This just makes no sense to me

Tom N wrote:
I really like "ala carte".

-Tom

I'm with you. And not just when it comes to camping. Of course I have never ran into that issue while camping. We only use public campgrounds. Federal, state, and local community parks.

I like the idea of paying for only what I use and not subsidizing what other people use.

Different CGs have different rates, or numbers of people and kids. PirateLand at Myrtle beach, just charged $5.00 per night for an extra car. We had 6 people in the TT.

One CG in the mountains charges extra for adult, and nothing for children under 12. You just have to check their rules. Of course there are some that charge so much for extra that we just won't go there. One makes you get 2 sites if you have more than 6 people in your camper. My camper sleeps 10, so we stay away from that CG.

I really like "ala carte".

-Tom

Gypsy Soul wrote:

johnrbd wrote:
The campground owner needs to make a profit to stay in business. Which would you prefer, paying more or closed campground?

We will spend $$$$$ for a rv then don't want to pay for campgounds. There is ALWAYS the local wally world campgrounds (no electricity, no water, no sewer(?) hookups, no pool, no playgound, no shower/bath facilities.

But, there's always BEER readily available.

I understand they need to make money. Just seems wrong to pay $61 a night (full hookups) then have to pay for my two kids( that are part of my family) on top of that. Doesn't seem right. Guess the "true" family campgrounds have left with Elvis :(

At 61 bucks a night plus kids cost, you must have been in a RV resort instead of a campground. I wouldn't spend 60 bucks a night even if I had a family of ten kids and 4 dogs.

I have found that they are more likely to charge per child when they are in a prime location like Niagara Falls or Washington DC. In that case it seems like ALL of the surrounding campgrounds are similar. Prime location, prime payment.

Local places around here don't charge extra for each child, not even Yogi Bear or KOA.

I charged $10/nite per kid at my motel to control how many kids came.

johnrbd wrote:
The campground owner needs to make a profit to stay in business. Which would you prefer, paying more or closed campground?

We will spend $$$$$ for a rv then don't want to pay for campgounds. There is ALWAYS the local wally world campgrounds (no electricity, no water, no sewer(?) hookups, no pool, no playgound, no shower/bath facilities.

But, there's always BEER readily available.

I understand they need to make money. Just seems wrong to pay $61 a night (full hookups) then have to pay for my two kids( that are part of my family) on top of that. Doesn't seem right. Guess the "true" family campgrounds have left with Elvis :(

The campground owner needs to make a profit to stay in business. Which would you prefer, paying more or closed campground?

We will spend $$$$$ for a rv then don't want to pay for campgounds. There is ALWAYS the local wally world campgrounds (no electricity, no water, no sewer(?) hookups, no pool, no playgound, no shower/bath facilities.

But, there's always BEER readily available.

I suppose it depends on the amenities of the campground. If kids will be utilizing them, then there is more wear and tear. Pools, water for showers, wifi, playgrounds, grassy park areas.

The only time I find it irritating is when we have to pay for the kids when it's an overnight stay and there's really nothing the kids will be using. We stopped at an RV park in Kearney, Nebraska on our last trip and paid $36 for full hookup but for amenities, there was nothing else. No park, no pool, no cable, wifi that didn't work. No one used the showers. That should have been a $20 rv park. At least it was quiet out in that cornfield. Slept great!

But when there are amenities, the campground has to pay for them and chances are, people with kids will use more. I don't mind for the most part. Way cheaper for us than the hotels we were spending money on when we traveled.

It does speak to the campers they a catering to. They have a base rate of just to people. Making their initial price seem cheaper. They then add additional people as required.
For couples this works great and in the end it is probably a fairer way to price vs. including a charge for 4 people when there are only 2