YHA considering mixed dormitories
April 22nd, 2010 by Tim Uden
A recent article in the Guardian says that the Youth Hostel Association in England and Wales is considering changing their out-dated policy of single-sex dorms.
Most YHA hostels in England and Wales have got rid of most of their old-fashioned rules such as curfews, chores and bans on alcohol, but they continue to stick to the idea of single-sex dormitories. However later this year some YHA hostels in London will start offering mixed-gender dorms as a response to competition from independent hostels.
While some more conservative elements of the YHA are probably not too happy with the idea, it has generally been well-received by most travellers.
There are a few good arguments for single-sex dorms and most hostels with mixed dorms also have single sex dorms for those that prefer them.
I would expect that the YHA would still stick with single-sex dorms for individual travellers and small groups of the same gender and reserve their mixed dorms for couples and mixed groups of people travelling together. A lot of independent hostels do this and it generally works very well.
I accept that it is nice to have some privacy when getting changed in a mixed dorm and being the only girl (or guy) in a room full of the opposite sex can be a little uncomfortable at first. But once you’ve met your roommates it usually isn’t a big issue. In many cases it is a bonus as you’re likely to meet a more interesting group of travellers in a mixed dorm.
There is the issue of guys snoring, but chicks snore too and when you travel long enough you’ll come to appreciate how relaxing the sound of snoring can be (a bit like the sound of the ocean). The issue with loud snorers could be a bigger problem at YHA hostels where the average guest is quite a bit older than at most independent backpackers’ hostels. If it bothers you, wear ear plugs.
The other issue with mixed dorms is the rudey-nudey hanky-panky that some think is rampant in independent hostels. Sure many long-term travellers will have experienced a couple going for it in a mixed dorm at some point in their travels, but again this isn’t a big deal and it very rarely happens.
Sensible hostel staff can sense what people mix well together and they generally won’t put you in a room full of inappropriate roommates and wherever possible they will try to put you in a room with similar travellers.
Not having any mixed dorms at all raises a different set of problems. It makes it difficult for a couple or a mixed group of friends travelling together as they would get split into separate rooms when staying at a YHA hostel. You shouldn’t be forced to pay extra for a private family room just so you can share a room with friends that you’re travelling with. Mixed dorms let you stay with your friends.
Furthermore it is quite common for a hostel to have vacant beds, but turn away travellers simply because they are the wrong gender.
More simply, segregating your guests according to their gender is sexual apartheid!
There are problems with hostels that only have mixed-dorms, but segregated dorms have their own set of issues. The ideal hostel has a mix of both. The YHA may be behind the times, but at least they are starting to slowly move in the right direction.
The problem with car sharing
April 7th, 2010 by Tim Uden
Last year I blogged about car sharing and said it was a viable alternative to car rental. When I visited the USA in September and October I had the chance to try it out and I discovered a major flaw in the car sharing concept.
I signed up for a Zipcar membership and used the service twice. First off I rented a Mini for four hours to visit and review the HI – Marin Headlands hostel near Sausalito. My second rental was in Palo Alto, where I intended to visit a hostel in the Los Altos Hills. I was planning on using Zipcar extensively on the east coast and also planning to make a video blog post demonstrating Zipcar’s new iPhone app. It was after the second rental that I learnt a very expensive lesson about a major issue with the car sharing concept and ended up renting from Hertz instead of getting a Zipcar on the east coast.
Around a week after my second rental I received an email from Zipcar accusing me of damaging the car and I was subsequently charged a USD $500 fee for the damage. I guess I’m lucky this didn’t happen in the UK where the damage fee is £500.
It is appalling customer service to be accused of doing something I clearly didn’t do, even though Zipcar may have every right to charge the damage fee. It could have been handled differently, without implying that a customer was wrong (I know I didn’t damage the car and don’t appreciate being told otherwise).
This whole experience soured my view of the car sharing concept by highlighting a serious flaw in the system. The car lives on the street or in a public car park and the person renting it is responsible for any damage that occurs to the vehicle until the next person takes the car. Unlike a traditional car rental company, there is no employee to check the car when you return it. The car just sits unattended in a public car park where anyone can damage it after it has been returned and the last person to use the car gets the blame (and a USD $500 damage fee).
To Zipcar’s credit they at least have acknowledged that this is an issue and several months after I used their service (several months too late in my opinion) they implemented a damage fee waiver. For USD $50 per year you can reduce the damage fee to USD $250 and for USD $75 per year you can reduce it to nothing. Anyone signing up for the service really should pay the additional fee because it is a lot cheaper than being charged USD $500 for damage that occurs after the car is returned.
Ideally occasional users should have the option of paying a smaller fee per month or per use (rather than per year), although Zipcar’s damage fee waiver is still a step in the right direction. In the UK, this is how City Car Club charge their damage fee waiver, which is a more cash-flow-friendly £5 per month to reduce the damage fee from £500 to £100.
