Celebrity is Changing. Suggestions for New Cruise Line

[ScottC4746]

I have fallen in love two years ago with Celebrity and we will be doing our second cruise in May and from the posts I have been seeing their new CEO doesn't know how to run a cruise line.

Some examples are:

• Premium drink package includes up to $17 but a majority of drinks hover north of that.
• Captain's Club Power Up offers are non-existent.
• A cruise for two is one price, but to book the exact same thing as a single reports are that it is 4 times or higher than that.

 

Can anyone suggest another cruise line similar to Celebrity (we considered Celebrity as a entry level luxury cruise line) that is still easy on the budget, about the same size?  We left RCCL because they are getting too big ship wise and we don't need a theme park on board.  We sailed on HAL once.  While they were everything we were looking for, we felt like someone's grandchildren.  This was 2015 and we are now 51 and 59 this year.

We are both foodies and both love going to the theater in the evenings.  We love being able to sit and have a nice drink with nice background music going, not typical bar music thmpa thumpa thumpa.  We love being pampered and love being able to take as many meals in the main dining room as possible, breakfast, lunch, and dinner as we hate buffet quality.

 

Any suggestions?

[Kp125]

6 minutes ago, ScottC4746 said:

I have fallen in love two years ago with Celebrity and we will be doing our second cruise in May and from the posts I have been seeing their new CEO doesn't know how to run a cruise line.

Some examples are:

• Premium drink package includes up to $17 but a majority of drinks hover north of that.
• Captain's Club Power Up offers are non-existent.
• A cruise for two is one price, but to book the exact same thing as a single reports are that it is 4 times or higher than that.

 

Can anyone suggest another cruise line similar to Celebrity (we considered Celebrity as a entry level luxury cruise line) that is still easy on the budget, about the same size?  We left RCCL because they are getting too big ship wise and we don't need a theme park on board.  We sailed on HAL once.  While they were everything we were looking for, we felt like someone's grandchildren.  This was 2015 and we are now 51 and 59 this year.

We are both foodies and both love going to the theater in the evenings.  We love being able to sit and have a nice drink with nice background music going, not typical bar music thmpa thumpa thumpa.  We love being pampered and love being able to take as many meals in the main dining room as possible, breakfast, lunch, and dinner as we hate buffet quality.

 

Any suggestions?

Haven class on NCL. Dedicated restaurant plus access to specialty dining and dining rooms. Mini Broadway shows and at least one bar has quiet music

[Essiesmom]

MSC in the Yacht Club.  EM

[leaveitallbehind]

1 hour ago, ScottC4746 said:

I have fallen in love two years ago with Celebrity and we will be doing our second cruise in May and from the posts I have been seeing their new CEO doesn't know how to run a cruise line.

Some examples are:

• Premium drink package includes up to $17 but a majority of drinks hover north of that.
• Captain's Club Power Up offers are non-existent.
• A cruise for two is one price, but to book the exact same thing as a single reports are that it is 4 times or higher than that.

 

Any suggestions?

I'm not so sure I agree that Celebrity is changing, and I would suggest doing some fact checking on some of the assertions you indicate are being posted.

 

In our experience with a dozen + Celebrity cruises the vast majority of all drinks fall well within the $17 level and not above.  And we typically drink premium spirits, etc.

 

The Captains Club Power Up requires you to be a Captains Club member and to be signed up to the program with an email to receive the occasional activity in which to participate for points. Are you enrolled in this manner? The program to the best of my knowledge is still in effect with a 10 to 1 point value between Power Up and Captains Club points earned.

 

Can you provide an example of of the double occupancy price becoming a solo price at four times or higher than the amount?  Solo pricing has historically been at a supplement that is up to the double occupancy fare less one value of taxes and port fees.  And on Apex class ships there are dedicated solo veranda staterooms that are typically priced at a 30 - 40% reduction over the double occupancy rate. Recent bookings that I have direct knowledge of have confirmed this.  Clearly even if there was an example of such a fare difference it would not represent the typical fare structure and would likely be some sort of mistake. 

 

As to the new CEO, she is taking over for the current CEO who is moving on to a new role within the RCI group.  This new CEO was previously an Executive VP within the RCI group and her credentials indicate a fairly high level of expertise and experience IMO.

