flyingclrs727 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

Only 46% of Americans have a passport...

But that's a misleading statistic. Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a passport was not needed by US citizens to travel anywhere in the western hemisphere. It used to be possible to get airline tickets and fly into other countries in the western hemisphere with just a birth certificate.

Likewise people from other countries in the western hemisphere could enter the US with just a birth certificate.

In a nutshell, you have exemplified the US attitude to foreign travel.

The western hemisphere is not just USA, Canada & Mexico.

First up, there is all of South America.
(Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and quite a few others)

All of the Carribbean

And.... y'all gonna love this, these places you seem to have overlooked too.
France
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland
Iceland
Algeria, Morocco
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea
Liberia, Mali, Mauretania, Senegal, Sierra Leone
(and a few others)

In all seriousness, a lack of basic education regarding international geography, or a failure to appreciate even the existence or significance of some foreign nations, isn't exactly going to promote the idea of foreign travel.
On the other hand, I'm sure some Americans are equally frustrated by ignorant Europeans who believe that New York must be the capital of the USA, and that Washington DC is located in Washington State, innit?

alan3 wrote:

I don't really buy the idea that the reason is because Americans get less vacation time. Rather, it seems that it's just not in the US culture to travel this way.

Canadians get on average about as much time off as Americans and families don't tend to take more than 1 week off anyway when their kids are in school. Yet 1 week all inclusive getaways to Cuba, Dominican Republic or Mexico are very popular.

They fly direct from smaller, secondary cities straight to the resort. For example, Air Transat flies from Fredericton, New Brunswick direct to Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic. If you are a middle class or even lower middle class family, maybe not really world travelers, but seeking any easy quick beach getaway in the dead of winter, doesn't get much easier than that to plan and book.

There is a big difference between Canada and USA: in the winter, the whole of Canada is cold, so people have an incentive to fly to someplace hot. I've seen many Canadians in countries such as Barbados and Grenada.

There used to be some. The US majors all have hotel and car packages you can purchase through them. There are few plays the airline cannot get you. The Kayaks and Expedias of the world can take care of the rest. Airlines have plenty of Weekend only service from cold destinations to sun destinations. They all surge service during holidays/summer/spring break.

Mortyman wrote:

Bit strange that there is no room for a charter airline in the US. Certainly many Americans that are going on cruise wich is also a package type of thing ...

The type of people on cruises are very different from those who stay over. A cruise passenger will create a scene because an umbrella on a beach costs $10. Stay overs will pay $40 p/p for a meal at a top level restaurant. NOT at an all inclusive, so this allows tourist spending to spread beyond the European and Canadian tour operators who bring little of the spending to these islands. Using foreign hotels and foreign airlines, not too many providers in these islands benefit.

An AA jet with 150 passengers leaves more behind on an island than a Euro charter with 300.

gunnerman wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

Only 46% of Americans have a passport, but the other 54% are not disadvantaged as they can fly from continental USA to places as distant as Hawaii and USVI. By comparison, the UK is a small country whose inhabitants are accustomed to travelling abroad, with the boom in package holidays starting in 1950. There has been several holiday airlines running charters with practices which some find strange, e.g. at the end of the peak summer season, a number of employees such as cabin crew would abruptly leave as required by the termination date of their contracts.

But that's a misleading statistic. Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a passport was not needed by US citizens to travel anywhere in the western hemisphere. It used to be possible to get airline tickets and fly into other countries in the western hemisphere with just a birth certificate.

Just a month before the 9/11 attacks I crossed the Mexican border at Reynosa without showing any identification. About 3 years before that I was with a group of friends who went across the border for New Year's Eve. We returned to the border crossing in Del Rio, Texas in a taxi, and were asked by the border patrol if we we all US citizens. One friend said yes, and we were allowed back in the US without showing any form of identification. As a child I had travelled to both Canada and Mexico without ever having a passport. My parents, brother, and I all got our first passports when I was 14 in order to take a vacation to London.

Likewise people from other countries in the western hemisphere could enter the US with just a birth certificate.

You are using the term "western hemispihere" in a restrictive way, i.e. applying to Canada and Mexico. However, there is a large number of countries which are partially or entirely in the Western Hemisphere but not in the Americas which would certainly have required a passport for an American visitor.

In 1980 my family took a vacation in Peru and Bolivia during spring break. I already had a passport, so I used it on that trip. There were lots of Americans in the customs line at IQT that only had a birth certificate with them. I'm pretty sure Peru wouldn't have allowed US citizens to do this unless it were bilateral.

gunnerman wrote:

There is a big difference between Canada and USA: in the winter, the whole of Canada is cold, so people have an incentive to fly to someplace hot. I've seen many Canadians in countries such as Barbados and Grenada.

There are more US tourists on both of those islands than Canadians, but yes you are correct. SoFL attracts many snowbirds from colder regions in the USA. Canada can only offer winter sport destinations in the winter. The USA can offer this plus the sun and sand.

Americans get less vacation time than do Europeans. I am not sure that Canadians get much more than Americans as they also have a work/productivity oriented culture. The difference isn't the Americans don't travel. Its that they use shorter vacations meaning that near shore destinations like Mexico, The Bahamas or Jamaica will be more popular and fewer Americans will be traveling to Thailand.

And in fact now that people are electronically connected work/vacation trips are popular among the better heeled Americans. So that mitigates the fact that there are fewer vacation days. I know of several couples where one spouse is retired and likes traveling and the working spouse brings their work with them, so travels along. It depends on the job but upper tier professionals have way more flexibility.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

[ And.... y'all gonna love this, these places you seem to have overlooked too.
France
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland
Iceland
Algeria, Morocco
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea
Liberia, Mali, Mauretania, Senegal, Sierra Leone
(and a few others)

:

When last I checked all of these places were in the Eastern hemisphere. The western hemisphere is North, Central and South America, plus the Caribbean. North America plus US Caribbean islands offer much to US visitors so the lack of a passport doesn't hamper travel. Now lacking a Canadian passport bit more limiting. Ditto for an EU passport.

