Staritenight

Wow! I never expected a single post on a 4 year old thread to generate so much passionate debate. Clearly many folks on here are secretly Royal Caribbean shareholders, or just really really engaged brand evangelists. Don't get me wrong, I've probably been responsible for getting 20+ friends and family to try Royal Caribbean, so I'm a big fan of the company, I just think in this particular instance, there is a logic gap.

 

Firstly let me clarify. Just because airlines do not charge for infants, does not mean I think RCCI should not charge anything. I accept there should be a charge. In fact, I even agree with gratuities being the same because, as some posters fairly pointed out, the little ones can be a lot of work for the wonderful staff on board. I just don't think infants, below the age where they have Adventure Ocean programs available to them (3+) should pay the exact SAME amount as older children. The arguments about fuel and lifeboat capacity are difficult to confirm/deny, but what I can tell you for sure is that airplanes have hard limits on how much they can weigh at takeoff. The plane literally needs to start offload paying passengers (and/or their bags) if it weighs even 3 pounds too much. Each pound aproaching the maximum takeoff weight also costs dramatically more than the first pound of cargo/PAX. Each incremental pound of weight on a cruise ship does not make a material difference to fuel costs. Nowhere would the cost impact of an infant be greater than on airlines, yet they seem to be at peace with the idea of not charging. I actually think airlines SHOULD charge for kids. I agree with them charging per bag too. Why should I pay the same with an infant as when I'm travelling for business (with only my laptop bag) if I have a stroller, 2 suitcases and a car seat?? It's all about getting the prices correct - commensurate with the costs.

 

Another point is that infants also sleep in pack'n'plays and do not use a berth, so I'm actually booked in a cabin that technically cannot accommodate a 3/4th passenger. This is not taking away a berth from a paying passenger. As for the onboard spending issue. If you want a break from being a parent for just a little while, when you're kids are 3+ they will have a great time at Adventure Ocean. It's free, and they likely will never want to leave. For infants, you have to pay by the hour, and it's roughly the equivalent of your infant buying 1.5 drinks per hour. I think the cruise line would be pretty happy with everyone spending at that rate.

 

In summary, how about charging $100 or $200 plus gratuities, or charge $600 but include some supervised babysitting in that cost? Keeping loyal guest and acquiring new ones with young children is critical to the long-term success of cruise lines because the business then sticks as the kids grow up, and they too one day become loyal to Royal.

 

This is just my 2 cents, it's totally fine to disagree.

I don't think you quite understand the point...

Basically, you are only allowed (by legislation) a certain number of souls onboard. This means that ships don't sail at max capacity, because the number of souls allowed is less than the number of berths. Therefore, your baby will take up a space that a full-paying adult could have had, who would possible use the casino and drink alcohol.

That is why, from royal caribbeans perspective, they would rather not bother with babies... They aren't maximising profit,

I disagree that royal caribbean market themselves to families with babies anyway, they market, really, to slightly older kids, what with the ice rink, climbing wall and flowrider etc, none of which young ones can use.

Probably depends on employee discretion, as I know on my last cruise on the Indy from southampton, several parents took kids scooters as carry on and got away with it,

Have a nice time :)

Good grief... Speaks volumes about royals customers that people quibble over a $1! Don't like it, don't go :)

I don't think a gift would help, it would just wind me up even further, as you can hardly expect people not to be irritated if their vacation is disturbed by a screaming child! I know I'd find it irritating, as people don't go on holiday to be disturbed by a screaming child.

The people with banshees should take land vacations for a bit.