Does RCCL have a cabin fare charge for infants?

[spookwife]

I understand the seat on the life boat argument although arguably a 6 month old would be held. ;-)

 

What I don't get is that they can't sell berth #3 or 4 in my cabin to anyone else. So wouldn't revenue be happy with $500-800 for my baby versus nothing as it is now? I'm not asking for her to come free I'm saying the $1300-2500 for a one year old is ridiculous. And for $100-200 more I can have 4 people in my cabin which surely costs them much more than 3 people. Bottom line of my frustration is that it doesn't seem like a good deal for a family of 3.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

sure they can sell your berth.. to the cabin 2 doors down.. same lifeboat, so same capacity. but now that cabin has 3 people in it that are going to spend money on board.. even if it is just a teenage spending money on soda and the arcade.

 

bottom line: procreation comes with consequences. sometimes the parents make out on the deal, sometimes they don't. a body is a body and takes up space, resources and creates work for somebody somewhere.

[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.

[gerif]

When an infant is allowed to be booked into a two person cabin in a pack and play, the line is then not allowed to book someone into a 3rd/4th person berth in another cabin, because the ankle biter is taking up a lifeboat seat. So, regardless of whether you have them in a playpen or a bunk, they take a full fare spot out of capacity. Airlines have different rules on safety and evacuation, and if the FAA is fine with holding infants on your lap during flight, that's okay with me, but both the USCG (which really doesn't have much say) and the IMO requires a seat in a boat for every living soul, no matter how small.

 

This is absolutely true. There was a rather frantic woman who posted on the family boards a while back. Seems her DH thought he could avoid paying in advance for their baby by not mentioning it until just before sailing. Guess what? By that time the ship was at passenger capacity and, even though their cabin could accommodate three and the baby would be in a PnP, they would not permit it onboard. They had nowhere to leave the baby and now couldn't take him. She was asking for advice but most people told her she was married to an idiot.

[bplazo]

your child takes away a seat on the life boat. THAT is why they must pay the same rate as anyone else. when you fly Junior is in your LAP and thus not taking away a seat from another passenger. does;t matter whether person number three is 2 or 22 or 92. they pay the same rate.

 

I just plain do NOT understand this logic that some parents seem to think that kids are less work/effort and cost less and should be allowed free access( literally) they make bigger messes( the cabins steward is not happy about having to deal with dirty stinky diapers either) and do not produce revenue once on board( no drinks, no spa treatments no gambling, no shopping)

 

Agreed 100 percent.

[ummgood]

I don't quite agree with the taking up a berth argument. How often do the ships sail at 100% capacity? I think that argument only holds true if the ship is 100% full and an infant is displacing a paying adult. If that is truly the case I think you are talking about a cruise that is a high demand season and the cruise company is already charging a price premium for the product. Given that the cruiseline probably isn't using the full lifeboat capacity adding a child who won't eat meals, won't use the free kids clubs, etc.. makes me think that you could offer a discount to that cruiser. Especially since the parents will probably pay more out of pocket for daycare services so they can get a break.

 

After all it is strictly a supply and demand thing. I do think RCCL is probably limiting their potential clientele based on their pricing. We have seen several people comment they have booked other cruiselines because of RCCL charging full price for infants. If they want to attract those type of cruisers they'll have to change their policy.

 

I have cruised twice with Disney and both times my son was under 3. We have 3 kids and the first cruise we were in two staterooms. If I booked him with one adult and no others he was charged full fare. If we moved him as a third occupant his price was half of a normal child price ($300 vs $600). The second cruise we were in a family room and he was still less than half. First 2 passengers always pay full price and then 3rd and 4th pay a defined price unless they are under 3 and then it is a significantly reduced rate. Because of this our Disney cruise was very comparable in price as RCCL so we didn't hesitate to book the Disney cruise.

[awhcruiser]

:eek:

This is absolutely true. There was a rather frantic woman who posted on the family boards a while back. Seems her DH thought he could avoid paying in advance for their baby by not mentioning it until just before sailing. Guess what? By that time the ship was at passenger capacity and, even though their cabin could accommodate three and the baby would be in a PnP, they would not permit it onboard. They had nowhere to leave the baby and now couldn't take him. She was asking for advice but most people told her she was married to an idiot.

