# Hotel deals during peak seasons



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

All prices below are all-in, with taxes & fees.

I was trying to book a hotel for downtown Toronto in August, about 3 weeks out. Regular (good) hotels at around 3 to 3.5 stars are running around $250 to $300/night for fully refundable.

From experience, I know that's expensive for Toronto in August. But other than experience, what's a good way to know how heavily booked a city's hotels are? I'd like to know, because if the hotels aren't very heavily booked, then I could wait until closer to my trip before doing a non-refundable Hotwire or Priceline booking.

Getting the feeling these prices look high and assuming the city is heavily booked up, I got a 3 star through Hotwire for $180/night. I'd love to know if there's a more scientific way I can learn the "load" on the hotels, so I could wait longer before making a non-refundable payment. It's possible the price could drop closer to the date.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

No ideas for this one? How to measure the level of occupancy or load on a city, to help with booking non-refundable deals?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

If you go to Booking.com and search for your city in question, it shows all the hotels on a map view, and the ones that are sold out show as red dots. That should give you some idea.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Spudd said:


> If you go to Booking.com and search for your city in question, it shows all the hotels on a map view, and the ones that are sold out show as red dots. That should give you some idea.


Thanks, that's a good idea. I also found that after getting the first results, if I click the Hotels filter, I now get a banner at the top that says: Downtown Toronto is 90% unavailable for the filters you used. Interestingly though, even when I shift a couple months out, I still see very high % unavailable.


----------



## northernguy (Oct 19, 2013)

It can be very tight this time of year and during certain conventions (e.g. Try to get a room for PDAC 2019 now I bet they're already crazy). Had a terrible time trying to get a room in Vancouver for Aug 16-18th too.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

james4beach said:


> All prices below are all-in, with taxes & fees . . . Getting the feeling these prices look high and assuming the city is heavily booked up, I got a 3 star through Hotwire for $180/night.


Just a note. Waiting a week more would have driven the price on Hotwire up to $194/night (up 8%). Sometimes waiting until closer to the date brings the price down, other times up. Definitely a gamble any time you book a non refundable hotel through Hotwire/Priceline. My rule of thumb has been that as soon as I am positive the trip is happening, and it's about 3 to 4 weeks away, I book using Hotwire or Priceline.

After using these web sites for a few years, across many cities, my sense is that generally the price will come down as you wait as long as the hotels are at low occupancy. However if the occupancy rate is high and hotels are filling up, then the price only goes higher.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Saw something impressive this weekend I wanted to share. If you're looking to warm up and thinking of going to Australia, there are some amazing prices for full apartment rentals along the east coast (places like Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast) which have some of the best beaches in the world.

I've seen fully self contained apartments (kitchen, living room, laundry) virtually on the ocean front at rates like 110 AUD/night after all taxes & fees. CAD is about equal to AUD. I looked at Feb/Mar dates, using booking.com and hotels.ca. This is a relatively low season for them. However, watch out about cancellation, prepayment and refundability terms -- those can be tricky and unclear.

Makes me laugh when I have to pay $140 for a hotel in Toronto, but can stay on the Australian beach front in a full apartment for only $100

Australia seems to have many privately owned condo units that can be rented through an association or holiday agency. They had this long before AirBnb became popular and I think it's a cleaner model because they have a real property manager that coordinates rentals for the whole property, even though the units are private condos. You can definitely find them through booking.com or even just by doing google searches for holiday rentals, apartment rentals while looking at the city on google maps.

I stayed in two apartments like this before in Australia and both were amazing, far better deal than a typical hotel room. Make sure you thoroughly check reviews at Tripadvisor, Wotif, Expedia.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I'm always amazed at the ignorance of most people when it comes to travel, hotels and third party parasites.

Take for example a typical comment like, 'this third party site shows the hotel is fully booked for a given date'. Most of the time, that is total nonsense. What the third party site shows you is that the rooms they have ACCESS to are fully booked. It does not say anything about the hotel being fully booked. Yet, many of those who use third party parasites think it does. The parasite is doing a good job of getting you to think so.

Then there is the 'only 3 rooms left at this price' nonsense. Again, they are only talking about what they have to offer, not anyone else and certainly not the hotel itself. Think about it, a third party parasite cannot tell a hotel what it does or does not have available and at what price they can offer it, therefore letting the parasite then go on to tell you 'only 3 rooms left at this price.' 

