Why does it cost so much to bring an infant on a cruise

[John weaver]

I called because we wanted to bring our infant grandson on a cruise he’s only going to be 9 month at the time of the sailing we have an offer code so I’m like it should not be to expensive to bring him they want $600! Really how much room and food can a 9 month old eat RC really need to reevaluate what it cost to bring children on a cruise 

[Matt]

The cruise industry is built around the concept of double occupancy, regardless of age.

Add a second adult to the room and have your infant be the third guest in the room and you'll see the price for your infant plummet.

[JFCruise]

Depending on the dates you want to cruise, your grandson might be eligible for the "kids sail free" promotion. But to that to work, there has to be 2 paying adults in the stateroom.

[twangster]

Every soul on board must have a seat in a lifeboat.  This applies even to an infant that is 6 months old even though an infant at that age would not use their own seat in a lifeboat.  SOLAS regulations don't recognize or reflect a difference from an infant to an adult, a soul is a soul that requires a seat in a lifeboat.

If there was one slot left for anyone to book a cruise before that cruise was sold out, an infant booked on a cruise prevents an adult from booking that available slot.  Given the price models for the industry an infant is no different from an adult right down to the capacity of a muster zone that groups of cabins are assigned to with all the guests in those cabins having a seat in the lifeboats assigned to that muster station.

It's common for new parents to hope for a break in pricing for an infant but the price models for everyone who books a cruise are built so many common costs are covered or shared by the masses of adults booking that cruise.  "But it's just one baby" until there are 30 or 40 or 100 babies on a ship that carries several thousands of passengers.  At that point for a cruise line to offer cheaper rates to infants someone else has to pay more and that would be all the other adults.  That's fine from a socialist perspective but not all other adults want to cover the cost of someone else's infant.  

Fortunately for parents Royal does offer Kids Sail Free promotions but as many families discover those rates require more expensive cabins that can accommodate more than two guests which gets back to the seats in a lifeboat concept.  The vast majority of cabins on a ship are designed for two guests and that is part of the safety equation so that every guest has a seat in a lifeboat.  Hotels on land don't have lifeboats with finite seating capacity so cruise ships are not at all like hotels in this regard which can be a hard concept for some families to wrap their heads around. 

"It's just a tiny infant" except it isn't from a safety on a ship perspective.   If safety regulations were to be relaxed then there would be some less honest company that would attempt to circumvent safety regulations by over-stuffing a ferry or some other type of passenger vessel to leverage such a loophole.  For this reason safety regulations are not flexible even though a reputable company like Royal may not choose to find a way around the regulations should the regulations be less strict than they are. 

These regulations are international and they have evolved over the decades generally resulting from loss of life and previous disasters.    

And so it's complicated, more than apparent at first glance.

[PL8SWPR]

This turned into quite the educational post.  Thanks @twangster.  No infants here (until grandchildren), but I admit, I'd have been curious as to the justification for the high cost too.  Makes perfect sense.

[RCIfan1912]

Even Amtrak allows kids under a certain age to travel free. I think, though this is just me of course that port fees and taxes only for kids under 2. I mean infants aren't using any of the services or eating any food. I'm ok with gratuities because the room attendant is cleaning up for the baby too. 

[Xaa]

That's mostly how it is Kids Sail Free.  During high demand times of the year they don't run KSF because a child occupying a birth for free has an opportunity cost associated to it because it could easily be filled with a full paying adult.

Their goal isn't to break even (Kids eat nothing so we charge nothing), it's to generate a profit.  In general everyone pays a dollar value in excess of what they consume.  That's how the business makes money.

[TXcruzer]

1 hour ago, RCIfan1912 said:

Even Amtrak allows kids under a certain age to travel free. I think, though this is just me of course that port fees and taxes only for kids under 2. I mean infants aren't using any of the services or eating any food. I'm ok with gratuities because the room attendant is cleaning up for the baby too. 

