Advice re hotels in BKK please...

Tchiowa wrote:



Most of the posters in this groups are backpackers or "budget
tourists". So, like you, they consider many hotel amenities as
"unimportant" and that's just fine. Their opinions are just as
important as yours and mine. But don't confuse them with the "average
tourists". The "average tourists" makes an above average income,
travels with his family, books his tours from home with a travel
agent, considers comfort part of what he wants to do.

That means the average tourist makes around $50-75,000 US a year and
isn't interested in a $20 a night hotel that is way below his normal
standard of living.



I wish everyone would include the state of roachiness when they
recommend hotels.

"Sjoerd" wrote in message ...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...
"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
m...
AVerage tourist is a middle class person on a middle class income
wanting to stay at a middle class hotel and live in middle class
comfort while he's on vacation.

I know many people that fall into that category. They all would be happy
in
my 980 baht / night hotel. More than happy.

And I know people who will be happy for less and I know people that
wouldn't settle for anything like that. That doesn't alter the
accuracy of the statement.

I don't know where you are from, but I guess you are American. In my
experience, Americans value "brand names" in hotels more than most other
tourists, and are therefore more likely to stay in a Hilton, or Marriott
etc. than others. Please note that the vast majority of foreign tourists in
Thailand are other Asians ( 50%) and Europeans (25%). Americans make up
only 5% or so of all foreign tourists in Thailand.
An American "average tourist" may display very different behaviour from a
Chinese, Malaysian or British "average tourist". It could even be true that
my 980 baht hotel is considered inferior by the average American (because
nobody opens the door for you in the lobby, it doesn't have a brand name and
one won't get frequent flyer miles for a stay), while the average Asian or
European would be perfectly happy.

Those things are important to some people and meaningless to others. I
don't dispute that. But those are just some of the things that make a
difference in the quality of the hotel and its cost.

But don't tell me that the average Asian or European is different than
the average American in this respect. Most of the people I work and
travel with are not Americans and they have similar opinions.

A hotel that meets those standards will cost at least $50 a night in
Bangkok.

Nonsense.

Name the hotel you're talking about and I'll show you the difference.

I *know* the difference. I have stayed in The Oriental, the Sukhothai and
other 5* hotels in Bangkok. In terms of important qualities of the hotel
(which I have listed before), the difference is insignificant.

Now we're getting to the actual truth, aren't we? You refer to the
differences that are "important" which means, of course, "important
*TO YOU*". All I'm saying and all I've ever said about this topic is
that doesn't reflect what the average tourist thinks.

That doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong, just that the
opinions are different.

Your claim that you need to spend at least USD 50 for a decent hotel room in
Bangkok (one that the "average tourist" would be happy to stay in) is
ridiculous. Nobody here seems to agree with you.

Most of the posters in this groups are backpackers or "budget
tourists". So, like you, they consider many hotel amenities as
"unimportant" and that's just fine. Their opinions are just as
important as yours and mine. But don't confuse them with the "average
tourists". The "average tourists" makes an above average income,
travels with his family, books his tours from home with a travel
agent, considers comfort part of what he wants to do.

That means the average tourist makes around $50-75,000 US a year and
isn't interested in a $20 a night hotel that is way below his normal
standard of living.

I know several hotels that cost around 1,000 / baht / night that are
perfectly OK for an "average tourist". They are better than many of the 100
euro hotels in Europe and USD 100 hotels in the US (and even USD 200 in New
York City)

Funny that you can't seem to name even one of those hotels.

Tchiowa wrote:
Most of the posters in this groups are backpackers or "budget
tourists". So, like you, they consider many hotel amenities as
"unimportant" and that's just fine.

What, specifically, are the amenities you're referring to? Amenities that
aren't present at the Bangkok hotels that Sjoerd and I used, but which
"average tourists" demand...?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...

Now we're getting to the actual truth, aren't we? You refer to the
differences that are "important" which means, of course, "important
*TO YOU*". All I'm saying and all I've ever said about this topic is
that doesn't reflect what the average tourist thinks.

OK, please list the facilities, amenities and other qualities of a hotel
that an "average tourist" (in your opinion) requires.

The "average tourists" makes an above average income,
travels with his family, books his tours from home with a travel
agent, considers comfort part of what he wants to do.