Then there is the other aspect of 'only 3 rooms left'. That is, what rooms? Often a hotel will allow parasites to list only specific rooms and the hotel will hold other rooms for their own bookings. For example, a very nice 3 star boutique hotel in Davos, Switzerland that I am familiar with having stayed in it several times, lists on the third party parasites because they have to these days simply because most people book that way.

They give the parasites access to the smallest rooms and their highest priced suites, nothing in the middle. So you go on a parasite and see, '3 rooms left' and a price of say $300 for a standard room. I pick up the phone, talk to reception and book a superior room for $200 with a view over the valley, not at the houses across the street on the other side. On a recent visit to this hotel, the 'last room available' according to the parasites was a $500 per night suite. I picked up the phone and got a 'Deluxe corner room' for under $300 per night. So much for 'last room available'.

Many hotels including the major chains have started fighting back against the parasites. They offer you a 'best price guarantee'. That means if you book direct and then see a better price online, they will match it or in some cases beat it. Hilton will match a price and then give you an additional 25% off the price for example.

My point is that simple common sense should tell anyone that if you introduce a third party into an equation, you the buyer will end up paying for that third party to make a profit. If given the choice, the actual seller will always be wiling to give you a price that is lower than the third party will,but higher than the amount a third party pays the hotel. In other words, if the parasite says, $100 and is paying the hotel $80, why would the hotel not be willing to deal with you for $90? You pay $10 less and the hotel receives $10 more. That's called win/win and that gap exists in every transaction done through a third party.

So while the majority of people believe the TV ads that say 'we save you money' or 'we get you the lowest price for the hotel you want', others know that's nonsense. All you get is the lowest price they choose to offer you. Again, use common sense. NO third party can offer you a price lower than the hotel itself can offer you if the hotel chooses to do so.

That is also where the problem lies for most people. They simply don't have the necessary communication and negotiating skills to deal directly with the hotel. All they have ever learned how to do is 'click enter'.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ You know I'm sure that's true, and now that I think of it, I only ever one negotiated at a hotel once, because I had to, about 10 years ago, and it worked great. We were on the road for business, there was only one hotel in this small town, the holiday inn, the rest were motels, and we had just checked out of a grungy motel the day before because my coworker saw a bedbug...

They wanted $120/night. The company limit was $70. We said we'd love to stay here for 3 nights, but we're just not allowed to for any more than $70. The front desk girl didn't even have to go talk to anybody, she just did it up right then and there and made the bill for $70/night on the dot.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Unfortunately, in order to understand how third party sites have come to dominate the hotel booking business, you have to be old enough to be able to remember back to before they did become dominant. 

What started out as a way for a hotel to sell off empty rooms at the last minute for a reduced price, has now become a business that tells the traveller that if they don't book right now, they are likely to end up having to sleep on a park bench or something and you will absolutely pay more if you don't use them. That's what most people believe as proven by the fact that most people book using these sites. They've bought the narrative, hook, line and sinker.

The question is, how true is it or is it even true at all? Well you can start with 95% of all the online bookings sites being owned by just TWO companies. Expedia and Priceline. So when you see someone saying, 'I always use Expedia' and someone else saying, 'I prefer Hotels.com to Expedia' and yet another person saying, 'you guys should try Booking Buddy, they're way better than Expedia or Hotels.com.' You should laugh when you read those comments, all 3 are owned by Expedia. Here is a list that is a few years out of date but still shows you how the competition for your business that many think exists, in fact does not exist. 
https://pointmetotheplane.boardinga...h-travel-websites-expedia-priceline-also-own/

Then you need to understand what 'rate parity' means in terms of hotel room prices and OTA's (online travel agencies, the name used now for third party booking sites). Here is an explanation. https://businessblog.trivago.com/rate-parity-hotel-industry-status/ What does that tell you about which OTA will give you the best price? Answer, they will all give you the same price for the same room with the same conditions. Oops, that isn't what people thought it meant when they advertise, 'we get you the best price for the room you want', they thought it meant they will get a lower price with site A than they will with site B. Nope.

