Do you think young kids should cruise free?

I'm fairly new on the boards so I don't know if this has been a topic of discussion before but I was wondering whether or not most people thought young kids should cruise free...say ages 3 and under?

We sailed on RCCL a few years back when our son was 2 months old (before the new infant regulations I guess) and even he was charged full price. Seems very ridiculous to me. They don't eat much, if any, of the food. They don't use any of the pools or other facilities. They don't take up much space.

Anyway, just wanted to get some thoughts :)

I think it would create a lot of headaches for most pax because you would have crying (no offense) kids all over the place.

I think infants (maybe 6 months and under) should go for free or maybe a reduced price, however much older than that and (speaking from experience with my own 3 year old and 1.5 year old) they can make big messes -- the staff will be spending time cleaning up after them, etc. They certainly don't eat as much, etc so maybe a small discount would be nice, but they still make the staff work!

No way on this earth. A body is a body. Plus, Carnival loses money on those kids, and too many kids can make for a really awful cruise.

No way on this earth. A body is a body. Plus, Carnival loses money on those kids, and too many kids can make for a really awful cruise.

Amen:cool:

pax 3 and 4 already cruise at a reduced fair so I think the current system is fine. I think for my glory cruise the price for the 3rd and 4th was $199+taxes & port fee's. That is a relatively great price for a week of food and activities for my 2 and 4 year old sonds.

free is in the eye of the beholder.....usually free means costs go up across the board to accommodate the cost of the free stuff. I understand that babies don't need much. Regardless of how much is used each trip, they still have to buy cribs, high chairs, etc. The staff are bringing cribs, and cleaning up after the kids as well. Parents put babies in pools with their diapers (even if they are not supposed to). I think they are very fair in discounting 3rd and 4th passengers, and i like that any one can qualify for 3rd or 4th passenger rates, regardless of age.

Good point about the reduced 3rd/4th person fare...forgot about that. But I still think that reduced fare should be much lower for young children.

NO, as in no way, absolutely not. Why would any cruiseline want to encourage a bunch of babies who are not toilet trained to cruise?? Yikes.

Babies dont spend on drinks or gambling, the biggest profit centers either.

I think parents are confused about how much work it is to pick up after a baby when they say, my baby doesnt eat, so they should be free. Iv seen a huge area of carpet strewn with crackers ...what a mess. Diapers the cabin steward has to dispose of etc.

Canival has enough children onboard, they know they dont have to discount further for 3rd and 4th rates which are already very cheap...!!!!

I think that on at least some Disney cruises kids travel free, right? And that's on a ship that caters to young families and most likely has LOTS of little kids. But of course their fares are much higher in general (would be worth every penny to me cause I LOVE Disney). Hmmm...

I think infants (maybe 6 months and under) should go for free or maybe a reduced price!

Only Disney still allows babies under 6 months on their cruises. For TAs on Carnival they must be 12 months.

Then we get posts from moms who feel discriminated against because they cant bring their child in the pool in swimmies if they arent toilet trained. Carnival does not have pools for babies ...so it would be even more of a disaster.

How many threads have their been from moms who want to put a small blow up pool on Lido deck in the way of scooters..and think its their cruise too!!!

No, they shouldn't cruise free. In fact, I think there should be a surcharge.

YMMV

NO, as in no way, absolutely not. Why would any cruiseline want to encourage a bunch of babies who are not toilet trained to cruise?? Yikes.

 

Babies dont spend on drinks or gambling, the biggest profit centers either.

And parents with babies are not spending time in the casino or spending as much on drinks. Carnival barely breaks even or maybe even loses money on the basic lowest fare per passenger. Encouraging tons of people who are less likely to spend additional money would be a loser for them. Just imagine dealing with all the strollers. I loved the sign outside the Wynn Casino in Vegas. "No Strollers Allowed"

NO, as in no way, absolutely not. Why would any cruiseline want to encourage a bunch of babies who are not toilet trained to cruise?? Yikes.

 

Babies dont spend on drinks or gambling, the biggest profit centers either.

 

I think parents are confused about how much work it is to pick up after a baby when they say, my baby doesnt eat, so they should be free. Iv seen a huge area of carpet strewn with crackers ...what a mess. Diapers the cabin steward has to dispose of etc.

 

Canival has enough children onboard, they know they dont have to discount further for 3rd and 4th rates which are already very cheap...!!!!

Really? Cause I would guess that the cost to clean up after smokers is MUCH higher than the cost to clean up after a few kids.

I understand the ship incurs some costs with having kids on board...insurance for one, necessary amenities (high chairs for example) but again, they are traveling with a full-fare adult and using a lot less of the services and food.

I do understand your general point though.

