Time To For A Reality Check For Mr. Fain

[Dinkachu]

Dropping prices brought about cheap cruisers who did not spend once on the ship. They CAN afford to sail with empty staterooms. When the discounting started and the cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue went down as much as 75%.

 

He is a smart man and I for one am glad prices are going up and the discounting will come to an end!

 

 

I am in a wheelchair and can never book late - usually 1 - 1 1/2 years out to get the accessible room. On most cruises family and friends were able to join us, often using the price cuts. Many, like us, are teachers.

 

They did spend on the cruise. Photos, souvenirs, specialty restaurants, excursions. Had they paid full fare, they may not have had extra to spend.

With the discounted prices they enjoyed cruising and spent money. Most, who understood working hard for a living, were great tippers as well.

 

Enjoy your cruises with the privileged.

[Big_G]

A very un-educated comment. Apparently you know nothing of the laws against discrimination.

 

Generally very true however, raising prices, for the purpose of excluding a certain group of people is discrimination.

 

By Jove, you've almost got it. The only way they could discriminate price wise is if they raised prices only on that certain group. They haven't done that. ;) Thanks for the complement. :)

Edited April 21, 2015 by Big_G

[whitecap]

And there is not a thing illegal about that in the slightest. Show me the law that says different.

 

I will be on QOTS soon so I am not a Crystal or Regent cruiser. I just know the evidence as demonstrated the moment prices were lowered. Yes the ships were filled, but specialty restaurant spending went down. A certain class of people who could now afford a Royal Cruise were not spending more money onboard and as such onboard revenue went down.

 

If you look at increased revenue (and not profit from that revenue) you will also note that onboard pricing did go up. I know Richard Fain would rather sell with empty staterooms with people paying a premium because they will more than make up that spending onboard. Cheap people looking for a cheap deal will cruise as cheaply as possible period.

 

15 US Code 13 Discrimination in Pricing, Services, or Facilities. It is perfectly legal to raise prices to encourage, for instance, big spenders; it is illegal to raise prices "purposely" to discriminate by exclusion against certain individuals or groups, i.e. I don't want to offer services to people from "the poor side of town" so I'll price them out and they can go somewhere else.

[whitecap]

By Jove, you've almost got it. The only way they could discriminate price wise is if they raised prices only on that certain group. They haven't done that. ;) Thanks for the complement. :)

 

And I haven't said that they did; I have been responding to the poster who continues to state that he was perfectly fine with RCCL to raise prices in order to keep certain cruisers from being able to afford the cruise fare.

[jndsilver31]

The economic reality is FACT. When the prices dropped and the discount seekers and cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue dropped. It makes more sense to keep prices higher where people will and do spend money on board.

 

Those who bought at a discount, were not prepared and did not spend as before. This is a verifiable fact. It is not elitist to state reality. Richard Fain has been stating for years that cruise prices across the lines were artificially far too low for the value offered. As a shareholder, this is a brilliant strategy to end this discounting nonsense.

 

Since you don't know me, let me explain about me and my wife. We book at a discount, so that we do have more to spend. After paying off the cruise, several months before the cruise, we then book Chops, buy our soft drink packages, book our excurisions. So besides being discount cruisers, we also spend lots of other money. We stay at top of line hotels at the cruise site.

then when onboard, my DW loves going to the shops and spending more money, which we can certainly afford. So don't be so quick to judge discount cruisers.

[coldflame]

Dropping prices brought about cheap cruisers who did not spend once on the ship. They CAN afford to sail with empty staterooms. When the discounting started and the cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue went down as much as 75%.

 

He is a smart man and I for one am glad prices are going up and the discounting will come to an end!

 

Giving your blatant elitism, I think it's time you find a cruise line more in line with your wealth and fiefdoms. Let these mass-oriented cruise lines serve us, the cruising proletariat, if you will.

[BecciBoo]

Butter popcorn doesn't really go well with coffee.

 

But Caramel popcorn is perfect for breakfast!:rolleyes:

[Big_G]

And I haven't said that they did; I have been responding to the poster who continues to state that he was perfectly fine with RCCL to raise prices in order to keep certain cruisers from being able to afford the cruise fare.

 

Well you called my comment uneducated when obviously they can and that poster was right. I may not agree with his position but he never suggested different pricing for different classes of people. You're trying to make his comment into something it is not.

[whitecap]

The economic reality is FACT. When the prices dropped and the discount seekers and cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue dropped. It makes more sense to keep prices higher where people will and do spend money on board.

 

Those who bought at a discount, were not prepared and did not spend as before. This is a verifiable fact. It is not elitist to state reality. Richard Fain has been stating for years that cruise prices across the lines were artificially far too low for the value offered. As a shareholder, this is a brilliant strategy to end this discounting nonsense.

 

Well you called my comment uneducated when obviously they can and that poster was right. I may not agree with his position but he never suggested different pricing for different classes of people. You're trying to make his comment into something it is not.

