participants who are sent relatively far away
than for those who have convenient terminal room access.

(2) If, as I believe at least the spirit of BCP 101 requires,
non-confidential contract provisions were posted either before
or immediately after signing, the community would have the
opportunity to review these things and make the sort of
suggestions in (1) above (as well as catching confusing text) so
that things can be considered (and maybe fixed) in future
contracts before we have to have bad experiences and then say
"well, if we had known then what we know now, we would have done
things differently".

best,
   john

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Mar 2013 18:12:05 -0000

>concluded it isn't me -- it doesn't parse properly.

I read it as saying that they can't walk any conferees until they've
walked all the non-conferees.

R's,
John

PS: "Walk" in the hospitality industry sense.