Celebrity at it again, I guess the new CEO can’t seem to tell the truth!

[the penguins]

1 hour ago, zgscl said:

If going this route I would simply say nothing at check in or a vague they are flying in seperately. No reason to open a can of worms when checking in. 
 

That being said I wouldn’t personally do this. Whether or not X is enforcing no show fees on double bookings that will now be solos is debatable, but I wouldn’t personally risk it. I’d much rather find a different line that doesn’t force me to play games. 

Which brings us back to - everyone on the booking has to check in together meaning saying nothing is not an option.

We are still waiting for a Post from any one who has been charged extra when a "companion" fails to travel. If it had ever happened I am sure the Boards would have been lit up like Christmas trees.

[the penguins]

On 6/16/2024 at 12:40 AM, TGfromTX said:

Interestingly, the cheapest flights I've found (between Europe ports & US) seem to be from Barcelona back to the US.  For some reason, going TO Europe seems more expensive.  What means did you use to get to the airport form port, taxi?  Was it under $100 USD? Thanks for all the info.

Something else to try is not to book flights but holidays/vacations.

Most airlines offer packages which combine airfares with hotels or car rental. You pay less, travel on the same flights, don't have to pay everything at the time of booking and get extra protection as its a "package". To qualify you just need to include a minimum of 1 night Hotel (if you don't want even 1 night choose the cheapest - it doesn't even have to be in or even near the city you are flying to)  or 1 day car rental (choose the cheapest and don't pick up the car). 

[TGfromTX]

1 hour ago, the penguins said:

Which brings us back to - everyone on the booking has to check in together meaning saying nothing is not an option.

We are still waiting for a Post from any one who has been charged extra when a "companion" fails to travel. If it had ever happened I am sure the Boards would have been lit up like Christmas trees.

I believe you are referring to - the 'prepare for boarding day' email (attached screenshot of mine).  I don't see mention of it in the FAQs link attached to my email.

 

Enforcement could differ if all were on same flight, but I've never been questioned further once responding the rest of my party is on a separate flight. If they were going to enforce, I think it'd be more prominent than hidden in a single email. That said, I have no intentions trying this. Having to chase down refunds after a cruise feels a little extreme when there are other options.

 

Thanks for the suggestion about pricing out packages - I haven't considered that providing an airfare discount.

[Tom and Ingrid]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:40 PM, critic2023 said:

I am a solo cruiser who enjoys Celebrity and intended to make it my go-to line moving forward. I'm close to Elite status with them and had no intention of stopping. But this new solo pricing gives me such a huge red flag that I don't quite know how to move forward at this point. To me, paying double (aka, the same price as a couple occupying a regular cabin) is already the upcharge. That upcharge makes sense - they sell most of those cabins for X price, so they're losing money if they give it to me for half that. That's just part of the game of cruising, and it's unfortunate but I'm willing to work with it. But to charge me more than a couple would pay is absolutely ludicrous. They even do that with the drink package pricing. It's insane. I'll pay double occupancy and not complain one bit, but to charge me more than a couple makes me want to give my business to another line - a shame, because I truly have enjoyed my many cruises on Celebrity.

I sort of feel like this is the crux of the issue and where transparency would go a long way. 

 

From what I can tell, Celebrity expects to make 30+% of their revenue from sources other than just a "ticket".  So, they will either look to make MORE from the "whole" of all passengers, or focus on making a smaller group - aka solo passengers - pay significantly more while holding the line for the majority of passengers - ie double+ occupancy folks - to maintain the bottom line.  Assuming a normal cabin is regularly two "tickets", for every $1,000 in price, they also expect $450+ in "other" revenue (drinks, wifi, excursions, etc.).  It is vague whether pre-sailing purchases count towards this "onboard & other" category, but it makes sense that it would.

 

So, this seems to be where X would need to "make up" their revenue - the delta between the EXTRA "onboard and other revenue" they miss with a solo traveller.  So, even if a SOLO pays the double occupancy price, X is missing out on half the 31+% they expect beyond the ticket alone.  They definitely save a little on food, but not much on staffing or general "running the ship" costs having solo vs multiple passengers, so they are aiming to recoup some lost revenue somewhere.  

