Over the next few weeks we will discover what the government’s sustainability pact has been all about. Entities critical of the pact’s processes have unfortunately walked away. As they speak for ‘civil society’, environmental protection and residents’ rights, a fear may be that conclusions of the pact’s twelve working parties will be too geared towards business interests. A perceived bias towards business has indeed been a reason for dissatisfaction.
8 comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
Morgan WilliamsThey said the same thing to MacDonald when he opened his first hamburger joint.
Richard PearsonRichard, open up a hospitality business, and then attempt to compete on the basis of price. You'll quickly learn about how that works. End of.
Morgan Williams“I don't need to impose parental restrictions to prevent them from over consumption”. Which, reading between the lines, means you daren’t. Nonetheless, I’ll inform Sr Escarrer about your business strategy next time I see him.
tranq tranquerWho are "the rich", exactly? I'd argue that's subjective. If someone live on 25000€ per year, someone living on 50000€ per year might seem "rich" to them. But in the big scheme of things, 50k is a pittance. Is a millionaire a "rich" person? Well, these days a million isn't all that much money, and pretty much anyone who owns a decent property in a relatively desirable area of any major metropolitan area in most of the western world is likely to be a "millionaire". The fact is, that today, a "millionaire" is far more likely to be classified as "middle class", not "rich" (depending on how many millions they're worth). And there's lots and lots of those middle class millionaires out there. And generally speaking, they tend to be 40+ years of age, educated, they've accumulated some wealth over their lifetime, and perhaps some inheritance, have made all their youthful mistakes, raise families, and/or run businesses, and have settled into a responsible lifestyle. Again, there's lots of them out there, and these are the tourists that seek quality over quantity, and are happy to pay for it. But they expect the quality they pay for. You have to deliver quality in the product. The point is this: it it wiser to attract a large quantity of those seeking a "quantity" experience at lowest prices (often at higher cost of accommodating them), or to attract a relatively lower number of those seeking a quality experience at a higher price? Richard: I cater to the latter and therefore don't need to impose parental restrictions to prevent them from over consumption, which would be rather insulting to that demographic.
tranq tranquerRe your first paragraph, my point was only to put a different perspective on Mr William’s claim that “those who pay the least tend to be the most costly to accommodate and largest consumers of everything” which is patently untrue. Re the remainder of your comment, I would rather stay out of that rabbit hole, only to say that whilst you state that you “prefer to look up rather than down”, Mr Williams continuously gives the impression that he prefers to do the exact opposite.
Richard PearsonI suggest both you and Morgan are right to some degree. One would expect Morgan to be right about the individual clients and their behavior. When the consumption figures are taken for the buildings and surroundings larger upmarket hotels with more pools and large gardens will use more power and water than 3* hotel buildings . I think the following is the bit we should debate. "This was hardly a glowing endorsement of a destination focused on a quality tourism for the rich, which in any event he doesn’t believe to be “ethically advisable”. “The democratisation of tourism seems to me to be a social achievement for the middle and working classes. To now propose that we will move towards a tourism for only a few seems like a step backwards.” Since the end of WWII the focus has been on democratisation, levelling up, equality for all. Finally we are realising this does not work in our society. The success of the British Empire was built on a rigid class system summed up by the - I know my place - sketch. Some people will always have more brain power, ability and or money than others, we need to accept that and get on with our lives to the best of our own abilities, according to our stations, and without causing deliberate harm or oppression to those below us. Our choice is do we want to live alongside the tourist masses, probably below us, or alongside the high spending, high profile movers and shakers of society, probably above us. Personally I prefer to look up rather than down.
Morgan WilliamsWithout wishing to contradict your obvious superior knowledge of all things hospitality, a quick delve into Google tells you that 5 star clients tend to use more than double the amount of water than those who stay in hotels of lower categories. In regards to power consumption, hotels generally use the kilowatts per m2 equation, where again, generally more space is dedicated to clients of 5 star hotels (rooms, common and dining areas etc) than to those of inferior ones. It’s also pretty common to have to use a card to not only enter and exit the room, but also to be able to turn on the lights, electrical appliances and of course, the air conditioning. Your comment would indicate that you haven’t yet upgraded your AirBnb to this system and that your clients have to wander around carrying a key attached to a heavy lump of metal or a large stone found on the nearest beach.
I have to agree with most of what's laid out here, with one exception: “Five-star hotel guests consume more water and energy and generate more waste than tourists with lesser means.” Erm, it's pretty well known in hospitality that in general terms, those who pay the least tend to be the most costly to accommodate and largest consumers of everything. Budget tourists are notorious for irresponsible behaviours, e.g., using the most heating and cooling, leaving the water running, staying up late and leaving all the lights on, running the dishwasher multiple times daily with 2 plates in it. Drinking excessively, falling, hurting themselves, bleed on the sheets and pillowcases, or otherwise irreparably soiling the bedding and towels... They generate huge volumes of rubbish, often just leaving it laying around, and don't keep things very clean ... which requires additional hours of cleaning. The list goes on. Those willing to pay for premium accommodation tend to come from a different background, are often older and more responsible in life in general (which explains why they've achieved enough wealth to afford premium accommodation). They don't need to consume everything, they don't drink excessively, they don't stay up partying till the wee hours, and shut the lights off when they go to bed. They know what temperature they prefer and set it for that, rather than just running everything at full blast 24x7 because "more is more". They don't damage things or soil the sheets or leave big volumes of rubbish, leave a big mess, or throw their liquor bottles into the pool. They don't live like that at home, so they don't do it abroad either. And that's been our experience as well. Pretty predictably, really. And it's hardly a secret.