Four Seasons Yachts' Unique Pricing Model Counters The Industry

If the departure from the ports is late enough (especially in Europe where restaurants don’t even open until 7pm or later) I could see the non-included food being a very attractive proposition.

It’s one of the things I like least about cruising. Some itineraries stop at destinations with incredible food, and lunch is really the only option to explore the local cuisine when departing at normal hours

While this is definitely out of my price range, as someone who has started more solo travel, I do appreciate how I wouldn't have to basically pay double to get a room for myself (which is pretty much standard for all cruise lines), if it were something I'd wanted to do at some point. I'd have no problem with a la carte dining, as it gives you more flexibility to spend more time and money on shore, or skipping a meal if you're not particularly hungry, without feeling the pressure to take full advantage of all-inclusive dining.

"I think many people spend more money on drinks than food when traveling" - Not sure about the obsession with alcohol, but I think you might be underestimating how many people don’t drink these days.

Maybe the tipping doesn’t bother those with this amount of coin, but it’s obnoxious and would steer me right to Ritz, unless four season’s product is that much better. Let’s be real about the “not expected” part….

FWIW. Provisioning on a smaller vessel is a more complex operation than on a larger one.

Putting a price helps stop over-ordering and reduces wastage (and thereby the risk of running out).

There is also the pricing aspect - “free” isn’t something luxury brands do.
Breakfast included is generally accepted practice in hotels (either through booking through programs or part of the room rate) so it wouldn’t be seen as a negative - but “all inclusive” instantly from a brand stand point signals “cheap”.

I’m sure they can make the maths of it work if they wanted to truly make it all inclusive, it’s the logistics and branding part that would be a stretch.

I do agree that 4S pricing is pretty reasonable. And the idea that you don't want to feel obligated to eat on board because you've paid $$$$ for food is so true when you're visiting destinations where you WANT to eat.

To your point of 4S not having any all inclusive though, Golden Triangle in Thailand as well as Naviva in Punta mita are all inclusive.

As someone who never drinks alcohol and rarely drinks anything other than water, I'd be reluctant to select an option with alcohol included when an alternative exists. Whether it's a high-end all-inclusive resort or an evening social event with my alumni association, when alcoholic drinks are included with my ticket price a significant percentage of the money I pay to attend will simply be wasted. That realization always makes me a lot less likely to buy a ticket in the first place.

hey @ben - you say in the article that four seasons doesn't have any all-inclusives. that's not quite true. four seasons naviva in mexico is all-inclusive (and frankly i'd love to see a review from you!). that's at about a $2k-$3k/person/day price.

As someone who doesn’t drink alcohol, I usually automatically will forego any all inclusive that I’m paying, except when I think I’m getting a good deal.

There’s so much choice now in the luxury yacht market - I think one of the best is Scenic- luxury all inclusive with top draw everything

I think that the comparisons to the cruising industry aren't relevant. These new ventures aren't trying to pinch customers away from large cruise ships, they're attempting to create a new market segment and their real competitors seem to be yacht chartering services.

The all-inclusive model makes sense to me because there's a competitive advantage to the scale of these vessels permitting the companies access to professional kitchen/bar staff, and possibly also certain ingredients, which can't be realistically included in a private yacht. If you prefer to be visiting bars and restaurants on terra firma (and I can definitely see the reason for that), there's one less reason to choose a fixed itinerary instead of going wherever you want to go.

They will have to draw from a new customer base (perhaps long-time Four Seasons guests) to make this work because those who cruise the other luxury lines (Seabourn, Silversea, Sea Dream, Scenic, etc.) won't even consider it. The traditional luxury cruisers (many of whom are extremely wealthy and got that way by spending and investing wisely) will consider the Four Seasons "yachts" a very poor value and little more than floating hotels. Prediction: the outside investors in this project will get burned and the ships will eventually be acquired by another cruise line.