[awhcruiser]

It's RCCL policy. Maybe you could discuss it with corporate. Ships sail full more often than you think.

I don't quite agree with the taking up a berth argument. How often do the ships sail at 100% capacity? I think that argument only holds true if the ship is 100% full and an infant is displacing a paying adult. If that is truly the case I think you are talking about a cruise that is a high demand season and the cruise company is already charging a price premium for the product. Given that the cruiseline probably isn't using the full lifeboat capacity adding a child who won't eat meals, won't use the free kids clubs, etc.. makes me think that you could offer a discount to that cruiser. Especially since the parents will probably pay more out of pocket for daycare services so they can get a break.

 

After all it is strictly a supply and demand thing. I do think RCCL is probably limiting their potential clientele based on their pricing. We have seen several people comment they have booked other cruiselines because of RCCL charging full price for infants. If they want to attract those type of cruisers they'll have to change their policy.

 

I have cruised twice with Disney and both times my son was under 3. We have 3 kids and the first cruise we were in two staterooms. If I booked him with one adult and no others he was charged full fare. If we moved him as a third occupant his price was half of a normal child price ($300 vs $600). The second cruise we were in a family room and he was still less than half. First 2 passengers always pay full price and then 3rd and 4th pay a defined price unless they are under 3 and then it is a significantly reduced rate. Because of this our Disney cruise was very comparable in price as RCCL so we didn't hesitate to book the Disney cruise.

[MommaBear55]

This is absolutely true. There was a rather frantic woman who posted on the family boards a while back. Seems her DH thought he could avoid paying in advance for their baby by not mentioning it until just before sailing. Guess what? By that time the ship was at passenger capacity and, even though their cabin could accommodate three and the baby would be in a PnP, they would not permit it onboard. They had nowhere to leave the baby and now couldn't take him. She was asking for advice but most people told her she was married to an idiot.

 

I actually think that people gave her great advice....

 

Whether I agree or disagree with the corporate policies is not important. What is important is that it is the policy. It is the individual's right as a consumer to either follow the policy or spend their money elsewhere. If Royal Caribbean feels that this policy hurts the bottom line, they will change it. If I had an infant, I would go to a place that let them use a pool!

[tlatrice]

This is absolutely true. There was a rather frantic woman who posted on the family boards a while back. Seems her DH thought he could avoid paying in advance for their baby by not mentioning it until just before sailing. Guess what? By that time the ship was at passenger capacity and, even though their cabin could accommodate three and the baby would be in a PnP, they would not permit it onboard. They had nowhere to leave the baby and now couldn't take him. She was asking for advice but most people told her she was married to an idiot.

 

 

Wow. Just wow. I wonder how long she stewed over that one!

[ummgood]

I actually think that people gave her great advice....

 

Whether I agree or disagree with the corporate policies is not important. What is important is that it is the policy. It is the individual's right as a consumer to either follow the policy or spend their money elsewhere. If Royal Caribbean feels that this policy hurts the bottom line, they will change it. If I had an infant, I would go to a place that let them use a pool!

 

I totally agree with you on the bottom line. I kinda disagree with the pool. If a pool is large and has plenty of water a little contaminant is not that bad but when you talk about how small the pools are on cruise lines it is serious business if a poopy gets in the water. Every cruise I have taken has had the pool closed down at least 1 time because of parents who let their kids who are not potty trained swim in the pool even though the rules are against it. This is coming from someone who has a 5 and 2 year old and have had to deal with kids upset because they couldn't swim.

 

I now look for cruise boats that have large splash pads (think Disney fantasy or dream) so my toddler can happily play in water even though it isn't a pool and I don't have to worry about the possible contaminants in the pool. Plus I know adults are more likely to obey the rule if there is a viable alternative for their kids.

[chengkp75]

If I had an infant, I would go to a place that let them use a pool!

