Ashes to Ashes

[PRgymnast]

Alcohol is the worst drug, PERIOD! And that's the legal one. SMH!

[LetsGetWet!]

This is oversimplifying things and is simply untrue. This would only be true if every cruise sailed full...

I believe if you'll check their quarterly & annual reports, on average RCCL ships sail at an average of about 107% occupancy.

[xpcdoojk]

:D Funny! And just a thought, but what if smoking in the casino was limited to e-cigs only? That seems to be a decent compromise.

 

I am violating one of my personal rules (no posting on smoking threads). OK here goes. I do not smoke. I prefer non-smoking areas, restaurants, hotel rooms, cruise ships, etc. That said, I have always disliked greatly the need to limit a perfectly legal product that brings in tremendous amounts of revenue to the government that most non-smokers seem to love. It seems to me that smokers should get a medal instead of non stop abuse. The previous statement was not to argue any point, but to establish where I am coming from. Today, I was going to lunch, and I was at a stop light, and I noticed a youngish man in the car behind me at the light. He was sucking on an e-cig. Now, in my life (am 55) have watched people smoke cigarettes and outside of some movie with two guys in a foxhole I have never seen a cigarette smoker literally puffing on a cigarette and exhaling smoke for each and every breath they take. This guy with the E-cig was leaning down to draw on the e-cig and then exhaled water vapor then he immediately dropped his head and repeated the process. I watched that 8 more times before the light changed and we drove away. I think I like e-cigs for people because I think they are probably healthier for the smoker and if second hand smoke is dangerous (a controversial position regardless of your personal belief) then surely they are better for all of us second hand smokers. But after watching the young man in the car, I am no longer even sure about that.:eek:

 

jc

[xpcdoojk]

I have always loved your screen name. Now I love your post.

 

:)

 

ditto on the post part. The only Artemis I ever knew was in the Wild Wild West. I was not born yet when he was a Roman god.:D hmm... maybe not a god, just a kid raised by wolves who created Rome....

 

jc

Edited September 10, 2014 by xpcdoojk

[jstraw20]

This guy with the E-cig was leaning down to draw on the e-cig and then exhaled water vapor then he immediately dropped his head and repeated the process. I watched that 8 more times before the light changed and we drove away.

 

Most vaporizers have metal mouthpieces and he was probably afraid of chipping a tooth while the car was on motion, hence the huffing away at the light. It's actually a pretty common concern among people who vape :D

 

 

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Forums mobile app

[negc]

One word that would make everyone happy - COPENHAGEN :D

 

 

Smokers get their nicotine fix and no one has to smell it ;) TA DA :p

 

Everyone happy??? Just ask former Red Sox pitcher, Curt Schilling his opinion of Copenhagen and other smokeless tobacco products. And just what the ships need to add to their decor - spitoons. :rolleyes:

[Artemis]

ditto on the post part. The only Artemis I ever knew was in the Wild Wild West. I was not born yet when he was a Roman god.:D hmm... maybe not a god, just a kid raised by wolves who created Rome....

 

jc

 

 

I usually get, "Hey, Art," because it's an odd handle! And yes, spelled slightly differently, Artemus Gordon was a great character in The Wild, Wild West! I think the Roman myth you are thinking about is when the wicked Amulius took a kingdom from his brother and tried to kill out the brother's male line, but Mars impregnated the king's daughter, who gave birth to the wolf-raised twin sons Romulus--who founded Rome--and Remus. Crazy story! Anyway, Artemis (my handle) was actually the Greek goddess of the hunt and protector of women. I am rather fond of her, as her name in Roman mythology (work it out!) is my real life given name. Handle mystery solved!

 

Merion_Mom, I actually had the pleasure of meeting you ever so briefly aboard the 2-night inaugural invite for LOTS. I was a part of that "other" group, the old RTC gang! (Which sorta tells how old I am...that was a vestige of bulletin boards, the original social media!) I always smile when I read your posts, trip reports, etc.

 

To go back on topic, I am generally satisfied with how most cruise lines are trying to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. Sometimes, I have to leave a casino because it's just too much--it seems like there's gotta be new-and-improved ventilation systems. And I really detest having to jog through an outdoor smoking area when it happens to be on the only full promenade deck--it seems like they could re-think that placement! But those are not deal-breakers for me...I truly respect the effort to make a cruise ship environment as accommodating as possible to all who want to cruise! There will always be people who need (medically) or desire to be in a more smoke free environment or more smoke-friendly environment. For those, there are other cruise and travel options.

