Solo Travellers Discriminated Against

[broberts]

. . .

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? ? ?

 

Cunard is obviously not interested in attracting single travelers. Your choice is to take your custom elsewhere, (doing your part to discourage the practice), or support the practice by continuing to cruise with them.

[Stevesan]

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%.[/quote]

 

Princess awards double points to solo cruisers. Princess has bennies worth $ for Platinum (5 cruises) and especially Elite (15 cruises) passengers.

 

https://book.princess.com/captaincircle/jsp/memberShipBenefits.jsp

[Lois R]

I never read this thread.....but in my opinion (I can only speak for me

of course;)) I think Congress has more important things to do than

talking to the cruiselines about reducing the Single Supplments.

 

I love cruising solo and will continue to do so.:) As for the SS, I don't

even look at that anymore. I look at the total price of the cruise and

if it is within my pricepoint.

[RDC1]

The economics for solo travelers on a cruise line are very bad for the cruise line.

 

First of all most cruise line costs are fixed for a given route. They will pay the same fuel, personnel, maintenance, port, etc. Variable costs such as food is a relatively small piece of the cost structure.

 

The fares basically generate a break even return for the cruise at best.

 

Most profits come from additional sales for excursions, bar, specialty dining, casino, etc.

 

The goal of a cruise line is not to sail full (2 people per cabin) but at max lives load which is more then 2 people per cabin.

 

Now when you consider all of that a solo passenger uses a cabin that is serviced just as often by the steward. Extra revenue opportunity is reduced by 50% compared to 2 people per cabin.

 

Basically the solo traveler is paying the same rate as two people in a cabin because that is the amount of fixed costs related to that cabin. If a cruise line adjusted for the true impact of a single occupancy the cost would be more like 215-225%.

 

A land hotel usually has pricing models based upon two which is the reason that room prices are generally the same with single or double occupancy.

 

Land tours are generally not doubled because a larger share of land tour costs are variable. Bus seats, entry tickets, meals are individual. Hotels are still double, but for land tours are a smaller percentage of the overall costs. As such the single premiums for such tours reflect that difference and are usually only 25 to 50%.

[MATHA531]

If they won't take your reservation at 200%, book for 2 and of course you know things happen and at the last moment, the second couldn't make it. What are they gong to do?

[Scrapnana]

If they won't take your reservation at 200%, book for 2 and of course you know things happen and at the last moment, the second couldn't make it. What are they gong to do?

 

I've read on here of people being charged the single supplement because the other person did not show.

[English Voyager]

In a change of Policy regarding Getaway fares, P & O (and presumably Cunard) has decided that solo travellers, and families of three, will be eligible to book for cruises departing on, and after, the 1 September 2013.

[MATHA531]

I've read on here of people being charged the single supplement because the other person did not show.

 

What I was addressing was the outright refgusal of some cruise lines to book sdolos at all even if they are forced to pay the asinine totally discriminatory 100% single supplement.

 

Should there be single supplements? Yes I agree, I get it for the most part. But solos are another group in this country who are discriminated against for a variety of reasons (whether on the basis of gender, race, marital status, yada yada yada). It is Congress' every right to do something about it. Frankly I think single supplements should be capped at 50% above the double occupancy rate.

 

But then again the reason we have the highest medical charges in the world is this moronic belief of some that the free enterprise system is best for everybody when clearly it divides the country into haves and have nots.

 

But to me it is certainly or at least certainly should be illegal to not book solos at all if they're willing to pay double. I don't see anybody who can possible object to that.

[mtwingcpa]

But to me it is certainly or at least certainly should be illegal to not book solos at all if they're willing to pay double. I don't see anybody who can possible object to that.

 

I agree. But I have yet to see a VERIFIABLE report that any cruise line departing from a US port has actually done that, or that the problem was other than a temporary glitch with their online booking system. (The only convincing reports I've seen appear to deal with European departures.) My guess is that existing "open accommodation" or "denial of service" type regulations (either federal or state) already cover this.

 

But as to the basic question of solos having to pay the full double-occupancy rate, I most respectfully say "get over it!" :-)

[solorizor]

Try msc genoa to santos no single supplements

[Dancer Bob]

I recently did a Black Sea trip. For the same money, I could get 17 days on one cruise line, which from personal experience does a reliable job on things that are important to me or 12 days on a cruise line whose standards have slipped badly on things that are important to me.