 

Here you run into an area that is not a part of corporate policy, but a regulation from the USPH. Only recently did USPH agree to guidelines for "infant only" pools, which have even stricter requirements than the other pools on cruise ships, and this was at the request of the lines. Having an infant only pool costs more to operate and maintain than a normal pool, and there must be a crewmember in attendance at all times, so there is an additional salary as well.

[InsideCruiser]

Kids Sail free Promotion was very good to us... my three girls are going on board with me and the wife and we are only paying gratuities and taxes for them. if we had to pay full price for them we would just stay land based but that deal allowed us the chance to try Cruising for the first time.

 

Agreed, Kids Sail free Promotion is allowing us to bring kids on RCL for the first time.

 

But besides land based vacations also check out other cruise lines. Carnival and Norwegian are often much more affordable for families when RCL is not running the promotion.

[BND]

I don't quite agree with the taking up a berth argument. How often do the ships sail at 100% capacity? I think that argument only holds true if the ship is 100% full and an infant is displacing a paying adult. If that is truly the case I think you are talking about a cruise that is a high demand season and the cruise company is already charging a price premium for the product. Given that the cruiseline probably isn't using the full lifeboat capacity adding a child who won't eat meals, won't use the free kids clubs, etc.. makes me think that you could offer a discount to that cruiser. Especially since the parents will probably pay more out of pocket for daycare services so they can get a break.

 

After all it is strictly a supply and demand thing. I do think RCCL is probably limiting their potential clientele based on their pricing. We have seen several people comment they have booked other cruiselines because of RCCL charging full price for infants. If they want to attract those type of cruisers they'll have to change their policy.

 

I have cruised twice with Disney and both times my son was under 3. We have 3 kids and the first cruise we were in two staterooms. If I booked him with one adult and no others he was charged full fare. If we moved him as a third occupant his price was half of a normal child price ($300 vs $600). The second cruise we were in a family room and he was still less than half. First 2 passengers always pay full price and then 3rd and 4th pay a defined price unless they are under 3 and then it is a significantly reduced rate. Because of this our Disney cruise was very comparable in price as RCCL so we didn't hesitate to book the Disney cruise.

 

It's not how full it is at sailing, it's how full it's BOOKED. Most every ship is booked at or near 100% capacity but there's always last minute cancellations, etc but they can't know exactly how many that will be so they can't over book. Also, the booking is based on how many are allowed per cabin so when a ship is even only partially full, you still can't put 4 people in a 3 person cabin because due to future bookings, that would/could put them over capacity. I'm not sure why it's hard to understand.

 

Disney cruises are made for families. RCI has really just started pursuing this market in the last few years, but in reality, they know they make more money per adult than they do per child due to onboard spending.

Edited August 22, 2014 by BND

[MommaBear55]

Here you run into an area that is not a part of corporate policy, but a regulation from the USPH. Only recently did USPH agree to guidelines for "infant only" pools, which have even stricter requirements than the other pools on cruise ships, and this was at the request of the lines. Having an infant only pool costs more to operate and maintain than a normal pool, and there must be a crewmember in attendance at all times, so there is an additional salary as well.

 

Understood! However, pools were an important part of family vacations, so I would have sought out a cruise line that had that set up or chosen a land based vacation. It will be interesting to see what my daughter decides when her new arrival is ready to go on vacation!

[Merion_Mom]

I totally agree with you on the bottom line. I kinda disagree with the pool. If a pool is large and has plenty of water a little contaminant is not that bad but when you talk about how small the pools are on cruise lines it is serious business if a poopy gets in the water. Every cruise I have taken has had the pool closed down at least 1 time because of parents who let their kids who are not potty trained swim in the pool even though the rules are against it. This is coming from someone who has a 5 and 2 year old and have had to deal with kids upset because they couldn't swim.

 

I now look for cruise boats that have large splash pads (think Disney fantasy or dream) so my toddler can happily play in water even though it isn't a pool and I don't have to worry about the possible contaminants in the pool. Plus I know adults are more likely to obey the rule if there is a viable alternative for their kids.

