Future solo/single passengers might want to read:

[firefly333]

I didn't say we DO get breaks. I said we're not entitled to them. Many here take this as a personal "screw you" and feel entitled to cheaper rates.

 

I fail to understand why people dont get that now we have twice as much $$ at risk if booking ES. Twice as much $$$ is now refundable than used to be.

 

No one ever books ES thinking .. oh we will have to make a change .. but I know its happened to me too. If those who dont get this point cant understand, oh well .. but I know I calculate in my head the risks. I know a TA who will give OBC but charges $25 pp if there is a price change .. thats a risk I calculate in and decided it was not worth it for me.

 

Now instead of $250 at risk pp, if its $500 pp at risk for just one pax, me .. its a larger risk.

 

So, if you make a change, is it now $50 pp to cancel .. or is this doubled too?? Not just the deposit that is doubled and now twice as much at risk if for whatever reason I cant go..

 

I already got caught once in ES no name changes rule .. so if I now have twice as much deposit at risk.. this is a larger risk I would add in when I decide should I or shouldnt I book ES.

 

I personally dont care about putting down twice the deposit, I can afford it, many here cant. .. but if they are now saying twice the amount of deposit is now nonrefundable for one pax as before .. this to me is a negative. I get that its beyond some of you to understand .. but some of us dont care for this aspect of it.

 

TWICE as much $$$ is now nonrefundable as before.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

Well said, Fire.

 

I can also afford the double deposit, so that's not the issue for me--the issue for me is that yesterday if I booked a cruise, my deposit was either $250 or $350 (since Alaska is my favorite cruise destination). Now, it'll be twice that. It doesn't change the total cost I'm paying, but I'm certainly going to react to that! :eek:

 

If I were buying a house and was expected by my bank to put down $20,000 and they changed their rules and decided I now need to put down $40,000, I'd react. It doesn't change the total cost I'll pay for the house, but it has an impact...

 

It's not just this change that's causing a reaction. It's this change on top of all the other changes of late. There's a bit of a cummulative effect here.

[firefly333]

Well said, Fire.

 

I can also afford the double deposit, so that's not the issue for me--the issue for me is that yesterday if I booked a cruise, my deposit was either $250 or $350 (since Alaska is my favorite cruise destination). Now, it'll be twice that. It doesn't change the total cost I'm paying, but I'm certainly going to react to that! :eek:

 

If I were buying a house and was expected by my bank to put down $20,000 and they changed their rules and decided I now need to put down $40,000, I'd react. It doesn't change the total cost I'll pay for the house, but it has an impact...

 

It's not just this change that's causing a reaction. It's this change on top of all the other changes of late. There's a bit of a cummulative effect here.

 

For me its that twice as much is now nonrefundable if for whatever reason I cant go on the date I booked.

 

I think its lucky there is not a IQ test to post on CC if people cant understand that people would rather risk $250 than $500 as a nonrefundable deposit. I dont really care if I have to put twice as much down.. I do care if now Carnival is going to hold onto twice as much deposit if I cant go.

 

Its the fact that ES is a nonrefundable deposit I already hated .. now I have reason to double hate it, with doubling of my risk.

 

Who cant understand that someone would prefer Carnival hold $200 of $250 deposit rather than $450 of a $500 deposit as a future credit. Its simple math to me.

 

But I can respect your reason to not like it too, even if its not the same as my reason.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

For me its that twice as much is now nonrefundable if for whatever reason I cant go on the date I booked.

 

I think its lucky there is not a IQ test to post on CC if people cant understand that people would rather risk $250 than $500 as a nonrefundable deposit. I dont really care if I have to put twice as much down.. I do care if now Carnival is going to hold onto twice as much deposit if I cant go.

 

Its the fact that ES is a nonrefundable deposit I already hated .. now I have reason to double hate it, with doubling of my risk.

 

Who cant understand that someone would prefer Carnival hold $200 of $250 deposit rather than $450 of a $500 deposit as a future credit. Its simple math to me.

 

But I can respect your reason to not like it too, even if its not the same as my reason.

 

 

Oh, I don't like that part of it either! LOL.

[SarahQ]

I think its lucky there is not a IQ test to post on CC if people cant understand that people would rather risk $250 than $500 as a nonrefundable deposit. I dont really care if I have to put twice as much down.. I do care if now Carnival is going to hold onto twice as much deposit if I cant go.

...

Who cant understand that someone would prefer Carnival hold $200 of $250 deposit rather than $450 of a $500 deposit as a future credit. Its simple math to me.

 

I don't think there is a need to be disrespectful.

 

I think everyone can understand you'd rather pay less than more upfront.

