Time To For A Reality Check For Mr. Fain

[poncho1973]

Poncho, I understand your example however charging what the community will agree to pay for living in a certain area is not the issue that was raised by CoachT; he stated that he was ok with RCCL raising prices to keep a certain class of people from being able to afford to cruise with RCCL. Completely different situation. He even goes further later on disparaging Carnival cruisers.

 

Oh, and Poncho just so you know, my momma didn't raise her no liar!! :cool:

 

Again. They do that exact thing all the time. EXACTLY. Why would the same house cost $500,000 in one neighborhood and $200,000 in another? It's not the building materials. It's because they charge a premium for being exclusive.

 

And I believe anyone with eyes who read this thread can easily see the untruth in the second paragraph. You haven't even been sly about it and it has been in a giant font.

[idamae3218]

Again, YOU are the one talking about separating people into classes. He was talking about eliminating deep discounts being a good move, from a stockholder point of view, under the premise that those who buy low-priced cruises tend to be those who are on a tight budget and won't spend much on the ship, therefore are not good for profit.

 

I'm not so sure his premise is right, but it's not the class warfare that you want to pretend it is, so that you have a reason to criticize. I'm just suggesting a little introspection, but if you don't want to do that, this is the last I'll say about it.

 

Paul, you are correct that Coach T did not mention classes. However, I think when you repeatedly say "cheap cruisers", it can be taken as referring to those with less. He did say discount seekers once, but kept repeating cheap cruisers. Now since being a bargain shopper or someone that cannot schedule ahead, doesn't necessarily make one cheap, who is her referring to?

 

Of course, making assumptions can cause misunderstandings, so I would not assume this is what he meant, but it did sound like he meant something more than the bargain shopper. Personally, I would have asked what he meant and why he kept using the term. That's just my point of view.

 

Edited to add: I stand corrected. Coach T did mention class. In post 5 & 13 he talks about the cheap cruisers. Then in post 65, he states:

 

"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."

 

Well, there you have it. He says the cheap cruisers do not provide revenue and he's glad they're raising the prices. Then he sates there is a certain class that can afford Carnival and he choses not to sail with them. Of course, he can decide where to spend his hard earned money, as can we all. But his posts sound like he's glad Royal is raising the prices to hopefully price out the cheap cruisers, who he states are a certain class.

 

I don't agree with anyone being bashed for their opinion, but you seemed to think he never mentioned class and he did.

Edited April 22, 2015 by idamae3218

[whitecap]

Again. They do that exact thing all the time. EXACTLY. Why would the same house cost $500,000 in one neighborhood and $200,000 in another? It's not the building materials. It's because they charge a premium for being exclusive.

 

And I believe anyone with eyes who read this thread can easily see the untruth in the second paragraph. You haven't even been sly about it and it has been in a giant font.

 

There you go, hurting my feelings again and just when I was gonna invite you to dinner a the Windjammer too. :D

[3dog]

In the big scheme of things this is all ado about nothing. This affects few cruisers...

 

Indeed. This "policy shift" affects only a small number of cabins on any ship, which typically are the lowest revenue generating cabins. So even taken at his word (sail with empty cabins) and the OP's inferred word (nobody will book those cabins if not discounted), the percentage of reduced revenue is not that large (and already presented in updated earnings guidance, which already caused a stock price slip; so effectively has already been accounted for).

 

Whether this was a good, bad, or neutral business decision for the longer term, only time will tell.

[wolfganghowell]

I would hazard a guess that this policy "change" impacts a small percentage of cruisers and that their research has shown that the vast majority of these cruisers are retirees on a fixed income who spend little to nothing on board. I'm not slamming them - one day I will be doing the exact same thing I hope. Fain's comments are for shareholders confidence and for all of us to take them literally is a bit of an overreaction.

 

All the hateful comments about "class" and spending reminds me of a cruiser we met several years ago. Our tablemates ironically attended the same high school as me so while we compared all the high school hangouts, I realized where they lived in the neighborhood. They lived in a multi million dollar home and they were staying in an inside cabin onboard. When people here judge others based on their cabins or onboard spending, I think of this couple and smile. How we choose to spend our cruise dollars has nothing to do with class.

