ependydad wrote:
naturist wrote:
So, consider the campground with exactly two open spots, a little one and a big one. You roll in, they steer you to the little one, in which you fit. Minutes later a big rig rolls in, and they send him to the big site. Result, they sold two sites and are full.
Now suppose you demanded the big site, and they let you have it. Now when the big rig rolls in, even though they have an open site, he won't fit, and they turn him away. Result, they have one open site for which they get zero revenue.
Simply stated, if they stick you in the big site when a small one is available, they stand a chance of losing money on the deal. If the campground is pretty empty, the odds may be small, but when we get close to full, the odds go way up. Whether you go to a private campground or a public park, that loss of revenue is still a loss of revenue. That, of course, is WHY they don't like to give you the big spot when little ones are available, and how can you blame them for that? I would say, offhand, that you are being inconsiderate of them for insisting on taking the big rig site. In fairness, perhaps you should pay for both the sites, so they don't lose money.
Just trying to look at it from both sides.
Very well said, naturist. This is exactly why a CG operator would try to put a smaller rig into a smaller site. Their is the possibility for lost revenue.
Exactly the same as a restaurant that will seat your party of two in a smaller table saving the banquet table with 24 seats for the larger parties. Only good business by the park and a courtesy to fellow RVers by those who take sites that are size appropriate.