Open Booking Deposit Program

[travelberlin]

3 hours ago, scubaaz said:

I have checked some of the low to no supplement single fares on some of the other luxury cruise lines.  The percent single supplement may be low but the actual fare is often quite high or limited to only certain cabin categories.  On one line the no single supplement fares were $1000+ daily.

Check the new Explora Journeys. They have good solo deals in apparently beautiful cabins. We do not know how Explora will be but it might be worth it to give it a try. 
Now, one thing that we have to remember is that Cruise Lines do not offer solo deals in all voyages. I am Ok with that. The Crystal we knew had lower solo supplements for all its voyages I believe. The new company is showing clearly that they will no follow the same policy. No return of the old Crystal…

Ivi

[RD64]

42 minutes ago, travelberlin said:

The profitability is not against of a solo friendly policy. The message we are getting from Crystal is that they do not want solo cruisers unless those take less desirable cabins or pay for two people. 
Ivi

Exactly how do you expect them to be profitable if they are not charging the maximum per cabin price, regardless of the number of people in the cabin. Based on some of the threads posts - demand is out of control. Ergo it would not make sense for NC to offer you as a single a reduced price when it can get substantially more selling that same cabin to two people. The two cabin basic fare ( not counting incidentals) will go a long way to contributing to the fixed costs that need to be covered at some point. 

[RD64]

40 minutes ago, travelberlin said:

Check the new Explora Journeys. They have good solo deals in apparently beautiful cabins. We do not know how Explora will be but it might be worth it to give it a try. 
Now, one thing that we have to remember is that Cruise Lines do not offer solo deals in all voyages. I am Ok with that. The Crystal we knew had lower solo supplements for all its voyages I believe. The new company is showing clearly that they will no follow the same policy. No return of the old Crystal…

Ivi

Ivi - the old Crystal is the old Crystal. It is dead and gone - New Crystal - new owners. They will do what they want - what is best for the financial viability of the company. Why do people feel that if OC was single friendly that NC has to be single friendly. NC has to be profitable - end of the story - and if that means alienating singles then that is the way it has to be. At least they have designated a set amount of cabins as single friendly pricing - but apparently it is not good enough. I feel the need to bring up the cake analogy again.

[BWIVince]

5 hours ago, RD64 said:

Exactly how do you expect them to be profitable if they are not charging the maximum per cabin price, regardless of the number of people in the cabin. Based on some of the threads posts - demand is out of control. Ergo it would not make sense for NC to offer you as a single a reduced price when it can get substantially more selling that same cabin to two people. The two cabin basic fare ( not counting incidentals) will go a long way to contributing to the fixed costs that need to be covered at some point. 

 

5 hours ago, RD64 said:

Ivi - the old Crystal is the old Crystal. It is dead and gone - New Crystal - new owners. They will do what they want - what is best for the financial viability of the company. Why do people feel that if OC was single friendly that NC has to be single friendly. NC has to be profitable - end of the story - and if that means alienating singles then that is the way it has to be. At least they have designated a set amount of cabins as single friendly pricing - but apparently it is not good enough. I feel the need to bring up the cake analogy again.

I completely agree with your point, but market demographics also play a huge role into this, and temper that point a good bit.

 

First, singles are a huge segment of this demographic — for better or worse thats just an inevitable reality, especially on the wealthier end where people can afford not to couple or recouple in order to make ends meet.  Crystal obviously sees this or they wouldn’t have set aside such a large percent of cabins as singles.

 

Second, making more money selling both berths assumes full occupancy — a fantasy that has eluded Crystal for 30+ years.  Previous Crystal’s single occupancy strategy was to sell cabins projected to go unsold at their low supplements (they were capacity controlled around the projections), but because occupancy was low enough, they were readily available.  In fairness, Regent and other lines are doing the EXACT same thing by sailing, only offering low/no supplements on the sailings where they project having inventory spoiling.  Now that Crystal has lowered inventory to historical occupancy levels, we’ll see if the new mix sells at the price points offered.  If it does, great, then the point about selling two berths vs. one will be valid, but until they get a full year of occupancy data, this isn’t a foregone conclusion.

