Basic Poll: Would you report someone smoking on their balcony?

[Computer Nerd]

you'd see that what Cruz said makes perfect sense.

 

if you want to hear something that doesn't sense, then people sticking to the argument that carnival created rules against smoking on balconies while still allowing it one deck up because smoking on your balcony is a fire hazard should perk your ears up.

[Karnyval]

A thought struck me with this solution ... I'm sure it was a talking point used by the cruiselines because on the surface it would resonate with the public .... except 1 small detail. It's a reactive not a proactive solution.

 

I know, I know you are thinking ... what gibberish is he talking now. Here's the issue and why it doesn't better our safety.....

 

A pax is spotted flicking a butt overboard, wonderfull that pax could be kicked off the ship.

 

Except 1 thing...

 

Where did the butt go?

 

Is there a process & procedure to locate and or validate the butt didn't land in flammable materials on a balcony? I'm guessing not. Why? Because they probably can't dedicate the staff to search hundreds of balconies for it. It's just not important enough.

 

This begs the question: How important is our safety really?

 

Who cares where the butt went? If some corroborating evidence appears on one of the hundreds of security cameras on a ship? Kick the fool off.

[Computer Nerd]

Sorry Nerd. You clearly did not understand what I had written. The smoker in private is MORE likely to break the rules and flick a butt overboard. As for all smokers being like minded, I would like to think not. Most smokers follow the rules (perhaps begrudgingly) by only smoking where they're supposed to and do not endanger their fellow passengers by discarding their butts in an unsafe manner.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

please don't even try to patronize me. i fully understood your opinion and i disagree with your opinion. not to mention you provide no proof whatsoever to back up your opinion in human psychology. :rolleyes:

[Computer Nerd]

You are of course correct on equal advise.

 

Nerd don't be so snarky please. TBH it isn't helping your argument. Right or wrong it can shut people off to your truths.

 

Aqua ... Actually I would love to hear what your credentials are. It can help greatly with this discourse.

 

there is no argument. people can have any opinion they want. my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's opinion no matter what background they claim to have.

 

as for the supposed snarkiness, i see just as much from the so-called, self stated experts as from myself.

[Computer Nerd]

I agree with you, LMaxwell. The cleaning fee should be for a first offense. The second offense should result in Disembarkation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

considering there is no formal, signed paperwork from the customer acknowledging that smoking on the balcony is forbidden, i believe the first offense should be a formal warning along with signed documentation, second offense is the cleaning fee, and third offense is the boot. by the same token, it must be able to be proven that the offense took place to begin with and another cruise claiming they smelled smoke from somewhere isn't proof.

[sparks1093]

I'm sorry. But just because it makes sense to you...doesn't make it right.

 

The issue with saying the ban was because of safety is purely spin by the marketing types at the cruise lines. As I tried to illustrate in my previous post the actual decision is predicated on the P & L for the corporation. Which by the way ... Cruz alluded to this as well.

 

The choice of saying it's for safety reasons, while partially correct, is not the whole story. Once the choice of reasons was made, they then devised talking points as to the areas that were left as smoking areas and that's what was also presented by Cruz.

 

The inconvenient truth is those talking points aren't quantifiable. They should and are being challenged here.

 

So while nerd's method for arguing these points are against your sensibilities ... launching personal attacks doesn't lend creditability to your actions here.

 

We all get passionate about our positions in these "discussions". I fell prey to adding snarky remarks in the other thread as well. Please try and join me in not doing it any more. I'm making the effort and I hope others will as well.

 

Happy sailing!

 

At the end of the day the reasoning they used for initiating the ban is really irrelevant, passengers have to comply with the ban even if the CEO of CCL is an avid non-smoker and has it in for anyone that does and initiated the rule just to make their lives heck (I am not saying that is the case;)). There were a lot of reasons for the ban and I suspect public opinion was the lead cause followed by all of the rest including safety.

[sparks1093]

I did not expect it to be 60:40. I really thought it would be more like 80:20. Also surprising that as the poll continues on the ratio more or less is the same as it has been from the start.

 

The whole mantra of our society has become "live and let live" and to not be confrontational with others, so it's almost surprising that the number of yesses is as high as it is.

[sparks1093]

considering there is no formal, signed paperwork from the customer acknowledging that smoking on the balcony is forbidden, i believe the first offense should be a formal warning along with signed documentation, second offense is the cleaning fee, and third offense is the boot. by the same token, it must be able to be proven that the offense took place to begin with and another cruise claiming they smelled smoke from somewhere isn't proof.

 

Sorry, that's a non-starter- it's in the guest contract which you agree to when you put your money down (whether you take the time to read it or not). Ignorance of a contract's terms is no excuse.

[LMaxwell]

if you want to hear something that doesn't sense, then people sticking to the argument that carnival created rules against smoking on balconies while still allowing it one deck up because smoking on your balcony is a fire hazard should perk your ears up.

 

In designated smoking areas Carnival provides ashtrays/receptacles to put out cigarettes, and in non-smoking areas they do not provide ashtrays/receptacles.

[Valor2005]

Yes, but only if it was bothering me.

[Cruzaholic41]

so a cigarette butt flicked from a balcony cabin on deck 9 is inherently more dangerous than a cigarette butt flicked from the smoking area on deck 10. :rolleyes:

 

sorry but i disagree. while i agree they use fire hazard as their excuse, not for one minute do i believe that fire hazards are the real reason due to continuing to allow on deck smoking. sorry but it is illogical.

 

A deck 9 cigarette is more dangerous? I never said any such thing. How in the world did you translate my post into that? :confused: You don't have to believe that fire concerns were one of the core reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it was.

