Ala Carte items in MDR

[Moby0215]

No...they can't be considered the same value...not unless you have poor math skills. (This is why Cruise Rewards were priced at $250 with a $100 OBC instead of pricing them at $150).

 

It is EXACTLY what is being discussed here...the lure of the fake free promo.

 

 

I did say most would prefer the first option, but there is no way you can argue that they are not the same value unless you would not be spending $100 on board.

 

As far as Cruise rewards, they are in essence $150 (not $250). You don't really get the $100 OBC. You will see it as a line item but you can't buy anything with it because you already have the $250 charge. So $250-$100=$150. Pretty simple math. And I assure you that I do not have poor math skills as I am a mathematician.

 

So I still fail to see the "fake". The product I am getting is free for me saving me $896. Period.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 7, 2015 by Moby0215

[hypercafe]

Since Del Rio wants to build NCL into a stepping stone for Oceania I don't really think that he wants everyone;).

 

NCL can never be a stepping stone for Oceania. There only thing in common is the freestyle concept, with Oceania being more freestyle than NCL IMO. Oceania is 100% non family friendly with the big event of the day is eating. The general age is 60++. There is a very limited night life. The cruises are longer with few based out of the US. We sailed them and to tell the truth found ship board life boaring. They provide a nice product however I really do not think the average NCL passanger would like it regardless of the price. Have you ever sailed on them?

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

[luvtheships]

Oh ok. Saving $896 on the price of UBP is not a deal. Right. You must have learned some alternate math. And by the way, I am a seasoned cruiser.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Well let's put it this way.....my inside triple is $1800 total 10 day gem.....if I book it now its around $2600..give or take....but hey they are throwing in the free ubp....for 2 pax so the 3rd still pays out of pocket....for drinks

 

Keep the deal....I'll pay by the drink as I and my travel companion could not nor would ever drink more than $800 in drinks....

 

It only becomes a " deal" in the above scenario for 2 pax who have consistently spent more than $800 on drinks per cruise which I admit is possible and then the "real " deal is only the excess spent over $800 isn't it? Anyway, That's not me and from what I see cruising I mean really....do you think all that many others either? All pax are not the drunken adults that posters here think....it's a rather small minority of cruisers that drink to excess....but unfortunately make the biggest and loudest impact on regular cruisers

 

Now if it covered bottled wine in the mdr it would be different but it doesn't and might be a good deal but I have analyzed that

 

 

Of course if I hadn't booked under a true ksf last April I would be none the wiser and think the $2600 is a great deal

 

Again....all about newbie cruisers but I'm surprised as a seasoned cruiser you didn't know that they jack the prices up to cover the " freebie" deals. If you follow prices and do shadow bookings regularly it is easily seen.

[Loonbeam]

I was speaking in a more general sense. In the main, cruisers have demonstrated that cabin price is their primary driver (much like airfare on airlines) and the cruise lines are responding to that dynamic.

 

And I am 100 percent certain that the lines have considered non-refundable or change fee based fares, some lines do that now with certain promotions.

 

But again, in the more general sense, unbundling has done wonders for the bottom line of airlines, based very much on consumer behavior (and in many cases lack of research by the more casual traveler). Cruises are a similar model as regards perishability so why would they not look to this model.

 

why are cruisers to blame? They are playing by the cruise lines rules.

 

If you want to use the airlines as a comparison why doesn't the cruise line change the rules like the airlines and once you paid that's it unless you pay a $150-$200pp change fee.

 

There wouldn't be too many chasing rate drops anymore but then you'd have a lot of people waiting for the last minute to book hoping for cheaper fares. Kind of a catch 22 for the cruise line.

 

I don't think it would be god to change the pricing policy like the airlines unless all cruise lines did it at once.

 

I know I wouldn't book with a cruise line if they had that policy when all the others still had the old policy.

 

I still submit it's not the cruisers fault but what's the cruise line to do?

