Does RCCL have a cabin fare charge for infants?

[LMaxwell]

I definitely think RCI is out of line on pricing for little kids. Other cruise lines have much more favorable and realistic rates for little ones. No one is asking that kids travel for free, but to charge the same fare for all is a bit ludicrous. Now that RCI is building family friendly amusement parks the pricing does not jive with the message.

 

Kids under age 5 or so should have a reduced fare and be more in line with the competition. I too have priced out RCI for three and the pricing is insane. I'd love for my little ones first cruise to be on RCI but it is looking doubtful to be honest.

[cello56]

Please don't forget that even a six month old baby will be charged the exact same gratuities as an adult! :)

[RCCL Fan]

I'm kind of in the middle on this one...

 

I think those of you who say the kids need a spot in the lifeboat, take up a berth, not spending money on board have a valid point.

 

However, the woman who said her 1 yr old, would cost an extra $1300 has an equally valid point.

 

Disney for example charges less for infants, apparently some others do, but I don' know for certain.

 

How do they manage to charge less for tiny travelers?

 

A 5 yr old going to adventure ocean, taking up "space", eating onboard.... well I'm happy to pay the full price.

 

Our 6 month old baby, who will be carried in a sling on my wife, doesn't eat anything but breast milk, can't swim, eat a piece of bread, and will sleep in our own pack n play in our cabin... well an extra $1300 seems excessive to me.

 

I'm still going, still paying it, she's my kid, we want to cruise, bet I think it should be less.

 

Not sure how other lines can manage that and RCI can't.

[RCCL Fan]

Just pulled the invoices too....

 

I'ma huge royal fan, always have been.

 

But this is the first year we have two kids.

 

We for the first time every considered other lines, very seriously and very strongly.

 

Mainly because they were so much cheaper.

 

I thought RCI raised prices, but not it is my little ones

 

 

Disney: 3rd & 4th person rate $489 & $249 (of course adult rates, much much higher)

 

NCL: $382 for both

 

RCI: adults rate increased $700+ and kids pay $930

 

 

There is a difference with what RCI charges for my babies vs the other guys.

[Havingfun2010]

There seems to be much confusion about this. Kid's are people, who by law, take up a place on the ship. They also share the cost of gas, get charged a port fee etc. I have 2 kids, who no longer are kids. I spent the last 25 years, paying for them. I don't regret it. I accept the fact, that I had to pay for them. A poster said, their infant does not get charged on a plane. However, if they take the seat, I thought they do get charged, only lap babies are free. Hotels, are the same. Most hotels charge you for the room. That is their business model. I accept it. I would love every opportunity to save money, but realistically, I also understood, some things, I just have to pay.

 

With that being said. Last cruise, I sat near a 92 year old women. She barely ate anything. I doubt she swam, or did the rock climbing wall. She was in a wheelchair, and did not seem like the party type, to use the nightclubs etc. Should she have gotten a discount? The argument can go so many ways.

 

I guess, I'm just saying, for the next 20 years, good luck!

[spookwife]

 

I was transferred to the resolutions department who explained that because she would be "taking up space in the stateroom" she has to pay the same fare as a 17 year old teenager. I asked how putting a baby in a Junior Suite displaced any other revenue paying passengers, and why it's fair that such a young child, who hardly eats anything, and is not able to partake in the Adventure Ocean program (unless you count paying the hourly rate for a babysitter) would pay the same rate as an older child who would actually cost the cruise line money. The rest of the call sounded like banging one's head against a brick wall. I was not permitted to speak to the revenue department who makes the rules.

 

 

 

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)

[dcgrumpy]

Just pulled the invoices too....

 

I'ma huge royal fan, always have been.

 

But this is the first year we have two kids.

 

We for the first time every considered other lines, very seriously and very strongly.

 

Mainly because they were so much cheaper.

 

I thought RCI raised prices, but not it is my little ones

 

 

Disney: 3rd & 4th person rate $489 & $249 (of course adult rates, much much higher)

 

NCL: $382 for both

 

RCI: adults rate increased $700+ and kids pay $930

 

 

There is a difference with what RCI charges for my babies vs the other guys.

