http://girasolbeachresort.com/

not a lot of help, sorry

Thanks Del, I found that web address as well, but cant seem to find much else on it

Have a read of this thread http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g297605-i9001-k4104273-Overbooked_Santana_Beach_Resort-Candolim_Goa.html

Yes I have Katie. Its my friend who started that thread actually.

She was supposed to be going to the Santana Beach but got a phone call from Cosmos at the end of last week saying the hotel was overbooked. She has been offered this new hotel (which no one has heard of ) the GiraSol Beach. So I was wondering if anyone on here was familiar with it.

Hi Gemma
I've commented on TA about the possible location - it does look quite a way from Candolim (and the beach), although the photos of the hotel look very nice.

We spoke to several people that had been moved to the Highland Beach as part of their holiday as the Santana was overbooked. Santana claimed it was Cosmos's problem as they had oversold their allocation.
You must have been there while we were Prettypollycat !

Hi Dave
we were at the Santana from 21/11 to 12/12 but we didn't eat or drink in the hotel.
You might have seen us trolling through the gardens on the way to the beach though.

I find it hard to imagine how Monarch/Cosmos have oversold their allocation.
Surely if a tour operator have a certain allocation of rooms in a hotel, once they are all booked that's it - no more bookings taken for that hotel.
It's hardly rocket science, is it?

And why haven't they realised it until right at the last minute? OK, I know the answer to that one.

Gemma, as I've said on TA I really feel sorry for Kate.
I know she needs to make a decision pretty soon (does she fly tomorrow?) but it can't be easy.

Surely if a tour operator have a certain allocation of rooms in a hotel, once they are all booked that's it - no more bookings taken for that hotel.
It's hardly rocket science, is it?

Actually, rocket science is easier to understand than the workings of the holiday industry

The reason why these things happen is that TOs always do overbook - as do many airlines - in the expectation that in the end they will have some cancellations. It's the way they make sure that they don't end up with empty rooms that they are still contracted to pay the hotel for. Usually they get this juggling act right but often they don't - if there are fewer cancellations than average, they then have to bump some customers who are understandbly unhappy, especially since the nature of the game is that the TOs do leave it until the last minute.

Overall this is far more common than most people realise and not just within the holiday industry - the University I work for always makes more offers to potential students than we have places because experience shows that we always have some applicants who withdraw for various reasons after accepting an offer. This is why in some years students will still be offered a place even if they don't quite make the grades stipulated in their conditional offer but in others, even a very small level of under performance from offer grades will result in a student being rejected at the last minute. Those are the years were we've had fewer withdraw at the last minute or more achieve the conditions of their offer than usual and we are looking for the slightest reason that will enable us to withdraw an offer at the last minute and still balance the books.

SM

Hi Dave
we were at the Santana from 21/11 to 12/12 but we didn't eat or drink in the hotel.
You might have seen us trolling through the gardens on the way to the beach though.

We were there from the 18/11 to the 7/12 we didn't eat in but were around the pool nearly every day. You might have seen me wandering round with a camera and a big lens ?

We booked via the Monarch website for accommodation only, then there's Cosmos and Monarch package holidays. Maybe one side isn't talking to the other ?
In fairness people were being put in more expensive accommodation but those had booked the Santana had done so knowing it was a small intimate hotel rather than a big multi pool complex were you feel a bit lost.

The reason why these things happen is that TOs always do overbook - as do many airlines - in the expectation that in the end they will have some cancellations.

I understand the sense in this, but in that case the bumping should be on a first come first served basis so that the people who booked months ago for specific accommodation get the place they booked. I have noticed on the complaints forum that people who have booked months, sometimes a year in advance have been bumped from accommodation that they spent ages choosing. What criteria do they use?

Maybe it's those who complain the most who get precedence?

PPC Kate is due to fly out this Saturday, Christmas Day. She said she will probably need to accept the hotel, but theres virtually no chance of finding something else this late.
She is going to complain strongly to Cosmos as well.

