

The same McKinsey that did surveys on other semi .gov institutions convenientlyFlutterby wrote: It was the McKinsey report that laid down the basis of what is now termed the SANParks Commercialisation Strategy.
McKinsey ethically correct,.. however opened avenues for the redistributionFlutterby wrote:is a key part of SANParks Commercialization Strategy executed through Public Private Partnerships (PPP
From what I am led to believe, Berg&Dal is going to be run by same event company catering as Mopani, I think the restaurants in the north were skipped as the franchisee probably couldn't make the numbers work, they do after all have to see a profit too. Perhaps SANParks should have lumped a few together, say Lower Sabie and Shingwedzi or Satara and PundaRichprins wrote:I would want a return to the 50-year success story! However that would be very difficult...now, as especially Kruger's transport capability and catering department has vanished in this regard...RobertT wrote:So what are the solutions then? What would people on this forum want?
Second best is a simple A la-Carte system, actually successfully still run in Mopani, for example? Expensive, but worth it in my experience!
Which still begs the question why the far Northern Camps and Berg&Dal and others seem to be out of this deal?![]()
Shouldn't there be a uniform plan?
Hey BC, I am understanding that there is 1 franchise per camp, there is at moment 1 restaurant per camp being serviced by a vehicle. Not sure why there should then be more vehicles?Bushcraft wrote:
RT, the new franchise groups may result in more vehicles as there’s more franchise groups. They aren’t sharing delivery vehicles
A section of the new franchise groups specialise in takeaways where as the current don’t, so potential for more litter, especially if more people are using them, which surely is the plan, but agreed a people problem.
Do you have confirmation that the price is going to be uniform? It costs more to run a franchise in KNP versus the rest of the country, so I wouldn’t expect uniform pricing![]()
Agreed, we are getting ripped off with the current quality of food and service, but don’t you think that more than half the same staff are going to be employed by these franchises. Hopefully the management structure is different, so we don’t just get the same thing in different packaging
I think you lost the conservation point. SANParks should be more worried about the rhino that are getting killed than the restaurants, hotels or the new vision where money takes preference. The general public should also be.
Let's wait and see, but hopefully at least we will get better food in KNP, which is a plus
Most of those in Game Reserves!RobertT wrote:I need to ask, how many restaurants are around now days that are not part of a Franchise?
Are there more different franchise groups under this new structure, not quantity of restaurants, but rather different franchise groups. My understanding is that the majority was previously run by 1 group, hence shared deliveries, but now that’s not possibleRobertT wrote: Hey BC, I am understanding that there is 1 franchise per camp, there is at moment 1 restaurant per camp being serviced by a vehicle. Not sure why there should then be more vehicles?![]()
I have just climbed on and checked Wimpy menu online with pricing, it does not state for different regions there is a different pricing. I think prices are set by the Franchise and the individual franchises have to abide by it and also get majority of their stock from the holding company.
My comment on the conservation is a lot of people are saying SANParks should take back the restaurants and run them themselves, but we are also calling for SANParks to concentrate on conservation as that is their core responsibility. I just don't understand where the restaurants fall into the conservation category as a core function for SANParks.
Richprins wrote:Most of those in Game Reserves!RobertT wrote:I need to ask, how many restaurants are around now days that are not part of a Franchise?