What an understanding of 'rate parity' will also do for you though is tell you that where (particularly Europe at present) hotels are refusing to sign 'wide rate parity' deals with OTAs any more and only agreeing to 'narrow rate parity', there is room for the individual to in fact get the 'best' price by dealing directly with the hotel themselves. HEre is another article that refers to 'parity' and why you may want to think about picking up the phone and calling the hotel directly.
https://www.choice.com.au/travel/accommodation/hotels/buying-guides/hotel-booking

Third party booking sites are not what most people think they are. They may have started out offering you a better price but since then, almost everything to do with them has changed. For example, if you are old enough to remember, the norm for any hotel was that you could cancel up to 6pm on the day of your reservation. There was no such thing as a 'noncancellable' rate. There was no such thing as a 24 hour or 48 hour or 7 day prior cancellation requirement. Take a look at third party sites today and see what you find. I often call a hotel to make a reservation and they will quote me a price with a cancellation clause. I simply tell them, 'no, I have no intention of cancelling but things happen and if something does happen that is beyond my control, I cannot accept that I will be penalized for that. I will book provided I have the option of same day cancellation.' Not once have I had a hotel say, no. They just say, 'ok, we will remove that restriction, thank you for your reservation.'

In addition, if you try to cancel, not only might you find you have to pay anway, you might find you have to pay for the entire time booked! In other words, if you had booked for 7 nights, you don't just pay for one night if you cancel, you pay for all 7 nights! In the 'old way', it was if you don't call by 6pm to cancel, the hotel would bill one night to your credit card, that's it. If you called at 5.45pm they billed nothing. Which would you prefer?

I can hear some people getting ready to respond, 'yeah, but that's why I have travel insurance. They will cover the loss for me.' Really? You don't think the travel insurance providers have had to increase their rates to cover that potential loss difference?

Another outcome of the rise of OTAs is the effect on the independent traveller. I happen to be quite an independent traveller most of the time. I go somewhere, stay till I am ready to leave and then move on to somewhere else. I may stay one day or 10 days, often I don't know how long I will stay since I am not the owner of a crystal ball that can tell me how long a place will hold my interest. That kind of travel is obviously very different from someone who simply books one hotel on a beach for a week or two.

But if you buy the OTAs hype, it is impossible to travel as I do. You'll go somewhere and there will be no hotel rooms. They've told you, 'only 3 left' and that was 6 months before you get there! Really? Every hotel room in say Edinburgh, Scotland is already booked 6 months ahead of time? In fact, it is simply not true but for those contemplating truly independent travel for the first time, it can kill that idea from the get go if they believe the OTAs. Or if you choose not to believe that, you do believe that if you just show up and ask for a room, you will pay more than if you had booked with an OTA 6 months ahead of time. Really? How would anyone know that until the day arrives? I mean how would anyone go about proving it other than to try it repeatedly? Answer, they don't know, but they believe it to be so. It must be like religion I guess. You believe it but can't actually prove an afterlife exists. You just have to take it on 'faith'. I have yet to have to sleep on a park bench when travelling without reservations and I have yet have anyone prove to me I paid more. But those contemplating such an 'unplanned' period of travel have in many cases been scared off by what they have been told to believe.

Finally, listen to those who actually know. If you do some Googling to find advice from hotel industry 'insiders' themselves, almost invariably they will tell you to pick up the phone and call the hotel front desk to book. It's also important to understand what 'insider' means. It means listening to those who actually work in hotels or those who actually have experience of picking up a phone and talking to a real live person at a hotel.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

If your schedule is the least bit flexible check ou Courtyard Marriott at Young, just above College. Last fall we scored a room, via Marriott website @ $150 night. The rooms on other sides of our date were much more expensive.

We always go direct when possible. We also use hotel group websites-Marriott, Hilton, Accor, Melissa, etc to score some very good offers. Or we phone. If you phone just ensure that you are speaking with people at the hotel.....not at the 1800 reservation centre. Don’t hit reservations, hit O to speak to the hotel.

We find Australia expensive, especially Sydney. Fortunately we are using our Marriott points for our stay. Our friends are making our Gold Coast reservations for next month so I am not certain. What they have booked. They know the area well so. 

We vary our accomadation based on market and area. We just spent the last two nights at a five star in Bangkok. One bedroom suite , living room, kitchenette, with balcony, 34th floor, beside and overlooking the river from both directions. $210 CAD inclusive of a fabulous buffet breakfast. Later today we head south to a B&B @ $60 per night w/ breakfast. We shop on value.

