Norwegian is vying for solo travelers with these tiny $1,880 single-person cabins on its latest giant cruise ship
Norwegian's latest ship, Norwegian Aqua, is floating bait for cruising families. It also wants to attract the opposite demographic: solo travelers.
In recent years, Norwegian has emerged as the leader of the solo cruise boom, adding about 1,000 single-person cabins to its fleet in 2024.
For the company, it's a great money-making opportunity: 10% of cruisers from US ports go alone, with millennials and Gen Zers most likely to cruise solo, according to the trade group Cruise Lines International Association.
For solo cruisers, it's a great money-saving opportunity: Many cruise lines charge independent travelers a "single supplement" fee to compensate for lost revenue on double occupancy cabins. In some cases, this additional expense can double the cost to sail.
That is, unless they stay in one of Norwegian's solo staterooms.
Norwegian Aqua launched in March with 93 single-person cabins.
The new 4,482-guest vessel is spending the summer operating weeklong Caribbean cruises from Port Canaveral, Florida. These "studio" accommodations are already sold out for a third of these voyages, with the least expensive remaining options starting at about $1,880 — about $560 cheaper than a traditional inside cabin with the single supplement fee.
That's almost $270 per day for a windowless 94-square-foot cabin.
Of the 93 options, 73 are what Norwegian affectionally call "studios."
It's a fitting name for a tiny cabin, but don't let its 94-square-footage footprint fool you. It still has all the necessities of a cruise stateroom, including a twin bed sandwiched between a wall-mounted TV and a storage unit.
You'll only have to walk a few steps to the bathroom.
The bathroom is similarly tight with surprisingly ample shelving.
Bring your conditioner — the cabin only provides body wash and shampoo.
There's no additional seating, save for the backless desk stool. However, it does come with access to a shared living room.
Solo cruisers can mingle with other lone wolves at the Studio Lounge, accessible only to those staying in single-person cabins.
The multi-section space has plenty of lounge seating, from chaises to shared couches. It also serves a small breakfast buffet, in addition to coffee and snacks throughout the day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump's budget bill cuts off the green-energy cash spigot — and it's about time
The 'big, beautiful' budget bill passed by the House of Representatives, if enacted in its current form, will eliminate clean-electricity tax credits, including for wind and solar power, starting in 2029. It will require projects seeking to receive those subsidies to begin construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law, and to start operating by 2028. This is great news for both fiscal sanity and energy reality, both of which have been in short supply for far too long. This 'temporary' tax credit was first enacted in 1992 to help the then-nascent onshore wind and solar industries. Congress always set it to expire years into the future, providing ample opportunities for politicians to extend and enlarge it. They have done so 12 times. The Investment Tax Credit used by offshore wind developers like the Norwegian government-owned Equinor, which is relying on it to build Empire Wind off the coast of New York, has been around even longer — it was first enacted almost a half-century ago. But the ITC was greatly expanded under President Joe Biden's ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, enabling offshore wind developers to qualify for up to 50% of their construction costs. Far from being temporary, these tax credits have become a permanent crutch. As Warren Buffett commented back in 2014, the only reason his MidAmerican Energy company built wind turbines was to capture the tax credits. Wind and solar developers have been allowed to stick taxpayers and ratepayers with the bills, assuming they would continue to do so for many years. Consequently, the proposed rapid demise of these tax credits has ignited howls of outrage from green energy advocates, as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle, who contend it will devastate state economies and destroy thousands of jobs. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed that transforming the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal into the nation's largest offshore wind port would be 'a large step forward in our commitment to build a sustainable future and foster economic growth.' In New Jersey, where Gov. Phil Murphy's dreams of an offshore wind nirvana have sunk, officials lamented the House bill's passage. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It's very strange to me, very, very strange,' said Tim Sullivan of the NJ Economic Development Authority. 'I've never seen a situation where elected officials are celebrating something that is killing jobs.' It's not just Democrats: Iowa's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has been a consistent defender of wind-energy subsidies. But whether it's tax credits or long-term contracts that force ratepayers to pay above-market prices for these intermittent energy resources, the pro-subsidy crowd ignores economic reality. Sure, subsidizing an industry or an individual firm can 'create' jobs — but those subsidies must be paid for by someone. We pay in the form of soaring electricity rates. In New York, residential customers paid an average of over 24 cents per kWh last year, 50% higher than the US average and 25% percent more than they paid in 2020. Commercial customers, including thousands of small businesses, also paid rates 50% higher than the rest of the country. It's basic economics that, if you are forced to pay more for electricity, you have less money to spend on everything else. Whether it's households forced into energy poverty or businesses that cannot afford to invest and expand, the adverse effects of high-priced electricity ripples through the entire economy. Moreover, the subsidized jobs the green-energy advocates and their political enablers wish to create are hugely expensive. Over the life of an offshore wind project, including the now-greenlit Empire Wind, the average costs are over $1 million per job — each and every year. That's obviously far more than any of the project's workers will be paid. It's an overarching economic fallacy to justify any green-energy subsidy on the promise of new jobs — because an investment's economic value isn't measured by the number of jobs it creates. The purpose of investing in electricity-generating resources and infrastructure is to ensure that our power supplies are adequate, reliable and affordable. If job creation was the goal, the most valuable energy resources would be the most labor-intensive ones. Subsidy advocates ignore these basic economic realities. And campaign contributors are the loudest voices in many politicians' ears. Eventually, however, reality always wins. Senators would be wise to remember that as they debate the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in the coming weeks. Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Historic ship visit 'a poignant reminder'