 

Lastly to others in the thread, mocking people for not wanting to waste thousands extra on inclusions they don’t personally need (like air and excursions) is childish and only makes you look like fools.  This was as true back when people debated when Crystal went AI as it is with comparing other lines inclusions that are of wildly varying value to different people.  You all are better than that.

 

Vince

Edited February 11, 2023 by BWIVince

[Keith1010]

Thank you Vince.  I don't get why some people can't make their point without the insults.  It's just childish IMHO and unfortunately very predictable.  

 

In the end, each person is going to have to figure this out as they always have and make their cruising decisions.  I don't think anyone needs to be told who to book with.  They can decide for themselves.

 

As to old Crystal and new Crystal.

 

This is new Crystal but that doesn't mean that several of the attributes of the old Crystal won't be embedded in the new product.  They will for sure.

 

This includes the crew.  This includes the ship because after all the ships are the same with interiors changing but interiors are not what they were when each ship made its maiden sailing and that includes a lot of things including names of some of the restaurants and the food served.  When ships rolled out no Tastes on Symphony, Taste on Serenity very casual and you just walked in, No Crystal Dining Room, No Supper Club, Marketplace was Lido and was very much like a cafeteria.

 

Again, people will make decisions. People will make their opinions known here.  But people can make their points without putting down others for their opinions and they need to remember even those who booked cruises on the old Crystal did so for different reasons and that is where choice came into play.

 

If we all came at this the same way it would be easy.  All cruise lines would price the same way and offer one type of accommodation and the same style of dining.  Etc,. Etc.

 

Finally some of our reasons for cruising and what we like and not like change over time based on many factors from disposable income to amount of time available for travel, to changes in tastes, to our age, whether we travel with someone and before we didn't or we no longer travel with someone and before we did and given our travel experiences just to name a few.

 

Keith

[Keith1010]

Been hearing from friends getting on the inaugural and first few cruises who had rooms waitlisted which is good news for them.

 

Keith

[History&Wine]

@BWIVince

 

BWIVince wrote:  "First, singles are a huge segment of this demographic — for better or worse thats just an inevitable reality, especially on the wealthier end where people can afford not to couple or recouple in order to make ends meet.  Crystal obviously sees this or they wouldn’t have set aside such a large percent of cabins as singles. "

 

Vince, just a small correction:  I calculate the single cabins on Serenity at approximately 4% of the total.  I consider that a tiny percent. 

[travelberlin]

We are having good opinions on single fares on this thread but unfortunately they get lost because the thread created is on a different topic. Would it be possible if we post also those comments on the “single fare” thread created by Observer? 
Ivi

[BWIVince]

22 minutes ago, History&Wine said:

@BWIVince

 

BWIVince wrote:  "First, singles are a huge segment of this demographic — for better or worse thats just an inevitable reality, especially on the wealthier end where people can afford not to couple or recouple in order to make ends meet.  Crystal obviously sees this or they wouldn’t have set aside such a large percent of cabins as singles. "

 

Vince, just a small correction:  I calculate the single cabins on Serenity at approximately 4% of the total.  I consider that a tiny percent. 

That may sound small, but perspective is important here.  
 

(A)  Thats a higher percentage than most ships in the US market allocate.  QM2, for example, has about 1.5%.

 

(B). That’s a far higher percent of rooms of the type than old Crystal’s past allocation of the single supplements.

 

Again, this doesn’t represent all of the single market — not everyone is going to want that room type, just like they didn’t in the past…. Just the staterooms being marketed exclusively to singles.

 

Vince

[RD64]

@BWIVincethe Crystal Serenity (by my calculation) has approximately 4% of its cabins designated as singles. I view this as being a token gesture towards single passengers as opposed to a dedicated marketing plan.

 

At the end of the day as you mentioned pricing is fluid. Going back to Economics 101 supply / demand / equilibrium (days 6-15) it will all depend on what pricing the market will determine.

If the single cabins are booking at an incredible rate as someone inferred - then NC will realize they priced too low and increase the pricing.

