 Poster: A snowHead
|
Wouldn't it be good to create a more realistic pricing policy that ski tour operators could adhere to when pricing their offers?
You could call it Ideal Occupancy Pricing, and TOs could standardise on this rather than Maximum Occupancy pricing as they do at present.
This IOP would be the average price of a package per adult, across all available configurations for a particular accommodation, if all the following conditions are met:
1) Bedrooms are either only occupied by two persons (if at least twin/double) or entirely on a one person per bed basis (whatever beds or modesty curtains/screens there are in the room)
2) Living rooms (and other rooms/corridors that may be required by others during the evening) aren't used for sleeping (even with modesty curtains/screens)
3) All bedrooms in use have privacy (delimited by opaque doors, windows have blinds/curtains).
4) No bed in use is in a corridor or other via, e.g. between loo and adjoining bedroom.
5) Occasional/sofa/camp/Z/cot/drawer/foldout/inflatable beds remain unused for sleeping.
6) Beds are maximally occupied on the above basis
There are two other prices that TOs might like to mention:
SOP: Single adult: The average price of a package per single adult, across all available configurations for a particular accommodation, where in each configuration at least one bedroom is occupied on a 'one person per bed' basis.
MOP: Maximal: The average price of a package per adult across all available configurations for a particular accommodation, if each configuration is maximally occupied without constraint, i.e. as many beds as possible are utilised, including occasional beds.
At present TOs will quote the lowest price of a package per adult across all available configurations for a particular accommodation, if each configuration is maximally occupied without constraint.
It should also be established that a package should be based on transporting person plus one set of ski/board gear from local terminus to accommodation and back. A discount can be specified for those intending to rent in resort (from the TO or their preferred establishment of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Fair point. As a solo traveller I do find a huge world of difference between the TOs with the numbers of single rooms or affordable double rooms for single occupancy offered. There seem to be many resorts which I can't even consider and self-catering seems out of the question...
I don't mind paying a little bit extra, but I do object to paying double...
Anyway, just my two-penneth. I'm not really that familiar with self-catering apartment layouts but I have heard horror stories of people sleeping on sofas and bunk-beds in hallways. Doesn't sound much like a holiday to me...
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 17-11-08 23:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
queen bodecia, quite, it does come to something when it would be cheaper to just pay for a mate to go with you than pay the single supplement. Admittidly this situation has only happened once to me, but the supplement is still often laughable it's so large - with some TO the single supplement for the Fairmont Chateau Whistler is more than the room itself actually costs (at public rates, not even travel agent rates)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| with some TO the single supplement for the Fairmont Chateau Whistler is more than the room itself actually costs (at public rates, not even travel agent rates)... |
Some, not all, TO's have a specific profit margin they forward account for with each client/room. This margin will come from the expected sale of the room, flight, lift pass, school, etc. Of course each person will not always take each item but a standard percentage do and this is accepted in financial planning, so the TO will be able to plan P and L for the operation. They can not increase the cost of the ski-pack (hire, pass, etc) so the only way to bring your (single client/room) income up towards the norm for a room is to add the cost to the room charge. The more people in a room the lower the cost per person to the TO and the higher to profit %, so, to bring the P and L for a single person into line with a standard nuclear profit %, some TO’s will just increase the cost.
There is another, more intangible reason, for increasing the cost to single travelers and that is simply that single people "will" pay more. I am NOT saying this is right (we don't increase for singles) but that just how it is with many TO's.
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| people sleeping on sofas and bunk-beds in hallways. Doesn't sound much like a holiday to me... |
I agree 100%. (which is higher than my standard agreement %  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I don't mind paying a little bit extra, but I do object to paying double...
|
At £500 per head for the holiday, a twin room is worth £1000 to a TO. Why should they let it go to you at half price?
crosbie, no doubt TOs could do all of that. But then you'd have to pay more for your holiday and you're not prepared to do that, are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Lizzard, I'm only talking about package pricing. The cost remains unchanged.