Quick history lesson
I guess the UK started and pioneered the package holiday. It also seems fairly popular with Germany, and also elsewhere across Europe, but is virtually unknown in the USA.

A package tour, package vacation, or package holiday comprises transport and accommodation advertised and sold together by a vendor known as a tour operator.
Transport would originally have been by train & ferry, and in more recent years by charter airline, or a regular airline operating a charter type service. The increasing trend is for fewer independent charter airlines, and more in-house air transport.

The Thomas Cook name
The first organised tours (by anyone, anywhere) dated back to Thomas Cook who, on 5 July 1841, chartered a train to take a group of temperance campaigners from Leicester to a rally in Loughborough, eleven miles away.

By 1872 he was undertaking worldwide tours, albeit with small groups. His company, Thomas Cook & Son, grew to become one of the largest and most well known travel agents (not just within the UK) before being nationalised in 1948. Nationalised - unbelievable!

The company was denationalised in 1972, and for some years maintained a very low profile.
Certainly you would not have associated this great old name with any aircraft. In fact during the 1980s Thomas Cook had its most visible business presence in the US, including traveller's cheque sales to regional US banks. Since then it's fortunes have varied, Robert Maxwell came and went, ditto HSBC, LTU Group, Travelex, and numerous others. Finally in 2001 Thomas Cook was acquired by a German company, which changed its name to Thomas Cook AG.
After some more shuffling around, a merger with Mytravel, involvement with LH (Condor), we are here today with a highly visible fleet of beautiful aircraft across Europe.
They were the first, then they were nothing, and now they're back again.

guyanam wrote:

.....so this allows tourist spending to spread beyond the European and Canadian tour operators who bring little of the spending to these islands. Using foreign hotels and foreign airlines, not too many providers in these islands benefit.

An AA jet with 150 passengers leaves more behind on an island than a Euro charter with 300.

Nope, I can't let you get away with that one.

If Euro & Canadian tourists are denying the locals any of their tourist $$$ by "using foreign airlines", how does using an AA jet put money into the local economy?

Secondly, it will be the US tourists who stick with familiar hotel names. The Euro & Canadian tour operators have used their local knowledge to book rooms in locally owned hotels.
When I took package holidays in Spain, I stayed at SPANISH owned hotels, and dined at Spanish restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Tunisia, I stayed at TUNISIAN owned hotels, and dined at Tunisian restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Greece, I stayed at GREEK owned bed & breakfast, and dined at Greek restaurants
When I took package holidays in Italy....... are you getting the picture yet?

I accept I'm only talking about Europe (& North Africa) where the local economy is developed and local entrepreneurs can (& do) provide a full service. Maybe things are different on Cuba or Haiti or elsewhere? If it helps, my daughter has just returned from an all-inclusive package holiday to Cuba. It was booked through Thomas Cook, but she stayed at a hotel owned by the Gaviota Hoteles Group. They are "an arm of the Cuban military" (although you won't find it mentioned in too many brochures). Is that local enough for you?
http://www.gaviotahotels.com/es/quienes-somos

guyanam wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

And.... y'all gonna love this, these places you seem to have overlooked too.
France
Spain, Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland, Iceland
Algeria, Morocco
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauretania, Senegal, Sierra Leone
(and a few others)

When last I checked all of these places were in the Eastern hemisphere. The western hemisphere is North, Central and South America, plus the Caribbean.

No, no, no. You are going to have to do much better than that.
When exactly did you last check? Seriously? I think you are full of ......, because I checked it myself about an hour ago (BEFORE writing the details you dispute). I mean, where do you think I got that list from? It's just a little bit too detailed to be right off the top of my head. Surely you realised that? Or maybe not.
Anyway, do you suppose it's changed much in the last 60 minutes?
Perhaps you have got a better source. I was only using Wikipedia; I mean, like, what do they know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere


{Edited to include something I wrote earlier in this thread.}
In all seriousness, a lack of basic education regarding international geography, or a failure to appreciate even the existence or significance of some foreign nations, isn't exactly going to promote the idea of foreign travel.

777PHX wrote:

We also don't get the same amount of vacation time here in the US that our European counterparts do. Four weeks is a pretty standard amount of vacation time for Europeans, no? That's what we *top out* at here in the US if we're *lucky*. Personally, I've been in my professional career now for more than a decade and I've never had more than three weeks. Vacations are looked at as a liability to large companies here in the US.

And a huge percentage of us who do get any vacation time don't take it because the CEO figures that if he can do without you for 1 week, he can do without you for 52 weeks.

vatveng wrote:

777PHX wrote:

We also don't get the same amount of vacation time here in the US that our European counterparts do. Four weeks is a pretty standard amount of vacation time for Europeans, no? That's what we *top out* at here in the US if we're *lucky*. Personally, I've been in my professional career now for more than a decade and I've never had more than three weeks. Vacations are looked at as a liability to large companies here in the US.

And a huge percentage of us who do get any vacation time don't take it because the CEO figures that if he can do without you for 1 week, he can do without you for 52 weeks.

So true. It reminds me of that great exchange from The Simpsons

Mr. Burns: If you don't come in on Monday, don't bother coming in on Tuesday!
Homer: Woohoo! Four day weekend!!

bagoldex wrote:

The few Americans who do travel overseas with any regularity tend to be more affluent and less price sensitive.

As a young (German, 1975++) adult traveling Europe I noticed that the Americans you met in Youth Hostels tended to be ( by appearance, talk ) from a more well to do background. Contrast with Canada, Australia, NZ who quite often ran on a low diet and/or worked their way. South Africans where a mix.