 

Change to a different cruise line if you wish, but IMO I would do so only if I have the facts driving that decision confirmed.

Edited January 31 by leaveitallbehind

[MacMadame]

30 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

Can you provide an example of of the double occupancy price becoming a solo price at four times or higher than the amount?  Solo pricing has historically been at a supplement that is up to the double occupancy fare less one value of taxes and port fees.  And on Apex class ships there are dedicated solo veranda staterooms that are typically priced at a 30 - 40% reduction over the double occupancy rate. Recent bookings that I have direct knowledge of have confirmed this.  Clearly even if there was an example of such a fare difference it would not represent the typical fare structure and would likely be some sort of mistake. 

I don't know about the rest of it but this part has been confirmed. Well, maybe not 4x. I have seen 3x discussed on various cruising channels and blogs. It's outrageous IMO. (And I don't travel solo.)

[Essiesmom]

I’m Elite on Celebrity, but didn’t cruise them from Jan 2020 until June 2023.  I got my very first Power Up Points invite in Dec.  I also travel solo now and the last time, last month, when I tried to price as a solo it was 2.5-3 times the double occ. rate.  And the 75% off second guest offer was in effect.  Didn’t apply to me.  EM

[leaveitallbehind]

51 minutes ago, MacMadame said:

I don't know about the rest of it but this part has been confirmed. Well, maybe not 4x. I have seen 3x discussed on various cruising channels and blogs. It's outrageous IMO. (And I don't travel solo.)

OK well we are on Eclipse this June and I just did a mock booking for a solo (versus standard double occupancy) veranda stateroom and the solo fare was 10% less than the double occupancy fare.  I also then did a random one for Apex for September using the single veranda category and it was 18% lower than the double occupancy veranda category.  So that is 2 for 2 against the reported higher fares.  I could do more to continue to see but don't think I need to

 

I would like to see an example of the 3X fares.  IMO If it exists it likely is a mistake.

 

And before anyone should accuse me of being a cheerleader for Celebrity, I am not.  But I am an advocate of the facts.  

Edited January 31 by leaveitallbehind

[cruisemom42]

31 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

OK well we are on Eclipse this June and I just did a mock booking for a solo (versus standard double occupancy) veranda stateroom and the solo fare was 10% less than the double occupancy fare.  I also then did a random one for Apex for September using the single veranda category and it was 18% lower than the double occupancy veranda category.  So that is 2 for 2 against the reported higher fares.  I could do more to continue to see but don't think I need to

 

I would like to see an example of the 3X fares.  IMO If it exists it likely is a mistake.

 

And before anyone should accuse me of being a cheerleader for Celebrity, I am not.  But I am an advocate of the facts.  

 

It's a real thing. Celebrity has been catching heat for it for weeks now. I believe they've realized it is VERY unpopular and have started rolling prices back but at one point they actually came out and said that they were doing it "because solos spend less". (Sorry, but categorizing a group in such a way represents discrimination....)

 

Anyway, just so you know it isn't fictitious, here is a report from Forbes on the topic. In it, they mention a fare they found which was "$1,461 for a double occupancy guest and $4,346 for a single."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2024/01/07/solo-penalty-cruise-line-charges-single-travelers-much-more-than-double/?sh=1b84b1a15a3a

[cruisemom42]

And here is a second source that actually mentioned a Celebrity spokesperson confirming it. The rate they found was not as egregious as the one cited in the Forbes report above, but it is still around 10% higher than the fare for two people.

 

Sorry, but I find this unconscionable. 

 

 

[leaveitallbehind]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

And here is a second source that actually mentioned a Celebrity spokesperson confirming it. The rate they found was not as egregious as the one cited in the Forbes report above, but it is still around 10% higher than the fare for two people.

10% is a far cry from 3X, but it is what it is. Well I guess it has been corrected then as the rates I found would confirm. I would also like to confirm that I am directly aware of attractive solo rates, both less than double occupancy, on Apex last April and again this past November.  

 

Looks like there may be facts to support both points of view.  I will continue to check at random and will report any anomalies that support the above concerns.