Sardines will recognise there's a good chance the per person price will be significantly reduced if they cram in.
Even singles will have a better idea of the price they can expect to pay based on IOP, i.e. a supplement of 0%-100%, not 0%-400%.
However, the majority of punters (who don't expect a triple room to contain a double and a single bed), will have a good idea of the price per person for a decent occupancy.
The point of pricing is not to change a TO's bottom line, but to enable punters to have a far better idea of their bottom line, and to be able to compare packages based on price (which TOs may well prefer they didn't).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crosbie, the do use tour operators do use Ideal Occupancy Pricing. If a self-catering apartment can accommodate 2-5 people, IOP is 5. Simple as. You can get all that you suggest already.
queen bodecia, I agree with Lizzard. Simple economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I have heard horror stories of people sleeping on sofas and bunk-beds in hallways. Doesn't sound much like a holiday to me...
|
But plenty of families and groups of impoverished mates have great holidays with people sleeping on sofas and bunk-beds in hallways. Some people even manage to enjoy themselves chartering yachts (including quite flash ones) where the dining area becomes a sleeping area at night, or on passage. Some even enjoy a bivvy at the top of a mountain.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me for a TO to give variable prices according to the number of people who take the apartment. If you rent an apartment straight from an owner (which is much the best way to do it) you pay for the apartment, no matter how many people there are. So if there are two of you, you pay half the cost each. If there are 4 of you, you pay a quarter. Same with driving. It costs only marginally more to drive a car with 4 people as to drive a car on your own.
If you price up a DIY holiday you are automatically making this kind of calculation and I don't really see what's so difficult about doing it for packages. I don't book packages any more, but when I did there was generally plenty of information to enable you to decide how many people would comfortably fit in an apartment. There is an enormous amount of competition in the ski holiday market - if one operator charges unreasonable single supplements, go with another. Or DIY. Apartments exactly like ours (2 bedrooms) are advertised all over the internet in France as sleeping 7. We have only had 7 people in it for four days in 6 years, and it was mightily cosy, but families on a tight budget really do need to know how many they can fit in.
Finding sensible resort information from TOs is much harder than working out whether you want to sleep in a "coin montagne".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
crosbie, the do use tour operators do use Ideal Occupancy Pricing. If a self-catering apartment can accommodate 2-5 people, IOP is 5. Simple as. You can get all that you suggest already.
queen bodecia, I agree with Lizzard. Simple economics. |
If a self catering appartment can accomodate 2-5, then 2 or 3 at a pinch is the maximum for comfortable living IME of French shoeboxes (a similar appartment in North America can indeed be 3 bedrooms). Technically there may be 5 beds (though doubtful if they could all accomodate a 6 ft plus individual but 2 people better be prepared to get cosy and another 2 squeeze into kids size bunks. Forget about all trying to sit round the same dining table or bringing much gear with you.
TO pricing is fine if you know what you're getting but somewhat cynical - the classic is 2 couples being forced to share a 2 bed room (actually treated as singles by the hotel usually) in Banff to achieve headline price. That's why the old hands have turned away from them if they don't fit standard spec & why they are vulnerable to the loss of the casual punter this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't mind paying a little bit extra, but I do object to paying double...
|
At £500 per head for the holiday, a twin room is worth £1000 to a TO. Why should they let it go to you at half price? |
I'd say because it doesn't cost them twice as much to get you there and feed you etc. This is supposing that we're talking about package TOs, and not just agents that will sell you the room.
Interstingly, again using the FCW (as it's the place I've DIYd most), a room has a rate, let's say $250 per night, then for each additional person there is a $30 charge (fourth person free I think). So, a room for two people costs slightly more than a room for one. Why then, does a TO want to charge me more to stay in it on my own than it would cost to put two in it - especially when you consider the cost of transatlantic flights. It almost becomes a buy one get one free at times... 
Wayne, very interesting, thanks for the insight. If the company has a reasonable supplement I'll book some of my bits through them (such as lift pass). If they take the pee then, other than the fact I might not buy from them, I definitely won't buy the extras through them. Crystal once charged me a single supplement for staying in a single room...  
