Jump to content

Solo Travellers Discriminated Against


MATHA531

Recommended Posts

The time has come for solo travellers of the world to get Congress (Parliament for Canadians and Brits), the EU Parliament for EUers, to get off their rear ends and pass legislation to prohibit cruise lines, tour groups and other from the blatant discrimination against solo travellers with 100% surcharges. I can understand perhaps a 25% to 30% surcharge but last time I checked, few single travellers each nearly as much as a couple and of course a major part of the cost is food consumed. What do others think? It is a disgrace and singles are among the most discriminated group there is in the travel industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person traveling solo is not a protected class, therefore it's not discrimination. Solos are not being denied service, they just have to pay more for it. Granted, it can be a bitter pill if you let it, but it's not the same thing.

 

Aside from the reasons that have been explained ad infinitum on this board, how about this one: If cabins sell for low or no single supplement, what keeps everyone in every party from purchasing their own cabin? The ship sails half full and the cruise line not only doesn't make a profit, it loses money. Then it really is a bad business practice; cruise lines go belly-up and nobody cruises.

 

Just because people don't like something does not make that something wrong, much less subject to legislation or regulation. It's a business, they're around to make a profit, and there is no profit in no single supplement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person traveling solo is not a protected class, therefore it's not discrimination. Solos are not being denied service, they just have to pay more for it. Granted, it can be a bitter pill if you let it, but it's not the same thing.

 

Aside from the reasons that have been explained ad infinitum on this board, how about this one: If cabins sell for low or no single supplement, what keeps everyone in every party from purchasing their own cabin? The ship sails half full and the cruise line not only doesn't make a profit, it loses money. Then it really is a bad business practice; cruise lines go belly-up and nobody cruises.

 

Just because people don't like something does not make that something wrong, much less subject to legislation or regulation. It's a business, they're around to make a profit, and there is no profit in no single supplement.

 

Your point is well taken but I never said no single supplement but a 100% single supplement is absurd......it should be capped at 50%....this woulkd prevent parties of 2 getting 2 cabins and be more in line with costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've chosen to stop looking at the listed "price per person" and instead, look at the price of the cabin. The cabin price is actually double what they list and I go from there. Which means sometimes I'm getting a discount and sometimes I'm not.

 

Just like lots of other businesses, the cruise lines try to make their product (the cruise) sound less expensive so they list a price per person --- BASED ON DOUBLE OCCUPANCY.

 

So, no - I don't think I'm discrimated against because they want me to pay double the per person price for my cabin. If they wanted to charge me MORE than double (because they think I won't spend as much as two people) then I might have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tess. Every motel/hotel room has the same price, whether it's one person in there or 2. Only, if there is more than 2, do some charge a higher price to make up for additional resource usage. The cruise lines' listing of rates per person just makes it a bit more obvious, but it's a common marketing trick.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add my voice to those who don't consider this to be "discrimination" in the legal sense. It's just the way way things are priced, and often that translates into the tired old saying, "Two can live as cheaply as one."

 

Personally, I rarely look at the percentage of the so-called supplement. Rather, I look at the total cost for the cabin. If it's under $200/day, then I consider it to be possibility. Shopping, instead, based on the supplement percentage might produce a much different result...and not necessarily a "good deal" in my opinion.

 

I've now lived as a "solo" for most of my adult life and I've long since "gotten over" issues like this. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point is well taken but I never said no single supplement but a 100% single supplement is absurd......it should be capped at 50%....this woulkd prevent parties of 2 getting 2 cabins and be more in line with costs.

I agree 100%. Parties of 2 getting single cabins will wreck it for solo cruisers.

Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no - I don't think I'm discrimated against because they want me to pay double the per person price for my cabin. If they wanted to charge me MORE than double (because they think I won't spend as much as two people) then I might have a problem.

 

Funny you mention this, because it's something I once came across - not a cruise, but a land vacation. I found a brochure that said that a hotel room cost $75 per night per person for double occupancy and $50 per night per person for triple occupancy. I figured that they wanted $150 per night no matter how many people occupied the room, and I figured that the cost for one person would be $150 per night. But no, the brochure said that the cost for single occupancy would be $200 per night.

 

I called the tour company and asked why they were charging so much more than $150 for single occupancy, and people kept saying that it was the "single supplement." I tried and tried to explain that the $200 represented way more than a single supplement, but I just couldn't get them to understand. Finally, I got someone to understand when I said, "If I said that I was going with Betty, then we would pay a total of $150. And if Betty said that she couldn't go after all, but she didn't want her money back, then it would still cost $150. So why should I pay $50 extra just because I'm upfront with you that I want a room to myself?"

 

So I finally got them to understand, but they didn't know the reason for the higher price. I received the following weak explanations:

 

1) They figured that single people (that was the only kind of person they could imagine travelling solo, because it never occurred to them that some married people travel solo) are really stupid, and they wouldn't notice the extra $50 per night.

 

2) The hotel didn't want any single/solo people staying there, and the extra $50 was to keep them from booking a room there. Because singles/solos are so undesirable, you know.

 

3) A single/solo would be less apt to spend lots of money at the hotel and drink lots of wine.

 

4) Single people are given an extra-large room at that hotel, and the extra-large room means an extra-large price. When I asked, "Why couldn't they give me a room that they were going to give a couple? If it would be big enough for them, it would be big enough for me," there was no answer.

