Hotel reservation issue - am I being unreasonable?
Mar 2nd, 2004, 09:57 AM
#41
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It kinda seems to me that the main problem isn't the smoking/nonsmoking issue, but rather that the OP needed a room with 3 beds. The king had a bed and a sofabed, so it could accommodate 4 people, but she wanted her kids to each have a seperate bed. While this is perfectly understandable, I think that in the future she may end up having trouble with this issue even if she stays at a hotel that is completely non-smoking. Do hotels guarantee the number of beds in the room? I've never run into this issue.
BTW, I hate rooms that smell like smoke and always request a non-smoking room even when I was a smoker. I always hated smoking indoors anyway. But, I'm not completely convinced that staying in a room that someone smoked in AT SOME TIME is a health hazard. It may be unpleasant, but is it really a health hazard? I have asthma and my mom has asthma, but I've never noticed a huge reaction to the smell. And from what I understand, people aren't truly allergic to smoke. You might have an intolerance to it, you might hate it to the point of being disgusted enough to vomit, but not a true allergy. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Could be, I often am.
BTW, I hate rooms that smell like smoke and always request a non-smoking room even when I was a smoker. I always hated smoking indoors anyway. But, I'm not completely convinced that staying in a room that someone smoked in AT SOME TIME is a health hazard. It may be unpleasant, but is it really a health hazard? I have asthma and my mom has asthma, but I've never noticed a huge reaction to the smell. And from what I understand, people aren't truly allergic to smoke. You might have an intolerance to it, you might hate it to the point of being disgusted enough to vomit, but not a true allergy. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Could be, I often am.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 10:09 AM
#42
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another alternative that I've not heard in this discussion is the possibility of a rollaway bed in the non-smoking King room. That would give them a king bed + sofa + rollaway.
Most hotels do charge perhaps $5 for the rollaway, but with the inconvenience they've encountered, they could easily waive that fee.
All I'm pointing out in this post and my last is that there should be alternatives, and with some asking, everybody could be a lot happier.
Most hotels do charge perhaps $5 for the rollaway, but with the inconvenience they've encountered, they could easily waive that fee.
All I'm pointing out in this post and my last is that there should be alternatives, and with some asking, everybody could be a lot happier.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 10:11 AM
#43
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems rkkwan has summarized the events pretty well. I can't understand why they would stay in the same room (or hotel) after the first night if things were unsatisfactory.
On the manager being "not available" -- I gotta say "BULL!" I ran into this at a hotel recently. I told them I was sure that were there a roof-collapse, or a car crashed into the lobby, I'd bet they could contact the manager, and that I refused to leave the desk until he spoke to me, even if on the phone.
Yes, we did speak and I got the matter settled that moment, not days after leaving the hotel. No time like the present, as they say.
On the manager being "not available" -- I gotta say "BULL!" I ran into this at a hotel recently. I told them I was sure that were there a roof-collapse, or a car crashed into the lobby, I'd bet they could contact the manager, and that I refused to leave the desk until he spoke to me, even if on the phone.
Yes, we did speak and I got the matter settled that moment, not days after leaving the hotel. No time like the present, as they say.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 10:43 AM
#44
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'va actually been told that you can't put rollaways in some rooms due to their size and fire codes or something like that.
On the manager issue: Even if the manager was only available from 9-5, I don't see why there would be a big problem with not leaving the hotel until after 9AM or coming back at some point during the day, or at least CALLING from wherever you are during business hours. This shouldn't have been this hard.
On the manager issue: Even if the manager was only available from 9-5, I don't see why there would be a big problem with not leaving the hotel until after 9AM or coming back at some point during the day, or at least CALLING from wherever you are during business hours. This shouldn't have been this hard.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 12:07 PM
#45
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the King room also had a pull out sofa, it's likely that the hotel wouldn't allow a rollaway bed in addition. There are fire/safety hazards which prohibit additional beds in certain rooms.
As for a manager on duty, it depends on the hotel. I worked in one hotel at night where I was literally the only person there and although I was in charge, I wasn't a manager. The other hotels I worked for did have a manger on duty at night because it was a large upscale chain. Regardless of wether or not a MOD was working, this could have been resolved.