Edited January 31 by leaveitallbehind

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

10% is a far cry from 3X, but it is what it is.

 

The Forbes article difference was eye-watering -- did you miss that one?

[MacMadame]

 

3 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

The Forbes article difference was eye-watering -- did you miss that one?

Oh, it's just a different POV. It's not a fact. LOL

[zabs]

I would suggest trying The Retreat on Celebrity before switching to NCL’s Haven or MSC Yacht Club. 

[leaveitallbehind]

43 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

The Forbes article difference was eye-watering -- did you miss that one?

No I didn't read it in full detail but what I scanned over certainly indicated a problem.  I understand there were issues and not denying it.  Just saying there is a difference between someone saying the pricing was 3 or 4X double occupancy and what the pricing likely was. If that was the case then, as example, a $4,000 double occupancy price would translate to a $12,000 - $16,000 solo price, which doesn't seem realistic. That's why I wondered if there is an actual example to confirm it.  I'm just thinking its exaggerated.  That is what prompted me to do the mock bookings and go back to the April and November actual pricing that I am familiar with.  And those facts contradict the other facts, so maybe the issue has been corrected - that's all I'm saying.  At least I certainly hope so!

 

But solo passengers always have been penalized as stateroom rates are based on double occupancy - as that is what would typically occupy the space, so they traditionally maximize the price for the total space, even when only one occupies it. So, minus the second set of port fees and taxes, the solo traveler would pay close to, if not equal to, the double occupancy fare.  Nothing new there.  The concern would be if that was now being increased to a premium above the double occupancy - that would certainly not seem right.

 

But one thing I find interesting is that Celebrity is the focus on this when they are one of the lines who have introduced dedicated solo staterooms at a reduced fare less than the double occupancy rate - which I can attest to.  Guess somewhere along the line they dropped the ball?

Edited February 1 by leaveitallbehind

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, leaveitallbehind said:

Just saying there is a difference between someone saying the pricing was 3 or 4X double occupancy and what the pricing likely was. If that was the case then, as example, a $4,000 double occupancy price would translate to a $12,000 - $16,000 solo price, which doesn't seem realistic. That's why I wondered if there is an actual example to confirm it.

 

I'm not sure if I can pull a 3x example out of my hat, but there have certainly been substantial differences quoted. For example, from the Forbes article:

 

"I compared prices on an upcoming sailing, an 8-day Eastern Caribbean cruise on the Celebrity Reflection. The price for the same balcony cabin was $1,461 for a double occupancy guest and $4,346 for a single. That means the solo traveler would pay $1,424 more than the total paid by two guests. That’s nearly three times the normal rate."

 

There is also a long thread on the Celebrity forum where some screen shots were taken of solo vs. double occupancy rates. Not good.

 

Does it matter whether it is 10% more or 3x more?  I don't understand why people aren't outraged that a single traveler is charged a higher room rate based on Celebrity's "statement" that the solo traveler spends less.

 

First of all, that isn't universally true/provable.

 

Second, let's just suppose Celebrity went back to their books and did the math, discovering that cruisers over age 70 spend, on average one-third less per person onboard ship than cruisers 69 and younger. Would Celebrity then be entitled to charge those senior passengers more?

 

Or imagine if it were a different ethnicity that they wanted to charge more due to spending patterns?

 

Not a good look, Celebrity. Not at all.

 

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I'm not sure if I can pull a 3x example out of my hat, but there have certainly been substantial differences quoted. For example, from the Forbes article:

 

"I compared prices on an upcoming sailing, an 8-day Eastern Caribbean cruise on the Celebrity Reflection. The price for the same balcony cabin was $1,461 for a double occupancy guest and $4,346 for a single. That means the solo traveler would pay $1,424 more than the total paid by two guests. That’s nearly three times the normal rate."

 

There is also a long thread on the Celebrity forum where some screen shots were taken of solo vs. double occupancy rates. Not good.

 

Does it matter whether it is 10% more or 3x more?  I don't understand why people aren't outraged that a single traveler is charged a higher room rate based on Celebrity's "statement" that the solo traveler spends less.

 

First of all, that isn't universally true/provable.