 

As I said before, this was for a hotel, not a cruise. But I think a 100% surcharge for single occupancy is too much. Especially since I read that some cruiselines charge a higher rate of autograts for people who are cruising solo than people who have a roommate. So that is a form of an over 100% surcharge,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons that I cruise with Carnival is the 125% supplement for military solo passangers when booking 1A cabins. I have had a couple of cruises when after price drops I was actualy not even paying a single supplement. For me that means that I can cruise several times a year instead of the one cruise a year that many staying in more expensive cabins can take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons that the single supplement is often 100% is that there is more on-board spending with 2 than with 1. Personally I think cruise lines would be better off, especially in the current soft market, if they offered better single rates. But what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like having to pay 100% supplement but do not regard it as discrimination just pure economics on the cruise lines (or hotels part). They make a lot of their extra revenue from onboard spend (especially excusrions), so the lose a fair bit of revenue by letting a cabin that would have 2 in it be occupied by one. OK we may eat less than 2 but it is more than offset by the other lost sales of the second person not being there.

 

I've often managed to get the official supplement reduced or waived but never on higher graded cabins at peak times. It's the same with hotels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP, have no problem with a modest single supplemant such as 25-30% like many land resorts charge. Paying double is ludicrious and should be illegal but it is not. Single discrimination is one of the last form of socially acceptable and legal forms of discrimination. Don't see an end to it anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way i look at it is that the Single Supplement is just a fancy way of saying your paying for two people.

They charge you 2 people per room its just bad wording that makes people think they are getting ripped off when they go solo when as i say below you sometimes are paying less as a solo.

 

I should note that on the cruise i'm going on i paid less then what two people would have paid so in this example you could say that a couple would be getting ripped off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Solo Cruiser, I view the Single Supplement a just a cost of cruising.

Yes, we can complain; however, there are other costs that we remain silent on.

 

For example --

 

Yesterday I booked the Star Princess, for next January.

Paid a substantial down payment for a Cruise one year away.

 

Tomorrow, my final payment is due for my April cruise.

I have already paid for my air fare - one way - from Copenhagen to the USofA.

I have already paid for my post-cruise Hotel in Copenhagen.

 

So, I have paid - up front - for services that are in the future.

 

The choice is mine. I have opted to enjoy cruising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They make a lot of their extra revenue from onboard spend (especially excusrions), so the lose a fair bit of revenue by letting a cabin that would have 2 in it be occupied by one.

But that's assuming that the two people traveling together book ship's shore excursions. What percentage of cruise passenges book ship's excursions, as opposed to outside excursions? I have no idea. And do more couples than solos book ship's excursions instead of outside excursions? I have no idea. So it's possible that the cruiseline could make more money from one person booking a ship's shore excursion in every port than from a couple who don't book any ship's shore excursions at all.

 

I should note that on the cruise i'm going on i paid less then what two people would have paid so in this example you could say that a couple would be getting ripped off.

I don't understand this at all. A cruise includes your meals. All things being equal, a couple would eat twice as much food as a solo. If two people went to a restaurant where everyone paid the same price for a meal, like a buffet, and their bill was for a higher amount than what a solo diner would pay, I wouldn't say that the couple got ripped off.

 

What's funny is that there are some people who just can't grasp the concept of a solo traveler paying more than what "half of a couple" would pay. Those people keep saying, "Two people cost twice as much, because two is two times one." It's been an effort to tell them that solos have to pay a single supplement, and that if they take a taxi, the couple can share the cost, but the solo has to pay it in entirety, and that goes for renting a car or moped or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I really don't have a problem with paying the higher cost to sail solo. I just look for a price I can afford. If I book a hotel room. I have to pay the full price, whether by myself or if sharing the room. Any of my cruises with RCI, I have always paid 175%, never paid 200%. What I do have a problem with is not getting the double points for paying the double fare, when paying 200%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry would be even more successful if it integrated solo travelers.

When you go to Las Vegas or New York, you are not being penalized for being solo. It seems some ships only lower the supplement as a last ditch effort when there are unsold cabins.

 

What I liked about the Epic was the price was not unreasonable and there were quite a bit of other solos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(eye roll)

 

It's not discrimination and it certainly shouldn't be regulated. It's an optional vacation choice, and they can charge you whatever they want - it's up to you to decide if you want to pay it or not. Give that most cruise lines are trying to keep the basic fares low and will be relying more on on-board sales, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

I will not pay an extra 100% to travel solo (it was one of the reasons I first looked at Crystal), but I don't blame the cruise lines for my choices. Frankly, the single supplement on package vacations and resorts drives me nuts too, which is why I don't book those either. If I want a land vacation, I book the rooms and flights separately, and don't go to AI resorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not enjoy paying double when I cruise alone but I do certainly enjoy having a room to myself when I'm single. For me, I would rather have my privacy, peace and quiet at night, and be able to do as I please without anyone bothering me or me bothering them.

 

Some people can't even think of going on a cruise alone and those are the one's that don't understand why solo cruisers would pay the supplement. Another thing to consider is that sometimes it's more economical to pay double than to fly to another port, stay in a hotel, in order to sail on the Epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

My gripe now is that Cunard have introduced some new fares this year. They have what they call a GETAWAY fare and an ADVANTAGE.

 

I have cruises with Cunard and paid a 75% supplement. I received an email from Cunard saw a cruise I was interested in and quite excited that the fare was affordable. I worked out that even if it 100% I could afford.

I went online but the page would only take me to choosing the room and then in RED a message saying you require to call.

 

I did this the following day and was astounded to find that the Getaway fare is not available to solo cruisers. The price for a balcony was £1100 + 75% or so I thought Even 100% would take the fare to £2200 but the cost to me on the Advantage was in excess of £2800

Unbelievable!! I am angry that we as solo cruisers should be discriminated in this way.

 

Thoughts on this please? ? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts on this please? ? ?

 

My thoughts.......It's a business marketing choice, and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I certainly would, because it's indicating that they are not very accommodating to solo passengers, and I would worry that will filter to all levels of the cruise management and staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...