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Tue 18-11-08 11:06; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
fatbob, we had five of us in a 2-5 apartment last year. It's fine, even with three 3ft beds in a 12ft square room.
You get what you pay for. Anyone who thinks that for £300 each, including flights and transfers, they'll get a large apartment is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
If you deal directly with the Estate Agent or proprietor you will not be paying TO prices. It is so easy to get a flight and transfer. Lets be honest, most people that go skiing on a regular will know what they can do in various resorts and probably not need Mr. or Miss Gap year showing them bars in a "pub crawl". It may be necessary for some of those on a Club 18 -30's to be shown where to sit, drink and throw up. Says more about them than anything else!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't mind paying a little bit extra, but I do object to paying double...
|
At £500 per head for the holiday, a twin room is worth £1000 to a TO. Why should they let it go to you at half price?
|
That is excessivley simplistic.
The room is "worth" the difference between what it costs and what is paid, not the full amount that is paid.
Some costs are fixed, very often including the cost of the room itself (although not always if it is being sold on a half-board basis).
Other costs are only incurred if two people travel - flights and taxes for instance.
I certainly wouldn't expect a twin room to be sold for single use at half the full price, but I would hope it would be sold for less than the full two-person price.
Part of the "problem" is that while the main price varies according to the week, with every TO brochure I have seen any under-occupancy supplements are the same throughout the season, so in low season weeks they are more disproportionate than in high season weeks.
I HAVE seen entries in the brochures where the "twin for sole use" supplement for a room was MORE than the base cost per person when full - so it would be cheaper to book for two, and then have the second person "not turn up" on the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
That is excessivley simplistic.
|
Well obviously, and single supplements aren't usually the same price as booking a second person. But if you're occupying space costed for two people you have to expect to pay for it. You're not going to get a freebie just because you don't have any mates who want to go skiing. There are also plenty of TOs which will sell you a room on 'single share' basis - ie you could end up sharing with random other solo skier, no supplement payable.
When I run a chalet I shall do special solo skier weeks where you can all meet new mates and you won't have to spend the rest of your skiing life moaning about the fact that accommodaion is designed for more than one person at once. You'll thank me for it eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is excessivley simplistic.
|
Well obviously, and single supplements aren't usually the same price as booking a second person. But if you're occupying space costed for two people you have to expect to pay for it. Y |
Agreed. I did say I wouldn't expect to get it for half the price of two people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
crosbie, I got so fed up with TO's that I have for years now booked independently. TO's simply cater for couples of families of 4. I have booked a couple of single rooms in St Anton when away with the boys and they are half the price of a twin room, ie same price per person..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
andy, Last year in Zell am Ziller, I wouldn't have needed that.
Every evening, if I finished my main course, the waitress asked if I would like more. The one evening I said I would like just a bit more, I was given another complete main course 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is excessivley simplistic.
|
You're not going to get a freebie just because you don't have any mates who want to go skiing. |
The no mates assumption is also excessively simplistic, what about groups of 3? Or parties of 2 hetereosexual males who don't fancy the "austrian twin" double bed.
However like those who whinge about half term prices wouldn't choose to live life without their kids for the sake of a bit cheaper holiday, I suspect many singles wouldn't choose to drag an unwilling partner purely to reduce the cost of a holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
fatbob, Good point. Austrian twins should be classed as doubles if not separable. For IOP.
Incidentally, IOP is 'ideal' for the punter, not the tour operator. In other words the IOP price is the price you'd expect to pay if you weren't crammed in. Obviously punters are intelligent enough to realise that if there's a pull-out bed under the double it could be used for little Jimmy, or a spare bed for when Fred visits one night, or could be used to reduce costs if 3 people crammed into the same room all week.
If TOs reckon punters can work out the price after all supplements for under-occupancy (not sardining) have been added on, then they can also work out the sardine prices if they're given an IOP to start with.