If you're seriously considering a luxury cruise, like Four Seasons, I doubt the marginal differences in cost, a la carte dining/beverages, versus all-inclusive, are really the sticking point at all. It's like, are you wanting the 'brand' of FS or a Ritz-Carlton yacht, or more like the top-of-the-line players, Ponant, or a private charter, or an old-geezer boat like Viking.

I never really got the appeal of all inclusive prices on cruise ships. By all means, offer packages, but what's the point in having daily meals baked into the price if you plan to eat little on board, or stick to cheap stuff? Or imagine going to a cruise in Italy - surely most people would rather have a lunch in the city than dinner on board.

Besides most cruises will still make you pay for specialty dining (i.e. good stuff) so if you want great food, the money you (indirectly) paid for the main dining room is wasted anyway.

All dining on the established luxury lines (Seabourn, Silversea, Regent, etc.) is "good stuff").

It's worth mentioning that the traditional luxury lines are usually half as much per person per night. Is the FS yacht really twice as good?
It's also a terrible pricing model for solo travelers. Cruise lines sometimes have promotions where you can pay as little as 25% for a solo supplement, vs 100% for FS.

I'm not a cruise person, but I always thought the "per person" pricing with double occupancy was just a gimmick to make the apparent cost less. The move towards all in pricing for hotels is good and glad to see it carry over here.

I also like the concept of a la carte dining and you are correct to point out that many folks will want to eat meals on shore and not be locked in to a sunk cost of dining on the boat.

why do you keep saying "licensing out its name for a cruising venture"? Is it wrong to just admit these hotels are launching cruise lines?

I think this is less of an issue but for the opposite reason: cruise lines are becoming more a-la carte. They've discovered the profit in nickel-and-diming what is basically a captive audience, just like the airlines.

I went on a few cruises with family many years ago as a kid, and now that I have kids, I've gone on a couple again. The difference I've noticed is how much of a cruise now is not included in the base price. Nowadays only the main restaurant is included, and the dozen or so specialty restaurants are not. And oftentimes, even the 24-hour stuff that used to be around (like pizza stations, hotdog and burger stands) are no longer 24-hour, or else really poor quality, in order to encourage you to go to the a-la cart restaurants. This is in addition to the ever-increasing amount of floorspace dedicated to pay-for experiences like the casino and spa, leaving the rest of us on a diminishing and increasingly crowded share of the boat.

Don't get me wrong: it's still not bad for the price and has advantages that mean I'll still go on cruises occasionally, but the trend is clear, which is to get you to spend as much as possible while on the boat. If anything true all-inclusive cruise lines (like Virgin's new lines, or the Ritz Carlton you reviewed) are the true revolutions running counter to the overall trend.

One other point: I'm not sure if the long term trends favor these specialty yacht services. They're the equivalent of all-business-class airlines, none of which ever succeed (except Companie, for now). Not only are they squeezed at the top end by yacht charters. But on the lower end, big cruise lines are learning how to segment their audience. Just like big airplanes allow you to sell 4-6+ classes of tickets with vastly different experiences (all the way from first class to basic economy), now big cruise ships have their luxury clubs with not just separate rooms, but entirely separate restaurants, pools, and lounge areas. If ultra high end services like Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons proves this segment of the market exists, I wouldn't be surprised if the big liners create the same experience on their larger ships, and outcompete the specialty lines with their economies of scale.

I think it has to do with the amount of free time, which leads to more casual consumption in general.

Let's be frank. Booking through a Four Seasons Preferred Partner travel agent gets the consumer a $100 credit. For rounding purposes, that is essentially nothing to the consumer, but it generates a major commission of at least 10% of the total fare to the travel agent, i.e. Ford.

They are licensing out the name because the hotel brands are no operating the curises although members may receive some perks and benefits. I think they need to find a new audience of customer for this. Even people that are not typical cruisers but would consider some of the other luxury hotel branded ships may not consider this one because of the difference in the total. The rooms in itself is much more than others too. I agree I think those typical cruise customers that go on traditional luxury cruise lines won't consider this.