Solo traveler discrimination??

[mnocket]

27 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

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.   

This really surprises me.  To clarify, we are talking about whether discrimination that is not illegal is always right?   You seem to be saying that it is always morally acceptable?  Because it's legal?  Legal = Morally Acceptable?

[mnocket]

13 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

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".

Exactly!  Because you are a member of a group that tends to exhibit certain characteristics - we are going to treat you as having those characteristics.  There may be cases where this is acceptable (necessary), but we should not simply accept that any discrimination that is not prohibited by law is acceptable.  In the specific case you mention, wouldn't a better solution be to require anyone over a certain age to obtain a doctor's permission to engage in strenuous activities?  Wouldn't that do a better job of protecting the interests of everyone involved?

Edited February 7, 2023 by mnocket

[mom says]

I love it when threads go off into the never never land of ethics and moral rights vs legal. 🙄  Let's get back to the actual topic, which was refusal of single bookings. Setting a limit on the number of singles is not discrimination. Denial of ANY single  bookings might, just might, be a different matter; but would depend on jurisdiction. Not sure of any jurisdiction where singles are protected under discrimination laws.

[Charles4515]

9 hours ago, John Bull said:

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

 

What kind of problems or sanctions? Did it three times with no issues but it was not my idea. The first time my travel agent booked a wife on my booking. She did not tell me what she was doing and I freaked out. when I saw the name on the booking. I was concerned but it worked out fine. I did not appreciate her doing that without explaining but she told me that in the real world  it happens that a husband or wife etc. can't make the cruise. The other two times the travel agent suggested it so it was not done behind my back. No problems with those bookings. I would never have had the nerve to call up and do a direct booking that way. My current travel agent has  turned out to be good at arm twisting. She seems to know who to talk to. Perhaps a more experienced travel agent has contacts or some are more aggressive than others. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Charles4515

[John Bull]

9 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

 

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 🙂

 

9 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

What kind of problems or sanctions?

 

I don't know, Charles.

As I mentioned in my post it's just what I've seen on this forum over the years.

 

JB 🙂

[LHT28]

@luvcruising2much

Is your travel buddy  cruising solo??

Why not  get them to see if they can add you to their cabin ?

 

In all of your  cruises  were any as a solo?

 

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, mnocket said:

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.

 

Talking about excursions, it is unfair to the 70 year old who is in good health.   Reality is the vendor cannot ask for a physical evaluation to determine if each senior citizen is the exception or the rule.  Hence, the necessary business decision to restrict access based on age.  I don't see any moral issue with that.  

 

  

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, mnocket said:

This really surprises me.  To clarify, we are talking about whether discrimination that is not illegal is always right?   You seem to be saying that it is always morally acceptable?  Because it's legal?  Legal = Morally Acceptable?

“ Discrimination” does not only mean unfair selectivity — when a cruiser picks one line over another because he prefers what they offer he  is exercising “discrimination”

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

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".

 

 

And how does a bungie jump tour provider obtain that measurable parameter.   Do they send each potential customer to a physician for a physical exam?  Do an EKG?  Of course not.   The sad fact is exposure to injury is significantly higher for certain age groups.   Sucks for seniors who are physically fit but there is no practical way around it that I can see.  

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, mnocket said:

This really surprises me.  To clarify, we are talking about whether discrimination that is not illegal is always right?   You seem to be saying that it is always morally acceptable?  Because it's legal?  Legal = Morally Acceptable?

 

I know, it is shocking!  

 

To repeat, I'm saying if by "right" you mean fair then I agree.  If by "right" you mean morally acceptable, then I probably don't agree.   Of course there are always outliers and exceptions.  If you think of one, I might be in agreement.

[Honolulu Blue]

22 hours ago, luvcruising2much said:

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?

Thanks for sharing this.  You have the answer to your last question, but the question whether they SHOULD do what you've described remains open.  I say no, but there's a lot of company on the other side.

20 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.

My reply to your bolded statement is, "Oh, really?"  I think it's something to ask Josh, Jason, and Harry the next time I see them - are they willing to admit that their booking algorithms have a booking quota for solos on certain sailings at certain times?  I find it distasteful but wouldn't be surprised if it really were true - all cruise lines have dirty little secrets about the way they operate their business that I try not to think about too much.