Pat, why did you not ask to move the following day? In Sept I stayed at a hotel in San Diego where I had requested a bay view. We checked in later in the evening and the view I really wanted wasn't available. I could still see the water but only if I went out on the balcony. That night we stayed in the room we were given but I called and asked to be moved to a more central view and for the next four days of our stay I was every bit happy with that decision. If something is wrong with your room, you have to ask to be moved to something that will make you happy. The hotel held up there part of the deal by having the room regardless of your preferences.If you aren't proactive while on the trip, I don't think you can expect much in compensation afterwards in this case.
As for a manager on duty, it depends on the hotel. I worked in one hotel at night where I was literally the only person there and although I was in charge, I wasn't a manager. The other hotels I worked for did have a manger on duty at night because it was a large upscale chain. Regardless of wether or not a MOD was working, this could have been resolved.
Pat, why did you not ask to move the following day? In Sept I stayed at a hotel in San Diego where I had requested a bay view. We checked in later in the evening and the view I really wanted wasn't available. I could still see the water but only if I went out on the balcony. That night we stayed in the room we were given but I called and asked to be moved to a more central view and for the next four days of our stay I was every bit happy with that decision. If something is wrong with your room, you have to ask to be moved to something that will make you happy. The hotel held up there part of the deal by having the room regardless of your preferences.If you aren't proactive while on the trip, I don't think you can expect much in compensation afterwards in this case.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 12:41 PM
#46
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever someone says to me, "the manager isn't available", then I say, "then I want to speak to the person who is charge at the moment". No business leaves a place without some sort of chain of command. Someone must be available for decisions.
Back to your original question, now with all the facts. Let's see. You weren't exactly guaranteed the room you wanted. When you got there and complained they offered two other alternatives, and you didn't think it was worth the bother to call or make arrangements to get it taken care of during the rest of the stay. Yes, I think you are being unreasonable. Sorry.
Back to your original question, now with all the facts. Let's see. You weren't exactly guaranteed the room you wanted. When you got there and complained they offered two other alternatives, and you didn't think it was worth the bother to call or make arrangements to get it taken care of during the rest of the stay. Yes, I think you are being unreasonable. Sorry.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 02:56 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm guessing that with 2 kids and apparently a demanding all-day schedule, it wasn't just a matter of finding someone to talk to about changing rooms, it was a matter of finding time (and energy) to pack everything up and move it. An upscale hotel MIGHT be willing to move your belongings in your absence, esp. if they were convinced an error had been made. But I've never yet been in a chain hotel that would my stuff for me, which means that Pat and family would have had to agree to pack stuff up and trust leaving it in some storage area until they got back in the evening. Doesn't sound like the sort of place I would have liked to do that.
Once again, I don't maintain that the hotel failed to live up to something it promised, but it doesn't sound like the situation was handled very professionally.
(And cynic, my nose/sinuses shut down like a storm-cellar door and I get a killer "cluster" headache, when I walk into a room where tobacco has been. Even before I smell it, I always know, "uh oh, someone's smoked here at some point." If you've ever been around someone allergic to cats who starts sneezing the minute they enter a house where a cat has been, it's sort of the same thing. And yes, it is a true allergy to tobacco -- have the same reaction to unsmoked leaves. The allergen "works" no matter what, and -- for that matter -- only an antihistamine helps even a little.)
Once again, I don't maintain that the hotel failed to live up to something it promised, but it doesn't sound like the situation was handled very professionally.
(And cynic, my nose/sinuses shut down like a storm-cellar door and I get a killer "cluster" headache, when I walk into a room where tobacco has been. Even before I smell it, I always know, "uh oh, someone's smoked here at some point." If you've ever been around someone allergic to cats who starts sneezing the minute they enter a house where a cat has been, it's sort of the same thing. And yes, it is a true allergy to tobacco -- have the same reaction to unsmoked leaves. The allergen "works" no matter what, and -- for that matter -- only an antihistamine helps even a little.)