But they are taking a berth that could otherwise be sold. 

[Colombia20102018]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:50 PM, twangster said:

"It's just a tiny infant" except it isn't from a safety on a ship perspective.   If safety regulations were to be relaxed then there would be some less honest company that would attempt to circumvent safety regulations by over-stuffing a ferry or some other type of passenger vessel to leverage such a loophole.  For this reason safety regulations are not flexible even though a reputable company like Royal may not choose to find a way around the regulations should the regulations be less strict than they are. 

These regulations are international and they have evolved over the decades generally resulting from loss of life and previous disasters.    

And so it's complicated, more than apparent at first glance.

I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t buy this analysis. I have sailed in European cruise lines where children under two were free. For Royal to charge $600 for a baby in a room with two paying adults is excessive.

[twangster]

1 hour ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t buy this analysis. I have sailed in European cruise lines where children under two were free. For Royal to charge $600 for a baby in a room with two paying adults is excessive.

Some cruise lines need promos to fill ships.  Royal doesn't. 

Furthermore around forty percent of all revenue comes from onboard spend.  Babies don't spend money onboard.  Double whammy selling a berth to an infant.

From a business perspective giving babies a break doesn't make financial sense when you can fill ships with paying passengers.  

If the economy tanks and ships are going out with empty berths then they can re-visit the issue if it would make business sense to do so.  

[Xaa]

8 hours ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t buy this analysis. I have sailed in European cruise lines where children under two were free. For Royal to charge $600 for a baby in a room with two paying adults is excessive.

So they also do KSF promotions.  I wonder if their blog has a ubiquitous KSF=Scam post when the cruisers realize that a cabin that can accommodate 3 doesn't cost the same as a cabin that accommodates only 2.

[Colombia20102018]

8 hours ago, twangster said:

From a business perspective giving babies a break doesn't make financial sense when you can fill ships with paying passengers.  

Your previous post was mostly about safety reasons. Now you mention financial reasons. I tend to think is the latter.

[RCIfan1912]

18 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

Your previous post was mostly about safety reasons. Now you mention financial reasons. I tend to think is the latter.

And that makes no sense because of KSF up to 12 years old. Why would you run a promotion like that? I think Royal Caribbean could allow 2 years old or under free and not feel a thing financially. 

[Xaa]

You should re-read his first post @Colombia20102018.  He spoke of safety reasons that impact the financial models and ability to add additional adult passengers. 

In the strictest interpretation,  from a safety standpoint alone, it doesn't matter if there are 2000 infants sailing without paying a fare.

The problem is that it would impact and spread the cost of sailing the ship across all of the other paying passengers. 

Current model spreads the cost of an infant preventing another paid fare only on the party responsible for the infant.

 

[Xaa]

2 minutes ago, RCIfan1912 said:

And that makes no sense because of KSF up to 12 years old. Why would you run a promotion like that? I think Royal Caribbean could allow 2 years old or under free and not feel a thing financially. 

In slow times they do that for all kids to capture the parents.   In high demand times they reserve life boat seats for fare paying passengers. 

Any business can easily allow free access to anyone of any age.  Doing so creates an opportunity cost along with a real cost. Their shareholders would feel a thing.

[ChessE4]

It's easy to get confused trying to calculate the marginal cost of this or that. What really counts is the total, final cost of the cruise. If it is reasonable/fair for a vacation, nothing else matters. If not, make a different selection. We started cruising when our son was 6, and my mother in law shared her room with him. She avoided the single supplement and we paid the fare difference. This is hard to do with an infant, but maybe later?

[twangster]

1 hour ago, Colombia20102018 said:

Your previous post was mostly about safety reasons. Now you mention financial reasons. I tend to think is the latter.

The two are intertwined.  More importantly the safety aspect creates an operating environment they are constrained by and creates an environment that isn't found on land so comparisons to land based businesses don't work.

 

46 minutes ago, RCIfan1912 said:

I think Royal Caribbean could allow 2 years old or under free and not feel a thing financially. 