[orville99]

These threads always end up channeling Tommy James and the Shondells sooner or later:D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6IYJ4Q1FZQ

[bouhunter]

These threads always end up channeling Tommy James and the Shondells sooner or later:D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6IYJ4Q1FZQ

 

Too funny:D

[alfaeric]

Paul, you are correct that Coach T did not mention classes. However, I think when you repeatedly say "cheap cruisers", it can be taken as referring to those with less.

 

Don't want to get too much in the middle of this, but disagree with that. As an engineer, many of my friends make really good money, but would fit the "cheap cruisers" 110%.

 

Only a few seem to be putting cheap cruisers with class level or even economic status, which ignores the fact that many, many, many wealthy people are that way because they are cheap.

 

Cheapness does not reflect economic status. Nor some kind of class level that some want to label.

 

Unless YOU are the one reading that into it.

[idamae3218]

Don't want to get too much in the middle of this, but disagree with that. As an engineer, many of my friends make really good money, but would fit the "cheap cruisers" 110%.

 

Only a few seem to be putting cheap cruisers with class level or even economic status, which ignores the fact that many, many, many wealthy people are that way because they are cheap.

 

Cheapness does not reflect economic status. Nor some kind of class level that some want to label.

 

Unless YOU are the one reading that into it.

 

Go back and read my EDITED post. The person Paul said never brought up class, actually did. I posted his own words in my edit.

 

My point was not whether I agreed or not, but that Paul was stating the poster never mentioned class, but in fact he did.

 

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

[poncho1973]

As an engineer, many of my friends make really good money, but would fit the "cheap cruisers" 110%.

 

As an engineer, I hope you know that you can never actually be anything more than 100%.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[3dog]

Go back and read my EDITED post. The person Paul said never brought up class, actually did. I posted his own words in my edit.

 

My point was not whether I agreed or not, but that Paul was stating the poster never mentioned class, but in fact he did.

 

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

 

FWIW, I sort of agree with alfaeric.

 

Though (as I suggested a couple of post earlier) the aforementioned poster choose a (IMO, poorly chosen) derogatory phrase, most responders seemed to assume that poster was referring to people in a lower economic class.

 

So my take to Paul's response was that person did not bring up "economic class". So the question you should ask, was the sentence related to an "economic class", or maybe a "cheapskate class" or some other class that might well be appropriate (everybody is in some set of "class")?

[Paul65]

Go back and read my EDITED post. The person Paul said never brought up class, actually did. I posted his own words in my edit.

 

My point was not whether I agreed or not, but that Paul was stating the poster never mentioned class, but in fact he did.

 

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

 

That is incorrect. I did not claim that the poster never mentioned class.

[orville99]

As an engineer, I hope you know that you can never actually be anything more than 100%.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

Actually, to an engineer, 100% generally represents maximum rated capacity. Performance in excess of 100% may be achievable, but at the risk of catastrophic failure.

[3dog]

Actually, to an engineer, 100% generally represents maximum rated capacity. Performance in excess of 100% may be achievable, but at the risk of catastrophic failure.

 

That's what I keep telling my management, but they still want 110%. :eek:

[alfaeric]

As an engineer, I hope you know that you can never actually be anything more than 100%.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Depends on the brainwashing of the week. ;):D

 

 

But my point is that cheapness is no indicator of economic status, nor some imagined class system.

 

And I would not really want to vacation with my cheap freinds- they would be a major drain on our efforts- to worried about spending money. It's WAY more frustrating with people who have no issue affording it. If I were CEO, I would not try to appeal to those folks what so ever.

[idamae3218]

That is incorrect. I did not claim that the poster never mentioned class.

 

You are correct. Coach T's post (65) apparently did not start the conversation about class, but simply confirmed that whitecap's assumption that he was referring to classes.

 

I have no issue admitting my error.

