On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2012/4/22 Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The deals we're arranging have no extra
charge for dual occupancy.
This might sound extremely stupid, but make sure that dual occupancy
means 2 beds in a room, not a Queen Size Bed. There are surprisingly
few hotels that actually offer two separate beds in a room or their
contingent of such rooms is actually quite limited. At the prices that
were mentionned, you really want to book all the double bed rooms in
those hotels, because very few people will be able to afford a single
I'm not sure about this... While I haven't done a survey or discovered any
references on point, I've stayed in a number of hotels in Washington and throughout
the U.S. and almost always encounter two beds in a room as a single occupant. Since
I'm commenting anyway, I will say that $149 is a very good rate for hotels in
And while Thomas Dalton denigrates it as "a silly American habit" to quote
prices before taxes, that may be because we have so many different tax domains with
different rates. It helps to know the pre-tax amounts (similar to how airline seats are
often quoted) for comparison purposes, as the tax component will give you no sense of the
accommodations or amenities expected etc. I suppose that may not be commonly understood by
travelers from small nations with primarily national tax policies.
I totally get your argument, but I also quoted the prices net of tax because it's what
I do as a silly American. :p
But yes. While full disclosure of prices is important, tax is common to all of these and
it makes the true market value seem higher than in reality.
So between my initial email and the follow-up explaining the 14.5% tax, we have now seen
both sets of numbers.
Wikimania-l mailing list