 

Bill

[SeaShark]

I did say most would prefer the first option, but there is no way you can argue that they are not the same value unless you would not be spending $100 on board.

 

As far as Cruise rewards, they are in essence $150 (not $250). You don't really get the $100 OBC. You will see it as a line item but you can't buy anything with it because you already have the $250 charge. So $250-$100=$150. Pretty simple math. And I assure you that I do not have poor math skills as I am a mathematician.

 

So I still fail to see the "fake". The product I am getting is free for me saving me $896. Period.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

See...that is the problem, you think math can be determined through what "most would prefer". Math is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

 

They are in no way the same value. You could select Example 2 and be told you can't spend the OBC on the DSC, yet the person who chooses Example 1 can spend the money in exactly the way they choose.

 

I don't think you can't see the fake...I believe it is more likely that you don't want to as it would relieve you of a reason to argue. If you truly couldn't see the fake, then you wouldn't use phrasing like "in essence" in your comparisons.

 

A $250 cost with $100 OBC is entirely different that just a $150 cost. If you believe that statement to be inaccurate, then simply explain the economics of why it isn't sold that way....simply charge $150 and be done with it. Easy peasy.

[Moby0215]

Well let's put it this way.....my inside triple is $1800 total 10 day gem.....if I book it now its around $2600..give or take....but hey they are throwing in the free ubp....for 2 pax so the 3rd still pays out of pocket....for drinks

 

Keep the deal....I'll pay by the drink as I and my travel companion could not nor would ever drink more than $800 in drinks....

 

It only becomes a " deal" in the above scenario for 2 pax who have consistently spent more than $800 on drinks per cruise which I admit is possible and then the "real " deal is only the excess spent over $800 isn't it? Anyway, That's not me and from what I see cruising I mean really....do you think all that many others either? All pax are not the drunken adults that posters here think....it's a rather small minority of cruisers that drink to excess....but unfortunately make the biggest and loudest impact on regular cruisers

 

Now if it covered bottled wine in the mdr it would be different but it doesn't and might be a good deal but I have analyzed that

 

 

Of course if I hadn't booked under a true ksf last April I would be none the wiser and think the $2600 is a great deal

 

Again....all about newbie cruisers but I'm surprised as a seasoned cruiser you didn't know that they jack the prices up to cover the " freebie" deals. If you follow prices and do shadow bookings regularly it is easily seen.

 

 

Prices jacked up or not I still have a very cheap cruise with UBP and SDP included. Also it is only about 4.5 drinks per day (if the drink is $15) to reach the regular cost of the UBP. I wouldn't call that drinking to excess, however I will admit that I do drink more than that.

 

Why would including bottle wine in the MDR make a difference? Just order it by the glass instead. Just wondering why that would would make a difference to you.

 

Also you can't really compare what the price is now vs when you booked. As the prices fluctuates whether there is a promo or not.

 

Of course I'm not foolish to think that base fare is not subsidizing some of the promos value but like I said previously, I still am receiving great value.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[luvtheships]

The reason they don't charge $150 is they want to make the pax think they saved $100. You only pay $150 anyway you slice it but get $250 in benefit but by calling it a $100 obc it encourages the pax to spend more on the ship!! As in....well let's do a specialty now as we just got $100 obc. Lol.

 

I must admit it was nice using the fcc when booking our next cruise. Not a penny out of pocket until final payment. Nice

 

 

Of course this doesn't count the travel insurance I always buy from a third party vendor within 14 days of ignition booking.

[Moby0215]

See...that is the problem, you think math can be determined through what "most would prefer". Math is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

 

 

 

They are in no way the same value. You could select Example 2 and be told you can't spend the OBC on the DSC, yet the person who chooses Example 1 can spend the money in exactly the way they choose.

 

 

 

I don't think you can't see the fake...I believe it is more likely that you don't want to as it would relieve you of a reason to argue. If you truly couldn't see the fake, then you wouldn't use phrasing like "in essence" in your comparisons.