 

However, if we're talking simple math, it's simple math to say that basically solo cruisers *were* getting a break before (as far as Carnival was concerned) as they were paying half of the standard deposit per cabin.

 

Frankly the fact that there is only one person really shouldn't mean anything (again, as far as Carnival is concerned) - why shouldn't the deposit match the cost of the cabin, regardless of the number of pax?

 

If I book a cabin to travel with my husband, and you book a cabin in the same category to travel alone - did we not just do exactly the same thing (book at cabin at $XXX)? I understand that for those who are on a fixed income, or a single income, the higher deposit could be a burden, but since when has that become an issue for Carnival to deal with?

 

I understand not liking it, I don't understand acting as if Carnival is trying to "screw" solo cruisers by making a business decision which, to be honest, is quite sound.

 

As far as the ES issue, that was only brought up very recently in this thread, and that aspect of it I can certainly understand. But not all solo cruisers use ES, and once again it's a matter of personal choice if you want to take the risk or not.

 

It seems that you think that if someone doesn't agree or questions why you are feeling the way you do, "that they are telling you how to feel about it". You are free to FEEL however you like about it - but that doesn't mean that there can't be intelligent discussion about it as well.

[Chigirlcruzin]

Don't book ES if you don't want to risk your deposit. ES has its plusses and minuses. If you can't accept the minuses, you shouldn't book ES. No need to get nasty and insult others' IQs.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

I don't think there is a need to be disrespectful.

 

I think everyone can understand you'd rather pay less than more upfront.

 

However, if we're talking simple math, it's simple math to say that basically solo cruisers *were* getting a break before (as far as Carnival was concerned) as they were paying half of the standard deposit per cabin.

 

Frankly the fact that there is only one person really shouldn't mean anything (again, as far as Carnival is concerned) - why shouldn't the deposit match the cost of the cabin, regardless of the number of pax?

 

If I book a cabin to travel with my husband, and you book a cabin in the same category to travel alone - did we not just do exactly the same thing (book at cabin at $XXX)? I understand that for those who are on a fixed income, or a single income, the higher deposit could be a burden, but since when has that become an issue for Carnival to deal with?

 

I understand not liking it, I don't understand acting as if Carnival is trying to "screw" solo cruisers by making a business decision which, to be honest, is quite sound.

 

As far as the ES issue, that was only brought up very recently in this thread, and that aspect of it I can certainly understand. But not all solo cruisers use ES, and once again it's a matter of personal choice if you want to take the risk or not.

 

It seems that you think that if someone doesn't agree or questions why you are feeling the way you do, "that they are telling you how to feel about it". You are free to FEEL however you like about it - but that doesn't mean that there can't be intelligent discussion about it as well.

 

 

I totally understand how you feel--you've made that very, very clear. But, the fact of the matter is that Carnival charges a deposit per person and not per cabin and this is a change to the policy that's been in place for as long as I've been cruising with them. I don't feel that Carnival is "screwing" me and I understand it's a business decision. But, their policy has been a per person deposit in the past and solos weren't getting any kind of a break. We were paying per person. If they charged the deposit per cabin, it wouldn't be an issue because that's what we would have been paying.

 

Being upset about it or voicing our displeasure doesn't mean we don't understand it, and I would venture to guess that if they doubled the deposits for everyone, people would be screaming at the tops of their lungs. Why, as solos, are we not afforded voicing our displeasure?

[cruisepal67]

My personal suggestion to Carnival:

 

To even the keel so to speak, why not charge a percentage of the cabin rate? Something like 15 to 20 percent for the deposit.

 

What does everyone think of that idea?

[barbatkins]

Don't book ES if you don't want to risk your deposit. ES has its plusses and minuses. If you can't accept the minuses, you shouldn't book ES. No need to get nasty and insult others' IQs.

 

Agree to disagree........and let it go.....

 

Those of us that are upset have a right to be......and those of you who are not upset....also have that right....

 

the thread is getting ugly......

[SarahQ]

I totally understand how you feel--you've made that very, very clear. But, the fact of the matter is that Carnival charges a deposit per person and not per cabin and this is a change to the policy that's been in place for as long as I've been cruising with them. I don't feel that Carnival is "screwing" me and I understand it's a business decision. But, their policy has been a per person deposit in the past and solos weren't getting any kind of a break. We were paying per person. If they charged the deposit per cabin, it wouldn't be an issue because that's what we would have been paying.

 

Being upset about it or voicing our displeasure doesn't mean we don't understand it, and I would venture to guess that if they doubled the deposits for everyone, people would be screaming at the tops of their lungs. Why, as solos, are we not afforded voicing our displeasure?