Mar 2nd, 2004, 04:00 PM
#48
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cassandra,
If you have a reaction to unsmoked tobacco leaves, imho you do have a true allergy, but you are not in the majority of people who say they are "allergic" to smoke. When most people say they are allergic to cigarette smoke they mean the smoke itself. They use it as a medical excuse, because they don't like the smoke, the smell, whatever. Not wanting to be around smoke/smokers is fine. Smoking is smelly and gross, but I find that a lot of people will say they are allergic to it without knowing that for sure or even truly understanding what that means. They say it out of convenience. Someone with a true allergy should be able to tell a hotel that and have them guarantee a nonsmoking room, but since so many people claim this "allergy", it loses it's meaning.
"There is an important distinction to be made between true allergy, that is, a reproducible response to an allergen, and sensitivity to irritants. In general, true allergens are biologic substances, such as pollens, foods, or medications whereas irritants are chemicals or toxins, such as perfumes, cigarette smoke, and auto exhaust. The distinction can sometimes be difficult to make, because the symptoms of a response to an allergen and a response to an irritant can be very similar. One useful fact to keep in mind is that allergic responses are not dose-dependent while irritant responses are dose-dependent. For example, a very brief exposure to a cat can make someone sneeze for hours, but it may take a lengthy exposure to perfume or cigarette smoke to make an irritant-sensitive individual have sustained nasal symptoms. "
http://dmgallergy.com/patientinfo/allergy.html
If you have a reaction to unsmoked tobacco leaves, imho you do have a true allergy, but you are not in the majority of people who say they are "allergic" to smoke. When most people say they are allergic to cigarette smoke they mean the smoke itself. They use it as a medical excuse, because they don't like the smoke, the smell, whatever. Not wanting to be around smoke/smokers is fine. Smoking is smelly and gross, but I find that a lot of people will say they are allergic to it without knowing that for sure or even truly understanding what that means. They say it out of convenience. Someone with a true allergy should be able to tell a hotel that and have them guarantee a nonsmoking room, but since so many people claim this "allergy", it loses it's meaning.
"There is an important distinction to be made between true allergy, that is, a reproducible response to an allergen, and sensitivity to irritants. In general, true allergens are biologic substances, such as pollens, foods, or medications whereas irritants are chemicals or toxins, such as perfumes, cigarette smoke, and auto exhaust. The distinction can sometimes be difficult to make, because the symptoms of a response to an allergen and a response to an irritant can be very similar. One useful fact to keep in mind is that allergic responses are not dose-dependent while irritant responses are dose-dependent. For example, a very brief exposure to a cat can make someone sneeze for hours, but it may take a lengthy exposure to perfume or cigarette smoke to make an irritant-sensitive individual have sustained nasal symptoms. "
http://dmgallergy.com/patientinfo/allergy.html
Mar 2nd, 2004, 05:55 PM
#50
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On rare occasions when we have had to/asked to switch rooms at a hotel after checking into the first one, THE HOTEL is the one who moves our stuff. Last summer in San Diego the room type we had reserved was not available at check-in. The desk clerk was very appologetic (story we got which I actually believe is that guest in "our room" had extended by a day and refused to leave), gave us free drink and snack certificates and asked us what time next day we wanted them to move our stuff. It was all accomplished while we were out enjoying the city. Years ago got moldy smeely room in Bermuda - again, they moved us next day.
And I agree with those posters above who say bedding type and smoking/NS is a request, not a guarantee.
Story is not nearly as bad as when we arrived in Bahamas 18 years ago after a rough flight, while I was pregnant, on Thanksgiving day to find our prepaid hotel room was not available.
And I agree with those posters above who say bedding type and smoking/NS is a request, not a guarantee.
Story is not nearly as bad as when we arrived in Bahamas 18 years ago after a rough flight, while I was pregnant, on Thanksgiving day to find our prepaid hotel room was not available.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 08:47 PM
#51
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree there's a difference between an allergy and a sensitivity to an irritant. However, a person who is "only" sensitive may still feel quite ill, with stinging eyes and a sore throat, in a smoking room, especially after having to spend 10 hours there.
