There is another thread in this forum entitled "Anyone notice a slowdown in travel?" But less people at or going to your travel destination(s) is only one piece of the overall travel puzzle. Another is the overall level of services at such destination.
As a simple analogy, let's say you have a neighborhood swimming pool that opens in the summer which has traditionally had, during that season, four employees. Let's say that there are two lifeguards at either ends of the pool, a maintenance/cleaning person, and a front desk/checking everyone's pass/answering telephones/ doing whatever person. But since four people may be deemed "waste", some "higher up" may choose to cut three of them such that one can and of course should do all of the above.
You may have regarded that pool as a Godsend during the summer as it would allow kids to burn off their energy in healthful physical activity as well as to socialize with a good number of kids their own age. But, after the three excess employees were terminated, you may not want your kids to go near the place. Risk of drowning, higher. Risk of bullying, higher. Risk of filth, higher. Risk of injury, higher.
So, too, may vacation destinations become less desirable if a lesser level of overall services become available to travelers. And I think it would be a good idea that we inform each other of such situations.
For example, Cape Cod hasn't really begun its summer hiring, but there are already signs that summer staffing may be cut down at the National Seashore. If that does indeed occur, there may be less lifeguards, shuttered environmental displays, less nature walks, less seaside lectures, less sand maintenance, etc.
As a simple analogy, let's say you have a neighborhood swimming pool that opens in the summer which has traditionally had, during that season, four employees. Let's say that there are two lifeguards at either ends of the pool, a maintenance/cleaning person, and a front desk/checking everyone's pass/answering telephones/ doing whatever person. But since four people may be deemed "waste", some "higher up" may choose to cut three of them such that one can and of course should do all of the above.
You may have regarded that pool as a Godsend during the summer as it would allow kids to burn off their energy in healthful physical activity as well as to socialize with a good number of kids their own age. But, after the three excess employees were terminated, you may not want your kids to go near the place. Risk of drowning, higher. Risk of bullying, higher. Risk of filth, higher. Risk of injury, higher.
So, too, may vacation destinations become less desirable if a lesser level of overall services become available to travelers. And I think it would be a good idea that we inform each other of such situations.
For example, Cape Cod hasn't really begun its summer hiring, but there are already signs that summer staffing may be cut down at the National Seashore. If that does indeed occur, there may be less lifeguards, shuttered environmental displays, less nature walks, less seaside lectures, less sand maintenance, etc.
'The forever business.' What staff loss may mean at Cape Cod National Seashore
What the loss of three full-time Seashore staff could mean to the Cape's premier attraction. Three experts weigh in.
www.capecodtimes.com