[Thetrail]

While Royal CEO Richard Fain promises no more last minute discounting, I am reminded of the conversation I once had as a kid with a pitcher about the knuckleball-"I just throw it-it does what it wants to do." Meaning of course that you can only dictate the movement of a pitch so ephemeral that catches wear protection for their fingers.

 

Such is the modern economy. He can't control passenger demand unless he can control passenger salary-until then, they have to deliver value as adjudged by the consumer.

 

It is very cute Mr. Fain says he has a say. If you read his statement carefully, it almost convinces you he believes it-but he doesn't.

 

Two things-one WE CONTROL THE SHOW. Not him. We either book, or we don't. Period. And we will book when we feel the value is there. Period. Second of all, if you book early, and then the cruise is later discounted, reward early bookings with equivalent onboard credit. If you don't want to do that, you can deal with angry passengers or empty rooms-their choice, their problem.

 

But the reason he has no choice in the matter, is no matter what bright notions the board of executives have, empty cabins are a pain not easily tolerated. Sure they may talk a good game, but sunk cost is sunk cost, and nothing depletes share value like lost revenue. These ships can not afford to sail less than 95 percent full-they know it, we know it, and there is no confusion.

 

If the ships book there will be no deals. If they don't they will either deal, or go bankrupt, again, their choice. And the first choice they will make were that to happen is to pink slip Mr. Fain.

 

This is just a dog and pony show for shareholders. They have no ability to tell people to pay through the nose and like it and risk sailing with stock tanking occupancy rates. Supply and demand will always rule the free market economy, and demand based pricing will determine the future of any business.

 

Nobody is forced to take a cruise for a vacation. There are other options. But another thing King Richard is also forgetting, is he decided to put a Freedom class ship in Texas, with Oasis upgrades, the Liberty, just as the oil bust is taking hold. Whoops. He can't afford to get crushed in Galveston-Texas is simply too vital to lose. And one thing Texans will not do, is deal from weakness. Not only that, but Galveston is the epicenter of middle America cruise traveling. Folks from all over the midwest and south often drive to the port, making it more affordable for families otherwise unable to go on a more expensive trip.

 

Big talk may temporarily support a stock value floor, but it does nothing for vacationers who are discerning and careful with their vacation dollar. To suggest that a take it or leave it approach is even feasible is the height of hubris, or judging from Royal's stock price-desperation.

 

Royal is making giant ships with huge overhead, when for my dollars, Freedom class is enough. Past 3, 4 thousand people I start to get uncomfortable with the concept. I believe the jewel of the line are their midsize Voyager class-first class amenities, the ability to put on top level shows, and not overcrowded.

 

Soon enough the novelty of these behemoths will wear out, and the reality of the crowds, expense, and nickel and diming will set in. I personally do cruise for amenities, and entertainment, and of course food-but ultimately, most of us cruise for the beauty of the sea.

 

The desires and tastes of Americans and Canadians are constantly evolving, much like the rotation of a baseball with no spin, caught in a sudden breeze on a three-two count. You never know if the batter will swing wildly, or send your offering into the upper deck. So talk on Mr. Fain, be bold, and overbearing about your pitch, fail to gauge the wind, the count, the runner leading off of first, and see where your next hanger goes.

 

Because in this economic era-it will be a long time before anyone is confident about their fastball.

Well if you book early and the price drops you actually do get the lower price if you haven't made final payment. You could also cancel and rebook and get the lower fare. As far as the stock price have you even bothered to look at the price from a year ago? As far as Galveston being the " EPICENTER" of middle America cruise traveling, simply put...delusional. As far as your "opinion" of ships and why you cruise, well that's your opinion. Do you honestly know the profit from RCL's largest ships???......Again some of your "opinions" have merit, others in my "opinion" are hogwash based on well, certainly not facts....:rolleyes:

[ckfred]

It doesn't matter what industry we talk about. CEOs don't want to offer more supply than the demand can handle at profitable prices.

 

The airlines have learned that reducing frequencies and aircraft size means higher prices and fewer sales. The days of half-empty widebodies on domestic routes, with tickets at 75% off the walk-up fare to demand are long gone.

