 Poster: A snowHead
|
| drkpower wrote: |
| The real subtext of that statement was that they were unable to source any alternative accomodation in Courcheval except for a substantially more expensive property which would have hit Nielson's bottom line more than sending you to Les Arcs or giving you a refund and £25pp..... |
I think what that tells us is that the OP paid very little for the package. As I said earlier, he bought mid November for an early January week and via an agent that specialises in selling off discounted holidays. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he paid less than £200 pp for flight, transfer and chalet h/b. There were tons of very cheap deals around then and it would have been attractive for a TO to fill an otherwise empty chalet with 11 people. I'm not saying he deserved to be mucked around but I am saying that there is a limit to how far you can push your luck when you buy vastly discounted deals. I'm guessing that's why the OP hasn't been on here lately to comment.
The big tour ops are very easy to knock because you can make much noise about just one complaint. Thing is, Crystal/Thomson/Inghams/Neilson/Airtours/First Choice/Panorama/Ski World account for over half a million skiers each season yet we actually hear very few complaints on this forum and progs like Watchdog haven't had the need to "do" them. They do a very good job for those who want the convenience, protection and services offered by a TO. I think the OP has gone OTT and now AWOL to boot. TTFN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
... and welcome to page 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Bode Swiller, the flip side is that maybe it was such a cheap deal that the chalet owner (not TO) was screwed down to a price that he could not sustain, especially when another group came knocking at his door with a bigger bulge of wonger in their pockets;-) and the whole pack of cards came falling down. The full facts will only be known by those directly involved.
I do not see price being as an issue though in any manner whatsoever
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ... and welcome to page 9 |
Thank you, Eddie. I've been eagley awaiting this page, and decided not to post until it reached a respectable length.
I settled in Milton Keynes for the simple reason that I was no longer prepared to pay outrageous prices for skiing, while suffering the hell of airport terminals and tour operator goose-chases. The Milton Keynes supersnowstore suits me ideally, and it is reached via an impressive mall of shops including Ellis Brigham and Nando's. At no time approaching this slope have I ever been switched to Les Arcs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
rayscoops, price is the issue. If he'd paid say £800 per head then we'd all understand the outrage but, if I'm right and he only paid a few hundred quid, then most people will probably agree that he should have cheerfully taken the alternative offered and the compo that went with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| rayscoops, price is the issue. If he'd paid say £800 per head then we'd all understand the outrage but, if I'm right and he only paid a few hundred quid, then most people will probably agree that he should have cheerfully taken the alternative offered and the compo that went with it. |
Who are these 'most people' of whom you speak?
You can't just invoke fictional people who mysteriously agree with you, in order to demonstrate that you are correct. That's not how things work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| paulio wrote: |
| You can't just invoke fictional people who mysteriously agree with you, in order to demonstrate that you are correct. That's not how things work. |
Try telling that to the UK government ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
rayscoops, price is the issue. If he'd paid say £800 per head then we'd all understand the outrage but, if I'm right and he only paid a few hundred quid, then most people will probably agree that he should have cheerfully taken the alternative offered and the compo that went with it.
|
Price is only one factor though.
There is a reason the legislation requires a TO to provide a package of equivalent or superior QUALITY. It doesnt specify that the package needs to be of an equivalent/superior price....
Quality is very subjective and price is only one part of it.
For instance, Ski in-Ski out & proximity to the village are vital to me - if id paid for a piste side 2 star and they overbooked me and placed me in a 4 star 2 miles away, i would not be a happy camper and the QUALITY of the package, to my mind, would not be equivalent/superior.
For others, other things are vital. For Ed, it seems that the actual Resort was vital and he chose to withdraw from the contract on that basis.
The question then in deciding what compensation is due to him is multi-faceted, for instance.....
1. How much did the change/cancellation of package actually inconvenience him - ie. other expenditure incurred, did they all have to take holidays etc...?