There have been a few rare exceptions where booking.co or agoda.com offered bertter rates than the hotel. The most memorable was in Vietnam. We went to the hotel and got the rate. Pointed at that the same room on agora.com was 20percent lower. They would not budge so we booked it on line-in their lobby. Exact same room. Go figure.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> We shop on value.
> 
> There have been a few rare exceptions where booking.co or agoda.com offered bertter rates than the hotel. The most memorable was in Vietnam. We went to the hotel and got the rate. Pointed at that the same room on agora.com was 20percent lower. They would not budge so we booked it on line-in their lobby. Exact same room. Go figure.


There are exceptions to every general rule of course ian. Quite often, it is when the hotel owner does not give any discretionary power to their staff. It can happen with either independent hotels or chain franchise hotels unless the franchise hotel has to follow an overall policy. Rather than the Front Desk Agent saying, 'my boss doesn't give me the power to do that' and feel embarrassed, they just repeat the mantra, 'I'm sorry sir hotel policy does not allow that'. 

The big clue is when it makes no logical sense whatsoever as in the case you give as an example. The FDA probably knows as well as you do that the hotel will end up with less money if you book online with a third parasite but figures, 'screw the boss, he's an idiot, no skin off my nose, I get paid anyway.' People who own hotels are just people line anyone else and there are as many dumb hotel owners as in anything else. 

I would also like to add a comment on your comment about "We shop on value." Just what does that mean? Does 'value' only refer to price? Most people if they were being honest, book with OTAs because they believe they will get the 'lowest price'. That defines 'value' as simply referring to price. It says nothing about getting a poorer room (say no view or right next to the elevator or ice machine, etc.) or without some perks someone booking direct might get (say free internet or parking, etc.). 

Never believe anyone who tells you 'all our rooms are the same'. Any hotel insider will tell you that simply is not true. Anyone who has ever stayed in a room right next to an elevator and listened to the doors opening and closing and the chime going off all night, can tell you that while their room might have been identical inside, to one farther down the hallway, the experience was nowhere near identical. 

I too shop on value, I just want to make sure people understand what 'value' actually means. I'm not suggesting that you don't, just suggesting that some might think they 'shop on value' when in fact they only shop on 'price'. The OTAs count on that as they are rarely offering the same 'value' as going direct can get you.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

$20 trick usually rights any wrong caused by booking online. 

I used to book online but now get my best price at Orbitz or Expedia then phone the hotel direct and am always able to score a better deal...just mention you were looking online. Then adding a bit of grease upon checking in I'll usually score a nice upgrade...I have ended up with suites with bar & hot tubs in the past...more usually just a better view or fruit basket,turn down service etc.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

That most people shop only on price is proven by the recent upsurge in extra charges hotels add on. It is no different than airfares.

There is a reason why hotels now add a charge for wifi, parking, resort fee, city hotel tax, etc. etc. separately. That reason is simple. Because most people go online look at a list and pick the one with the lowest price. If the hotel lists a price with everything included, their price LOOKS like it is higher when compared to a site that lists a basic price and then adds things on as you finalize the booking or even leaves out those charges and lets you find out about them after you check in to the hotel.

On travel forums, people now complain all the time about having to pay extra for wifi, parking,etc. just like they complain about being 'nickel and dimed' by the airlines with charges for a checked bag, headset, drink, etc. etc. But they never seem to figure out what the reason for that might be.

Many years ago, I lived in a popular, cheap package vacation, tourist area. The tour companies selling package vacations beat the hotels down on price to the point where there was next to no profit possible for the hotel on renting a room. The tour companies told the hotel, 'if you don't give us the room for this price, we will just take our bookings to the hotel next door.' Unfortunately, there were plenty of hotels next door, it was a 'buyer's market' thanks to poor regulation of the industry.

Now in case anyone might think I am exaggerating what happened, let me give you some real numbers. I had several acquaintances who owned hotels and know what kind of numbers were actually being used. The hotel would be offered the equivalent of $20 CAD per room per night. How much profit can a hotel make on that? So the hotel would hope people would eat in the hotel restaurant or in some other way give the hotel a chance to make some profit.

One year, some bright young thing had an idea. 'If we can't make any money on renting the room, why don't we charge $5 a day to rent a sunbed by the pool and make money that way.' So that's what they did. By the end of that season, every hotel was charging for a sunbed. 

