On 8/9/2021 at 8:08 PM, the green light said:

we know that there 2 ways to make money

 

1.incrase volume

2.raise prices

 

14,000 tourist would not generate Bht 1b....but raising prices would.

five star hotels  100%

local businesses 0%

 

However the rest of the country suffers. 

 

Tourists should have the heart of not going to Phuket and dumping a lot of money there. They should donate money to the poor and sick in thailand in these hard times.

 

 

I think I  can disagree with everything you say. 

You don't need to increase volume or prices to make money, only to make more money and neither is certain to do that. Increasing prices may end up reducing volume giving a net reduction. Increasing volume may require dropping prices giving a net reduction. 

Forcing people into 5 star hotels may cut down visitors drastically reducing net spending. Making small guest houses SHA+ compliant could encourage many backpackers to come which would help the poorer locals far more and give a larger net spend.

How does the sandbox affect the rest of the country adversely in any way apart from diverting an insignificant amount of vaccines?

How would tourists and others not going to Phuket help the rest of Thailand?

Finally - would you give up your first holiday in 2 years and give the money away thus ensuring another year stuck at home? I think you can guess what I  think about that  idea. If I  was not here in Phuket now all that money would have gone to Greece instead of Thailand. Maybe you should canvass the locals here in Karon about what they think of your ideas.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

This was cashflow, not profit. How much money was made in the scheme by Thais in the hospitality industry?

It is not just about profit. Keeping hotels, restaurants etc. ticking over with employees kept on is just as important. If a hotel goes under there is a massive problem for all connected to it from the owners right down to the cleaners and the supply industries like delivery drivers and farmers etc. Keeping hotels up and running ready for opening up is more important than making profit now. This is about reducing losses.

The more important question is how many jobs are being saved?

On 8/9/2021 at 2:41 PM, AMFWolfie said:

Agreed.. £50 a day would be about right for most Brits and would not be unreasonable and that's without the hotel. My concern is, if a returning ex-pat trying to get back to Pattaya as an example, what would you do when you get home with everything closed. Sure you have the weather which is fast disintegrating in the UK albeit promises of good weather end of August but, with everywhere on lockdown, very little to do once back and with little sign of a vaccination rollout despite vague, unrealistic promises its going to happen, I'm not sure how long the success of the Sandbox scheme is going to work. Would love to see genuine figures of how many "tourists" are actually going to Phuket  for a holiday and then returning home and how many are transit returning ex-pats.

While in the sandbox we are all tourists. Where we go after is a different question and does it matter anyway? 

A more relevant question is -

How many more people are coming to Thailand because of the sandbox than would have stayed away?

I  am here with my family and will soon go to stay with the in-laws. We normally combine seeing them with a beach holiday so no difference for us except the added restrictions. 

Would we have come if it meant being locked up in a Bangkok hotel? No definitely not, we would be in Greece.  So Thailand gains us for 5 weeks purely due to the sandbox. 

Are we genuine tourists? Depends on your definition but we are in Phuket enjoying - repeat enjoying, a beach holiday.

 

5 hours ago, chang1 said:

I think I  can disagree with everything you say. 

You don't need to increase volume or prices to make money, only to make more money and neither is certain to do that. Increasing prices may end up reducing volume giving a net reduction. Increasing volume may require dropping prices giving a net reduction. 

Forcing people into 5 star hotels may cut down visitors drastically reducing net spending. Making small guest houses SHA+ compliant could encourage many backpackers to come which would help the poorer locals far more and give a larger net spend.

How does the sandbox affect the rest of the country adversely in any way apart from diverting an insignificant amount of vaccines?

How would tourists and others not going to Phuket help the rest of Thailand?

Finally - would you give up your first holiday in 2 years and give the money away thus ensuring another year stuck at home? I think you can guess what I  think about that  idea. If I  was not here in Phuket now all that money would have gone to Greece instead of Thailand. Maybe you should canvass the locals here in Karon about what they think of your ideas.

 

There are several SHA+ hotels priced at under 10,000 baht for 14 nights. 600 baht/night is not expensive.

 

There isn't much point in opening all the hotels when tourist numbers are 100 times lower than normal.

 

5 hours ago, chang1 said:

While in the sandbox we are all tourists. Where we go after is a different question and does it matter anyway? 

A more relevant question is -

How many more people are coming to Thailand because of the sandbox than would have stayed away?

I  am here with my family and will soon go to stay with the in-laws. We normally combine seeing them with a beach holiday so no difference for us except the added restrictions. 

Would we have come if it meant being locked up in a Bangkok hotel? No definitely not, we would be in Greece.  So Thailand gains us for 5 weeks purely due to the sandbox. 

Are we genuine tourists? Depends on your definition but we are in Phuket enjoying - repeat enjoying, a beach holiday.

 

 

You make a good point. Returning expats might not spend $100/night for 14 days, totalling $1,400. Instead, they will spend $50/day for a long time, totalling $18,250 per year. If they spend it somewhere other than Phuket, who cares?

 

I'm sure the Bank of Thailand will be very pleased with an increase in foreign currency spending, regardless of where in Thailand the money is spent.

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

There are several SHA+ hotels priced at under 10,000 baht for 14 nights. 600 baht/night is not expensive.

 

There isn't much point in opening all the hotels when tourist numbers are 100 times lower than normal.

 

A good mix to suit all budgets is required. The sandbox is not for budget travellers. The testing alone cost more than our hotel. Hotels have to compete for customers those that can't fill enough rooms will stay closed. I hope they have an equal chance and not having some getting special treatment. 

As tourists are seen safe the testing can start to be relaxed. 4 PCR tests is over the top at least 2 could be changed to cheaper less reliable lateral flow tests. 

Budget tourists like, backpackers, spend their money in different places and often stay longer helping Thais that well off tourists don't help.

20 years ago Samui was full of small family run guest houses. They soon got bought out and replaced by larger hotels funneling money to wealthy Thais instead.