Why do Princess charge a ridiculous price for infants?

[Pam in CA]

They still do discount for the 3rd and 4th passenger. I was just researching a European itinerary for my sons H.S. graduation and just for kicks I entered 4 passengers for an interior stateroom (kill me if this has to happen) and the 3rd and 4th were half the price of the first two. I was looking as far out as Nov 2012. I am sure If I tried to book one of the 2 for 1 deals they are offering now for Europe that the 3rd and 4th would not be discounted but I would book 2 rooms which is what I would want to begin with.

You're right. It is possible to find a deal or promotion for the 3rd or 4th passenger but one shouldn't expect to find a deal for their cruise. It really depends on the itinerary, cabin category, and/or sailing. This is why most parents find it more economical to book an inside for their kids across the hall from a balcony or oceanview instead of paying for four in the cabin. If you are booking an inside cabin for all four, the 3rd and 4th passenger fare is probably the lowest you'll find.

[donaldsc]

Not happy!

 

 

We are (were) BIG Princess fans (Platinum members) but now our loyalty to the cruise line has probably ended when they quoted us £1282 for a 10-day Panama cruise with a 14-month-old. They charge the same price for a child of this age as they do for a much older child!

 

I cannot understand how they can justify this when such a small child is not going to be using the amenities in the same way as say a 10-year-old! We can't even leave our child in a kids programme for an hour when under the age of three so they are certainly not using the time and resources of one of the youth leaders. They don't care much for 5-course dinners and their food will consist of a small bowl full - so why the hike in price????

 

Even airlines cost differently for infants up to the age of 2 as they do not pay a fare (taxes and local charges - yes, but they are costed differently to a 3 year old +)

 

I am absolutely stunned - especially as they are supposed to be 'child friendly'. We will be looking again at cruises but not with Princess.

 

Ship capacity is based on the number of "souls" on board regardless of ago. The fare charged for a person does not cover the actually cost of the cruise. However, an older person can be charged less per room as they will usually spend additional money on board for other stuff. Since the infant takes the place of a drinking, gambling, excursion taking older person, the cruise company has to cover their costs just on your fare.

 

Now, if you want to have your infant do several glasses of wine or booze per day, maybe we can negotiate a better fare -LOL.

 

DON

[7leagueboots]

In this case, it is really important to note that ship capacity is not measured in terms of cabins, its measured in terms of what they call 'souls on board' which is the total number of employees and passengers (and even guides and pilots). This is based on the number of lifeboats available and other emergency considerations. Most ships could not permit every possible berth to be filled without being over cap.

 

For purposes of this count, an infant counts equally to the maximum capacity of the ship as an adult, i.e reduces total capacity by 1, therefore reducing the number of adults that can be sold at full fare.

 

Single passengers are affected for a different reason. Revenue calculations are based on an expectation of dual occupancy, since they can't sell the other berth, they charge more to keep the cabin average where they want it.

 

Are they playing it from both ends? Yep. But that's the way it works.

 

As one who does not have children I have no irons in this fire and as a believer in the free market I agree that Princess can charge whatever the market can bear. However, I am having trouble understanding some of the arguments.

 

1. If a couple does not bring a child along I don't think the ship will sell the third bed to Barnacle Bill down the street. The birth just goes unused. On our last cruise we had a sofa that made into a bed for a third passenger. I might not have been too upset if the ship assigned that spot to Brad Pitt, but would have objected to Mel Gibson! So it was just the two of us using the stateroom. The ship would not have lost any revenue (because they couldn't sell the 3rd bed) if we had brought along a two year old.

 

2. I have never seen a ship add or remove lifeboats based upon the number of passengers aboard. I suspect that the number of lifeboats are based on the maximum capacity of the ship - and probably with a few spaces extra. If the ship has staterooms that have a capacity of more than two then I suspect they have enought lifeboats to handle that.

 

3. While the child might require a little more attention from the crew, the $10 a day or so added gratuity for the third passenger might well make up for that. Do third and fourth passengers pay the gratuity? I don't know. But if they did that is an extra $70 a week in gratuities.

