A traveler booked an EasyJet Holidays vacation package, and was angry when he found out just how many fees the hotel had, including an alleged $32 fee per person per hour for use of the heated pool. At first I was livid when I read this story, but the more I look into it, the…
Continue reading: In Defense Of The EasyJet Holidays Hotel Charging $32 Per Hour To Use The Pool…
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
When will the English ever learn that "all-inclusive" does not mean that everything is included in the price? Fine print, dunderheads. Read it.
"Based on my research — and honestly, this isn’t easy, because the hotel’s website has very little information "
"But I also think that travelers should do their research when it comes to what they can actually expect from a hotel, before booking"
Don't those two statements somewhat contradict each other? You, a seasoned traveler to the nth degree, had real trouble figuring out the truth here. Seems like it would have been hard for Mr and Pa Kettle to do the same
I’m no expert, but a heated, indoor pool in a hot climate surely = spa and is very likely going to cost extra?
"...all-inclusive" does not mean that everything is included..."
That's like saying "'all-inclusive' does NOT mean 'all-inclusive,' it just means 'semi-inclusive.'"
As Ben notes in the piece, it was a winter trip, which can get pretty chilly, from very cool in the days to downright cold in the evenings, so not sure if a reasonable person would conclude that means the heated pool is a spa.
Ben, sadly as you are an American you don’t really understand how the rest of the world has very different standards on consumer protections. As basically the US has a zero appreciation of consumer rights I’m guessing you don’t understand the principle of implied services, for example let’s use the US version of unlimited data on internet plans. In the rest of the known western universe unlimited means exactly that…unlimited, whereas in the US it means SFA. If the US finally got its sh$t together on basic understanding of consumer rights and maybe even understood the Kings English on occasion, maybe then you would understand why people get pissed odd on this bait and switch rubbish. Maybe one of the reasons the EU and Australia for instance love to stick it to companies that have forked tongues.
I have a general policy for those unspecified "surprise" charges that are becoming so common. If a hotel charges them (parking is the worse and most common) I simply leave the hot water running for my entire visit. I think of it as an unspecified charge of my own that is buried in my fine print somewhere.
It's incredible how beat down by being ripped off Americans are that they view other's confusion or outrage as naivete.
All inclusive did, at one point, mean all inclusive. To most consumers outside of the US and US traveller dominated locations it continues to.
In the US you seem to have this stockholm syndrome where you defend being misled when purchasing a product.
I'm going to join the chorus here - if you couldn't figure it out easily (it sounds like the website might not have been explicit), I don't think you can reasonably expect your "average" traveler relying on a package trip to do so, either. Stop trying to excuse this.
I'd add that this strikes me as an unconscionable rate - it sounds like you could break $100/hr for a family of four. At least the TWA Hotel is "only" going to run $70 for 1:45.
When I visited Marrakech in the late 1980s, my city centre hotel cost less than £1 per room per night. It was sparklingly clean and much better than my student self could have afforded in Europem
Times have changed.
To be fair, all inclusive almost never means all inclusive. Spa treatments, for example, are almost never included. I would say just about all all inclusives do have at least a few exclusions. If this one had been clear that those services were in the spa, I think most people would have at least looked into whether they were included in the all inclusive.
Totally agree - it's clearly far too well buried when it's not even obvious to Ben.
Incidentally, the reason why I never booked the TWA hotel. The pool charge is ludicrous.
False advertising. Should change the rate to "Semi-all inclusive" or "Sort-of-all inclusive" or "All-inclusive but not really".
"When will the English ever learn that "all-inclusive" does not mean that everything is included in the price? Fine print, dunderheads. Read it."
That sort of bullshit might bo OK in the USA, but England (rightly) has strict laws against misleading or deceptive advertising. Which this was.
A parking charge is fine if you're in Manhattan. Not so much when you're a Fairfield Inn located just off the Interstate.
The hotels that you talk about charging extra for the spa or spa pool aren't marketed as all inclusive hotels. It's misleading advertising, for which the UK has strict rules about.
I do not agree with you. Even if the heated pool and hot tub were in the spa it would not be charged. Consider that many luxury hotels have lavish locker rooms in the spa and the hot tubs are usually there. That's like saying they are going to charge for the gym which is often at or in the spa too. Usually the spas only charge for additional services that are not self-service. Even so, the hotels should in general do a better job of disclosure on the confirmation.
I get that you are American, and Americans always seem to argue in favour of companies being greedy, but in this case, on the hotel website that you link to, the hotel clearly mentions they have an indoor pool and this is separate from their description of spa facilities.