 

Are you SERIOUS?????????????????

[tlatrice]

Are you SERIOUS?????????????????

 

 

LOL!!!! That's what I was thinking! I remember a few years back a kid in diapers was in a HUGE wade pool at SplashTown, which is a HUGE water park. 6 people got sick!

Edited August 22, 2014 by tlatrice

[ummgood]

Are you SERIOUS?????????????????

 

Sure I am serious. When was the last time you saw a company drain a resort size pool because of a contaminate. They know how to deal with this. If something happens they have everyone get out of the pool for 30 minutes to allow the pool chemicals work and the filter system in the pool to clean. If it is serious enough they might shock the pool and close it down longer.

 

On a cruise the pool size/water amount is much smaller/person so they have to completely drain the pool and refill. That is why I stated I don't like small pools allowing children. Larger pools with chemicals can handle this. You won't ever see me in a hot tub.

Edited August 22, 2014 by ummgood

[reallyitsmema]

I totally agree with you on the bottom line. I kinda disagree with the pool. If a pool is large and has plenty of water a little contaminant is not that bad but when you talk about how small the pools are on cruise lines it is serious business if a poopy gets in the water. Every cruise I have taken has had the pool closed down at least 1 time because of parents who let their kids who are not potty trained swim in the pool even though the rules are against it. This is coming from someone who has a 5 and 2 year old and have had to deal with kids upset because they couldn't swim.

 

I now look for cruise boats that have large splash pads (think Disney fantasy or dream) so my toddler can happily play in water even though it isn't a pool and I don't have to worry about the possible contaminants in the pool. Plus I know adults are more likely to obey the rule if there is a viable alternative for their kids.

 

Contamination is contamination and it will shut down a pool, no matter how large it is. My son worked as a lifeguard at the local YMCA for many years. If there was any kind of an accident, the pool would be shutdown and shocked. It is not just the baby or toddler in diapers that caused the problems either, I won't go into details about how disgusting some people can be. More than once, they had to close down both pools because someone got sick in one pool and was stupid enough to go into the other pool.

 

Don't assume that the splash pads are free of contamination either.

[chengkp75]

I kinda disagree with the pool. If a pool is large and has plenty of water a little contaminant is not that bad but when you talk about how small the pools are on cruise lines it is serious business if a poopy gets in the water. Every cruise I have taken has had the pool closed down at least 1 time because of parents who let their kids who are not potty trained swim in the pool even though the rules are against it. This is coming from someone who has a 5 and 2 year old and have had to deal with kids upset because they couldn't swim.

 

I now look for cruise boats that have large splash pads (think Disney fantasy or dream) so my toddler can happily play in water even though it isn't a pool and I don't have to worry about the possible contaminants in the pool. Plus I know adults are more likely to obey the rule if there is a viable alternative for their kids.

 

It's not a question of pool size, but the strictness of the regulations that the pool operates under. If a fecal accident occurs at a pool shoreside, what happens to the pool operator (many times the local government) if the pool is not closed and cleaned immediately? Probably nothing. What happens on a cruise ship? When the USPH inspects, maybe 6 months later, there had better be a written report of the incident and the procedures taken to sanitize the pool, including a time line. If this paperwork is not there, even if the pool was cleaned immediately, that would be a 5 point deduction on the USPH inspection, out of a possible 20 points that can be deducted before the ship fails the inspection. People blame every sickness on cruise ships on noro, and the dirty crew, and then say that a little poop in the pool is okay. Most of the USPH inspectors I've talked with are former city/state health inspectors (quite a lot from NYC), and they will tell you that the pool regulations of the USPH for cruise ships are far stricter than state/local pool regulations.

 

Further, the infant only pools must be shut down and sanitized anytime there is a fecal accident. Also, the additional cost that I mentioned about building and maintaining the infant only pools is because there must be an ultra-violet sterilizer that all the water in the infant only pool is passed through to sterilize any urine. Without this, your little one would be at risk even splashing around in an infant only pool after someone with a leaky swim diaper.