 

4. Most ships are not sailing at full capacity. How many couples do not crusie because they cannot afford to pay the nearly full fare for the child? If such examples exist, then the ship may actually lose revenue.

 

I am sure that all cruise lines have business models that optomize revenue and profits and it is their right to do so legally. As such I have no problem with the cruise line charging whatever the market to bear - I just don't understand the "Can't sell the third bed if a child is present' or the "lifeboat capacity" issue.

 

These may well be valid arguments - I just don't see them that way.

[smeyer418]

As one who does not have children I have no irons in this fire and as a believer in the free market I agree that Princess can charge whatever the market can bear. However, I am having trouble understanding some of the arguments.

 

1. If a couple does not bring a child along I don't think the ship will sell the third bed to Barnacle Bill down the street. The birth just goes unused. On our last cruise we had a sofa that made into a bed for a third passenger. I might not have been too upset if the ship assigned that spot to Brad Pitt, but would have objected to Mel Gibson! So it was just the two of us using the stateroom. The ship would not have lost any revenue (because they couldn't sell the 3rd bed) if we had brought along a two year old.

 

2. I have never seen a ship add or remove lifeboats based upon the number of passengers aboard. I suspect that the number of lifeboats are based on the maximum capacity of the ship - and probably with a few spaces extra. If the ship has staterooms that have a capacity of more than two then I suspect they have enought lifeboats to handle that.

 

yes and no. There is a finite capacity to the ship that will be reached before every room that can take 3-4 is filled. Most ships are full full when they reach about 130% of lower two capacity. Normally on the ship level where the bridge is there will be a license posted in the public area where the full full limit of the ship is contained. Any soul is counted towards that limit.

3. While the child might require a little more attention from the crew, the $10 a day or so added gratuity for the third passenger might well make up for that. Do third and fourth passengers pay the gratuity? I don't know. But if they did that is an extra $70 a week in gratuities.

On most cruise lines the same gratuity is charged for 3rd or more in the room.

 

 

4. Most ships are not sailing at full capacity. How many couples do not crusie because they cannot afford to pay the nearly full fare for the child? If such examples exist, then the ship may actually lose revenue.

 

Its extremely rare that ships don't have at least 100% of lower two capacity on the ship. Most cruise lines average 110% or more. so are they full? they are not full full which is about 125-130% of lower two. Most ships get pretty crowded when they are full full...

 

I am sure that all cruise lines have business models that optomize revenue and profits and it is their right to do so legally. As such I have no problem with the cruise line charging whatever the market to bear - I just don't understand the "Can't sell the third bed if a child is present' or the "lifeboat capacity" issue.

 

These may well be valid arguments - I just don't see them that way.

 

 

see above in red.

[Loonbeam]

Except for a few of the newer ships (the only one I know for sure can max out is the Epic - which was designed specifically with a higher per cabin capacity. I think the Oasis and Allure fit in this group as well), the capacity limit of the ship for safety is less than if they filled every individual berth. For example, I think theoretically the Coral has 2400ish beds (including sleeper sofas, etc), but her total max capacity is around 2100 passengers. When we sailed on her, she was considered near max and I think the soul count was 2108.

 

I may be off by a few but the concept holds. It's the number of people on board, not how they are distributed that counts, once they hit that max they cannot book anymore, even if they have completely empty cabins, forget just empty beds. I remember reading somewhere that ship capacities for the most part were designed around an average of 2.2 per cabin, but I can't find the article.

 

BTW, Princess sails about 90% of her cruises totally full and 97% within 10 percent of max, at least based on the last shareholder info I have read. The primary exceptions are the TAs, world cruises and longer itineraries.

 

As one who does not have children I have no irons in this fire and as a believer in the free market I agree that Princess can charge whatever the market can bear. However, I am having trouble understanding some of the arguments.

 

1. If a couple does not bring a child along I don't think the ship will sell the third bed to Barnacle Bill down the street. The birth just goes unused. On our last cruise we had a sofa that made into a bed for a third passenger. I might not have been too upset if the ship assigned that spot to Brad Pitt, but would have objected to Mel Gibson! So it was just the two of us using the stateroom. The ship would not have lost any revenue (because they couldn't sell the 3rd bed) if we had brought along a two year old.