'Hotel services and spaces
Free Wifi
Balcony
Free parking
Indoor pool
Spa and wellness center'
Based on this description, I would not consider the indoor pool to be a spa pool and would never expect this to cost extra.
There is no perfect solution.
If the spa is free and unlimited for everyone: It gets overcrowded, which completely defeats the purpose of a spa (relaxation).
If it's free but requires booking a 90-minute slot: Everyone will book a slot just because it's free. It becomes impossible to get a reservation, and you're capped on your time.
If you have to pay: People spend less time there because it's expensive, but at least a short visit won't break the bank and you actually get some peace and quiet.
Which option do you prefer?
Just because he said travelers should do their research, but that researching is difficult? That's not a contradiction. Something being difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
There's no contradiction here. A contradiction would be saying, 'People should do their research, but they shouldn't do it.' Pointing out that research is difficult yet necessary isn't a contradiction at all.
All-inclusive is simply a meal plan. It means your meals and drinks are covered. It doesn't mean you suddenly own the hotel, with free rein over unlimited massages, Dom Pérignon, and caviar. That's not false advertising, it's just common sense.
The meaning of 'all-inclusive' hasn't changed. It has always been a meal plan and has always meant "all your meals and drinks are included in the price."
A meal plan is about food and has nothing to do with spas, massages, airport transfers, babysitting, dry cleaning, or conference rooms. You obviously don't get all the rooms and all the services for free just because you checked "Meal plan: all inclusive" on the hotel website when you booked.
Spa facilities at almost all hotels are extra, this really is a non story. Usually on the websites advertising the hotel there will be an asterisk by the list of services indicating which are chargeable. We Europeans should be grateful that none of these places charge a resort fee, as in America. Then you'd be charged $30 a day just for using the main pool.
The contradiction comes from implication of responsibility.
The first statement implies this is the fault of the hotel, and not something we could reasonably ask the couple to do. The second implies that the onus of blame falls on the couple
And you Europeans don't have logic.
They would have listed WiFi and Parking without the word "free".
No, I interact with Americans all the time. It isn't being in favor of firms being greedy. We tend to support the notion that we honor the contracts we agree to. We don't expect government to treat us like stupid dolts who can't fend for ourselves. Plus, we are in favor of not adding unnecessary extra vowels to words like favor.
"They would have listed WiFi and Parking without the word 'free'."
By your (idiotic) logic, the balcony should cost extra as well.
"Then you'd be charged $30 a day just for using the main pool."
But you'd get access to five local digital newspapers, 10% off a bike rental, and one (1) "free" printout of your boarding pass! How is that not worth US $30 per day?!!!!!11!!!1111111
/s
"Plus, we are in favor of not adding unnecessary extra vowels to words like favor."
Ooohhh, he went there.....!!!!
@James k : The first statement only points out that researching is difficult. Your interpretation of this statement is "The hotel makes it difficult to find information, so you can't blame travelers if they book without knowing the conditions." But that's not what it actually says.
By the way, on easyJet Holidays' webpage for this hotel, it clearly states: "Just so you know, use of the spa facilities – including the indoor pool – is a chargeable extra, which you can arrange at the hotel and pay for on site."
Unless that was added recently, the information wasn't difficult to find at all. And even if it was a recent addition, TripAdvisor is packed with reviews mentioning the fee for the heated pool. Finding this information is actually very easy. But even if you think that it's not easy, you can totally say that it's both difficult and necessary at the same time.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised Ben that you'd defend this. Based on the statements in your own story, it would not be at all easy for an 'ordinary traveler' to find out the heated pool is part of the spa facilities.
As a number of people have pointed out above, the UK has stricter false advertising rules than the US, so I suspect easyJet realised they were on the wrong side of this one.
That said, I do question what expectations anyone should have if booking a holiday through a company like easyJet. Additional charges should not come as a shock - this particular case just seems excessive.
Just up the road in the Atlas mountains is a pretty decent ski hill. With snow even!
So winters in Morocco are cold at least near the mountains in the south.
Its not only Easy Jet that makes offers that are either false or that the hotel (chain) does not honour. We have examples closer to home.
Before they were bought by Hyatt, the Playa Resorts were owned and managed the La Romana Adult All-Inclusive Resort in the DR among other properties in Mexico and Jamaica. As owners they encouraged direct booking and advertising stated "CALL FOR RESERVATIONS: 833.844.5866
BOOK DIRECT AT: HILTONBYPLAYA.COM" stating "Book Direct and Receive All Your Hilton Points". Hilton has been refusing to honor this offer and has stated that it was a "third party booking".
I haven't given up but it does show that it's not just Morocco. Perhaps this is why Playa moved to Hyatt?
Has anyone else taken advantage of this offer in the past? With success?