Which was the better deal?

If I told you the first single supplement was 200%, and the second 175%, would that change your answer? And I can quote even more extreme examples on Transatlantics.

I rate value for money as a lot more important than some arbitrary percentage.

[Lois R]

Quote:

" I rate value for money as a lot more important than some arbitrary percentage"

 

I agree.....I actually don't even look at the SS anymore. I look at the

total price of the cruise....if I can afford it and it is something I want

to do? For my money? A cruise is the absolute best value out there:)

[Tralfie]

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.

 

 

To quote my late, beloved aunt, "Good luck with that, dearie."

 

Nobody forces a person to travel solo. Many cruise lines actually offer services to help pair up prospective would-be travelers. And not for nothing, but the various governing forces of the world have way more important things on their plate than worrying about how much a cruise line charges when you willingly opt to travel solo.

 

Tralfie/Richard

[Thoth]

How many of you content with 200% are single ? It is far too easy for a married person to lecture a single person on why 200% is justifiable.

I can agree to 150%, but 200% is a bit unfair IMHO. :o

As a single/solo I don't eat two people's share of food.

[calliopecruiser]

It is far too easy for a married person to lecture a single person on why 200% is justifiable.

I can agree to 150%, but 200% is a bit unfair IMHO.

 

Well, life isn't fair..........so you've got a couple of options if you don't want to pay that amount: find sailings that don't charge that amount, or spend you're vacation dollars on something else.

[Lois R]

How many of you content with 200% are single ? It is far too easy for a married person to lecture a single person on why 200% is justifiable.

I can agree to 150%, but 200% is a bit unfair IMHO. :o

As a single/solo I don't eat two people's share of food.

 

Hi....content? Not the word I would use concerning this topic.

It is what it is.....I LOVE cruising and I LOVE cruising solo.

I no longer look at the Single Supplement. I look at the total price.

I do know why they do it though, they want to people in the cabin.

Period.

 

As for eating for 2? Nope, I don't either but I love cruising and I still

feel it is worth every penney to me.

 

I agree with the previous poster really. IF a person is doesn't want

to pay the amount the cruiseline is charging? Well, the person (whoever)

can try and find someone to share their stateroom or they can try

another form of travel.

It is worth it for me to have my own cabin......I can't imagine ever

sharing one again. Or it would have to be something really, really,

special..........

 

Nobody has ever lectured me on this subject.......and I dare say,

they never will LOL.......

[TessM]

How many of you content with 200% are single ? It is far too easy for a married person to lecture a single person on why 200% is justifiable.

I can agree to 150%, but 200% is a bit unfair IMHO. :o

As a single/solo I don't eat two people's share of food.

 

I'm single and the pricing doesn't bother me at all. I really don't think about it too much.

 

I look at the price of a cabin (based on double occupancy) and double it. That's the price I expect to pay and I'm fine with it. I get the cabin to myself.

[MATHA531]

I've travelled on escorted tours with a company that advertises they will pair you to avoid the single supplement with a roommate of the same sex and if there aren't any other solos, you avoid the single supplement altogether.

 

Frankly, it rarely works. I wouldn't do it and I swallow and take my medicine. Doesn't mean, of course, I have to like it but then again the escorted tours as noted above do not charge a 200% rate for singles.

 

As I said, I do accept the necessity of a single supplement, I just think 200% is a bit unfair. But as noted, I guess, life is simply not always fair. eh

[mtwingcpa]

How many of you content with 200% are single ? It is far too easy for a married person to lecture a single person on why 200% is justifiable. I can agree to 150%, but 200% is a bit unfair IMHO. :o

As a single/solo I don't eat two people's share of food.

 

In the first place, from what I've seen, the average amount that mainstream cruise lines spend on food is around $7.50 - $12.00 per person, per day. In other words, not a big deal. Plus, since the ship has to be prepared for whatever, they probably incur that cost (with some food going to waste) regardless of how many people are aboard a particular cruise.