 

2. I have never seen a ship add or remove lifeboats based upon the number of passengers aboard. I suspect that the number of lifeboats are based on the maximum capacity of the ship - and probably with a few spaces extra. If the ship has staterooms that have a capacity of more than two then I suspect they have enought lifeboats to handle that.

 

3. While the child might require a little more attention from the crew, the $10 a day or so added gratuity for the third passenger might well make up for that. Do third and fourth passengers pay the gratuity? I don't know. But if they did that is an extra $70 a week in gratuities.

 

4. Most ships are not sailing at full capacity. How many couples do not crusie because they cannot afford to pay the nearly full fare for the child? If such examples exist, then the ship may actually lose revenue.

 

I am sure that all cruise lines have business models that optomize revenue and profits and it is their right to do so legally. As such I have no problem with the cruise line charging whatever the market to bear - I just don't understand the "Can't sell the third bed if a child is present' or the "lifeboat capacity" issue.

 

These may well be valid arguments - I just don't see them that way.

[cruzedude]

As one who does not have children I have no irons in this fire and as a believer in the free market I agree that Princess can charge whatever the market can bear. However, I am having trouble understanding some of the arguments.

 

1. If a couple does not bring a child along I don't think the ship will sell the third bed to Barnacle Bill down the street. ...

 

True the cruiseline isn't going to stick someone in your room however the ship max designed capacity is far less than 4x the number of staterooms. It depends on the ship but is usually somewhere around 2.5x the number of staterooms (i.e. ship with 1000 rooms may have a max capacity of 2500). So a 3rd persons sleeping your room does limit a 3rd person sleeping in another room.

 

2. I have never seen a ship add or remove lifeboats based upon the number of passengers aboard. I suspect that the number of lifeboats are based on the maximum capacity of the ship. Exactly but that "max capacity" is only roughly 2.5x the number of rooms.

 

3. While the child might require a little more attention from the crew, the $10 a day or so added gratuity for the third passenger might well make up for that.

Gratuities while important don't help the cruise ships bottom line. Fares are discounted. If 100% of people going on cruise never bought anything online the cruiseline would go bankrupt. The room rate is just the teaser to get someone in the door. If you are interested CNBC on weekends sometimes runs a special about economics of cruiseships. They go onboard a cruiseship (HAL I think) for a week. Each small child booked the cruiseline knows it is limiting the potential revenue for that cruise. So while they aren't doing to discourage children (that would discourage adults) they aren't going to actively promote children. They would rather that 3rd person be a $$$$ spending adult. Some cruiselines like Disney do promote children however compare their prices and you will see Disney business model is different. The higher fare offset the lower spending on board per capita.

 

 

4. Most ships are not sailing at full capacity. How many couples do not cruise because they cannot afford to pay the nearly full fare for the child? If such examples exist, then the ship may actually lose revenue.

Most ships are sailing at over 100% of double berthed capacity. Talking to the Captain on the Mariner of Seas he said they try to shoot for 110% booked. Any less and the cruiseline is dangerously close to losing money (bad weather could easily tip them into the red) any more and the ships starts to feel too crowded which affects repeat travel. While that is not max capacity (that would be more like 125% of double berthed capacity) it is pretty close.

 

 

 

I am sure that all cruise lines have business models that optomize revenue and profits and it is their right to do so legally. As such I have no problem with the cruise line charging whatever the market to bear - I just don't understand the "Can't sell the third bed if a child is present' or the "lifeboat capacity" issue. These may well be valid arguments - I just don't see them that way.

 

Hopefully you see it now.

 

Simply put a cruiseline ticket barely covers the cost of operation. If it is heavily discounted the cruiseline may be operating at a loss. The revenue that puts them over the top is money spent on board (something small children don't do). As far as children being "free" that is only true in a vacuum. Imagine the last cruise you were on. Now imagine it exactly the same but with 1000 more children. Longer lines, harder to find deck chairs, more noise, etc. It would negatively affect your cruise, hence your willingness to pay top dollar or oven cruise again. Given those children spend very little on board there is no compelling reason for cruiselines to encourage that. Cruiselines are trying to strike a balance and families are a reality of life.