 

*sigh*

 

I actually haven't said anything about how I "feel" about it - I've only commented from a logical and business-oriented perspective.

 

And my main question still hasn't been answered by anyone - why *should* the deposit be different for solos? Why *should* it be per person? "That's how it's always been" doesn't mean much, as it's obviously not like that anymore.

 

I'm asking for someone to simply provide a logical argument as to why that should be the case - heck, I might even agree with you!

[pulledporky]

I fail to understand why people dont get that now we have twice as much $$ at risk if booking ES. Twice as much $$$ is now refundable than used to be.

 

Your "twice as much $$" ($500) = EXACTLY my $$$ ($500). What's not right about that?

[Quilting_Cruiser]

*sigh*

 

I actually haven't said anything about how I "feel" about it - I've only commented from a logical and business-oriented perspective.

 

And my main question still hasn't been answered by anyone - why *should* the deposit be different for solos? Why *should* it be per person? "That's how it's always been" doesn't mean much, as it's obviously not like that anymore.

 

I'm asking for someone to simply provide a logical argument as to why that should be the case - heck, I might even agree with you!

 

 

Okay, my apologies. You didn't say how you "feel" about it; I inferred your feelings.

 

The logic is simple for me. They currently advertise their deposit as per person. They're now doubling that for solos. I don't like it. That's all I'm saying. I never said they should continue to have a per person deposit and if they want to start charging the deposit per cabin, they can certainly do that. Just don't call it a per person deposit.

 

I haven't heard anyone say Carnival doesn't have the right to make the change or that it isn't a sound business decision (maybe if I reread the thread I'd see that, but I don't recall anyone saying that). From what I've seen, we're simply saying we don't like the decision Carnival has made.

 

I do take issue with the idea that solos have "been getting a break." We've paid our deposits per person just like everyone else. It's totally within Carnival's right to make the business decision to change that. But, I don't have to be happy about it.

[Chigirlcruzin]

I don't think there is a need to be disrespectful.

 

I think everyone can understand you'd rather pay less than more upfront.

 

However, if we're talking simple math, it's simple math to say that basically solo cruisers *were* getting a break before (as far as Carnival was concerned) as they were paying half of the standard deposit per cabin.

 

Frankly the fact that there is only one person really shouldn't mean anything (again, as far as Carnival is concerned) - why shouldn't the deposit match the cost of the cabin, regardless of the number of pax?

 

If I book a cabin to travel with my husband, and you book a cabin in the same category to travel alone - did we not just do exactly the same thing (book at cabin at $XXX)? I understand that for those who are on a fixed income, or a single income, the higher deposit could be a burden, but since when has that become an issue for Carnival to deal with?

 

I understand not liking it, I don't understand acting as if Carnival is trying to "screw" solo cruisers by making a business decision which, to be honest, is quite sound.

 

As far as the ES issue, that was only brought up very recently in this thread, and that aspect of it I can certainly understand. But not all solo cruisers use ES, and once again it's a matter of personal choice if you want to take the risk or not.

 

It seems that you think that if someone doesn't agree or questions why you are feeling the way you do, "that they are telling you how to feel about it". You are free to FEEL however you like about it - but that doesn't mean that there can't be intelligent discussion about it as well.

 

Thank you! Even though you aren't a solo cruiser, you bring very sound, logical, non-emotional thought to this discussion.

[Chigirlcruzin]

Agree to disagree........and let it go.....

 

Those of us that are upset have a right to be......and those of you who are not upset....also have that right....

 

the thread is getting ugly......

 

Agree to disagree :) We all have a choice on where we spend our vacation dollars.

[Ander026]

Well now I have another reason not to sail with Carnival. Back in 2009 when I was booking my first cruise solo I did look at Carnival along with RCCL. I found that RCCL had better rates for singles than CCL did. Now with double deposit I definetly will not be sailing Carnival Solo.

 

My first Carnival Cruise I sailed with a roomate. I am solo by choice and cruise solo by choice. I wish that cruise lines would have better solo pricing all around.

[cruzn buckeye]

Frankly the fact that there is only one person really shouldn't mean anything (again, as far as Carnival is concerned) - why shouldn't the deposit match the cost of the cabin, regardless of the number of pax?

 

The deposit should not match the cost of the cabin, because when you pay deposit it is per person, not per cabin....

[C Cruise Dude]

In case you are not already aware, there is a change coming later this month regarding your deposit requirements.

 

This was shared with me earlier today by one of my TA clients, who knew that I used to cruise solo on Carnival with frequency.

.

 

https://www.goccl.com/content/form-policy/documents/SingleOccupancyDeposit_FAQ.pdf

 

 

.