 

Second, let's just suppose Celebrity went back to their books and did the math, discovering that cruisers over age 70 spend, on average one-third less per person onboard ship than cruisers 69 and younger. Would Celebrity then be entitled to charge those senior passengers more?

 

Or imagine if it were a different ethnicity that they wanted to charge more due to spending patterns?

 

Not a good look, Celebrity. Not at all.

 

 

 

Seems easy to understand that one person in a cabin is likely to spend less than two people in a cabin.    Kind of hard to make the leap from there to age discrimination, etc.   This however doesn't mean I don't agree that these solo penalties at more than 100% the double occupancy cost seem unjustified.    

 

 

[leaveitallbehind]

12 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

"I compared prices on an upcoming sailing, an 8-day Eastern Caribbean cruise on the Celebrity Reflection. The price for the same balcony cabin was $1,461 for a double occupancy guest and $4,346 for a single. That means the solo traveler would pay $1,424 more than the total paid by two guests. That’s nearly three times the normal rate."

 

Please understand I am not arguing against you or the basic point being made in the article.  I guess its all in how one words and interprets the data. 

 

Solo cruisers on most lines have historically paid about 2X the individual fare portion in a double occupancy rate - or basically approximately the full double occupancy rate. That is the "normal rate" paid by a solo traveler and is nothing new with most cruise lines.  So to say, with this example, that it is nearly 3X the normal rate is a bit misleading as the "normal rate" is not the individual rate, but the total double occupancy rate (less one set of port fess and taxes) as - right or wrong - that is approximately what is historically normally charged a solo passenger. 

 

So if the $1,461 is the full single rate portion of the double occupancy rate, then the double occupancy rate would be $2,922, which would approximately be the "normal solo rate" charged by most cruise lines - not the $1,461 being indicated as the "normal rate".  That would make the $4,346 indicated in the example $1,424, or about 48%, higher than the "normal" rate, not 3X the amount.  Its all in how you wish to interpret the data.

 

Again, we are basically in agreement as IMO there is little justification for charging a significant premium to a solo passenger who is already paying approximately the double occupancy rate to begin with.  I am only trying to understand the data and how it is being presented and interpreted, which to me as indicated seems skewed to support a position.

 

I also appreciate your feedback in information presented.

Edited February 1 by leaveitallbehind

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

Please understand I am not arguing against you or the basic point being made in the article.  I guess its all in how one words and interprets the data. 

 

Solo cruisers on most lines have historically paid about 2X the individual fare portion in a double occupancy rate - or basically approximately the full double occupancy rate. That is the "normal rate" paid by a solo traveler and is nothing new with most cruise lines.  So to say, with this example, that it is nearly 3X the normal rate is a bit misleading as the "normal rate" is not the individual rate, but the total double occupancy rate (less one set of port fess and taxes) as - right or wrong - that is approximately what is historically normally charged a solo passenger. 

 

So if the $1,461 is the full single rate portion of the double occupancy rate, then the double occupancy rate would be $2,922, which would approximately be the "normal solo rate" charged by most cruise lines - not the $1,461 being indicated as the "normal rate".  That would make the $4,346 indicated in the example $1,424, or about 48% higher, than the "normal" rate, not 3X the amount.  Its all in how you wish to interpret the data.

 

Again, we are basically in agreement as IMO there is little justification for charging a significant premium to a solo passenger who is already paying approximately the double occupancy rate to begin with.  I am only trying to understand the data and how it is being presented and interpreted, which to me as indicated seems skewed to support a position.

 

Thank you for your perspective. However, my point is that you seem unneccesarily fixated on the "3x" number.  

 

I can understand (but do not appreciate 😉) that lines charge solos 200% for occupying a room that is intended for two people. However, anything above that -- whether it's 10% or 100% -- should be considered discriminatory pricing and IMO cruise lines need to be held to account for it, as various media have, in fact, done.

 

I can tell you that as a solo cruiser, Celebrity will be pretty low on my list until they have won back my trust -- if, in fact, they care to.

 

 

[leaveitallbehind]

21 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Thank you for your perspective. However, my point is that you seem unneccesarily fixated on the "3x" number.  

