Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday
2014-09-03 15:32:06
Ray,
I can understand why you didn't have contractual arrangements
with other hotels, but the web site doesn't even identify a few
nearby hotels - it doesn't even mention the fact that we will
be in Waikiki, which consists mainly of hotels. Naturally people
have all tried to get into the main hotel, which breaks your normal
statistical assumption of 600 beds.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 04/09/2014 01:03, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:32 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Ray
This looks like we only got 600 rooms in the block at a meeting
that we would expect to get over 1000 people at and where pretty
much everyone needs to travel to.
Is that the normal ratio we assume for planning and why were
there no backups listed this time?
For the Hilton Hawaiian Village we contracted for (“booked”) 600 rooms on a
peak night,
3,459 room nights all together.
We book nights over a 12 day period which provides room availability for
staff and
contractors to arrive the Wednesday before, through the Sunday after the
meeting.
Our contracts provide that the Hotels will make our rates available up to 3
days before and
after the meeting, if there is space available.
The HiltonHV has about 3,000 rooms, but other groups have room blocks and the
Hilton
needs to check with the other groups to see if they are prepared to give up
some rooms
in response to our request for more rooms.
We did look into overflow hotels (backups) but we chose not to enter into a
contract
because the hotels wanted Attrition clauses whereby we (ISOC) would be liable
for making
up the difference in sales if we didn’t meet at least 80% of the room block.
Their reason
for the Attrition clause: they are concerned that there are so many hotels in
the area where
our attendees could elect to book that without the Attrition, they will not
agree to contract.
And they are right. There are many hotels in the area at various price points
that signing a
contract with an attrition clause would be to assume unacceptable risk. We
(ISOC) have never
paid for not meeting our contracted block for an IETF meeting.
As a matter of practice I like to book 600 on a peak night, about 50% of the
expected attendance.
Often we can get that at the HQ hotel, but not always. Sometimes it’s only
400. Yokohama is
about 300, Buenos Aires is much less also.
I will then do Overflow Hotels to get us up to the 600, and beyond if there
is no Attrition clause
in the contracts AND if we can get a better deal for the community than they
can get for themselves.
But this is an art not a science. In Anaheim we were surrounded by lots of
hotels at different price
points providing all kinds of competition for the HQ hotel. We typically
don’t do overflows in that
scenario and our HQ room block will likely be lower than 600. In Paris we
did a HQ hotel and the
hotel across the street. We were negotiating with others but they wanted
$300 a night. We didn’t
contract with them.
I hope this provides some context.
Ray
- Stewart
On 03/09/2014 13:15, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All,
I want to update you on the numbers for what has been reserved by attendees
as of
Tuesday 2 September compared to what was blocked.
Block Reservations
Mon 0 1
Tues 0 8
Wed 10 19
Thur 15 32
Fri 60 127
Sat 270 375
Sun 552 558
Mon 600 563
Tues 600 560
Wed 582 557
Thur 528 551
Fri 183 386
Sat 54 95
Sun 5 2
3,459 3,844
Of course we have asked for more to accommodate the demand, but
I am not optimistic. I will report back when we have heard about
our request.
Ray
On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2014-8-27, at 16:56, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
For your information, Ray and the secretariat are looking into the room
block situation. Stay tuned.
Is there any new information? Co-workers are not succeeding in booking
rooms.
Lars
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday,
Brian E Carpenter <=
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Christopher Morrow
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Melinda Shore
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Christopher Morrow
- Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Melinda Shore
- RE: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Robin Uyeshiro
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Protocol Action: 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt), Randy Presuhn |
Next by Date: |
Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Christopher Morrow |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Ray Pelletier |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Hawaii Block - going, going, gone for Saturday, Christopher Morrow |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|