Cruise Lines are following the Airline Business Model

[sloopsailor]

I'm hard pressed to complain about the new model. I started cruising in 2001. The price for the cruise hasn't changed much in over a decade. Yes, they find ways to make up for elevated costs. But look at the ship we get to sail on. Equinox vs Galaxy or Zenith. It's a small price to pay. In many instances, the changes have not overly affected my cruises. Still one of the best values in travel.

 

btw, when I started cruising we based our ideal cruise prices as such $100/pp/pd for and inside, $125/pp/pd for and oceanview, $150/pp/pd for a balcony. We still have no problem finding cruises that fit into those prices. Even with gas prices raising from $1.78/gallon Just over 3 years ago to nearly $5/gallon now

 

Boy, have you hit the nail on the head! Spot on! After 131 cruises since 1971, I've about had it with cruises. Yes, cruise lines have been taken over by "re-cycled" airline executives who have not only diminished the onboard product, but enacted all their "schemy" pricing policies that are so airline like to boot!

 

Years ago, I could sail on a mass market line like Home Lines or Sitmar and enjoy a product, literally a lifestyle that took me however briefly out of my middle class life and let me like like a king for a week. Now if I want that kind of experience, I have to sail with a Seabourn or Regent and pay triple the price over a regular cruise line which I can't always afford to do.

 

Yes, I no longer fly unless a matter of life or death. I am just about in the same place with cruises. I do have one scheduled for March of next year on Oceania Riviera, a line on which I have never sailed. But none scheduled for this year which is the first year in decades I have not a taken a cruise. And I am totally ok with that, don't feel I will be missing anything.

 

Worldspan

 

I happen to agree with chesbriar, and completely disagree with sensationalistic comments like worldspan's. Cruising in the past was quite expensive, and few people could afford it. For those of you who continue to complain about the deterioration of the cruise experience, consider the purchasing power comparisons between 1971 and today, and even as close as 2001 and today, and what we now get for virtually the same $100 as 40 years ago:

 

$100 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $129.70

$125 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $162.12

$150 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $194.54

 

$100 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $567.02 !!

$125 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $708.77 !!

$150 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $850.52 !!

 

Not too many of us would be able to afford to cruise if prices had stayed even with inflation. And, we get a much more interesting product today than in 1971. Even the most expensive luxury brands don't charge those prices. But those comparative prices are quite similar to what my parents used to pay to take a sea voyage in the 60s and 70s (the word "cruise" wasn't even used then).

 

Thank heaven for today's business model!!!!

[jackdiamond]

boogs, your observations are very astute.

[swsfrail]

Chucky - Excellent post :)

 

No, not really. It's only 'excellent' because you wear the same kind of ancient rose tinted glasses. Most of us do not.

[Jack Horner]

Yes, now they let you decide to pay for the extras you want. Cruises are less now than in 1999 but if you add in the extras that were included you come up with the difference plus a little more. We like it this way because it lets us cruise more frequently if we want to do without the frills.

 

 

I agree, at least the current business model of a la carte cruise pricing now allows the less well off to afford to go on a cruise by not electing not to pay for high cost specialty restaurants, spar treatments and shore excursions etc. It’s more inclusive than the old bundled pricing model.

[Hawaiidan]

Having cruised regent a lot lke the guy from La Quinta, who says Celeb is a better value... thats based on pure price alone and his personal value.

 

My perspective is a tad diffrent. Being on a massive 3000 to 6000 person ship that has packed every inch with cabins, and kept deck space to a minimum, is one thing Selling elite this or that, class I am better than you marketing. to the masses. is a tangible dollar in the pocket value

 

VS being on a ship with less than 500 to 700, with wide open decks, no lines, where everyone is a co-equal, is a value one might consider.

Here, an intangible experience of experience.

 

What ever floats your oak............;)

 

Each comes with a price, each is right for you if thats what you seek.

[SantaFeFan]

Having cruised regent a lot lke the guy from La Quinta, who says Celeb is a better value... thats based on pure price alone and his personal value.

 

My perspective is a tad diffrent. Being on a massive 3000 to 6000 person ship that has packed every inch with cabins, and kept deck space to a minimum, is one thing Selling elite this or that, class I am better than you marketing. to the masses. is a tangible dollar in the pocket value

 

Have you ever been on a large ship? I would guess not. What you describe isn't what I have experienced.

 

But that's OK. Everyone has different tastes, and there are different cruise lines out there to satisfy those tastes. We each have a right to our own opinions. However, those opinions are much more credible if they are based on experience rather than assumptions.