The vacationers were outraged. Travel forums were full of posts saying, 'this is a rip-off, next we will be being charged to sit on the chair on our balcony' etc. Not once did I read a post asking the question, 'why are the hotels doing this all of a sudden?' People only look at things from their own perspective and don't consider what it might look like from someone else's view. 

When I read now about people complaining about hotels starting to add on extra charges for x and y, I just think back to that experience in the mid-90s on that Greek island where I lived.

It isn't a case of cheap package holiday companies this time, it's a result of the OTAs having convinced the buyer to book with them and move the profit from the hotel to the OTAs. Whenever we do business with a middle man involved, who adds no value to the equation, but makes a profit on the transaction, the money comes out of the seller's and the buyer's pocket.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> $20 trick usually rights any wrong caused by booking online.
> 
> I used to book online but now get my best price at Orbitz or Expedia then phone the hotel direct and am always able to score a better deal...just mention you were looking online. Then adding a bit of grease upon checking in I'll usually score a nice upgrade...I have ended up with suites with bar & hot tubs in the past...more usually just a better view or fruit basket,turn down service etc.


Eder, you may find it interesting to read a book called 'Heads in Beds' by Jacob Tomsky, if you haven't already. https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/bo...moir-hotels-hustles-and-so-called-hospitality

Tipping on check-in is something the vast majority of hotel guests will never understand, they're all about finding the cheapest price and to add a $20 tip on check-in no doubt sounds like absolute insanity to them. Just be thankful they don't understand, it leaves all the advantages to the few who do.

Here's a tip for you for longer stays Eder. On a recent trip to Switzerland for a hiking vacation, we checked in to a hotel for a 10 night stay. The room was $200+ per night and if you have any idea of Swiss prices, you will understand that with meals and drinks, the final bill would be double that. So a $4000+/- bill at the end of our stay was to be expected. It was a small boutique hotel with only 21 rooms and an award winning restaurant onsite as well.

As a small hotel, the staff is quite small as well. I tipped the Manager(at Reception); housekeeping; restaurant waiter; chef, all within the first day starting at check-in. I gave each a 100 Swiss Franc note. Around $133 CAD each. An upgraded room was just the start of what that got us. I'm sure some other guests thought we must own the hotel or something when seeing how we were treated by the staff. So for around $500 or around a 12% tip on our $4000 bill, we got real VIP treatment. A 12% tip is hardly something to break the bank.

But here's the secret. When you give someone $100 UP FRONT, it is a significant number. It's not like adding a $20 tip on a restaurant bill or leaving $10 per night for housekeeping when you are leaving the hotel. The amount is the same either way but the effect is not. Most people don't understand how tipping up front differs from tipping after you receive the service etc. and when you have a longer stay, tipping the whole amount up front is that much more effective.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I found that travel agents were just as bad. I traveled extensively on business in Western Canada as did numerous members of my team. I would typically stay at the same hotel. My firm directed us to use their contracted travel agency in order to get the best rates. We did not. My assistant would make the reservations directly. The saving by doing this was always the same-either thirty orfifty dollars per night less than the TA quoted rate. It was the same savings on frequent trips to Toronto.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> tipping the whole amount up front is that much more effective.


My recent trip to a nice resort in Jamaica was a nice all inclusive. I showed my drink server on the beach $100 USD and mentioned that if it wasn't in her pocket in 2 days then she was a poor waitress. It was gone by that evening after she pretty much exclusively served our party of 8. We rinsed & repeated the remaining 6 days.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Eder, you may find it interesting to read a book called 'Heads in Beds' by Jacob Tomsky, if you haven't already. https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/bo...moir-hotels-hustles-and-so-called-hospitality
> 
> Tipping on check-in is something the vast majority of hotel guests will never understand, they're all about finding the cheapest price and to add a $20 tip on check-in no doubt sounds like absolute insanity to them. Just be thankful they don't understand, it leaves all the advantages to the few who do.
> .


Very true. I learned this on my first cruise many years ago. We pretipped all the staff as soon as we arrived or met them. I swear, the staff was waiting outside when we had any request. We do this all the time. We still book on line if its the cheapest deal (and sometimes it is, I check serveral places including the hotel directly).


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> My recent trip to a nice resort in Jamaica was a nice all inclusive. I showed my drink server on the beach $100 USD and mentioned that if it wasn't in her pocket in 2 days then she was a poor waitress. It was gone by that evening after she pretty much exclusively served our party of 8. We rinsed & repeated the remaining 6 days.


