kamel123

That's exactly the point. I can somewhat understand it from a hotel's perspective - this is a tough situation, especially for family-run places that do not have strong backers behind them. But it feels imbalanced to put essentially the entire risk on the guest's shoulders, and ultimately not a good business decision. The consequence I expect is that people will just not book. I do genuinely want to travel, but I don't see myself taking the risk that I will have to write-off a five-figure amount just so that a hotel can cover their fixed cost? In that case, it may be a better decision to just stay closed for this season.

Thanks for that idea; wild indeed and not something I have previously considered, but intriguing.

LondonElite

Small hotels are essentially not going to open because the economics just don’t work. They can’t have (and won’t have) anywhere near full occupancy, but the fixed costs they have to commit to today won’t be much different from those last year. For many places this means that they are better off simply not opening.

journeybound

Very true! Not opening will also help save (or maintain) their reputation compared to and stress and anger they would have caused guests by putting all of the risk on the guest. So, long term, while it may hurt the cashflow this season, it's better to keep a good standing with your repeat guests and potential new guests. Loyal guests and a good guest experience reputation are going to drive profit long term. So if that means sacrificing one season and closing down because they know they simply can't provide the guests a positive booking experience due to the inflexibility, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge deal.

journeybound

Yes, exactly! As a guest, you shouldn't have to put up 100% of that risk. So, for you, besides waiting until January to book and see how things are looking then, you could also consider staying at a bigger brand hotel that has the financial cushion to give guests more booking flexibility than you're seeing at the smaller family-run properties. While that may not be your 100% ideal scenario, maybe it's better than not doing a big ski trip all. It's something that you've been looking forward to and enjoy doing every year, and it will definitely provide some net positive mental health even if you are not at the most ideal property based on your taste.

With all of that, if a Europe ski trip doesn't work out for you this winter, a ski trip to Chile or Argentina could make up for that and help carry you over to next winter. While most of the luxury accommodation options at the South American ski resorts are not the same caliber and there are not nearly as many of them as you see in Europe or North America, that's kind of part of the experience of a South American ski trip. There are certainly more luxury options than there were in the past, but in Europe and North America, your options are almost endless. Just trying to set expectations :-)

Plus, the skiing is great, and you are skiing on volcanoes in the Andes! It's a very bucket list experience that turns into a regular trip for many people after they do it once. How can you beat skiing during the summer?! What a lot of people do is turn it into a bigger trip, maybe two weeks. You can ski for a week in Chile and then go off and explore places like Patagonia, the Atacama Desert, or Santiago, depending on what you're looking for.

I'm well connected in the South American ski scene, so I am happy to answer any specific questions you might have if and when this becomes more than just intrigue.

LondonElite

This is pretty much precisely what the hotel owners told me!

journeybound

Perfect! Glad I'm in line with the way the hotels are seeing it :-)

It is disappointing to see some properties who just aren't quite understanding that. Whether they are opening when they shouldn't or being at full capacity when they don't have the quantity or quality of normal staff to provide the same level of experience their guests are used to, it's going to cost them long term. That, AND they have the nerve to charge the same price they normally would? When I have clients paying over $1,000/nt and receiving subpar service at a property that's supposed to be 5-star, I just can't recommend that property and it's going to hurt their long term reputation. I'd rather work with and recommend properties who are still putting the guest experience first and taking the financial hit now for the long term gains.

GUWonder

For those considering skiing abroad this season, before providing payment/form of payment, keep in mind that some places may say they are open and thus you have to pay up even if your travel there would mean a quarantine is involved prior to being able to ski ..... if even able to ski.

LondonElite

Yes, this is the principal point.

GUWonder

Yes.

I have already seen people burned by the “but the border isn’t really closed to you just because an involved quarantine to cross the border may be inconvenient/costly for you”. There are a lot of people desperate to collect what they can here and now — especially when they have little faith of replacing the business they thought they got and needed to cover their costs or otherwise stay solvent in the business for a while longer at least.

Just because the ski house owner is renting out a place at $25k per week normally and has plenty in the bank, they may not necessarily cut the customer any break just because the customer finds the trip inconvenient (or even perhaps impossible).

Jason85

Got Covid in March. I was in Gstaad in late February through the first week of March. Got it about 3-4 days after I got back to LA. I was staying at the Alpina for 10 days.

I have to admit though, it was just starting to blow up, so no precautions were taken in the beginning. It was only the last 2 or 3 days that I started wearing a mask there and social distancing, as it was spreading like wildfire in nearby Italy.

No skiing this winter, not even Aspen or anywhere. You're more prone to get a flu in colder climates. Also with the second wave now, I wouldn't really recommend it.

kamel123

Indeed. One of the places I looked at had the following cancellation terms (translated):
1) Cancellations are permissible up to 3 months before arrival. For cancellations between 3 months and 1 month before arrival, there is a 40% fee. [this used to be standard for ski hotels in high season]
2) The use of hotel facilities (spa, library, bar, ...) is included in the daily rate. Limitations to the use of these facilities, for whatever reason, including due to governmental regulations, do not constitute a breach of contract, and therefore do not give the guest the right to ask for a rate reduction
3) Services provided by 3rd parties (such as ski lifts) are not part of this contract. We are not responsible for the availability of such services. Limitations to the use of these services or a discontinuation of these services, before or after booking, do not give rise to an exception to the cancellation terms
4) In case we are unable to provide our services due to a closure of the hotel, the cancellation fee is waived. All other limitations (including entry restrictions, cautionary measures, behavioral rules, ..) do not constitute a reason for a free cancellation

At least it's clear, but needless to say, I did not pursue a booking further

journeybound

Those terms are ridiculous! Why would anyone book under those completely binding conditions?? Wow, that's sad... Why bother being open when you're treating your guests like that?

I'm glad the US ski market is being much more forgiving than that, for the most part. Yikes!

GUWonder

I am not all that sure ski area rental home owners/operators in the US are all that forgiving if some non-US persons (who are booked customers) don’t end up making it into the US to ski due to border crossing related restrictions.

It’s more important now (than even before) to consider what can happen and look carefully at the terms of a potential booking and what it may mean under different scenarios.

journeybound

I can't speak to home owners who are renting out properties on their own, but for homes/condos/townhomes that are managed by a reputable property management company or by the resort itself have been giving at 21 day cancellation policies or even less. In most cases, as long as it's not a last minute booing, I've seen policies being flexible until 7 days before the trip (full refunds up until 7 days prior). There are even some that allow refunds up until 7 days out AND give you credit for a future booking if you have to cancel within 7 days.

Obviously it all varies mountain by mountain, company by company, but I haven't seen terms anywhere near as restricting and offensive as the ones reference by kamel123.

erik123

I don't find it offensive. It was usual in the past at many family owned Swiss hotels for stays to be non refundable and payable in advance by wire transfer - no credit card at all.

I suspect oft returning guests will be treated with significant flexibility. Others, not so much.