If a "maple leaf backpacker" didn't know about working chances where good he came from further south

Switzerland had a referendum to go from 4 weeks to 6 weeks vacation time and the result was no...to the total incomprehension of French people (we already have legally mandated 5 weeks) where such a referendum would have been 90% yes.

If I need to work during a vacation, then it's not a vacation.

Life is for living, not working !

With that said, I'm not sure package tours are that popular in France, any numbers ?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

guyanam wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

And.... y'all gonna love this, these places you seem to have overlooked too.
France
Spain, Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland, Iceland
Algeria, Morocco
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauretania, Senegal, Sierra Leone
(and a few others)

When last I checked all of these places were in the Eastern hemisphere. The western hemisphere is North, Central and South America, plus the Caribbean.

No, no, no. You are going to have to do much better than that.
When exactly did you last check? Seriously? I think you are full of ......, because I checked it myself about an hour ago (BEFORE writing the details you dispute). I mean, where do you think I got that list from? It's just a little bit too detailed to be right off the top of my head. Surely you realised that? Or maybe not.
Anyway, do you suppose it's changed much in the last 60 minutes?
Perhaps you have got a better source. I was only using Wikipedia; I mean, like, what do they know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere


{Edited to include something I wrote earlier in this thread.}
In all seriousness, a lack of basic education regarding international geography, or a failure to appreciate even the existence or significance of some foreign nations, isn't exactly going to promote the idea of foreign travel.

While you're being smarmy, the link you included literally says the following:

In colloquial or less precise usage, the term is often used to refer to North and South America and associated Atlantic and Pacific Islands (e.g., Bermuda and Hawaii).

It's pretty clear that the intent of the OP was to refer to the colloquial version of the Western Hemisphere and not just the portion of France to the west of the Prime Meridian, etc.

If you're going to roll your eyes at people's lack of geographic knowledge, you should at least consider the practical application of said geography.

Lots of interesting if slightly incorrect stereotypes being thrown around here.

I'll throw in my own.

The short answer for me is: there used to be (and still are) dedicated charter airlines

Apart from the often mentioned SY, there was USA 3000, there (still is) XTRA, and a few other examples. There are also definitely companies that exist that market vacation packages (Apple Vacations, Funjet) but they just book seats on regular airlines. The differences between Europe and the USA in my view are:

1) The idea of a VACATION is often fundamentally different. In the USA a vacation can be a weekend getaway to Vegas (no more than a 4 hour flight from anywhere in the lower 48) or a weeklong (at most) to Hawaii or the Caribbean, or a 7 day cruise. This is often a once every 2-3 year trip and not a yearly thing. And since there are less complications, most people just book these themselves. A lot of people I know don't regularly take proper yearly vacations other than to visit friends and family during the holidays.

In Europe the idea of a HOLIDAY is more a proper, lengthy (2-4 week) getaway to a far flung destination (5+ hours away, often 12+ hours away) often involving group tours, pre-booked accommodation, visits to cultural sites/museums. I see this most often in Britain and Germany (not very much in France actually)

2) As a result of #1, there is much less need for dedicated package holiday charter companies to put together itineraries because the trips are shorter and less complicated, and the discounts involved in bundling are often the same as what Kayak or Expedia gives you.

3) As has already been mentioned, the "regular" airlines already serve all of these holiday destinations anyway, at least seasonally and often year-round. And they almost all have dedicated branches to put together packages (Southwest Vacations) (AA Vacations) etc etc

I'd like to once and for all get rid of this stupid notion people have that Americans don't travel abroad. If this were the case, please explain ALL of the international gateways like LAX, SFO, ORD, JFK, ATL, etc and their plethora of destinations throughout the world. That is all.

I think you could make the argument that a bulk of JetBlue is the leisure side of the airline.
They just spun off jetblue getaways and turned it to jetblue vacations which I guess is doing very well so they say. But it’s a one stop shop.
https://www.jetblue.com/vacations/#/

We don't get vacation ?
2 weeks for first 3-5 years per does not a vacation make.

Vacation airlines really didn't begin in Europe until the European Union was formed and restrictions on inter-European flights were relaxed. By comparison, flights to Mexico and the Caribbean are regulated which puts a barrier to market entry. Plus, WN has filled the discount airline market niche rather nicely.

F9Fan wrote:

Vacation airlines really didn't begin in Europe until the European Union was formed and restrictions on inter-European flights were relaxed. By comparison, flights to Mexico and the Caribbean are regulated which puts a barrier to market entry. Plus, WN has filled the discount airline market niche rather nicely.

Depends a bit on when you place the start of the European Union.
Well one of the first airlines that looked to grouped holiday travelers ( aka Charter Airline ) was Condor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condor_Flugdienst

Condor began back in Montan Union times.

Another vector where people like Rodolfo Bay Wright ( founder of SPANTAX ).
Beginning with a local air transport service around the Canary Islands he expanded into longer range feeder traffic
to collect tourist groups. ( Rodolfo Wright once landed one his his CV-990 Coronado full of journalists and other
multipliers at XFW when the runway there was just sufficient for Noratlas and Hansa Jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spantax
XFW Landing:
https://www.welt.de/wams_print/article8 ... avour.html

F9Fan wrote:

Vacation airlines really didn't begin in Europe until the European Union was formed and restrictions on inter-European flights were relaxed.

I really cannot see where you are getting that from.

So, here's another little history lesson for y'all.
In the midst of WWII (December 1944), some people were already looking forward to peacetime, and international air travel that didn't involve carrying bombs.

The Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, established the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized agency of the UN charged with coordinating and regulating international air travel. The Convention establishes rules of airspace, aircraft registration and safety, and details the rights of the signatories in relation to air travel.
This was signed 7 December 1944, coming into effect on April 4, 1947, the same date that ICAO came into being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_C ... l_Aviation

Now comes the significant part. Ten years later, the amendments made in Montreal to the Convention on International Civil Aviation on June 14, 1954 were very liberal to Spain, allowing impetus for mass tourism using charter planes.

Quite how a country with a strict Roman Catholic moral code, and ruled by a fascist dictator, opened it's doors to mass tourism and all that entails, is another story. But it happened, and it all predates membership of the European Union. The UK didn't join until 1973, and package holidays to Spain, Crete, Italy and the Algarve were already well established by then, featuring aircraft from Britannia, Monarch, Dan-Air, Court Line, Donaldson, Lloyd International, Laker Airways, British Caledonian, and BEA Airtours.



Amazingly, all these airlines were based at either LGW or LTN, even Donaldson (a Scottish airline).

Finally, Spain itself didn't join the EU until 1986 !

F9Fan wrote:

Vacation airlines really didn't begin in Europe until the European Union was formed and restrictions on inter-European flights were relaxed.

Quite the contrary. The "holiday" airlines were created because of heavy regulation as it largely didn't apply to charter flights. What you're talking about has to do with the boom of LCCs that came decades later.

Edit: Well, looks like SheikhDjibouti beat me to it

aviatorcraig wrote:

I don't know the American market very well but surely Allegiant would be called a "vacation airline" no?

I think of Allegiant as a vacation airline. It has a very irregular and seasonal network following the vacation traffic demands. They also heavily sell package tour products.

One important point that I'm not sure anyone has covered is that many "holiday destinations" in the States also have significant business demand, so the economics of serving them is different. If you fly to MIA or SAN, you'll see plenty of folks in suits (and plenty of folks in shorts too). That's true for a few holiday destinations in Europe and the Caribbean but not as many as in the States.

dz09 wrote:

most americans do not take vacations and the lucky ones only have a week a year. a major vacation would be a trip to Disneyworld. there is simply no demand for leisure airlines and the little there is is covered by regular airlines. a road trip is basically your standard American vacation.

Where do you find the support that most Americans don't take vacations, or that the "lucky ones" only have one week? There is a DECREASE in vacation usage but in 2015 Americans, on average used 16.2 vacation days. I think you need to look into your statements and claims a little more, because they don't hold water at all.

Am I right in thinking that Condos and Time shares are a lot more common in the US as well which means less demand for packages?

reffado wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Holiday airlines seem to be a very European/Canadian thing due to the cold climates. Americans like to drive everywhere and may just drive upstate for a holiday etc. Or if you live in New York you may fly to LA etc, it just doesn't seem to be the same culture.

While I can't speak for the statistics, this sounds accurate to me. Last big vacation I took, I chose to drive the 5,000 miles instead of catching multiple flights. Saw much more, spent much less, and hours behind the wheel somehow still isn't as annoying as half the time in lines at airports. And, at times, I'd go miles without seeing a car with plates from the state I was actually in. Roadtripping is still very popular here, although one could argue that's because Europe has much more attractive airfares for continental travel most of the time, at least from what I've seen.

Being in Arkansas, I consider trips to places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone road trips, by the time you factor in fares to the smaller airports and lenthy car rentals it gets a bit costly for a family of 4. Plus theirs things to see in between. Now, follow on trips are different after you covers the middle stuff. Maybe Frontier changes that with their Jackson Hole service. They also just announced code share with Volantis.

guyanam wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

Americans largely do not leave the USA for vacation

Really! I suspect that people living in Mexico and everywhere in the Caribbean except Cuba and Barbados would be shocked to hear this. The US market is far and way the largest source of tourism to the Caribbean and Mexico.

The reason for the lack of dominance by charters is that US leisure travel isn't dominated by large tour operators. Americans do their own shopping and increasing vehicles like Expedia facilitate this.

There is also a much larger VFR market from the USA to the Caribbean as well as travel from Mexico and the Caribbean to the USA. There are also decent levels of business travel so for all of these reasons travel isn't as seasonal as it is from Canada and northern Europe, where it is heavily winter dominated making scheduled service less interesting. In fact the only slow period in US Caribbean travel is may and mid Sept to mid Nov.

In fact Jamaica generates 12 daily flights from MIA/FLL and 4-5 from ATL and CLT. The DR can generate as many as 25 daily from JFK/EWR..

The sheer size of the U.S. market means that U.S. traveller numbers are going to be large. But proportionally to other countries, Americans do not leave their country as much as nationals from other countries. This is changing as more Americans get passports but there also is wide climate variability within the U.S. and the prevalence of lots of sun vacation markets close to home. As markets like Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, are also large business destinations and outbound markets, the mainline carriers can serve them fairly well.

Contrast this with Canada, where travel to sun destinations means having to leave the country and very lop-sided travel patterns with most markets. While there are strong Mexico-to-Canada tourism numbers, Canadians largely go to Florida, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico, etc.. in far greater numbers than individuals from those markets come to Canada. The same would be found in north/south tourism flows in Europe. So these markets are more suited to dedicated leisure carriers.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

guyanam wrote:

.....so this allows tourist spending to spread beyond the European and Canadian tour operators who bring little of the spending to these islands. Using foreign hotels and foreign airlines, not too many providers in these islands benefit.

An AA jet with 150 passengers leaves more behind on an island than a Euro charter with 300.

Nope, I can't let you get away with that one.

If Euro & Canadian tourists are denying the locals any of their tourist $$$ by "using foreign airlines", how does using an AA jet put money into the local economy?