 

To that extent, people just don't do spur-of-the-moment trips anymore, because fares just don't drop like they did 10 or 20 years ago.

 

That said, the cruise industry probably wants to get away from the cycle of cheap prices, when a cruise first becomes available for booking, with increasing prices over time, followed by deep, deep discounting within the last few weeks of departure.

 

They probably would prefer to offer a price that is reasonable for the traveler, while building in a decent profit for the cruise line, and then keep that price for the time a cabin is available.

 

Is it going to happen? Who knows. Back in the early 1990s, Robert Crandall, the CEO of American Airlines decided to get rid of the various fare categories and replaced them with First, Coach, 7-day advance purchase, and 21-day advance purchase.

 

Within a few weeks, Northwest started a fare sale. Everyone matched the fares. None of the airlines made money in the 2nd or 3rd quarters, and Crandall's plan fell by the wayside.

 

If cruise lines that cater to American cruisers, including Carnival, Princess, and NCL, all start matching Fain's plan, then that will become the new norm.

 

If they don't, sticking to the traditional pricing plans, then RC and Celebrity will have to go back to traditional pricing plans or risk losing the cruiser who, for whatever reason, books within the last few weeks before departure.

[aimish]

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.

 

I am not trying to be obnoxious here, but as an attorney, I have worked with 15 U.S. Code sec. 13 and it has nothing to do with charging more than a lower economic class of people can afford. It has to do with preventing monopolies.

 

If it was illegal to "discriminate" against poor people, than pretty much every high-end business would be in violation of that policy for charging too much, which clearly prevents poor people from purchasing their product.

[trogmd]

Not sure your comparison is valid in this case. Yes both motel 6 and Ritz Carleton can both be viable business and prosper because they are targeting different consumers but if motel 6 one day decided to charge Ritz Carleton prices without out changing their product I do not think they would be in business very long.

 

This is a mass market line and there are very viable alternatives to the RCCL product NCL, Princess, Holland and even Carnival with some of their new ships. I like most consumers purchase based on perceived value. I am one of the passengers who searches for discounted fares because of the value equation. I will say I would be willing to pay a lot higher fare if the product was a higher quality product but with all the cut backs in recent years the value equation is getting very shaky. I cruise 5 - 7 times a year on 7 days or longer cruises on the newer ships because they still provide the value I am looking for. If the prices go up even 15% or 20% they value will not be there for me.

 

I have tried all the other competitors products and some of them come very close to what I am looking for so RCCL decides not to provide a product at a price point I am willing to pay I have no problem taking my business to other lines.

 

Getting back to the original point if RCCL improved their product back to like it was I would be more than happy to pay a higher premium to sail on their ships. In my case it is not about the cruise fare but the value I get for my dollars spent.

 

In the example of sailing at 2/3 full at a 50% higher price being equal that assumes you can find 2/3rds of a ship passengers that are willing to pay the 50% higher fare. I suspect with the current product that may become a problem.

 

It does seem intuitive that if you can offset the fixed costs (fuel, depreciation, crew, maintenance, etc) of operation of the ship with very little incremental cost (food, cleaning) that should help the margin situation on each sailing. At that point any on board spending is an opportunity for additional revenue that would not exist with an empty cabin.

 

Bottom line the market/demand will determine prices as it has forever.

 

Agree with you totally. 8 pages into this thread and you have ( for me ) got it summed up very well.

Edited April 22, 2015 by trogmd

[h20skibum]

This just in from majority stock holder, Thurston Howell III to Richard Fain:

 

Richard,

 

Lovey and I were just discussing some options to present to you after seeing the firestorm you created among members of Cruise Critic with the proposed changes to eliminate deep discounting. Many feel you are trying to move the bargain hunters and cheap cruisers away from our Brand.

 

What we suggest is that you reimplement the Steerage class to attract the cheap cruisers. Just to refresh your memory, the steerage area of the ship was once used to accommodate passengers travelling on the cheapest class of ticket, and offered only the most basic amenities, typically with limited toilet use, no privacy, and poor food. If we provide cheap cruisers with accommodations and amenities comparable with the price paid, those paying higher prices should not feel like they got a bad deal.

