Ritmuller1974

Appreciate that today much of the revenue from the passenger, single or couple, is derived from onboard spending rather than the actual fare. So they look at someone occupying a cabin that could accommodate two and see that empty bed know it's not going to be drinking, gambling, going to extra cost restaurants, booking shore trips etc etc. Even if you paid a 100% supplement and in effect paid for the empty bed, you are still regarded as a loss leader. And today, they probably figure the ships usually sail with every cabin sold. So they do everything to discourage single travellers.

 

BTW, if you pay a 100% surcharge, do you still get the shipboard credit the "missing" second person would have received? Suspect not!

 

Me, I still remember the old days when as a single you could share a multi berth cabins with strangers... did that numerous times on Cunard, P&O, BI, French Line, Italian Line etc etc. You could see the world by ocean liner all on your own with nary a care or extra supplement.

Yes, that's a very valid point. The onboard revenue has taken priority over the basic fare paid. I think this point is what made Carnival Cruise Lines so successful and its rise to the top. It's not my idea of cruising unfortunately.

My interest in cruising has been re-ignited by family members taking a recent TA on the QM2. For the record, I last sailed in 2005 on the Golden Princess, prior to this on P&O several times. One thing is clear, in the last 13 years since I was on a cruise ship, things have changed significantly.

I was initially attracted to P&O by its low single supplements. It's too long ago now to remember exactly what I paid, but their single supplement was low enough to make the cruise financially justifiable. Ever since then, the cruise industry has become dominated by US ownership, and things have changed. As far as single cruisers go, definitely not for the better.

I've been shocked and saddened that looking at various single supplements for the major cruise lines reveals the majority now charge double (or near enough) for sole occupancy of a double stateroom. When P&O Princess was owned by the P&O group they never (as far as I am aware) levied charges of 100% for sole occupancy. Whilst P&O were in business to make money, they did so with a certain amount of discretion, Carnival, RCL and the like appear to be much more aggressive in 'chasing the dollar', and as a result, the quality has suffered and the prices have soared.

Cunard, in particular will not appear to budge in regard to the single supplement. I today checked a TA departing in a few weeks, the single supplement was 75%, exactly as advertised in the brochure. I also spoke to them and was told that the full single supplement is always applied, it would seem right up until departure. Put simply, they won't give an inch.

I appreciate that cruise companies have to apply a single supplement for sole occupancy of a double cabin, but is it really necessary to charge double?

I think it's fairly obvious that the cruise industry does not want or value single people on their ships, and just views them as irrelevant. Although I am a younger cruiser, I feel sorry for the many older people who have very likely been driven off cruise ships by these charges. It doesn't bother me personally, as I can take my vacations anywhere I want.

It was good while it lasted, but given the costs, there are more enticing attractions for the money that it now costs to cruise alone. I would love to do a TA on the QM2, but not at these prices, and if anybody is wondering, I'm basing my costs on the CHEAPEST inside cabin.

:mad: