Solo traveler discrimination??

[luvcruising2much]

Hi,  I'm a Diamond member of MSC's cruise program, as well as on many other cruise lines.  My travel partner is currently 40 days into an 80 day epic back-to-back-to-back journey on the MSC MERAVIGLIA. When he is finished, he will continue to travel around the world for several months, and has asked me to book a stateroom on one of his cruises so we can visit before he moves onward..  Various booking agencies, as well as MSC  themselves, have availability on several bookings within the next month (in fact, they're offering discounts on these sailings) on this ship, 

 

However, yesterday, when I tried to book a stateroom, for 1 person (since the person I usually travel with is already on the ship), I was told that I could not book, there is nothing available to me, a person who wants to travel solo, yet, if I were 2 people, there would be staterooms available.  No single supplement of any percentage was offered to allow booking.  I was simply refused the opportunity to book any of the staterooms because I would be alone in the stateroom.

 

I do understand that cruise lines lose money on solo cruisers, when two people would potentially bring in twice the revenue onboard.

 

I've been a cruiser on many cruise lines for 40 years, but Never have I heard anything like this.  To me, it feels like discrimination...  Can cruise lines REALLY legally refuse to sell cabins to solo travelers?

[Joebucks]

22 minutes ago, luvcruising2much said:

Can cruise lines REALLY legally refuse to sell cabins to solo travelers?

 

Solo cruisers are not a protected class...

[Shorex]

Discrimination is a powerful word that, IMO, does not apply in this instance. Cruise lines are known to limit the number of cabins sold to singles for business reasons. Two guests in a stateroom not only provide more initial revenue, together they also spend much more than a single would on beverages, tours, etc. For purely business reasons, once the threshold number for single sales has been reached, no more single sales are made.  This situation is common among cruise lines.

 

The answer is YES, it is legal to limit the number of single sales.

 

 

[Charles4515]

Are you booking direct or with a travel agency? My travel agent has sometimes been able to talk to a manager and get me booked as a solo over a cruise lines block. If that does not work we booked a second guest who was a no show. 

[John Bull]

MSC are usually the best for single-traveller pricing,  only a small premium compared to others at about - or even higher than  -  the cost for a couple.

Nowhere have I come across a flat refusal to book a singleton - perhaps to maximise income from tickets without jepoardising their reputation for low singleton prices?

But of course they have the right.

 

Charles' suggestion of a cruise agent twisting MSC's arm is well-worth pursuing - but I've learned from CC posts that inventing a "no-show" can create problems and sanctions, so take expert advice before going down that route

 

Good luck 🤞

 

JB 🙂

[GeezerCouple]

Please see:

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2912959-single-surcharge…help-me-understand/page/2/#comment-64788788

 

 

2 minutes ago, John Bull said:

MSC are usually the best for single-traveller pricing,  only a small premium compared to others at about - or even higher than  -  the cost for a couple.

Nowhere have I come across a flat refusal to book a singleton - perhaps to maximise income from tickets without jepoardising their reputation for low singleton prices?

But of course they have the right.

 

Charles' suggestion of a cruise agent twisting MSC's arm is well-worth pursuing - but I've learned from CC posts that inventing a "no-show" can create problems and sanctions, so take expert advice before going down that route

 

Good luck 🤞

 

JB 🙂

 

There *are* reports of singles being unable to get a reservation, when two people would be able to do so.  (I have not experienced this, however.)

 

If two people make reservations and both pay for them, and one later cannot make it, or misses a flight, or gets sick, or whatever... how in the world is a cruise line going to "sanction" them?

(I'm assuming that the person who won't make the cruise is NOT asking for any type of refund.  However, I think in *some* cases, some of the extra fees are cancelled or refunded, but not the full cruise fare, obviously, but that's not necessary.)

 

GC

[Essiesmom]

I am experiencing the same thing with MSC.  In fact, I was also having trouble with Carnival…. I did discover that one travel agency with a XX day ticker seems to be able to book the cruises I am interested in as a single.  But I have only viewed on their website, you have to call to book.  EM

[K32682]

If a travel agent can't help you then the only option it would seem would be to book for two people, pay the full price and have a "last minute" cancellation. The cruise line would lose out on the beverage and tour revenue but that's not your problem.   

[GeezerCouple]

18 minutes ago, K32682 said:

If a travel agent can't help you then the only option it would seem would be to book for two people, pay the full price and have a "last minute" cancellation. The cruise line would lose out on the beverage and tour revenue but that's not your problem.   

 

Don't "cancel".

 

The second passenger is just a no show, like they missed the flight to get there, or had an accident on the way to the airport, or landed in hospital the night before.

Things happen.

 

GC

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, luvcruising2much said:

Can cruise lines REALLY legally refuse to sell cabins to solo travelers?

Can cruise lines refuse to sell cabins to children?  To anyone under 18 (Virgin)?  To pregnant women after a certain gestation date?  If you are not a member of a "protected class", then the cruise line, just like any business, can set reasonable conditions on who they serve.  Also, remember that the cruise ship does not adhere to US law in most cases.  As was noted by SCOTUS in the Spector v NCL ADA case, unless Congress specifically mentions foreign flag cruise ships in legislation, then the "internal policies and procedures" of US law do not apply.