 

As far as families not being able to afford it and it hurting cruiselines bottom line. Well if/when that happens market forces will cause them to change pricing. Maybe children <6 will be reduced to 50% of 1st & 2nd fair. Still the fact that Princess hasn't done that indicates that at least currently the balance they have achieved between price and satisfaction is maximizing revenue.

[Happy ks]

With food cost averaging around $12 per person/per day, the argument for babies not eating much just shouldn't be considered. What about the passengers loading up food at the buffet only to leave it uneaten, or ordering second entrees every night of the cruise. Shouldn't they be charged more for their cruise?

 

The argument for babies not spending any more onboard just doesn't hold water, either. Many people cruise and don't spend a lot of extra money. Not everyone drinks, gambles or shops onboard. We were on a 7 night cruise last week and our onboard expenses were $230 for the two of us, one photo, mostly $15 corkage fees and a couple cocktails.

 

To me, cruise lines charge 3/4 rates because they can. If they happen to run a special for discounted rates, that is up to them as well. I don't think there should be any difference in the rate for age, eating habits or laundry cost. Operating costs: fuel, payroll and maintenance is far more costly than most people consider.

 

I'd love for airlines to cease allowing babies to lap sit and have parents purchase a seat for the child and have them seated in a restraint.

 

I don't dislike children at all, have a couple myself. While I didn't take my kids on a flight or cruise until they were old enough to remember the experience, I never considered that my kids should get anything free simply because of their age. Our first cruise was with Disney, wonderful ships designed for families. While they do discount for infants, the price for adults is a whole lot more than other lines, so you still pay ;)

[compozer]

It sounds like the business model I like........we do not want to cruise with a gaggle of kids filling the pools, halls and dining venues.........so the cruise lines that promote kids like Disney..........we avoid. And we select cruises that are less likely to be booked by lots of families with kids.

 

 

Same for us!!!

[Iamcruzin]

With food cost averaging around $12 per person/per day, the argument for babies not eating much just shouldn't be considered. What about the passengers loading up food at the buffet only to leave it uneaten, or ordering second entrees every night of the cruise. Shouldn't they be charged more for their cruise?

 

The argument for babies not spending any more onboard just doesn't hold water, either. Many people cruise and don't spend a lot of extra money. Not everyone drinks, gambles or shops onboard. We were on a 7 night cruise last week and our onboard expenses were $230 for the two of us, one photo, mostly $15 corkage fees and a couple cocktails.

 

To me, cruise lines charge 3/4 rates because they can. If they happen to run a special for discounted rates, that is up to them as well. I don't think there should be any difference in the rate for age, eating habits or laundry cost. Operating costs: fuel, payroll and maintenance is far more costly than most people consider.

 

I'd love for airlines to cease allowing babies to lap sit and have parents purchase a seat for the child and have them seated in a restraint.

 

I don't dislike children at all, have a couple myself. While I didn't take my kids on a flight or cruise until they were old enough to remember the experience, I never considered that my kids should get anything free simply because of their age. Our first cruise was with Disney, wonderful ships designed for families. While they do discount for infants, the price for adults is a whole lot more than other lines, so you still pay ;)

 

I agree with everything you are saying. However If you are paying the same price for the 3rd and 4th passenger no matter what their age why wouldn't a passenger book 2 rooms, an adult and a child in each room? Even if you all sleep in the same room and just use the second room for the extra bathroom and extra storage it would be worth it. Imagine if you are a woman and you could have a stateroom to yourself just to shower and get dressed. If you are like my wife the only female in the household you wouldn't even have to continually put down the seat. It seems to me that the cruise line would be losing more money with this scenario. They are losing two full price fares as opposed to only losing one if they discounted the 3rd and 4th passenger by 50%. Plus the passengers who would have booked the extra room would generate more on board spending in addition to the family of 4 occupying 2 rooms. I have always received a discount for the 3rd and 4th passenger with the exception of the last cruise we took because it was a flash sale. My teenage boys are bigger than we are so now we book two rooms.

