New booking system from April 2018
Comments
-
Surely, Brian, you’re not suggesting that Cornersteady fabricated his information.
The club has stated on several occasions that the multiple booking situation (call it what you will) is not the case. Not once have I seen any official publication agreeing with your personal view.
1 -
It was in a club magazine last year or so from the one of the higher ups, a director in the director's report in the AGM or a big regional meeting I recall. They did also give statistics after each booking day.
0 -
Totally agree with WTG.....(much prefer English to '+1'
)Surely if you've booked, you won't be cancelling on a whim?
if anyone is so worried about a caravan site cancellation policy why bother to join and book?
if the advantages of a greater choice of sites, CS. THS, insurances, ferries, breakdown services etc, etc don't do it for you, then don't bother..
to quote the age old CT line 'go elsewhere'.....IE stick with the devil you know.
im happy to take the 'risk' when booking a C&CC site....if it really were a problem.....a) would I be bothered? b) I have annual world wide holiday cover....
lifes too short.
0 -
Come on the Nigel, tell us all about it....
0 -
if anyone is so worried about a caravan site cancellation policy why bother to join and book?
Indeed. Just because I consider the C&CC booking terms etc to be poor in comparison to CC I would hardly say that I was worried. Most commercial sites that I have used gave similar terms
if the advantages of a greater choice of sites, CS. THS, insurances, ferries, breakdown services etc, etc don't do it for you, then don't bother..
The only advantage of interest to me is a few additional sites to easily choose from.
0 -
Apparently the C&CC are far from sympathetic to refunds of deposits if cancellations are due to current weather conditions. Even unwilling to move the booking with the same deposit according to a poster on their forum today. We will have to see if they relent. At least a late cancellation in the same conditions with the CMC will just get you a slap on the wrist e-mail!
David
1 -
For those that generally don't plan, but feel that they would like to visit one of the honey pot sites, it's fairly easy to multi-book the site on frenzy day for different dates and choose the 'best date' as the season progresses.
the excess bookings can be returned to the system based on those decisions nearer (just 3 days before) the time
isnt this what the combination of FD, no deposits and free cancellations upto 72 hr prior to departure are for....
0 -
Me too David, but the CCC will ultimately lose out as I will NEVER book with them again in the winter months, or at least I'll wait until I know the weather is safe a few days before.... and the more I think about it, with all that's been on TV etc before & during this extreme weather, the more I am determined that they will lose out.... Shame really as I like the Camping Club.
0 -
im happy to take the 'risk' when booking a C&CC site....if it really were a problem.....a) would I be bothered? b) I have annual world wide holiday cover....
That only works if there is no excess. When I claimed for our non caravanning trip to Provence from RP following a bereavement, there was a £40 per insured person excess. Plus of course the doctors fee to authenticate. So at over £100 of deductions you would need a few lost deposits before it would make sense.
0 -
Personally, I'm glad frenzy day has been done away with, if for no other reason than hopefully we won't have any more tiresome whinges about it or bragging about how many sites folk have booked on the day, much of which I've ,always taken with a very large pinch of salt.
But I do wonder just how easy it has been to make multiple bookings for any site in the past on that day, BB, let alone honeypot sites. In the past, when I've tried to make bookings on frenzy day it's taken so long that I wouldn't be wanting to make more than a couple anyway. I haven't done it for the last 3 years, so either the system has been very much improved or reports of this practice have been grossly exaggerated by some.
1 -
Personally, I'm glad frenzy day has been done away with, if for no other reason than hopefully we won't have any more tiresome whinges about it or bragging about how many sites folk have booked on the day,
You do not really expect complaints to stop do you. The complaints were that folk booked in December when some workers could not confirm their holiday dates and plan ahead. SO previously you could book December for Easter maybe 4+ months. Now folk will complain that they could not plan 12 months ahead.
There were complaints that people booked the legendary multiple stays on the likes of Rowntree Park. There will be no change there then!
1 -
Hi everyone, this conversation has become quite heated and as such a polite reminder to try and keep the discussion friendly. We appreciate everyone's feedback and thoughts but please keep this discussion free from arguments. Many thanks.
0 -
Well, M, as you asked.....(rhetorical, who knows?)....
Id say Neither, perhaps it's just that your experience is 3 yrs out of date.
as I said, it wasn't that difficult.
plans change and extra bookings are made and others are dropped, isn't it a USP of the CC system that allows (encourages?) this 'flexible style' over other (deposit orientated) providers?
0 -
Fair enough, as I said, I haven't booked on that day for the past 3 years so maybe my experience is out of date. But I often get the impression these claims are sometimes exaggerated just to wind up folk who are complaining about not being able to get bookings of their own. Did you do a lot of "speculative booking" for cub sites on frenzy day then, BB?
1 -
Hi David
Yes, the lack of a good search facility is a real pain isn't it.
But we all put up with the poor CT website so I suppose enough said on that.I haven't personally seen any CMC pronouncements on this subject (barring the usual anodyne 'we don't see a problem' with no supporting facts), so I'm speculating. But it seems to me that a lot depends on the methodology for investigating. Multiple bookings as such may be perfectly acceptable / genuine - it's when looked at in conjunction with cancellations that a true picture would emerge.
