Reduced Staffing - a myth?

[The_Big_M]

We also have seen staff working harder and I hope it doesn't become uncomfortable to watch. It's impossible to enjoy a vacation while the staff is over stressed, for us anyway.

 

Very true.

 

It's such a change from our first Celebrity cruise, where the wait staff were attentive, yet worked efficiently due to their manageable passenger numbers.

 

We compare that to the latest where we didn't even use the MDR much as the staff were barely seen, always behind, and the service was completely drawn out, due to their increased service load. It's been a gradual progression along the way, but the last really took the enjoyment away.

[jan-n-john]

Spot on miched.

 

The analysis disregarded that.

 

All those things would be in both the before and after numbers, so the overall conclusion is not affected one way or the other.

[jan-n-john]

The analysis also ignores that passenger numbers have been increased from what the M class ships were designed for. The reduction in service can result from increased passenger load on the servers, rather than cutting staff, but by not increasing staff to cater for the increased passengers. Service still falls, but not in the way the analysis is designed.

 

The original numbers that triggered this entire thread and another thread elsewhere include a comparison of the second quarter 2014 vs. the same period 2013. I don't have specific information, but seriously doubt that the passenger numbers for the M class ships changed enough to materially increase the load on the servers between those two time periods. Fleetwide the pax count was up about 1% if memory serves.

[Gracie115]

The original numbers that triggered this entire thread and another thread elsewhere include a comparison of the second quarter 2014 vs. the same period 2013. I don't have specific information, but seriously doubt that the passenger numbers for the M class ships changed enough to materially increase the load on the servers between those two time periods. Fleetwide the pax count was up about 1% if memory serves.

 

Yes well there probably is NOT a big change between 2013 & 2014....lets go back ten years, adjust for inflation & new ships and I suggest STRONGLY that the difference will be significant and obvious to anyone.

[d4m]

I have heard that the activities staff has been the area effected. This is just what I have heard. My guess is they have 4-5 people per ship so losing one person here would be a 25 to 20 percent reduction of staff in that area using my 4-5 staffing number pre slot elimination.

 

Thanks for your effort!

 

The activities staff has certainly been impacted by the decrease in staff. On our April-May 2014 cruise, that staff had been cut to just 3 positions. This was discussed during one trivia session when that was one of the questions. One of the three left was the DJ, which left the majority of activities under the guide of just two exhausted individuals. Of course activity offerings had decreased significantly from our cruise 5 months prior to that, as there just weren't enough hands to go around. Interesting in one trivia session, a band member filled in and, unfortunately, questions were all music/music theory directed. Wasn't a blast for sure.

 

Obvious on the April/May cruise, was increased workload for waiters, while assistant waiters were not often seen or available. Fortunately our waiter was the best of the best, but he was far more overworked than usual. We actually asked several waiters during that cruise where the assistants were much of the time & wondered if our assistant was just AOL most of the time. Whether the answer we got was accurate or not, it was the general answer we got. We were told that the assistants now have been given additional duties in the kitchen, as they shared washing dishes. Frankly this was a drastic change from other sailings, and so significant that, since we rarely saw the assistant, that individual was not given tips by the entire table of 8. Instead, everyone increased the usual tips to the waiter, as he did 98% of the work.

 

In our recent experience, the Sommelier was readily available every night

[bjksgk]

We were told that the assistants now have been given additional duties in the kitchen, as they shared washing dishes. Frankly this was a drastic change from other sailings, and so significant that, since we rarely saw the assistant, that individual was not given tips by the entire table of 8. Instead, everyone increased the usual tips to the waiter, as he did 98% of the work.

 

In our recent experience, the Sommelier was readily available every night

 

On our Eclipse cruise in June we had the same experience with Assistant Waiters being virtually non-existent and were told the same thing by our poor very over worked waiter. Unfortunately for us, we were put at a table of 4 by ourselves and he had several large tables for 10-12 and we were not taken care of until after all those tables were. In fact the sommelier came over to take our wine order when our waiter was taking our dessert order. It was almost a joke, so when we realized this was not going to work for us, we decided to skip the main dining room for the rest of our 14 days and use the buffet & specialties which was fine.

