[NTarrant]

Hi Simon

I think we could have a good conversation about CPA etc, I certainly agree that there are good and bad in many authorities. Certainly in my time as an Executive member (cabinet) I was able to see other authorities good and bad points.

Mr Binabdulaziz is quite right in saying that we will stabilise again but not like the past. I don’t think we want to go back to the old ways which clearly have not worked.

Wardorf was “ok”, thought the service was a bit lacking compared to our last stay. “Upgraded” to deluxe allegedly, yet the room was smaller than the last room we had there which was not an “upgrade”.

Regards

Nigel

[SimonRowberry]

Nigel,

Your experience of the Waldorf is identical to mine in many ways – I got an “upgraded” room, but had to change it because the TV didn’t work (or some other problem – I don’t remember exactly). The front desk said they only had “standard” rooms (or some other term) available. However, the new, “run of house” room was actually bigger and better located than the “upgraded”one.

In terms of Hiltons in London, my very brief comments are:

Waldorf – over-rated but reasonably ok. Good lounge but variable room quality.

Kensington – usually a reasonably-priced alternative if doing business in West London. Rooms very small but work well. Rarely upgraded, even as a Diamond Member. Can use the Exec Lounge but it is awful since they moved it to the lobby – loud piped music and poorly-serviced in terms of F&B supplies.

Olympia – great staff but otherwise no other plus points that I can think of. The smallest hotel rooms I can remember (that aren’t in the HIE/Premier Inn category). No Exec Lounge.

Trafalgar – expensive but fun. No Exec Lounge. The roof terrace is vastly over-priced and I had dangerously undercooked chicken sate there once. Excellent rooms and the location is obviously superb.

Park Lane – far too traditional a Hilton for me. I wasn’t upgraded to an Exec Room last time I was there but could use the Lounge. The Lounge was OK but nothing special. The rooms are “compact” for the price….Almost GBP 20.00 for a G and T in the (quite shabby) roof bar was pushing it a bit. The hotel is showing its age and needs a serious refurbishment.

Tower Bridge – pretty good hotel if the location suits where you need to be. Nice rooms and an excellent Exec Lounge with an outdoor terrace. Good service from attentive staff and fairly realistic room rates.

Paddington – OK if you like hotels where the lobby actually seems to form part of the railway station and where they take your credit card and lock it away in a little safe (and give you a key) if you want to run a tab in the F&B outlets. I found that utterly outrageous and will never darken the hotel’s doorstep again!

My hotel of choice when visiting London may well become the Landmark. I stayed there a few weeks ago and it was utterly faultless.

Regards, Simon

[NTarrant]

Simon

I agree the Wardorf is over rated.It was a shame that the level of service was inconsistant from our last visit. Even to the stage that the porter guy watched whilst Mrs T struggled behind me with a trolley bag down the steps to reception on leaving.

The location is good but I think if the level of service fell below that we received this time then I might well be tempted to look at a different chain, which is not what I want to do.

I stayed at the Hilton Euston once and that was awful. Arriving at 2200 my room was not ready, it was on a ground floor which my profile says high floor, no apology. The receptionist guy wanted to take me to the bar for a drink while I waited and I declined, I asked for him to get another room but allegedly there wasn’t any. He then tried to frog march me to the bar.

When I got the room it stunk of that air freshener to mask the previous occupants smoking or whatever. The breakfast was dire, sausages which were dripping in fat, bacon that was dry. On leaving the receptionist asked if there was anything really good about my stay to which I replied “Yes, leaving this morning”

Regards, Nigel

[ChesterSimons]

I recently transfered over to the UK from the States and like many of you I am travelling significantly as part of my work. One of the major differences I see between USA and UK is the the way airtravel is treated. In the USA it is treated as a daily way of life, more of a bus service with the emphasis of moving somebody from a to b, sometimes via c. In the UK it is still considered in parts as a luxury item, with moans and groans about inflight service and ‘the luxuries’ rather than looking at ways to make services more efficient and dare i say “green”. Governements find it far easier to tax luxury items as it seemingly effects less people.

The more airtravel is impacted, the less businesses can expand and recover. But by taxing airtravel the Government is slowing down the potential for growth and recovery. The executives of the large automotive corps in the States were heavily critisized for flying into Washington on their Private jets to explain the job cuts, yet in the UK and Europe, private jet travel is on the increase. Spending $10 million on a mid sized jet and $25 million on an aircraft capable of travelling the oceans is serious money, yet these are being flown with sometime 1 or 2 passengers, but generally at less than 20% capacity.

I think that the there is plenty of scope to raise revunues from the travel sector, but NOT from commercial airline airtravel. It should be realligned to serve the purpose it was always intended, to move people from a to b, sometimes via c and not only with the emphasis of providing the luxuries.

The UK has its challengers, but from this temporary imported American, I see so much value and talent in the UK, especially in terms of economic growth that sometimes, the politicians and CEO’s need to take a step back, remember their purpose and reallign their business model. There is always time for champagne and caviar, but the vehicle needed to deliver the luxury items needs to be paid for!!

Thanks for reading – I hope i have not bored any of you with these thoughts.

[VintageKrug]

I think Government does seek to target air travel because its view is that it affects fewer people.

As you rightly state this approach is wrong.

Air travel is about mass transit and with a large immigrant population, shoddy ground-based options for domestic travel and the need to generate wealth by trading with and meeting our potential global market for goods and services, we should not be taxing air travel to the extent that is becoming the case.

Criticism of those who travelled by Private Jet to beg for government bail out is spot on, and indeed the focus of taxation should look more closely on private jet travel, as well as both commercial and private shipping, which remains largely outside the scope of these so-called environmental taxes.

Let us hope the UK Chancellor’s review of the taxation structure for aviation will address some of these issues; since its introduction in 1994 this has grown to £170 rtn for a ticket in a premium cabin London-Sydney from November 1 2010.

Although billed as an environmental tax, has become simply a tax on hard working families enjoying vacations overseas and those who create wealth by doing business overseas.

[PaulJennings]

The government thinks APD is an easy way to raise revenue because the tax is often hidden inside a total price. I think this is the real reason the government wants to move to a per-plane rather than per passenger tax – it will then be almost impossible to calculate a single amount per passenger and the true tax take will be well and truly hidden.

[ChesterSimons]

If indeed it is an “envrinmental tax”, the effect on the environement will be far greater when 2 passengers + 2/3 crew fly in a private jet over 100 passengers plus 5 crew fly in an airliner shorthaul. Private jet travel longhaul will have an even greater environmental effect, not to mention a waste of resources.

Carbon offsetting is not published for private jet travel. Perhaps this is an area where the UK Chancellor can recoup investment for public sector travel.

Then there is the private shipping sector to look at……..

Whilst I believe in freedom of choice in the way corporations budget & select their modes of transport, ultimately CEO’s are answerable to shareholders, people will be utterly amazed at the number of empty seats that fly long distances each day in corporate jets.

In the US, corporations use these empty seats to assist cancer patients. Whilst this is gratefully acknowledged by those benefiting, the question that remains unanswered is whether this is being allowed as a way to bypass a travel levy/tax by the corporations.

I am not on a crusade against private jet travel, indeed I benefit from such travel, rather trying to show ways where extra revenue can be raised in order that standard airline travel is not viewed by Governements as their ‘piggy bank’!

[Author]

Posts