bigboofer

19 hours ago, Bruin Steve said:

I hate to break it to you, but cruise lines NEVER really want solo cruisers.   Why they never wanted to give a discounted fare, to charge double, is that by having a solo cruiser, they are giving up one berth on the ship...BUT, they were still giving up a lot of potential revenue--one person in a stateroom also pays half the tips, buys half the drinks, buys half of the spa services, goes on only one shore excursion in a port, buys half as much in the onboard shops, spends half as much in specialty restaurants...and so on...

 

If the ship sailed with only solo travelers, the cruise ship would lose money.  They are in business to make money.  If they could fill EVERY berth on the ship, they would love it.  Their business model is selling at least every berth double occupancy AND to sell drinks, shore excursions, specialty meals, spa services, etc.  and to pay their crew through gratuities--based on a full ship.

 

If you think about it, going "all inclusive" is a method of insuring themselves a good portion of that revenue in excess of the fares alone...A drink package sold at regular price really just guarantees them selling 7 drinks per passenger per day--whether they drink that much or not--and they guarantee that high profit margin item--a drink really only costs them between 25 and 50 cents per drink...so, any $8 drink is really $7.50 or more in profit.  Gratuities included means they charge you up front...and guaranty their crew the maximum tip.  When they do those promotions with nonrefundable OBC, that's just to guaranty that you spend at least that much on shorexes, the spa, gift shops or the casino.

 

They are trying to create a cost system where all of those projected profits are PREPAID...and per cabin, NOT per passenger.  Per passenger wouldn't hit the projections.

Since I'm paying two fares and one tip and port fees you think a cruise line is losing money I must disagree with your position. As an elite plus cruiser I receive a cocktail party (which I rarely consume three drinks) and internet so having to also buy two packages at very high cost for something I don't need is Celebrity just being greedy. I can't imagine any cruise line selling anything at a loss.

Onboard spending at very high prices for tours and shops are generally for new cruisers that haven't figured out how to get value for their vacation dollars. I never go to the casino but I hear the odds and slot payouts are less at sea than on land. Drinking to excess at very high prices (on even for free) is something I have no interest in.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Another wonderful benefit of the new "Always Included" is the cost has been added to the per person cost of the cruise. So as a solo traveler I will have to pay for drinks, internet and tips for two people which before you only had to pay for the cabin with tips for one. Solo travel with Celebrity just got very very expensive. I think Celebrity is telling me to go away,

If Celebrity wants to go Regent light (Regents includes everything at a very high price on a much smaller ship) that is their choice and its up to us to accept it and book or go elsewhere. But when you start charging a lot you better be ready to provide what you offer. Regent did until they where bought by Norwegian and many things changed for the worse.

Celebrity needs to understand that a loyalty program should be designed to encourage repeat bookings to enjoy a cruise and possibly attain the next level. If you pay a few extra dollars for the cruise the perks will make up the difference with a preceded value of the loyalty program. After all nothing is ever free.

My objection to the changes are the lack of transparency in what we are paying for whats is now being included. A drink packages adds nothing for me since I rarely use the three drinks at our two hour social. Adding the gratuities is a problem only because they are no longer a tip but a fee but they should tell us how much per day is being added. When Regent gave everybody free internet they didn't bother to increase band with so the whole system crashed so I hope Celebrity plans according.

The bottom line is changing the loyalty makes some of us "free agents" so in only looking at Celebrity we'll now look at other lines as well. They have the right to adjust the program any way they want but we can how and where we book our vacations. Sometimes a change costs much more than just leaving this alone.

On 4/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, fdwt994 said:

Being stuck in an elevator is not an emergency.  It's an inconvenience.  If someone starts having chest pains, etc, that's different but I question the validity that someone "fainted."  Did the "fainted" guy go to the ship Doctor afterwards?  Did anyone?   

 

Prying the doors open without any knowledge of how elevators work, how dangerous it can be (remember the worker who was crushed to death on a Carnival ship back in 2015?) is a recipe for disaster.  

 

Let the experts do their work, be grownups, and wait it out.  They probably would've been comped something for their ordeal but instead, because they thought they knew better, they are now banned for life.  When it comes to safety, there should be NO compromise.  If the passengers refuse to listen to the engineers, then they should expect that they will be talked to in not so nice words.      

 

And NO, I'm not a "Carnival Cheerleader."  I just understand how elevators work and how dangerous they can be.  

I agree and what these people where doing was incredibly stupid to say the least. When an elevator stops working call for assistance and wait for help which on a cruise ship is only minutes. Each ship has some very highly trained elevator mechanics which will deal with any problem that arrives.

When you try to open the door you are endangering both yourself and the mechanic trying to help you. the inside door opens the outside door when the car is properly leveled with the deck. If you are above or below by a small margin of error than you would have to release the outside door manually (assuming you know how to do so). What would happen if the ship had some motion which caused the car to move. I'll promise it would not be a good thing.