 

He determined that the two classes were "discount seekers" and "cheap cruisers" and clearly stated that he was ok with raising prices so as to keep those two classes of cruisers from being able to afford the cost.

Edited April 21, 2015 by whitecap

[CruiseTobey]

So that I understand you correctly, are you saying that it is ok for a cruise line to purposely inflate the price of a cruise in order to keep the lower class demographic out?

 

Disney World has been doing it for years, and they continue to do so. And attendance has never been higher. It may not be PC, but it seems people are willing to pay a premium to feel "safe" when on vacation. Unfortunately, that attitude may now be migrating to cruising.

Edited April 21, 2015 by CruiseTobey

[whitecap]

Well you called my comment uneducated when obviously they can and that poster was right. I may not agree with his position but he never suggested different pricing for different classes of people. You're trying to make his comment into something it is not.

 

Gregg, could you imagine what would happen if a developer began building homes and purposely raised the prices by $100,000 to exclude certain "discount seekers" and "cheap home buyers".

[crazycatlady82]

But Caramel popcorn is perfect for breakfast!:rolleyes:

 

 

Where's Michael Jackson when we need him? ;)

[CoachT]

If you think that the Seabourn/Oceania/Regent and Crystal cruisers of the world were all peachy keen with the Royal Suite and Celebrity Suite cruisers suddenly being able to afford those premium lines, you are sorely mistaken.

 

You equate cheap and discount cruisers with class and you are also sorely mistaken. But the facts are undeniable. It would have been far better for revenue had Fain stayed the course and not dropped prices as RCI did in 2009. Those who could suddenly afford Royal were not spending more onboard and onboard revenue dropped in some cases by as much as 75%. It would have been far better to keep prices the same and not do as others did.

 

Believe me there is a class of Carnival people who are able to afford a certain price point and I choose not to cruise with that class. Yes and we all discriminate in our lives and there is NOTHING illegal about it.

[seadog67]

I must chime in here albeit tepidly :) I actually agree somewhat with both side of this debate, (not that it is ok to discriminate if that is in fact their intent or not), but supply and demand for a product will dictate what pricing level a company will try to set. Airlines have done this for years in a bit different climate.

 

Royal manages this supply and demand by moving ships, so if there were 15 cruises from Florida every weekend, they would not be able to price some of there older ships as aggressively thus they reduce the number of ships that they feel will maximize berths sold and the level of price is dependent on what that market will bear. So given a fixed market volume they can directly inflate prices by offering less options thus greater demand for the supply available.

 

If all of a sudden the pool of cruiser in the US stopped booking at these prices over a 6 month period it then plays back into the buyers market, and Royal will need to offer lower fares or more options. So in any given time period you may have a buyer or sellers market given various conditions. I think Royal is trying to stay above the base line even in the event of a buyers market by offering unique ships that cannot be found on other lines, ( ala apple as a possible comparison) so even when an economic downturn happens and they may need to lower prices, they may still be at a higher price point than the competition thus gaining larger margin.

 

So my long winded response is saying the company can dictate price in some instances and consumers can at other times just like buying a house, there are buyer and seller markets based on various external and internal conditions.

[idamae3218]

The economic reality is FACT. When the prices dropped and the discount seekers and cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue dropped.

 

I don't quite understand this. Discounted fares will attract cruisers that don't spend or don't spend as much as those that booked early & paid more? So revenue will go down. Ok. What if they don't discount the, let's say, last100 cabins empty? Won't revenue still go down if they sail empty?

 

Oh, btw. Sailing last minute doesn't make someone a cheap cruiser (or discount seeker for that matter, which I didn't know was a bad thing! ). Some cannot book a year ahead due to their schedules.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Forums mobile app

[whitecap]

If you think that the Seabourn/Oceania/Regent and Crystal cruisers of the world were all peachy keen with the Royal Suite and Celebrity Suite cruisers suddenly being able to afford those premium lines, you are sorely mistaken.

 

You equate cheap and discount cruisers with class and you are also sorely mistaken. But the facts are undeniable. It would have been far better for revenue had Fain stayed the course and not dropped prices as RCI did in 2009. Those who could suddenly afford Royal were not spending more onboard and onboard revenue dropped in some cases by as much as 75%. It would have been far better to keep prices the same and not do as others did.

 

Believe me there is a class of Carnival people who are able to afford a certain price point and I choose not to cruise with that class. Yes and we all discriminate in our lives and there is NOTHING illegal about it.

 

Read your own words: you make your case by stating that you wouldn't "cruise with that class". This has been interesting but there is no arguing with bs comments. Please enjoy your future cruises.

[Big_G]

Gregg, could you imagine what would happen if a developer began building homes and purposely raised the prices by $100,000 to exclude certain "discount seekers" and "cheap home buyers".

