225% single supplements? DON'T BOOK THEM!

[cruisestitch]

There are now reports of some cruises with 225% single supplements. Singles, we need to let Celebrity know that this is unacceptable. The best way is to not book them.

 

As others have noted, you can book a "phantom" roommate and pay the 200%, we are used to doing that. But never pay 225%. That's just absurd!

[richsea]

That is outrageous! Where did you hear this? Have you seen any specific sailings charging 225%? How can they possibly justify this?

[champagne123]

Can you book a fictitious person and then have him as a "no show"?

[cruisestitch]

There are now reports of some cruises with 225% single supplements. Singles, we need to let Celebrity know that this is unacceptable. The best way is to not book them.

 

As others have noted, you can book a "phantom" roommate and pay the 200%, we are used to doing that. But never pay 225%. That's just absurd!

[cruisestitch]

It was reported in another thread, about this weeks "Exciting Deals"

 

Regarding booking a "no show" that's what a "phantom roommate" is.

[champagne123]

It was reported in another thread, about this weeks "Exciting Deals"

 

Regarding booking a "no show" that's what a "phantom roommate" is.

Oh...did not see that. I'll go put my glasses on now. :cool: The whole thing is absurd and I don't see how they can justify the increased cost.

Edited April 7, 2017 by champagne123
ssssss

[richsea]

It was reported in another thread, about this weeks "Exciting Deals"

 

Regarding booking a "no show" that's what a "phantom roommate" is.

 

Maybe it was a mistake & was corrected. This week's exciting deals all show 200% single supplements, (which is bad enough). 225% is like a slap in the face of those who sail alone.

 

I've also noticed that "exciting" deals are not so exciting anymore.

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

Folks, this is probably much ado about nothing. An error by the crack website people at Celebrity who never proofread anything. No one in their right mind would pay a 225% single supplement. It is interesting that all the Summit sailings seem to have this.

And I too have noticed that the "exciting deals" are not so exciting lately.

[C 2 C]

The exciting deals are 6 pages long and not a "deal" to be had....

 

Gotta be a late April Fools' Joke... including the 225%

[tnfcruise]

I might not book at 225%, but could the logic behind this be that there will be an empty berth, that could have been filled by a passenger buying drinks, specialty restaurants, spending money in the casino, shops, excursions, scam-art, etc.

 

-X- must factor some calculation/amount that each passenger spends, over and above cruise fare, and nets that against what food and services cost for a body to be on-board. If that net amount favors having a passenger there, the 225% makes sense, at least from -X- perspective.

 

Too bad Edge doesn't have (at least from what I've seen) smaller, single-based cabins that could be marketed at a reasonable cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[bottomfeeder]

They can use whatever logic they like and price the cabins however they like, but I am certainly not paying 225% single supplement. If they think they can fill all their cabins with couples who spend a whole lot onboard, then they don't care if I book or not though. I'd miss Celebrity but I've enjoyed cruises on other lines too so it wouldn't be too much of a hardship to have to move my cruising business to one of them.

[Cruise Raider]

There are now reports of some cruises with 225% single supplements. Singles, we need to let Celebrity know that this is unacceptable. The best way is to not book them.

 

As others have noted, you can book a "phantom" roommate and pay the 200%, we are used to doing that. But never pay 225%. That's just absurd!

 

I have seen these and thought it was a mistake! I am puzzled as to how they can do this.

[solocruzin]

Agree:cool:!

[mnocket]

I once read that cruise ships don't make money on the cruise fare. Their profit comes from on-board spending and tours. Even paying the same fare for a cabin, solo cruisers are far less profitable than couples. If true, this may explain the solo cruise pricing. That said, I hate the idea of solos having to pay these huge supplements. It just rubs me wrong.

[24acorns]

IMO the logic that as a single you will spend less per cabin I think is a bit flawed. When I fortunate enough to have a travelling g companion we would usually be in a higher grade state room and have perks i.e. drinks package, on board credit or free gratuities. As a single traveller I now have an inside which qualifies for NO perks, I am therefore spending more.!!!!

[mnocket]

I once read that cruise ships don't make money on the cruise fare. Their profit comes from on-board spending and tours. Even paying the same fare for a cabin, solo cruisers are far less profitable than couples. If true, this may explain the solo cruise pricing. That said, I hate the idea of solos having to pay these huge supplements. It just rubs me wrong.