 

I'm both single AND solo, and I have lived most of my adult life that way. What REALLY ticks me off is that in the USA most new construction homes are priced with the idea that there will be TWO incomes available to pay the mortgage. So should I go on a campaign about that and "demand" that I should be allowed a reduced price??? Seriously, why not???

 

Or should I just get over it and get on with what works for me??? :-)

[Thoth]

This is an interesting topic for sure :rolleyes: Perhaps the whole world is geared for couples I suppose. We singles must be selective it seems. When a cruiseline wants $800 for a Cozumel cruise but will charge me $1600, but I feel the need to say "NO WAY". However if I can find one where the coast is $500 I guess $1000 is still reasonable.

The single/share program has never been appealing to me. Who wishes to room with a stranger :confused: Many may be great, but then again who's to know ?

One thing that we can all agree upon....the "Love Boat" was just a TV show and the real ships don't really care much for single/solos :(

[Skipper Tim]

I tend to avoid cruises and hotels where there is any sort of supplement at all. If there are cruises and hotels which do not have supplements then they are going to get my business as well as that of other solo-travellers. More solo travellers means potentially better company - many couples can be terribly insular travellers and a whole ship full of them could be dire.

 

As has been pointed out above, most MSC repositioning cruises carry zero sole-occupancy supplements while the highest solo supplement I have seen MSC have for any cruise is 50%. Cunard rarely come down from 100%! Let them ask what they want but I will vote with my feet and my wallet.

[Scrapnana]

I tend to avoid cruises and hotels where there is any sort of supplement at all.

 

Unfortunately, these are very few and far between.

 

Cunard rarely come down from 100%!

 

With all of the Vantage and Getaway fare problems this is probably true in the UK. In the US you can get staterooms for 75% (sometimes less) supplement except in the Grills suites.

[kek123]

This is an interesting topic for sure :rolleyes: Perhaps the whole world is geared for couples I suppose. We singles must be selective it seems. When a cruiseline wants $800 for a Cozumel cruise but will charge me $1600, but I feel the need to say "NO WAY". However if I can find one where the coast is $500 I guess $1000 is still reasonable.

The single/share program has never been appealing to me. Who wishes to room with a stranger :confused: Many may be great, but then again who's to know ?

One thing that we can all agree upon....the "Love Boat" was just a TV show and the real ships don't really care much for single/solos :(

 

 

Couldn't agree more! Adverse impact based on a particular characteristic is discrimination. Not in a legal sense sadly, but it is a form of discrmination. If nothing else it is a lack of truth in advertising. It is advertised as a per person fare but it is in fact not true. Does not keep me from cruising but no where near as much I would if the pricing was not discriminatory in nature.

[Skipper Tim]

Unfortunately, these are very few and far between.

 

I think I have learned what to look for - certain parts of the World, certain times of year. I never pay solo-occupancy supplements now. My favourite is top-class, all-inclusive hotels on the Southern coast of Turkey in the 'winter'. People call it the winter but the Summer is so unbearably hot by December it is just right for sitting out in the sun. I always double check to ensure there are no sole-occupancy supplements, I don't want to feel that I am subsidising couples :). This year I treated my mother and myself to an all-inclusive 3-star for £7.50/night (US$11) and then an ultra all-inclusive five star on the beach for £25 per night (US$38), both no sole-supplements and this was May, the start of the Summer season. The latter hotel was simply stunning and I look forward to returning.

 

My next two cruises are both MSC repos. A 17 nighter for £391 ($590) and a port-intensive, trans Suez canal 10-nighter for £230 ($347), both sole-occupancy, inside guarantee after my 8% MSC Club discount. I would find it very hard to pay 75% supplement on already much higher cruise fares with other lines. And as I said above, a line which does not charge sole-occupancy supplements attracts many more solo travellers and that is huge benefit in itself.

 

Tim.

[Thoth]

Couldn't agree more! Adverse impact based on a particular characteristic is discrimination. Not in a legal sense sadly, but it is a form of discrmination. If nothing else it is a lack of truth in advertising. It is advertised as a per person fare but it is in fact not true. Does not keep me from cruising but no where near as much I would if the pricing was not discriminatory in nature.

that's correct ! ;) They always market it as per person, which is misleading. If they are going to hit me at 200% then market it as price per room.