 

Again, in the example of 2 passengers in a cabin, if the "ticket" for two is $1,000 each (double occupancy), and the estimated "other" of $450 each, that's $2,900 in expected revenue per cabin.  If a solo passenger comes along, and pays the double occupancy rate (full $2,000), and then also $450 for "other" stuff, it leaves X with a $450 deficit that they seemingly (and unclearly) reveal in the booking price in a vague way for folks looking to cruise solo.

 

 

[PTC DAWG]

1 hour ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

I sort of feel like this is the crux of the issue and where transparency would go a long way. 

 

From what I can tell, Celebrity expects to make 30+% of their revenue from sources other than just a "ticket".  So, they will either look to make MORE from the "whole" of all passengers, or focus on making a smaller group - aka solo passengers - pay significantly more while holding the line for the majority of passengers - ie double+ occupancy folks - to maintain the bottom line.  Assuming a normal cabin is regularly two "tickets", for every $1,000 in price, they also expect $450+ in "other" revenue (drinks, wifi, excursions, etc.).  It is vague whether pre-sailing purchases count towards this "onboard & other" category, but it makes sense that it would.

 

So, this seems to be where X would need to "make up" their revenue - the delta between the EXTRA "onboard and other revenue" they miss with a solo traveller.  So, even if a SOLO pays the double occupancy price, X is missing out on half the 31+% they expect beyond the ticket alone.  They definitely save a little on food, but not much on staffing or general "running the ship" costs having solo vs multiple passengers, so they are aiming to recoup some lost revenue somewhere.  

 

Again, in the example of 2 passengers in a cabin, if the "ticket" for two is $1,000 each (double occupancy), and the estimated "other" of $450 each, that's $2,900 in expected revenue per cabin.  If a solo passenger comes along, and pays the double occupancy rate (full $2,000), and then also $450 for "other" stuff, it leaves X with a $450 deficit that they seemingly (and unclearly) reveal in the booking price in a vague way for folks looking to cruise solo.

 

 

This type of thinking is not welcomed by some on this thread..you make excellent points..

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

1 hour ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

I sort of feel like this is the crux of the issue and where transparency would go a long way. 

 

From what I can tell, Celebrity expects to make 30+% of their revenue from sources other than just a "ticket".  So, they will either look to make MORE from the "whole" of all passengers, or focus on making a smaller group - aka solo passengers - pay significantly more while holding the line for the majority of passengers - ie double+ occupancy folks - to maintain the bottom line.  Assuming a normal cabin is regularly two "tickets", for every $1,000 in price, they also expect $450+ in "other" revenue (drinks, wifi, excursions, etc.).  It is vague whether pre-sailing purchases count towards this "onboard & other" category, but it makes sense that it would.

 

So, this seems to be where X would need to "make up" their revenue - the delta between the EXTRA "onboard and other revenue" they miss with a solo traveller.  So, even if a SOLO pays the double occupancy price, X is missing out on half the 31+% they expect beyond the ticket alone.  They definitely save a little on food, but not much on staffing or general "running the ship" costs having solo vs multiple passengers, so they are aiming to recoup some lost revenue somewhere.  

 

Again, in the example of 2 passengers in a cabin, if the "ticket" for two is $1,000 each (double occupancy), and the estimated "other" of $450 each, that's $2,900 in expected revenue per cabin.  If a solo passenger comes along, and pays the double occupancy rate (full $2,000), and then also $450 for "other" stuff, it leaves X with a $450 deficit that they seemingly (and unclearly) reveal in the booking price in a vague way for folks looking to cruise solo.

 

 

 

BUT are they tracking couples and their spending and then dinging them for the difference? If they are going to use this kind of thinking for solos, they should be tracking the spending of couples - especially repeat couples. If there are some who regularly do not spend anything extra (and there are people on here who have bragged about spending no extra) then their Captains Club numbers should be flagged and they should be assessed the extra charge as well. As it is, a couple could regularly sail and spend no extra and never get the "extra revenue tax" that solos get - even though that couple is not giving X any extra revenue.

 

On the flip side, a solo could regularly spend as much or more than the "expected" amount but never get credit for doing so. Again, if someone regularly does this, their CC number could be flagged and when they book as a solo they are not charged the "revenue tax" because they regularly spend the designated revenue amount.

