In lieu of a blog entry today - we spent the day in just chilling - I'll put up a couple of general thoughts about our travels.
1. FALLING OUT OF LOVE WITH AIRBNB
Nothing yet that has us to the "never again" stage, but Airbnb will no longer be our first (and pretty much only) port of call for booking accommodation.
Generally we have used Airbnb mostly for the convenience of residential accommodation. We like the ability to cook our own dinners, the option of sending kids to bed in a separate room to us, and being able to spent a day "in" if the weather (or our energy levels) make that the best option. You can't really do that in hotel rooms, and previously we have been fairly happy with the places we have stayed.
That said, there are a few limitations to using Airbnb that we are becoming _quite_ familiar with. I was, I guess, aware of the risk in theory. I share these experiences for those who have not used Airbnb, or have previously been lucky like us. Hopefully we can all use Airbnb more realistically.
Firstly, host cancellations. Of our 8 planned Airbnb stays this vacation, we have had one cancel on us, and another who is in the process of cancelling today. While the first was beyond the control of the host (she reported heavy flooding necessitated remedial work), the one today is because the host is double booked. This is for a room for which we fully paid 3 _months_ in advance; we are now receiving 7 days notice to make other arrangements. If the host cancels, yes, we get a refund and $100 credit (expires in 2mth) with Airbnb for our troubles, but with short notice during peak season, at best we can find a worse place at a cost of an extra $500 or so.
I was aware that Airbnb have restrictions on guests cancelling. For "strict" properties, it means forfeiting 50% of the entire in-advance payment, or all of the payment if you cancel with less than 7 days notice. However, after shuffling around the unhelpful Airbnb website, I found that if a _host_ cancels, they get fined a paltry $50 (or $100 if less than 7 days beforehand). This means that a dishonourable host has an incentive to continue to market their property through other sites in an attempt to get a better price than the one already agreed through Airbnb.
So twice in 8 stays, we find ourselves spending vacation time online looking for affordable (and still available) alternatives to our booked Airbnb homes. And a few hundred dollars out of pocket each time. Grrr.
Secondly, there is the unreliable quality of the accommodation itself. I guess that is in the nature of private rentals and is unavoidable. The general recommendation is to closely read any reviews, and never stay in a property without any reviews at all.
Twice this vacation we have had a property that, let us say, "doesn't match description or photos". Photos, and reviews, indicate a clean property with well-cared-for furniture. The first property was "tired" and ill-maintained. The most recent (bar the current) seemed neglected with sprouting vegies in the pantry ...
 |
| Ta-dah! |
... unwashed cutlery and glasses in the cupboards, and frankly scary amounts of mould in the washing machine. So we started to wonder whether the sheets had been laundered, or the dinnerware without visible detritus had been cleaned ...
So what does one do?
One option is to raise issues with the host, assuming one is sufficiently upfront to feel comfortable doing that and not just "letting it ride". This is where Airbnb's double blind review system works against us.
[For those unaware, Airbnb requests hosts and guests to review each other. These reviews are not made public until after _both_ reviews are received, or until 2 weeks after check-out. If needed, the host or guest can publish a response to their feedback, but the initial review cannot be altered or withdrawn later than 48hr after submission to prevent the "unless you give me a better review, I'll give you a poor review" dilemma.]
If mention you are less then perfectly happy with the property, it means the host needs to consider making a "bad guest" review in an attempt to cancel out the possible "bad host/property" review that you might give them.
Another option: you could cancel the reservation, which you need to do pretty much immediately. Even then, you will only get a refund if Airbnb agrees that the host is at fault to a degree that made cancellation the only reasonable option. And even _then_, you only are able to leave a review if you have actually completed your stay. So if you cancelled, you don't get to warn future guests. If you use hostile language in your review, the review is pulled and you don't get to warn future guests. And if the host cancels and leaves you high and dry, you don't get to warn future guests.
The last option, which we ended up going with (and thanks to Kev and Row, who helped me make a diplomatically-worded review) was to leave a completely objective report on checking-out, and just grin and bear it in the meantime.
So far, the "doesn't match description or photos" experiences have been irritating or unpleasant. Nothing that has been completely unacceptable and nothing vacation-ruining ... yet. But it has left me wondering when our number will come up, and what we would do if we arrived somewhere that is utterly filthy, dysfunctional, or unsafe.
The limitation of the Airbnb business model is that Airbnb itself can wash its hands of everything. Officially, the actual beef is with the host who, in general, is likely to never see you or your friends and family again one way or another, and the host is far more focused on the income:cost ratio of your stay in isolation. In comparison, a chain hotel is more dependent on repeat business (or word of mouth), and has more clout to "make things right" by finding alternative accommodation or reimbursing guests for substandard experiences.
It's a shame really, because two of the four Airbnb stays we have had this vacation have been utterly delightful. Interestingly, both have been barn/stable conversions in country areas that are dedicated guest houses.
So my learning points?