 

 

 

A $250 cost with $100 OBC is entirely different that just a $150 cost. If you believe that statement to be inaccurate, then simply explain the economics of why it isn't sold that way....simply charge $150 and be done with it. Easy peasy.

 

 

I don't even know where to start responding. You obviously didn't read or comprehend my posts fully.

 

1) I was agreeing with you that the first option was better. But they are the same value assuming you would have spent $100 on board anyway. There is no disputing that. Sure there could be restrictions on what the credit was good for, but if you would have spent $100 on things that would be covered by the credit then it is absolutely 100% the same value.

2) The statement of what most would prefer was not meant to be related to math at all.

3) with math being a matter of fact, the $250-$100=$150. It is a fact that you are only paying $150 for a value of a $250 cruise certificate. While they call it a $100 on board credit it is just subtracted from your $250. Hence you only pay $150. What is there not to understand? One reason they don't just call it $150 from the start is that would lessen the perception of value of the certificate. It's a mind game.

4) as I have said in previous posts, I am not foolish to think that the base fare does not subsidize some of the promos value. That does not mean they are fake. I get extreme value from the price I paid and getting the UBP for example. I see nothing wrong with using the term in essence. Doesn't change the facts for me.

5) if this is coming off to you as an argument then I apologize. That is not my intent. I like to voice my opinions and I like to hear others. It's ok to disagree.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swedish weave]

Prices jacked up or not I still have a very cheap cruise with UBP and SDP included. Also it is only about 4.5 drinks per day (if the drink is $15) to reach the regular cost of the UBP. I wouldn't call that drinking to excess, however I will admit that I do drink more than that.

 

Why would including bottle wine in the MDR make a difference? Just order it by the glass instead. Just wondering why that would would make a difference to you.

 

Also you can't really compare what the price is now vs when you booked. As the prices fluctuates whether there is a promo or not.

 

Of course I'm not foolish to think that base fare is not subsidizing some of the promos value but like I said previously, I still am receiving great value.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What sort of calculation do you use to convince yourself that a drink is worth $15 ??

 

It probably costs the cruise line a dollar at the most.

Edited November 7, 2015 by swedish weave

[SeaShark]

I don't even know where to start responding. You obviously didn't read or comprehend my posts fully.

 

1) I was agreeing with you that the first option was better. But they are the same value assuming you would have spent $100 on board anyway. There is no disputing that. Sure there could be restrictions on what the credit was good for, but if you would have spent $100 on things that would be covered by the credit then it is absolutely 100% the same value.

2) The statement of what most would prefer was not meant to be related to math at all.

3) with math being a matter of fact, the $250-$100=$150. It is a fact that you are only paying $150 for a value of a $250 cruise certificate. While they call it a $100 on board credit it is just subtracted from your $250. Hence you only pay $150. What is there not to understand? One reason they don't just call it $150 from the start is that would lessen the perception of value of the certificate. It's a mind game.

4) as I have said in previous posts, I am not foolish to think that the base fare does not subsidize some of the promos value. That does not mean they are fake. I get extreme value from the price I paid and getting the UBP for example. I see nothing wrong with using the term in essence. Doesn't change the facts for me.

5) if this is coming off to you as an argument then I apologize. That is not my intent. I like to voice my opinions and I like to hear others. It's ok to disagree.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion(s)...as is everyone else. You are not, however, welcome to your own set of facts.

 

Where you lose me is when you try to claim that you "can't see the fake", but then you post things above where you flat out state that "It's a mind game".

 

The "mind game" IS "the fake". And you've more than shown that you can, in fact, see it.

 

BTW...your statement on value is rubbish...you can't say "they are the same assuming they are the same". :rolleyes: Your argument for equal value is like the old joke about a non-working watch being right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong the rest of the day.