[mnocket]

6 hours ago, Shorex said:

Discrimination is a powerful word that, IMO, does not apply in this instance. Cruise lines are known to limit the number of cabins sold to singles for business reasons. Two guests in a stateroom not only provide more initial revenue, together they also spend much more than a single would on beverages, tours, etc. For purely business reasons, once the threshold number for single sales has been reached, no more single sales are made.  This situation is common among cruise lines.

 

The answer is YES, it is legal to limit the number of single sales.

 

 

What is legal and what is right can be two different things.  

 

Discrimination is discrimination whether a protected class is involved or not and should be recognized as such.  While discrimination is only illegal if a protected class is involved, legal discrimination should not automatically be accepted.

 

Today it's solo cruisers, but tomorrow it could be many of us too.  Consider that age discrimination has already crept into cruising as a barrier to participating in some excursions (i.e. age being a proxy for ability).  Now imagine if cruise lines decided to apply the same rationale they use to discriminate against solo cruisers to the elderly.  Imagine if cruise lines decided to limit the number of passengers over a certain age because they determined those passengers were less profitable (i.e. spent less money onboard).

 

Discrimination is a slippery slope.  Today it's "them" and tomorrow it might be "you".

[mnocket]

51 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Can cruise lines refuse to sell cabins to children?  To anyone under 18 (Virgin)?  To pregnant women after a certain gestation date?  If you are not a member of a "protected class", then the cruise line, just like any business, can set reasonable conditions on who they serve.  Also, remember that the cruise ship does not adhere to US law in most cases.  As was noted by SCOTUS in the Spector v NCL ADA case, unless Congress specifically mentions foreign flag cruise ships in legislation, then the "internal policies and procedures" of US law do not apply.

As I've stated elsewhere, there's a difference between what is legal and what is "right".

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, mnocket said:

As I've stated elsewhere, there's a difference between what is legal and what is "right".

So, it's not "right" for Virgin to not allow anyone under 18?  Is it not "right" to disallow a pregnant woman from cruising after a number of weeks?  Is it not "right" to not allow people under 21 to book a cabin?  Is it not "right" to not allow those over 18 to drink when outside US waters?  Is it not "right" to have people under a certain age pay more for a rental car?  Is it not "right" to decline service to someone who won't wear a mask in a business that wishes to require them?  Where does it end, with having to do what's "right". 

[mnocket]

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, it's not "right" for Virgin to not allow anyone under 18?  Is it not "right" to disallow a pregnant woman from cruising after a number of weeks?  Is it not "right" to not allow people under 21 to book a cabin?  Is it not "right" to not allow those over 18 to drink when outside US waters?  Is it not "right" to have people under a certain age pay more for a rental car?  Is it not "right" to decline service to someone who won't wear a mask in a business that wishes to require them?  Where does it end, with having to do what's "right". 

Should have said legal discrimination should not be automatically accepted as alright.  Please see my prior post regarding age discrimination.

Edited February 7, 2023 by mnocket

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, mnocket said:

Should have said legal discrimination should not be automatically accepted as alright.  Please see my prior post regarding age discrimination.

So, you feel that the examples I gave of "age discrimination" are "not right", and therefore you don't give these businesses your money?  Cause, every single cruise line has a minimum age to book a cabin, so you must not be cruising much.  And, you feel that nine month pregnant women should be allowed to cruise?  If not "automatically accepted" as all right, who makes that decision?

[ldubs]

30 minutes ago, mnocket said:

What is legal and what is right can be two different things.  

 

Discrimination is discrimination whether a protected class is involved or not and should be recognized as such.  While discrimination is only illegal if a protected class is involved, legal discrimination should not automatically be accepted.

 

Today it's solo cruisers, but tomorrow it could be many of us too.  Consider that age discrimination has already crept into cruising as a barrier to participating in some excursions (i.e. age being a proxy for ability).  Now imagine if cruise lines decided to apply the same rationale they use to discriminate against solo cruisers to the elderly.  Imagine if cruise lines decided to limit the number of passengers over a certain age because they determined those passengers were less profitable (i.e. spent less money onboard).

 

Discrimination is a slippery slope.  Today it's "them" and tomorrow it might be "you".

 

Laws protecting discrimination based on age, sex, color, and national origin are good.   Saying everyone is a potential victim of discrimination if they don't get their way is not so good.  I can think of a lot of reasons this line of thinking is actually the slippery slope.   

[mnocket]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

So, you feel that the examples I gave of "age discrimination" are "not right", and therefore you don't give these businesses your money?  Cause, every single cruise line has a minimum age to book a cabin, so you must not be cruising much.  And, you feel that nine month pregnant women should be allowed to cruise?  If not "automatically accepted" as all right, who makes that decision?

Wow.  I've always found you to be a very reasoned person.  I never said any of that.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I'm inclined to believe that we are talking past one another and therefore not communicating.  To reiterate my position...

 

legal discrimination should not be automatically accepted as alright

 

Need I clarify that it follows that sometimes it can be right - as per your examples?