Update
8 May 2010Zipcar has since refunded my $500 damage fee (plus a free day credit).
Although it may seem that they speeded things up because I blogged about the problems I was having, it has become quite clear to me that they do have systems in place for dealing with issues like this. Basically I fill out a form (I remember filling out a form months ago, but can’t remember if I sent it in) explaining the situation, then they look into the case and possibly give a refund.
In my case, I knew I was right but couldn’t prove that I didn’t cause the damage. I returned the car early and neither myself nor Zipcar could tell whether the damage occured during my rental period. In this case it was a matter of my word against Zipcar’s, and they had every right to charge the damage fee (even though I may not have felt it was fair). Even though I wasn’t responsible for the damage, I couldn’t prove that to Zipcar. The car would have been off the road for a day or two while they repaired it meaning that they would have lost money on it, so it was nice that they refunded the entire fee.
I really didn’t expect this. I thought that if anything came from this, they may have come to some sort of compromise where part of the fee was refunded as driving credit, with Zipcar keeping enough to compensate them for the time the car was off the road. Anyway this refund has changed my opinion about Zipcar and I look forward to driving one of their cars again in the future (and using their iPhone app), although I’m currently living around a 16-hour flight from their nearest location so I won’t get a chance to do this until I’m either back in London or when I next visit the USA.
Despite Zipcar resolving this issue for me, the prospect of a renter being held responsible for damage caused after a car has been returned still exists – although that is the case with all car sharing services.
England destination guide updated
August 7th, 2009 by Tim Uden
We’ve just updated all the England destination guide content on BUG. That’s around 200 pages of up-to-date travel information including updated content from the England chapters of the BUG Britain & Ireland guidebook. Click here to read the BUG destination guide to England.
AirAsia’s Stansted–KL flights make cheap long-haul travel easier
March 12th, 2009 by Tim Uden
Today AirAsia has started its London Stansted–Kuala Lumpur flights. This means that you can now fly from the UK to Australia on low cost airlines with only one stop en route.
In a previous post I mentioned how you can piece together relatively short hops on low cost carriers to make your own round-the-world trip. Before AirAsia started their Stansted-Kuala Lumpur flights, you would have had to make five separate flights on Tiger Airways, Air Arabia and easyJet to fly between Australia and the UK on budget airlines. Now it’s a straightforward journey on a single airline with one stop in Malaysia.
AirAsia’s regular one-way fares are around £179 between London Stansted and Kuala Lumpur but specials (like their promotional launch fares on sale last November) on this route go as low as £99 one way.
From Kuala Lumpur AirAsia has cheap onward flights to Australia and throughout South East Asia. Prices advertised on their website today include bargains such as Kuala Lumpur–Perth for £18 and Kuala Lumpur–Melbourne for £39; and those fares include taxes and fees.
Ryanair vs easyJet
February 4th, 2009 by Tim Uden
I was recently asked to book a return flight for someone flying from London to Barcelona, which highlighted the disparity between airlines that advertise prices inclusive of taxes, fees and charges and those that don’t.
I needed to book a flight departing in the last week of February and returning a month later with one checked bag, one cabin bag and no insurance or in-flight meals.
Ryanair’s advertised price for the return flight was just £3.79 and easyJet was £36.92, but after adding taxes, fees and other charges easyJet emerged the winner with a total cost of £52.42 compared with Ryanair’s £77.46.
Here’s how it all breaks down:
With easyJet the advertised fare in inclusive of taxes and airport charges, but not checked luggage charges or credit card processing fees. The cost of flights was £22.99 for the London Luton to Barcelona outbound flight on 25 February and £13.93 for the Barcelona to London Stansted return flight. After adding a £6 checked luggage fee for each flight and a £3.50 credit card processing charge we get a total price of £52.42.
Ryanair is one of the few remaining airlines to retain the deceptive practice of advertising fares exclusive of taxes and airport fees. The outbound London Stansted to Barcelona Reus flight on 27 February was free (plus £28.17 in taxes, fees and charges) and the return flight from Barcelona Reus to London Stansted on 27 March was £3.79 (plus £17 in taxes, fees and other charges). Then there is a £4.75 credit card handling fee (for each flight) plus a £9.50 checked luggage fee for each flight, which brings the total to £77.46.
Both easyJet and Ryanair use Luton and Stansted airports about half an hour by train north of London. You can pay £19 each way to take the Stansted Express and £11.50 each way for the First Capital Connect train to Luton Airport; but if you book in advance you can get to Luton or Stansted for just £2 with easyBus. That means that both airlines tie for the cost of the return trip to their London airport (£4 return for either airline).
However there is a huge variation in the cost of getting to the airport at Barcelona.
With easyJet you fly into Barcelona’s main airport and it costs €2.80 (£2.50) to take the train from the airport into the centre of Barcelona. But if you fly into Barcelona with Ryanair you land at Reus Airport near Tarragona, around 90km south of Barcelona. The bus to central Barcelona from Reus Airport will cost you €12 (£10.85) each way or €21 (£19) for a return fare (as long as you return within one month). So Ryanair saves a few pounds by flying into an out-of-the-way airport and you end up paying £19 instead of the £5 you would pay if you fly into Barcelona’s main airport.