I'd like to compare packages based on an upfront IOP price rather than a totally unhelpful sardine/max occupancy price (that requires laborious calculation).
fatbob, you earlier cited the most egregious case of twins classed as quads, which makes comparing the price per person for a couple very tedious. I had a friend excitedly sending me bargain prices he'd discovered for Banff, and I had to break it to him that such prices invariably involve 4 to a twin room. Such a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Crystal once charged me a single supplement for staying in a single room...
|
The company I worked for last year used to do that - absolutely outrageous, especially considering the standard of the room in question. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crosbie, I know what you mean. You look at the brochure or see the pop-up ont he website saying "£199" but by the time you've worked it all out from the pricing list (or you've gone all the way through the pricing on the website), it's more like £399 - it would be so much easier if they printed the full range of prices for all configurations.
I get fed up of looking at self-catering holidays for the two of us only to find out that we'll end up paying a supplement that they could have just flagged up at the start. I don't mind paying it (thinking about it I do) but a bit of transparency would be nice just to make choosing a holiday easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't mind paying a little bit extra, but I do object to paying double...
|
At £500 per head for the holiday, a twin room is worth £1000 to a TO. Why should they let it go to you at half price?
crosbie, no doubt TOs could do all of that. But then you'd have to pay more for your holiday and you're not prepared to do that, are you? |
Understand the point entirely, but it makes life very difficult and/or expensive for us singletons. However, I only need one return flight and one set of meals so I should have to pay a fair bit less than double...
I've pretty much ruled out skiing in France, hotels and chalets are expensive anyway, that's without single occupancy supplements. France is mostly apartments too, and I dread to think how much they would cost for one person. Luckily for me, Italy and Austria actually have the occasional hotel with single rooms (often converted broom cupboards!)...
Last edited by After all it is free on Tue 18-11-08 14:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| crosbie wrote: |
Wouldn't it be good to create a more realistic pricing policy that ski tour operators could adhere to when pricing their offers?
You could call it Ideal Occupancy Pricing, and TOs could standardise on this rather than Maximum Occupancy pricing as they do at present.
|
They could, but there is no chance of it ever happening.
TOs operate ina competitive market, in whihc half the battle is getting punters to look at their offerings at all.
Therefore they compete to offer the lowest possible "headline" price, and always will.
And prices in brochures are laready in such small print taht many people have difficulty reading them. To fit every possible combination of price would either require brochures twice as thick, or print so small nobody would be able to read it.
And it is generally only in apartments that the "standard" occupancy is not 2 to an accommodation unit. Us singles are used to looking for the single supplements for hotels & chalets.
| Quote: |
It should also be established that a package should be based on transporting person plus one set of ski/board gear from local terminus to accommodation and back. A discount can be specified for those intending to rent in resort (from the TO or their preferred establishment of course).
|
But a large majority of TO punters don't take their own kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| crosbie wrote: |
However, the majority of punters (who don't expect a triple room to contain a double and a single bed), will have a good idea of the price per person for a decent occupancy.
|
Do you think the "majority of punters" are really stupid then?
What else would it be likely to contain?
I suppose three singles is possible, but fairly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My head hurts reading all this. I am so glad we drive. I book and pay a price for a s/c apartment inclusive of eurotunnel, job done.  I appreciate this does not work for a solo traveller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
I've pretty much ruled out skiing in France, hotels and chalets are expensive anyway, that's without single occupancy supplements. France is mostly apartments too, and I dread to think how much they would cost for one person. Luckily for me, Italy and Austria actually have the occasional hotel with single rooms (often converted broom cupboards!)... |
Agreed. Fortunately for me, I am not actually particularly interested in skiing France anyhow, so long as I can find plenty of places in Austria or Italy.
