225% single supplements? DON'T BOOK THEM!

[anniegb]

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 saw them too but Celebrity are not league leaders - I have seen 250 % solo penalty elsewhere.

 

Annie

[NLH Arizona]

I saw them too but Celebrity are not league leaders - I have seen 250 % solo penalty elsewhere.

 

Annie

What lines are charging 250%?

[tnfcruise]

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

 

 

That's good to know.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[tnfcruise]

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.

 

 

This was my theory, without knowing the revenue model calculations. The folks chiming in here about how much they spend beyond cruise fare, as single cruisers, are probably not "average".

 

Maybe the Edge news, as reported by ISABELLA, will entice those singles back to -X-.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[anniegb]

What lines are charging 250%?

 

MSC on a few sailings.

 

Annie

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

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

 

Right. That math doesn't work for me. I'd rather pay 200% and have a regular size cabin. My friends who sail solo feel the same way. Good luck to Celebrity on that one!

[sunnycruises]

Yes Edge has single cabins. At first I thought this was great but then I see that they also make the perks for one only. Right now you get the perks times two if your paying the single supplement which is nice if you pick the OBC. I think the idea of a phantom room mate is the way to go. Especially since they sometimes won't let you book a guarantee cabin as a single. I found that the Edge single rooms were only about $100-200 less per room so I don't think they're worth it. Since Edge sailings are so far away I didn't book a single room just in case I find a wonderful cruising companion by then !!! [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[goofysmom99]

I've switched to Azamara. They had/have oodles of sailings with solo supplements of 125% with beverages and gratuities included on ALL their cruises, plus a potful of OBC. Captain's Club level is reciprocal, too. On an upcoming TA, my per diem for a balcony on Azamara is $80/day lower than X.

[travelberlin]

Whatever the reason that Celebrity has behind, I am not going to justify or support if. 225% for solo rates is something which I do not think is good value for money, so me and my wallet would move to other lines if this solo fares became the usual ones with Celebrity.

[gizvic]

I had thought related to occupancy that I didn't see posted earlier...

 

My understanding is that there is a maximum capacity per ship. So sometimes, as the cruise approaches, cabins can not be reserved for three or four passengers, even if the beds in the room would permit that.

 

I would think that a single paying 200% and buying one person's worth of services on board would then allow another cabin to have a third person, paying additional fare, and buying one person's worth of services.

 

My point is that I think the cruise line doesn't necessarily "suffer" financially from solo travelers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[BEAV]

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.

 

So is that to say during this past Winter when we saw 150% single supplements on some voyages, that those were truly distressed sailings from a sales/occupancy standpoint?

[SMSACE6]

:( Oh my! Just my luck. I am just about ready, actually I am ready to throw in the towel with Carnival, and have been considering Celebrity I read this! I understand the economics, but sometimes economics are just not ethical. As a solo cruiser, I am starting to feel unwelcome on many cruise lines.:) So unfair in my opinion.

[RDC1]

I had thought related to occupancy that I didn't see posted earlier...

 

My understanding is that there is a maximum capacity per ship. So sometimes, as the cruise approaches, cabins can not be reserved for three or four passengers, even if the beds in the room would permit that.

 

I would think that a single paying 200% and buying one person's worth of services on board would then allow another cabin to have a third person, paying additional fare, and buying one person's worth of services.

 

My point is that I think the cruise line doesn't necessarily "suffer" financially from solo travelers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

The ships usually do not hit absolute max. The cruise lines that come hit that area most often are Norwegian, Carnival. and Royal Caribbean. Cruise lines that cater to families. Even then the only time they would sail that full is during the periods when schools are out.

 

To give the actual information from RCL (parent company of Celebrity and RCCL). The average occupancy for the last fiscal year is 106.4% with the split between onboard spending 27.6% and fares 72.4%.

 

By quarter the occupancy rates are Ending Sept 30 109.8%, June 30 104.6% Mar 31 105.1%.

 

Christmas and Easter Caribbean are the most heavily loaded, as well as summer Alaska.

 

The Solstice class max capacity is 110.4% of two person per cabin capacity. That number is lower then most other ships. The older ships, like infinity have a max capacity of 124.6%. With the more family focus on RCCL ships some examples there are Allure of the Seas 116.7%, Independence of the Seas 120.3%.

 

Considering the averages are include the older and RCCL ships. About the only time you might see a ship hit absolute max is during peak summer or holiday periods. Even that does not occur often. You will see them cut off 3 or more to a cabin well before it is hit if the ship is not sold out. That does not happen very often.

[RDC1]

So is that to say during this past Winter when we saw 150% single supplements on some voyages, that those were truly distressed sailings from a sales/occupancy standpoint?

 

Depends upon when you see them. If close to sailing then a solo in the cabin is better than no one at all.