So all up Ryanair’s £3.79 return flight ends up costing £100.46 for the return fare including airport transfers and easyJet’s £36.92 fare comes to £61.42.
In other words, Ryanair’s cheap fares are just a sneaky way to slug you with all sorts of hidden fees and charges and more expensive fares advertised by competing airlines can often work out cheaper in the long run.
Changes to UK Working Holiday Scheme
December 6th, 2008 by Tim Uden
The UK has made major changes to their working holiday programme with the Working Holidaymaker Scheme being replaced by the Youth Mobility Scheme visa.
The Youth Mobility Scheme visa is open to travellers from Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand aged between 18 and 30.
The new visa programme is slightly different to the previous Working Holidaymaker Scheme in that there are now no restrictions on the amount of time you can spend working within the two-year period and for the first time, young people can line up a full-time job in the UK before applying for a visa.
Among the new requirements, applicants for Youth Mobility Scheme visas will need to show they have the equivalent of £1600 to cover living expenses while they establish themselves in the UK.
Visa applicants under the Youth Mobility Scheme must not be travelling with any dependent children; must not have previously spent time in the UK on a Working Holidaymaker Scheme or Youth Mobility Scheme visa; must not play professional sport, coach professionally or work as a doctor in training; however you may travel with your spouse or partner as long as they have their own Youth Mobility Scheme visa or qualify for entry in some other way.
The application fee for a Youth Mobility Scheme visa will be the equivalent of £99 compared with £205 for a Working Holidaymaker visa.
If you have already applied for a working holidaymaker visa and want to know about your options, click here.
The UK Border Agency has also produced a booklet about the Youth Mobility Scheme which you can download (212KB).
Tourist information centres: as useless as tits on a bull?
July 3rd, 2008 by Tim Uden
Many people rely on tourist information centres whenever they travel. They are often a good place to get free city maps and find details on new attractions and accommodation options that may not yet be in travel guidebooks.
As someone who writes travel guidebooks, I set off with a list of every known hostel in each destination. But I’ll always try to visit an information centre to see if there are any new hostels that I somehow wasn’t able to find out about. We include every single known hostel in our guides and this is a good way to ensure that we don’t miss a single hostel.
Tourist information centres are not always so helpful and sometimes the people who work there can be as useless as tits on a bull. Sometimes they have an ulterior motive to promote members of the local tourist association at the expense of – often better – non-members and sometimes they are just plain clueless.
Many tourist information centres are funded by membership in the local tourist association. Hotels and local tourist attractions pay a membership fee that goes towards covering the information centre’s expenses and promoting the destination. When you visit the tourist information centre they will only tell you about their members and in some cases they will lie to you and tell you that other places don’t exist and even tell you to avoid the non-member businesses.
If you are travelling in Western Australia you may see flyers advising you against a certain hostel and telling you about a, supposedly better, alternative. You’ll see these flyers in hostels (particularly YHA hostels) and tourist information centres. The hostel is not particularly good, but it is no worse than many other hostels in the region, particularly other hostels that display the flyers advising you to avoid the hostel. The recommended alternative is not a hostel at all, but some cheap rooms above a pub with a depressing and unwelcoming atmosphere. Word on the street is that the tourist information centre is bullying the hostel because they refused to join the tourism association – that’s about as childish as union members bullying workers who choose not to join their union.
Because many information centres are funded by membership fees, the information centre’s job is to promote those businesses rather than give you honest advice. An example I experienced is the information centre in Coober Pedy, South Australia. I called in and asked about the hostels; I was told where the hostels were but after asking which was best I was told, “I’m not allowed to tell you that”! That’s because they can’t be seen to recommend one place over another. It is hardly a place to come to for honest unbiased advice.
Sometimes the information centres are just plain clueless, particularly if you don’t represent the average visitor to that destination. A few years ago on a trip around the UK I called into the information centres in Birmingham and Leeds (at the time neither city had any hostels) and asked about hostels in the local area, in both cases I was given a list of homeless shelters. That’s like asking the opening hours of the city museum and being given directions to Boots the chemist.
When you’re travelling it is important to see tourist information centres for what they really are: a good place to get free maps and ask directions to local attractions but not a place for independent unbiased advice.
Eurostar gets a new home in London
November 13th, 2007 by Tim Uden
The last Eurostar train left London Waterloo on at 6.12pm yesterday evening and this morning Wednesday 14 November Britain’s first real high speed train line will open and Eurostar’s London terminal will move to St Pancras International.
With more tube lines running under St Pancras and a big choice of mainline trains at St Pancras, Kings Cross and nearby Euston stations, it will be a more practical gateway to Europe for many travellers. St Pancras Station has undergone a huge renovation to house Eurostar’s 400m-long trains so there is a big change for anyone who may have last used St Pancras station a few years ago.
The new high-speed line means that the Eurostar will be able to travel at 300km/h for the entire trip, including the UK portion of the journey. This will slash travel times with the trip to Paris taking only two hours and 15 minutes. Brussels and Lille are even closer with the journey to Brussels taking one hour 51 minutes and Lille only an hour and 20 minutes.
