I don't understand why NO is inherently more expensive.
Because cities with less tourism will cut you better deals.
I also don't understand why it's a problem with NO, but not with LA, Chicago, or DC.
We've had similar discussions each time. Just because they won out doesn't mean their expenses, etc. weren't questioned and lobbied for and against.
The lobster ravioli I had in New Orleans cost about the same as the generic meal at a brew pub I had in DC.
DC is not exactly known for it's great bargains.
Oooh. Where did you have lobster ravioli?
t shamelessly hijacking thread
Oooh. Where did you have lobster ravioli?
Bacco's. Lobster ravioli in butter champagne sauce, with lumps of lobster meat, topped with dollops of caviar. Also ten cent martini deal at lunch.
Because cities with less tourism will cut you better deals.
That's not necessarily so. Hotels have to make their money- for instance I paid more at the Sheraton Peirmont in Shreveport on my honey moon than I did at the Burbon Orleans over Christmas. The Burbon was going to have paying guests, and could cut deals to entice people. The Sheraton couldn't because what guests were there had to pay full price to cover operating costs
Also as Hec said above- some of the rest/bar deals might even things out.
Lobster ravioli in butter champagne sauce, with lumps of lobster meat, topped with dollops of caviar.
Take the caviar off, and I'm there.
In fact, I think I'm going to make that.
JS, I am now mentally imprinted with the image of a utilikilted ND, doing a King Kong atop the Space Needle in Seattle.
In fact, I think I'm going to make that.
Bugger NO, F2F in Deb's kitchen!
For me, and only for me, having the F2F in a city such as Minneapolis or Kansas City, gives me an opportunity to go to city I probably wouldn't have much reason to go to otherwise. NOLA, I'll go to on my own. KS or Minn, maybe not. Not to say we wouldn't go to NOLA if that's where the vote put the F2F, but i personally
I like the appeal of seeing somewhere I might not get to PLUS IMPROVED with Buffistas.
A tourist trap just isn't going to be as inexpensive as a non.
I keep saying Kansas City, because I know a bit about it, but there are other smaller cities that will have similar deals. Take a look at this:
[link]
look particularly at this:
[link]
the second link talks about
$64
for a
TWO NIGHT STAY.
That specific promotion isn't up for 2005 yet, but I spoke to them and there will be the same or something similar. And it will be in a city with food, music, walkability, and cheap, short, direct, flights.
We will not get that in New Orleans (or LA, DC or Chicago fwiw). We may get it in Minneapolis or St. Louis or Cleveland or some other smaller cities that a) have some very nice things to do b) will bend over backwards to get our money.
A tourist trap just isn't going to be as inexpensive as a non.
Depends on how savvy you are. Isn't that the advantage of having knowledgeable people planning?
Let the bids decide what's more expensive -- people got rooms in LA cheaper than Evanston. Stuff happens.