 

If standard double cabins are also booking (two per room) at high rates as has also been inferred, there will be no need to reduce prices for double occupancy or offer lower prices to single passengers.

 

And before people get on the bandwagon and start claiming I have something against single travellers - I would just like to let you know that I am one as well. I also happen to be a numbers (accounting and economics) guy as well. I realize that the single traveller does often get the short end of the stick - but I also realize that cruise lines are businesses and not charities.

 

In summary, this is what it boils down to at this point. If you are dead set on cruising Crystal:

 

1. Book one of the designated single cabins at a reasonable price or

 

2. Pay whatever the supplement is for your desired cabin.

 

If neither of these options is suitable, then vote with your feet. Find another cruise line or alternate vacation.

 

 

 

[History&Wine]

I agree with everything RD64 said in post #405.  Good post!

 

• Vince, you say 4% is "a far higher percent of rooms of the type than old Crystal’s past allocation of the single supplements" . I don't think that is true. The old crystal offered the low single supplement on every cabin on deck 7.  Yes, that was capacity controlled.  But on all of my past voyages on Crystal I'm sure that the number of singles on deck 7 (not sure about the other decks) exceeded 4%. 

[History&Wine]

I meant to say the number of singles on deck 7 on old Crystal exceeded the number of cabins allocated under the new crystal deck plan. 

[BWIVince]

26 minutes ago, RD64 said:

@BWIVincethe Crystal Serenity (by my calculation) has approximately 4% of its cabins designated as singles. I view this as being a token gesture towards single passengers as opposed to a dedicated marketing plan.

 

At the end of the day as you mentioned pricing is fluid. Going back to Economics 101 supply / demand / equilibrium (days 6-15) it will all depend on what pricing the market will determine.

If the single cabins are booking at an incredible rate as someone inferred - then NC will realize they priced too low and increase the pricing.

 

If standard double cabins are also booking (two per room) at high rates as has also been inferred, there will be no need to reduce prices for double occupancy or offer lower prices to single passengers.

 

And before people get on the bandwagon and start claiming I have something against single travellers - I would just like to let you know that I am one as well. I also happen to be a numbers (accounting and economics) guy as well. I realize that the single traveller does often get the short end of the stick - but I also realize that cruise lines are businesses and not charities.

 

In summary, this is what it boils down to at this point. If you are dead set on cruising Crystal:

 

1. Book one of the designated single cabins at a reasonable price or

 

2. Pay whatever the supplement is for your desired cabin.

 

If neither of these options is suitable, then vote with your feet. Find another cruise line or alternate vacation.

 

 

 

Again I agree with all those points, I just have a couple of different takeaways given some industry perspective.
 

As I mentioned above, 4% is actually a LOT of designated single inventory, especially when it’s taking up a much higher percent of one room type.  It doesn’t sound like a lot,  but in the US market, it generally goes down fast from there.  Take it from us singles.

 

I go back to an earlier point when it comes to “take it or leave it”…. No luxury line in the US market has started out without sales history and offered any great incentive for singles.  Crystal’s ORIGINAL single supplement, without sales history, was 160% for all staterooms and 200% for all penthouses.  Other lines initially did the same, or higher, without exceptions.  All of the above have evolved single fares as they had data on how to leverage them, which requires sales history.

 

I guarantee that with feedback and data, Crystal’s single offerings will evolve over the next couple of years.  
 

Absolutely, I say vote with your wallet, BUT this kind of thing is never “set it and forget it”, it’s more like a best-guess stop-gap until you have enough info to do something more precise.

 

Vince

Edited February 11, 2023 by BWIVince

[travelberlin]

38 minutes ago, RD64 said:

@BWIVincethe Crystal Serenity (by my calculation) has approximately 4% of its cabins designated as singles. I view this as being a token gesture towards single passengers as opposed to a dedicated marketing plan.

 

At the end of the day as you mentioned pricing is fluid. Going back to Economics 101 supply / demand / equilibrium (days 6-15) it will all depend on what pricing the market will determine.

If the single cabins are booking at an incredible rate as someone inferred - then NC will realize they priced too low and increase the pricing.