That means the average tourist makes around $50-75,000 US a year and
isn't interested in a $20 a night hotel that is way below his normal
standard of living.

Wow. You put a lot of research into the "average tourist" if such an animal
actually exists...... I make (much) more than the amount you gave us, and I
am perfectly happy in a USD 20 hotel. (in Bangkok)


I know several hotels that cost around 1,000 / baht / night that are
perfectly OK for an "average tourist". They are better than many of the
100
euro hotels in Europe and USD 100 hotels in the US (and even USD 200 in
New
York City)

Funny that you can't seem to name even one of those hotels.

I can but I won't for reasons given to you earlier. Miguel gave you the name
of one.

Sjoerd

Miguel Cruz wrote in message ...
Tchiowa wrote:
Most of the posters in this groups are backpackers or "budget
tourists". So, like you, they consider many hotel amenities as
"unimportant" and that's just fine.

What, specifically, are the amenities you're referring to? Amenities that
aren't present at the Bangkok hotels that Sjoerd and I used, but which
"average tourists" demand...?

It's not just which specific amenities but the quality of those
amenities. For instance you and he have said things something like "My
room had a king-size bed and a color TV with cable and the A/C worked
fine". Problem is that is like saying "Tata Young and Nancy Reagan
both wear skirts and have 2 legs and like to sing therefore it isn't
worth the money to spend on the extra 'amenties' to see a Tata Young
concert when a Nancy Reagan concert would be so much cheaper".

Often the amenity issue is one of quality.

The average tourist does not want to stay in a hotel that simply
doesn't present itself to be as clean, hygenic, comfortable, etc. that
said average tourist is used to living in at home.

Yes the average tourist wants to stay in a hotel that has things like
a door man, good carpeting, knowledgeable concierge, good restaurant,
and a number of other things. Note the qualifier of good and
knowledgeable and others.

There is no way that you can, with any semblance of honesty, say that
the Grace Hotel is anywhere near on the same level as regards to
cleanliness, comfort, safety, hygiene, service, etc. as the JW
Marriott. Now that is comparing a top of the line hotel with a
"close-to-the-bottom" of the line hotel. There are a lot of hotels
between those 2 (The Landmark comes immediately to mind).

Tourists on a tight budget would find the Grace "acceptable".
(Backpackers might even feel like they were splurging.) Tourists who
are relatively well off or who have someone else (like their boss)
paying for the hotel will insist on the JW Marriott. Those in between,
which constitute the majority, want something in between.

U RIKA kaka wrote in message . ..
Tchiowa wrote:



Most of the posters in this groups are backpackers or "budget
tourists". So, like you, they consider many hotel amenities as
"unimportant" and that's just fine. Their opinions are just as
important as yours and mine. But don't confuse them with the "average
tourists". The "average tourists" makes an above average income,
travels with his family, books his tours from home with a travel
agent, considers comfort part of what he wants to do.

That means the average tourist makes around $50-75,000 US a year and
isn't interested in a $20 a night hotel that is way below his normal
standard of living.

I wish everyone would include the state of roachiness when they
recommend hotels.

Actually this is one of the points I was trying to get across. I have
never stayed at the Grace but have visited there with friends and I
definitely recall the occasional "critter" scurrying through the
lobby.

A lot of people visit news groups like this when they're planning a
trip and want some info. They may or may not ask questions and if they
do, they may or may not push for details. If some posters give
information that a hotel is "luxurious" when in fact the health
department in the US would close it down if it were there then they
are doing the lurkers and occasional readers a great disservice.

If someone wants to say "I am a backpacker and if you're willing to
accept a few inconveniences then X hotel is a great bargain" I have no
issue with that. But when they say "If you stay at X hotel you'll live
like a king" when in fact you'll be dodging cockroaches all night then
I think that post needs to be challenged.

"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...
Tourists who
are relatively well off or who have someone else (like their boss)
paying for the hotel will insist on the JW Marriott.