 

Another consideration - not everyone wants to pay the premium required to cruise on those smaller ships, and not everyone is satisfied with a more limited availability of options while on board a smaller cruise ship. Oh, and not everyone makes snide remarks about the type of cruise lines or ships that other people enjoy.

[croozer]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I considered it to be a thought-provoking subject that would get people sharing their opinions about the changes in cruising.

 

Now I have to wonder what there is about this subject that makes people so contentious.

 

I fully expect to get flamed just for making this observation :(

[Bridge Maven]

No, not really. It's only 'excellent' because you wear the same kind of ancient rose tinted glasses. Most of us do not.

 

deleted because my response was a joke that might be misunderstood

[Ma Bell]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I considered it to be a thought-provoking subject that would get people sharing their opinions about the changes in cruising.

 

Now I have to wonder what there is about this subject that makes people so contentious.

 

I fully expect to get flamed just for making this observation :(

 

I haven't seen anything contentious. Just different opinions. If someone has a different opinion does it make it contentious?

 

There are also facts to be considered.

[jgnova]

I think there are several other aspects to this discussion that have not been addressed.

 

DW and I sailed on Galaxy in 2002 in an ocean view cabin and I recall looking at the environment and trying to envision the future. Ten years later, we've sailed Mercury twice, Silhouette once, Summit once (with another coming), and Caribbean Princess - and I think that most of my predictions have been realized (or are in process of doing so).

 

First - if my aging memory serves, Galaxy had one deck of affordable (not suite) verandah cabins. In my then ignorance of the cruise industry changes already occurring, I remember thinking that more and more people would want those cabins and began to think about the changes in the social nature of cruising as higher percentages of passengers would have their own private space in which to relax. Is that happening today? So if fewer passengers are relaxing in public shared spaces (with more exposure to the bars, which were always a la carte), that means the lines have to make up for that revenue somehow.

 

Let's move to the dining room. I think we saw our table mates one evening during the entire 11 night cruise. The demand, even then, was beginning to be for tables for two. Again, this reduces socialization opportunities at which you might meet people and spend more time in public spaces chatting and buying drinks. On our last sailing (Silhouette, Feb 22), we were at the late seating and the dining room lower level (which was the fixed seating) was barely half occupied. I didn't walk around the upper level (which was select, not traditional fixed seating), but I'd bet it was a lot of tables for two. People today seem to lead busy lives and going on a cruise with their significant other is their opportunity to have dinner together, which may not happen during their normal at-home lives.

 

Back then, I don't think the buffet was open at dinner time - there was the casual (and reserved times) alternate dining. Now people want the freedom to eat when and what they want.

 

I noticed on the Silhouette that the theater no longer has any pretensions of being a night club with pre- and post-show dancing, socializing, and drinking. It's now a theater with no tables or even easily navigated aisles in which the servers can bring drinks. One more opportunity for socializing (and drinks revenue) lost.

 

Even the venues in which in the past one might sit with friends and have a few drinks over conversation no longer have the ambience conducive to those conversations, with the entertainment so loud that you can't hear the person next to you.

 

So the changes in cruising with moves to more dining options and more a la carte venues is in response to the changing social mores as much as a way for the cruise lines to wring one more dollar from us.

 

Personally, I like the opportunity to meet people on cruises - we've made some great friendships and renewed them on subsequent cruises sometimes. I like getting dressed for dinner a few times during the cruise - we don't travel in circles at home that have formal parties so this is an opportunity for us to dress up together and, as someone said earlier in this thread, make believe we're living in a dream social strata.

 

I'm sorry if this comes out as a rant - we do enjoy cruising and will probably stick to Celebrity for various reasons, but we prefer certain aspects associated with the past more than with the current models. Yes, the ships are bigger and more stable and have more options for various things (entertainment, dining, etc.). But we were happy on the Galaxy and Mercury - the size seemed more to our taste, and the fewer venues (and activity options) meant we might go because we'd probably see people we knew from dinner or other activities. I recall reading predictions in the past of a time in which we'd have so many choices for things to do. I do wish the cruise lines were more differentiated so we could pick the line for a predictable and specific experience, rather than all lines trying for the same mass-market demographic.

 

Jonathan

[hughdm]

Having cruised off and on since 1981, I continue to be amazed at how a quality vacation on a cruise ship can become seemingly CHEAPER relative to the value of the dollar. I think it's great that you can choose to pay for what you want. Don't drink? You don't have to pay. Like to drink? I am looking forward to our premium beverage package. Want a big expensive cabin? You can get it.

 

I started on Cunard where there was a class system. There were restaurants and lounges we were barred from. Now if I want to splurge a night but not every night, I can.