 

Happy trails and cruising!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

[Evilgrin72]

I believe if you'll check their quarterly & annual reports, on average RCCL ships sail at an average of about 107% occupancy.

 

OK - then explain to me why they continue to allow this nasty habit, which requires additional cleaning and ventilation, and provides a fire hazard. If they can expurgate all their smoking customers with one fell swoop without realizing any deleterious effect to the bottom line, why haven't they done it? Clearly, they have non-smoking customers who simply cannot get on board just chomping at the bit waiting for those slots filled by smokers to open up, right? CVS did it, why not RCCL? Make the statement and go 100% smoke free, then.

[orville99]

OK - then explain to me why they continue to allow this nasty habit, which requires additional cleaning and ventilation, and provides a fire hazard. If they can expurgate all their smoking customers with one fell swoop without realizing any deleterious effect to the bottom line, why haven't they done it? Clearly, they have non-smoking customers who simply cannot get on board just chomping at the bit waiting for those slots filled by smokers to open up, right? CVS did it, why not RCCL? Make the statement and go 100% smoke free, then.

 

 

Maybe because the estimate from CVS' CEO was that the move would cost the company more than $2 Billion in lost revenue. Not sure RCCL is ready to take anywhere near that kind of hit to their bottom line.:eek:

Edited September 11, 2014 by orville99

[Evilgrin72]

Maybe because the estimate from CVS' CEO was that the move would cost the company more than $2 Billion in lost revenue. Not sure RCCL is ready to take anywhere near that kind of hit to their bottom line.:eek:

 

Precisely! You're exactly right. I applaud the move by CVS, but RCCL isn't stupid - they know that to instantly eliminate 20% of their client base would be foolhardy. Where CVS still offers thousands of products and smokers can still choose CVS for other non-tobacco purchases, the minute RCCL bans smoking, they lose EVERY SINGLE potential revenue dollar from that segment of the population. It's apples and oranges.

 

However, to hear the individual to whom I was responding tell it, every smoker that canceled or did not book would be instantly replaced by a non-smoker, so there would be no impact to the bottom line. That's what he was implying by saying that RCCL cruises sail at 107% occupancy. Cherry picking numbers (if they're even accurate) and ignoring the context in which they're derived and also only answering part of the question. No one in their right mind would think that eliminating smoking on board entirely would have zero financial impact. There are still way too many smokers out there - a lot of non-smokers hammer the "we outnumber you" point, but ignore the fact that even the 18% number thrown out earlier represents roughly 57,000,000 people. I don't know what percentage of the population cruises regularly, but you're looking at a lot of lost revenue.

 

Again, I am a non-smoker, but I am also a pragmatist. I don't buy into self-serving pie in the sky statements that have no basis in reality, that's the only reason I'm engaging in this discussion at all. There are alternative solutions out there, but no one's looking at them.

[Sitzmark]

Maybe because the estimate from CVS' CEO was that the move would cost the company more than $2 Billion in lost revenue. Not sure RCCL is ready to take anywhere near that kind of hit to their bottom line.:eek:

 

 

Are you suggesting that Royal Caribbean is selling 2 billion dollars worth of cigarettes annually and that this discussion is about stopping those sales? Because unless you are I don't see how anything the cruise line does compares to CVS. CVS never had a smoking section that I'm aware of. We have one down the road, I'm in and out of it fairly often and I do not see folks lighting up inside.

 

On the other hand smoking was recently banned in all bars and restaurants here. Folks said they would go out of business. It didn't happen and going into these places it's as if nothing changed except the air is cleaner now. They did not make their money from the sale of cigarettes and they did not see their sales drop as a result of the ban. They lost some customers, gained others, but that happens all the time anyway.

[orville99]

Are you suggesting that Royal Caribbean is selling 2 billion dollars worth of cigarettes annually and that this discussion is about stopping those sales? Because unless you are I don't see how anything the cruise line does compares to CVS. CVS never had a smoking section that I'm aware of. We have one down the road, I'm in and out of it fairly often and I do not see folks lighting up inside.