Gemma
On the posiitve side, at least it looks like Kate will be staying in what looks like a pretty good hotel.

I find the comments by SMa (thanks SMa for explaining how it works - or in this case how it DOESN'T work) about deliberate over-booking hotel rooms by tour operators astonishing.
I can sort-of see a TO's reasoning that they may be under-booked (and therefore out of pocket) but we're talking about the Christmas/New Year period here.
I'll never look at a holiday I'm thinking of booking the same way again.

KatieP asked an interesting question about what criteria they use for 'bumping' people.
Any views, SMa?
Package holiday gets first dibs?
Earliest booking?
Who shouts loudest?

Finally, DaveWales, do you mean the free-form pool nearest the road?
If so, we'd probably not have seen you as our room was slightly nearer the beach than that.
I don't recall a man with a big lens.

We were booked accommodation only and were unaffected, the other people we spoke to were both on packages. Both had spent some time in the Highland Beach first.
The only difference that I see is that we had booked non standard dates for what it's worth. Monarch have 3 arrival days I think. I suppose it depends how we fitted in with the hotels other bookings. Incidentally, they said they are fully booked for the rest of the season and I know one or wo HT'ers are booked in there so fingers crossed for them that they don't get bumped elsewhere.It's not just the standard of the hotel that is important, it's the location too.
Prettypollycat... sorry I missed you !!!!

Hi Prettypollycat, it's not just the TOs but the hotels themselves that do this and the season doesn't really make a difference - people still cancel as a result of illness, other personal emergencies, not being able to afford to pay the balance etc and - at this time of year especially - not being able to get there. And of course a factor that is getting to become more and more of an issue in Goa judging by other posts - being refused entry to the country on arrival and being sent home on the first plane back. The fact that this is Christmas - a high season and hence pricier period makes it more, not less likely that they don't want to end up with unfilled rooms that they are both probably being charged more for and also can charge more themselves.

As for how the bumping process is managed, well, it's hard to get them to admit how this is done but in the end it's probably a prgamatic decision. The scheduled airlines do it by asking for volunteers and offering what they hope is a big enough bribe to tempt some people to come forward - if that fails they'll bump the last people to turn up at check-in. And I suspect that this is why airlines like EasyJet and Ryanair are so rigid about latecomers and anybody else who doesn't abide by the rules - it makes easier to handle this process. Charter airlines are less likely to get themselves into the positiom of bumping you at the airport because they ahve less room for manouvre as to alternative flights they can put you on.

With packages, the fairest way would be to bump those who booked last but if they've only overbooked by one room, they aren't going to bump a party that has booked 2 or more rooms. I suspect too that they look at who has booked the msot extras etc. I suspect too that anybody who has booked a room only rather than a package from that TO is going to be bumped first as well, along with anybody who's not booked a standard package. For example, in Dave Wales case I woudl think that there's a good chance that he's right - they'll have given priority to the 'standard' passengers because that's the easiest way to keep all their rooms in continuous use. And as a last resort it wouldn't surprise me to find that it's done completely randomly out of desperation!

SM

Am I the only one who wonders if it is actually illegal to sell something knowing that you cannot supply it ?
I'm not talking about offering compensation etc, but actually knowing that when you make the contract with a customer that you cannot fulfill it.
After all , if you have 20 rooms at a particular hotel and you sell 21 you KNOW that at least one of your customers has been sold something that doesn't exist.
Surely taking money for something you know you cannot supply is "taking money under false pretences" or similar.
Not wanting to be controversial or applying this to any particular operator, nor wanting to get into a detailed argument re the various rules applying to air transport etc, just a general thought.

Am I the only one who wonders if it is actually illegal to sell something knowing that you cannot supply it ?