 

THAT is where the disconnect comes in.

[Tom and Ingrid]

24 minutes ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

BUT are they tracking

The individual tracking of all passengers is something they already have. Mining and then acting on that information, though, is much more difficult and time consuming.

 

They have a couple options:

• dive into IT and the put in place the processes to slice and dice every angle of their revenue and the passengers themselves and then to maximize it in real time to get the most $$$
• use a simpler & cruder method of assuming some level of "average" and going with that.

 

Without a doubt, all businesses are engaging in a process of that deep dive using many different methods to know almost exactly how their customers will behave. It's coming to X, but when is the question.

 

In the meantime, they know, on average, people are people, so a solo or a couple will spend similarly on board.  They just need to make the choice of how to keep the TOTAL per cabin revenue similar among solo, couple, or more folks.  It's the way the math works, and it can be done differently - eg the spread across all passengers pricing - but seemingly, despite this being a pretty blatant pricing differential, they've made a decision to go with it.

 

Likewise, when the X President makes a comment about changing it, the devil is in the details and the nuance of the comment. If she is implying a change to the overall approach - like adopting the spread the cost method - we should be seeing that in the fares (and haven't yet). If she was more commenting on making it "fairer", that's a whole different discussion. Fair to a family vs fair to a couple vs fair to a solo vs fair to X shareholders will look VERY different.

 

I DON'T like the policy.  I would love to affordably bring my mother on a Celebrity cruise or two. But I do see the business case for it.  Sailing at 100+% capacity does give them options to make policies that anger some subset of passengers.  For me, it means I won't, as long as the pricing is so bad, be bringing my mom on a Celebrity cruise and will look to other lines for that. But X is in the position that they will likely fill any gaps from my not booking.

Edited June 17 by Tom and Ingrid

[BeasleysMom66]

1 hour ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

expected revenue per cabin

 

The key words in that statement that should be bolded are "expected revenue" not PER cabin.  This is the problem.  Every cruise line is "expecting" a certain amount of spend per passenger and there is absolutely no guarantee that happens.  Even if 2 passengers or a family of 4 book a single cabin it in no way guarantees they will spend the "expected revenue" for that cabin.  There is no guarantee every passenger purchases a drink package, all their shore activities through the cruise line, adds on specialty dining, uses the spa, or goes to the gift shop. These boards alone are full of threads from those who don't find value in the drink packages (I don't), book their shore activities on their own at a much lower price (which I sometimes do), skip the expensive shorter massage/facial at the spa, or see no need for specialty dining.  

 

So my question is what is the financial penalty to passengers who book 2 or more to a cabin and don't meet the expected revenue for the cabin?  Why are only solo passengers financially penalized?  Should the line start tracking passenger's average spend and hit them when they book too?  Imagine the outrage for that policy.  

 

4 minutes ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

when the X President makes a comment about changing it

 

The CEO should have kept her pie hole shut.  Especially if she knew she had no power to change it or wasn't going to regardless.  All this has done is light a stick of emotional dynamite instead of fostering good will from a group of passengers who are already being discriminated against financially and are tired of it.  The problem is she made a promise to fix something and it is abundantly clear that nothing will change.

[Tom and Ingrid]

16 minutes ago, BeasleysMom66 said:

The CEO should have kept her pie hole shut.

Assuming we're discussing the same person - Laura Hodges Bethge???? She's a "lowly" President and answers to folks above her.

 

18 minutes ago, BeasleysMom66 said:

The key words in that statement that should be bolded are "expected revenue" not PER cabin.  This is the problem.  Every cruise line is "expecting" a certain amount of spend per passenger and there is absolutely no guarantee that happens.  Even if 2 passengers or a family of 4 book a single cabin it in no way guarantees they will spend the "expected revenue" for that cabin.

They're playing the averages and they have the data WE don't.  

 

Honestly, without doing that deep dive a la The Minority Report, they just have to go one some BROAD assumptions.  It is why they're likely pushing 2nd, 3rd, and 4th passenger discounts.