 

Fundamentally, this comes down to how one views legal/illegal and right/wrong (please don't nitpick right/wrong.  Yes it's Nebulous, but we all have a sense of it based on our personal beliefs) 

 

I suppose one philosophy could be that anything that is not illegal is therefore right.  Basically, I expressed opposition to this notion.  Just because discrimination may be legal in a certain case does not NECESSARILY  make it right. 

 

I'm actually surprised that this is a controversial position.  I thought it was self-evident that not everything that was legal was automatically right.  I guess this is a core belief and not something that we are going to come to agreement on.

 

 

[ldubs]

7 minutes ago, mnocket said:

Wow.  I've always found you to be a very reasoned person.  I never said any of that.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I'm inclined to believe that we are talking past one another and therefore not communicating.  To reiterate my position...

 

legal discrimination should not be automatically accepted as alright

 

Need I clarify that it follows that sometimes it can be right - as per your examples?

 

Fundamentally, this comes down to how one views legal/illegal and right/wrong (please don't nitpick right/wrong.  Yes it's Nebulous, but we all have a sense of it based on our personal beliefs) 

 

I suppose one philosophy could be that anything that is not illegal is therefore right.  Basically, I expressed opposition to this notion.  Just because discrimination may be legal in a certain case does not NECESSARILY  make it right. 

 

I'm actually surprised that this is a controversial position.  I thought it was self-evident that not everything that was legal was automatically right.  I guess this is a core belief and not something that we are going to come to agreement on.

 

 

 

So if loss experience shows that age is the primary driver for losses resulting from high risk activities, is it your stance they are morally wrong to have an age-based rule?   

 

Back to solo cruisers, as others have already said, the double occy pricing is understandable.   Other add-ons, like double drink packages, seem strange, and perhaps a bad business practice that needs review.  

[mnocket]

24 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Laws protecting discrimination based on age, sex, color, and national origin are good.   Saying everyone is a potential victim of discrimination if they don't get their way is not so good.  I can think of a lot of reasons this line of thinking is actually the slippery slope.   

I agree with everything you said.  However, I'm not seeing how that relates to what I said.  In your opinion would it be OK for cruise lines to expand their LEGAL discrimination beyond limiting the number of solo passengers to also include any other legal form of discrimination (e.g. like the age example I gave)?

 

Sure it would be absurd to considered everyone who doesn't get their way to be a victim of discrimination.  But I ask you - is discrimination that is not illegal always right?  

[chengkp75]

My position is that something that is legal, may not be "right" in my view, or even in the view of a majority of people, but I question who has the "right" to say it should not be done.  Who makes the decision?  If it is merely a matter of me not agreeing with the policy and "voting my wallet" and taking my business elsewhere, that's fine.  However, I would not announce to the world that this "isn't right", as this is a personal decision, as it is for the company whose business I have chosen not to use.  And, until I knew what the business decision was for not allowing single bookings, I would not state that the policy is "not right".

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, mnocket said:

I agree with everything you said.  However, I'm not seeing how that relates to what I said.  In your opinion would it be OK for cruise lines to expand their LEGAL discrimination beyond limiting the number of solo passengers to also include any other legal form of discrimination (e.g. like the age example I gave)?

 

Sure it would be absurd to considered everyone who doesn't get their way to be a victim of discrimination.  But I ask you - is discrimination that is not illegal always right?  

 

I think it may depend on what you mean by "right".   If you mean unfair, then I agree.  If you mean morally unacceptable, then I probably don't agree.   

[Aquahound]

Discrimination has a specific definition.  Not allowing a person to book solo is not discrimination.  One could argue it's unfair, but not discrimination.  

[mnocket]

25 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

So if loss experience shows that age is the primary driver for losses resulting from high risk activities, is it your stance they are morally wrong to have an age-based rule?   

My position is that it COULD BE depending on the specifics.  The opposing position would be that it COULD NOT BE.   That is, any age-based rule is considered moral if it is legal.  In essence, since legalities change one would be delegating what is or isn't moral to the whims of politicians.  My position distills down to legal does not necessarily mean moral.

Edited February 7, 2023 by mnocket

[mnocket]

21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

My position is that something that is legal, may not be "right" in my view, or even in the view of a majority of people, but I question who has the "right" to say it should not be done.

I think we are much closer to agreement than we initially appeared to be.  

 

My answer to your question "who has the "right" to say it should not be done"  is simply YOU DO.  And yes I think you would have every right to announce to the world that you do not think it is right- some would say, depending on the nature of the issue,  you have an obligation to do so (60's antiwar roots showing).  Announcing to the world is essentially what the OP is doing here and I'm 100% in support of OP having done so.

Edited February 7, 2023 by mnocket

[2wheelin]

29 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

So if loss experience shows that age is the primary driver for losses resulting from high risk activities, is it your stance they are morally wrong to have an age-based rule?   

 

 

Could be. Fitness for a high risk activity is a measurable parameter and more accurate than age. Does a person suddenly become unfit for an activity on their birthday. I understand it is just easier to make an age limit, but is it actually "right".