 

They do that already. They don't blatantly announce their intentions but it's done all the time. I'm not agreeing with his reasoning and it certainly has unethical undertones but they can jack prices for just that reason if they wanted. His comments are wishful thinking. It's about dollars with Fain and not the classes. The poster maybe in the minority on this site but past posts by others have proven he's not alone.

[whitecap]

They do that already. They don't blatantly announce their intentions but it's done all the time. I'm not agreeing with his reasoning and it certainly has unethical undertones but they can jack prices for just that reason if they wanted. His comments are wishful thinking. It's about dollars with Fain and not the classes. The poster maybe in the minority on this site but past posts by others have proven he's not alone.

 

Understand!

[viperrtblck]

Dropping prices brought about cheap cruisers who did not spend once on the ship. They CAN afford to sail with empty staterooms. When the discounting started and the cheap cruisers came, onboard revenue went down as much as 75%.

 

He is a smart man and I for one am glad prices are going up and the discounting will come to an end!

 

I dunno what kinda business degree or school you went to, but how on earth could a business succeed by essentially throwing away. That's basically what you're saying. They can afford to sail with empty rooms?! Really, how long? That won't last very long as it costs X amount of dollars to sail their ships regardless of passenger count. The more passengers the better and more profit brought for RCCL, but sailing and not meeting capacity is never the goal.

 

In terms of their last minute discounts, they're getting that room filled and cash in their pocket...according to you, it's better to NOT take any cash at all and have an empty room. I just had to stop and read what you wrote for a minute and think.....how could this possibly make any sense.

 

Your theory is as if I told you I sell milk for $100/gallon, that will sort out the wealthy from the average income families. Only wealthy will buy if I I market it and label it as better than any other milk out there. If you're glad prices are going up and discounting is coming to an end, you'll love my month old expired milk that I'll upcharge by $50!

[macksmom395]

A very un-educated comment. Apparently you know nothing of the laws against discrimination.

 

Poor people are not protected under discrimination laws. Perhaps they should be, but they are not.

 

Why would anyone want to pay more for a cruise on a mid-range cruise line? If you can afford more expensive cruises and don't like the lower class demographics on the mid-priced cruises, you should go on the high-priced lines and get off of RCI!

[CoachT]

I dunno what kinda business degree or school you went to, but how on earth could a business succeed by essentially throwing away. That's basically what you're saying. They can afford to sail with empty rooms?! Really, how long?

They cannot afford to sail with unprofitable cruisers and as a rule, those seeking discounts and cheap last minute prices are unprofitable cruisers in the grand scheme of things. I know they went so far as to sell staterooms at a loss and did not make it up in onboard revenue. Far better to sail with a certain percentage of empty staterooms than with a full ship of unprofitable cruisers.

[cruiseknots]

You can do your own research on earning reports and onboard spending from 2006-forward.

 

You lose all credibility with this comment! If you are going to state something as FACT, then be prepared to back up that fact with credible information and statistics. Telling us to do our own research for something that YOU claim to be a fact proves to me that you don't really know or understand what you are talking about!

 

FWIW...I too think that empty cabins is potentially lost revenue. While some may not spend much onboard, others do. If the cabin is empty, then there is zero onboard spending associated with those empty cabins. Fain's primary responsibility is to the board, and when the board sees revenue left at the table, he will sing a different tune!

[viperrtblck]

They cannot afford to sail with unprofitable cruisers and as a rule, those seeking discounts and cheap last minute prices are unprofitable cruisers in the grand scheme of things. I know they went so far as to sell staterooms at a loss and did not make it up in onboard revenue. Far better to sail with a certain percentage of empty staterooms than with a full ship of unprofitable cruisers.

 

Lets pretend it costs $100,000 to sail the ship for a 7 day cruise. Assume all cabins are booked, and pretend that brings in a revenue of $200,000; I just made a profit of $100,000. Any additional onboard expenses are just extra change for me.

 

Now listen to your theory, if I don't sail at capacity and NOT all cabins are booked, i'll have <$100,000 profit. That's ok and good, according to you. What logical person wouldn't look at this picture and think that slashing prices would create CLOSER to that $100,000 profit mark, instead of sailing with unsold cabins. Sure they'll get more money on board with customers spending, but they'll loose that revenue AND cabin costs by not selling at all.....

 

I've read through this thread and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks your thinking is off....It's like that idiot driver on the road; if you're driving like a maniac and thinking that EVERYONE else on the road is an idiot....maybe it's time for a reality check...

[micmacmissy]

Ugh. Is there a cruiseline that discriminates against know-it-all blowhards who slam the people who don't happen to agree with them on a message board?

 

If so, sign me up for that one. :rolleyes:

Edited April 21, 2015 by micmacmissy

[CoachT]

I've read through this thread and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks your thinking is off....It's like that idiot driver on the road; if you're driving like a maniac and thinking that EVERYONE else on the road is an idiot....maybe it's time for a reality check...

Well Mr. Fain agrees with me or I agree with him and he knows a lot more about ships than you or I. I am THRILLED that the discounting will end and prices are going up!