I understand all the reasons the baby pays full 3rd person fare & I agree- I just had never considered it before. Not a fun surprise!
I hope you go and make some fun memories with your little one-- we sure did!
Welcome to Cruise Critic! If you'd like to participate on our forums by joining in the conversation, please Register Now! Be sure to visit our FAMOUS Roll Call forums, where you can meet other cruisers sailing with you and share a tour or shore excursion and SAVE MONEY!
If small children and/or babies sailed for free, can you only imagine the Princess experience? 3500 passengers onboard and 1500 of them under the age of 5. The dining experience alone would be such a thrill.
I totally see why each berth onboard (1st or 2nd passenger rate, or 3rd or 4th passenger rate) is charged the same fare whether the passenger is 6 months or 100.
Last time I checked an infant is a human being. I discern no difference between infant versus 10-year-old versus adult. If you wish to cruise, good for you. If you don't want to pay the piper then you have choices to go on different types of vacations, maybe at a hotel where there won't be a charge for infants. I agree with Pam -- if she has to pay double as a single, why should your kid coast for free or an extremely reduced fare?
We had to pay double for my mom last month, but I didn't get the double credit applied to my account - she did. I guess, using OP's logic, I should fight to get the double credits added to MY shipboard account since we paid for mom.
Nope, ma'am -- life is not always fair regarding a fare.
And as for airlines, babies are only free if you hold them on your lap up to the age of two. In my family, we purchase the extra seat so that it will be a more comfortable journey.
Why does Princess charge so much for infants?Indeed.
The answer is very simple.
Businesses always give lower prices to customers they want to do more business with.
And they quote higher prices to customers whose business they do not want.
Ships make a profit ONLY from onboard spending.
How much money are your infants planning to spend onboard when they cruise?
Not happy!I do feel your frustration about having to pay a ridiculous sum of money for a baby or toddler, but almost all major cruise lines seemed to adopt this policy. Cruising seemed so affordable back on our first cruise back in 1992 when it was just me and my wife (We now have a 4 year old son and a 18 months old infant girl ). I do understand that children do take up berth space like any other adult, but consider that our infant girl slept in a crib and barely ate or drank anything on our last cruise, the price we had to pay for her was a little unreasonable. Having said that, what else can you do if you do enjoy cruising ?
We are (were) BIG Princess fans (Platinum members) but now our loyalty to the cruise line has probably ended when they quoted us £1282 for a 10-day Panama cruise with a 14-month-old. They charge the same price for a child of this age as they do for a much older child!
I cannot understand how they can justify this when such a small child is not going to be using the amenities in the same way as say a 10-year-old! We can't even leave our child in a kids programme for an hour when under the age of three so they are certainly not using the time and resources of one of the youth leaders. They don't care much for 5-course dinners and their food will consist of a small bowl full - so why the hike in price????
Even airlines cost differently for infants up to the age of 2 as they do not pay a fare (taxes and local charges - yes, but they are costed differently to a 3 year old +)
I am absolutely stunned - especially as they are supposed to be 'child friendly'. We will be looking again at cruises but not with Princess.
...some of us booze-drinking, gambling adults who gravitate to Princess in part because of the paucity of young kids. No-charge childen by the MSC boatload? No thanks.
You (presumably) chose to have a kid, and now are almost immediately schlepping it along on an expedition it probably neither understands nor appreciates, at least not any more than playing with its blankie. Sorry you feel peeved. On the other hand, I, happily childless by choice, have been underwriting other peoples' kids' schooling and family-oriented tax breaks for many years. And that's the way it is.
Ouch. Sorry you feel hard done by for having your taxes pay for things you don't use (that's what most people's taxes do by the way, pay for things other people use, or everything would be user-charged) but no need to take it out on someone who clearly neither wants to give up on any holidays for years nor leave baby at home when they go (a position I entirely understand as I'm sure many others do).Honestly, I don't feel "hard done" by paying taxes. But, as I and others have pointed out, the economic model of cruise ships is such that infants are nowhere near as profitable as adult passengers, and should Princess allow free or reduced fares for them, the rest of us would presumably end up subsidizing other peoples' children through our paying higher fares and onboard charges. (I seem to recall, for instance, that MSC, with its occasional free-child promos, charges notably more for shipboard amenities, not even providing free water with dinner.) Paying for public schools is a social good; underwriting other people's vacations is not.
It's because price is not based on cost but on demand. Princess (and most other cruiselines) charge the same price for 3rd/4th passengers in a cabin because they can. Parents wanting to cruise with little ones will pay it. Also, your toddler is taking a space that might otherwise be filled by an adult 3rd/4th passenger who would pay that amount.I have received reduced 3rd and 4th passenger rates over the years for my children. With that said the last cruise we took it was cheaper to book a second room for my kids who were 14 and 17 at the time. The 3rd and 4th passenger rate was $50 more pp than the 1st and 2nd passenger rate. Go figure.
I have received reduced 3rd and 4th passenger rates over the years for my children. With that said the last cruise we took it was cheaper to book a second room for my kids who were 14 and 17 at the time. The 3rd and 4th passenger rate was $50 more pp than the 1st and 2nd passenger rate. Go figure.Princess changed their pricing for 3rd and 4th passengers a few years ago. Since I've never booked a 3rd or 4th, I'm not sure when but you used to be able to book them for $300-$400/pp. Now, they are almost full price.
Princess changed their pricing for 3rd and 4th passengers a few years ago. Since I've never booked a 3rd or 4th, I'm not sure when but you used to be able to book them for $300-$400/pp. Now, they are almost full price.I agree that when we first started cruising back in 1992, it was a lot less for 3rd or 4th, but like Pam said "Princess charges more because it can". I also guess that it doesn't help that since my first cruise, the consolidation of the cruise industry between the big two giants CCL and RCL, as they have bought out other cruise lines like Princess, Celebrity, Costa etc. So they can really dictate pricing.
The bottom line is money. Princess charges more because it can. They don't have to work as hard to fill their ships the way some other cruiselines do with advertising, "kids go free", and other promotions. Supply and demand.
Princess considers the baby as a body. That body does not spend anything onboard. The "body" leaves dirty diapers and requires other requirements. Princess SHOULD charge the same amount for a "body" as any other body.
Indeed.Bingo! We have a winner!
To boil it down, children generate no income for the cruise line. They do, however, generate mess, noise, and plenty of complaints, all of which demonstrably effect the quality of other passenger's trips, and force the cruise line's staff to deal with those messes, that noise, and all of those complaints from people who have paid a lot of money (relatively speaking...) to escape exactly those things.
In effect, children cost the cruise line money, while producing no income. Sounds like a poor business model to follow, no?