Valid points, but from the perspective of the hotel industry, it makes total sense to maximise room revenue by charging per room. Most accommodation is priced per room or per person sharing. If your premise is correct, and single travel accounts for 50% of the market, this will impact hugely on the REVPAR for hotels if they charge no single supp. If a lodge has 10 rooms, and half of those rooms are taken by singles who pay no single supp, they will have 15 paying guests at full occupancy, instead of 20 paying guests. That's a 25% drop in revenue. Why would they be willing to do this, if their occupancy is already above 80% on average? More than that, if they are one of the first to do this, and it becomes known among single travellers that you don't pay a single supp there, they will end up having more than 50% of their rooms taken by singles, and lose even more revenue. The only way to sustain this model is to increase their rates, which will cost them business from the sharing pax. From a tour operator's perspective, single supplements are a direct result of the fact that accommodation for singles is more expensive. You have one person paying for the room instead of two. And if you have privately guided tours or airport transfers, or any service charged per vehicle, the vehicle rate stays the same but is paid by one person instead of by two people. The tour operator does the same amount of work, whether they have a single traveller or a group of 8. So the overhead costs per passenger is much higher for a single pax than for a group. It's a nice idea, but it's an unrealistic pipe dream. You want Africa to consider operating this way. But America certainly does not operate this way either. If I go to any hotel in America as a single traveller, I will be paying for the room. Or pay a hefty single supplement. It's simple business economics. Singles will always be asked to pay a supplement, not only in Africa. If they don't like that or can't afford it, find a friend and travel together. It's more fun anyway.
Valid points, but from the perspective of the hotel industry, it makes total sense to maximise room revenue by charging per room. Most accommodation is priced per room or per person sharing.
If your premise is correct, and single travel accounts for 50% of the market, this will impact hugely on the REVPAR for hotels if they charge no single supp. If a lodge has 10 rooms, and half of those rooms are taken by singles who pay no single supp, they will have 15 paying guests at full occupancy, instead of 20 paying guests. That's a 25% drop in revenue. Why would they be willing to do this, if their occupancy is already above 80% on average?
More than that, if they are one of the first to do this, and it becomes known among single travellers that you don't pay a single supp there, they will end up having more than 50% of their rooms taken by singles, and lose even more revenue. The only way to sustain this model is to increase their rates, which will cost them business from the sharing pax.
From a tour operator's perspective, single supplements are a direct result of the fact that accommodation for singles is more expensive. You have one person paying for the room instead of two. And if you have privately guided tours or airport transfers, or any service charged per vehicle, the vehicle rate stays the same but is paid by one person instead of by two people. The tour operator does the same amount of work, whether they have a single traveller or a group of 8. So the overhead costs per passenger is much higher for a single pax than for a group.
It's a nice idea, but it's an unrealistic pipe dream. You want Africa to consider operating this way. But America certainly does not operate this way either. If I go to any hotel in America as a single traveller, I will be paying for the room. Or pay a hefty single supplement. It's simple business economics.
Singles will always be asked to pay a supplement, not only in Africa. If they don't like that or can't afford it, find a friend and travel together. It's more fun anyway.