 

Furthermore, if we were to issue the cheap cruisers with a scarlet seapass with a large S (for Steerage) that they must wear on a lanyard around their neck while onboard, it will be easier to tell just who these people are.

 

Lovey and I also have other ideas such as basing C&A points on the amount spent on a cruise and onboard. Perhaps a seapass that changes color the more you spend, but that discussion is for another time.

 

TH III

 

P.S. You know I am an expert on how all the "Little people" think after spending all that time on the island with them.

[John&LaLa]

Actually, to an engineer, 100% generally represents maximum rated capacity. Performance in excess of 100% may be achievable, but at the risk of catastrophic failure.

 

Isn't it correct that the ships sail at around 104% of capacity. :what:

[Biker19]

This just in from majority stock holder, Thurston Howell III to Richard Fain:

 

Richard,

 

Lovey and I were just discussing some options to present to you after seeing the firestorm you created among members of Cruise Critic with the proposed changes to eliminate deep discounting. Many feel you are trying to move the bargain hunters and cheap cruisers away from our Brand.

 

What we suggest is that you reimplement the Steerage class to attract the cheap cruisers. Just to refresh your memory, the steerage area of the ship was once used to accommodate passengers travelling on the cheapest class of ticket, and offered only the most basic amenities, typically with limited toilet use, no privacy, and poor food. If we provide cheap cruisers with accommodations and amenities comparable with the price paid, those paying higher prices should not feel like they got a bad deal.

 

Furthermore, if we were to issue the cheap cruisers with a scarlet seapass with a large S (for Steerage) that they must wear on a lanyard around their neck while onboard, it will be easier to tell just who these people are.

 

Lovey and I also have other ideas such as basing C&A points on the amount spent on a cruise and onboard. Perhaps a seapass that changes color the more you spend, but that discussion is for another time.

 

TH III

 

P.S. You know I am an expert on how all the "Little people" think after spending all that time on the island with them.

 

Too funny.:D

 

Biker, who hopes the milenials take the time to research and find out about Gilligan's Island.

[insidecabin]

So basically Fain was saying they need to return to smaller ships. I know quite a few people around here who will be thrilled with that even if it means higher prices!

 

It does not have to be smaller ships just fewer berths to sell overall.

 

Send a load of ships to China, fewer berths in the American market to sell.

 

High demand weeks(those where people have no choice when they sail) will go up, pushing the poor people out to the cheaper weeks.

 

Will there be late discount yes they won't go away they will just happen a bit sooner or we will see more solo rates where the headline price stays the same.

[Cruiseathoning]

While the other day I wrote about Mr. Fain's hubris, the fact is of all the lines we have traveled nobody has come close to delivering what Royal Caribbean does, especially with the Voyager class, especially on the Navigator.

 

Now when I say not close, I mean Carnival and NCL are playing horseshoes and leaving those buggers hung up in a tree. The food quality may have gone done from years past-our first RCI was 2007-but on the Navigator in September we did not notice it. The Windjammer has always been clean and serviceable, if not enthralling, but truthfully, compared to Carnival and NCL it is Morton's Steakhouse.

 

So when I peruse the latest reviews for the Navigator, I take some offense to the insults or nit picky criticisms. This is my favorite ship. Not too big, not too small, amazing amenities, and wonderful entertainment. And if you book this marvel on a low demand date, early fall, early winter, you can at times get it for around $400pp.

 

Let me repeat that-for two people with port fees, insurance, and gratuities, you can have an amazing time and have no need to spend a dime on the ship for around $1300 for a seven day cruise. I know-I have done it. After adding internet and a few drinks, hotels, gas and parking, we came in a shade over $1600.

 

Sure it is more expensive at different times, bu that is just demand, the law of the economic land. Book a good deal if you can.