 

If it was during school holiday periods then you might run into what gizvic mentioned. That when you have periods with lots of families then there might be cabins that they cannot put two into. I would expect to see that on Solstice class in the Caribbean around Christmas. As I mentioned Solstice class has one of the lowest differences between two person per cabin and absolute max passenger capacity of any of the mainstream cruise ships. Much lower than the older ships like Infinity.

[DirtyDawg]

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.

 

It's not the extra revenue that counts to the cruise lines. It is the extra net cash flow from the extra revenue. The 33% extra revenue produces net cash flows that are much higher as a percentage of revenure than the cash flow produced from cruise fares.

[bottomfeeder]

:( Oh my! Just my luck. I am just about ready, actually I am ready to throw in the towel with Carnival, and have been considering Celebrity I read this! I understand the economics, but sometimes economics are just not ethical. As a solo cruiser, I am starting to feel unwelcome on many cruise lines.:) So unfair in my opinion.

 

I wouldn't be too concerned yet. This week's Exciting Deals flyer is the first time I've seen 225% solo supplement advertised right there in our faces.

 

In the past fares for solo travelers on the Celebrity website have occasionally been more than 200% of the per-person fare for two-in-a-cabin travelers, but those were cases where there was some kind of sale going on (and the geniuses who work with the Celebrity website apparently couldn't figure out how to get that sale loaded for solo travelers, or forgot to do it) and from what I'd read on these boards if you called Celebrity they would generally give the solo traveler that same deal with a 200% supplement price.

 

So we really don't know if this is a trial balloon on Celebrity's part, an error (though that seems unlikely since we didn't have the official Celebrity Cruises poster come on the thread to say it was an error in the flyer), or something that they are already planning to do going forward.

 

Hopefully it is a trial balloon and it will plummet to the ground in pieces, and they won't try it again! :)

[bottomfeeder]

It's not the extra revenue that counts to the cruise lines. It is the extra net cash flow from the extra revenue. The 33% extra revenue produces net cash flows that are much higher as a percentage of revenure than the cash flow produced from cruise fares.

 

And a solo traveler in a cabin paying a 200% supplement provides more net cash flow on the room & board portion of revenue than two people in the same room would. Less food is consumed, less water is used, etc. If I take one of the deals with perks, other than the OBC I'm only using half of the perk compared to two people in the cabin.

 

One would think that makes up to some extent tor the fact that I'm not doing 2 people's worth of onboard spending.

[RDC1]

And a solo traveler in a cabin paying a 200% supplement provides more net cash flow on the room & board portion of revenue than two people in the same room would. Less food is consumed, less water is used, etc. If I take one of the deals with perks, other than the OBC I'm only using half of the perk compared to two people in the cabin.

 

One would think that makes up to some extent tor the fact that I'm not doing 2 people's worth of onboard spending.

 

 

The impact on food and water is not even a rounding error on their budget. Almost all of a cruise lines expenses for a given route are fixed. Staffing, fuel, capital investment, etc is all set independently of the passenger load. Even food is preordered and does not vary based upon minor changes in passenger load. About the only expense that varies is in consumables that the cruise line makes a profit on such as alcohol.

[DirtyDawg]

And a solo traveler in a cabin paying a 200% supplement provides more net cash flow on the room & board portion of revenue than two people in the same room would. Less food is consumed, less water is used, etc. If I take one of the deals with perks, other than the OBC I'm only using half of the perk compared to two people in the cabin.

 

One would think that makes up to some extent tor the fact that I'm not doing 2 people's worth of onboard spending.

 

Sorry bottomfeeder, RDC1 iscorrect. Those 'savings' are minuscule vs. the lost net cash flow from the booze,the casino, the extrusions, etc. etc.

 

It might not seem fair but it is.

[bottomfeeder]

Sorry bottomfeeder, RDC1 iscorrect. Those 'savings' are minuscule vs. the lost net cash flow from the booze,the casino, the extrusions, etc. etc.

 

It might not seem fair but it is.

 

Well, I don't think it's fair. I concede that the $ they make up because I don't eat 2 dinners, 2 lunches etc. or drink 6 free drinks with my elite coupons every day, etc., doesn't make up the difference in lost onboard spending from a typical cruiser, but why charge me 225% and not put in some kind of pricing based on onboard spending history, with the skinflints who never spend money onboard being forced to pay a higher rate to make up for that loss too?

 

People over 80, I'm willing to bet, spend a lot less onboard on average than the typical passenger in their early 50s does. Should they charge higher fares to people over 80? Or maybe if the average Californian onboard spends a lot more than the average Iowa resident onboard, should they charge Iowans more for their cabins? How is that any different than charging me 225%?