I like that 'if it's not in your pocket in 2 days you're a poor waitress' idea Eder.

I disagree entirely however with your comment about a 'nice all inclusive'. Again, people don't figure out what is really going on. Twenty to thirty years ago, all-inclusive existed only for places like Sandals or Club Med. Now if you look at the Toronto Star travel section, you will find it hard to find an add for a package holiday that is not all-inclusive.

So who benefits from an all-inclusive? Well, it isn't the hotels, because again, what happens is the tour companies talk them in to it citing larger amounts of money in the hotels pocket and therefore larger profits. What then happens is the tour companies pit one hotel against another and push the price down. There go the profits. The customer, that's you but not I, then find the quality of the food and drink goes down as the hotel tries to make a profit. Meanwhile, the tour companies are skimming the cream yet again.

Then there are all the bars and restaurants in the area of that hotel who see their businesses dry up as well. I had an acquaintance on a Greek island who had a very popular tourist bar. He made a good living for decades until the hotel next door went 'all-inclusive' and then the one next to that did the same. Within 3 years, his bar was sitting empty night after night. Next door to him, a popular restaurant closed for the same reason. So where the profits were being shared by a bar, restaurant and hotel, it went to none of the 3 making any real profits, only the tour companies were raking in the money. The more of your money the tour company gets its hands on up front, the more you give them control of who gets to make a living. 

Tourist destinations go through a cycle like most things and the tourist destination cycle is usually referred to as the Butler's Model. 
http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/GCSE/AQA/Tourism/Life cycle model/Tourism Model.htm

Most tourists do not visit a destination until it is in the 4th stage or later. People think they pick where they go on vacation, few actually do. What I mean by that is that the tour companies decide where you get to pick from and so they are in fact deciding where most people go. It is only the early adopters, pioneers, more adventurous who actually decide for themselves ENTIRELY where they will go. Most pick one of a couple of dozen places tour companies offer packages to, that's not deciding entirely on your own is it.

Just as a resort area goes through a cycle, so do the type of people who visit those areas. They follow what is known as the DOI (Diffusion of Information) model. It isn't hard to see how the two cycles will match up and where you can expect to find package holidays in both cycles. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/.../201012/spreading-ideas-what-role-do-you-play

You can also look at the type of tourist a place attracts according to the models by Stanley Plog or Erik Cohen. Here you can see (scroll about halfway down the article) how Butler, Plog and Cohen models line up. https://www.numptynerd.net/tourism-the-butler-model.html

Obviously, not everyone is psychologically suited to being an Innovator or Early Adopter as in the DOI model. Only 16% of the population can be expected to fall into those two categories combined. The vast majority of people, 68% fall into the Early and Late Majority sectors equally split between the two. That 68%(as well as the 16% Laggards) is who the vast majority of travel companies cater to.

So what does all this mean? Well, an understanding of the cycles can then be used to consider where you yourself fall in the models in terms of what places you visit and what kind of traveller you are. That can also lead to thinking about what kind of traveller you WANT to be. I am quite sure some people will find they are not the kind of traveller they thought they were or want to be.

Take an example of someone who decides they want to visit Europe. Then specifically Switzerland. If they have an interest in visiting there, then chances are they can probably name the usual suspect half dozen places like Zermatt, Interlaken, St. Moritz, Zurich, etc. They can also go online or to a travel agent and find package holidays and tours that will take them to those places.

But what if they do their research and decide they want to visit Davos (the World Economic Summit coincidentally is going on there this week as it does every year). It is one of the best skiing and hiking locations in all of Switzerland. It is also the area which sees the most Swiss tourists visit in their own country. But there is little chance you will find a package holiday to there from Canada. If it is where the highest number of Swiss choose to visit, why is it not where the highest number of visitors from other countries visit? I mean, wouldn't you think if the Swiss themselves choose it above other areas, then it would make sense for visitors from other countries to also chose it? Who knows better than the locals in any country, which area has the most to offer the visitor?