 

On the other hand smoking was recently banned in all bars and restaurants here. Folks said they would go out of business. It didn't happen and going into these places it's as if nothing changed except the air is cleaner now. They did not make their money from the sale of cigarettes and they did not see their sales drop as a result of the ban. They lost some customers, gained others, but that happens all the time anyway.

 

Not even close to what I was saying. I was talking purely revenue impact. If the 20% number that has been bandied about on this thread is remotely close to correct, then the smoking portion of RCL's revenue stream (bookings and onboard purchases) represents approximately $1.6 Billion in annual revenue. Sure they could eventually replace that revenue stream, just as CVS will ultimately find ways to replace the $2 Billion revenue stream it surrendered, but that isn't going to happen overnight. With its current debt load, and the capacity increases RCL has coming on line in the next two years, IMO, that is simply not a self-inflicted wound to the revenue stream that they would be prudent to make.;)

[Sitzmark]

Not even close to what I was saying. I was talking purely revenue impact. If the 20% number that has been bandied about on this thread is remotely close to correct, then the smoking portion of RCL's revenue stream (bookings and onboard purchases) represents approximately $1.6 Billion in annual revenue. Sure they could eventually replace that revenue stream, just as CVS will ultimately find ways to replace the $2 Billion revenue stream it surrendered, but that isn't going to happen overnight. With its current debt load, and the capacity increases RCL has coming on line in the next two years, IMO, that is simply not a self-inflicted wound to the revenue stream that they would be prudent to make.;)

 

 

The 20% number isn't correct, I made that clear earlier. and the number is dropping like a rock each year. As to the 2 Billion number for CVS, (apples and oranges) that is about 6 days business for them. it's less than 1.5 percent of the annual sales. On top of that it's revenue, not profit, they only have about a 14% margin on tobacco. the numbers get less significant all the time. And again they are selling the product, Royal isn't. You are really laboring to make a connection there that doesn't exist. You presume that all of the smokers will simply cancel, I doubt it. You presume that they can't replace them with non smokers, I think that is inevitable.

 

If it's getting hard to find a place to smoke, then just quit. You'll be a happier person for it.

[xpcdoojk]

I see we have a newish member who wants to rehash the threads that I made my own rule that I am violating by posting to.:D

 

jc

[jstraw20]

If it's getting hard to find a place to smoke, then just quit. You'll be a happier person for it.

 

If it were that simple there would be no smokers.

[Sitzmark]

If it were that simple there would be no smokers.

 

 

It is simple, you just stop. That is how I did it. The reason smokers don't quit is not because they can't, it's because they don't want to. When they decide they no longer want to, then they will quit.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Sitzmark

[jstraw20]

It is simple, you just stop. That is how I did it. The reason smokers don't quit is not because they can't, it's because they don't want to. When they decide they no longer want to, then they will quit.

 

Exactly. You were ready when you quit, I was ready when I quit. But we decided when "when" was.

[RDC1]

Friend was on another line with her e-cig, or something like that, she said she was vaping. I don't understand all that stuff.:o Anyway, whatever it was that she had looks nothing like a cigarette and the person next to her starting coughing and covering her nose, etc. Sometimes things are just the power of suggestion.;)

 

Probably because on most other lines e-cigs are subject to the same restrictions as regular cigarettes. So if she was not in an area where e-cigs were allowed the reaction was probably to make that point.

[RDC1]

If it were that simple there would be no smokers.

 

It is pretty clear (from all kinds of studies) that biggest impact on getting people to quit smoking has been the restrictions on where they can smoke.

[orville99]

The 20% number isn't correct, I made that clear earlier. and the number is dropping like a rock each year. As to the 2 Billion number for CVS, (apples and oranges) that is about 6 days business for them. it's less than 1.5 percent of the annual sales. On top of that it's revenue, not profit, they only have about a 14% margin on tobacco. the numbers get less significant all the time. And again they are selling the product, Royal isn't. You are really laboring to make a connection there that doesn't exist. You presume that all of the smokers will simply cancel, I doubt it. You presume that they can't replace them with non smokers, I think that is inevitable.

 

If it's getting hard to find a place to smoke, then just quit. You'll be a happier person for it.

 

 

Revenue is revenue. Last time I checked, $2 Billion top line revenue and $1.6 billion top line revenue both come before you deduct cost of goods sold. Net margin is irrelevant, but then that upsets your apple (or is that orange) cart since you really just want to talk about eliminating smoking from the planet, and I could (if I really stretched) actually care less about smoking. My entire point was that regardless of source, abandoning Billions in top line revenue is not a decision that can be taken out of context.