 

One cabin, one person, one drink package, one Wi-fi plan, one per excursion, one per specialty restaurant - $

One cabin, two people, two drink packages, two Wi-fi plans, two per excursion, two per specialty restaurant - $$

One cabin, four people, four drink packages, four Wi-fi plans, four per excursion, four per specialty restaurant - $$$

[kr00t0n]

Yes, some solo travellers might end up spending more than a couple, some families of 4 could end up spending nothing, but ALL the numbers are thrown together to work out the averages.

And those averages will include outliers in either direction.

My guess is the supplement is based on what is needed for the AVERAGE solo traveller to meet the AVERAGE profitibility of a couple.

Stuff like losing out on other bookings that would have come with a solo booking are going to be even more outlier-y, and can't really be tracked, so no point factoring that into any calculations.

 

As for Laura not agreeing with the practice, I'd guess that any change would take quite a while of analysis, and probably need board approval, so I think it's a bit unfair to say she is a liar and condoning it. Heck, even if the policy doesn't get changed, she can still be opposed to it conceptually.

[the penguins]

39 minutes ago, BeasleysMom66 said:

 

The key words in that statement that should be bolded are "expected revenue" not PER cabin.  This is the problem.  Every cruise line is "expecting" a certain amount of spend per passenger and there is absolutely no guarantee that happens.  Even if 2 passengers or a family of 4 book a single cabin it in no way guarantees they will spend the "expected revenue" for that cabin.  There is no guarantee every passenger purchases a drink package, all their shore activities through the cruise line, adds on specialty dining, uses the spa, or goes to the gift shop. These boards alone are full of threads from those who don't find value in the drink packages (I don't), book their shore activities on their own at a much lower price (which I sometimes do), skip the expensive shorter massage/facial at the spa, or see no need for specialty dining.  

 

So my question is what is the financial penalty to passengers who book 2 or more to a cabin and don't meet the expected revenue for the cabin?  Why are only solo passengers financially penalized?  Should the line start tracking passenger's average spend and hit them when they book too?  Imagine the outrage for that policy.  

 

 

The CEO should have kept her pie hole shut.  Especially if she knew she had no power to change it or wasn't going to regardless.  All this has done is light a stick of emotional dynamite instead of fostering good will from a group of passengers who are already being discriminated against financially and are tired of it.  The problem is she made a promise to fix something and it is abundantly clear that nothing will change.

Across all the brands Royals figures over the last few quarters have all shown:

Record revenue for bookings per passenger

Record levels of onboard spend per passenger

Occupancy levels in the last quarter at 107% - back to per covid levels

[Lastdance]

36 minutes ago, the penguins said:

Across all the brands Royals figures over the last few quarters have all shown:

Record revenue for bookings per passenger

Record levels of onboard spend per passenger

Occupancy levels in the last quarter at 107% - back to per covid levels

Stock price around 146.

[the penguins]

7 hours ago, TGfromTX said:

I believe you are referring to - the 'prepare for boarding day' email (attached screenshot of mine).  I don't see mention of it in the FAQs link attached to my email.

 

Enforcement could differ if all were on same flight, but I've never been questioned further once responding the rest of my party is on a separate flight. If they were going to enforce, I think it'd be more prominent than hidden in a single email. That said, I have no intentions trying this. Having to chase down refunds after a cruise feels a little extreme when there are other options.

 

Thanks for the suggestion about pricing out packages - I haven't considered that providing an airfare discount.

thank you - the booking as a holiday/vacation has worked well for us. Apart from the price there are sometimes offers on upgrades.

 

[the penguins]

Just now, the penguins said:

thank you - the booking as a holiday/vacation has worked well for us. Apart from the price there are sometimes offers on upgrades.

 

Sorry sent to soon.

With regard to the checking in together the fact remains that it is clearly stated. 

When you said the rest of your party were arriving on a later flight were these passengers on the same Reservation number? If not then to X they are different/separate.

Have you actually been able to check on to the ship before someone else with whom you will share the cabin has arrived?

If not then at that point you would need to declare that your companion will be a "no show".

[BeasleysMom66]

1 hour ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

She's a "lowly" President and answers to folks above her.