Royal is a business not a charity.  It's easy to say they could provide <insert thing I care about> and not feel a thing.  McDonalds could provide free soda and not feel a thing.  Sports stadiums could provide free water bottles and not feel a thing, they cost pennies!!!  Banks could not charge maintenance fees and not feel a thing.  And so on, and so.  

Why should they?  Why should any business give up revenue? 

The thing is businesses won't accept less income.  Shareholders won't accept lower returns.  They would need to cover that loss of income somehow.  Something else goes up in price to cover that loss of income.  

Any time you waive a charge or subsidize it someone pays for it.  

I cruise solo often so my favorite <insert thing here> would be the single supplement.  I could rant and write long justifications why solo cruisers shouldn't have to pay single supplements but the truth is solo cruisers represent a loss of revenue potential and so as a business they charge solo cruisers more and there are times of the year they charge them even more because they lose more revenue on solo cruisers during peak times.     

Other popular < insert thing here >:

< free Voom for everyone >

< free drinks for everyone >

< free photos for everyone >

< free specialty dining for everyone >

< lower cruise fares right now > 

< lower suite fares > 

There are many things they could afford to do and not go bankrupt.  Not going bankrupt isn't the primary goal of any business.  Maximizing revenue should always be.  

Do you not own any investments or retirement accounts?  Are you okay with your investments not growing as much?  You good with retiring with less savings?  All so businesses can provide more free things?

[Colombia20102018]

24 minutes ago, twangster said:

The two are intertwined.  More importantly the safety aspect creates an operating environment they are constrained by and creates an environment that isn't found on land so comparisons to land based businesses don't work.

The customer side is also important. Is the family getting a larger cabin for the $600? No. Is the baby getting his own bed? No. Is the cruiseline taking care of the baby? No. Is the cruiseline entertaining the baby? No. As a stockholder, I would feel bad if my company is overcharging customers for nothing. Specially when RC sells itself as a Family oriented cruiseline.

[RCIfan1912]

33 minutes ago, twangster said:

The two are intertwined.  More importantly the safety aspect creates an operating environment they are constrained by and creates an environment that isn't found on land so comparisons to land based businesses don't work.

 

Royal is a business not a charity.  It's easy to say they could provide <insert thing I care about> and not feel a thing.  McDonalds could provide free soda and not feel a thing.  Sports stadiums could provide free water bottles and not feel a thing, they cost pennies!!!  Banks could not charge maintenance fees and not feel a thing.  And so on, and so.  

Why should they?  Why should any business give up revenue? 

The thing is businesses won't accept less income.  Shareholders won't accept lower returns.  They would need to cover that loss of income somehow.  Something else goes up in price to cover that loss of income.  

Any time you waive a charge or subsidize it someone pays for it.  

I cruise solo often so my favorite <insert thing here> would be the single supplement.  I could rant and write long justifications why solo cruisers shouldn't have to pay single supplements but the truth is solo cruisers represent a loss of revenue potential and so as a business they charge solo cruisers more and there are times of the year they charge them even more because they lose more revenue on solo cruisers during peak times.     

Other popular < insert thing here >:

< free Voom for everyone >

< free drinks for everyone >

< free photos for everyone >

< free specialty dining for everyone >

< lower cruise fares right now > 

< lower suite fares > 

There are many things they could afford to do and not go bankrupt.  Not going bankrupt isn't the primary goal of any business.  Maximizing revenue should always be.  

Do you not own any investments or retirement accounts?  Are you okay with your investments not growing as much?  You good with retiring with less savings?  All so businesses can provide more free things?

Ok, here we boys and girls. This premise is ridiculous, ridiculous. Comparing Royal Caribbean cruises to McDonald's is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The parents already paid a hefty sum to get on the ship. This isn't a 2 dollar hamburger, absolutely ridiculous. 