The visit of a historic Norwegian cargo ship to the River Tyne has a special significance for one local man. The S/S Hestmanden, which served as a convoy vessel during World War Two, will be berthed in Newcastle until Thursday as part of a UK tour marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day. For Chris Flanighan, its arrival is a poignant reminder of his grandfather, Karluf Thorsen, who fled Nazi-occupied Norway and served throughout the war in the merchant navy. He said: "This ship symbolises the life he lived, and the risks he took". Built in 1911, S/S Hestmanden played a vital role in transporting medicine, food, fuel, ammunition, and weapons during the war. It also formed part of a covert flotilla of fishing boats used to smuggle soldiers, agents and freedom fighters between Norway and Shetland, and on return trips helped to evacuate refugees and Allied soldiers. Now a national treasure in Norway, it serves as a floating war sailors' museum, preserving the legacy of those who kept the supply lines open. Mr Flanighan, from Wallsend, North Tyneside, has spent years uncovering the legacy of his grandfather. "He left Norway around the age of 17 or 18 and didn't return home until he was 22," he said. "Germany had occupied Norway, and he was part of the convoys supplying the Allied effort from Britain. "This ship symbolises the life he lived, and the risks he took". In a tribute to his grandfather's legacy, Mr Flanighan has been invited to join the Maritime Volunteer Service on one of their vessels as part of a ceremonial escort up the river. "When I heard the ship was coming to Newcastle - the last stop on her UK tour - I was over the moon," he said. "It's not just a ship visit. For me and my family, it's like she's coming home." During the visit, people have a chance to go on board the floating museum until Wednesday and explore its interactive exhibitions. There will also be events including a wreath-laying ceremony at Norwegian war graves in Jesmond. Capt Stephen C. Healy of Trinity House, Newcastle, said: "This historic visit reaffirms the deep maritime bonds between Norway and the north-east of England. "It is a tremendous privilege to help honour the legacy of the war sailors." Follow BBC Newcastle on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram. How the 'Shetland Bus' helped Norway resist Nazi Germany Maritime Volunteer Service
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Business Insider
A millennial couple is selling their home after endless repairs to become renters again: 'The whole housing market is a scam'
Roxanne Werner and her wife, Kristina Werner, bought their Houston home in early 2022 when, like many white-collar workers, they were still working remotely and wanted more space. Buying felt relatively affordable — they paid about $390,000 for their three-bedroom house with a pool and snagged a 3.75% mortgage interest rate. But the hidden costs of homeownership quickly reared their ugly heads. First, there was a gas leak. Then, a $10,000 air conditioning repair. A costly pool leak, new garage doors, and plumbing issues came next. It felt like they're playing whack-a-mole with never-ending home maintenance. And that's all on top of their $2,600 monthly mortgage payment. "The amount we pay monthly for our mortgage is totally reasonable," said Werner, who's 38 and works in communications for local government. "But then once we moved in, it just feels like it's been one thing after another, after another, after another." So the couple, who have a combined income of about $185,000, is selling their house and going back to renting. They're not alone. Some homeowners are weighing the burdens of owning and deciding they'd prefer the flexibility and lack of liability that renting offers. This has helped push the age of the typical tenant higher, driven also by both Gen Zers and millennials renting for longer and boomers renting as they age. Rethinking the American Dream As interest rates and home prices have surged in recent years, renting has become a better deal than buying in many places — a reversal of the historic norm. Indeed, homebuyers purchasing starter homes in 50 major cities in 2024 spent over $1,000 more on housing costs each month than tenants do. There are all kinds of phantom costs associated with owning a home beyond the mortgage, insurance, and taxes. Buying and selling fees, home maintenance and repairs, insurance, and taxes can all be more than a homeowner bargained for. And unlike other major purchases, like a car, homebuyers tend to treat their home as an investment that will appreciate over time. But turning a profit on a home — or just breaking even — is far from assured. Werner and her wife, who works for the University of Houston, are looking forward to putting more money aside each month for long-term savings, vacations, dinners out, and their 11-year-old son's college fund. Buying another, lower-maintenance home feels like a bad deal now, Werner said, with interest rates around 7% and home prices elevated. "It just feels like the whole housing market is kind of a scam," Werner said. "You buy the house, you sell it, and then you make a bunch of money, but then you also want to be able to afford to buy another house." The couple listed their house for $429,000 in early May and are out of the option period with a buyer who has offered just below their asking price. Now, they're looking for a rental townhouse in a more walkable neighborhood that's closer to downtown Houston. Werner estimates that she and her wife, who works at the University of Houston, will end up spending a bit more on their future rent — they think around $2,800 — than they do on their mortgage. But they expect to spend less on their overall housing costs when they factor in repairs and maintenance, she added. Ultimately, though, Werner wants to abandon the social norms and traditions that make owning a home "synonymous" with the American Dream. "Do we mean buy a home, or do we mean that you can build any life you want to, and maybe, for some people, that doesn't mean owning a home?" she said.
