weymouth

[dennisb66]

Looks like hoteliers in Weymouth have scored an own goal. BBC reports that hotels are 20/30% down on last year.not surprising as they increased their prices between 300 and 400%.

[dzug2]

Really? OK they may have let fewer rooms but they've raked in it on the ones that are occupied. Sounds good business to me

[jno]

say a hotel has 100 rooms at £100 each... Last year it filled all of them, making £10,000. This year it filled 80 at £400 each: that's £36,000. (Or worse case: 70 at £300: that's £21,000.)

Not bad. No wonder tube drivers think they should have a cut of the Games profits too.

[Prudie]

That's a bit unfair. As reasonably local I can tell you no-one is going anywhere near Weymouth if it's not to get to the Olympics. The sea-front road is closed and traffic getting in and out is a nightmare at times. Weymouth usually does a roaring trade in repeat holidaymakers who will have decided to give it a miss this year.

[factor-fiction]

Are you sure about the scale of those increases?
A 400% increase means increasing a £50 a night room to £250.
If all the figures are right, I agree with dzug2 and jno- it was a good move financially

[dennisb66]

Moonfleet Manor Hotel hasn't filled a single room,they were hopeing for a corporate booking which didn't happen.

[dennisb66]

"Are you sure about the scale of those increases?"

That figure was quoted on BBC,whether it's correct or not I have no idea.

[jno]

if that means they were only accepting a block booking rather than selling single rooms, then no wonder. But maybe they raised their prices more than others did? Maybe it isn't much of a hotel? It's hard to tell anything from a single statistic like that.

[dickythecook]

A report on Fleurets newswire (by e-mail) says that London hotels had an 84.4% occupancy rate in the first week of the Olympics.
Psst, jno 400 x 80 = 32,000. ;-) dtc

[jno]

that explains why my career as a hotelier failed, Dickythecook.