 

It really depends on the sailing. I was looking at some cruises for next year and the 3rd and 4th was almost as much as 1st and 2nd. But on the sailing we ended up booking, we're paying

 

1st $1266

2nd $633

3rd, 4th, 5th $249

[LissyTx]

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.

 

I know I know I can vacation elsewhere please don't flame me. I'm just saying their pricing strategy stinks and is making someone whose vacations the last 3 years have solely been on Royal feel like I need to look elsewhere now that we have a little one.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homosassa]

Just pulled the invoices too....

 

 

Disney: 3rd & 4th person rate $489 & $249 (of course adult rates, much much higher)

 

 

That is why my husband and I don't cruise Disney. All adults fares are much higher to offset the children's price. As we don't have children (they are now adults), we feel no need to subsidize all the families on board.

 

By the way, when we first started cruising with our daughter 30 years ago, there would not be a lot of children on board (less than 10). As a result, babies under the age of two were only charged the government taxes and port charges. Children under 10 - 12 (depended on the cruise line) sharing the same cabin, were charged a minimal cruise fare.

 

However, as the cruiselines realized they were missing a customer base in families and started adding additional services to attract families with children, the cruiselines realized the minimal children's fares were hurting their bottom line (the additional money spent by an adult) and the children started being charged the same as the 3/4 passenger in a cabin.

 

Our timing was good as about the time adult fares started to be charged, my daughter had past the child fare age cut off. We would have been paying the adult fare for her in any case.

[mommabean]

I think cruise lines should charge less for children. In fact I think they should charge all passengers by the pound. That will cover the food price appropriately. :D ;)

 

Gina

[Adayatatime]

I think cruise lines should charge less for children. In fact I think they should charge all passengers by the pound. That will cover the food price appropriately. :D ;)

 

Gina

 

 

Lol. :D

[Adayatatime]

I was always convinced babies take up more space. And make more mess / waste.

 

I obviously did it wrong.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Adayatatime

[AdGuyMG]

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?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If you made a booking for you and your husband, you would be booked in a cabin that only has bedding for 2. There would be no 3rd or 4th empty berth.

 

If you made a booking with the baby, you would be assigned a triple occupancy cabin with sleeping accommodations for 3, regardless of where the baby chooses to sleep at night.

[LissyTx]

If you made a booking for you and your husband, you would be booked in a cabin that only has bedding for 2. There would be no 3rd or 4th empty berth.

 

If you made a booking with the baby, you would be assigned a triple occupancy cabin with sleeping accommodations for 3, regardless of where the baby chooses to sleep at night.

 

Not quite correct... babies in pack in plays are allowed into cabins otherwise designated for 2. We just did it on the Oasis in May. (And they've priced this for us adding her to our D1 Balcony on Jewel for March 2015)

 

The other room we have booked is a Grand Suite which you can book with only 2 but can accommodate 4.

[AdGuyMG]

I don't know why people think that because a baby eats less, this is the main expense. A cruise liner caters for everything, irrespective of age.

 

And the "my baby doesn't eat much" spin is always the main the point in threads like this.

 

The fact is, the far and away #1 expense for every cruise line is FUEL. For the mass market cruise lines the average cost of fuel is budgeted at $55 per person per day.

 

Mass market line food is budgeted between $12 and $14 per person per day.

[LMaxwell]

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.

 

I know I know I can vacation elsewhere please don't flame me. I'm just saying their pricing strategy stinks and is making someone whose vacations the last 3 years have solely been on Royal feel like I need to look elsewhere now that we have a little one.

 

That sums up how we feel.

[RCCL Fan]

Not quite correct... babies in pack in plays are allowed into cabins otherwise designated for 2. We just did it on the Oasis in May. (And they've priced this for us adding her to our D1 Balcony on Jewel for March 2015)

 

The other room we have booked is a Grand Suite which you can book with only 2 but can accommodate 4.

 

Yep we did the same thing.