Children cost the line money. If they did not charge for the children, all passengers with or without children would have to cover that cost. Keep in mind that a child takes up a bed that would otherwise be charged for in the 3 or 4 person cabins. The children's programs are costly and that as well as the cost to feed children should not be placed on others. The reduced cost for the 3rd and 4th person in cabins is a good break for mom and dad.

And parents with babies are not spending time in the casino or spending as much on drinks. Carnival barely breaks even or maybe even loses money on the basic lowest fare per passenger. Encouraging tons of people who are less likely to spend additional money would be a loser for them. Just imagine dealing with all the strollers. I loved the sign outside the Wynn Casino in Vegas. "No Strollers Allowed"

Hmm, again, I guess that's one of the reasons Disney is more expensive...they don't have casinos and probably sell a lot less in alcohol so their base fare has to be higher. Makes sense.

I'm not an expert on anything, but I would think that a ship has a maximum capacity based on lifeboats and other safety items. A child who is 1 year old will count towards this maximum just as much as an adult. In this sense, a child takes up just as much room as an adult.

I think after a certain amount of kids onboard, all cruisers without kids should get an inconvenience discount.

I think that on at least some Disney cruises kids travel free, right? And that's on a ship that caters to young families and most likely has LOTS of little kids. But of course their fares are much higher in general (would be worth every penny to me cause I LOVE Disney). Hmmm...

only during special promotions, and those are few and far between. We have done disney. Liked it a lot. They do a wonderful job keeping kids out of the adult areas, where carnival and royal grimace about it and look the other way. I never saw them catering to the kids, they catered to everyone. I love how disney understands the need for quiet and will not budge in those adult only areas. Their rates are great in september and october BTW, you may have to dodge a hurricane, but they take great care of us. The weather is warm and the seas are like bathwater.

I think that on at least some Disney cruises kids travel free, right? And that's on a ship that caters to young families and most likely has LOTS of little kids. But of course their fares are much higher in general (would be worth every penny to me cause I LOVE Disney). Hmmm...

DCL offers kids sail free* whenever they are having trouble filling certain sailings. They can afford it, though, because the adult fares are often double Carnivals. They are also used to catering to children and people on DCL expect a zillion kids onboard. I love DCL, but it has a vastly different demographic than Carnival and I don't think most Carnival passengers want to be surrounded by little ones.

*kids still pay taxes and port fees so it really isn't free.

Only Disney still allows babies under 6 months on their cruises. For TAs on Carnival they must be 12 months.

 

Then we get posts from moms who feel discriminated against because they cant bring their child in the pool in swimmies if they arent toilet trained. Carnival does not have pools for babies ...so it would be even more of a disaster.

 

How many threads have their been from moms who want to put a small blow up pool on Lido deck in the way of scooters..and think its their cruise too!!!

Wow, I didn't know that kiddos under 6 months weren't allowed. Kinda makes sense though. Thanks for the info.

Kids aged 2 and up can go to camp C, before that they have to stay with their parents, so those parents probably arent drinking and gambling as much either. I cant think of a single reason this would be other than a awful marketing idea...only Disney has pools for infants that are not potty trained and caters to babies... and charges for it.

Really? Cause I would guess that the cost to clean up after smokers is MUCH higher than the cost to clean up after a few kids.

 

I understand the ship incurs some costs with having kids on board...insurance for one, necessary amenities (high chairs for example) but again, they are traveling with a full-fare adult and using a lot less of the services and food.

 

I do understand your general point though.

And those smokers are full fare passengers, not discounted ones, who typically spend tons in the casino (based on all the non-smokers who whine about the smoke in the casino that must be all that goes in there!), buy lots of drinks and have cash to spend. Babies aren't spending a dime and their parents are retiring at 9pm because of said baby, so they aren't spending any real money, either.

Nope...babies/kids shouldn't get a break of any kind. And I have 4 kids ages 7, 10, 12 and 16. I pay full fare for them and they have an adjoining room, as such I expect the same courtesy to them and the same service. I wouldn't have wanted them to cruise "free" because frankly I do think "free" handouts shouldn't get the same thing as people who pay out the wazoo for stuff. After all, "free" really means that someone else had to soak up your cost AND pay for theirs. :cool:

Nope. That would raise cruise prices for regular passengers across the board. They rely on 3rd and 4th passengers to get the ship capacity above 100%. Let infants cruise for free and that changes the calculation. Carnival is quite affordable right now. Hoping they stay that way.

There are cruise lines that happily cater to parents with infants. If you must bring your infant go cruise with them.

I have nothing against babies I'd just prefer to not see them on my vacation. Would drive me nuts if my cabin neighbor had a screaming baby the entire cruise.

Happily Childfree and hoping my vacations are as childfree as possible.

Equal opportunity across the board. They still eat,have to be cleaned up after, etc... so it wouldn't be right to allow them to be free. What would the perk be for those not traveling with children?