Mar 2nd, 2004, 11:17 PM
#52
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I agree that staying in a "smoky" room can be quite irritating and uncomfortable. I don't like it at all either. But I guess what I was asking was, is it truly a health hazard or just an annoyance? I was just wondering because one of the posters lead me to believe that she thought it was hazardous to her health. Obviously in the OP's case, it was just annoying evidenced by the fact that she decided having three beds was more important than having a non-smoking room and it wasn't even annoying enough for her to make time to talk to the manager during her stay. If you have respitory problems, it would truly be a health hazard since irritants can trigger a violent reaction. But there are people who just don't like the smell that blow things out of proportion. It just seems so fashionable nowadays to say that you are allergic to smoke (or perfume for that matter). I just think it trivializes the issue. Being exposed to secondhand smoke for long periods of time is truly a health hazard, but is being in a room where someone smoked at some point that big of a deal for most people? Now, I'm allergic to a lot of things. I'm fairly miserable in the spring if I'm not doped up. I don't go around telling people that they can't have flowers on their desks because it endangers my health. I just deal with it, the same way I deal with loud people who give me headaches or people with those horrible superbright blue headlights. I think a lot of people have just lost the ability to just deal with things and everybody wants things exactly their way, which makes it harder for those people who truly have a problem to get what they need. That's just my own personal pet peeve I guess. Anyway, I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's experiences if they truly suffer from a smoke sensitive or a true tobacco allergy. Hopefully it will be a moot point in the near future as hotels move towards becoming completely non-smoking, not because of any health issues necessarily, but more due to the extra costs associated with cleaning and maintaining a smoking room.
Mar 3rd, 2004, 03:36 AM
#53
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of us who frequent the European boards discuss getting stuck in smoking rooms all the time -- non-smoking isn't always even available in Europe (and I'm guessing other countries in other parts of the world). One of the secrets we learn is to carry Febreeze with us and spray things down after arrival. It's not perfect but it really does neutralize the odor to a large extent and make it much more bearable.
And by the way, I'm one of those folks who have asthma so am very sensitive to smoke. This works for me so it's at least worth trying if the odor of smoke would otherwise spoil your visit. I don't usually carry the Febreeze with me when I travel stateside though -- I'm usually successful in getting a non-smoking room here and have almost always managed to get switched after mentioning that I have asthma when they have tried to put me in the smoking room.
And by the way, I'm one of those folks who have asthma so am very sensitive to smoke. This works for me so it's at least worth trying if the odor of smoke would otherwise spoil your visit. I don't usually carry the Febreeze with me when I travel stateside though -- I'm usually successful in getting a non-smoking room here and have almost always managed to get switched after mentioning that I have asthma when they have tried to put me in the smoking room.
Mar 3rd, 2004, 02:56 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not intending to be difficult, but Febreeze is worse for me than tobacco, and that's saying something! By now I'm sure everyone will think I'm just a bundle of allergies, and it's true that over the years I've developed more and more reactions to things airborne -- but let's be honest, did we even HAVE Febreeze a few decades ago? "April Fresh Scent"? "Shower-Fresh Clean"? "Cinnamon-Vanilla Meditation"? "Apple-Jasmine Retreat"?
I remember when a guy could get a good bit of teasing if he OD'd with English Leather or (heeeYAH) Hai Karati; and a girl who poured too much Tabu or Shalimar over herself might get a bit of hassle, too. Now everyone seems to need things to smell like other things (bathrooms that smell like raspberries, laundry that smells like lemons, etc.), and a lot of it. So when I travel, I'm extremely grateful for things and places and people that don't smell like much of anything.
Tobacco remains a fairly serious problem for me, but t he "inconvenience" of the other stuff -- colognes, air freshners, etc. -- seems like a gratuitous bit of intrusion into my "olefactory space"! ;-) Wish they just wouldn't (and PLEASE take it easy with the Febreeze, that stuff LASTS!)