2. How reasonably did each party act? Was what the TO offfered reasonable? Was Ed's decision to withdraw reasonable?
The TO will argue they offered him something of the same star rating and roughly the same price and therefore he can go take a running jump....... and they might, on the face of it, be succesful with that argument - but on the other hand, Ed might argue that Courcheval was a lifelong dream of his, that Les Arcs is poo-poo, that the kids are now crying every day and that his wife has left him for Pip from Nielsons.......
So, as i said, about 2 hours ago, its about more than price...... (although it is a factor, you see what i mean....?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I demonstrated all of this about 4 pages ago with that Christmas story anyway. It's plainly obvious that a change of resort is a wholly unacceptable alteration to a booking, even if you'd originally booked a campsite at Yad Moss and they sent you to a St Moritz 5*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I demonstrated all of this about 4 pages ago with that Christmas story anyway.
|
Yes, for Mary, the stable was not the Inn that she had requested even if it still was technically within the resort of Bethlehem.
And the gold, franckinsence and myrrh, while a nice token and an expression of the Inn's regret for the overbooking, was not acceptable compensation by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| drkpower wrote: |
| Quote: |
I demonstrated all of this about 4 pages ago with that Christmas story anyway.
|
Yes, for Mary, the stable was not the Inn that she had requested even if it still was technically within the resort of Bethlehem.
And the gold, franckinsence and myrrh, while a nice token and an expression of the Inn's regret for the overbooking, was not acceptable compensation by a long shot. |
And she was secretly hoping for a girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| paulio wrote: |
| Who are these 'most people' of whom you speak? |
Sorry, a typo... I meant most intelligent people. I also said "probably" because I happen to believe that the degree of sympathy/support given to Ed B would diminish in line with how little he spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
sorry i know i should avoid linking to images but i couldnt resist:
 :
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| paulio wrote: |
| Who are these 'most people' of whom you speak? |
Sorry, a typo... I meant most intelligent people. I also said "probably" because I happen to believe that the degree of sympathy/support given to Ed B would diminish in line with how little he spent. |
You've just made your statement even more preposterous, well done. Using phrases like "any right thinking person" is a thoroughly fraudulent rhetorical technique.
It's not at all important how much the OP spent. What's important is that he got what he wanted, which he did not.
It strikes me that perhaps some TOs (and their apologists) have forgotten what constitutes the central tenet of the tour operator's profession. Namely that they are the willing, demure, grateful, forelock-tugging servants of their customers. It matters not one bit whether they have whored themselves out for a tuppence, they are still effectively the client's butler.
Their business is not 'delivering dreams' or any other such sales & marketing nonsense, despite what they might think. Their business is 'doing as they're bloody told'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I remember procuring counsel opinion on a legal matter we had with an architect (sued the blighter) and being told by the (london) barrister that because the fee for the architect was only £16,000 that it was low and in some way limited his (architects) services/liability, but I explained that it was not low because he was designing 6 houses that were identical and was working in a cheap environment compared to London, i.e. it was a market rate and fit for purpose, and the reverse of every thing the barrister had said must therefore be the case and the architect's liability was not in question. I was right and the barrister was wrong and we won the case.
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| paulio wrote: |
It strikes me that perhaps some TOs (and their apologists) have forgotten what constitutes the central tenet of the tour operator's profession. Namely that they are the willing, demure, grateful, forelock-tugging servants of their customers. It matters not one bit whether they have whored themselves out for a tuppence, they are still effectively the client's butler.
Their business is not 'delivering dreams' or any other such sales & marketing nonsense, despite what they might think. Their business is 'doing as they're bloody told'. |
I would pay good money to be your resort rep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, no. I would be paying good money to the resort rep. Do you see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I remember procuring counsel opinion on a legal matter we had with an architect (sued the blighter) and being told by the (london) barrister that because the fee for the architect was only £16,000 that it was low and in some way limited his (architects) services/liability, but I explained that it was not low because he was designing 6 houses that were identical and was working in a cheap environment compared to London, i.e. it was a market rate and fit for purpose, and the reverse of every thing the barrister had said must therefore be the case and the architect's liability was not in question. I was right and the barrister was wrong and we won the case.