[ummgood]

Contamination is contamination and it will shut down a pool, no matter how large it is. My son worked as a lifeguard at the local YMCA for many years. If there was any kind of an accident, the pool would be shutdown and shocked. It is not just the baby or toddler in diapers that caused the problems either, I won't go into details about how disgusting some people can be. More than once, they had to close down both pools because someone got sick in one pool and was stupid enough to go into the other pool.

 

Don't assume that the splash pads are free of contamination either.

 

Sorry I knew this and I know that for large pools it is usually 30 minutes to an hour. My original post if you go back and read it is why I personally avoid small pools that allow children that are not potty trained. A previous poster had mentioned that they only will pick places that allow children that are not potty trained. I went on to state that is why I personally look for splash pads.

 

Now I really dislike having contaminates in the pool urine will be in a pool with kids in swim diapers that is why I don't like small pools or hot tubs. Large pools it is more diluted. Yes it is gross and that is why I want as much water as possible. I have yet to step foot into a cruise ship pool.

[bplazo]

Just raise the minimum age to cruise to at least five :)

[spookwife]

I actually think that people gave her great advice....

 

Whether I agree or disagree with the corporate policies is not important. What is important is that it is the policy. It is the individual's right as a consumer to either follow the policy or spend their money elsewhere. If Royal Caribbean feels that this policy hurts the bottom line, they will change it. If I had an infant, I would go to a place that let them use a pool!

 

 

and until Junior is FULLY potty trained, that mean the open ocean or your backyard. and the open ocean is full of living creatures who do not need to be poisoned by fecal matter

[Llmtax2000]

For a cruise line that won an award for "best family cruise line", and markets heavily to families, this policy seems insane. I don't pay for a 16 month-old to fly on any airline. I can stay with my favourite hotel chain - Starwood Hotels - and not pay a penny extra for my daughter. I look forward to cruising with Royal Caribbean when my daughter is old enough to obtain some value for the fare being charged, but until then I might have to take my vacation dollars elsewhere. If Royal Caribbean won't even let me voice my concern to their policy department, the only way to make the point is to vote with my money, and I encourage other Cruise Critic members to do the same and/or post your thoughts on the issue here.

 

 

Infants only fly for free on airlines if you're willing to keep them in your lap for the flight. This is a very serious safety risk, but one which many parents seem willing to take to save money.

 

That being said, American Airlines in the past would provide a 50% discount off ticket price if the parent purchased a seat for a child no more than two years old. This seems like a good compromise.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Zou Bisou Bisou]

Just raise the minimum age to cruise to at least five :)

 

And lower the maximum age to 40. That is about how much sense your post makes. We all know you don't like kids (even though you gave birth). Give it a rest.

[Spurschick]

While I think we should have to pay something we are trying to take my daughter with but the prices for person #3 are ridiculous. Two examples both booked during early May BOGOHO:

 

Jewel March 2015

$1380 ish for hubby and I all in on a D1 balcony.

$1420 to add 1 year old.

 

Allure Nov 2015

$2700 hubby and I for Grand Suite.

$2580 to add daughter who will have just turned 2.

 

I cannot stomach those prices. More than for two adults or almost as much. Seriously?? Oh and by the way if we add a 4th passenger to grand suite it's only $150 more. So with their current pricing if you need to sail with 3 people you're screwed. I would pay $500-800 for her in a heartbeat. But their revenue dept has this messed up.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If it is only the three of you, try looking at fares out of peak season. march is HIGH. Try looking February and you will see the difference in price, for both 1/2 person and additional people.

 

For what it's worth I looked at every jewel sailing for march and even in a suite the most expensive third person price is around $629, and I have never seen a third person price over $2500 for the Allure next November (I picked thanksgiving week as that is most expensive week) even in a suite the 3rd person price is $1099.

 

I don't know where you got your pricing from, and I am not disagreeing with your figures, but we book spring break and thanksgiving every year, and never pay near those third person prices.

I also would like to know how adding 4th person is only $150? Sounds like taxes only. Fourth person is same as third person?

 

 

I suggest you look at re-pricing

Edited August 23, 2014 by Spurschick