 

We're told on here RCI wouldn't allow because of berth/lifeboat deal.

 

But RCI did allow and didn't care.

 

We had a double occupancy room with our infant in a pack -n - play no problem. We did still pay full fare for her though.

 

 

We've also played the money shuffle game.

 

 

For example. Booked a GS for our family but OFFICIALLY on the books our daughter was in an inside triple with her aunt & uncle..

 

We were told we couldn't do this because it would mess up the lifeboat count.

 

So we sent daughter to bed at night with our siblings

 

Room Steward on board saw us doing this and asked why.

 

We told him.

 

He, concierge, and guest relations manager all said not true at all and our daughter could sleep with us even though she was assigned to the other lifeboat.

 

I'm told it happens all the time and they account for it.

 

Just an FYI.

 

:-)

Edited August 21, 2014 by RCCL Fan

[AdGuyMG]

Not quite correct... babies in pack in plays are allowed into cabins otherwise designated for 2. We just did it on the Oasis in May. (And they've priced this for us adding her to our D1 Balcony on Jewel for March 2015)

 

The other room we have booked is a Grand Suite which you can book with only 2 but can accommodate 4.

 

I didn't take into account Suites, which true, don't have occupancy restrictions on most cruise lines.

 

As for the D1 hump balconies and Royal allowing a 3rd occupant in a Pack and Play into a cabin accommodating only 2, I was not aware that would be allowed. Thanks for the info.

 

I have had a couple of experiences with infants traveling on Carnival and Norwegian, and on those lines infants who are the 3rd passengers in a Pack and Play need to be booked in a triple occupancy room.

[AdGuyMG]

We're told on here RCI wouldn't allow because of berth/lifeboat deal.

 

But RCI did allow and didn't care.

 

We had a double occupancy room with our infant in a pack -n - play no problem. We did still pay full fare for her though.

 

 

We've also played the money shuffle game.

 

 

For example. Booked a GS for our family but OFFICIALLY on the books our daughter was in an inside triple with her aunt & uncle..

 

We were told we couldn't do this because it would mess up the lifeboat count.

 

So we sent daughter to bed at night with our siblings

 

Room Steward on board saw us doing this and asked why.

 

We told him.

 

He, concierge, and guest relations manager all said not true at all and our daughter could sleep with us even though she was assigned to the other lifeboat.

 

I'm told it happens all the time and they account for it.

 

Just an FYI.

 

:-)

 

Having a child booked in another cabin anywhere on the ship but sleeping in your cabin is done all the time.

 

You can have 20 strangers come sleep in your stateroom and nobody will care. But those 20 others (or in this case, your daughter) must have a bed booked somewhere on the ship.

[jcrabin]

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.

[chengkp75]

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.

 

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.

Edited August 21, 2014 by chengkp75

[AdGuyMG]

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.

 

So the cabin you are booked in with the PnP has no upper berth in the ceiling or sofa that converts to 3rd bed?

 

You don't have to give your sailing date, but what ship and cabin number? I'd like to see that.

[Adayatatime]

Life doesn't seem fair sometimes. If you have an odd number of kids, you miss out on deals where "4th person travels free" etc.

 

To me, this sounds like walking into a supermarket, picking up a chocolate bar and then asking if you can just buy half of it at the counter because its for someone small.

 

You are taking up a persons space, as RC can only have so many people on board. Sorry, but I'm not going to compensate for anyone else's children just because they are little, in my fare.

 

Ad to be quite honest, little people do have a presence as much as older people.

[cgguajardo]

So the cabin you are booked in with the PnP has no upper berth in the ceiling or sofa that converts to 3rd bed?

 

You don't have to give your sailing date, but what ship and cabin number? I'd like to see that.

 

Navigator of the seas cabin 9253; had Mother in law and the two kids, one 6 year old the other 2 years old.

 

In the invoice it said in big bold letters BABY CRIB IN CABIN just in the line that reads Special Services.

 

Just so you know this had to be done on the phone the web site does not let you do this

[firestopr]

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.