[Host Jazzbeau]

There are plenty of cruise lines that are seeking to expand their single passengers, especially River Cruises which have lower single supplements generally and often waive them altogether on selected sailings. And this new article on Cruise Critic [Voyages to Antiquity Reveals 2018 Programme, Including New Itineraries, Maiden Ports and More Single Cabins http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=7718] mentions that

The 378-passenger Aegean Odyssey will also see 13 extra single cabins added -- taking the total number to 39 -- to accommodate an increase in demand.

[Constance331]

Well, here is one solo cruiser whose onboard spending typically totals in the $1500-$2000 range. I love to gamble, drink expensive cocktails, take ship tours and boutique shop.:D Not to mention the cash gratuities I gratefully hand to those excellent bartenders, stewards and waiters above the minimum pre-paid.

 

Their profits on me alone exceeds most double-occupied suites (yes, I sail in suites....).

 

So, no, don't think about conning me, Celebrity!

[ISABELLA]

There are now reports of some cruises with 225% single supplements. Singles, we need to let Celebrity know that this is unacceptable. The best way is to not book them.

 

As others have noted, you can book a "phantom" roommate and pay the 200%, we are used to doing that. But never pay 225%. That's just absurd!

I noticed this sometime ago and thought it is X website glitch and just ignored it. I don't like to pay 200%, never mind more.

Disgrace for Celebrity. It is over 200% for my TA next April.

[ISABELLA]

That is outrageous! Where did you hear this? Have you seen any specific sailings charging 225%? How can they possibly justify this?

Reflection - 4/13/18 - TA sailing - over 200%

[katrina915]

IMO the logic that as a single you will spend less per cabin I think is a bit flawed. When I fortunate enough to have a travelling g companion we would usually be in a higher grade state room and have perks i.e. drinks package, on board credit or free gratuities. As a single traveller I now have an inside which qualifies for NO perks, I am therefore spending more.!!!!

Not only this, but I am more likely to take ship excursion if traveling solo vs when I travel with someone else.

 

It has to be an IT error.

[ISABELLA]

I might not book at 225%, but could the logic behind this be that there will be an empty berth, that could have been filled by a passenger buying drinks, specialty restaurants, spending money in the casino, shops, excursions, scam-art, etc.

 

-X- must factor some calculation/amount that each passenger spends, over and above cruise fare, and nets that against what food and services cost for a body to be on-board. If that net amount favors having a passenger there, the 225% makes sense, at least from -X- perspective.

 

Too bad Edge doesn't have (at least from what I've seen) smaller, single-based cabins that could be marketed at a reasonable cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

Edge has singles cabins - X charges 180% for half size cabin.

[RDC1]

Oh...did not see that. I'll go put my glasses on now. :cool: The whole thing is absurd and I don't see how they can justify the increased cost.

 

 

The economics of solo bookings vs two per cabin is pretty simple. On average cruise lines get 25% of their revenue from on board sales and 75% from the fares. So if you have a fare of X the for a two person cabin the average numbers work out to be 2X + 2(.33X) = 2.66X. If you put 1 person in that cabin and charge a 100% supplement you get 2X+.33X=2.33X. Basically the cruise line gives up 1/3 of a fare in revenue on average. Certainly individuals vary, but the overall demographics is how the cruise line's revenue models will look at it. So with the new 125% single supplement the numbers 2.25X+.33X= 2.58X. Closer to the 2 person per cabin numbers but still a little less.

 

Also note that the main stream cruise lines need to exceed the 2 person per cabin booking numbers, The cruiselines owned by RCL, including celebrity, run about 105% of two person per cabin capacity.

 

Solo bookings are not money makers for the cruise line in general when a two person cabin is occupied. The 225% fare rate brings them close.

 

Now one can argue that they spend thousands and millions on board for that matter. One high spender is offset by a number of lower spenders.The revenue models are built on averages from demographic classes, not individuals. The output from the financials are easy to find looking in the cruise companies 10k and 10q reports that are filed with the SEC. While those numbers are across the entire company (CCL, RCL, NCLH) they do give good insight into the economics of the industry and what drives some of their decisions.

Edited April 7, 2017 by RDC1

[ghstudio]

I really am hoping that this is just sloppiness on Celebrity's part. it's a very slippery slope....will they next try to charge a surcharge based on religion (some don't allow drinking)? Will they implement a minimum OB spending requirement (the only even remotely believable justification for charging 225 vs 200%)?

 

It has to be a mistake......................please.

[RDC1]

I really am hoping that this is just sloppiness on Celebrity's part. it's a very slippery slope....will they next try to charge a surcharge based on religion (some don't allow drinking)? Will they implement a minimum OB spending requirement (the only even remotely believable justification for charging 225 vs 200%)?

 

It has to be a mistake......................please.

 

 

I expect that it is more of a trial balloon, a test so to speak.