Marriott going totally smoke-free 10/2006!

[disneysteve]

I knew I loved Marriott for a reason.



In order to accommodate the preferences of the vast majority of our guests, all Marriott® hotels in the United States and Canada will become 100% smoke-free by October 15, 2006.

This is the industry's largest move to a smoke-free environment and includes over 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments under the
Marriott, JW Marriott®, Renaissance®, Courtyard®, Fairfield Inn®, SpringHill Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites® and
Marriott ExecuStay® brands. The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public spaces, and employee work areas.

Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking, and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Designated smoking areas will be made available outside of the hotel for our guests who smoke.

This policy will enhance the level of service and care we can offer our guests. We hope to see you soon in our new smoke-free hotel environment.

 

[CPM]

I LOVE IT!!

I know I will be staying at Marriott hotels more often just because of this.

 

[lovindonald]

Yeah!!!! I wish all the Disney resorts would follow suit.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Ok..while I do not smoke, my husband is a smoker. I have to say, in all fairness, this is discrimination. I understand there are many non-smokers, but there are also the smokers that need to be considered. Is it fair that a smoker is going to be paying the same price as a non-smoker & when he wants a smoke, he has to go out in the rain?? I understand everyones concern about the second hand smoke & I totally agree. If all the smoking rooms are on one floor, the smoke will not bother anyone.... My DH smokes on our closed in Lanai or in the garage.... I don't make him sit out in the rain... face it, rain is an everyday occurance here from June to Oct. I really wonder if this will affect their occp rate....

 

[disneysteve]

I really wonder if this will affect their occp rate

I don't think it will affect them one bit. As the message said, more than 90% of their rooms are already smoke-free. So this change only affects a handful of their rooms. Plus it will save them a fortune in cleaning costs. Smoking rooms need to be cleaned more, bedding, curtains, carpet and furniture replaced more often, etc. I think it is a shrewd business decision as well as great public relations.

 

[nepean]

Having one smoker and one non-smoker we have usually booked a smoking room. We used to stay at Comfort Suites Maingate East until they changed their policy and we switched hotels. Many non North Americans smoke and I have seen them still walking around Disney smoking and not going to the smoking areas. They will continue to do as they please. Since most hotels only have a small percentage of rooms as smoking rooms I would think that they would be able to set aside one floor or area as smoking rooms. Those who don't will loose the business and it is not only the room charge, but the bar charges, gift shop purchases, etc. to another establishment that will alllow smoking. I have also noticed that Orbit One Resort, Fortune Palace timeshares have also gone non-smoking. What happens to "owners" who are smokers and are now being told that they cannot smoke in "their" unit. Will the TS buy back the unit at the developers high price. Unfortuanately, I think that this is the wave of the future and more hotels will do this.

Nepean

 

[CPM]

I doubt all hotel chains are going to go to non-smoking. But, it is nice for us non-smokers to finally have a chain that we can depend on for a non-smoking room. I'm so sick of booking rooms and told that they can't guantee a non-smoking room. At least a smoker can smoke on a balcony or outside the room. Non-smokers can't do anything if the room smells like smoke.
It seems like the smoking rooms are usually the only rooms available when you book last minute. Maybe Marriott just got tired of having to worry about it.

 

[Barak's Disney]

I agree!

 

[grlzmom]

I am very happy about this.

I cant stand to be stuck in a smoking room, and always feel like I have to get to my hotel really early for check in to ensure that I have gotten a non smoking room. Seems like if you arrive late, you are stuck with whats left which is never a non smoking room.

Disneysteve, I agree with you, I think this is a great business and public relations decision.

 

[disneysteve]

I think that this is the wave of the future and more hotels will do this.

I certainly hope so. Actually, Marriott isn't the first chain to do it, but they are the largest.

 

[spiceycat]

Many non North Americans smoke and I have seen them still walking around Disney smoking and not going to the smoking areas. They will continue to do as they please.

Nepean

and that is one of the BIG problems. Smokers feel that they are in the minority and they are. Most of the CM will ask the smokers to put it out or go to a smoking area.

people don't want someone elses smoke in their face.

this is funny because the people who are bothered the most are the ex-smokers. the one here at work get so upset when someone smokes near them. the entire building is non-smoking.

