You be the judge: Should my partner stop obsessively cutting costs when we travel?
My girlfriend Cara and I have been together seven years, but we have only travelled together a handful of times as we are both homebodies. But earlier this year, we went on holiday to Greece to visit my family, and it quickly became clear that we aren't travel-compatible.
Cara tries to cut corners, but it can end up costing us money. First, she didn't want to pay for hold luggage. We were going away for 12 days and she insisted on squeezing everything into her backpack. She squished all her clothes into these silly packing cubes and I thought: this is insanity. Some of it didn't fit, so she made me pack it in my suitcase. And when we got to the airport, she was asked to pay extra as her backpack didn't fit in the holder by the check-in desk. It was really embarrassing.
We are going away again next month, to Barcelona, and Cara has mentioned that she wants us to budget-pack again. I'd rather bring a bigger suitcase and just pay the extra. Last time, because she got charged we lost money that could have gone towards a meal out.
If I had my way, I would just share one big case, but Cara is a bit of a control-freak and she likes her stuff to be separate. She is a tidy packer, whereas I am a bit more relaxed and just throw everything in, which she says stresses her out.
Cara also prefers to stay at the cheapest places so we can save money for eating out and activities. In Greece we stayed with my family for one week, but we disagreed on which hotel to book for the rest of the trip. Cara wanted to stay in a tiny attic room and go to five star restaurants in the evening, but I wanted to splurge on a nice hotel after being with family.
She said comfortable accommodation was unnecessarily flash. In the end I paid most of the hotel bill – I just wanted to relax. But when we go to Barcelona, I think Cara should plan ahead so we aren't at loggerheads over packing and priorities.
We don't live together as we like our own space, so our finances are separate. But when we travel we both need to compromise.
I'm a budget babe and a foodie. I want to eat at nice places, not waste money on luggage fees and hotels
Persephone earns a bit more than me, so of course we have different travel styles. I love travelling with her but she is quite flash, whereas I'm a budget babe.
When we went to Greece, she wanted to splash out on a really fancy hotel after staying with her family. I wasn't against that of course, but I just couldn't afford it. Luckily she paid, but I feel it's being held against me now as we plan our Barcelona trip.
I'm a food stylist and eating out is my passion. I want to eat at nice places as food is how you get to know a culture. I haven't been to Spain before, so I have a list of places I want to try. But to prioritise nice food, I need to scrimp on accommodation. That makes perfect sense to me as I'm only there to sleep. The rest of the time I want to be out exploring and eating. Persephone isn't a foodie, and disagrees.
I also like to keep my packing light to save on ridiculous luggage fees. Because I got fined for having too heavy a backpack last trip, I am now being condemned as an irresponsible traveller. But that was the first time that happened. I paid the extra baggage fee myself, and have since bought holiday scales.
I don't want to share Persephone's suitcase because she doesn't pack properly and I find that stressful. I may put all my stuff in one backpack, but it is very well organised. Persephone's packing style is hectic and she doesn't have a separate laundry bag for her unclean clothes, she just throws them all in together. I don't want dirty laundry touching my stuff, thanks very much.
I don't love budget travel but it's a means to an end, and when you're with someone who has more money you both have to compromise.
Ultimately we prioritise different things when we are abroad. If she doesn't want to end up paying for everything, Persephone needs to meet me in the middle with our accommodation options for Barcelona. She's very generous but I'd prefer to split the cost of somewhere we both like.
Should Cara splash more cash?
If Cara wants to go hand luggage-only, that's fine, but she needs to pack within her means and not cram her extras into Persephone's luggage. More importantly, I think the couple need to find a better balance when travelling together – something that works for both of their comfort and budget levels.Shayane, 30
Not guilty, but only just. How and what Cara packs is her own business – there is no reason for them both to do it the same way or share a case. On food and accommodation, they could both compromise and pay for what matters most to them: Persephone pays for the room, Cara pays for meals.Peter, 60
Neither party is hugely in the wrong here (except the lack of laundry bag!). Surely the way to compromise is for Persephone to pay for baggage fees and the accommodation, and Cara to pay for the food.Alex, 37
Cara ought to let herself be spoiled. Persephone clearly recognises that she is better off and does pay where helpful, and Cara is willing to foot the bill when she makes a mistake, too. Persephone even seems open to paying for baggage if they share a huge suitcase.Mawgan, 21
Persephone should be a bit more generous and pay for everything. If you're in a couple it's good to be relaxed about money and err on the side of generosity. It all comes out in the wash anyway.Anna, 45
In our online poll, tell us: who is in the right?