This entire post is ridiculous. There are many, many businesses that allow 2 years or a certain age "free things". I say it in quotation because the business knows they are making money in some other way or in this case off the first 2 guests. 

How can Royal Caribbean have a promotion like KSF up to 12 years old then? This is terrible business no? Because Royal know they are making money and a lot of it off the first 2 guests, the parents. 12 years use everything, they use the service yet they still allow them to sail free at times? 

Comparing a 2 year old sailing free to some crazy retirement investment is insanity, in freaking sanity. Way off the reservation. Off the deep end. 

As I said Amtrak allows kids up to a certain age to travel free. 

 

[Anders11]

The “Royal Caribbean should do this” comments seem a bit of a tantrum to me.

I cruise solo so could be thanking RC that they only charge extra for the empty berth and don’t adjust for the lower on board spending, but know it’s simply part of a longer term business decision not to do that.

As someone else said, Royal Caribbean is a business, not a charity or public service.

[twangster]

5 minutes ago, RCIfan1912 said:

Ok, here we boys and girls. This premise is ridiculous, ridiculous. Comparing Royal Caribbean cruises to McDonald's is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The parents already paid a hefty sum to get on the ship. This isn't a 2 dollar hamburger, absolutely ridiculous. 

This entire post is ridiculous. There are many, many businesses that allow 2 years or a certain age "free things". I say it in quotation because the business knows they are making money in some other way or in this case off the first 2 guests. 

How can Royal Caribbean have a promotion like KSF up to 12 years old then? This is terrible business no? Because Royal know they are making money and a lot of it off the first 2 guests, the parents. 12 years use everything, they use the service yet they still allow them to sail free at times? 

Comparing a 2 year old sailing free to some crazy retirement investment is insanity, in freaking sanity. Way off the reservation. Off the deep end. 

As I said Amtrak allows kids up to a certain age to travel free. 

 

You want for free what is important to you.  The world doesn't work that way.

[twangster]

18 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

The customer side is also important. Is the family getting a larger cabin for the $600? No. Is the baby getting his own bed? No. Is the cruiseline taking care of the baby? No. Is the cruiseline entertaining the baby? No. As a stockholder, I would feel bad if my company is overcharging customers for nothing. Specially when RC sells itself as a Family oriented cruiseline.

Feel bad?  Nope.

The thing of it is Royal isn't overcharging.  

No one is required to go on a cruise vacation.  Sail with a cruise line here in America who offers your infants free fare.  In a free and open market consumers can make those choices and business can set policies to achieve their business goals.  It's a wonderful thing.    

[Colombia20102018]

2 minutes ago, twangster said:

No one is required to go on a cruise vacation.  Sail with a cruise line here in America who offers your infants free fare.  In a free and open market consumers can make those choices and business can set policies to achieve their business goals.  It's a wonderful thing. 

Thank you for proving my point that it was never about safety or market conditions. It was clear it was always a money grab. 

[twangster]

5 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

Thank you for proving my point that it was never about safety or market conditions. It was clear it was always a money grab. 

I get it.  You don't want to hear what I'm saying.  

You just want what you want.  

Enjoy your cruise.

[Colombia20102018]

3 minutes ago, twangster said:

You don't want to hear what I'm saying.

I hear you and we are agreeing. I just find it interesting that you went from safety, to financials, to market, to policies, just to come to the same conclusion that at the end the company can do whatever they want to meet their goals. Have a good one. 

[RCIfan1912]

53 minutes ago, twangster said:

You want for free what is important to you.  The world doesn't work that way.

I don't want free like I'm some freeloader. Give me a break, at I said kids get "free things" from businesses from time to time. We have 3 cruises that is kids sail free. So it can be done. And KSF is way worse than suggesting 2 years old. This is a 10 year old who is going to use so the services on board. 

[Xaa]

1 hour ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I hear you and we are agreeing. I just find it interesting that you went from safety, to financials, to market, to policies, just to come to the same conclusion that at the end the company can do whatever they want to meet their goals. Have a good one. 

