The internet ushered in an era of self-sufficient travelers. Some people prefer to explore with a smartphone in their hand instead of going on professional tours. However, 89% of travelers say they still join some tours, although not all the time. One couple decided to join a group tour, and chose the family tour option since it was cheaper.
The kicker? They were a childfree couple. When they showed up with no kids, the tour company refused to give them the tour, since the policy clearly stated there had to be at least one child present. The story sparked a discussion about whether it’s appropriate to book family tours even when you have no children.
RELATED:A tour company refused to let a childfree couple join a family tour
Since the tour was designed for families with children, the company felt the couple lied to outsmart them and save some money
The tour company offered families cheaper tours to encourage kid to be outside
As many commenters pointed out, charging family units without children more for a tour can seem unfair. In the comments, the OP even explains the difference between the family and he regular tour. “They go to the same spots but there are differences to accommodate for the kids.”
Therefore, it seems that the family and the non-family tours are very similar. And the reason the tour company charges families less is, according to them, to encourage people to spend time outside with children. “We’re simply encouraging new parents to have family outings.”
Some people questioned why they offer a family tour that’s not profitable. After all, isn’t that how business is supposed to work? But one commenter tried to defend the OP and their family, explaining why they might be doing that.
“They are offering it cheaper to people with children for the benefit of the children,” they wrote. “It’s a project his mum has started to try and give something back and perhaps help struggling families take their kids on a day out. It’s charitable.”
Still, the situation makes it seem like childless couples are discriminated against. “In this situations the kids are coupons. All tickets cost X. Bring a kid, get $10 off,” another commenter wrote.
Which side do you think is right, Pandas? Did the childfree couple really try to take advantage of an offer not meant for them? Or was the tour company wrong to deny them the cheaper tour just because they don’t have any kids?
Traveling is usually more expensive for families than for childfree couples
Family-friendly offers like this may make it seem like traveling and booking attractions as a family is cheaper than when you’re traveling as a couple or solo. But the reality is quite different: families often face hidden fees and extras.
Professor at the Edinburgh Napier University Lynn Minnaert agrees that traveling as a family can get expensive. “Airlines make it difficult [and] expensive for families to sit together. Hotels often lack family rooms and connected rooms, which is a particular issue for larger families.”
Generally, cheaper hotel rooms and even Airbnb’s are aimed at couples or solo travelers. Finding cheaper accommodation for a 3+ party can be more difficult. “Fire regulations are often cited for the four-person limit on bedrooms, so if you have a large family you will have to fork out for an additional room or a suite,” travel editor for The Times Claire Irvin writes. “Anyone who can afford adjoining rooms will have found these almost impossible to secure.”
She wonders why the tourism sector seems to hate families so much. After all, they comprise around 30% of the global tourism market.
Of course, financially-savvy parents know how to travel on a budget. They travel during shoulder seasons, and book plane tickets, accommodations, and experiences well in advance. Instead of a hotel or an Airbnb, they may choose a house sitting situation or a home exchange.
Sure, families may get some discounts because they’re traveling with kids. But assuming that they’re more privileged in all aspects of traveling would be wrong – so, maybe we should let them have this one?
“We charge as little as possible and run it as a community service, not a for-profit tour,” the owner explained
Most people believed that both sides here acted like jerks
Others blamed the tour company: “It’s a stupid way to do business”
Yet some sided with the company: “They lied and tried taking advantage of your generosity”