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties.
|
Well said; if you die after eating a penny sweet, its just the same as dying after eating guinea fowl stuffed with foie gras in a lobster bisque with a red wine jus.....on a bed of caviar.....at the Fat Duck....with Angelina Jolie.....
well you get the point.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| paulio wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, no. I would be paying good money to the resort rep. Do you see? |
Absolutely, if you pay good money you expect things to be done exactly as you desire but, if you cheapskate it, you shouldn't be surprised if the forelock tugging stops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtitles, page 888:
Only the wealthy deserve good service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| paulio wrote: |
Subtitles, page 888:
Only the wealthy deserve good service. |
and your idea of service is demeaning to the minimum-wage-earning server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties. |
It doesn't make any difference to whether they are liable, and I don't think anyone has suggested it might.
What it probably does make a difference to is how much the additional compensation (on top of a refund) must be to class as "reasonable".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| drkpower wrote: |
| well you get the point.? |
No, because this is about a holiday booking gone wrong where nobody died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties. |
It doesn't make any difference to whether they are liable, and I don't think anyone has suggested it might.
What it probably does make a difference to is how much the additional compensation (on top of a refund) must be to class as "reasonable". |
One of your shortest but finest posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| paulio wrote: |
Subtitles, page 888:
Only the wealthy deserve good service. |
and your idea of service is demeaning to the minimum-wage-earning server. |
Again with the straw-man arguments. Who said anything about minimum-wage. Did you just go and read fallacyfiles.org and think "hey, that looks good, I think I'll try and use as many of those as possible today"?
There is nothing demeaning about expecting good service from someone whose career is service provision.
Even taking your conveniently fictional minimum-wage earner as an example, you'd still expect the Bulgarian gap-year student in the hotel bar to mix the drink you actually asked for, and not spit in it, and to say thank you when you handed her the money, even if was happy hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| paulio wrote: |
| you'd still expect the Bulgarian gap-year student in the hotel bar to mix the drink you actually asked for, and not spit in it, and to say thank you when you handed her the money, even if was happy hour. |
Of course I would and he'd get a healthy tip and we'd have a laugh and a chat but you, on the other hand, would require some forelock tugging just so he knows that you are in fact superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
alex_heney wrote:
rayscoops wrote:
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties.
It doesn't make any difference to whether they are liable, and I don't think anyone has suggested it might.
What it probably does make a difference to is how much the additional compensation (on top of a refund) must be to class as "reasonable".
One of your shortest but finest posts.
|
Seconded, perfect reasoning.
I feel a certain sense of pride in that our recent sparring has clearly honed his skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
paulio wrote:
you'd still expect the Bulgarian gap-year student in the hotel bar to mix the drink you actually asked for, and not spit in it, and to say thank you when you handed her the money, even if was happy hour.
Of course I would and he'd get a healthy tip and we'd have a laugh and a chat but you, on the other hand, would require some forelock tugging just so he knows that you are in fact superior.
|
I remember the days when that was me and alex_heney, fighting just like that  ahhh, good days, good days .....wipes away tear...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| paulio wrote: |
| Again with the straw-man arguments. Who said anything about minimum-wage |
and who said anything about Bulgarian gap-year students?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, I did, as an analogy, in reference to your invocation of fictional minimum wage earners.
Actually if Pip comes back and admits that he does, in fact, only make minimum wage, then you're completely vindicated.
I hope this post is right at the top of page 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulio, (1) are you saying that minimum wage earners are fictional? (2) I think he's closer to the other end of the scale (3) you can't get anything right today
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
bug. Not there yet. Who will win the prize??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
( and the date the booking was made), so your fundamental assumption is that the TO is 'in the right' 