 

If I WANT to pay for an all inclusive experience, there are lines that offer it. I like things just the way they are.

[GregNVNY]

The airlines' fare bucket model is the polar opposite of cruise pricing. For the same cramped coach seat, there can be a dozen fares on a given flight. Each of these fares is allocated to a fixed number seats (this number of seats is the "bucket"). Once the lowest bucket is gone, the fare goes up to the next highest fare bucket. Cruise lines do not have multiple fares for one cabin category There is just one that could change only based on management's decision. So if the first 30 cabins in category 2A sell, the cruise fare will not automatically go up like an airline fare would.

 

Also, the airlines' main added fee that people hate is for baggage, something that is a basic need for most travelers and not a premium service. On a cruise line, all of the basics (MDR/buffet food, pool, entertainment, ship transport, and lectures) are part of the fare.

 

The one good thing airlines have in their pricing model as opposed to the cruise lines is the opportunity to cancel your reservation (if your plans change or you just don't feel like going) and still retain the value of the ticket for future use. Some, like Southwest don't even have a change fee (my favorite thing about their airline). For most cruise lines, you wouldn't be able to cancel for any reason a few days before the cruise and retain some credit unless in the case of Celebrity, you purchased the line's Cruisecare insurance.

 

Finally, I hear many more instance of price drops much closer to departure on cruise lines than on airlines. Most likely a week or two before departure on an airline, you are going to pay a lot more. And if you want a ticket a day or two before the flight, than take out a mortgage!

[worldspan]

I happen to agree with chesbriar, and completely disagree with sensationalistic comments like worldspan's. Cruising in the past was quite expensive, and few people could afford it. For those of you who continue to complain about the deterioration of the cruise experience, consider the purchasing power comparisons between 1971 and today, and even as close as 2001 and today, and what we now get for virtually the same $100 as 40 years ago:

 

$100 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $129.70

$125 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $162.12

$150 worth of purchasing power in 2001 now costs $194.54

 

$100 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $567.02 !!

$125 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $708.77 !!

$150 worth of purchasing power in 1971 now costs $850.52 !!

 

Not too many of us would be able to afford to cruise if prices had stayed even with inflation. And, we get a much more interesting product today than in 1971. Even the most expensive luxury brands don't charge those prices. But those comparative prices are quite similar to what my parents used to pay to take a sea voyage in the 60s and 70s (the word "cruise" wasn't even used then).

 

Thank heaven for today's business model!!!!

 

Sorry, my comments were not "sensationalistic" as you call them, they are based on reality of what cruising is today vs what it was in the 1970's and the 1980's. Sorry if that makes me sound old. Yes in the 1980's a minimum inside cabin on a Home Lines NYC to Bermuda cruise might start at $1000.00 each (we know today you can surely due that for less agreed) BUT the bang for the buck is no longer there. Your recitation of Economics 101 doesn't fly here. Yes you might be paying the same price now for a can of coffee you did a few years back but no doubt that can has been downsized in terms of ounces and you are getting less.

 

Unfortunately you have a whole generation who does not know what cruising use to be on a line like Sitmar or Home Lines. For those of us who recall that kind of quality product, we now have to spend three times that $999 or about $2999 for the same experience in today's terms on Seabourn or Regent. And if we can't afford it, we are out of luck.

 

I also think that cruising's growth will sputter as hopefully better economic times return to the U.S. The value of cruising has no doubt been very attractive particularly in the last few years when most of us have felt the economic meltdown. As better times hopefully return, more might opt for all inclusive or more high end resorts which are no doubt more money but provide double the square footage of living space and food that is superior to the "cheap banquet stuff" you get on most of today's popularly priced ships.

 

Worldspan

131 cruises strong

[Bridge Maven]

My memories are a bit different. Ships were much smaller and certainly not as comfortable as they are now and a lot of the menus were a bit strange. I have many photos of the food that was served then and I think our fond memories have more to do with being young and inexperienced rather than them being that much better. Yes, there were some things that were served then that are not available today, but they are also not available anywhere unless the cost is prohibitive. For example, Beluga Caviar.

 

Many chain restaurants of today serve food that is better than some of the so called upscale restaurants of years ago. Because of advances in communication and shipping advantages, restaurants can receive fresh foods much more easily than they could in the past. If something was out of season where you lived you were just out of luck. It was either local or frozen.

 

Which chain restaurants today do you think serve better food than upscale restaurants did years ago?

[Bridge Maven]

My memories are a bit different. Ships were much smaller and certainly not as comfortable as they are now and a lot of the menus were a bit strange. I have many photos of the food that was served then and I think our fond memories have more to do with being young and inexperienced rather than them being that much better. Yes, there were some things that were served then that are not available today, but they are also not available anywhere unless the cost is prohibitive. For example, Beluga Caviar.