 

In fact there were many servers up in the Oceanview at lunch and dinner and they ready and willing to take drink orders. We did the Baltic so never used the pool so can't speak of servers available there but around the ship itself in the bars we never noticed cuts. There was ample entertainment on the cruise and we had a great time as always, but yes there has been a noticeable decline in both quality and quantity in the 18 years we have been cruising with Celebrity.

[NLH Arizona]

Yes well there probably is NOT a big change between 2013 & 2014....lets go back ten years, adjust for inflation & new ships and I suggest STRONGLY that the difference will be significant and obvious to anyone.

Maybe I'm confused, but so much of the discussion and/or complaints of cutbacks in staff, etc. started late last year, so why would one have to go back ten years?

[Gracie115]

Maybe I'm confused, but so much of the discussion and/or complaints of cutbacks in staff, etc. started late last year, so why would one have to go back ten years?

 

Because the initial discussion here was how the amount of money spent on payroll has not changed much in the last year, and while that may be true it does not explain how that money is distributed.

 

Also while some have said they can see the cutbacks in staff in the last year, others have said it is the same as it has been. My conjecture was to look farther back to see the changes that have taken place, and if you read all the posts on this thread you would already know I am not the only one who has made this comment.

[Bababooey Land]

Hi all,

I was reading another thread and came across this quote discussing the current financials put out by RCI in their SEC Stock Filings:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan-n-john

On the cost side:

 

Food: $119.2 million vs. 112.5 (5.96% increase)

Shipboard payroll: $209.2 million vs. 209.0 (flat)

 

Shipboard payroll was flat, which would be somewhat expected since manning doesn't change if a few more passengers are aboard. At he same time, there was a 4.5% increase in fleet capacity, so this may suggest some reduction in labor per passenger.

 

 

 

great observations so far.

Having been just off the Equinox, I personally did NOT see a decrease in staff..i think the staff have ALWAYS been working hard and have ALWAYS been stretched thin for the past 10+ years of Celebrity Cruises I have taken. I do think staff gets moved around on the ship depending on where the needs are. Just based on the eye, its hard to say whether or not there have been reductions in crew, imo.

 

HERE IS ANOTHER LOOK AT SHIPBOARD EMPLOYESS FROM RCL ANNUAL REPORT (10K):

 

Employees

As of December 31, 2013, we employed approximately 64,000 employees, including 57,000 shipboard employees

as well as 6,200 full-time and 700 part-time employees in our shoreside operations.

 

As of December 31, 2012, we employed approximately 62,000 employees, including 55,000 shipboard employees as well as 6,200 full-time

and 750 part-time employees in our shoreside operations.

 

As of December 31, 2011, we employed approximately 6,300 full-time and 740 part-time employees worldwide in our shoreside

operations.We also employed approximately 54,000 shipboard employees

 

These numbers show total number of CREW going from 54k to 57k from Dec 2011 to Dec 2013.

 

2012 – Reflection – about 1250 crew

 

Plus the solsticizing on the M class ships most likely added crew, since they added cabins and restaurants. On the RCL side, no new ships.

 

So there was a 3,000 INCREASE in number of Crew, with 1250 going to the Reflection plus some going to the M class. I don’t believe there were any other ships added to the RCL system during that timeframe??

 

I think once we see the number as of Dec 2014, subtract out the crew from new ship rolling out later this year, we will get a very close idea of whether they cut crew members this year.

 

How does shipboard payroll stay flat? RCL could have decreased salaries, benefits, cheaper food given to crew, etc. there are many ways to cut crew costs. RCL did raise gratuities passengers pay over the years probably to offset the company making $$$ cuts. So there are creative ways for them to cut payroll costs without decreasing # of the crew members

 

Looking at the hard numbers, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that there have been crew cuts on a per ship basis.

