Mia Rossi

Without wanting to provoke controversy, it seems to me that the idea of a low season stay does not define the duration of the trip, but rather offers opportunities for optimization for a pre-determined duration set by other imperatives.
In France, our five weeks of paid leave is a fairly structuring reality, regardless of the period.
If I have two weeks, the low season can generously help me optimize my budget for these two weeks, but it does not give me an extra week.
For example, for a couple with children, school holidays remain the main duration factor, even with more advantageous off-season rates.

It seems to me that the availability of leave plays a much more decisive role in the duration of a stay than just budget constraints, even in low season.
In France, with our five weeks of paid leave, many people plan trips of two or three weeks because that’s what they have, not necessarily because the budget forces it.
The budget, on the other hand, will influence the quality of the stay or the destination for these two weeks, but not so much the duration itself.
You can always find an option for two weeks, even with a tight budget, but you cannot really extend your leave beyond what is available, right?
For example, even if I want to travel long in low season, if I only have two RTT days left, that defines my maximum duration.

It seems to me that the duration of a trip is not so much a direct consequence of choosing low season, but rather a variable adjusted based on budget constraints and leave availability.
Without wanting to escalate, this could be a too rigid interpretation of the relationship between seasonality and trip length.
We often have weeks of leave to take, like the famous five weeks of paid leave in France, and then try to optimize the trip within this framework.
For example, I might have two weeks of leave in October and choose the low season in a region so that my budget allows for a more comfortable hotel, rather than the duration of two weeks being determined by the fact that it is low season.

Without wanting to provoke, it seems to me that the idea of a fixed length of stay as the main driver for trips in low season might be a bit too cut and dry.
Wouldn't it be fairer to consider that duration is often a consequence of other constraints, rather than a direct cause of traveling out of season?
For example, in France, many families are constrained by school holidays; they then optimize the duration within this framework, not the other way around.
The overall budget and the availability of paid leave are often the real determinants, with duration then adjusted to fit within the envelope.
Deciding to travel out of season is primarily a matter of flexibility on dates, allowing for the search of the best transport offers.

Wait – the definition of "low season" stops here. For cherry blossoms, the low season doesn't really exist, since the bloom lasts barely a week and everyone wants to see it. You can't just shift a trip to Kyoto for that without missing the window.