I haven't got anything actively against skiing in France, but don't feel my choice particularly restricted by the fact it is rarely within my price bracket as a single traveller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| I've pretty much ruled out skiing in France, hotels and chalets are expensive anyway, that's without single occupancy supplements. France is mostly apartments too, and I dread to think how much they would cost for one person. Luckily for me, Italy and Austria actually have the occasional hotel with single rooms (often converted broom cupboards!)... |
French resorts often have "studio apartments" which are fine for single occupancy. If you book direct they are cheap enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I have NEVER been with a TO... they are all rip offs !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
... and 90% of the time ski france - which i prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
What I liked about going on the Bashes last season was that, as a solo traveller, I could share a room with someone/people I'd got a vague idea about and could be sure was/were only mildly insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Libertine wrote: |
| I have NEVER been with a TO... they are all rip offs !! |
Rubbish.
When I have priced up DIY options for similar holidays, I have usually come out pretty close to what I could get it for from a TO, although admittedly only at TO "late bargain" prices.
I've never paid anywhere near full TO brochure price for a ski holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I book and pay a price for a s/c apartment inclusive of eurotunnel, job done.
|
you'd possibly do better to book the apartment direct with the owner and the crossing separately - particularly at off peak times when apartments are extremely cheap in many resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I'm afraid I'm not the sort of person who'd be able to manage sharing a room with a complete stranger. I could have done in my younger days, but now I really need my own space to deal with all my health issues...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, regarding pricing, I weighed up the option of booking DIY this season. This involved contacting all the hotels in the area and requesting a price for single room, or twin for single occupancy, then adding cost of Easyjet flights and car hire or public transport transfer, plus lift pass. However, Crystal were still cheaper by over £100. I guess big TOs can achieve economies of scale, plus they only charged me £112 supplement for sole use of twin room. I know people often slate the mighty TUI, but they get my vote...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
They could, but there is no chance of it ever happening.
TOs operate ina competitive market, in whihc half the battle is getting punters to look at their offerings at all.
Therefore they compete to offer the lowest possible "headline" price, and always will.
|
Getting a punter in under false or misleading pretences comes back to bite you sooner or later.
I believe that if a vendor or agency that advertised ski package prices did so on an 'ideal occupancy' basis, they'd soon endear punters for having the decency to respect them rather than the disrespect of attempting to fool them.
This includes misleading with prices that exclude non-obvious (aka hidden) supplements such as transfers "Oh, some of our customers like to make their own way by renting cars or using local public transport to help protect the environment - it's £75 for return transfer if you want us to book a shared coach for you - this is detailed in the back of our brochure".
What are they trying to sell these days? A package or a con?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Libertine wrote: |
| I have NEVER been with a TO... they are all rip offs !! |
Just my opinion so probably wrong but to me a rip off would be something that is specifically designed to over charge some for goods and/or services.
I don’t think any TO do that or they would not last. Very simple that one.
A lot of the time that people speak of the cost differences between d-i-y and TO's ski holiday they sometimes forget the background work that is needed to create thousands of holidays and staff needed to run the operation.
Today I ordered some staples from Viking. The cost of these was not much but it must come from the profit we make on holidays. Viking, office supplies, etc don't do freebies.
Like it or not when you book with a TO, in exchange for someone else doing the work for you, you are actually paying for the staples that you find at the top of your holiday confirmation sheet – which also contains the ATOL number thus protecting your money if things go wrong. And don't forget that even the ATOL license has to be paid for from somewhere.
When you price up a d-i-y trip the cost involved normally only include the cost of the trip and you will not take into account the real costs such as telephone calls, bank charges, etc. We have to take these things (and many, many, many, more) into account and they have to be included within our profit margin on each trip.
I would not call this a rip off, just sound business sense. What is the other option ? Not doing the sums right and have thousands of people turning up at the airport to find the company they booked has gone bust because they forgot to add in the non-trip costs.
The perceived cost savings are “sometimes” really not that much in some cases or even non-existent in many cases when comparing d-i-y or TO holidays. Lets face it we have the buying power to obtain better rates than you could on a d-i-y trip and for this reason we can normally offer you are rate that would be hard to beat doing it d-i-y. Not everyone has a mates who knows someone who’s brother owns a chalet that you can have on the cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