 

Another interesting ###...shoreside personnel went from 6,300 to 6,200 even though new ships were added to the system and a pickup in cruising during that timeframe. if anything, they should have INCREASED shoreside personnel. No wonder why wait times on the phone have gone up dramatically!!!! Just a sidenote, shoreside personnel is NOT included in the Shipboard payroll #.

[Gracie115]

Hi all,

I was reading another thread and came across this quote discussing the current financials put out by RCI in their SEC Stock Filings:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan-n-john

On the cost side:

 

Food: $119.2 million vs. 112.5 (5.96% increase)

Shipboard payroll: $209.2 million vs. 209.0 (flat)

 

Shipboard payroll was flat, which would be somewhat expected since manning doesn't change if a few more passengers are aboard. At he same time, there was a 4.5% increase in fleet capacity, so this may suggest some reduction in labor per passenger.

 

 

 

great observations so far.

Having been just off the Equinox, I personally did NOT see a decrease in staff..i think the staff have ALWAYS been working hard and have ALWAYS been stretched thin for the past 10+ years of Celebrity Cruises I have taken. I do think staff gets moved around on the ship depending on where the needs are. Just based on the eye, its hard to say whether or not there have been reductions in crew, imo.

 

HERE IS ANOTHER LOOK AT SHIPBOARD EMPLOYESS FROM RCL ANNUAL REPORT (10K):

 

Employees

As of December 31, 2013, we employed approximately 64,000 employees, including 57,000 shipboard employees

as well as 6,200 full-time and 700 part-time employees in our shoreside operations.

 

As of December 31, 2012, we employed approximately 62,000 employees, including 55,000 shipboard employees as well as 6,200 full-time

and 750 part-time employees in our shoreside operations.

 

As of December 31, 2011, we employed approximately 6,300 full-time and 740 part-time employees worldwide in our shoreside

operations.We also employed approximately 54,000 shipboard employees

 

These numbers show total number of CREW going from 54k to 57k from Dec 2011 to Dec 2013.

 

2012 – Reflection – about 1250 crew

 

Plus the solsticizing on the M class ships most likely added crew, since they added cabins and restaurants. On the RCL side, no new ships.

 

So there was a 3,000 INCREASE in number of Crew, with 1250 going to the Reflection plus some going to the M class. I don’t believe there were any other ships added to the RCL system during that timeframe??

 

I think once we see the number as of Dec 2014, subtract out the crew from new ship rolling out later this year, we will get a very close idea of whether they cut crew members this year.

 

How does shipboard payroll stay flat? RCL could have decreased salaries, benefits, cheaper food given to crew, etc. there are many ways to cut crew costs. RCL did raise gratuities passengers pay over the years probably to offset the company making $$$ cuts. So there are creative ways for them to cut payroll costs without decreasing # of the crew members

 

Looking at the hard numbers, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that there have been crew cuts on a per ship basis.

 

Another interesting ###...shoreside personnel went from 6,300 to 6,200 even though new ships were added to the system and a pickup in cruising during that timeframe. if anything, they should have INCREASED shoreside personnel. No wonder why wait times on the phone have gone up dramatically!!!! Just a sidenote, shoreside personnel is NOT included in the Shipboard payroll #.

 

All very interesting but without a breakdown in employees per cruiseline, Royal or Celebrity or Azamara or Pullmantur(which I believe DID add ships in the time period specified) we still have no way of knowing for certain whether Celebrity actually increased/decreased or stayed the same as far as number of employees are concerned.

[richsea]

I will take facts over perceptions and anecdotal comments when I have them. Some interesting figures were quoted, and from there certain conclusions were drawn. Unfortunately, we do not have enough facts to say with certainty how many staff were cut, or from where were the staff cut. There are so many unknowns, matched with many more variables relating to reassignment rather than cutting, RCI vs Celebrity cuts, etc.. What we can know from the statistics is that the amount of cuts overall was not drastic.

