Harbourlight Travel: When Every Link in the Package Is a Single Point of Failure
Harbourlight Travel is a small UK tour operator selling 7-day packages to the coastal region of Valdoria. It owns no components. It buys 2,800 seats a year from a charter airline, contracts 62% of its rooms with one 220-room hotel, uses a family-owned coach company for transfers, and relies on a local destination management company (DMC) for excursions. Its net margin is 6%. Three events happen in one month. The airline announces it will stop the route next summer and sell seats directly through its own website. The hotel raises its contracted rate by 18% and launches a 'book direct' promotion. The coach company, owed £46,000 for the last two seasons, says it cannot guarantee coaches for the peak weeks. At the same time, a large online travel agency offers Harbourlight a place on its dynamic-packaging platform in return for 15% commission and control of pricing.
1. Explain how interdependence in the package chain turns these three events into a single crisis for Harbourlight.
Read the worked answer
The package is a chain of contracts, so a failure at any link is a failure of the product. Harbourlight's exposure is concentrated: 62% of rooms in one hotel, 100% of seats on one airline, 100% of transfers on one coach company.
- Airline: it is both supplier and now competitor. If it withdraws, Harbourlight has no seats; if it sells direct, it can undercut the package. This is disintermediation.
- Hotel: an 18% rate rise. If accommodation is 45% of package cost, the package cost rises by 0.18 × 45 = 8.1%, which exceeds the 6% margin. Unless the price is raised or the cost absorbed, every booking loses money. The 'book direct' promotion also pulls customers away.
- Coach company: unpaid £46,000 threatens peak-week operations. A missed transfer is immediately visible to customers and triggers refunds and reputational damage.
The three are linked: the hotel's price rise makes the airline's direct-booking offer more attractive, and a coach failure at peak would destroy demand for the very packages the hotel wants to sell. The operator's real asset is coordination, not inventory, and that asset is being attacked from three sides at once.
2. Evaluate two possible responses: (a) become vertically integrated by buying coaches and contracting hotels directly; (b) join the OTA's dynamic-packaging platform. Recommend a course of action.
Read the worked answer
Option A: vertical integration Buying coaches and contracting hotels directly gives control over quality, cost and availability, and keeps the customer relationship. But it requires capital (£46,000 is already a problem), shifts fixed cost onto a 6%-margin business, and reduces flexibility if demand falls. Owning coaches in a seasonal destination is risky.
Option B: OTA dynamic-packaging platform This gives reach, variable cost, and access to the OTA's traffic. But 15% commission is more than double the net margin, and the OTA controls pricing and owns the customer data. Harbourlight becomes an invisible inventory supplier.
Recommendation Neither extreme. Contract a second hotel to cut concentration below 40%; keep the DMC and coach company but pay down arrears and add a backup operator; use the OTA only for off-peak inventory where the marginal sale is profitable. The test is whether the commission is less than the contribution from an otherwise unsold seat. A strong answer recognises that vertical integration solves control but not demand, while the OTA solves demand but not margin.
3. Recommend which of the three immediate risks Harbourlight should address first and justify your ranking.
Read the worked answer
Coach first. It is the only risk that can materialise within weeks during peak season. The consequences are immediate: stranded guests, refunds, compensation and reviews. The £46,000 is small relative to the cost of a failed season, so paying or renegotiating is urgent.
Hotel second. The 18% rise is a next-season contract issue and can be mitigated by negotiating, switching part of the inventory, or repricing.
Airline third in timing, but strategic. The withdrawal is next summer, but seats must be secured now; however, there is more lead time to find a replacement carrier or reduce capacity.
Ranking by likelihood × impact × time to act gives coach, hotel, airline. A weaker answer ranks by size of money alone, which would put the 18% hotel rise first even though it can be managed over months.