 

Many chain restaurants of today serve food that is better than some of the so called upscale restaurants of years ago. Because of advances in communication and shipping advantages, restaurants can receive fresh foods much more easily than they could in the past. If something was out of season where you lived you were just out of luck. It was either local or frozen.

 

Which chain restaurants today do you think are better than upscale restaurants of the past?

[Ma Bell]

Which chain restaurants today do you think are better than upscale restaurants of the past?

 

Here's one example.

 

http://www.eddiev.com

[Ma Bell]

Which chain restaurants today do you think are better than upscale restaurants of the past?

 

Here's one example.

http://www.eddiev.com

[Bridge Maven]

the good old days...

where there any cruises that weren't actually to take you places?

 

I think its better today...for most of us.

 

smeyer - I am not sure I understand your comment quoted above. Back in the seventies a lot of people I know took cruises with very interesting itineraries, including around the world cruises. My first cruise during the seventies was much more ordinary because it was a ten day round trip cruise from NYC to St Thomas and St Maartin. During the sixties, my parents took cruises from NYC to the Caribbean in the winter, and cruises to Canada in the summer.

[AMAC86]

Sorry, my comments were not "sensationalistic" as you call them, they are based on reality of what cruising is today vs what it was in the 1970's and the 1980's. Sorry if that makes me sound old. Yes in the 1980's a minimum inside cabin on a Home Lines NYC to Bermuda cruise might start at $1000.00 each (we know today you can surely due that for less agreed) BUT the bang for the buck is no longer there. Your recitation of Economics 101 doesn't fly here. Yes you might be paying the same price now for a can of coffee you did a few years back but no doubt that can has been downsized in terms of ounces and you are getting less.

 

Unfortunately you have a whole generation who does not know what cruising use to be on a line like Sitmar or Home Lines. For those of us who recall that kind of quality product, we now have to spend three times that $999 or about $2999 for the same experience in today's terms on Seabourn or Regent. And if we can't afford it, we are out of luck.

 

I also think that cruising's growth will sputter as hopefully better economic times return to the U.S. The value of cruising has no doubt been very attractive particularly in the last few years when most of us have felt the economic meltdown. As better times hopefully return, more might opt for all inclusive or more high end resorts which are no doubt more money but provide double the square footage of living space and food that is superior to the "cheap banquet stuff" you get on most of today's popularly priced ships.

 

Worldspan

131 cruises strong

I don't understand why you say you can get an inside cabin for less than $1000 to Bermuda these days, but lament that it is no longer the same sort of quality you could get back in the day.

 

Shouldn't the real test be to say if you can get a cruise equal in quality to what you experiences on Home Lines in the '80s for an inside cabin to Bermuda for $2600 (or whatever the equivalent of $1000 1980s dollars today is) or less? I bet you could...

[Ricky Chan]

So, what exactly is not included anymore? You need to be specific about your claims.

 

A stateroom is still included. And they are much nicer than before, bigger, and more balconies are available, and for a much more reasonable price than ever before.

 

Dinner in the MDR is still included, with food typically of higher quality than the average land based restaurant.

 

Food at the other usual venues, such as the buffet and the pool grill, is still included.

 

Entertainment in the theater is still included, as are the performances in the lounges and in other areas of the ships. There are more entertainment options than ever before, and all are still included in the base fare.

 

Use of the pools is still included, and in more pools than ever. Use of chairs and loungers around the pool and elsewhere around the ship is still included.

 

Transportation to the next port is still included. Plus, we now have many more ports available to us than ever before, all included.

 

 

The way I see it, all the usual things are still included in the base price, and at a price that is significantly lower than in the past. And, we have the added benefit of notching up our experience by voluntarily purchasing higher category staterooms, wine at dinner, premium meals in the additional specialty restaurants, drinks in the lounges and bars, beverage packages that include alcohol, treatments in the spa, shore excursions.

 

In my opinion, what is being charged for are additional things we never had available to us before. Nothing is being taken away at the base fare level - more is being added that are sometimes extra fare.

 

Nothing at all like the airlines, which indeed have taken away free checked bags, free meals, free use of blankets and pillows, free access to movies, and now on some airlines, even free choice of window or aisle seats.

 

I don't understand why people continue to complain. Is it just because you are never satisfied unless you have something to complain about? You should consider yourself fortunate that cruising is so affordable, so plentiful, with so many choices available to us, and is a healthy industry that has a bright, long future ahead of it.

 

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[Bridge Maven]

Just thought of another analogy.

