Families pay more for hotel rooms ?

[Salt flat rat]

In the pub at lunchtime we got talking about the pending Summer holiday . Somebody mentioned that when he takes his wife and two teenage girls away he never books rooms on a " family basis " , but always just books two double rooms.
He maintains that this always turns out cheaper because hotels charge families more. Others agreed with him.

Has anybody else found this ?

[macp]

No but im interested in this thread.

[croyde]

Interested too as all the holiday companies seem to think that a family is 2 adults and 2 kids. They can't comprehend any other configuration especially mine of 1 adult and 3 kids. Absolutely impossible to book anything on-line as I do not fit the system.

[theaxe]

I had heard something like this, essentially hotels assume that adults will spend more (on booze, food, spas, etc) than children so it makes sense.

[Steviesam]

Its in the telegraph today.

4 adults paying £350 less than 2 adults and 2 kids.

[Salt flat rat]

Steviesam said:

Its in the telegraph today.

4 adults paying £350 less than 2 adults and 2 kids.

Any chance that you can provide more information such as what holiday company etc ?

I offer legal advice to a pressure group that campaigns against the discriminations made against tourists who may take holidays on their own ( they get stuck with having to pay more because of surcharging ). I am sure that this pressure group would be happy to start campaigning against this other form of discrimination if more information could be obtained.

[Steviesam]

Salt flat rat said:

Any chance that you can provide more information such as what holiday company etc ?

I offer legal advice to a pressure group that campaigns against the discriminations made against tourists who may take holidays on their own ( they get stuck with having to pay more because of surcharging ). I am sure that this pressure group would be happy to start campaigning against this other form of discrimination if more information could be obtained.

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10026916/Fa...

[otolith]

If it is their business model to subsidise their room costs with bar and restaurant bills, it seems perfectly reasonable not to offer the same subsidy to children.

[Deva Link]

Steviesam said:

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10026916/Fa...

The example given is an apartment and you can well imagine how, if it's priced for 4 adults, then there would be an under-occupancy charge if there are 2 adults, and then a quirk in the pricing would add a charge for the kids. But normally you'd be buying flights as part of the package too - and they might be cheaper for kids.


O/T but the other bizarre thing about that article is it's the second one I've seen in the last few days in the Telegraph where they've referenced the Mail as the source. Just copying another newspaper's story is a bit lazy.

Edited by Deva Link on Sunday 5th May 15:52

[Salt flat rat]

Your further input re the link to the Telegraph is most helpful. Although the consumer pressure group to whom I am a legal adviser is principally campaigning to make Single Person Supplements against solo holidaymakers illegal, I feel that they are likely to broaden their campaign to remove yet another financial discrimination being imposed upon tourists when families.

The fact that "Which " has taken up the issue, and that a large holiday operator , Thomsons, is already offering refunds to tourists so affected is proof positive that the extra charges imposed upon families would appear to have no moral and little legal justification.

If any PH members have first hand experience of this please let me know either via this forum or to
[e-mail]

In the meantime I will consult with the pressure group I have referred to.

[otolith]

Tariffs don't need moral or legal justification.

[eldar]

Salt flat rat said:

Your further input re the link to the Telegraph is most helpful. Although the consumer pressure group to whom I am a legal adviser is principally campaigning to make Single Person Supplements against solo holidaymakers illegal, I feel that they are likely to broaden their campaign to remove yet another financial discrimination being imposed upon tourists when families.

The fact that "Which " has taken up the issue, and that a large holiday operator , Thomsons, is already offering refunds to tourists so affected is proof positive that the extra charges imposed upon families would appear to have no moral and little legal justification.

If any PH members have first hand experience of this please let me know either via this forum or to
[e-mail]

In the meantime I will consult with the pressure group I have referred to.

Saga?

[theaxe]

otolith said:

Tariffs don't need moral or legal justification.

If tariffs are overtly discriminatory then I can see there being a moral or legal argument against them. The question is then - what counts as discrimination?