 

I can understand (but do not appreciate 😉) that lines charge solos 200% for occupying a room that is intended for two people. However, anything above that -- whether it's 10% or 100% -- should be considered discriminatory pricing and IMO cruise lines need to be held to account for it, as various media have, in fact, done.

 

I can tell you that as a solo cruiser, Celebrity will be pretty low on my list until they have won back my trust -- if, in fact, they care to.

 

 

I don't meant to be fixated on the 3X - but that is a focal point being made in the article, to which I challenge the interpretation.

 

As mentioned, you and I are in basic agreement.  Any amount over the typical solo rates is not good or justified IMO. (And there likely are good arguments against even that!)  And my efforts with the mock bookings and looking back at history that I have access to is only to satisfy me that whatever had been taking place is no longer the case.  I am not a solo traveler, but I do cruise frequently with Celebrity and this information as presented is disturbing. I wish the article in balance would have also included a comparison of the dedicated single (solo) veranda stateroom category with Celebrity as that may have shown the favorable rates I found. 

 

Just trying to be balanced with the information as IMO most "pointed" articles (regardless of source) tend to promote a single point of view and lack objectivity with balance.  Good for controversy, but not necessarily good with all of the facts.  But the information presented nonetheless is not good.

 

Hopefully, if it hasn't already, things will change and a new article praising the self examination and corrections made by the cruise line will surface.

 

Have a good day and enjoy your cruising.

 

 

Edited February 1 by leaveitallbehind

[Joebucks]

12 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

Does it matter whether it is 10% more or 3x more?  I don't understand why people aren't outraged that a single traveler is charged a higher room rate based on Celebrity's "statement" that the solo traveler spends less.

 

 

I'm surprised that this many people WOULD be outraged when the numbers are in your face that one person results in a revenue loss. Not everyone believes the world revolves around them.

[cruisemom42]

1 minute ago, Joebucks said:

 

I'm surprised that this many people WOULD be outraged when the numbers are in your face that one person results in a revenue loss. Not everyone believes the world revolves around them.

 

So you think it's okay to target groups based on spending habits onboard?

[Joebucks]

Just now, cruisemom42 said:

 

So you think it's okay to target groups based on spending habits onboard?

 

Your definition of "discriminatory" holds no basis. It is reaching to say they are "targeting." There is an expected revenue outcome, and it is priced accordingly. Just as a hotel doesn't charge half if there's one person, or double if there's two. Just because cruise "pricing" makes you think you're paying per person, doesn't make its customers the experts on the exact science. 

 

The argument breaks down even more when you realize everyone on board paid a different rate. Some were charged less way up front in the hopes of them not showing up. Some were charged less because they purchased some kind of bundle, group rate, etc. Some were charged more because demand was high and the cruise line could. Many companies use what is called loss leaders as a type of strategy to get people in the door to spend more money. It often can come with limitations, and doesn't mean it is some evil discrimination.

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

So you think it's okay to target groups based on spending habits onboard?

 

Gosh that is the reality on board, on land, on line, etc.   Again, I don't agree with the idea of a solo paying more than the double occy room fare, but to turn this into an unlawful discrimination discussion seems extreme.  

 

I think your earlier post about avoiding Celebrity as a result of their solo pricing practice is best.  If people talk with their pocketbooks, the change will happen pretty quickly.  

[cruisemom42]

30 minutes ago, ldubs said:

Again, I don't agree with the idea of a solo paying more than the double occy room fare, but to turn this into an unlawful discrimination discussion seems extreme.  

 

It may not meet the definition of "legal" discrimination, but it is still discrimination. However, let's just leave it at very unsavory and difficult to defend given that some solos do indeed spend more onboard than some couples. 

 

I'm not going to defend my take on it any longer here, it's not productive. However, I do think it is important that people know Celebrity is engaging in this behavior -- which again, has been a) confirmed by Celebrity execs and b) penalizes solo travelers above and beyond what other lines are doing.

 

[SoloAlaska]

Actually the pricing is up to 5x more for solos on some itineraries. This has been going on for months. Certain categories are only available at double occupancy and solos don’t have access to it. I had fallen in love with celebrity as well but with the changes and it being clear solos aren’t really welcome I am not cruising with them for the foreseeable future.