[sparks1093]

Since I have no idea what NCL will morph into in the future, I can only say I will stay as the model stands today, since I've had no issue with the changes so far. If you know what it will morph into in the future, please share, but please facts and not speculation, I'll let you know if I will continue to stay after those changes.

 

Del Rio has laid out his vision for the future of NCL, I don't need to speculate at all. I will still consider sailing with NCL IF the cruise fare (without all of the "free" promotions) is close to what the competition is charging and so far I haven't seen that.

[sparks1093]

NCL can never be a stepping stone for Oceania. There only thing in common is the freestyle concept, with Oceania being more freestyle than NCL IMO. Oceania is 100% non family friendly with the big event of the day is eating. The general age is 60++. There is a very limited night life. The cruises are longer with few based out of the US. We sailed them and to tell the truth found ship board life boaring. They provide a nice product however I really do not think the average NCL passanger would like it regardless of the price. Have you ever sailed on them?

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

 

You might want to clue Del Rio in because that is his stated goal for NCL;). I have no desire to sail on Oceania, it doesn't appeal to me at all. I have no desire to sail on Oceania-lite either. Read the threads about the changes and you'll find many average NCL cruisers very concerned about the direction that NCL is going.

[Moby0215]

What sort of calculation do you use to convince yourself that a drink is worth $15 ??

 

 

 

It probably costs the cruise line a dollar at the most.

 

 

Where were we talking about what it costs the cruise line? $15 is what you are allowed to spend per drink under the UBP. We were not talking about the worth of a drink as that would be a totally separate topic. However I will say that there are plenty of bars where you can find $15 drinks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SailBreakaway]

I'd like to maybe add perspective. If you think this is pointless or a waste of a .05kb of space on the server, just ignore me.

 

Our world and the marketplace is changing. It's changed for centuries and more. Granted the rate of change is probably greater. With that we're going to see what we used to know as better or normal become abnormal and different. For 21 year old today cruising on his or her own for the first time on a cruise on spring break, what he or she sees now (what we are saying is changing and crappy)will be normal. When he or she is 40, he or she will look back and tell a child, I remember when and post about it. I work in aviation safety, seeing to it that passengers get there safely. I see airlines making drastic changes in customer service standards (not speaking of safety) from the 80s when I was a kid and wanted to be an airline pilot. What will it look like in 20 years? Who knows. As long as the safety of the cruise lines (unregulated for the most part unlike aviation) doesn't degrade, as long as system safety and a culture of conservative compliance and decision making endures, and maintenance, training, etc doesn't fall, were still headed in a right place. Some cruise lines MAY be safer than others, MAY have newer equipment, longer and more stringent training, but that's up to us to decide who we entrust our money and more so families lives with. So please keep this in mind when you consider lines to travel with. I do.

 

(A different perspective and comment to this thread... But I still think it's crap that the UDP is gone [emoji12] )

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 7, 2015 by SailBreakaway

[hondorner]

NCL can never be a stepping stone for Oceania. There only thing in common is the freestyle concept, with Oceania being more freestyle than NCL IMO. Oceania is 100% non family friendly with the big event of the day is eating. The general age is 60++. There is a very limited night life. The cruises are longer with few based out of the US. We sailed them and to tell the truth found ship board life boaring. They provide a nice product however I really do not think the average NCL passanger would like it regardless of the price. Have you ever sailed on them?

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

 

You actually described Oceania fairly, and I agree it will never be a stepping stone for NCL, except for guests like me. I don't find Oceania boring, but then, I'n 75 and find NCL too active!

 

I've worked out a succesful plan for sailing NCL. Never sail it in the Caribbean. Never sail 7 days or less. Never sail when school is not in session. Try to sail at least 10 days and as much out of the USA as possible. Never sail on Epic or larger.