 

As far as the reviewer issues, four big ones come to mind:

 

ONE-Do not say there was norovirus on the ship because you saw hand sanitizers and tong changes. Accusing a ship of norovirus is like accusing a rental car company of poor brake maintenance. All lines to my knowledge provide "washy washy." As well they should. This does not mean norovirus is on the ship anymore than it means Capt. Stubing is making a guest appearance. So when you casually mention, "norovirus was present on the ship," in declarative fashion, you are doing major damage to the reputation of the line-and quite possibly dissuading a family from taking an amazing and affordable vacation.

 

This is the CDC's link for norovirus info-as you can see the Legend, not the Navigator, is listed. If the person responsible for that review is reading this, please edit your review.

 

TWO-Just because Mickey Mouse is not giving piggyback rides to your kids does not mean the line is inferior to Disney. To the contrary, Royal has made great strides in providing quality amenities and activities for children. Some might say too much. But that aside, Royal is NOT Disney. Royal is not competing at that price point. Royal is not marketing specifically to Disney loyalists. If you want to pay five times the cost to ride the Ship House of Mouse, by all means do so. But constantly negatively comparing the two lines is like blaming Cheesecake Factory for not being The French Laundry. If the worst restaurant you ever encounter is Cheesecake Factory you are doing quite well. Appreciate RCI for what it is instead of complaining about what it isn't.

 

THREE-The ship does not stop what it is doing for your "little ones." You can complain about late show times all you want, but cruising was not designed

to be Disneyworld. This is a recent development. If you miss shows because of your children, either utilize Royal's camp service, or leave them at home. This may sound cold. Brrr. Good. The United States in general is suffering from a Bossy Mommy Crisis affecting everything from baseball game start times, (6:35 on a weekday? Some of us deal with rush hour you know!) to our favorite restaurants being destroyed by "kids eating free."

 

Do I dislike children? For many of them, I dislike the person they are being molded into. But I think it is not so much the child-kids are not born belligerent miscreants, as much as the narcissistic attitude allowed to develop within them because of poor parenting philosophy, in my opinion. We don't have kids, but I know I was disciplined, and I can tell many children were not.

 

So if we adults want to enjoy a hard-earned vacation with mature themes to shows, some delicious libations, and sophisticated dining, please do not say the following-"This food is weird, do you have anything normal?" There is a difference between pedestrian and invigorating. Expand your horizons.

 

"I wish there was less drinking, because my children see it." Like they don't see it a home. Unless you are a Mormon, or a recovering alcoholic, save the sanctimony.

 

"The shows and dinnertime need to start earlier so my "little ones" can enjoy them. Cruising was not invented for "little ones." It was invented for discerning adults with discriminating taste. Put another way, your family with children are welcome, the lines have made massive accommodations to appeal to you, and we DINKS have gone out of our way to be accepting. But if this was a party, please do not mistake yourself for the French Onion dip-you are the diet cola. Remember that. Is this rude? Yes. Is it offensive? To some, almost assuredly. Is it a truth other people fear to speak? Absobleepinlutely. Now as is the case with most groups of people, not all families are the boil on the SS Cruise Butt. So I need to take this time to praise the outstanding parents and families we share our cruises with, who number many. Thank you for doing a good job with your kids, and know that you are held in different regard than the above mentioned.

 

FOUR-Look at the above price. Even add a bit to that. Now consider for that range, the ability to be fed, entertained, make friends, and not touch car keys for a week, then tell me if Mr. Fain's company delivers value. On the Navigator you can watch comedians, do karaoke, play trivia, fold napkins, make guacamole, do crafting, dance, eat good food, enjoy good drinks, (including Starbucks) see brand named entertainers, watch professional musical productions, embarrass your Wife (or Husband) in a Love and Marriage game, win prizes, play bingo, play blackjack, play basketball, ping pong, and volleyball, take in a lido deck movie on an HD screen, eat breakfast on your balcony, reconnect with your spouse (read between the lines on that one) climb a rock wall, surf, watch an ice show, and ice skate.

 

And you want to talk about value. The Navigator is an otherwordly dream vacation, and don't let Negative Nellies convince you otherwise. Book her. Ride her. Then thank me later.