14 hours ago, mnocket said:

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

As someone who has cruised exclusively solo (so far), it's always been "me".  

 

I've been fortunate so far in that I haven't personally seen some of the worst policies.  Perhaps my screening process protects me from this.  

[wcook]

17 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

The first time my travel agent booked a wife on my booking. She did not tell me what she was doing and I freaked out. when I saw the name on the booking.

If you freaked out, image how your actual wife/girlfriend would feel. I wouldn’t want to have to explain this one 🙂

[wcook]

To get into the legal weeds for a second… in the US (and I haven’t a clue how much of this applies to cruise ships) discrimination, even against a protected class, is both legal and generally considered morally acceptable so long as (1) you have a good reason (2) you don’t have a decent alternative way to accomplish that reason. Pregnant women are highly protected. Keeping late-stage pregnant women off cruise ships is a good thing. 

[Toofarfromthesea]

23 hours ago, mnocket said:

Exactly!  Because you are a member of a group that tends to exhibit certain characteristics - we are going to treat you as having those characteristics.  There may be cases where this is acceptable (necessary), but we should not simply accept that any discrimination that is not prohibited by law is acceptable.  In the specific case you mention, wouldn't a better solution be to require anyone over a certain age to obtain a doctor's permission to engage in strenuous activities?  Wouldn't that do a better job of protecting the interests of everyone involved?

 

But then the requirement that only people above a certain age have to get a Dr's. permission to cruise will result in charges of age discrimination.  People who want to paint themselves as victims (e.g. by using loaded legal terms such as discrimination) will find a way to paint themselves as victims.

[Toofarfromthesea]

21 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

What kind of problems or sanctions? Did it three times with no issues but it was not my idea. The first time my travel agent booked a wife on my booking. She did not tell me what she was doing and I freaked out. when I saw the name on the booking. I was concerned but it worked out fine. I did not appreciate her doing that without explaining but she told me that in the real world  it happens that a husband or wife etc. can't make the cruise. The other two times the travel agent suggested it so it was not done behind my back. No problems with those bookings. I would never have had the nerve to call up and do a direct booking that way. My current travel agent has  turned out to be good at arm twisting. She seems to know who to talk to. Perhaps a more experienced travel agent has contacts or some are more aggressive than others. 

 

Funny how the discussion veered into right and wrong.  But since we aren't bound by actual legal definitions of legal terms, in this thread I would suggest that what you did the other two times was perpetrate a fraud on the cruise line.  You entered into a contract with the cruise line that you had no intention of fulfilling from the start, and was based on misrepresentation.  Does it work?  Apparently.  But where it falls on the right/wrong scale is a whole different story.  But maybe the right/wrong issue only applies to the cruiseline.?

[Toofarfromthesea]

17 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Talking about excursions, it is unfair to the 70 year old who is in good health.   Reality is the vendor cannot ask for a physical evaluation to determine if each senior citizen is the exception or the rule.  Hence, the necessary business decision to restrict access based on age.  I don't see any moral issue with that.  

 

  

 

And if the 70 year old is not in good health and slows down the whole excursion is that fair or right when considered from the perspective of the other people on the excursion.

[Toofarfromthesea]

17 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

“ Discrimination” does not only mean unfair selectivity — when a cruiser picks one line over another because he prefers what they offer he  is exercising “discrimination”

 

I'm old enough, and I suspect you are too, to remember when describing someone as having discriminating taste was considered a compliment.

[navybankerteacher]

9 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I'm old enough, and I suspect you are too, to remember when describing someone as having discriminating taste was considered a compliment.

Just one more word the meaning of which has radically evolved.  Today “liberal” politics generally means a lot of government involvement to “ level the playing field”. — while when it came into use to describe political slants it originally meant minimal governmental control over individual citizens.

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And if the 70 year old is not in good health and slows down the whole excursion is that fair or right when considered from the perspective of the other people on the excursion.

 

This is a "health/physical ability" issue, not an age issue.

 

Someone much younger than 70 could seriously slow down a group, and someone 80 or older could be at the front of the pack, eager to move faster and see more, etc.

There should be a way to screen better (or to screen at all).

