You can still do this.
To me, it seems they are simply offering additional options and many people prefer choices.
Their primary duty is to their stockholders so they must feel this path will maximize return even if some guests do not like it.
With respect, this is not a change. You could always buy the cruise without the air. Until we see pricing and can make informed comparisons, all we know is that this is a marketing change. You never know - we might all love it!
$350 compared to tens of thousands of dollars for a cruise that is far more enjoyable with perfect airfare....and that's only if they are below Platinum. Sounds like a bargain to me.
They will know the big picture but from a guest's perspective all that mattes is what it costs them, yes? That change, if any, we will easily identifiable.
If it were me, I would call up on the last day in June and hold a booking for 5 days. Call back on July 1 and ask for a price on the same cruise.
That's a licensing issue or a local country law, not a hardware issue. Perhaps Regent or Starlink is willing to share the reason - they certainly both know what it is.
Regent steak is a drop in the bucket compared to the sheer amount of stuff consumed/wasted on ships with 6K guests. While NCLH makes a ton off Regent guests on a per guest basis, they spend a lot more on NCL than Regent even with the fare disparity and that volume creates opportunities to cut staff, consumption and fuel usage.
It's OK - my source is the Investor day data that was released as well as quarterly SEC filings. It is easily verifiable online. We are seeing this across the industry...it will be a few years before the cruise lines recover.
The profit margin is much higher but is still a small part of the overall picture. As long as the rooms are filled, and they are in record numbers, one could argue they might feel it is necessary to create new customers to replace those who will no longer be sailing. This is why they are marketing to much younger guests now.