‘Too Many Hours Waiting for Gelato in Capri.’ America’s Affluent Travellers Head Home. - Kanebridge News
Share Button

‘Too Many Hours Waiting for Gelato in Capri.’ America’s Affluent Travellers Head Home.

By SHIVANI VORA
Mon, Mar 11, 2024 9:19amGrey Clock 5 min

Affluent U.S. travellers may be sticking closer to home for their big trips this year, travel industry experts say.

Blame it on the soaring cost of travel, unease about the war in the Middle East, or a desire to avoid the headache of sold-out hotels and crowds in popular tourist destinations..Whatever the reason, numerous signs indicate that more Americans with an eye toward luxury travel are opting for domestic vacations this year compared with last, when they ventured abroad in the wake of pent-up demand following the pandemic.

The Arhaus Lounge on courtyard at the White Elephant in Nantucket.
Chi-Thien Nguyen/Elkus Manfredi Architects

Lindsey Ueberroth , the CEO of Preferred Travel Group, comprising more than 1,000 high-end hotels, says that while the group’s international business remains strong, domestic stays have grown so far in 2024, with bookings for the months ahead showing the same rise.

“Airfare is pricey, and some people are avoiding international travel because of the uncertainty in the world,” she says. “As a result, they’re spending their money on pricey resorts in the U.S. instead.”

Ueberroth noted that Brush Creek Ranch in Wyoming’s scenic North Platte River Valley and Montage Kapalua Bay in Maui are two Preferred Travel Group properties that are proving to be top choices among its clientele.

The Harborview room located at the White Elephant in Nantucket.
Chi-Thien Nguyen/Elkus Manfredi Architects

Travel advisors also report a rise in bookings of domestic getaways.

Erica Neher, an advisor with Altour in Paris, is also seeing a renewed interest in domestic getaways from her U.S.-based clients. She says she thinks that the prohibitive cost of top hotels abroad is partially a cause. “I’m hoping the hotel prices start to come down because [uber luxury] travel is becoming unattractive to even those with no or unlimited budget,” she says.

Michael Holtz, the founder and CEO of the global travel firm SmartFlyer, says that its business is up 25% so far this year compared to last.

“Our U.S. bookings are robust. Domestic travel is easier than going abroad, and it can also be less expensive yet more luxurious,” he says.

Holtz cites the all-inclusive Twin Farms in Barnard, Vermont, as an example of a coveted U.S. hotel and says that it’s a scenic resort with great accommodations, cuisine, and service—a place where “the staff accommodates every guest need or want, plus more.” Destination-wise, he says that SmartFlyer’s clients are favouring Hawaii, Jackson Hole, Charleston and Nashville for their stateside forays.

The most significant evidence that affluent travellers have returned to domestic escapes comes from luxury properties themselves, many of which saw a wane or decline in business because their usual guests chose to go abroad as the world opened up from pandemic shutdowns.

Take Post Ranch Inn, a scenic 40-room oceanfront resort in Big Sur, California, where room rates start at US$1,625 a night. Co-owner and managing partner Mike Freed says that occupancy has consistently averaged about 80% a year since the property opened in 1992. Last year was the exception when the number softened.

“There’s no question that many of my regular guests over the years opted for international travel in 2023. Most went to Europe—Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal,” Freed says. “However, they’re back in 2024. Bookings are ahead of last year and already solid for our peak summer season.”

The living room of the Park suite at the White Elephant in Palm Beach.
Chi-Thien Nguyen/Elkus Manfredi Architects

Bill Hayward of Pebble Beach, California, and the president of a lumber company is among the return clientele. He has been staying at Post Ranch Inn since the early ’90s with his wife and says that they usually check in three times annually for between two and three nights each. “Last year, we changed it up by taking several trips to Europe,” he says. “It was catch-up travel after not doing it for so long, but now, we’re back on the Post Ranch Inn bandwagon.”

International air travel can be aggravating, Hayward says, and the couple agreed that it’s more convenient to take a break that’s closer to home.

“We pay around US$7,000 for a three-night stay. It’s cheaper than going to Europe and so much less hassle,” he says, saying the inn is their “happy place.”

Similar to the Big Sur hotel, White Elephant Resorts, inclusive of several properties on Nantucket in Massachusetts and one in Palm Beach, Florida, also saw a dip in demand in 2023, according to president Khaled Hashem . “2022 was a killer year for us with a 20% to 30% increase in business across the resorts, but in 2023, that number stayed flat depending on the property or rose marginally to 3%,” he says. “That is historically low for us as we usually go up between 7% and 8%, even during times of economic distress.”

Fast forward to today, and occupancy is up again at all resorts—Hashem says that the White Elephant in Palm Beach, where nightly room rates average US$1,200, is currently seeing 92% occupancy compared with 78% during the same period last year.

More evidence of this pattern is everywhere.

Brian Honan, the sales and marketing director for Ocean House, set on the water in Watch Hill, Rhode Island, says that currently, confirmed business on the books for the peak months of July and August is almost double what it was last year at this time. And booking pace is up approximately 40% compared to last year. “We are seeing not just increased demand but also that business is being confirmed nearly twice as fast,” Honan says.

At Baccarat New York, demand is growing even further after levelling out in 2023, says director of sales and marketing Rafael Nader. “For 2024, we may be seeing a return to 2022 levels, with our booking pace up nearly 10%,” he says. “This could be tied to a softening of the demand for European destinations, which saw hotel and airfare price points that were tremendously high, even for the luxury traveler.”

Irrespective of prices, Karon Cullen, a marketing consultant who lives in Savannah, says that travelling in America has made her recognise how “varied, beautiful, and rich” the country is. Her domestic trips have also been more enjoyable and leisure-filled. “My husband and I learned our “stay in the U.S.A.” lesson last year after too many hours in the past waiting in lines for gelatos in Capri, museums in Paris, even for the fishmonger at a tiny town in Croatia,” she says.

Cullen and her husband recently stayed in a suite at Ocean House where they savoured long beach walks and has more local escapes in the works for the months ahead.

“The more we travel in the U.S., the more we appreciate the relative ease and diminution of stress,” she says.



MOST POPULAR

The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.

Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
The Hidden Agenda Behind the AI Panic
By 22/09/2026
Lifestyle
Paramount Discussed $1.5 Billion California Investment to Clear Merger Hurdle
By 21/09/2026
Lifestyle
Forget the AI Apocalypse—the Real Threats Are Already Here
By Christopher Mims 17/09/2026

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.

By
Tue, Sep 22, 2026 4 min

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.