Thanks Joep and I understand it is an act of nature and not an overbooking. I still maintain that accomodation should be provided in next level up if the same is not available and I would expect that from the industry unless nothing else was available, which in this case it is not.
The loss of income is being dealt with by insurance for the damaged unit. Why then not allow the client next up at the same money, this way client feels he is being looked after and Sanparks are receiving an income for a unit that would have been standing empty anyhow.
Now you have a peeved/disillusioned client who would not book in advance again and an empty unit.
Can I ask those that feel that SANParks have dropped the ball, what type of compensation would you have suggested?
Equal or better, these people have invested their money at the beginnng booking this holiday, whether they paid a deposit or full, the money is paid over and earning an interest for Sanparks. They could possibly have lost other holiday plans for this and may have to pay more because of lateness of booking now and some take annual leave with this booking in mind. The client has gone to an expense booking ahead and would now have lost bank interest, banking fees etc etc. Is a client reimbursed with interest and banking fees or is he just out of pocket for those, so how come it s alright then for a loyal client to be out of pocket, but Sanparks cannot be out of pocket?
It would be interesting to know (obviously at a later stage when some intelligent assessment of the situation can take place) how much money it would have cost Kruger to upgrade customers where necessary, and how many customers were actually affected.
Orange, I believe minimal, in fact Sanparks would be ahead as per my point above, not only in monetary value, but the marketing and pr value is immeasurable with just a little gesture.
At end of the day, I call it customer service.