Secondly, it will be the US tourists who stick with familiar hotel names. The Euro & Canadian tour operators have used their local knowledge to book rooms in locally owned hotels.
When I took package holidays in Spain, I stayed at SPANISH owned hotels, and dined at Spanish restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Tunisia, I stayed at TUNISIAN owned hotels, and dined at Tunisian restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Greece, I stayed at GREEK owned bed & breakfast, and dined at Greek restaurants
When I took package holidays in Italy....... are you getting the picture yet?

I accept I'm only talking about Europe (& North Africa) where the local economy is developed and local entrepreneurs can (& do) provide a full service. Maybe things are different on Cuba or Haiti or elsewhere? If it helps, my daughter has just returned from an all-inclusive package holiday to Cuba. It was booked through Thomas Cook, but she stayed at a hotel owned by the Gaviota Hoteles Group. They are "an arm of the Cuban military" (although you won't find it mentioned in too many brochures). Is that local enough for you?
http://www.gaviotahotels.com/es/quienes-somos

We are discussing the Caribbean here. When you go to a Spanish all inclusive in the DR and you don't leave the hotel you spent money with a Euro tour operator, stayed in a Euro hotel and flew in on a Euro carrier. All your meals/entertainment are provided by this same Euro chain. Many barely leave the property. Quite likely that the ground transportation was Euro as well.

When US tourists spend higher amounts in the higher end hotels, so more taxes for the government. Those higher end hotels have more employees, so more income from the locals. Tourists are more likely to use local restaurants, so again more opportunities for the locals.

Face it the cheap all inclusive traveler is LESS lucrative for the Caribbean locals than is the higher spending Americans who cobbles together his own package on Expedia.

I suggest that you go and argue with people who live in islands like Barbados and St Lucia where they HATE all inclusive properties! I was speaking with a Barbadian hotel owner when I stayed at his property. He was WAILING about the fact that tour operators force him to reduce his rates so low that he could barely stay in business. He was desperate to find independent travelers like me.

TWA302 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

most americans do not take vacations and the lucky ones only have a week a year. a major vacation would be a trip to Disneyworld. there is simply no demand for leisure airlines and the little there is is covered by regular airlines. a road trip is basically your standard American vacation.

Where do you find the support that most Americans don't take vacations, or that the "lucky ones" only have one week? There is a DECREASE in vacation usage but in 2015 Americans, on average used 16.2 vacation days. I think you need to look into your statements and claims a little more, because they don't hold water at all.

This is just the usual anti American propaganda that Canadians and Europeans like to peddle. They need to know that their "cheap packages" that they are so proud of aren't much liked by the Caribbean countries themselves. Few employees per room, lower gov't taxes, and less expenditures OUTSIDE of the properties. This is why its mainly the islands which offer mass volume like Cuba, DR, and Jamaica are involved in this market. Other islands avoid that. The mass destinations have to generate volume to offset the "cheapness".

guyanam wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

This is just the usual anti American propaganda that Canadians and Europeans like to peddle. They need to know that their "cheap packages" that they are so proud of aren't much liked by the Caribbean countries themselves. Few employees per room, lower gov't taxes, and less expenditures OUTSIDE of the properties. This is why its mainly the islands which offer mass volume like Cuba, DR, and Jamaica are involved in this market. Other islands avoid that. The mass destinations have to generate volume to offset the "cheapness".

"They are so proud of"

I think that is a bit silly. People in Canada and Europe don't hold particular pride in that way of travel. We don't hold Package Tourism celebrations. it's just a supply that fits a demand. When it's -30 below 0 and you have a busy family and you have saved up all year to get some sun.....yes you could could pick coffee with orphans in a rural village, or you could go to a beach resort for a few days. I mean come on.

Yes, how much impact tourism has on a local economy is a valid discussion, and it's perfectly legitimate to be wary of the insulated environment of an all-inclusive resorts.

However, I don't buy the idea that Americans travelers as a standard always put more money to the local economy. An American who goes to Cancun and books his flight on Delta, stays at a giant Marriott hotel and eats at TGI Fridays is not giving more money to the local economy than a European booking through TUI.

I'm sure many people do hate package tourism and it's a personal choice how you want to travel. But try telling the Cuban or Dominican governments, where tourism generates $3 to 4$ BILLION dollars to the local economy and thousands upon thousands of jobs. In somewhere like Saint Kitts and Nevis, on the other hand, there no similar culture tourism, very little revenue from it, and that's fine too because that's their decision.

guyanam wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

guyanam wrote:

.....so this allows tourist spending to spread beyond the European and Canadian tour operators who bring little of the spending to these islands. Using foreign hotels and foreign airlines, not too many providers in these islands benefit.

An AA jet with 150 passengers leaves more behind on an island than a Euro charter with 300.

Nope, I can't let you get away with that one.

If Euro & Canadian tourists are denying the locals any of their tourist $$$ by "using foreign airlines", how does using an AA jet put money into the local economy?

Secondly, it will be the US tourists who stick with familiar hotel names. The Euro & Canadian tour operators have used their local knowledge to book rooms in locally owned hotels.
When I took package holidays in Spain, I stayed at SPANISH owned hotels, and dined at Spanish restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Tunisia, I stayed at TUNISIAN owned hotels, and dined at Tunisian restaurants.
When I took package holidays in Greece, I stayed at GREEK owned bed & breakfast, and dined at Greek restaurants
When I took package holidays in Italy....... are you getting the picture yet?

I accept I'm only talking about Europe (& North Africa) where the local economy is developed and local entrepreneurs can (& do) provide a full service. Maybe things are different on Cuba or Haiti or elsewhere? If it helps, my daughter has just returned from an all-inclusive package holiday to Cuba. It was booked through Thomas Cook, but she stayed at a hotel owned by the Gaviota Hoteles Group. They are "an arm of the Cuban military" (although you won't find it mentioned in too many brochures). Is that local enough for you?
http://www.gaviotahotels.com/es/quienes-somos

We are discussing the Caribbean here. When you go to a Spanish all inclusive in the DR and you don't leave the hotel you spent money with a Euro tour operator, stayed in a Euro hotel and flew in on a Euro carrier. All your meals/entertainment are provided by this same Euro chain. Many barely leave the property. Quite likely that the ground transportation was Euro as well.