I remember when a guy could get a good bit of teasing if he OD'd with English Leather or (heeeYAH) Hai Karati; and a girl who poured too much Tabu or Shalimar over herself might get a bit of hassle, too. Now everyone seems to need things to smell like other things (bathrooms that smell like raspberries, laundry that smells like lemons, etc.), and a lot of it. So when I travel, I'm extremely grateful for things and places and people that don't smell like much of anything.
Tobacco remains a fairly serious problem for me, but t he "inconvenience" of the other stuff -- colognes, air freshners, etc. -- seems like a gratuitous bit of intrusion into my "olefactory space"! ;-) Wish they just wouldn't (and PLEASE take it easy with the Febreeze, that stuff LASTS!)
Mar 3rd, 2004, 03:45 PM
#55
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I'm with you Cassandra. I'm not much of a fan of scented stuff either. I keep meaning to run out and get those aerosal unscented odor neutralizers when I get stuck in smoky rooms (or just plain smelly ones), but I never seem to actually do it. I don't want my room to smell like potpourri or lemons or whatever. I don't wear perfume (unless it's a really special occasion) and I use unscented laundry detergent and soaps. I especially can't stand scented toilet paper and scented garbage can liners. Ewww. Luckily, (or unluckily) my allergies and sinus troubles keep me stuffed up most of the time so I can't smell much of that stuff anyway. Now, if I could only get people to turn down their stereos and stop invading my auditory? space.
Mar 4th, 2004, 06:54 PM
#56
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience as a front desk clerk, if everyone who says they are "allergic" to smoke really was, smoking would have been outlawed decades ago. Too many people dilute their argument by overstating the problem. Drama queens really show their stuff at the front desk...
Mar 4th, 2004, 07:31 PM
#57
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"og719" and others, what difference should it make whether someone is "truly" allergic or "just" sensitive to tobacco or tobacco smoke? If it's unpleasant, they shouldn't have to live with it, and if a hotel is in the business of accommodating guests, they should accommodate guests. The attitude that somehow a guest must prove actual medical harm to merit a non-smoking room and to avoid being called a "drama queen" is completely upside-down.
What if half the rooms in a hotel were "barfing" rooms and half were "non-barfing" rooms? Would you consider the people who objected to being put in rooms that smelled like barf "drama queens"?
What is notable about "Pat's" original post is that the approach taken by the hotel entailed a lot of inhospitability -- manager not available, no apology, curtness and hiding behind the "no guarantees" disclaimer. Maybe she was expecting something she wasn't entitled to, and maybe she messed up her own case by accepting something she originally hadn't wanted to. But the "tough noogies - the customer's probably wrong" attitude is a losing one.
What if half the rooms in a hotel were "barfing" rooms and half were "non-barfing" rooms? Would you consider the people who objected to being put in rooms that smelled like barf "drama queens"?
What is notable about "Pat's" original post is that the approach taken by the hotel entailed a lot of inhospitability -- manager not available, no apology, curtness and hiding behind the "no guarantees" disclaimer. Maybe she was expecting something she wasn't entitled to, and maybe she messed up her own case by accepting something she originally hadn't wanted to. But the "tough noogies - the customer's probably wrong" attitude is a losing one.
Mar 4th, 2004, 07:34 PM
#58
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering how many people you booked with versus how many people you checked in with. You've made quite clear that the number of beds in the room was more important to you than a non-smoking room. So, I, personally, think you should have been quite satisfied, especially when checking in late at night.