The bottom line is that the popular sites all tend to be booked up for peak periods within a day or so of the 'frenzy day' in December - and in that regard at least the new system is to be welcomed.
The acid test - to which we (and maybe even the CMC
) don't know the answer is what proportion of those bookings subsequently cancelled. [As a side note, this is not something the CMC would be bothered about anyway, I suspect, as the pitches will still always be booked by someone even if cancelled by the original booker].If there was a very low (and by that I mean <10%) cancellation rate on those bookings then I'm wrong and the only problem is not enough good sites
If it's more than that (and my hunch is it's more like 30-50%) then there is a problem.Of course all this debate would be rendered irrelevant if the CMC actually practiced full disclosure and - in this instance - gave us the exact details. Somehow, though, I suspect that 'commercially confidential' would be the reply if asked ...
1 -
The bottom line is that the popular sites all tend to be booked up for peak periods within a day or so of the 'frenzy day' in December - and in that regard at least the new system is to be welcomed.
When they will be booked up ahead of the old frenzy date I suspect.
0 -
One good thing about no longer having "frenzy day" is that I won't make a fool of myself by accusing "block bookers" of taking all the honeypot sites but then have to apologise because it was my internet connection that let me down & nothing to do with "block bookers".
0 -
Ive said my bit in the subject
0 -
The acid test - to which we (and maybe even the CMC innocent) don't know the answer is what proportion of those bookings subsequently cancelled.
Of course I could be lying , but they did, see my previous post. Wish I had kept the magazine now.
0 -
I'll certainly be booking May day weekend 2019 a whole 7 months earlier than I normally do
0 -
Of course all this debate would be rendered irrelevant if the CMC actually practiced full disclosure and - in this instance - gave us the exact details. Somehow, though, I suspect that 'commercially confidential' would be the reply if asked ...
Brian
You might be surprised but I do agree with you on this point. All too often we only get headline figures often just expressed as percentages rather than actual numbers and percentages. Or worse still information provided as an Infographic!!! Perhaps the Club feel that the majority of members wouldn't be interested in such detail? The Club seem singularly averse to providing detailed information on all matter of things. Take this change to the booking system that we are discussing. The Club says that they have consulted members and held focus groups. Let us for a moment make the assumption that people that contribute to Club Together are a cross section of the Club membership. I just wonder how many have been involved in this process? As it happens I don't think the change to the booking system is particularly controversial so perhaps it matters not. However they have been other changes where the same claims have been made which have not been so accepted.
David
2 -
Brian you'll be pleased to know I've found the CMC pronouncements on this subject (as you put it) If you look on page 62 of the February 2017 magazine you'll see a letter asking the same question as you have (was it you perhaps?)
How many of the bookings done on the first day are actually cancelled when the time comes?
The CC comment was quite long and I can't be bothered to type it all out but the main parts are:
60,000 bookings (on booking day) but this amounted to less than 10% of the total pitches available...
last year we took a look at those members who book many dates then subsequently cancelled... there was only 500 (five hundred) of them
Now my maths isn't that strong
but that makes 0.83%. What was your hunch again?So now you know, waiting for that apology you stated in an earlier email?
PS it also talks, sorry pronounces upon, deposits but basically said, what is the truth that club sites are popular and no matter what system is in place (deposits, restricted booking, rolling release...) the demand will always be there.
1 -
Having just booked a site with dates running from May into June I do wonder if there could be a problem with that sort of booking. It seems to me you could book up to the end of the month and then have to hope you get the first few days of the next month.
Personally I have no problem with the search facility for this club. For those who complain try booking with the C&CC whose site is far worse. My problem is logging into this site, as most pages, including sign, in come up not found. To get in I have to go to CT and then hit quote on the first thread and that lets me in.
0 -
the pronouncement does go onto say that many of these changed sites and/or dates but still turned up for these changes.
0 -
Hi Cornersteady
Brian you'll be pleased to know I've found the CMC pronouncements on this subject (as you put it) If you look on page 62 of the February 2017 magazine you'll see a letter asking the same question as you have (was it you perhaps?)
No, it wasn't me - and good on you for finding it, I tend to throw them out once read
How many of the bookings done on the first day are actually cancelled when the time comes?
The CC comment was quite long and I can't be bothered to type it all out but the main parts are:
60,000 bookings (on booking day) but this amounted to less than 10% of the total pitches available...
last year we took a look at those members who book many dates then subsequently cancelled... there was only 500 (five hundred) of them
Now my maths isn't that strong but that makes 0.83%. What was your hunch again?
If there were 500 members who each booked and then cancelled 10 sites (say), that would make about 8% of bookings. Or did the CMC state only 500 bookings? (the text above reads as if it's 500 members).
So now you know, waiting for that apology you stated in an earlier email?
Yes, I do apologise, it does seem that my case was overstated.
Having said that, the 'less than 10% of the total pitches available' somewhat sidesteps the fact that it's the honeypot sites that suffer from this and these are a minority of the total.
PS it also talks, sorry pronounces upon, deposits but basically said, what is the truth that club sites are popular and no matter what system is in place (deposits, restricted booking, rolling release...) the demand will always be there.
Yes, as I said in my post.
0
