11

In general, would hotel staff find it unusual/weird for a customer to stay at a hotel for an extended period of time (e.g. 3 months)? Wouldn't that mean more money for them? Given the current crisis right now, would hotels prefer to have a single customer stay for a long time or a multiple customers stay for a short time?

  • 6
    Do you mean the hotel staff or the hotel owners? – DJClayworth Mar 30 at 0:34
  • 5
    @DJClayworth: both – Tomss Mar 30 at 0:36
  • 10
    I think this is a question that is down to individual hotels and chains - some places have a special rate for long term occupancy, some forbid it entirely over a certain length of stay due to local laws about the type of service they provide (some places may get around that by having you move rooms regularly). – Moo Mar 30 at 0:40
  • 2
    In some hotels a long stay would be unusual, in others it wouldn't. I doubt staff would think about it much beyond such-and-such a room needs cleaning. – Arthur's Pass Mar 30 at 0:41
  • 11
    What hotels might prefer right now could very well be different from what they might typically prefer. – NotThatGuy Mar 30 at 10:42
30

Depends on the place, often, and what they're aiming for.

For example, cheap hostels often have a rule about locals not being permitted to stay more than say, 2 weeks (to prevent down and out people taking advantage of cheap accommodation, ruining the traveller 'vibe' that the hostel might be seeking).

Have also seen a limit similarly on actual travellers - they want travellers, not backpackers on their working holiday just using it as a base. This might be for the mood, or also because they might rely on commission from activities for example, that they get from frequent different travellers.

Saying that, a friend lived in a hostel in London for 18 months, while working. I've done a few weeks in a single hostel in Argentina, Vancouver, and Melbourne, Australia, and gotten to know the staff, shared BBQs, drinks and the like.

| improve this answer | |
  • 36
    There are also places where staying long enough in the same place may results in all kinds of rights and obligations that hotels don't want to deal with. – gerrit Mar 30 at 8:56
  • I've been in a hostel where they had special activities/bonuses for weekly rate customers. – Bernhard Mar 30 at 13:38
  • 3
    While this is true, this answer would be improved by mentioning that there may be legal issues with customers who stay for a long period of time, which the hotel doesn't want to deal with. What those issues are, if any, vary significantly by jurisdiction. A relatively typical issue in some USA jurisdictions is that at a certain point, often 30 days, the occupant must be treated as if they are renting a residence, rather than temporary accommodation. Once that happens, all the laws applying to renting a residence apply, which can dramatically change some aspects of how the occupant is treated. – Makyen Mar 30 at 16:11
  • 1
    @Makyen : And some people have taken advantage of people on AirBnB ... they ask to extend their stay and offer to pay outside of AirBnB ... but then refuse to pay once they're at 30 days, and the landlord has to go through the eviction process which can take months in some areas. – Joe Mar 30 at 17:46
  • Some hostels are happy to have long-term guests during the low season, but prefer to have travelers during high season, so they evict the long-term guests. – Spehro Pefhany Mar 30 at 21:59
12

As Mark already mentioned it depends on the hotel/hostel type. He is giving one version. I've seen many places having such policy. But there is the opposite case. There are many examples of rich people who decided to live in a hotel at a given moment in their life. And that never was a problem for the hotel.

A known case is Calouste Gulbenkian. A rich Armenian who settled in Lisbon and lived 13 years in Hotel Aviz.

But there are many more examples. Including people who live in cruise ships most of the year (these are kind of floating hotels).

| improve this answer | |
  • Several examples came to mind but that's mostly of historical interest, not sure it tells us much about current attitudes of hotel staffs and owners. Living in a palace used to be a thing around the turn of the century, probably decreased a lot following the 1929 crisis (even if Gulbenkian moved to Portugal later). I might be wrong but I don't think it's common or especially welcome nowadays. Would be curious to know if anybody is aware of a more recent example. – Relaxed Mar 30 at 9:35
  • 1
    @Relaxed I've heard a couple of recent stories. I can't find links that fundament this though. In any case, as a general rule, if you have enough money you can do whatever you want. There are still people who lives in palaces. – nsn Mar 30 at 9:38
  • 4
    Not quite the same length of time, but Margaret Thatcher (d. 2013) spent the last four months of her life living in the Ritz Hotel in London [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Neil Tarrant Mar 30 at 9:51
  • 1
    And Jose Mourinho stayed at the Lowry while managing Manchester United mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/… – mdewey Mar 30 at 10:12
  • 3
    Permanent celebrity guests are usually an exception from the rule because they are free advertisement. Also, they don't consume that many personnel resources because they will often be away for longer periods of time. – Philipp Mar 30 at 10:12
7

I work away from home and regularly stay at hotels for a month or more, sometimes going home for weekends and sometimes not. My longest stay was for 3 months late last year at a hotel near Amsterdam, Netherlands (Joy Hotel - basic and cheap, but very clean and nice).

Without exception, the hotels have been very welcoming and happy with my extended stays. I have never experienced anything except goodwill. It's nice to get to know the staff a little better, learn their names, and chat with them regularly.

I think most hotels are glad of both the income and the vote of confidence you're giving them by staying their regularly.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    I do think your behavior in the hotel does affect their attitude toward you too. If you're constantly calling for room cleaning, additional supplies, constantly make a godawful mess for the cleaning staff, are noisy, etc, they will be much less happy to have you as an extended guest. OTOH, if you mindfully advise staff that you only need service (cleaning, changing, etc) every few days via their normal system (door tags, calling the desk, etc), are quiet and clean, and generally unobtrusive, then you're basically a model guest and they'll be happy to have your money :) – Doktor J Mar 30 at 15:34
  • I totally agree. I even have the staff asking me on the way out of the hotel if I'm leaving for a while so that they can schedule cleaning for me, or if I'd like to leave it until the following day. Typically I let them come in every other day, which reduces their burden and makes their life easier. It's also easier for them in the restaurant -- I'm vegan and they know me now, so we don't have to mess around with menus as I know the 3 options they have and just order it as I enter and seat myself. – Software Engineer Mar 31 at 13:22
5

Multi-weeks and months is not unheard of in the hotel business; a lot of people stay in hotel, both for tourism or business for a long time.

I does not matter one way or the other; it might even be easier on the staff as they do not have to make the room every day.

I think that people staying one night in a hotel is more burdensome.

UNLESS the client does not allow hotel staff in the room for regular maintenance (cleaning, bed changing...) and it result in the room degrading. (I assume there are rules and regulations for that)

| improve this answer | |
  • There were news reports that many hotels changed their policies about inspecting rooms even when 'do not disturb' signs are up, after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. – Joe Mar 30 at 17:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.