London hotel rooms have long been touted as the ideal solution for staying at luxury hotels and have been the target of the latest criticism from the travel industry.
In 2016, hotel industry leaders including Hilton and Marriott withdrew from the Paris Hilton hotel chain, and even the US’s biggest hotel chain Hilton Worldwide stopped buying its shares in the Paris-based chain.
However, a recent study by Hotel Association International and PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that even the best-rated hotels in the world aren’t immune to a number of flaws.
The study, released this week, found that London’s 10 best-performing hotels are a “catastrophic failure” on four key metrics: occupancy rates, average room rate per night, night-time occupancy rate and room availability per night.
The study found that the 10 hotels rated “excellent” on the first two metrics were also “catastic failures” on five others.
It also found that hotel room availability was “generally poor,” meaning that when you arrive at the hotel, you’ll likely find it “frozen” by the security guards and staff, and that you’ll probably need to be “pushed into the back room to find a seat.”
The report found that a whopping 60% of hotel rooms in London had room availability less than 20% of the day, and only 4% had room occupancy at all.
While many people may be tempted to get out to a local pub or club, it’s important to note that hotel rooms can be incredibly expensive.
For example, a single night at a hotel in London for £700 ($1,700) could be worth £8,000 ($12,000) in the UK, according to the report.
The average room in the cheapest hotel in the capital is around £300 ($430) a night, according the study.
In addition, the study found the average rate of room occupancy in hotels “overwhelmed by the availability of room space,” meaning there was “little room to spare for more important needs.”
It’s not just the hotel industry’s own data that shows this, however.
The report also found room occupancy rates “overwhelmingly fell” for all other types of accommodation, meaning people who wanted to stay at a luxury hotel “were left to fend for themselves.”