Why then do the vast majority of visitors go to the 'usual suspect' places? Answer, because those are the places the tour companies offer them to choose from. Simple as that. To me personally, that pretty much means if a tour company goes to a place, I know I want to go somewhere else. If I were to decide I wanted to visit say Jamaica (since you mentioned it), I would want to stay in a hotel in a town/village where no package tourist would be found and certainly not in an 'all-inclusive'. I believe that those are the places where in fact the best 'value for money' is to be found. Not the cheapest prices necessarily(although that is often also the case) but the most authentic experiences. But then, I consider myself to be a Near Allocentric (Plog Model).

So where do you see yourself in terms of where you visit and the type of traveller you actually are vs. where you might have thought you would fall on the curves and most importantly, in my opinion, where you WANT to be on those curves?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

For anyone that has been to Jamaica they'll know why an all inclusive is a wise choice. Any other country I prefer just the room and maybe breakfast included.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> For anyone that has been to Jamaica they'll know why an all inclusive is a wise choice. Any other country I prefer just the room and maybe breakfast included.


For anyone who goes to a place where they know why an all-inclusive is a wise choice, I might suggest it was not a very wise choice to choose such a place to begin with.

Perhaps you would like to explain why an all-inclusive in Jamaica is a 'wise choice' Eder. Then we can discuss the wisdom of choosing such a place at all.

If it is necessary to isolate yourself from the country, the people, the culture and the local foods as much as possible, then what is the point of being in such a place?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

If you do a non-biased Google search on all-inclusive vacations, using the search term, 'the effect of all inclusive hotels', here is what you get:
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...0i22i10i30j0i13j0i13i30j0i8i13i30.jy4Q2jwXZz8

Obviously, reading all of the links would take a long, long time, but a quick look at some of them failed to show me any reason to think they are a good thing. Exactly the opposite in fact.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Longtimeago said:


> Perhaps you would like to explain why an all-inclusive in Jamaica is a 'wise choice' Eder. Then we can discuss the wisdom of choosing such a place at all.
> 
> If it is necessary to isolate yourself from the country, the people, the culture and the local foods as much as possible, then what is the point of being in such a place?


Speaking from my own experience, I did a trip to Jamaica and split my time between a regular hotel (doing my own thing) and a resort where food was included.

I found the regular hotel very difficult to deal with. To start with, the operator was shady, insisted on all cash payments, and refused to provide proper written documentation and receipts. The worse part however was trying to find food & services in the small town where I stayed. It was hard to do this, and the town also turned out to be rather dangerous. When I walked around places, several locals came up to me and said I really shouldn't be walking around like this and need to be accompanied by a black person at all times. When I went to the nearby public beach -- not part of a resort obviously -- the man stationed there insisted he was in charge of the beach. He said I could either buy some cocaine from him or just pay a cash fee. I opted to pay the cash fee, but it was a shakedown clearly.

In comparison the all inclusive resort was just excellent. It is definitely the way to go in Jamaica.

I don't see myself going back there, by the way. There are so many nicer (and safer) places in the world to go. Greetings from Maui.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

We've been to Jamaica twice as part of cruise itineraries and both times I'd consider as overall negative experiences. We weren't intending to go back the second time except for a itinerary change due to a hurricane. 
Both times we headed out and about ourselves instead of doing a tour. This is will sound obvious but most everyone we interacted with that was benefiting from tourism, from the tour operator who we randomly encountered and stopped to chat with, to the guy on the beach selling lobster lunches to tourists, were very pretty friendly. However, so many other interactions started ok but turned pretty aggressive from a shopkeeper that flipped out when we didn't buy anything even though we stated up front we were just browsing, to a guy that followed us chatting and eventually hounding us for money, to random teens on the street asking us to give them money and swearing at us when we didn't. The list goes on. 
I don't see us going back to Jamaica either by choice. If we do because of an itinerary change again, we'll probably do a tour that will insulate us a bit or just default to a resort.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I was in Jamaica as my daughter got married there. I rented a car to cruise every where, people would jump in the car when I stopped at red lights etc...it got to where I told locals trying to shake me down to f off. Once I had to drive to a police station in Ochos Rio as I was being tailed by a few nefarious people we met in Nigril.

At any rate our experience at the Iberostar was stellar...butlers et all but the country itself really is a **** hole due to the people I'm sorry to say.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

And are you trying to tell me that you still don't see why staying in a place where an all-inclusive is a 'wise' choice for all the reasons you have now given us Eder, is in fact not a 'wise choice' in the first place at all?