These people made a small problem into a large one and I agree with Carnival that I wouldn't want them on my ship either. 

I've never been on a Carnival ship but I've owned elevators for many year. ONLY a properly trained mechanic should ever deal with a elevator problem .

We took our first Regent cruise in 2001 as Radisson Seven seas on the Mariner and loved the wonderful ships and very high level of service. Over the years they added shore excursions and the drinks to the package which really set them apart from the other cruise lines. A very high level of service from a great crew with perks for returning guests just added to the fantastic experience.

Everything worked for us until Norwegian bought them and our last cruise was poor at best. Our itinerary was changed at the last minute to facilitate the ship going into dry dock giving us an overnight in Barcelona vs a day in Gibraltar. We where also told that everybody was expected to be off the ship by 9AM the following morning (we arrived at 2:30PM) so not a lot of time in port to visit and pack. We all received a $400 future cruise credit but got the feeling they really didn't care if they ever saw us again. So after 128 days I moved on.

Both of these proposed actions seem somewhat extreme :confused:

 

Personally I do not care who is the CEO of a cruiseline as long as they run an efficient organisation with a well motivated management team; the company needs to remain customer focussed and thereby maximise returns for its shareholders

I agree with you completely. I expect the cruise line to deliver what they promise and what I pay for.

Unfortunately on my last two cruises with Regent I didn't receive what was promised with last minute changes for their benefit and not for the enhancement of the trip. They have tarnished their brand with the treatment of the passengers in this way.

This confirms why we stopped cruising on Regent:

 

"Meanwhile, Del Rio said Regent is performing well and 'without question, per diems are the highest in the industry.' Regent bundles more into its pricing than other brands, from airfare and transfers to drinks and excursions to gratuities and Wi-Fi.

 

"Prior to Seven Seas Explorer's introduction, the fleet's oldest ship—the 1999-built Seven Seas Navigator—was commanding the highest fares, last summer, $1,000 per passenger day in Alaska."

I've stopped booking or referring Regent to friends because of the drop in service, which used to be amazing, and the cancellation of ports either at the last minute or well after payment is due.

My last cruise on the Navigator should have been a Regent embarrassment with very poor service, such as delivering a Dover Sole but not deboning it, but nothing seemed to bother the staff. Case in point, our stop at Gibraltar was cancelled 30 days after final payment so they could get the ship to Barcelona one day early to start the refit. Once we arrived in Barcelona we where given rushed tours since we arrived in port at 2PM but major attractions such as Sagrada Familia was closed when we arrived on our tour, so what was the point of stopping.:eek:

So after over 130 days on Regent I'm moving on to other lines since I can reserve the owners suite on many ships or just cruise with Silver Seas or Crystal and get what I'm paying for. I'm sorry Regent but a six star experience should be delivered without any disappointment. My last cruise was nothing but.

I've noticed service had declined on my recent (March 17 to 31, 2016) crossing on the Navigator.

We had Dover sole one evening and our waiter didn't bother to debone it after serving but just walked off. Staff on the pool deck staff was so overwhelmed that getting drinks with lunch was very slow. I have others but on a six star cruise line anything like this is ridiculous. Regents response was they would bring it to the attention of the appropriate department heads.

My major complaint was the changing our itinerary, after final payment and well into the penalty cancellation period, which dropped Gibraltar and added an overnight in Barcelona. Regent was taking the ship in for a major refurbishment and wanted to get an early start since the pier was loaded with materials and dumpsters upon our arrival at 2PM. Upon returning from a shore trip all the pool and veranda furniture had removed from the ship. They called it a "Celestial Crossing" but it was all about getting the passengers to pay for moving the ship to Europe and very little else.

With over 100 days on Regent I'm going elsewhere since paying their prices and receiving second rate anything is unacceptable. Its just not worth the risk :mad:

Let me add a couple of observations which might help.

The Falklands are located in an area which has very changeable weather and sea conditions. No captain would ever take his ship into such conditions without it being 100% operational. Lacking one propeller at 100% would limit the use of the other to the same percentage which may not be able to handle the sea conditions. No captain would ever put his passengers, crew or ship at risk in such a difficult area of the world with a crippled ship.

A case in point I was crossing Drakes Passage on an expedition ship in 35 foot seas and 80 knots winds when we lost power to the propellers from the loss of pneumatic pressure. A wave hit us broadside putting a 30 degree list for what seemed like forever before the ship righted its self. Fortunately nobody was injured but I'm sure the pucker factor on the bridge was high. In this case the problem was found and fixed in 45 very long minutes but a prop can only be fixed in port.

Safety really is job one on a cruise ship.