Since I am very allergic to tobacco - I appreciate non-smoking places.

as far as obeying the rules. Well it depends upon the charge if you don't. If these hotels/resorts/timeshares back it up with hefty fees. then I really think most people will go by the rules. If they don't charge anything for breaking the rules - then they won't.

but if they promise someone else a smoke fee place to sleep and it isn't - then I feel certain the courts will settle it.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

If all hotels end up non-smoking, I can almost bet that there will be the smokers that are going to disobey the rules..they will not want to have to stand outside, no where even near their rooms to have one. Then it will be even worse for the non-smokers, you can end up in a room with a smell of smoke. Or worse yet, you can be on your balcony & the smell & sight of smoke comes drifting past you...
Like I said, I do not smoke.. (by the way, ex-smoker since 1988) I can understand that they do have rights too.
If 90% of the rooms were smoke free anyway, why not keep it that way. My DH has already informed me that he does not plan on staying at any of the smoke free chains, so they have already lost business. I am sure there will be many more like my DH.
I am also sure there will be some sort of class-action case that will end up developing out of it too. That really is discrimination against a smoker.

I am not saying that everywhere & everything should allow smoking. I do not like the smell of it myself. I don't want it in my face, my mom has lung cancer from it... so I really do not like it. I would much rather have the smokers be allowed their rooms than have to walk past a cloud of smoke outside somewhere when they are in their "permitted area". The smell of that many together is even worse than one by itself.

 

[CPM]

If 90% of the rooms were smoke free anyway, why not keep it that way. My DH has already informed me that he does not plan on staying at any of the smoke free chains, so they have already lost business. I am sure there will be many more like my DH.
.

Because Sharon, even at 90%, the smoking rooms are still the ones with vacancy. It's harder to fill those rooms. Now, I will counteract with your husband and try & stay only at chains with non-smoking. And, there will be many more like me too. I know on one of my Yahoo Disney lists, every one of us said they will try & stay at a smoke free chain if available.
Right now we all have a choice, I like it that way.

 

[disneysteve]

If 90% of the rooms were smoke free anyway, why not keep it that way. My DH has already informed me that he does not plan on staying at any of the smoke free chains, so they have already lost business. I am sure there will be many more like my DH.
I am also sure there will be some sort of class-action case that will end up developing out of it too. That really is discrimination against a smoker.

I would much rather have the smokers be allowed their rooms than have to walk past a cloud of smoke outside somewhere when they are in their "permitted area". The smell of that many together is even worse than one by itself.

Let's say you own a hotel. Are you going to go with the policy that is preferred by greater than 90% of your customers or the one that is only preferred by less than 10% of your customers? Obviously, the non-smoking policy is going to please far more customers than it will displease.

As for keeping the status quo, it just isn't working. I've been in several hotels that had 10 or less smoking rooms. That means they are on the same floors as the non-smoking rooms, so those of us who booked and paid for non-smoking rooms end up with smokey hallways because the room next door might be smoking. In one hotel, we were in one of two adjoining rooms. The people in the next room (who we didn't know) were smoking and smoke drifted under the door into our room. We got a new room, a refund and money toward laundering our clothes out of that fiasco.

I agree that it is unpleasant to walk past of throng of smokers outside, but it is still better than having the smokers inside where I can't escape it. Many smoking bans also include all workplaces, so allowing smoking anywhere in the hotel would be in violation of that since hotel employees would be exposed to the smoke.

Finally, banning smoking IS NOT discrimination. Smokers are not a legally protected class of people. That would be like saying drunk driving laws or open container laws discriminate against alcoholics. Private companies and governments have the right to regulate where smoking and drinking alcohol can occur.

Sorry, I didn't intend this to be a smoking debate.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Let's say you own a hotel. Are you going to go with the policy that is preferred by greater than 90% of your customers or the one that is only preferred by less than 10% of your customers? Obviously, the non-smoking policy is going to please far more customers than it will displease.

As for keeping the status quo, it just isn't working. I've been in several hotels that had 10 or less smoking rooms. That means they are on the same floors as the non-smoking rooms, so those of us who booked and paid for non-smoking rooms end up with smokey hallways because the room next door might be smoking. In one hotel, we were in one of two adjoining rooms. The people in the next room (who we didn't know) were smoking and smoke drifted under the door into our room. We got a new room, a refund and money toward laundering our clothes out of that fiasco.

I agree that it is unpleasant to walk past of throng of smokers outside, but it is still better than having the smokers inside where I can't escape it. Many smoking bans also include all workplaces, so allowing smoking anywhere in the hotel would be in violation of that since hotel employees would be exposed to the smoke.

Finally, banning smoking IS NOT discrimination. Smokers are not a legally protected class of people. That would be like saying drunk driving laws or open container laws discriminate against alcoholics. Private companies and governments have the right to regulate where smoking and drinking alcohol can occur.

Sorry, I didn't intend this to be a smoking debate.