Visiting somewhere that you don't feel it is safe to walk down the street alone, is not a 'wise choice' at all. To try and say, 'but if you stay in an all-inclusive, it's fine', is hilarious. That's like saying, 'it's wise to visit a prison as long as you stay inside your cell.' WHY would anyone choose of their own free will, to visit a place that they consider unsafe? There are plenty of other places to visit that are safe.

I've been to at least a dozen Caribbean/Atlantic islands (Bahamas or Turks & Caicos for example are Atlantic islands, not Caribbean islands) and never felt unsafe walking down a street alone at night. But I've never been to Jamaica or the Dominican Republic for example, simply because they are not safe islands to visit. I suggest you go to and of the Grenadines, Turks & Caicos, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, or Aruba instead. You don't need to stay inside a fence to feel safe. And the absolutely worst choice for safety as suggested by most 'wise' advisers, is Jamaica.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I suspect I may have more experience visiting islands than you but thanks for the insight.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> I suspect I may have more experience visiting islands than you but thanks for the insight.


LOL, on what basis would you 'suspect' that Eder. And even if you have visited 'more' islands, what does that imply/suggest? That you know more about something? What something? I've lived on several islands, does that count for anything? And what does any of it have to do with whether going somewhere that it is 'wise' to stay in an all-inclusive, is a 'wise idea in the first place?

All I see is that you can't justify your 'wise' choice and so choose to try and ignore the point.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I justified it as my daughter chose that resort to have her wedding, I thought you might have picked up on that in the last post. After being there I found it was the wisest choice although you may or may not agree...I don't mind.

Also I have been spending more than 6 months/year on my sailboat since 2013 almost all that time spent on various islands between Canada & South Pacific...of course I know little of anything and remain fearful after dark in Bora Bora. If only there was a nice all inclusive there for me close to the yacht club.

LTA I really enjoy many of your posts but the often condescending, know it all stance you occasionally take does rub me at times lol.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> I justified it as my daughter chose that resort to have her wedding, I thought you might have picked up on that in the last post. After being there I found it was the wisest choice although you may or may not agree...I don't mind.
> 
> Also I have been spending more than 6 months/year on my sailboat since 2013 almost all that time spent on various islands between Canada & South Pacific...of course I know little of anything and remain fearful after dark in Bora Bora. If only there was a nice all inclusive there for me close to the yacht club.
> 
> LTA I really enjoy many of your posts but the often condescending, know it all stance you occasionally take does rub me at times lol.


I always wonder when someone uses the 'condescending' word Eder, if they understand they are also complimenting the person even though that is the opposite of what they intend.

Condescending is, "showing or implying condescension by stooping to the level of one's inferiors, esp in a patronizing way". So it acknowledges that the person is in fact superior since by definition they must be in order to 'stoop'. That's a compliment.

Another definition uses the word 'think' as in someone 'thinks they are superior. That is the definition people are using when they use condescending as an insult. But it ASSUMES that the person only 'thinks' they are superior rather than actually being superior. 

You are in fact making such an assumption when you write, "I suspect I may have more experience visiting islands than you but thanks for the insight." Suppose I were to tell you I wrote my Master's Thesis on the 'Cultural Anomalies of Island Nations' and spent the first 10 years of my retirement doing field studies on 116 islands while working on my PhD through the Open University of London (UK). What would that do to your assumption? I didn't, but you have no way of knowing that when you made your comment re having more experience of visiting islands.

If someone with superior knowledge is attempting to impart some of that knowledge to someone with less knowledge, they have no alternative but to 'condescend'. If you attempt to explain to someone with no knowledge of sailing, why you sail away from land in a storm rather than towards it or why a monohull keelboat is what you want to be sailing rather than a catamaran in the event of being pitch poled or rolled, etc. then you will have no choice but to condescend Eder. If that person then were to 'accuse' you of being condescending and intending it as an insult, well, more fool them.

People often find it difficult to accept someone having more knowledge about a topic. Especially, when the point being made is contrary to their view. All-inclusive hotel vacations are a bad thing Eder. Bad for everyone except the tour companies who sell them. 

As for your daughter's wedding, why on earth did you agree to going to Jamaica and an all-inclusive is what I would have said to you if you had asked at the time. Tell her to pick a better place to get married. Didn't you educate her to know better? Well I guess the answer to that question is obvious. You would have had to condescend to her to explain it.


----------