I'll skip my editorial of personal opinion. ;)

 

.

 

I guess I don't see any difference. Most of the Carnival cruises that I have booked in the last two years were after final payment so I had to pay in full at booking. The other I booked with someone so I only had to pay half the deposit and the one that I booked in advance I had to pay $500 which I didn't mind because it brings final payment down.

 

I have recently booked solo with Royal Caribbean and Princess and both charged less than 200% so Carnival might be on it way out with me (as a solo cruiser) anyway.

[maxxedout2]

Howdy.

 

As above....

 

Most of my solo cruises are 'last minute' and have to

pay full then.

 

Thanks for the alert though.

 

:cool:

[wiskt]

Whether you pay a 100% deposit or a 200% deposit you are still paying the same for the cruise in the end right? All that is changing is SOLOS are paying more upfont am I correct?

 

If thats what Im reading, this wont affect me as a solo cruiser because I usually pay my cruise off within two payments anyway and under EARLY SAVER. The only thing I see possibly bad about it could be a "non-refundable deposit" ....... and that is IF A CANCELLATION ever came into affect.

 

Honestly, how often does that happen anyway? NONE for me and thats what the travel insurance is for.

 

It just amuses me how people react like THEIR WORLD IS CRASHING DOWN and they will never cruise Carnival again

[AdrenalineRush]

Whether you pay a 100% deposit or a 200% deposit you are still paying the same for the cruise in the end right? All that is changing is SOLOS are paying more upfont am I correct?

 

If thats what Im reading, this wont affect me as a solo cruiser because I usually pay my cruise off within two payments anyway and under EARLY SAVER. The only thing I see possibly bad about it could be a "non-refundable deposit" ....... and that is IF A CANCELLATION ever came into affect.

 

Honestly, how often does that happen anyway? NONE for me and thats what the travel insurance is for.

 

It just amuses me how people react like THEIR WORLD IS CRASHING DOWN and they will never cruise Carnival again

 

 

Insurance wouldnt cover your non refundable deposit, because its being held as a credit. Your insurance would cover the service fee if you had to cancel.

[larkz]

It's simple. Accommodations, plus itinerary, plus on board activities, equals how much is it worth to you? I like being frugal and chasing the best bargain and best bang for the buck, myself. If it's worth the price, sold! If not, no deal.

 

I don't get all this dissection and dis-assembly of the factors (real and imagined) that go into the price that Carnival sets for a cruise. It's utterly meaningless.

 

It's about as useful as a debate about whether Pepsi or Coke is putting the same gauge of aluminum in their cans, and if not, why don't we get a discount on the thinner can? Yikes!

 

If a solo cruise is worth $789.15 (or whatever) to you, then take the cruise. If not, move on to a better offer somewhere else. You really, really, really aren't worth that much to any cruise line if you're sailing solo. That's the stone cold truth. As a sometimes solo cruiser, I don't care. The price is still a bargain for me, and so it goes.

[alreadypacked]

My personal suggestion to Carnival:

 

To even the keel so to speak, why not charge a percentage of the cabin rate? Something like 15 to 20 percent for the deposit.

 

What does everyone think of that idea?

 

That's what Princess does.

[RRLLAL]

Well now I have another reason not to sail with Carnival. Back in 2009 when I was booking my first cruise solo I did look at Carnival along with RCCL. I found that RCCL had better rates for singles than CCL did. Now with double deposit I definetly will not be sailing Carnival Solo.

 

My first Carnival Cruise I sailed with a roomate. I am solo by choice and cruise solo by choice. I wish that cruise lines would have better solo pricing all around.

 

 

Thank you for your interest in Carnival.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[SeaShark]

I'm glad I made my booking for the Dream before this policy came out...

 

 

Its interesting that Carnival wants a solo to pay deposit for two people, then wants a solo to pay the fare for two people, but when it comes to awarding VIFP points a solo only gets credited for one.

 

I think if you pay for two...you should get rewarded for two.

[RRLLAL]

Whether you pay a 100% deposit or a 200% deposit you are still paying the same for the cruise in the end right? All that is changing is SOLOS are paying more upfont am I correct?

 

If thats what Im reading, this wont affect me as a solo cruiser because I usually pay my cruise off within two payments anyway and under EARLY SAVER. The only thing I see possibly bad about it could be a "non-refundable deposit" ....... and that is IF A CANCELLATION ever came into affect.

 

Honestly, how often does that happen anyway? NONE for me and thats what the travel insurance is for.

 

It just amuses me how people react like THEIR WORLD IS CRASHING DOWN and they will never cruise Carnival again

 

 

Very well said, especially your last paragraph.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2