The poll closes on Wednesday 30 July at 10am BST
We asked if Murad should use his flatmate's spice rack
17% said yes – Murad is guilty83% said no – Murad is innocent
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
4 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Clare County Council pays almost €700,000 to consultants for Cliffs of Moher 2040 draft strategy
Clare County Council has paid almost €700,000 to consultants in preparing its draft Cliffs of Moher 2040 strategy. In response to a Freedom of Information request, the Council has confirmed a spend of €691,001 over the last five and a half years. Advertisement The bulk of the money, at €617,618, has been paid to Haley Sharpe Design Ltd, and the firm received €473,318 in 2020 and 2021. The draft strategy provides a blueprint for the development of visitor facilities at the Cliffs of Moher, outlining the need for a complete overhaul of the facilities. The Cliffs of Moher are the most popular visitor attraction, and last year, 1.49 million visited the attraction. A spokesman for the Council said that visitor numbers in 2024 are on a par with 2024. Advertisement The draft strategy states that 'over the past 10 years, visitor numbers have far exceeded those which the site was originally designed to cater for. This has significant negative impacts on both the quality of the visitor experience and the special qualities and environment of the site'. It adds that the restricted cliff-edge paths 'also create health and safety issues, resulting in erosion of the cliff-edge itself as visitors go beyond the designated pathways'. The draft strategy states that 'the paths beyond the visitor experience are considered to be a major safety hazard due to their proximity to the unstable cliff-edge and unpredictable weather conditions'. It states that 'visitors rarely heed the warnings in situ and try to get as close to the edge as possible for photograph opportunities'. Advertisement It further states that 'the design of the current visitor centre, retail and catering spaces does little to mitigate the impact of crowds and are under-scaled for the current needs and expectations of visitors at a world-class experience'. A Council spokesman said that the Cliffs of Moher 2040 strategy is in draft format and is available for the public to view at He said, 'There is no set date for adoption. The public and stakeholder consultation phases and the Strategic Environmental Assessment stages are complete.' Asked does the Council believe that the consultant spend has provided value for money, a council spokesman said: 'Clare County Council, supported by Fáilte Ireland, engaged consultants to prepare a strategy on its behalf." He said, 'The preparation of the strategic document was guided by an expert steering committee. He added, 'The public and stakeholder consultations informed the shaping of the draft strategy and aspects of the draft strategy are currently being implemented, including the implementation of a sustainable transport solution for the Cliffs of Moher and for north Clare, spreading tourism economic benefits across the county.'
The Sun
4 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fans stunned as THREE Destination X contestants are immediately axed in brutal opening twist
TV FANS were left feeling stunned as three Destination X contestants were immediately axed in a brutal opening twist. Forget Barry Island, Rob Brydon has set off on a new adventure – this time to Destination X. 3 3 3 Destination X is a show based on a Belgian series, which sees contestants sent to a random destination before they have to try and work out where they are. They all travel on a blacked out bus and will have to take on challenges and games along the way which will give them clues as to where they are. At the end of each episode the contestant who places an X on the map the furthest away from their actual destination will be sent packing. It is a promising cross between The Traitors and Race Across The World, which each command six million viewers and the BBC has invested millions in the show. In tonight's launch, a group of thirteen travellers met each other at a busy airport. But there was a shock twist in store - only 10 players would make it through to continue the game. Host Rob called the players towards him and said: "The game is observation, deduction and alliance building. "And all the time you should have one question in mind - Where in the world am I?" He added: "There are 13 of you in front of me but only ten of you will be progressing beyond these doors. "There are numerous suitcases strewn around, I would like you each to bring me one that weighs the maximum hand baggage allowance of 10kg." The contestants scrambled about to weigh various suitcases and chaos reigned as clothes were discarded from pieces of luggage. Rob then remarked that only the first six people would be given an exclusive lounge access card. Once six had been successful, Rob then told the remaining contestants that only another 4 would go through and that three would go home. The first four of them to bring him a trinket or souvenir from one of the passengers previously mentioned at the airport - would be their key to a boarding pass. As the contestants searched keyrings, mugs, and gifts in the airport and tried to remember the passenger names - the pressure was on. Until, Retired Detective Sergeant Claire, Economics Graduate Ashvin and Historian Chloe-Anne were left waiting behind. Rob said: "Claire, Ashvin and Chloe-Anne, I'm afraid it's goodbye. Please leave the airport." Then he added: "Well that doesn't feel nice." Fans of the show flocked to social media and one wrote: "We can't lose the retired detective so early on?!" Another added: "Hate early eliminations in games like this - all the players will have taken time out of their lives to play, seems harsh to boot them day one. "Unless there's a twist involving the players removed." "3 gone already? Damn," stated another viewer. "This is a perfect mix of The Traitors, Coach Trip and ," said another fan. "Very harsh twist," added another fan of the show.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Airports in chaos after air traffic control outage grounds flights across UK