 

No one disputes that.  It doesn't mean that in public sessions she shouldn't make promises she CAN'T keep or won't.  She did the same nonsense that politicians do which is made a statement she KNEW solo passengers wanted to hear regardless of whether she meant it or would actually do it.  Which causes more harm?  Being honest or the smoke screen?  I would have respected her more had she acknowledged it was an issue with solo passengers and that while it was not her preference (if accurate) at this time there were no planned changes due to over whelming demand for cruising but that it could be re-visited in the future.  Not what solos want to hear but at least it wasn't gas lighting.

[TGfromTX]

35 minutes ago, the penguins said:

Sorry sent to soon.

With regard to the checking in together the fact remains that it is clearly stated. 

When you said the rest of your party were arriving on a later flight were these passengers on the same Reservation number? If not then to X they are different/separate.

Have you actually been able to check on to the ship before someone else with whom you will share the cabin has arrived?

If not then at that point you would need to declare that your companion will be a "no show".

The most recent trip, we were booked in same cabin.  Her plane was delayed due to snow and she missed embarkation by 30 minutes.  I was on ship for hours before embarkation while she was still in the air.  We purchased tickets through the cruiseline so we had a false sense of security that they'd wait for her.  This is when we learned 'fly in the day before' - and "we'll take care of you if you buy through us" is little more than a sales pitch.  Insurance was great though.

 

She was in contact with the 'help' number you get provided so they may have known before I told them - but they didn't question me about anything, I was just sent onward to get onboard.

 

This was about a month before the cruises shut down due to covid -so things could have changed since then. I wasn't even aware this was a rule until it was mentioned on this forum (I think by you).  This was a couple of years ago and if someone casually mentioned it as a policy, I could have forgotten.  I am in no way implying that my experience will be the same for someone else.  Especially with a false person booked.

Edited June 17 by TGfromTX

[Tom and Ingrid]

1 hour ago, BeasleysMom66 said:

 

No one disputes that.  It doesn't mean that in public sessions she shouldn't make promises she CAN'T keep or won't.  She did the same nonsense that politicians do which is made a statement she KNEW solo passengers wanted to hear regardless of whether she meant it or would actually do it.  Which causes more harm?  Being honest or the smoke screen?  I would have respected her more had she acknowledged it was an issue with solo passengers and that while it was not her preference (if accurate) at this time there were no planned changes due to over whelming demand for cruising but that it could be re-visited in the future.  Not what solos want to hear but at least it wasn't gas lighting.

I was confirming it was the Celebrity President and not one of the CEOs.

 

But I agree that honesty and clarity is the BEST policy.  I have not seen or read the comments she made about the solo policy, and believe we often hear what we want to hear, but that it usually is a much fuller comment/conversation where context really comes into play.

 

If we had a transcript or video of what she said, it would be interesting to actually re-listen with an  ear towards the full story.

 

Are there links to such a thing?

Edited June 17 by Tom and Ingrid

[Baron Barracuda]

4 hours ago, Tom and Ingrid said:

 

 

 

This must be RCG level data as they don't break out operating results by brand.  Given X only makes up about a quarter of total RCG berths onboard spending is mostly driven by Royal which includes a significant contribution from Coco Cay.  Therefore wouldn't necessarily assume 31.2% onboard spending for both brands. 

Edited June 17 by Baron Barracuda

[Tom and Ingrid]

5 minutes ago, Baron Barracuda said:

This must be RCG level data as they don't break out operating results by brand.  Given X only makes up about a quarter of total RCG berths onboard spending is mostly driven by Royal which includes a significant contribution from Coco Cay.  Therefore wouldn't necessarily assume 31.2% onboard spending for both brands. 

For sure - can't really assume anything as fact. What we do know is that X has MANY ways to get your $$$$.  The "ticket" is one of them, and then all the other ways.  Whether that is 1%, 10% 30% or 50%, the equation for 2x vs 1x vs 4x in a cabin still works out that a solo person in a full size cabin is most likely a "loss" for X if they don't adjust the rates to get that $$$ up front in the wild solo fares we are seeing.  Of course, they could spread the loss out across all customers, to be fair or unfair depending upon your perspective.  

[TGfromTX]

2 minutes ago, Baron Barracuda said:

This must be RCG level data as they don't break out operating results by brand.  Given X only makes up about a quarter of total RCG berths onboard spending is mostly driven by Royal which includes a significant contribution from Coco Cay.  Therefore wouldn't necessarily assume 31.2% onboard spending for both brands. 