 

What happens on an NCL cruise like that? The guests, fot the most part, are just like me. Older, retired, well traveled, economically comfortable, well dressed (in a casual manner), quiet -- boring, in your words. Those guests, the ones many NCL passengers normally don't see, are prime candidates to move between NCL and Oceania, as do I (Platinum on NCL, will be Platinum on Oceania, much more difficult to do) after our upcoming 180 day around the world cruise.

 

Why NCL for the likes of me, a die-hard Oceania fan, somewhat of a cheerleader? Because, as you said, Freestyle is almost as good as Oceania policies. And, perhaps because the food on Oceania is so gourmet, it gets a little wacky for a guy with simple tastes. And, because we're not as economically comfortable ad many of the Oceania guests, and we need a budget cruise line.

 

However, from my point of view and that of most Oceania guests, until the merger NCL was considered to be bargain basement. There's a reason why so many on this forum mention Carnival and MSC in the same breath, they are all at the bottom end of cruise lines. Royal is a tiny step up, Princess near that, Hal used to be considered premium and Celebrity may be in that class now. Oceania and perhaps Azamara occupy Upper Premium or luxury lite; Regent, Crystal, Silversea and Seabourne arguably compete for luxury.

 

I'm pretty sure FDR's efforts are to move NCL up to somewhere between Royal and Celebrity (owned by Royal). That will position them as higher than the bottom but not quite premium; perhaps Upper Lower or Premium Lite, still several notches below Oceania and even more below Regent, NCLH's other sister cruise line.

 

I'm absolutely certain FDR would never be comfortable with a bottom feeder. But, improvements cost money -- and improvements attract a more discerning clientele, who will pay a liile more.

 

I think his hope is not to get rid of the bottom budget cruises, but to open their eyes as to what a better cruise line can be.

Edited November 7, 2015 by hondorner

[Moby0215]

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion(s)...as is everyone else. You are not, however, welcome to your own set of facts.

 

 

 

Where you lose me is when you try to claim that you "can't see the fake", but then you post things above where you flat out state that "It's a mind game".

 

 

 

The "mind game" IS "the fake". And you've more than shown that you can, in fact, see it.

 

 

 

BTW...your statement on value is rubbish...you can't say "they are the same assuming they are the same". :rolleyes: Your argument for equal value is like the old joke about a non-working watch being right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong the rest of the day.

 

 

They are not "my own" set of facts.

 

It is a fact that you pay $150 for a cruise certificate that is worth $250. It is not fake. The mind game reference is not meant to indicate as such. It's a mind game in the sense just like store charging for an item at $9.99 instead of a flat $10. It's just a perception thing. Doesn't change that fact that I just saved $100 on my next cruise.

 

I can absolutely say they are the same value. Maybe it wouldn't be the same value to you if you were not planning on spending at least $100 on board. But I would wager that most people do spend at least that. And even if you weren't planning on spending anything on board i believe you could go to the casino and charge the $100 to your account and only lose $3 as there is a 3% fee. I don't see the comparison to a non working watch. I don't think you have yet to say why you don't think they are the same value? If I pay $899 for the cruise and they wind up spending $100 on board then that equals $999. That's the same as paying $999 and getting $100 credit. Again re-iterating the fact that most people would be spending at least the $100.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tjt87]

OK then, look at this:

 

Example 1 is a cruise for $899.

 

Example 2 is the same cruise for $999 with a FREE $100 OBC.

 

Here is the math question: Which statement is true:

a) Example 1 is the better deal.

b) Example 2 is the better deal.

c) It's a trick question...they are actually the same.

 

Not so if you drink as mch as we do, A mimosa at breakfast a couple of glasses of wine and a good noght out and we are well if profit :D:D

[sparks1093]

 

I'm absolutely certain FDR would never be comfortable with a bottom feeder. But, improvements cost money -- and improvements attract a more discerning clientele, who will pay a liile more.

 

I think his hope is not to get rid of the bottom budget cruises, but to open their eyes as to what a better cruise line can be.