You never went back to re-read that post like I told you earlier.  There is a safety issue that impacts the opportunity cost on a cruise ship in a way that it does not in a hotel.  That's all there in that post.  That poster never was on safety, they were simply explaining that due to that safety reason, the presence of the child has more negative impact being on the cruise ship than in the land based hotel.

Seemed clear to me.

[Colombia20102018]

4 minutes ago, Xaa said:

You never went back to re-read that post like I told you earlier.  There is a safety issue that impacts the opportunity cost on a cruise ship in a way that it does not in a hotel.  That's all there in that post.  That poster never was on safety, they were simply explaining that due to that safety reason, the presence of the child has more negative impact being on the cruise ship than in the land based hotel.

Seemed clear to me.

I see your point. I just don’t agree with it because it doesn’t have anything to with the price the cruise charges. If that were the case, then seniors that are generally prompt to more risks and guests that have mobility issues will have to pay more due to safety. That’s not the case, then the same should be applicable to the baby. We are not going to solve this issue here but I appreciate your perspective.

[Matt]

19 hours ago, RCIfan1912 said:

Even Amtrak allows kids under a certain age to travel free.

And Amtrak has never been profitable https://econreview.berkeley.edu/amtrak-future-of-american-transit-or-failed-experiment/#:~:text=Throughout Amtrak's history%2C the company,in its history in 2020.

[Xaa]

48 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I see your point. I just don’t agree with it because it doesn’t have anything to with the price the cruise charges. If that were the case, then seniors that are generally prompt to more risks and guests that have mobility issues will have to pay more due to safety. That’s not the case, then the same should be applicable to the baby. We are not going to solve this issue here but I appreciate your perspective.

You're missing the point.  A baby takes up one of the available spaces on the Life Boat.  A 100 year old takes up one of the available spaces on a Life Boat.  They are the same in their consumption of that limited resource.  The hotel on land has no Life Boat so adding the baby does not prevent them from taking a paying guest in the next room.  On the cruise ship, because the baby is required to have a life boat seat, the opportunity cost of giving a baby a free fare is more impactful than doing the same at the land based hotel.

The requirement for the explicit lifeboat seat is the only way this is related to safety, but that relationship comes at a greater opportunity cost than land based items fo a similar nature.

It has nothing to do with a person's mobility or likelihood to need any additional safety services while on board.  Just that the ship is required to have the lifeboat space.  no lap sitting like on the airline.

[PL8SWPR]

57 minutes ago, Matt said:

And Amtrak has never been profitable https://econreview.berkeley.edu/amtrak-future-of-american-transit-or-failed-experiment/#:~:text=Throughout Amtrak's history%2C the company,in its history in 2020.

 

Yeah, I don't recall Royal Caribbean getting billion dollar handouts from the US taxpayers.

[PL8SWPR]

6 minutes ago, Xaa said:

You're missing the point.  A baby takes up one of the available spaces on the Life Boat.  A 100 year old takes up one of the available spaces on a Life Boat.  They are the same in their consumption of that limited resource.  The hotel on land has no Life Boat so adding the baby does not prevent them from taking a paying guest in the next room.  On the cruise ship, because the baby is required to have a life boat seat, the opportunity cost of giving a baby a free fare is more impactful than doing the same at the land based hotel.

The requirement for the explicit lifeboat seat is the only way this is related to safety, but that relationship comes at a greater opportunity cost than land based items fo a similar nature.

It has nothing to do with a person's mobility or likelihood to need any additional safety services while on board.  Just that the ship is required to have the lifeboat space.  no lap sitting like on the airline.

 

It is only hard to understand to those who simply don't want to understand. 

[Sharla]

5 hours ago, RCIfan1912 said:

How can Royal Caribbean have a promotion like KSF up to 12 years old then? This is terrible business no? Because Royal know they are making money and a lot of it off the first 2 guests, the parents. 12 years use everything, they use the service yet they still allow them to sail free at times? 

