Jump to content
straightfeed

New deposit price on bookings?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, wortley said:

And I simply don't want a cabin previously used by dogs. 

That as well , not to mention people with severe allergies, I can’t see the information being correct for a lot of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cabin-boy said:

They might all be pet-friendly but that doesn't mean that BF will sell them all as such. Ed. 

Wooden floor = pet friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From BF blog: "Our pet friendly cabins are very popular and Honfleur will have some. We look forward to welcoming you and your dog on board."

AFAIK the (15 I think) pet-friendly cabins on CF are only for those with pets.  As noted, those with allergies cannot be put in a cabin previously used by a pet.  So even if it's true that all cabins on Honfleur will be "pet friendly", which only means a hard floor (some sort of hard composite which turns up the wall a short distance) instead of carpet, I cannot see that all of them will be used as such.  I suspect it's not true.

We once had to get our motorhome towed home and the recovery driver said the dog had to stay in the van, due to risk of allergies.

We only travel to Spain in the winter, with our dog, and I've never had a problem with dogs barking all night in the cabins.  More annoying is people stomping about, banging doors etc.

Edited by auchmill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cabin-boy said:

Yes, but what I was suggesting was that if you wanted a commodore cabin at any time within say a 7 day period because you were flexible with dates you could jump straight to those sailings for which the cabin type wad still available. Or indeed, filter only those sailings with 4-berth availability or pet-friendly cabins etc. Ed

I see what you mean.  So when booking you could book by specific date as the main criteria , or by a small range of dates and cabin type would be main criteria.  Maybe you could suggest it to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting to hear how non-dog owners view dogs and their owners....  

I know from experience that the pet-friendly cabins are exceptionally well cleaned an disinfected before each crossing. If the cabin had any traces of the previous canine owner, my dog would spend his first hour investigating every inch of it for clues about it's gender, what it had been eating, it's marital status and goodness knows what other information. But he doesn't - he just settles in and asks me if it's his mealtime yet...

I must admit that I do find it curious that people are prepared to sleep in a bed previous occupied by another human, but not one which had a dog on top of the cover, that cover having since been removed and replaced. But then again who am I to judge?

As for the new vessel having all of its cabins set up to be pet friendly....  Interesting...   When I asked BF once why they did not convert more cabins to be pet-friendly on the CF or introduce them on the PA the answer I was given was that each vessel was only licensed to carry a certain number of pets, and they had already extended that as far as they could on these two vessels. I cannot believe that the new vessel will be licensed to carry disproportionately more pets than the current vessels.

Perhaps that is a mis-translation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, auchmill said:

AFAIK the (15 I think) pet-friendly cabins on CF are only for those with pets.  

True, but then again it's almost impossible to book them even if you do have a pet - so I cannot see anyone else being forced to choose one because of lack of available alternatives!

17 in total - Deck 9 - all 14 outside cabins on the port side, plus the last 3 outside cabins on the starboard side.

Edited by Halfcrown
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you assume everyone who comments isn’t a dog owner ? I had a dog for 10 years lost him last year but looking for another one now, I wouldn’t ever take a dog I own on holiday that’s just my choice and it’s up to others if they do or don’t, but I still wouldn’t want to stay in a pet cabin no matter how much it had been disinfected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, neilcvx said:

Why would you assume everyone who comments isn’t a dog owner ? I had a dog for 10 years lost him last year but looking for another one now, I wouldn’t ever take a dog I own on holiday that’s just my choice and it’s up to others if they do or don’t, but I still wouldn’t want to stay in a pet cabin no matter how much it had been disinfected.

I’m really sorry to hear about your loss - bereavement for a dog can be such a painful experience. 

I certainly didn’t intend to make any assumptions - my comment abou the view of non-dog owners was prompted by the comment

 whole deck will be one seething, snarling mass of artificially primped hair and bared teeth” (which I do know was written in jest)

But as a dog owner I am very aware that not everyone will be as forgiving and tolerant of my dog or those of others as I might be, whether they happen to be a pet owner or not.

But I genuinely do find it odd that people are ok with using a bed previously used by an unknown human being, but not of there’s been a dog on it. Personally I find other people’s perfumes and aftershaves really objectionable, and I do find this remains in the cabins - especially in those with carpets - after having been cleaned.