The data will be results of whatever algorithms they running to produce pricing, not how the code works to actually price things.  Their AI code likely is just written to produce max profits, not make this room generate this amount of profit.  How the solo rooms are priced likely has very little to do with how the doubles are priced - that'd explain why inside rooms get more expensive than the oceanview rooms sometimes. AI might look at room pricing to see how it affects what is spent onboard, but it wouldn't be coded to make it come out to the results - it's going to be coded to make max profit.

Since their site doesn't do a good job in separating results when searching for solo cabins vs double cabins (I don't get the feeling many on this thread have even tried to find the solo cabins because that is just crazy what it takes to find them - and most of their agents don't know how to find them), it's very possible the code is assume these shoppers/cabins/profits are the same where they actually are not.  That'd explain why this is happening in first place.  But good luck getting that over to the developers to review.  This is one of the worst companies for getting known issues to someone that can actually correct the base cause.  

[TGfromTX]

Oopsie - I thought my last post got lost.  and cant delete this.

Edited June 17 by TGfromTX

[Liao]

4 minutes ago, TGfromTX said:

 

These are results of their earnings - not how they 'expect' to make revenue.  The only expectations are set by previous performance of what they have in place.

I assure you AI is running in the background to determine the best time to push prices of what is available.  It will be using many more variables than I care to think about.  If they could make 80% profit extra, they will let it happen.  I don't see a reason AI would be hard coded against specific performance goals - AI will generate its own targets that it sees as highest attainable. 

It more reasonable that due to the low number of solo rooms available, the algorithm is pushing prices after just a few sales - 5 solo rooms on some ships would indicate 30% sold out & on another would be all of them.  But I suspect more solo travelers are just willing to pay more, so AI takes advantage of it.  If the solo travelers weren't over-paying, I don't think the lines would all be adding more and more solo rooms on each cruise.  Although not fair, I think it's the solo travelers causing the price hike by paying the fares that I personally am not going to pay.  I'm not going to blame the company - but I'm not going to purchase any of those cruises either.

I find it interesting to see comments from people who aren't single taking the side of this being fairly priced to the end solo consumer - when I read comments from widows trying to relive the memory of when they cruised with their deceased husband, it's pretty easy for me to decide I'm not in favor.  But if you are in favor of your other half being treated this way after you pass, you are the ideal consumer for this company.

What if in favor of the ex being “treated this way”.

[TGfromTX]

10 minutes ago, Liao said:

What if in favor of the ex being “treated this way”.

I say buy a time share together before divorce.  That's much more fun on Judge Judy. 

I didn't mean to double post... you caught my pre-delete after I saw the first edit saved.

[the penguins]

2 hours ago, TGfromTX said:

The most recent trip, we were booked in same cabin.  Her plane was delayed due to snow and she missed embarkation by 30 minutes.  I was on ship for hours before embarkation while she was still in the air.  We purchased tickets through the cruiseline so we had a false sense of security that they'd wait for her.  This is when we learned 'fly in the day before' - and "we'll take care of you if you buy through us" is little more than a sales pitch.  Insurance was great though.

 

She was in contact with the 'help' number you get provided so they may have known before I told them - but they didn't question me about anything, I was just sent onward to get onboard.

 

This was about a month before the cruises shut down due to covid -so things could have changed since then. I wasn't even aware this was a rule until it was mentioned on this forum (I think by you).  This was a couple of years ago and if someone casually mentioned it as a policy, I could have forgotten.  I am in no way implying that my experience will be the same for someone else.  Especially with a false person booked.

interesting and informative.

Basically you seem to have done what I suggested someone with a "dummy friend" should do. That is tell check in about the other passenger being delayed.

Also you weren't made to wait - which is great news.

Better still there was no suggestion of repricing due to a no show.

Never ever fly in on the day of a cruise.

As to the ship waiting it is a legal requirement for them to declare the final passenger numbers an hour before the sailing after that waiting is an impossibility. This does not apply to ports during the itinerary where the ship has some flexibility. 

 

[the penguins]

3 hours ago, Lastdance said:

Stock price around 146.

indeed way above the highest pre covid.

Now we just want Royal would start paying dividends again. 😄