[Sitzmark]

Exactly. You were ready when you quit, I was ready when I quit. But we decided when "when" was.

 

So what's your point then? you implied it's not easy to quit, I simply pointed out it certainly is. The reason I decided to quit was because it was getting harder and harder to find a place to smoke and there was more and more stigma attached to it, so I decided to stop. The people that don't like it are not wrong, they are quite right. It really is a ridiculous habit and nearly impossible to defend. Outside of "I enjoy it" what is the logical reason for doing it?

 

If someone wants to remain part of the smoking clique until it dies out for good (literally) then let them. But I don't care to be around them. The cruise line recognizes like many businesses that this is the growing attitude of the majority (non smokers) and they are making their decisions accordingly.

[nbsjcruiser]

So what's your point then? you implied it's not easy to quit, I simply pointed out it certainly is. The reason I decided to quit was because it was getting harder and harder to find a place to smoke and there was more and more stigma attached to it, so I decided to stop. The people that don't like it are not wrong, they are quite right. It really is a ridiculous habit and nearly impossible to defend. Outside of "I enjoy it" what is the logical reason for doing it?

 

If someone wants to remain part of the smoking clique until it dies out for good (literally) then let them. But I don't care to be around them. The cruise line recognizes like many businesses that this is the growing attitude of the majority (non smokers) and they are making their decisions accordingly.

 

I have compassion for smokers as they are not doing anything illegal but yet get kicked around. What makes me see red is reformed smokers who feel that they are better than everyone else.

[Sitzmark]

Net margin is irrelevant

 

 

Funniest thing I've ever seen. Do you know what the difference between Revenue and Profit is? Do you know that you can cut revenue while increasing profit? Which do you think shareholders are most interested in? Since you are concerned about the CVS decision are you aware that many analysts think that this will be a very smart and profitable move by them? CVS is positioning itself as a healthcare company and selling cigarettes is not in line with that goal. While you want to focus on the one cut to revenue you also are ignoring the 24% increase in revenue from the clinics they are opening. They currently have 900 and expect to expand to 1500 by 2017. You conclude that by not selling cigarettes they are committing some sort of business suicide. I disagree.

 

I still don't understand what the decision of a retail chain has to do with the never ending smoking debate on cruise ships. These are the apples and oranges, they are entirely different businesses.

 

There is a gas station down the road that could ban cigarettes without affecting the "revenue" at all but that would neither prove nor disprove a smoking position on a cruise line either. Your argument is nonsense.

[Sitzmark]

I have compassion for smokers as they are not doing anything illegal but yet get kicked around. What makes me see red is reformed smokers who feel that they are better than everyone else.

 

 

me too.

[Starry Eyes]

Revenue is revenue. Last time I checked, $2 Billion top line revenue and $1.6 billion top line revenue both come before you deduct cost of goods sold. Net margin is irrelevant, but then that upsets your apple (or is that orange) cart since you really just want to talk about eliminating smoking from the planet, and I could (if I really stretched) actually care less about smoking. My entire point was that regardless of source, abandoning Billions in top line revenue is not a decision that can be taken out of context.

Do you think that all those smokers will all actually cancel because of the newer smoking rules? I'd guess some will cancel, some will barely be impacted because they did not have balconies anyway, some modify behavior to smoke within the new rules (with or without grumbling), and a few will quit. If the middle two categories are the largest numbers, then revenue will not drop as much as you project.

For those who do stop cruising, do you assume those cabins are all suddenly empty? I suspect most of them will be filled (by nonsmokers and compliant smokers). Maybe they will cut prices a bit to fill them, but even if they must run a sale, there will be revenue.

 

Now, let's speculate on revenue numbers in an alternate scenario. Some other cruise lines had already banned balcony smoking, then consider that Carnival bans it, then assume NCL follows Carnival's lead. Few options remain for the determined balcony smoker. If many turned to RCI, it might impact brand image and nonsmoker satisfaction. So RCI may have faced revenue impact if they had not changed policies to stay in the mainstream. The decision was to face a potential cut by acting or to face a potential cut by not acting....They came down to acting, probably a long term strategy.

 

The math is not as simple as multiply by .20...