Accor allows pets; Eurostars still bans them

Accor allows pets: unresolved cleaning and allergy issues

Some major hotel chains have incorporated pet-friendly policies into their commercial strategy. Accor has been accepting animals for years, according to clients, while other companies like Eurostars currently keep the door closed. The controversy isn't just about a specific policy, but a mix of allergies, parasites, cleaning fees, and an uncomfortable question: what exactly is being sold in that room?

The argument is simple and far from romantic. The problem lies in the fine print, which never appears in brochures.

Which hotel chains allow pets?

There is no public or homogeneous registry. The landscape is reconstructed based on others' experiences and phone calls. In this improvised map, Accor stands out as the chain that has normalized animal entry, while Eurostars appears among those that still do not admit them, according to user reports. The recurring complaint is not that a policy exists, but that it is opaque: guests discover the dog in the adjacent room only after paying.

Each company decides independently, without known common criteria regarding breeds, size, or restricted areas. This lack of clear rules fuels distrust on both sides: those traveling with pets and those trying to avoid them.

Why the business shifted towards dogs

There is an explanation unrelated to affection for animals: the bottom line. Threads suggest these establishments capture a niche of clients—largely foreign—who travel with pets and whose loss does not impact business.

This adaptation reflects a broader social shift. We have moved from smoking rooms to segmented labels: adults only, women-only, nudist, and now, the inverse category some demand: pet-free accommodations. Hotels no longer sell a bed. They sell a tribe.

Fleas, allergies, and incomplete cleaning

Here lies the health and economic core of the issue. Proponents argue that a clean dog leaves no trace. Opponents point to the invisible: fleas, mange, hair, and a bacterial colony that permeates fabrics and surfaces. The smell of wet dog doesn't come from nowhere.

The key factor is time. Eradicating such traces requires steam cleaning and dedication that clashes with the minutes staff are allocated per room. One participant recounts a striking case: a home without animals where fleas reappeared months later, until they found the source in a suitcase stored after a flight. That is the level of persistence discussed.

For allergic guests, the question isn't whether the dog was well-behaved. It's whether the room they will sleep in housed one the night before.

Smokers are outcasts; dogs are new clients

The most repeated comparison isn't with children, but with smokers. For decades, they were confined to terraces and specific zones, becoming the industry's great outcast. Now the opposite occurs: pets enter through the main door. Some summarize it with irony: hotels prefer a dog over a smoker.

The parallel with minors sparks heated debate. Some argue a well-trained dog disturbs less than a screaming child with absent parents. Others respond that comparing a child to a pet says more about the comparer than the subject itself.

Who pays the bill outside?

The discussion extends beyond the lobby. Arguments state that municipal cleaning services face rising costs due to dog waste on sidewalks and public areas, denouncing the use of water trucks to wash it away. These aren't audited figures, but perceptions circulating that fuel holidaymakers' discomfort.

The background is the same across all facets: coexistence regulated by custom rather than rule. Everyone improvises their own rule and expects others to trinc.

The unanswered question isn't whether hotels will admit more animals, but who bears the cost when the next guest is allergic. No one has answered yet.