 

Those of us who have cruised Celebrity for many, many years risk intense flaming when we dare to mention cuts that have taken place over the years either in staffing, quality of service or food, or whatever. We are accused of never being satisfied, being complainers, finding fault with everything, the list goes on and on. As an X cruiser since 1992 I am going on record again as saying that 1) I love Celebrity, 2) Celebrity is my line of choice, and 3) I have experienced definite declines in certain areas that while they do not prevent me from having a great cruise are in fact noticeable. I am here to say definitively that all three of these comments can be true because they are for me. I would appreciate anyone commenting on these statements to consider all three of them, and not just #3. How much of this decline can be attributed to staffing cuts versus other money saving efforts I cannot always determine.

 

I believe it is worth taking a grain of salt with comments from staff about reductions, but I think there has been enough hearsay evidence from multiple fronts to not completely dismiss it out of hand. Is it exaggerated? Perhaps. But it is mentioned often enough I don't think it should completely be disregarded. Having been a manager for many, many years, I can say with certainty that only a fool will not pay any attention to what the staff is saying. This analogy is not exact, but I think the basic truth still holds - no one knows what is really going on better than the people doing the day to day work.

 

You have perfectly stated what I have been unable to over these past months while reading the posts of those who question that there are any cuts, that change is good, just bring your own chocolate, that people like different things, etc., etc.

 

Thank you, thank you!

[Bababooey Land]

All very interesting but without a breakdown in employees per cruiseline, Royal or Celebrity or Azamara or Pullmantur(which I believe DID add ships in the time period specified) we still have no way of knowing for certain whether Celebrity actually increased/decreased or stayed the same as far as number of employees are concerned.

 

agreed. just based on the public information out there, we do not know for certain. we can only guesstimate based on the available information we have.

[Quo Vadis?]

I may have missed the information but just because the payroll amount stays the same, are the number of employees receiving payments mentioned at all? If the number of employees decreases by 10% but the other 90% get an 11% increase in pay, would the payroll not remain basically the same?

[The_Big_M]

All those things would be in both the before and after numbers, so the overall conclusion is not affected one way or the other.

 

The analysis is affected as it relies on an incorrect assumption.

 

It was an answer to the OP's assertion that "Further, people say that dining room staff and cabin stewards make all their money on tips, not salary, so why would a line CUT the positions they don't even have to pay for."

 

There is more to their position than just salary.

[jan-n-john]

The analysis is affected as it relies on an incorrect assumption.

 

It was an answer to the OP's assertion that "Further, people say that dining room staff and cabin stewards make all their money on tips, not salary, so why would a line CUT the positions they don't even have to pay for."

 

There is more to their position than just salary.

 

That too is the same in both the before and after.

 

There was no incorrect assumption in the original analysis. There are unknowns but those were pointed out.

[Bababooey Land]

There was no incorrect assumption in the original analysis. There are unknowns but those were pointed out.

 

even if a crew member were to make a majority of his/her money in tips, it would still cost Celebrity money to have them onboard..as another poster pointed out on this thread as well.

 

My assumption, just like waitstaff in the US...their salary is probably very low, with most of their money coming from tips. But i think RCL pays them SOMETHING in salary, albeit not alot.

 

plus, it costs Celebrity $$ for room, & board, benefits, etc.

[jan-n-john]

 

even if a crew member were to make a majority of his/her money in tips, it would still cost Celebrity money to have them onboard..as another poster pointed out on this thread as well.

 

My assumption, just like waitstaff in the US...their salary is probably very low, with most of their money coming from tips. But i think RCL pays them SOMETHING in salary, albeit not alot.

 

plus, it costs Celebrity $$ for room, & board, benefits, etc.