I am in the top 2% income earners in my country, which is probably within
the top 5% in the USA, so I guess I qualify for being "relatively well off".
I am perfectly happy in my 980 baht hotel in Bangkok and wouldn't even think
about spending more for the same quality in a JW Marriott or other
over-priced hotel.
Again, my BKK hotel is spotlessly clean, has comfortable beds, nice
bathroom, nice carpeting, TV with more channels than I have at home (I have
32 at home), A/C works fine and doesn't make much noise, there is a small
table, a desk and 3 chairs in the room, there is a safe in the room, the
staff are friendly and helpful, breakfast is very reasonable, the location
of the hotel is central and there are several shops, restaurants, Internet
cafes around the corner.

Sjoerd

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
om...

A lot of people visit news groups like this when they're planning a
trip and want some info. They may or may not ask questions and if they
do, they may or may not push for details. If some posters give
information that a hotel is "luxurious" when in fact the health
department in the US would close it down if it were there then they
are doing the lurkers and occasional readers a great disservice.

True luxury hotel rooms in Bangkok are about as expensive as in rest of the
world. I have not been involved from the beginning of the thread but in a
case there was this "luxury" factor around, you are the only one who keeps
it alive (for some peculiar reason). It is also true that people are eager
to exaggerate many local characteristics in overseas countries perhaps to
paint them by more exotic colours or for some other reason. I don't pay much
attention to those who insist that a nice travel in South East Asia can be
done by 5 euros a day. However, the fact remains that Thailand is
hilariously cheap for foreigners. A night in an adequate hotel/motel room
can be anything from 7-8 euros; a 500 km bus ride in 1st class costs around
10 euros; a good meal 1-2 euros and so worth (okay you can spend 10-20 euros
for a good plate at Patong).

If someone wants to say "I am a backpacker and if you're willing to
accept a few inconveniences then X hotel is a great bargain" I have no
issue with that. But when they say "If you stay at X hotel you'll live
like a king" when in fact you'll be dodging cockroaches all night then
I think that post needs to be challenged.

Actually backpacking is self explanatory: you carry a bag of some sort in
your back. About traveller's wealth and how much he is going to spend for
necessary services this status says nothing. He can be a teenager with a 20
buck daily budget or he can be a millionare. Backpackers buy these services
at site (nowadays more and more beforehand via a web store). It is fairly
secure to assume that anyone asking about accommodation facilities in
Bangkok more or less do their own arrangements whether they are backpackers
or not. Those attending all inclusive tours cannot do much about it anyways.

For some reason you see the group as a battle ground. When one says his room
is tidy, you say there are cockroaches in the room.

Sjoerd wrote:

"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...

Tourists who
are relatively well off or who have someone else (like their boss)
paying for the hotel will insist on the JW Marriott.


I am in the top 2% income earners in my country, which is probably within
the top 5% in the USA, so I guess I qualify for being "relatively well off".
I am perfectly happy in my 980 baht hotel in Bangkok and wouldn't even think
about spending more for the same quality in a JW Marriott or other
over-priced hotel.
Again, my BKK hotel is spotlessly clean, has comfortable beds, nice
bathroom, nice carpeting, TV with more channels than I have at home (I have
32 at home), A/C works fine and doesn't make much noise, there is a small
table, a desk and 3 chairs in the room, there is a safe in the room, the
staff are friendly and helpful, breakfast is very reasonable, the location
of the hotel is central and there are several shops, restaurants, Internet
cafes around the corner.

Sjoerd


Does spotlessly clean mean not roachy?

Tchiowa wrote:
Actually this is one of the points I was trying to get across. I have
never stayed at the Grace but have visited there with friends and I
definitely recall the occasional "critter" scurrying through the
lobby.

Perhaps they rode your shoes from the Peninsula? I have an eagle-eye for
vermin, and in the space of a week I never saw any in the lobby or my room.
Which is more than I can say for plenty of other more expensive hotels in
various places.

If someone wants to say "I am a backpacker and if you're willing to
accept a few inconveniences then X hotel is a great bargain" I have no
issue with that. But when they say "If you stay at X hotel you'll live
like a king" when in fact you'll be dodging cockroaches all night then
I think that post needs to be challenged.

A) Nobody said anyone was going to be living like a king, only that all
ordinary and expected tourist-class facilities were provided.

B) I think you've invented the cockroach thing in response to a lack of
other arguments. It's convenient because nobody can disprove that you saw a
cockroach on your putative historical visit. However it came out very late
in the discussion, which is highly suspicious.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu