Basic HTML Version
62
63
CANADIAN INDUSTRY ONLINE - FEBRUARY / MARCH 2012
or experience the travel. It can
be argued that this is individu-
al travel and in some cases
correctly however it is the vol-
ume of numbers that has cre-
ated the opportunity to travel
and, as such, can also be clas-
sif ied as non-aff inity. This is
even clearer when we look at
bus companies
such as Trafal-
gar Tours, In-
sight Vacations
or Globus. Here
we def ine group
numbers by put-
ting bums-in-
seats with a
f inite number
that can be
accommodated
due to limitations of size.
So we now have two broad
categories under which we
def ine group travel. In each
there are easier and more
challenging groups and also,
especially with non-aff inity
travel, greater f inancial risks
for the tour planner. Consider
that as a traditional wholesaler
plans for their up-coming
summer season, this is often
A perfect example would be
individuals travelling to the
Eucharistic Congress in Dublin
this coming June. Here a
group-based departure may
contain
individuals
from
different departure points and
religious
faiths
but
all
travelling for the purpose of at-
tending
the
Congress.
Sports teams,
student groups,
conference
groups can all
be classif ied as
aff inity
travellers.
As may be
expected, non-
aff inity group travel, aside from
the destination and/or tour
itself, has few common
denominators. The most recog-
nized of these are the whole-
saler package companies such
as Sunquest Vacations, Air
Transat Holidays and other
similar travel suppliers. These
wholesalers rely on multiple
travelers all heading toward a
destination with no greater
connection than a desire to see
“
Affinity travel is far
safer, provides for
greater financial
security and is often
not as influenced by
economic conditions.”
Copenhagen, Denmark
Mt. Everest
Kiev, Ukraine
Machu-Picchu, Peru
THE INS AND OUTS OF GROUP TRAVEL