Mar 4th, 2004, 11:48 PM
#59
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cfc,
I think that perhaps you missed the point that some of us were trying to make. I've never disputed that staying in a smoking room can be unpleasant. Personally, I try to get a N/S room as much a possible. Nor did I suggest that someone shouldn't try to get moved if they are put in a smoking room. The thing I was questioning is whether or not it is actually a medical issue for most people and whether they should use that excuse as as reason to get moved. When a lot of people exaggerate or lie about having conditions to get special treatment, it makes some people less sympathetic to those that actually have that condition. It's like the differnce between asking a smoker to put out his cigarette politely and faking coughing up a lung to show them how disgusting of a habit it is. If the smell bothers you, speak up. If you really need a N/S room, call ahead and see if they will guarantee that for you. If the hotel doesn't accomodate you, then speak up with your feet and your pocketbook by only frequenting hotels that guarantee non-smoking rooms or are non-smoking hotels. Those are all reasonable reactions. However, pitching a fit and telling a desk clerk that they are endangering your health when you just don't like the smell is not a reasonable reaction. ( I understand that is NOT what the OP did, I'm just reacting to another poster) IMO unless you truly have a medical condition like Cassandra, most smoking rooms are only an annoyance on par with worn furnishings or being put in a room next to the elevator. They are probably worth complaining about, but would you really get compensation for it unless you were really in a high-end hotel? Like it or not, for now most hotels have both smoking and non rooms and they consider your request to be a preference and not a right. Most will not guarantee which room you will get anymore than they will guarantee that you will have two beds or a view. I know that when I book online, that disclaimer is prominently featured on the page. Considering that and the fact that the OP was offered a N/S room (even though it was a king and djkbooks is right we don't know how many people were on OP's reservation) and that the OP didn't attempt to rectify the situation after the initial contact with the front desk, I do think that the OP is expecting too much.
I think that perhaps you missed the point that some of us were trying to make. I've never disputed that staying in a smoking room can be unpleasant. Personally, I try to get a N/S room as much a possible. Nor did I suggest that someone shouldn't try to get moved if they are put in a smoking room. The thing I was questioning is whether or not it is actually a medical issue for most people and whether they should use that excuse as as reason to get moved. When a lot of people exaggerate or lie about having conditions to get special treatment, it makes some people less sympathetic to those that actually have that condition. It's like the differnce between asking a smoker to put out his cigarette politely and faking coughing up a lung to show them how disgusting of a habit it is. If the smell bothers you, speak up. If you really need a N/S room, call ahead and see if they will guarantee that for you. If the hotel doesn't accomodate you, then speak up with your feet and your pocketbook by only frequenting hotels that guarantee non-smoking rooms or are non-smoking hotels. Those are all reasonable reactions. However, pitching a fit and telling a desk clerk that they are endangering your health when you just don't like the smell is not a reasonable reaction. ( I understand that is NOT what the OP did, I'm just reacting to another poster) IMO unless you truly have a medical condition like Cassandra, most smoking rooms are only an annoyance on par with worn furnishings or being put in a room next to the elevator. They are probably worth complaining about, but would you really get compensation for it unless you were really in a high-end hotel? Like it or not, for now most hotels have both smoking and non rooms and they consider your request to be a preference and not a right. Most will not guarantee which room you will get anymore than they will guarantee that you will have two beds or a view. I know that when I book online, that disclaimer is prominently featured on the page. Considering that and the fact that the OP was offered a N/S room (even though it was a king and djkbooks is right we don't know how many people were on OP's reservation) and that the OP didn't attempt to rectify the situation after the initial contact with the front desk, I do think that the OP is expecting too much.
Mar 5th, 2004, 04:52 AM
#60
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cynic, I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Being in a room with an irritating, unpleasant odor is not on a par with old curtains. If it weren't a major issue, there wouldn't be a standard choice between smoking and non-smoking rooms. I can sleep without seeing the old curtains and, in a pinch, use earplugs for the elevator. But stink is forever, and -- my main point -- it shouldn't be a matter of suspicion from the outset, demanding that the guest provide proof of special need in order to get a room in one of the two major categories of room offered. That's nuts (and how would you demand proof of a problem with a noisy elevator or tattered furniture?).
And again: this shouldn't be a contest to see who can be more difficult, guest or hotel. As for the OP, I don't really argue that she was entitled to something she wasn't offered. I do argue with the attitude that thinks guests are out of line if they request a non-smoking room without a note from the doctor. (And btw, no one pitches a fit who has gotten what they wanted in the first place. Simple.)
And again: this shouldn't be a contest to see who can be more difficult, guest or hotel. As for the OP, I don't really argue that she was entitled to something she wasn't offered. I do argue with the attitude that thinks guests are out of line if they request a non-smoking room without a note from the doctor. (And btw, no one pitches a fit who has gotten what they wanted in the first place. Simple.)