I am not trying to start a debate either. I just felt that it should be known doing something like that isn't fair to everyone. While some say it will not matter to the business, it will. What will happen when that hotel is not at full occupancy? If they had smoking rooms, they may be able to fill them up, see what I am saying. So it really isn't a totally smart move. There have been many resturants that went smokefree due to the law here in FL & some of the owners have seen a drop in profits & they feel it is due to that law.
You cannot compare smoking to drunk driving. Drunk driving is agaisnt the law period..no if ands or butts about it.. while smoking is not agains the law. That is like apples to oranges. If thinking in your lines of thought, what if hotels decided they didn't want to take the chance of someone drinking alcoholic bev's in their room, then going out & getting into a car accident. They would then ban all alcohol at that hotel. Maybe some of the hotel bars should think about that when they are seving that drunk??? I am not trying to start a total debate either, but when comparing things, at least do it on the same level...

 

[disneysteve]

You cannot compare smoking to drunk driving.

I know it isn't a good comparison. My only point was that even though both activities - smoking and drinking alcohol - are legal, there are limitations on where those activities can be performed. It isn't discrimination to limit those activities.

As for hotel occupancy, I'm quite sure Marriott knows their occupancy rates very well and wouldn't be doing this if it was going to cost them money.

 

[CPM]

There have been many resturants that went smokefree due to the law here in FL & some of the owners have seen a drop in profits & they feel it is due to that law.
..

Sharon,
You know I'm in the business, and I know that is not true. There was an initial drop in business but it has actually been on the incline due to that law. I have read the statistics on it. I'm sure the initial drop was mostly restaurants that are bar driven anyway.
Smokers are lucky here in FL. They can smoke in outdoor patios. I was just in Newport, RI and they can't smoke outside under umbrellas or coveered patios at all!

 

[disneysteve]

You know I'm in the business, and I know that is not true. There was an initial drop in business but it has actually been on the incline due to that law.
Smokers are lucky here in FL. They can smoke in outdoor patios. I was just in Newport, RI and they can't smoke outside under umbrellas or coveered patios at all!

Same here. NJ finally got a smoking ban in April and restaurant business is booming. The law here is no smoking within 25 feet of a building, but I don't really see that being enforced.

We love smoke-free dining, though it is costing us money because we are eating out much more frequently now. There were very few restaurants we could go to before due to smoking. Now we can go anywhere we want.

 

[spiceycat]

I just felt that it should be known doing something like that isn't fair to everyone. While some say it will not matter to the business, it will.

most of the people in the US will definitely go where they aren't bother by smoke..... that includes lots of smokers.

is it fair that I, who don't smoke and am allergic to tobacco (all of it) - have to put up with smokers.

there was one real problem woman here at work. She smoked - but hated being around others who smoked..... despite being in another department - as soon as she lite up I would start coughing and having trouble breathing. She refused to go in the smoking places at work - so she was fired.

she sued the company and lost.

there is no 'right to smoke' in the constitution...

but that say we would not be the US without tobacco - it was the cash crop that saved the colonies.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Sharon,
You know I'm in the business, and I know that is not true. There was an initial drop in business but it has actually been on the incline due to that law. I have read the statistics on it. I'm sure the initial drop was mostly restaurants that are bar driven anyway.
Smokers are lucky here in FL. They can smoke in outdoor patios. I was just in Newport, RI and they can't smoke outside under umbrellas or coveered patios at all!

Exacatly Cheryl... there was a decline. However, many of them are now deciding to build that outdoor patio so they can bring that smokers business back...and that is why some of them are on the incline back... I know where my son work's they have been playing with the idea of the outdoor patio, they think it will bring back some of what they lost. They are also applying for what ever it is they need to install a full service bar... with the hopes that will help it too...
You know me, you know I don't smoke & hate the smell of it. I just don't think it is totally fair for the smoker that pays the same rate.. While everyone here has a legit reason for liking it.. if the smoking rooms were no were near the others.. like I said same floor type of deal...it should not bother those with allergies etc... look at the hotels that allow pets? 3 out of 5 in my family are highly allergic to cats.... will we not stay at Universal because they allow cats, no... we just don't stay in that section. If we are given a room that had a pet in it, we can tell... we ask to be moved..that goes for any hotel we have stayed at. By taking away smoking rooms is asking for them to smoke in the room.. do you see what I am saying. If a smoker stays in one of the resorts that ban it.. it is raining .. do you really think they will go out in the rain to smoke...no they will not. They will light up in that non-smoking room making it stink! I just think it is asking for problems.. at least with some rooms for them, they should never have to light up in a non-smoking room... and we all know they actually do it now...so just imagine later.... see what I am saying...