bobfoo

I noticed this toward the end of last year on a few European sailings. Out of curiosity I just used the power of data grabbing to take a look at what things are like this year. I checked all European sailings for this year from a major UK TA, and took the cheapest price for each cabin type. What I discovered is that on average single occupancy each cabin type does work out to be roughly 200% of the double occupancy price. There are some variations though. Interestingly sailings for February and March average above 200%, March in particular. Also, against my expectations, sailings on the older ships like Infinity see a higher figure than sailings on the newer ships like Ascent. Thought I'd check out Royal (again, all European sailings for this year) - they're charging 230% on average. More variance by type than with Celebrity - ~220% for Inside, ~240% for Balcony.

They're not on about the availability of solo cabins, merely being able to get any cabin, as a solo occupant. It is one thing, and generally accepted, to charge a solo traveller more, but it is a whole other thing to deny them the ability to book altogether. Also, the user is in the US, and at the time I saw this posted I looked up various itineraries and I couldn't, in Europe, find any that wouldn't let me book at a solo traveller. So just like your experience, I too found no problems. But when I tried on the US site, I found plenty - including one itinerary that I'd actually had my eye on which is coming up shortly and is now being sold with 0% single supplement in the US, go figure... I would say this does enter the realms of discrimination, and probably why they haven't tried it on in European markets where the EU has a long history of standing with the consumer on such topics.

This is just stupid. And I don't mean the ship. I mean your complaint. What are you suggesting here? That every venue has to be able to hold enough people relating to the number of passengers that has access to that area? You any idea how big the ship would be for that to be true. Not everybody uses the same thing as once. '5000 people on this ship and the toilets only have 5 cubicles!' Talk about nonsense...

I've also noticed a trend, not just here but with other lines too, of not selling guaranteed cabins to solo travellers. So you see that the price is 'from $500', you think well OK that's going to be $1,000 for solo, provided you are happy with a basic guaranteed inside cabin, but oh no, you will be charged $1,300 because you can't book a guaranteed cabin as a solo, only double or more can do that, instead we're only going to offer you the superior cabin. And yes, noticed this too. A good selection of zero or very low single supplements across wide variety of cruises over the next few months. Kind odd in the face of what others are doing. Are NCL seeing lower occupancy vs. competitors, or are the competitors just taking an approach of sticking to margins whilst leaving money on the table?

Not going to happen at that high level, though, is it. And we know from history that when NCL tried to bundle the charge into the fare price in markets where some lines already do that they went on to revert that change. Clearly it made them more dosh outside of the fare than within it, even if people do opt out.

The problem is whilst they are all small little things, these do add up. Think about reading a document or a web page. You notice a spelling error, no big deal. But then you find another, and another, and another. In isolation these are all fine, but if there are loads you think 'come on now, you've clearly not read this through!'. So yes, in isolation no chocolate, boo hoo, no big deal, but on top of a heap of other changes you start to question why you're paying hundreds of dollars more. What value are you actually getting. And really those types of things exist in the first place because they're very cheap ways for the company to add perceived value.

This is a discussion about Amsterdam making a decision about Amsterdam. Not Santa Barbara or Monterey or some tiny Greek island with a population of 100 that's seeing 5,000 people pitch up for a day. As stated, cruise pax represent single digit percentage of total tourists. Any resident who thinks this solves the issues they have are sorely mistaken. Except the statement makes it clear numbers are at play. "cruise ships in the city center do not fit into Amsterdam's assignment to reduce the number of tourists". And if you look at resident frustrations, they are upset at volumes of people. Now yes, starting with the least profitable is a logical step, however as before, it does not resolve the complaints of overcrowding and that's the point being made.

I suppose being a British newspaper The Guardian will focus on the British aspect. It obviously is a non-zero number, but I can't help but think that this is one of those decisions that will not have anywhere near the effect people think it will have. A cruise ship is a very large visible presence and it is therefore easy to come to the conclusion that it has thousands of people, therefore that's why the city centre is so busy and thus makes them an easy target. But given that nearly all ships are gone come evening time that's having no input on overcrowding in the evening and during the night, and during the day they represent a single digit percentage of total tourists in the city at any given time.

If you're willing to drive a 1000 mile round trip, spending an entire day getting there, tiring yourself out, to go catch a cruise that's only 3 nights long and then do the same drive home you've got some odd mindset that's all I can say.

No Credit Line leading to No Consumption Licence.

In terms of eating the cost, this probably comes down to a mixture of how many passengers have a drinks package and how cheaply you've sold them for. Given NCL leans heavily on the whole Free at Sea thing it would not surprise me if NCL had a higher proportion of passengers with drink packages compared to your typical MSC out of the UK. Given that you can price your individual drink prices based on the tax you expect to incur, this would make the cost more easily absorbed. Alcoholic drink sales is probably quite high up on the list of money making activities, so I'm sure that they'd much rather be serving it. My gut feeling therefore is this is either a *****-up they don't want to admit, or they've been knowingly dodging tax and now it's caught up with them and that's why there was short notice.

I guess it serves as a window, but it isn't what you'd think of when you think 'window'.

They've just announced the 2nd ship in the World class will be called MSC World America and sail from Miami. So sounds like World Asia will probably follow that too.

Do you roam the streets naked? I doubt it. I also doubt you were born wearing clothes. Which means at some point you became clothed. The day that happened, it was without precedent. Point being, if you require precedent for something to change, nothing would change. Ever. But this is obviously nonsense things have and do change. So their comment doesn't need precedent and is actually your comment which holds no basis.

The only way you solve crowded pools is to reduce the number of decks. The bulk of increased occupancy over the years has come from adding decks. But adding decks does not increase your open deck space by one bit. There's simply way more passengers per square area of deck space compared to the past. You can add more pools but all you've done is take the space from something else - lounger space etc.