[nabau]

I disagree, charging infants almost full price is beyond belief, however I don't feel it is ridiculous to charge someone solo double the fare since they are occuping the cabin alone. Can you imagine how many cruisers would book a room for themselves if they were able to at the same rate.

Charging for an infant is no more ridiculous than charging me 150-200%, depending on the cruise and cabin type, for cruising solo in the cabin. I choose to cruise on Princess and HAL so that's the cost of cruising. If I wanted to pay less for doing so on a different line, I wouldn't do it even if there were no single supplement.

[Pam in CA]

2. I have never seen a ship add or remove lifeboats based upon the number of passengers aboard. I suspect that the number of lifeboats are based on the maximum capacity of the ship - and probably with a few spaces extra. If the ship has staterooms that have a capacity of more than two then I suspect they have enought lifeboats to handle that.

 

4. Most ships are not sailing at full capacity. How many couples do not crusie because they cannot afford to pay the nearly full fare for the child? If such examples exist, then the ship may actually lose revenue.

The official capacity of the ship is based on the number of spaces in the lifeboats, not on the total number of possible beds. Unless there is a spate of last-minute cancelations, Princess ships sail "full." This does not mean that every drop-down bed or pull-out couch is in use. Most of the 3rd and 4th passenger accommodations in cabins are not booked or in use.

[smeyer418]

The official capacity of the ship is based on the number of spaces in the lifeboats, not on the total number of possible beds. Unless there is a spate of last-minute cancelations, Princess ships sail "full." This does not mean that every drop-down bed or pull-out couch is in use. Most of the 3rd and 4th passenger accommodations in cabins are not booked or in use.

 

 

actually its based on the number of lifeboats seats times a % overage so that if one side of the ships lifeboats are unusable there is an extra amount on the other side to cover it. There are also a large number of life rafts which are mostly for the crew but can be used if lifeboats become unusable.

[Pam in CA]

I disagree, charging infants almost full price is beyond belief, however I don't feel it is ridiculous to charge someone solo double the fare since they are occuping the cabin alone. Can you imagine how many cruisers would book a room for themselves if they were able to at the same rate.

While you may disagree, that's the business model used by Princess. Some cruiselines offer Senior discounts; Princess does not. They do not take age into consideration whether the passenger is an infant or 80 years old.

 

I never said I thought I should pay only the per-person rate. But 200%? Cruising single in a cabin is my choice; I prefer not to share although I am sometimes contacted by people on my roll call that they have a friend who wants to go on the cruise and they are sure I would like a roommate. Well, no, I don't. It is what it is and that's the cost I pay for my choice. So, I try not to whine about it. When I'm considering booking a cruise, I take into account the itinerary and whether the total cost I will pay is worth it.

[Pam in CA]

actually its based on the number of lifeboats seats times a % overage so that if one side of the ships lifeboats are unusable there is an extra amount on the other side to cover it. There are also a large number of life rafts which are mostly for the crew but can be used if lifeboats become unusable.

True. I was trying to simplify the explanation and point out that it's not based on the total number of available beds, whether they are twin, queen, bunk or sofa.

[bplazo]

I am so glad that they do not have a special rate for babies and toddlers. It would be crazy on the ship.

[small talk]

Thank you BJSHAP

 

I haven't been on here in a while and got a chance to check the thread so apologies if I haven't made myself noticeable.

 

I have not read all of the comments - so many. I certainly have lived and learnt and was totally unaware that Princess charge so much for an infant. I certainly was not expecting my child to go free but half of the quoted price - £1262.

 

Being in the UK, we're used to holiday companies charging far less for such young children (and in some cases for free - except the occupancy charges) to go on foreign holidays. Certainly the under twos are not charged to fly. An example is that Jet2.com are only going to charge £20 for a 14-month-old to fly and whereas a foreign holiday may cost around £700 per person (adult) a child under two (sometimes under 12) can be charged less than half of an adult fare. It is this that makes me wonder if princess really are 'family-friendly'. Maybe not as much as others.