Thankfully we are each of us different! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between human beings and animals?  

Human beings mostly wash and shower more frequently than animals, clean their backsides better after defacating, are less furry, and wear clothes. So I still don't want any sort of animal in the bedroom or on the bed. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A common complaint which comes up here is about the lack of Pet Friendly cabins when going to Spain. I wonder what BF has in mind in terms of proportion of pet friendly cabins:normal cabins on Galacia and the Salamanca! They will obveously want to increase capacity, but there will not be 600+ cabins like on PA. They will have to be careful to get the balance right so as not to alienate the non-petters among us but have substantially more than there are currently!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, neilcvx said:

That as well , not to mention people with severe allergies, I can’t see the information being correct for a lot of reasons.

https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/honfleur-passenger-vehicle-ferry/

Maybe the the total ship WiFi coverage isn't correct for lots of reasons too... or is that aspect deemed accurate as it conforms to what certain travellers want?

Just because it's not what some want to read or hear doesn't mean it's to be dismissed as incorrect. I'm sure such an authority as Ship Technology would soon be told to adjust what they've printed if it was wrong. BF wouldn't want to be misrepresented and the likes of ST wouldn't wish to deal with the possible legal ramifications.

Personally I'm not bothered. Life's too short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a drift off topic here I think. Dragging it back, wasn't there discussion about the new deposits a little time back. I seem to remember airing a theory that it was to help compensate for not being able to charge a surcharge for credit card payments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jonno said:

https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/honfleur-passenger-vehicle-ferry/

Maybe the the total ship WiFi coverage isn't correct for lots of reasons too... or is that aspect deemed accurate as it conforms to what certain travellers want?

Just because it's not what some want to read or hear doesn't mean it's to be dismissed as incorrect. I'm sure such an authority as Ship Technology would soon be told to adjust what they've printed if it was wrong. BF wouldn't want to be misrepresented and the likes of ST wouldn't wish to deal with the possible legal ramifications.

Personally I'm not bothered. Life's too short.

I think the difference between “pet friendly cabins” and “pet cabins” has been cleared up on here, it’s not a case of what people want to here or not it’s dealing with customer expectations, BF would I expect have more pet cabins on a new build as they are popular and generate income but also they acknowledge that not all customers want to be near a pet area , I would expect her to have a dedicated pet area hopefully with good soundproofing 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TerryDorset said:

Bit of a drift off topic here I think. Dragging it back, wasn't there discussion about the new deposits a little time back. I seem to remember airing a theory that it was to help compensate for not being able to charge a surcharge for credit card payments?

Doubt it given the value of those surcharges, which were in theory to pay the cost of processing the card transaction and not just to earn revenue. Whilst they might be gone, the costs will no doubt now have been factored into the fare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous topic started off with somebody moaning that the deposit had gone up from £30 to £40 and ended up with a consensus telling whoever it was that he should be grateful the deposit was not a lot larger because most companies don't even charge one.  There was discussion in that thread that many of us were surprised BF did not charge a percentage as the deposit, rather than a flat rate (again with the observation that this might have the benefit of deterring speculative bookings from those with no real intention of using the booking clogging everything up for genuine travellers).

Wouldn't surprise me at all if that discussion played a part in BF's decision to move to a 25% deposit, and who can blame them.  A useful moral to be had there....be careful what you criticise! 😏

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I just booked next years summer holiday with a French company and it was a 25% deposit but it’s not being taken until January, maybe that is something BF could consider 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gareth said:

The previous topic started off with somebody moaning that the deposit had gone up from £30 to £40 and ended up with a consensus telling whoever it was that he should be grateful the deposit was not a lot larger because most companies don't even charge one.  There was discussion in that thread that many of us were surprised BF did not charge a percentage as the deposit, rather than a flat rate (again with the observation that this might have the benefit of deterring speculative bookings from those with no real intention of using the booking clogging everything up for genuine travellers).