 

The other thing at play here is the old adage about how much more it costs to find a new customer than to keep the one you have. Many experienced cruisers spend significantly less onboard than folks taking their first couple cruises--they are much less likely to purchase cruise line excursions, transfers, photo packages, etc...and on top of that they cost the cruise line money for the darn Elite, Elite+ and Zenith perks! Not to mention the newbies don't know nearly as much about how to find the best cruise prices so they are likely to pay top dollar for their cabins, so the cruise line makes lots of money on them.

 

So just by your calculations, the cruise lines would much rather have brand new, inexperienced passengers than old-timers. Therefore they'd want to drive away those who spend less, i.e. the long-term customers, and bring in new customers. But of course they can't keep filling their ships with only new customers every year. And they have to spend lots of money advertising to get as many new cruisers as they do. So they will have to figure out how to squeeze as much money out of all of us as they can without driving us away. (Even us solo cruisers, at least some of the time, since having just one in a cabin is better than none because they certainly ARE making money on us even if the margin on average is a little lower.)

 

Given Celebrity's history with pricing changes, I don't expect the 225% to be a hard and fast "all the time" rule. I watch prices pretty carefully for cruises I'm interested in and am usually able to find a very good price for a cabin I like. I expect I'll be able to continue to find bargains. Of course I always watch prices on other lines too, and if the bargains there are better than the ones on Celebrity, I'll be jumping ship. I will definitely not be paying 225% supplement.

[DirtyDawg]

I see that you are really fired up over this bottomfeeder. Hey, if you don't like the 225% single supplement don't give X your business. If you and lots of other singles stop giving their business to X the law of supply and demand might force down those single supplement rates.

[solocruzin]

Have any of you looked at the cost of a decent hotel recently? I recently went on a rare "land vacation" with a friend. I am a regular cruiser, mostly solo.

 

We took off for Vegas and split hotel bill, 3 nights @ MGM GRAND $708.91 . Divided by 2 $354.45. Plus food (paid our own) @ minimum $60.00 per day(even the buffet is $14.00 just for breakfast). No shows ( without $$$) and only 3 nights. Total $534.45. Cheap? Expensive? It depends on how you look at it......

 

I took a Carnival cruise in Sept 2016. 5 days aboard the Paradise to Grand Cayman and Cozumel. I went solo. Total $779.00 (paid past guest rate w/solo supplement). A $245.00 difference BUT.....

1) I had a room to myself

2) I went to 2 exotic locations

3) I went for 5 days instead of 3

4) I went to 2 shows that did not cost extra $$$

5) I went to a night club that did not charge a "cover " charge

 

I find these "perks" worth the extra $$$ I may spend on a solo cruise vacation. After doing the math I now say we should suck it up and stop whining. :)

[denatravels]

Have any of you looked at the cost of a decent hotel recently? I recently went on a rare "land vacation" with a friend. I am a regular cruiser, mostly solo.

 

 

 

We took off for Vegas and split hotel bill, 3 nights @ MGM GRAND $708.91 . Divided by 2 $354.45. Plus food (paid our own) @ minimum $60.00 per day(even the buffet is $14.00 just for breakfast). No shows ( without $$$) and only 3 nights. Total $534.45. Cheap? Expensive? It depends on how you look at it......

 

 

 

I took a Carnival cruise in Sept 2016. 5 days aboard the Paradise to Grand Cayman and Cozumel. I went solo. Total $779.00 (paid past guest rate w/solo supplement). A $245.00 difference BUT.....

 

1) I had a room to myself

 

2) I went to 2 exotic locations

 

3) I went for 5 days instead of 3

 

4) I went to 2 shows that did not cost extra $$$

 

5) I went to a night club that did not charge a "cover " charge

 

 

 

I find these "perks" worth the extra $$$ I may spend on a solo cruise vacation. After doing the math I now say we should suck it up and stop whining. :)

 

 

I don't disagree with your math-- it's a great value to cruise. But you're welcome to "suck it up" and pay 225%. Even though I don't like it, I do often pay 200%, usually without complaint. But I will not pay more than that-- I don't care what the statistics say about my spending habits. I will not pay more than double occupancy-- period.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[solocruzin]

Whoa! I didn't mean to upset you. It boils down to a personal preference really. I personally do not mind paying the extra for my personal space. I consider not sharing to be a "perk" worth paying for. Enough said. :cool:

[NLH Arizona]

I see that you are really fired up over this bottomfeeder. Hey, if you don't like the 225% single supplement don't give X your business. If you and lots of other singles stop giving their business to X the law of supply and demand might force down those single supplement rates.

Bingo, we have a winner!

 

I personally wouldn't pay 225% for a cruise, when there are other cruising options.

Edited April 9, 2017 by NLH Arizona