When US tourists spend higher amounts in the higher end hotels, so more taxes for the government. Those higher end hotels have more employees, so more income from the locals. Tourists are more likely to use local restaurants, so again more opportunities for the locals.

Face it the cheap all inclusive traveler is LESS lucrative for the Caribbean locals than is the higher spending Americans who cobbles together his own package on Expedia.

I suggest that you go and argue with people who live in islands like Barbados and St Lucia where they HATE all inclusive properties! I was speaking with a Barbadian hotel owner when I stayed at his property. He was WAILING about the fact that tour operators force him to reduce his rates so low that he could barely stay in business. He was desperate to find independent travelers like me.

You keep insisting how American spend more on local economy? You do it maybe. But many American certainly just stayed in their properties when they go to Caribbean beach resort also. Let say, Bahamas Atlantis Paradise Island? (Own by a South African, BTW) You think all the Americans that go there would venture out somewhere? You think all those Americans going to Cancun or Punta Cana actually venture out into "dangerous third world" (Not my view, just trying to put it into the point of view of an "ignorant American")?

Seriously, the only difference between an European and an American in this case is that instead of flying a leisure airlines like Thomas Cook to the island, they're flying American or Delta, etc.

TWA302 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

most americans do not take vacations and the lucky ones only have a week a year. a major vacation would be a trip to Disneyworld. there is simply no demand for leisure airlines and the little there is is covered by regular airlines. a road trip is basically your standard American vacation.

Where do you find the support that most Americans don't take vacations, or that the "lucky ones" only have one week? There is a DECREASE in vacation usage but in 2015 Americans, on average used 16.2 vacation days. I think you need to look into your statements and claims a little more, because they don't hold water at all.

That bugged me as well. Americans do take vacations, but for the majority of us we only go for a week at a time and do not take the multi-week vacations that other countries do. When I lived in the US, the only multi-week vacation I had was when I was between jobs, and that was not much of a vacation. Now that I am in Australia, my vacations are getting longer. I just took over 3 weeks over Christmas to go back home. Was a little weird taking that much time off all in one go, but I think with more practice that I will get used to it.

If people do not want to go away for a vacation, for whatever reason, then some will not take a week of, but a few days at a time for a long weekend here and there. But to the point of the original comment, Americans do indeed take vacations. My sold out flights between RSW-ORD-RSW with families stating they were on vacation was a big clue that they do. Seeing fellow Americans boarding QF8 with me last Sunday and being excited to be going to Australia was a clue. And also helping a confused American couple at the automated passport kiosks at Sydney was also a clue.

But also, with websites like Travelocity, Expedia and others where you can book everything in one go, there is no need for an airline to try to offer that. A lot of people book through those sites and not directly with the airline.

IPFreely wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Great point that's probably overlooked here and everywhere else. Most of the US is poor, what is it - half the country makes $30k/year or less? Even salaried professionals like teachers don't make much. Not much disposable income left for plane tickets to Mexico or Hawaii for the vast majority.

This is blatantly false. In 2017 the US median household income was $59,039. That means half of the households in the US make over $59k, not $30k. So your point is not great, it's false. Please stop making stuff up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-censu ... ome-2017-9

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/busi ... ssion.html

Also, the standard of living varies greatly throughout the US. The average salary of someone working in NYC would live almost like a king in rural South Carolina.

Does everybody here share the same understanding of what is meant by a "PACKAGE HOLIDAY" ? (I did define this earlier in this thread)

Does everybody recognise the concepts of "B&B", "HALF Board" and "FULL BOARD" ? (i.e. I could not find these terms on a major US Hotel website)

Is it fair to say that Americans tend to book hotels as "ROOM ONLY", both for business within the USA, and when abroad on holiday?

As an alternative, what proportion of Americans these days book holiday hotels as "ALL INCLUSIVE"?

And, ..... is there a general misunderstanding here on a.net between an "All Inclusive package at a chosen hotel" (US style) versus an "All Inclusive package holiday" (European style).

Basically I am concerned that some of the arguments here are because we are using similar terms, but with vastly different interpretations.

A package holiday is NOT the same as an all-inclusive holiday

alan3 wrote:

Yes, how much impact tourism has on a local economy is a valid discussion, and it's perfectly legitimate to be wary of the insulated environment of an all-inclusive resorts.

However, I don't buy the idea that Americans travelers as a standard always put more money to the local economy. An American who goes to Cancun and books his flight on Delta, stays at a giant Marriott hotel and eats at TGI Fridays is not giving more money to the local economy than a European booking through TUI.

A most excellent summary. Five stars.

Something overlooked so far is the context in which package tours came to be the predominant foreign vacation method,at least in the UK. For clarity,my first package tour ( without parents or school organisation ) was in 1968 , with a flight to Gerona on IIRC a Britannia of British Eagle.

Imagine trying to organise this as individual items:

Flight on regulated airline - probably the same price on BEA or Iberia - to the nearest airport they flew to.
Book hotel
Arrange transfers from airport to hotel and vice versa.
The latter two quite likely in a foreign language that you do not speak.


No Internet. Credit cards were a novelty - Barclaycard was introduced in 1966 and charge cards like Diners Club in 1962 - so telephone booking was impossible.

In all probability,you would have to use your high street travel agent anyway, with the time taken by snail mail added in. Much easier to book everything in one hit through the same agency, and probably a fair bit cheaper due to the tour operators economies of scale.

Also, the package would generally include meals, probably oriented towards British tastes and served at British mealtimes,thus avoiding eating that funny foreign food at strange times.