 

When air fares were a lot more expensive than they currently are, there wasn't a very significant difference in cost between coach and first class. In fact, the difference was so small that I treated myself to first class a few times during the seventies. However, now there is a huge difference and that is probably because coach fares are so much lower than they use to be while first class fares today, when adjusted for inflation, aren't that much different than they were years ago.

 

Similarly, when adjusted for inflation, the luxury cruise lines today aren't that much more expensive than what a cruise costs years ago. The large gap is caused by the fact that cruise fares for mass market cruise lines, including Celebrity, are so much cheaper than they use to be.

[BKFlowerMound]

Unfortunately you have a whole generation who does not know what cruising use to be on a line like Sitmar or Home Lines. For those of us who recall that kind of quality product, we now have to spend three times that $999 or about $2999 for the same experience in today's terms on Seabourn or Regent. And if we can't afford it, we are out of luck.

 

Worldspan

131 cruises strong

 

With this statement, you have proved the opposite of what you are trying to prove. $2999 in today's dollars is by most measures LESS than $999 in 1980s' dollars.

 

Can you really say that Sitmar or Home in 1980 was better than Regent Seven Seas or Seabourn today. The size of ships from your two favorite lines of old are actually pretty comparible to the RSS and Seabourn ships. Oceanic was 29,000 GRT with 1600 passengers. Odyssey is 32,000 GRT and has 450 passengers. Oceanic was a repurposed ocean liner, Odyssey is a purpose built modern cruise ship. Which ship's cabins are better? Better food? Entertainment?

 

I do look back fondly at the cruises I took in the seventies. But the ships were primitive compared to today and the prices were high. If I look at it objectively, I conclude that we're in the golden days of cruising.

 

Enjoy your next cruise!!

[excitedofharpenden]

Here's one example.

http://www.eddiev.com

Love Eddie V's!

 

Phil

[worldspan]

With this statement, you have proved the opposite of what you are trying to prove. $2999 in today's dollars is by most measures LESS than $999 in 1980s' dollars.

 

Can you really say that Sitmar or Home in 1980 was better than Regent Seven Seas or Seabourn today. The size of ships from your two favorite lines of old are actually pretty comparible to the RSS and Seabourn ships. Oceanic was 29,000 GRT with 1600 passengers. Odyssey is 32,000 GRT and has 450 passengers. Oceanic was a repurposed ocean liner, Odyssey is a purpose built modern cruise ship. Which ship's cabins are better? Better food? Entertainment?

 

I do look back fondly at the cruises I took in the seventies. But the ships were primitive compared to today and the prices were high. If I look at it objectively, I conclude that we're in the golden days of cruising.

 

Enjoy your next cruise!!

I did not say Sitmar or Home Lines was better than Regent or Seabourn but tried to make the point they were offered at a price that was affordable and offered five star service at the same time. Tell me the name of any mass market ship today where silver service is offered in the dining room at every meal, meaning every vegetable or entree is individually served onto a hot plate set before you. None! Now if you order a meal, it comes with a generic vegetable and starch, already on the plate thrown in front of you.

 

The SS Oceanic was indeed the very first purposely built cruise ship and she was 43,000 tons, not 29,000 tons. She was the first ship in the world with balconied cabins (just for the suites) as well as first ship ever with a "margrodome roof" over the pools located mid-ship. She remains to this day the most popular ship of all time. If you did not make your reservation for ANY of her sailings at least a year out, you did not go! No ship in the current marketplace can claim that today.

 

Sitmar's Fairwind and Fairsea, their original two vessels, were re-built Cunarders, each about 23,500 tons. Like Home Lines, outstanding food and service with the traditional European silver service. All the niceties long gone from most ships today like being escorted to your cabin by a white glove deck steward and then immediately being greeted by your cabin steward. That kind of thing is now only offered on a Seabourn, Regent, Silversea, or Crystal.

 

Fact is today's cruises are a very different business model. Read recently the fare you pay for your cruise only represents 43% of what the cruise line ultimately gets out of you with all the extras collected on board, etc. They have emulated the airline model to a tee, advertise a cheap price and then through onboard revenue and more ultimately collect out of you what they need to earn a profit, a la Spirit Airlines.

 

If you only know the current generation of cruises, you might think they are just fine. All the bells and whistles of today's ships can't hide the lack of quality of food and service from ships years past (no they were not primitive just because they had no rock climbing walls).

 

Worldspan

131 cruises strong

[AMAC86]

The SS Oceanic was indeed the very first purposely built cruise ship and she was 43,000 tons, not 29,000 tons.

Apparently it depends whether you use the Panamanian measurement or the British measurement.