Wouldn't surprise me at all if that discussion played a part in BF's decision to move to a 25% deposit, and who can blame them.  A useful moral to be had there....be careful what you criticise! 😏

I still don't understand why BF don't charge the 100% fare at the time of booking like most others. Just on the pet cabin front on CF I have witnessed owners taking their pets from the kennels back to their non-pet friendly cabins.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy with the 25%, however the last 3 returns bought including overnight outside cabins on one leg were £205, £296 & £172

I imagine that will increase in price next year as the outbound is normally the Etretat and the return from Ouistreham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Manxscorpio said:

I still don't understand why BF don't charge the 100% fare at the time of booking like most others. Just on the pet cabin front on CF I have witnessed owners taking their pets from the kennels back to their non-pet friendly cabins.... 

Regarding the 100% deposit - it may be because they want to keep their ticket-debtor low. In accounting terms, when a travel operator sells a ticket it cannot count the funds it takes as revenue until the ticket is either used or expires.This is because until that happens, it is possible that it might need to be refunded, if for example a sailing is cancelled. In that case, any money paid will need to be refunded in full if no suitable alternative travel can be provided. The funds held are therefore in effect held by the company on trust and will appear on the balance sheet as borrowings. Unfamiliar, as I am, with French fiscal law and accounting practice, I do not know, but can imagine how it might cause issues if this figure become too large.

Regarding dogs in booked kennels being taken into no-pets cabins - I have seen this being done. In two cases, I cannot be certain, but to me it appeared to be with the crew's consent: one was an older dog that had become dangerously ill during the crossing; the other (on a different sailing) was a dog that had severe separation anxiety and was becoming a danger to itself in its kennel - not to mention the disturbance it was causing to the other dogs.

But I have also seen it being done in a way that made it obvious to me that the owners were deliberately and knowingly breaking the rules, without a care for anything other than perhaps being caught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Halfcrown said:

Regarding the 100% deposit - it may be because they want to keep their ticket-debtor low. In accounting terms, when a travel operator sells a ticket it cannot count the funds it takes as revenue until the ticket is either used or expires.This is because until that happens, it is possible that it might need to be refunded, if for example a sailing is cancelled. In that case, any money paid will need to be refunded in full if no suitable alternative travel can be provided. The funds held are therefore in effect held by the company on trust and will appear on the balance sheet as borrowings. Unfamiliar, as I am, with French fiscal law and accounting practice, I do not know, but can imagine how it might cause issues if this figure become too large.

Regarding dogs in booked kennels being taken into no-pets cabins - I have seen this being done. In two cases, I cannot be certain, but to me it appeared to be with the crew's consent: one was an older dog that had become dangerously ill during the crossing; the other (on a different sailing) was a dog that had severe separation anxiety and was becoming a danger to itself in its kennel - not to mention the disturbance it was causing to the other dogs.

But I have also seen it being done in a way that made it obvious to me that the owners were deliberately and knowingly breaking the rules, without a care for anything other than perhaps being caught. 

I totally understand your comments concerning the accounting practices but most other operators do charge the full ticket price when booking even though the travel date is many months away. Of course Client funds (advance payments/deposits) have to be held separately by law until they become due and payable but as you say French law and accounting may be different.

On the dog issue the requirements of BF are always ignored by a certain number of pet owners - the "muzzle" requirement in lifts and outside areas is mainly totally ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't commented on this so far.... but times change. BF have had a very low fixed deposit for years and years... but it's totally acceptable to pay 25% of the booking up front in my eyes, I honestly don't know what the fuss is. You are paying to reserve a service at a future date, and paying only a quarter of the cost to secure it in advance is good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Halfcrown said:

Regarding the 100% deposit - it may be because they want to keep their ticket-debtor low. In accounting terms, when a travel operator sells a ticket it cannot count the funds it takes as revenue until the ticket is either used or expires.This is because until that happens, it is possible that it might need to be refunded, if for example a sailing is cancelled. In that case, any money paid will need to be refunded in full if no suitable alternative travel can be provided. The funds held are therefore in effect held by the company on trust and will appear on the balance sheet as borrowings.

A well made point. Held in a form of ESCROW. It's possible ICG have had a nightmare refunding passengers due to WBY being late. I wonder whether having a more committed deposit also gives BF more accurate volume figures, is it realistic to suggest that what looked liked buoyant early year bookings due to such low deposits possibly dropped by 10-15% the closer it got to sailing day? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...