Strangely not, I was looking at the Maldives and the particular Island I was looking at (Meeru) was getting many complaints about overbooking and guest being moved to a a lower standard of room for the first few nights, I looked in to this and discovered that the government legally allows them to overbook by up to 10%

I think that we are going off topic here but the point is that in nearly all instances they know that they will be able to supply it by the time the holiday actually arrives and that they are not selling something they don't have. They make sales on the basis of expected capacity at the point of delivery not sale, as do many industries. Overall, when you look at the number of holidays that are sold overall, the number of people this affects are only a small minority - which I know is no consolation to anybody this happens to. And we need to bear in mind that we, the customers, are not without some responsibility in these situations. If we want a cast iron guarantee that we will never be bumped then we will also have to be prepared to pay higher prices in the first place because the cost of those empty rooms will be shared out amongst the rest of us.

Holidays are priced by the 'big boys' on the assumption that they are going to be able to operate at 100% capacity - ensuring that they do is one way they keep prices down for the customer. If we expect them to sell only 100% of their rooms etc and not the 110/115% of capacity that friends who work in the industry tell me is the norm, we will have to pay the cost of those unoccupied rooms - and be left in no doubt that if they only sell up to 100% there will be unoccupied rooms and somebody will be paying to cover the TO's losses on them - and it will be us the customer. Or alternatively the costs of cancellations will go up - the other side of the 'they've entered into a contract with us' argument is that so have we. If we aren't prepared to accept that once we've booked a holiday then we are contracted to pay the full cost whether we actually go on the holiday or not then we can't really blame the TOs etc for hedging their bets on whether we will cancel or not.

Pushing, the line that they should only sell what they can absolutely guarantee they can provide will I am sure mean that they would take a much stronger line on insisting that once we've booked we are contracting to paying the full price of the holiday regardless of whether we actually go or not and their current willingness to offer us partial refunds at a rate based on their calculated chances of being able to re-sell the holiday on to someone else will evaporate. The shock and anger that many customers express here on HT when they discover that cancelling a 'low deposit' holiday booking still leaves them liable at the very least to pay the full deposit, or the way some people regard it as unreasonable for TOs to make an admin charge when we change our minds or regard the cancellation charges levied by TOs as being excessive suggests that we don't all see ourselves as entering into a non-negotiable contract when we book. Such people are likely to be even more upset when they realise that no quarter will be given and that booking means paying 100% of the cost regardless of what happens afterwards.

The sensible holidaymaker will always make sure that they have decent insurance in place to cover them for the full cost of the holiday in the eventuality that they will fall ill and unable to go on holiday but this still wouldn't cover us at all in cases of 'disinclination to travel' and if insurers found themselves facing bigger payouts then premiums would go up for everybody too. And we all know of people who still persist already in not taking out proper insurance or buy insurance on price and up with something that doesn't really provide decent cover etc.

And, no, I don't work in the industry and I'm not saying that overbooking is acceptable - just trying to point out that there are benefits for the customer too of the current system and we will end up paying more for our holidays if we want it to change.

SM

Good post SMa.

Sma, I understand all that you say and have no argument with your conclusions, except to question why I should shoulder some of expense caused by others who have a "disinclination to travel".
When I book I expect to be liable for the full cost of what I have ordered and insure against my having to change my mind. If others choose not to insure then that is their choice and I see no justification in my paying for their choices.

I don't necessarily condemn what TO's do, I just wondered if they are in fact breaking an existing law.
I imagine that their legal experts have checked this a long time ago and that they are in fact not breaking the law bit it still seems contrary to natural justice to me.
If we accept that they have a right to overbook, surely we should be informed at the outset what the criterea for selecting those "bumped" will be.
Anyone booking 12 months in advance, as I do, surely has the right morally, to be certain of their choice

kiltman, do you mean the government in the Maldives or the UK government?
I assume you mean the Maldive government.
I can understand this, as their contract will not be with the end user (i.e us) but with the operator who will have knowledge of this practice and so is aware of the risks they assume.

I have to say that although I have read and heard horror stories about this happening, I have never had a problem and have always got what I paid for. I guess most of us are the same.