 

That was one of the things Del Rio alluded to in the Bloomberg article and the reason for the dry docks for all but the newest ships- upgrade the carpeting, the linens (dining and cabin), cutlery etc. etc. Yes, there are some that will pay more, there are always people that will pay more.

[NLH Arizona]

Del Rio has laid out his vision for the future of NCL, I don't need to speculate at all. I will still consider sailing with NCL IF the cruise fare (without all of the "free" promotions) is close to what the competition is charging and so far I haven't seen that.

Well, until there are changes to the current NCL model that I'm not good with, I'll continue to sail with NCL. If and when NCL makes a change that I'm not in favor of, I'll readdress my stance at that time. It is all about choices, one can choose to accept the changes and continue to sail with the line or one can choose not to sail with them.

[hondorner]

You might want to clue Del Rio in because that is his stated goal for NCL;). I have no desire to sail on Oceania, it doesn't appeal to me at all. I have no desire to sail on Oceania-lite either. Read the threads about the changes and you'll find many average NCL cruisers very concerned about the direction that NCL is going.

 

You've repeated that several times in various ways, but you seem to be the only one saying it. I'd appreciate knowing where you saw that, as I follow FDR pretty closely, and I haven't seen or heard that.

 

What I do know is that he had stated several times that each cruise line in NCLH had its own demographic, and he won't do anything to change that. If there are a few like me who sail both lines (and sometimes , but not in recent years, Regent), that's because many things are similar already, like the open concept of Freestyle. But, he'd be foolish to think that everyone wants to sail Oceania; he's smarter than that.

 

It bears saying that I cruised NCL before the merger (Oceania since 2006, NCL since 2010).

[SeaShark]

They are not "my own" set of facts.

 

It is a fact that you pay $150 for a cruise certificate that is worth $250. It is not fake. The mind game reference is not meant to indicate as such. It's a mind game in the sense just like store charging for an item at $9.99 instead of a flat $10. It's just a perception thing. Doesn't change that fact that I just saved $100 on my next cruise.

 

I can absolutely say they are the same value. Maybe it wouldn't be the same value to you if you were not planning on spending at least $100 on board. But I would wager that most people do spend at least that. And even if you weren't planning on spending anything on board i believe you could go to the casino and charge the $100 to your account and only lose $3 as there is a 3% fee. I don't see the comparison to a non working watch. I don't think you have yet to say why you don't think they are the same value? If I pay $899 for the cruise and they wind up spending $100 on board then that equals $999. That's the same as paying $999 and getting $100 credit. Again re-iterating the fact that most people would be spending at least the $100.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The idea that some people get value and not all people get value is the bridge you can't cross. It is a lazy argument to claim that the exception disproves the rule.

 

Just because some people come out of the casino ahead does not mean that everyone will, thus you can't claim gambling is a value....to everyone.

[tjt87]

Yes, there will be some that are happy with whatever NCL morphs into and will still sail on them.

 

Sorry but I don't get this.

 

If you are attracted by the base fare but don't care who you sail with, why do you have to book a year out?:rolleyes:

[Moby0215]

The idea that some people get value and not all people get value is the bridge you can't cross. It is a lazy argument to claim that the exception disproves the rule.

 

Just because some people come out of the casino ahead does not mean that everyone will, thus you can't claim gambling is a value....to everyone.

 

 

I wasn't saying to gamble with the money (although I do). I was saying to cash it out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeaShark]

Not so if you drink as mch as we do, A mimosa at breakfast a couple of glasses of wine and a good noght out and we are well if profit :D:D

Thai is a pretty big IF...isn't it? Which, by the way, is the point.

 

Unless you believe that NCL created and designed this program so they would end up making less money...

[SeaShark]

I wasn't saying to gamble with the money (although I do). I was saying to cash it out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say you did...it was simply an illustration of the point not a commentary on your claims.