 

It could also be 'an American thing'? I don't really know. Right now, our cruising holidays are now over :( or until we enquire with another crusie line that is more reasonable in our eyes when it comes to child prices.

 

I am not 'anti-Princess' - far from it. It's just for the first time ever, we feel let down, that's all.

[4cats4me]

Thank you BJSHAP

 

I haven't been on here in a while and got a chance to check the thread so apologies if I haven't made myself noticeable.

 

I have not read all of the comments - so many. I certainly have lived and learnt and was totally unaware that Princess charge so much for an infant. I certainly was not expecting my child to go free but half of the quoted price - £1262.

 

Being in the UK, we're used to holiday companies charging far less for such young children (and in some cases for free - except the occupancy charges) to go on foreign holidays. Certainly the under twos are not charged to fly. An example is that Jet2.com are only going to charge £20 for a 14-month-old to fly and whereas a foreign holiday may cost around £700 per person (adult) a child under two (sometimes under 12) can be charged less than half of an adult fare. It is this that makes me wonder if princess really are 'family-friendly'. Maybe not as much as others.

 

It could also be 'an American thing'? I don't really know. Right now, our cruising holidays are now over :( or until we enquire with another crusie line that is more reasonable in our eyes when it comes to child prices.

 

I am not 'anti-Princess' - far from it. It's just for the first time ever, we feel let down, that's all.

 

FYI: There are plenty of family friendly venues in America . the Americans pioneered family friendly vacations. DISNEY comes to mind most immediately, be it the amusement parks or the cruise line. Princess is also family friendly. They treat all children respecfully and have children's clubs. However, you must be willing to pay full price for the child.

I've priced Disney cruises, and I can tell you, they're much pricier than Princess cruises -- prohibitively expensive, to me, so even if you have to pay for a child on Princess, it still seems cheaper than what one could get on Disney --

[cruzedude]

FYI: There are plenty of family friendly venues in America . the Americans pioneered family friendly vacations. DISNEY comes to mind most immediately, be it the amusement parks or the cruise line. Princess is also family friendly. They treat all children respecfully and have children's clubs. However, you must be willing to pay full price for the child.

I've priced Disney cruises, and I can tell you, they're much pricier than Princess cruises -- prohibitively expensive, to me, so even if you have to pay for a child on Princess, it still seems cheaper than what one could get on Disney --

 

Exactly as a quick example I looked at both Princess and Disney for 3 passengers (2 adult + 1 child). Grabbed the cheapest balcony stateroom on a 7 day Caribbean sailing from a Florida port in April (spring break).

 

Disney

Adult 1: $1414

Adult 2: $1414

Child: $417

Taxes/Port Fees: $193

-----

Total: $3438

 

Princess

Adult 1: $1099

Adult 2: $1099

Child: $549

Taxes/Port Fees: $237

-----

Total: $2985

 

Now on this particular cruise Princess is offering 50% rate on 3rd passenger. Still even if it was full rate the price is roughly same as cheapest Disney cruise. All that matters is the bottom line. So just because a cruiseline offers discounts for children or even free far for children doesn't mean it is a value.

[Cruisin' Chick]

It's been about nine or ten years since we've gone to Disneyland so I can't remember how much it cost us for two adults and a toddler, but it was quite a bit for one day's worth of activity. Plus the cost of parking and food (since you're not allowed to bring in food; else, you have to leave the park and head to a less costly eatery), and it could be quite expensive. And I'm not counting the gasoline (we're about 50-60 miles away).

[Pam in CA]

It could also be 'an American thing'? I don't really know. Right now, our cruising holidays are now over :( or until we enquire with another crusie line that is more reasonable in our eyes when it comes to child prices.

It's not an American thing but a cruising thing. It's easy to find a hotel or resort in the US that not only doesn't charge for a child but the rate is per room, not per person. Many British and Europen hotels charge by the number of people in the room. A hotel or resort doesn't have to have a spot on a lifeboat in the event of an emergency. Nor do they depend on spending in the hotel for their profit. You'll pay a heck of a lot more per day in a hotel or resort than you would pay for a cruise.