Cancellations

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

Like you say, Deleted User User, 30,000 sites in Europe. However, there are only just over 200 club sites in UK. So what is needed is for the Caravan Club to acquire more sites to cater for this section of the growing leisure market. So lets not complain about rising costs and instead support the club in its plans to grow and expand so that there is plenty of available pitches for us to use. People need to stop putting their caravan to bed for the winter and start to see winter as a season where they can continue to tour. This could result in more sites, not less, staying open all year thereby giving us more choice of places to stay in the winter.

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

The answer, Deleted User User, is for the Caravan Club to buy or lease more land to develop into new sites and keep all 200 or so existing sites open all year. This would be more viable if people could be persuaded to use their caravans in the winter and take advantage of the discounted deals that the club offers to winter caravanners. This would enable the Caravan Club to have the additional revenue necessary for an expansion in the network that could eventually cater for future growing demand. 

We agree with you AD, we ALWAYS book our sites in the UK, but only book abroad when we know there might be a problem because of popularity. We do plan where we're going and research sites for an area so we have an idea where we want to stop. We toured on the continent with two children and tents for twenty years without booking and always found somewhere

Malcolm, yes it would be lovely to see more sites open all year, we've noticed one or two are now opening longer such as Cirencester, but I cant see sites like Buxton opening because of its elevation and the problem of things freezing ( the road in there gets quite icy)

We always book in advance and we always would as I couldnt stand the stress of  not knowing we had a booking. We dont caravan in winter - the two main reasons being the horses (asking someone to get up at 5am to muck out 5 stables is a lot to ask!!) and also because OH has a finite amount of holiday days, we use all these over spring, summer and autumn and have non to spare over the winter. I would think a lot of people who work are in the same situation with regard to holiday days.

It would be great if sites opened all year, but presumably at the moment they offer discounts because they are quiet. Running costs in the winter would be higher so they would have to at least break even to make it viable - which presumably it isnt at the moment.

Oddly enough you do not have to break even to justify keeping a site open over winter. If the site is closed then it is losing money so what you have to do is get enough income to reduce the loss substantially and you are then improving the sites performance.

Oddly enough you do not have to break even to justify keeping a site open over winter. If the site is closed then it is losing money so what you have to do is get enough income to reduce the loss substantially and you are then improving the sites performance.

I may be miss-reading this but if the site is closed I presume it has no variable costs (except possibly some very minor power cost if there are security systems left in place).  The fixed costs (which in any event are sunk) are the same whether the site opens or not. Consequently most rational entrepreneurs would argue that to open they must cover the variable costs - wardens salaries, light heat and power, extra maintenace whilst open etc. Provided they do this then a contribution to fixed costs is made and then (all other things being equal) the rational decision is to open.

That might be what you were trying to say - not sure.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread title but I just read this and felt it necessary to comment.

Oddly enough you do not have to break even to justify keeping a site open over winter. If the site is closed then it is losing money so what you have to do is get enough income to reduce the loss substantially and you are then improving the sites performance.

I may be miss-reading this but if the site is closed I presume it has no variable costs (except possibly some very minor power cost if there are security systems left in place).  The fixed costs (which in any event are sunk) are the same whether the site opens or not. Consequently most rational entrepreneurs would argue that to open they must cover the variable costs - wardens salaries, light heat and power, extra maintenace whilst open etc. Provided they do this then a contribution to fixed costs is made and then (all other things being equal) the rational decision is to open.

That might be what you were trying to say - not sure.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread title but I just read this and felt it necessary to comment.

You are right that you do have to cover the additional costs involved in opening the site but once you are passed this then you are helping to make winter opening viable.

All the sites I've stayed on this winter seem to have been well occupied. So I can't see why more sites could not be kept open all year.