 

In the financial statements, crew food is mixed with pax food in the food cost category. All other crew costs are in the "payroll and related" category as far as I know. Outside of actual payroll, which is large for ship crew as opposed to pax service staff, I imagine that repatriation travel is a major component of this cost. How tip income is accounted for in the company financials, or even if it is included at all, is not known to me.

Edited August 1, 2014 by jan-n-john

[Bababooey Land]

The costs of crew food is mixed with pax food in the food cost category. All other crew costs are in the "payroll and related" category as far as I know. Outside of actual payroll, which is large for ship crew as opposed to pax service staff, I imagine that repatriation travel is a major component of this cost. How tip income is accounted for in the company financials, or even if it is included at all, is not known to me.

 

you are correct about food for crew. good catch!

[The_Big_M]

That too is the same in both the before and after.

 

There was no incorrect assumption in the original analysis. There are unknowns but those were pointed out.

 

No, it's clearly incorrect, and not the same before and after.

 

His point made a case on there being no cost. There are other costs.

 

And his assumption of therefore keeping them as there was no cost is incorrect. As losing them would result in less cost. Hence a difference before and after.

Edited August 1, 2014 by The_Big_M

[The_Big_M]

In the financial statements, crew food is mixed with pax food in the food cost category.

 

Which means that changes from individual components within that category are not broken out.

 

So - hypothetically - if the price of food has increased, as many say, this would compensate for a reduction in quantity due to less needed. But is the change in number significant in the overall food budget across the group? And there are many more variables than that involved, such as brands, range of speciality restaurants and local ordering.

[jan-n-john]

Which means that changes from individual components within that category are not broken out.

 

So - hypothetically - if the price of food has increased, as many say, this would compensate for a reduction in quantity due to less needed. But is the change in number significant in the overall food budget across the group? And there are many more variables than that involved, such as brands, range of speciality restaurants and local ordering.

Your hypothetical makes absolutely no sense. Why would any of these purported variables actually change materially, and if they did, why wouldn't the change as likely be against your conclusion than in support of it? Again, as between the two time periods, (Q2 '13 vs '14) the before and after conditions likely are similar (not materially different). If you have specific facts that prove otherwise, great, put them on the table. Until then your reservations are merely speculation with no support.

 

We already know that meat and similar prices did increase over that period, tho not greatly -- it was discussed previously, and I discussed its probable significance and concluded it is not a large element in the overall results. If you have data that refutes that, put it on the table; I for one would like to know. Until then further rounds of this discussion are of little value.

 

By the way, my mention of the crew food cost was only for purposes of clarification about earlier posts related to payroll and the overall cost of shipboard personnel.

Edited August 1, 2014 by jan-n-john

[ECCruise]

I think sometimes we get too immersed in the numbers and miss the big picture.

 

If you want the straight scoop, get into a friendly conversation with housekeeping or restaurant staff and ask them. We have, and to a person they have verified that staff in those two areas have been cut. Significantly, maybe not (meaning over 25%) but enough to make an impact on their employment experience. You don't have to ask anyone about the cuts in the A Capella groups, less orchestra pieces, or, the clearest example, cuts in activities staff (from 6-7 members to 3 including the DJ). Ask a CD if their job load has increased, as we have, and if they are truthful, they will tell you that it has.

 

Why would be ask? Because we have sailed on Celebrity well over 200 days and have around 40 days booked. We have noticed changes (some good, some bad) and would prefer not to have more bad.

And, we are10+ year stockholders that realize that long term value has a lot to do with long term satisfaction of the customer base.

[Gracie115]

I think sometimes we get too immersed in the numbers and miss the big picture.

 

If you want the straight scoop, get into a friendly conversation with housekeeping or restaurant staff and ask them. We have, and to a person they have verified that staff in those two areas have been cut. Significantly, maybe not (meaning over 25%) but enough to make an impact on their employment experience. You don't have to ask anyone about the cuts in the A Capella groups, less orchestra pieces, or, the clearest example, cuts in activities staff (from 6-7 members to 3 including the DJ). Ask a CD if their job load has increased, as we have, and if they are truthful, they will tell you that it has.