For Brits, do not overlook the Exchange Control Act 1948. The relevant sections survived to its repeal in 1979. Under this, personal travellers were limited how much currency (foreign and British) they were allowed to take out of the country. On a package holiday,the foreign currency element (hotel) was shown as the 'V-form ' amount and was noted in the relevant section of your passport as part of your total allowance. Independently booked, the relevant costs would probably be higher, and still paid from the allowance.

Because the numbers were so large, it produced the economies of scale to make it worthwhile for tour operators,who often owned their own hotels as well,to operate their own in-house airlines, like Britannia (Thomson Holidays) and who remembers Court Line (Clarkson Holidays) ?

guyanam wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

most americans do not take vacations and the lucky ones only have a week a year. a major vacation would be a trip to Disneyworld. there is simply no demand for leisure airlines and the little there is is covered by regular airlines. a road trip is basically your standard American vacation.

Where do you find the support that most Americans don't take vacations, or that the "lucky ones" only have one week? There is a DECREASE in vacation usage but in 2015 Americans, on average used 16.2 vacation days. I think you need to look into your statements and claims a little more, because they don't hold water at all.

This is just the usual anti American propaganda that Canadians and Europeans like to peddle. They need to know that their "cheap packages" that they are so proud of aren't much liked by the Caribbean countries themselves. Few employees per room, lower gov't taxes, and less expenditures OUTSIDE of the properties. This is why its mainly the islands which offer mass volume like Cuba, DR, and Jamaica are involved in this market. Other islands avoid that. The mass destinations have to generate volume to offset the "cheapness".

I’ve heard the same from people involved in the hospitality industry in the Caribbean. It’s a quantity (Europeans) vs. quality (Americans and others) thing and as you would expect, the group that leaves more behind is the group that’s more appreciated.

I have actually discussed this with my many American friends/colleagues, and most seem to agree that the big reason is the little vacation time that people get in the US. Most people just don't have enough work leave to actually plan a proper "Holiday" on a regular basis, compared to may Europeans who can afford easily two-three international trips of at least a week, per calendar year.

F9Fan wrote:

Vacation airlines really didn't begin in Europe until the European Union was formed and restrictions on inter-European flights were relaxed. By comparison, flights to Mexico and the Caribbean are regulated which puts a barrier to market entry. Plus, WN has filled the discount airline market niche rather nicely.

Oh wow, this takes the cake as the funniest thing I've read here or elsewhere over the last 6 months! You just made my day!

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Does everybody here share the same understanding of what is meant by a "PACKAGE HOLIDAY" ? (I did define this earlier in this thread)

Does everybody recognise the concepts of "B&B", "HALF Board" and "FULL BOARD" ? (i.e. I could not find these terms on a major US Hotel website)

Is it fair to say that Americans tend to book hotels as "ROOM ONLY", both for business within the USA, and when abroad on holiday?

As an alternative, what proportion of Americans these days book holiday hotels as "ALL INCLUSIVE"?

And, ..... is there a general misunderstanding here on a.net between an "All Inclusive package at a chosen hotel" (US style) versus an "All Inclusive package holiday" (European style).

Basically I am concerned that some of the arguments here are because we are using similar terms, but with vastly different interpretations.

A package holiday is NOT the same as an all-inclusive holiday

There are quite a number of hotels in the US that offer a "free" breakfast bundled with an overnight stay. Mostly they are 3-star and below. I find them quite useful when traveling on road trips, because there is no need to leave the hotel and save time. The great thing about using travel websites like Priceline and Orbitz is that they disclose whether they have a breakfast included.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

There are quite a number of hotels in the US that offer a "free" breakfast bundled with an overnight stay.

strange, strange.
for Germany:
A "Hotel" by definition is a full service entity. A room with bed(s), toilet, shower, breakfast included, lunch, dinner ( included or optional ), a bar to while the time away.

A "Hotel Garni" is the same but breakfast only.

alan3 wrote:

guyanam wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

"They are so proud of"


Yes, how much impact tourism has on a local economy is a valid discussion, and it's perfectly legitimate to be wary of the insulated environment of an all-inclusive resorts.

.

The pride is always evident on A.net. Endless prattle about Canadian and Euro travel and condescension directed towards Americans because they less favor it. Endless chatter that Americans don't travel without acknowledging that it being a vast country with diverse opportunities for domestic travel. From Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, Disneyland, major cities and national parks, etc. Both Americans and Canadians love FL, but for a Canadian its a foreign trip.

But let me pose a question for you. Which benefits the ordinary Cuban more? The tourist who stays in those locally owned boutique facilities and who patronize locally owned restaurants and who use taxis for something other than airport to hotel transfers. Many of the all inclusive facilities are located far away from Havana and other culturally significant so you know that most of those in those facilities aren't visiting them.

So yes the insulated environment of the all inclusive reduces the spin off impact of tourism for the local population. Cuba promotes it because they wanted minimize contact of their people with foreigners. That might have changed now but surely 20 years ago that was the case.The DR and Jamaica because there is a perception that these aren't the safest places so there is the need to "protect" the tourist. Safer islands like Barbados do NOT want all inclusive facilities to be the dominant form of property because they want to maximize opportunities to generate employment and business opportunities for locals OUTSIDE of the hotel.

And yes the American eating at TGIF benefits the local economy more than the Canadian who never leaves the all inclusive. The TGIF is probably owned by a local as it is a franchise. Locals who do NOT get work in the hotels get a shot at a restaurant outside of the property and the taxi drivers get business.

Talk to any local and you will hear them comment very unfavorably towards the tourist who arrives at the airport, transfers to the all inclusive, and then heads back to the airport. All meals and entertainment paid for in Canada, with the tour operator using their massive clout to bid down prices that they pay local service providers, minimizing what actually enters the destination.

