Horseback riding in the Masai Mara: a trip to remember, if you can afford it

Riding horses across the Masai Mara, a large reserve park in Southwestern Kenya, is something I'd love to do. Paying $5,675 plus $875 for the single supplement is something I really don't want to do. And won't.

In this case, even if I were spared the single supplement, I wouldn't shell out close to $6,000 for an eight-day vacation. But it is fun to dream about. For those who have the bucks, Cross Country International, the company that offers it, promotes itself to single travelers:

"Many of our customers travel alone. Many of our riders are single. This is a great way to meet other people and just be yourself."

(They seem to have left off the "well-to-do" between "meet other" and "people.")

I've never been to Africa. It would be amazing to go horseback riding and visit a wild animal reserve and meet with the local Masai at Acacia Camp, a game-viewing area.

But some things simply are out of reach. For now. (Who says a bag packed with $1,000 bills couldn't fall on my head tomorrow?)

Still, I give the company credit for understanding the needs of solo travelers. It offers to tell solo travelers the composition of the group for any specific week. It also puts together "singles only" vacations. When it comes right down to it, the only thing missing, for me, is a hefty checking account. 

But I'm not going to argue those prices. Maintaining and transporting horses is an expensive business. So are most "comfortable" trips to game reserves in Africa. Who am I to say what a trip like that is worth? 

I could save up and make it my one big trip for, say, the next three-to-five years. But I'd prefer to visit many different places. And I can, if I travel inexpensively.

Have you ever been on an expensive trip like this? Would you tell us what you loved about it so we can drool? Or, alternatively, tell us why you'd never spend your money on such a thing.

Photos from wikimedia commons by:
1. Whit Welles
2. Paul Mannix
3. Dan Lundberg

Comments

[Ted]

Only a 15% single supplement? I'd say that's fair and reasonable, to the extent that either adjective could apply to any trip that costs $6,000. Does that include airfare?

Although I haven't spent any time researching this subject-- it's much too rich for my blood-- it seems that luxury travel operators are more welcoming of single customers. I have never been able to figure out why I occasionally get slick brochures advertising luxurious adventures that cost slightly more than the entire annual salary of a minimum-wage worker. But I've noticed that the single supplement for them is between 15% and 20%.

Similarly, luxury cruise lines like Crystal charge singles a supplement far less than the industry-standard 100% penalty; they sometimes even have special promotions that lower it to 10% or 20%. I've read (but haven't verified) that with the lower supplement, the bottom-line cost may actually be comparable to that of a mainstream cruise that imposes the normal penalty. I've also read that the reason for this apparent generosity is that they're encouraging the loyalty of widows who had enjoyed many cruises with their late husbands.

A cynical interpretation of these anecdotal observations is that being charged a fair and reasonable supplement rather than a penalty is merely one of the benefits to which wealthy people are inherently entitled. But a more likely (and even more cynical) explanation is that the profit margin on luxury travel is high enough so that they can afford to give singles a break!

[boldlygosolo]

No, that doesn't include airfare! I figure, anyone who can afford a trip like that won't be agonizing over the price of the single supplement whether it's 15% or 50%.
But even as I say it, I take it back. I know very wealthy people who still compare prices at the supermarket to save 15 cents. I'll never fully understand the psychology of that. But I'm sure the single supplement is annoying to them too.
As for why the supplement is so low on such an expensive trip, I second your explanation that the profit margin probably already is pretty high, so why stick it to singles even more?