 

Why would be ask? Because we have sailed on Celebrity well over 200 days and have around 40 days booked. We have noticed changes (some good, some bad) and would prefer not to have more bad.

And, we are10+ year stockholders that realize that long term value has a lot to do with long term satisfaction of the customer base.

 

Yup.....numbers can be twisted to say just about anything.....the reality that you describe is at least an equal barometer of what is occurring....especially when it is repeated again and again.... but of course the "statisticians" will always cite numbers as though they are the only absolute...they are not....

[The_Big_M]

Your hypothetical makes absolutely no sense.

 

It makes sense to anyone involved in hr and costing.

 

Any business knows there's a lot more to employee cost than just "wages."

 

Even moreso in this case where the employees are provided with board, food and transport, the latter being an obvious cost rising as many complain here, and food also causing complaints.

 

And as said by the previous poster that is just some of the other costs involved.

 

Basing an argument on whether there is only a wage cost doesn't stack up.

[BruceMuzz]

All too often, the cruising public makes assumptions about how the cruise industry really works.

Usually those assumptions are completely wrong.

And we know what happens when we ASS/U/ME something.

 

To understand why a cruise line does anything, you need to look for the money trail.

Sometimes simple to follow; sometimes not.

 

Employing a tipped service employee on a mass market cruise ship costs the company just under US$14 per day. That's total; salary, housing, medical, uniforms, food, training, administration, and transportation. That's not very much money, you say. At those rates the cruise lines should have far more service staff onboard to make our cruise a bigger success.

 

Great idea - until you try to implement it.

 

Cruise ships rarely suffer from money shortages - but we do struggle with space. Cruise ships never have enough space to do what we want / need to do.

Regardless of the size of the ship, there are legal and physical limits to the number of bodies the ship can accommodate.

The cruise line needs to decide in advance how many service crew (costing $14 per day) they can hold, versus how many passengers (paying $150 per day) they can hold.

 

The more crew you have to house, the fewer paying passengers you will have onboard.

 

When cruise lines build new ships, we always build just enough crew cabins for the number of crew we need NOW. We always know - and have always known - that as the ship ages and the cruise industry develops, we will need to place more crew onboard. But we never plan for that eventuality. It is far cheaper build a ship with fewer crew cabins and facilities, and more profitable to have more passenger cabins instead.

 

Then comes the time when we are forced to add new crew positions. The Coast Guard requires additional Bridge Officers for safety reasons. The EPA requires additional Sanitation Engineers for managing our waste streams. Corporate Onboard Revenue adds an Acupuncturist, a Tooth Whitener, a high end Black and White photographer, an onboard Gemologist, a Computer Trainer, Personal Trainers, a Librarian. Corporate Entertainment adds more performers. All of these people are guaranteed single cabins. But there are no empty crew beds or cabins for them to sleep in.

 

Corporate Sales and Marketing will ABSOLUTELY NOT give up a single passenger cabin for any use that does not involve a paid fare.

There is no additional space available to build additional crew cabins. There is also no budget. In some cases, it is not even legal to add more crew cabins

 

What do we do? These new crew MUST be accommodated.

 

No problem. We send home 2 waiters living in a shared cabin and convert it to a single cabin for the new crew. Then we send home 2 wine stewards and do the same with their cabin. Then we send home 2 stateroom stewards and convert their cabin. We keep doing that until we have enough cabins for the required crew.

These service staff we sent home are not legally required onboard - and in many cases they do not directly generate revenues or profits.

 

Over the past decade my ship has received over 50 additional new crew. But the actual crew count on my ship has actually gone down. There is no place for anyone else to sleep.

 

Next time you start wishing for a cheaper cruise, be aware that the cruise lines are listening. But be careful what you wish for.