WIederling wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

There are quite a number of hotels in the US that offer a "free" breakfast bundled with an overnight stay.

strange, strange.
for Germany:
A "Hotel" by definition is a full service entity. A room with bed(s), toilet, shower, breakfast included, lunch, dinner ( included or optional ), a bar to while the time away.

A "Hotel Garni" is the same but breakfast only.

Most hotels in the US aimed at families/vacationers have breakfast included. There are usually in-hotel lunch and sometimes dinner options but they are typically an additional cost, and no bar. Higher end hotels aimed at the business traveler usually does not include breakfast, because usually it is the employer ultimately footing the bill and not the person staying there so might as well get as much money out of them as possible. Of course if you are a regular guest of that chain you can earn status and get to a level that has access to a free breakfast.

guyanam wrote:

alan3 wrote:

guyanam wrote:

"They are so proud of"


Yes, how much impact tourism has on a local economy is a valid discussion, and it's perfectly legitimate to be wary of the insulated environment of an all-inclusive resorts.

.

The pride is always evident on A.net. Endless prattle about Canadian and Euro travel and condescension directed towards Americans because they less favor it. Endless chatter that Americans don't travel without acknowledging that it being a vast country with diverse opportunities for domestic travel. From Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, Disneyland, major cities and national parks, etc. Both Americans and Canadians love FL, but for a Canadian its a foreign trip.

But let me pose a question for you. Which benefits the ordinary Cuban more? The tourist who stays in those locally owned boutique facilities and who patronize locally owned restaurants and who use taxis for something other than airport to hotel transfers. Many of the all inclusive facilities are located far away from Havana and other culturally significant so you know that most of those in those facilities aren't visiting them.

So yes the insulated environment of the all inclusive reduces the spin off impact of tourism for the local population. Cuba promotes it because they wanted minimize contact of their people with foreigners. That might have changed now but surely 20 years ago that was the case.The DR and Jamaica because there is a perception that these aren't the safest places so there is the need to "protect" the tourist. Safer islands like Barbados do NOT want all inclusive facilities to be the dominant form of property because they want to maximize opportunities to generate employment and business opportunities for locals OUTSIDE of the hotel.

And yes the American eating at TGIF benefits the local economy more than the Canadian who never leaves the all inclusive. The TGIF is probably owned by a local as it is a franchise. Locals who do NOT get work in the hotels get a shot at a restaurant outside of the property and the taxi drivers get business.

Talk to any local and you will hear them comment very unfavorably towards the tourist who arrives at the airport, transfers to the all inclusive, and then heads back to the airport. All meals and entertainment paid for in Canada, with the tour operator using their massive clout to bid down prices that they pay local service providers, minimizing what actually enters the destination.

You can book all-inclusive resorts without booking through a package tour operator. Just because an American isn't booking the resort through the airline, doesn't mean he isn't staying at one. On the flip side, not everyone booking through a tour operator never leaves their hotel. This discussion is about HOW people book leisure holidays (through a tour operator airline vs booking each segment separately online).

Ironically, although what you say may be true in certain Caribbean places, when I travel to other developing countries (India, Philippines, Laos, part of Africa, etc) where independent tourism really can help locals, I rarely see many American travelers...most independent travelers I meet are from those very places (UK, Germany, Scandinavia, France, Canada) that you decry for being insular package holiday addicts!

Americans hardly have any vacation, so maybe there is less need for typical holiday airlines? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that an average, middle class American only has three weeks of paid vacation time a year.

Looking at airlines serving the American Caribbean Islands, compared to the European Canary islands, it is quit different picture.

reidar76 wrote:

Americans hardly have any vacation, so maybe there is less need for typical holiday airlines? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that an average, middle class American only has three weeks of paid vacation time a year.

I have no idea where everyone gets this from. First off, vacation amount is not determined by upper, middle, lower class. Secondly, vacation time (from the vast majority of employers) grows significantly with tenure. For instance. I have been with the same company since 2003. Each year I get six weeks of vacation and 2 weeks of personal time. My vacation hours can compile up to 250%. Next year I will gain 2 more weeks of vacation.

We actually spend about 10% of our salaries (according to Forbes- June 2017) on vacations each year. I think the thing is that many of us travel domestically.
Here is a great article about it. https://skift.com/2017/07/07/u-s-travelers-say-they-want-more-domestic-trips-this-year/

"U.S. travelers took nearly 14 million more trips in the United States than international trips during the 12-month stretch ending in February, according to MMGY Global’s 2017 Portrait of American Travelers report, citing concerns about political climates and safety abroad as likely reasons for the bump in domestic trips.

Domestic vacations made up 85 percent of total vacations taken by Americans, up seven percentage points from the prior year, based on MMGY Global’s survey of nearly 3,000 U.S. leisure travelers ages 18 and older in February."

Pretty much everywhere we want to go is either served by a regular airline or one of the smaller charters like XTRA, etc. Other's have tried and failed, like USA3000.

jetfuel wrote:

Americans largely do not leave the USA for vacation

America is one of only THREE countries in the world (the other two being Somali and Papua New Guinea) that don't have mandatory vacation days.

TWA302 wrote:

I have no idea where everyone gets this from. First off, vacation amount is not determined by upper, middle, lower class. Secondly, vacation time (from the vast majority of employers) grows significantly with tenure. For instance. I have been with the same company since 2003. Each year I get six weeks of vacation and 2 weeks of personal time. My vacation hours can compile up to 250%. Next year I will gain 2 more weeks of vacation.

I don't know where you work, but you are an exception by a HUGE margin. Most americans get one day of vacation for every year they work for the company and it never exceeds two weeks. And I think you know that.

Maybe I missed it, but have you all forgotten USA3000/Apple Vacations?