When they do a KSF promo they often raise the price of guests one and two. That's how they do it. It offsets it.

[Colombia20102018]

2 hours ago, Xaa said:

You're missing the point. 

I get the point and at the same time I know for a fact that the cruise has the ability to move and reassign muster stations and people to different muster stations as needed. Then, unless the cruise is at 100% capacity, your argument is flawed. But even if you were right, that doesn’t mean that a seat on an emergency boat costs $600. 

[RCIfan1912]

This entire conversation is sickening. I'd just like to say that. 

[Xaa]

49 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I get the point and at the same time I know for a fact that the cruise has the ability to move and reassign muster stations and people to different muster stations as needed. Then, unless the cruise is at 100% capacity, your argument is flawed. But even if you were right, that doesn’t mean that a seat on an emergency boat costs $600. 

We clearly aren't having a meeting of the minds.  There are certainly rules around proximity to your Muster.  

They aren't making decisions about baby's while evaluating in real time if they are 100% or not, they make a policy and for times of the year when they expect high capacity they don't have KSF, the other times they have it and the baby is free.

Not direct cost, opportunity cost.  The opportunity cost of allowing the baby on the ship and to occupy that Life Boat seat is the missed revenue from a paying customer occupying it.  Might be more than $600.  The slot can only be occupied once.

Kids Sail Free at least half the year and maybe more.

[Colombia20102018]

3 minutes ago, Xaa said:

We clearly aren't having a meeting of the minds.  There are certainly rules around proximity to your Muster.  

They aren't making decisions about baby's while evaluating in real time if they are 100% or not, they make a policy and for times of the year when they expect high capacity they don't have KSF, the other times they have it and the baby is free.

Not direct cost, opportunity cost.  The opportunity cost of allowing the baby on the ship and to occupy that Life Boat seat is the missed revenue from a paying customer occupying it.  Might be more than $600.  The slot can only be occupied once.

Kids Sail Free at least half the year and maybe more.

Again, you are speculating because there might be a good number of solo cruisers in cabins that can hold up to two or more guests and those extra boat seats could be open. We just don’t know. You are also assuming that the potential new guest will spend more than the kid’s family and there’s no evidence behind it. Then, realistically the cost/benefit opportunity is not applicable in this situation. 

[Xaa]

2 minutes ago, Colombia20102018 said:

Again, you are speculating because there might be a good number of solo cruisers in cabins that can hold up to two or more guests and those extra boat seats could be open. We just don’t know. You are also assuming that the potential new guest will spend more than the kid’s family and there’s no evidence behind it. Then, realistically the cost/benefit opportunity is not applicable in this situation. 

They don't set their policy on a case by case basis.  They make an overall policy to reach their overarching goals and have times of year when the baby is free.  Other times, they view,  on the whole, that the opportunity cost is too great.

I don't think I can say anything different or combine the words in any different way for us to have a meeting of the minds.  I will see you around the boards.

[Colombia20102018]

6 minutes ago, Xaa said:

They don't set their policy on a case by case basis.  They make an overall policy to reach their overarching goals and have times of year when the baby is free.  Other times, they view,  on the whole, that the opportunity cost is too great.

I don't think I can say anything different or combine the words in any different way for us to have a meeting of the minds.  I will see you around the boards.

Until our next respectful debate

[Anders11]

1 hour ago, Colombia20102018 said:

I get the point and at the same time I know for a fact that the cruise has the ability to move and reassign muster stations and people to different muster stations as needed. Then, unless the cruise is at 100% capacity, your argument is flawed. But even if you were right, that doesn’t mean that a seat on an emergency boat costs $600. 

But they don’t know they won’t be at 100% when they set the pricing policy.

On cruises where they don’t expect full capacity they will have all kinds of offers to encourage business, including children sailing free.

They will also special offers closer to sailing date if they do unexpectedly undersell.