Read _all_ the Airbnb reviews. Look for _any_ oblique comments that suggest any problems. Even comments about how lovely and friendly the host was, or how fascinating the location or destination was, in the absence of comments about the functionality or cleanliness of the property itself, would make me suspicious. Look at other options online: VRBO.com, bookings.com, and so on. And have enough spare dollars on hand to have an exit strategy if it all goes balls-up!
2. CULTURAL TOURIST ATTRACTIONS: THE UK VERSUS THE USA.
Funnily enough, we've seen plenty of museums, National Parks, and historical sites in both the UK, and in the USA back in 2012. Some differences are becoming apparent.
In the UK, while there is is natural beauty, there is no "wilderness" as such. Every square metre of this island has been bent to human utility over the past 3 millennia. The US might have very few National Parks dedicated solely to particular flora or fauna, but pretty much every National Park (bar the National Historical or Military Parks/Monuments) has an explicit commitment to trying to promote education about, and preservation of, the native ecology.
US National Parks in the most part own their property, and manage it according to their own agenda. National Parks in the UK, well, I'm not sure _what_ they involve.
Yes, the UK has a handful of National Parks, but those "Parks" consist of private properties that are used by their owners. On Google Maps' satellite view, the National Parks look just like everything else: a checkerboard of green farmland. Perhaps National Park status guarantees some degree of public access to those private properties. I have no idea.
When it comes to museums and similar, the UK is very much from the school of "more is better". So "here are a bunch of massively significant historical artefacts, and here are some labels telling you what they are". This was great when I visited in the UK in 2001, and when I had no kids in tow, but I've noticed that it pales a bit compared to the alternative.
US museums are far more selective in what they display, and are far more conscious of creating "interpretation". That is, there is usually quite a bit of effort put into building a narrative about what happened and why. So the Grand Canyon explores the whole process of geological time and erosion. Ford's Theatre in Washington D.C. builds the whole story of Lincoln's life in Washington, then talks you through his assassination, the drawn-out dying process in the boarding house across the road (showing the rooms, and the far-too-short bed that he died in), then the 2-week long, 7-state funeral procession. Dammit, US museums are just more _fun_! There is more of a feeling having learnt something: if not a new fact, then a new perspective or insight.
Which means that the particularly engaging (not just interesting) _British_ experiences are standing out all the more. In no particular order ...
a) The Roman Army Museum
On Hadrian's Wall, and run by an independent charity, the Museum talks you through recruitment into the auxilia, then has a _very_ well done 3D movie about daily life as members of the auxilia. Images of the various Wall sites as they current exist are overlaid with CGI recreations of the buildings as they originally stood ... with actors still on site (or more likely, in front of green-screen). Fascinating, and it made me wish I'd seen the film _before_ I visited the actual sites. Also kit and equipment for soldiers of the time: not just weapons and arms, but domestic equipment too, mock-ups of typical dietary intake across a day (surprisingly varied).
b) The Tower of London
I can't believe I did not see this the first time we were in London. If coming, spend at least a slow half-day, if not a whole day (we were rushing a bit at the end). Some historical re-enactments (which apparently are more widely available elsewhere, but only during school holidays). Some free apps on Google Play which act as various themed treasure hunts from the different eras of the Tower, and reward badges at the end: they were a high-tech version of the "Junior Ranger" workbooks and badges which the kids loved during our US trip.
c) The Big Pit
Though somewhat out of the way (Blaenavon, South Wales), the Big Pit used to be a working coal mine. Now run by the Museum of Wales, there are tours of the 90m deep mine shafts by retired (or redundant) miners, using the original safety equipment. You could still sense the deep pride that these guys had in their (horrifically unsafe and unhealthy, and IMHO economically and environmentally unsustainable) occupation, and see why they felt that way.
Even displays were more human interest: less artefact show-and-tell, and more explaining the geological origins of coal, the economic basis for why coal became important in the 1700s, how wholesale coal mining defined the (denuded) physical and (close-knit) social environment of the Welsh valleys, how drastically things changed for the better under nationalisation (yay Health and Safety regs; yay pay per hour, not per pound of pure coal extracted), how the industry collapsed in the 1970s.
d) Portsmouth Historic Dockyard
Well, you can read my blog entry for what I thought about this one!
Surprisingly, the boys are enjoying even the dry stuff, even if its in a "climbing over the ruins" rather than a "this castle was significant as one the the first examples of ...." way. No signs of ABC syndrome yet (Another Bloody Castle/Cathedral). Ben even expressed a preference to seeing a ruined abbey on the drive up to Edinburgh tomorrow, so there is hope yet!
To finish with an amusing aside (for those of you who have not given up on my logorrhoea yet) ...
We have been buying the boys books to get them out from screens, and give them an alternative to endless British History podcasts during long drives. Julie decided to get Oliver "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole", which would be familiar to most people of our generation.
So now we have the joy of explaining to Oliver (and Ben as well) what a "Big and Bouncy" magazine is and what a "french letter" is and what it is used for. As for explaining why the protagonist "wet his pants" when he had a naughty dream, well I know that is a father's job, but I really felt the need to see Julie squirm over that one!
J: "I'd forgotten all about those bits!"
K: "Well lover, that why it is about
Adrian Mole, aged 13 3/4, not
11 1/4!"