 

If standard double cabins are also booking (two per room) at high rates as has also been inferred, there will be no need to reduce prices for double occupancy or offer lower prices to single passengers.

 

And before people get on the bandwagon and start claiming I have something against single travellers - I would just like to let you know that I am one as well. I also happen to be a numbers (accounting and economics) guy as well. I realize that the single traveller does often get the short end of the stick - but I also realize that cruise lines are businesses and not charities.

 

In summary, this is what it boils down to at this point. If you are dead set on cruising Crystal:

 

1. Book one of the designated single cabins at a reasonable price or

 

2. Pay whatever the supplement is for your desired cabin.

 

If neither of these options is suitable, then vote with your feet. Find another cruise line or alternate vacation.

 

 

 

From an economist to the other, limited supply shall lead to raising prices of those “solo cabins” since for sure there are many solo passengers who were happy to book Crystal and might compete for those cabins. And if the demand is high, the prices might go on. This if Azamara will also be acting rationally after having read economics 101. I do not intend to contribute to the rise of the prices of solo cabins because my preference curve (also economics 101) does not include the location of those cabins. 
As there is free competition (free market) for sure this homo economicous (myself ), will look for alternatives since other cabins from Crystal, which would be in my preference curve, do not come with prices to make them fit there.
At the end for me is not important if there is a discount or not. It is the per diem price that determines my decision. Per diem which I determine comparing price/value relationship. 
Ivi

[BWIVince]

48 minutes ago, History&Wine said:

I agree with everything RD64 said in post #405.  Good post!

 

• Vince, you say 4% is "a far higher percent of rooms of the type than old Crystal’s past allocation of the single supplements" . I don't think that is true. The old crystal offered the low single supplement on every cabin on deck 7.  Yes, that was capacity controlled.  But on all of my past voyages on Crystal I'm sure that the number of singles on deck 7 (not sure about the other decks) exceeded 4%. 

 

47 minutes ago, History&Wine said:

I meant to say the number of singles on deck 7 on old Crystal exceeded the number of cabins allocated under the new crystal deck plan. 

I think you’re misunderstanding how the capacity control worked, and also comparing apples and oranges.

 

I need to switch to Symphony for this example because I don’t actually have any experience booking single supplements on Serenity under the final single policy Crystal had their last 7 years or so…. But I assume Serenity has fewer single cabins (I haven’t looked at Serenity at all yet because I’ve had no interest), so feel free to adjust these numbers to Serenity’s — my point here is the mechanics of the calculations and not the ratios between the ships.

 

Crystal’s former policy bucketed the supplement by room type, and then allocated it by category.  So you had one rate for ocean view, one rate for veranda, etc., but then you had a specific number of rooms allocated between C, D, E, etc.  So while you could book any specific available cabin on deck 7 (in your category), not all the rooms on deck 7 could be occupied by singles (without inventory intervention).  I ran into the inventory limitation on two different cruises under the final policy, the most recent being my last cruise before the Covid shutdown in the fall of 2019, where I had to take a room in a higher category in order to get the single supplement.

 

So I understand where people would want to say 4% of the inventory is being promoted to singles, so let’s compare that number…. But it doesn’t equate.  Right now Crystal is designating over 25% of Symphony’s ocean view staterooms as single — that is FAR more than they ever allowed singles to book in any group of room types, IME, in the past, no matter how you broke out the categories.  
 

Now I don’t like the designation of specific rooms for singles and never have (I was protester number 1 on this every time it was floated here in years past), and I don’t like that for now everything else reportedly pays double, but I don’t want the former policy to be confused on how it worked either though — it had plenty of limitations, as generous as it was.

 

Vince

Edited February 11, 2023 by BWIVince

[travelberlin]

Sorry in my post above (409), I did not mean Azamara. I meant Crystal. 
Ivi

[TakingFlight]

We are unfortunately unable to find any suitable voyages in the first release of Crystal cruise itineraries. On a very positive and encouraging note for those of us who dealt with OC refunds, my request to cancel my open booking was acknowledged the same day I sent it and the credit appeared on my AMEX within a couple of days.