An air traffic control fault left tens of thousands of summer holidaymakers facing the chaos of grounded planes and suspended take-offs on Wednesday. Passengers across Europe were stranded during the peak holiday season when planes were diverted, some turning around mid-air to return to their departure cities because of a 20-minute glitch. Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester Airports were all among the airports hit by the outage that left many aircraft and flight crew out of position. Take-offs for thousands of passengers were cancelled because inbound flights had turned back. In some cases, travellers were held on planes on the tarmac with no news of when their flight might take off, or even after landing. Flights to destinations including Marseille, Lyon, Brussels, Glasgow, Newcastle, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Berlin, Frankfurt and Basel were cancelled. Some planes scheduled to arrive at UK airports were forced to conduct holding patterns or divert elsewhere. The disruption, which began just after 4pm on Wednesday, was down to a 'technical issue' at the control centre of ATC provider Nats in Swanwick, Hampshire, the company said. Flight analytics experts Cirium said that by 5.30pm, 80 flights to and from the UK had been cancelled. British Airways, which was the airline hardest hit, restricted Heathrow inbound and outbound flights to 32 an hour until 7.15pm before volumes returned to their usual 45 an hour, creating a backlog. Almost all BA flights on Wednesday evening were delayed, with at least a dozen encountering delays of two hours or more: to places including Chicago, New York JFK, Pittsburgh, Valencia, Prague, Nice, Edinburgh and Belfast City. Heathrow's night curfew was expected to be lifted to allow airlines to get their schedules back to normal. But the disruption left passengers upset. John Carr, from Stourbridge, was worried his flight cancellation would force him to miss his brother's wedding in Norway, for which he was best man. Mr Carr, 35, said: 'I'm pretty gutted. We've got loads of stuff in the suitcases to set up the venue, because we're obviously flying to Norway. We've got the wedding rehearsal to do. It's quite stressful.' Other passengers complained they were left confused because of 'terrible communication' from airports and airlines. Even passengers on later flights on Wednesday faced disruption. At Southend, an incoming plane from Gran Canaria ended up on Jersey, and a round-trip to Amsterdam was cancelled. London City airport was also badly hit, with one BA flight from Glasgow returning to its starting place, and links to Rotterdam, Palma and Amsterdam cancelled. Britain's biggest budget airline, easyJet, attacked Nats for 'once again causing disruption' after a system outage in August 2023 that caused chaos for at least 700,000 passengers. David Morgan, easyJet's chief operating officer, said: 'While our priority today is supporting our customers, we will want to understand from Nats what steps they are taking to ensure issues don't continue.' The airline cancelled at least 16 flights to and from its main base, Gatwick Airport. Passengers were told: 'We are advising customers travelling this evening to check our Flight Tracker for the most up-to-date information on their flight and are contacting all impacted customers directly. While this is outside of our control, we are sorry for the inconvenience caused by the ATC failure.' Ryanair went further, calling for Nats' chief executive Martin Rolfe to resign, claiming no lessons had been learnt in two years. Nats was contacted for comment. The company said: 'We are working with affected airlines and airports to clear the backlog safely. We apologise to everyone affected by this issue.' One expert said it was understood the software prioritised safety over keeping airspace open. Junade Ali, a fellow at the Institution of Engineering and Technology, said: 'Nats has previously thoroughly investigated such incidents and implemented suitable measures. 'From prior incident reports, the software is understood to not compromise safety at the expense of keeping airspace open. "This is the right approach as, whilst keeping airspace open is important, the public risk appetite demands a high standard of safety when it comes to air travel.' A Department for Transport spokesperson said: 'We are working closely with Nats to understand the cause of the technical issue and the implications for the resilience systems in place.' The Liberal Democrats called for an investigation into the glitch. Party leader Sir Ed Davey said: "With thousands of families preparing to go on a well-earned break, this just isn't good enough. 'The government should launch an urgent investigation to ensure the system is fit for purpose, including ruling out hostile action as a cause.'