Charge the hidden slowpoke a large fee to help them get back early?  I really don't know what the solution is.

But we are a couple where DH could keep up with just about any other passengers.  Alas, I have had a bad foot since I broke it during competitive ballroom dancing (which says a lot about my physical condition/abilities at that point).

So we go on private excursions in part to avoid slowing others down if I need to rest (and so I *can* rest whenever desired).  It's also because we typically would prefer to see more of X and less of Y (and certainly not stop at mandated "souvenir shops" or such), not to mention waiting for the laggards who don't think the "time to be back to the bus" doesn't apply to them, which isn't an age or fitness issue anyway...

 

I don't know what the solution is, if people are going to misrepresent their abilities (even if just "to themselves") when signing up for something that clearly states the walk will be difficult and x mile or whatever, and the person has no hope of succeeding. 😡

GC

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And if the 70 year old is not in good health and slows down the whole excursion is that fair or right when considered from the perspective of the other people on the excursion.

 

8 hours ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

This is a "health/physical ability" issue, not an age issue.

 

Someone much younger than 70 could seriously slow down a group, and someone 80 or older could be at the front of the pack, eager to move faster and see more, etc.

There should be a way to screen better (or to screen at all).

Charge the hidden slowpoke a large fee to help them get back early?  I really don't know what the solution is.

But we are a couple where DH could keep up with just about any other passengers.  Alas, I have had a bad foot since I broke it during competitive ballroom dancing (which says a lot about my physical condition/abilities at that point).

So we go on private excursions in part to avoid slowing others down if I need to rest (and so I *can* rest whenever desired).  It's also because we typically would prefer to see more of X and less of Y (and certainly not stop at mandated "souvenir shops" or such), not to mention waiting for the laggards who don't think the "time to be back to the bus" doesn't apply to them, which isn't an age or fitness issue anyway...

 

I don't know what the solution is, if people are going to misrepresent their abilities (even if just "to themselves") when signing up for something that clearly states the walk will be difficult and x mile or whatever, and the person has no hope of succeeding. 😡

GC

 

It is true, a tour group will move as fast as the slowest persons, whatever the reason for the slowness.   I'm not sure I would say it is or isn't fair or right.  It is just real life I guess, and some will be irritated.   Of course someone being on an excursion that is beyond their physical abilities is a different matter.  I don't think there is a viable solution to other than what is currently done to describe the tour's physical requirements. While I can keep up with most of the young whippersnappers in their 60's, 😀😀 I admit I do pay more attention these days to what is involved in an excursion.  

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by ldubs

[LHT28]

The OP has not returned

maybe a "wind up"

 

 

[mnocket]

1 hour ago, LHT28 said:

The OP has not returned

maybe a "wind up"

 

 

I'm not familiar with the term "wind up" in this context, but I do always wonder why people post and then disappear.  It seems to me that if one cares enough to make a post, one should care enough to join the resulting discussion.  Obviously I'm mistaken as this sort of thing happens fairly frequently.

[LHT28]

1 minute ago, mnocket said:

I'm not familiar with the term "wind up" in this context, but I do always wonder why people post and then disappear.  It seems to me that if one cares enough to make a post, one should care enough to join the resulting discussion.  Obviously I'm mistaken as this sort of thing happens fairly frequently.

think Troll

sometimes people just want to see what reactions their post will solicit   not saying the OP is a troll  as you say you would think they would come back with more info or at least join in the discussion they started

JMO

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, mnocket said:

I'm not familiar with the term "wind up" in this context, but I do always wonder why people post and then disappear.  It seems to me that if one cares enough to make a post, one should care enough to join the resulting discussion.  Obviously I'm mistaken as this sort of thing happens fairly frequently.

 

Wind people up -- kind of like "stirring the pot".  To intentionally cause controversy or get people worked up over something.  

 

Maybe the OPs question was answered early on in the thread and then they were scared away!  😄

Edited February 10, 2023 by ldubs

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, LHT28 said:

think Troll

sometimes people just want to see what reactions their post will solicit   not saying the OP is a troll  as you say you would think they would come back with more info or at least join in the discussion they started

JMO

 

I think a lot of the comments here, mine included, are not the discussion the OP started.