 

Cruz, thank you for your informative posts. I have no doubts as to your background or veracity of your replies.

 

It's easy for people to critique decisions made after the fact. Scott Adam's has made quite a nice living at this with his Dilbert cartoons.

 

IMO The underlying truth is this decision (you also eluded to this) is corporate P&L. If safety was the primary concern it would have been implemented sooner.

 

I also know from having been involved in risk assessment and risk mitigation within the insurance industry that all risks where taken into account. In this case: fire, health, general safety, public acceptance and impact to P&L. Basically any risk whether financial, real or imagined. That initial assessment then goes to legal, compliance, marketing and communications dept for their input. Once a interim decision is made, marketing and communications generally determine which "reason" for the change would leverage the most acceptance and the least resistance.

 

Anyway, at the end of the day a decision was made and as with most decisions some folks will be unhappy.

 

Thanks again for your comments and happy sailing!

 

These are billion dollar corporations with shareholders to answer to. No decision is going to be made without deep diving into P&L and measuring the risk involved. As I said earlier, Celebrity was the only line that initially thought the risk of fire outweighed the risk of losing customers. That, and they wanted to show they were progressive for the time.

 

What people have a hard time coming to grips with, especially loyal cruisers, is that these cruise corporations are just like any other big business. Do you really think safety is #1? Of course not. These corporations do what they are told to do by the regulatory agencies like SOLAS, USCG, IMO, etc. Any further safety measures that are taken go through months or years of internal bureaucracy. Every cruise corporation took a very close look at the USCG report after the Star Princess fire and every single one of them knew what should have been done. But at a time when 21% of America smoked, P&L was the bigger concern. We're down to 14% now. By the way, I have it on pretty good authority that when the # hits single digits, we're going to see smokeless ships in one of the major lines.

[Cruzaholic41]

Aqua ... Actually I would love to hear what your credentials are. It can help greatly with this discourse.

 

Paul is a USCG investigator and I can vouch for his credentials. There are 2 people on these boards who have more experience than any of us in regulatory matters and Paul is one of them. The other is chengkp75. Both of them are stand up guys and are very rarely snarky with people.

 

there is no argument. people can have any opinion they want. my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's opinion no matter what background they claim to have.

 

as for the supposed snarkiness, i see just as much from the so-called, self stated experts as from myself.

 

What background do you have in this matter that leads you to your opinion?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Cruzaholic41

[Cruzaholic41]

considering there is no formal, signed paperwork from the customer acknowledging that smoking on the balcony is forbidden

 

There is. It's the contract you sign before you board.

 

it's interesting how one assumes that doing something against the rules in a public place surrounded by like minded people....i.e. other smokers......will be less likely to break the same rule in private. if one is going to break the rules they are going to do it wherever they are and if breaking a rule when surrounded by people who are like minded there is no greater chance of getting called out for breaking said rule.

 

That doesn't really make sense. Everyone knows that people tend to act different under the cover of anonymity. A smoker who is dumb enough to flick a cigarette from a ship, just like the dummies who flick cigarettes from cars, is much more likely to do it when there is little chance of being confronted.

[42CruiseCrazy]

There is. It's the contract you sign before you board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't really make sense. Everyone knows that people tend to act different under the cover of anonymity. A smoker who is dumb enough to flick a cigarette from a ship, just like the dummies who flick cigarettes from cars, is much more likely to do it when there is little chance of being confronted.

 

 

 

Exactly!!! Which is why smoking was banned from balconies. A few dumb smokers ruined it for all the other more intelligent (& considerate) smokers. I might add that it's also been ruined for us non-smokers. With no smoking on the balconies there are far too many smokers polluting the air in the public areas of the ship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 30, 2016 by 42CruiseCrazy

[BeachChik]

I can answer that for you. The fire hazard exists when a smoker flicks a lit cigaret overboard. On the public decks that person might be caught and kicked off the ship (one less smoker for the rest of the cruise). This safety rule cannot be enforced on the balconies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't smoke but I don't agree that it was stopped for safety. If that is really the case why did it only start in 2014? All the years prior it wasn't a hazard? And again people reference the star princess but that happened in 2006, 8 years before carnival stopped balcony smoking. If they really thought it was a hazard they would have stopped it right away.

[First and Ten]

However long down the road that it does happen, and mark my words, at some point in the future it WILL happen, I can hardly imagine the dirt storm that is going to be raised by the minority when smoking is banned completely from cruise ships. For most it will be a very happy day but I bet this place will light up like a Christmas tree for weeks if not months, pardon the pun. :eek:

 

I believe some cruise lines have tried the "no smoking" cruise and it didn't go over well for the cruise lines as far as profit....I don't have a crystal ball, it may change, but just my opinion, its not changing in the near future as far as industry wide....For the record, I am not a smoker, so if they banned smoking on cruise lines, no skin of my back. Is it fair to say that at least 95% of the ship is smoke free? fair estimate? there is a part of the non smoking population (not saying its a majority) that want it banned altogether. That is selfish and self centered. If you are that sensitive to smoke, you can avoid the 5% of the ship that smoking is allowed. Why its allowed in the Casino, I can only assume that research shows that the majority of smokers tend to gamble (assumption, not fact) OR, they don't want to lose business from a smoker having him/her get up from a slot machine or a table to go have a cigarette (again, just an assumption).

Edited June 30, 2016 by First and Ten

[42CruiseCrazy]

I don't smoke but I don't agree that it was stopped for safety. If that is really the case why did it only start in 2014? All the years prior it wasn't a hazard? And again people reference the star princess but that happened in 2006, 8 years before carnival stopped balcony smoking. If they really thought it was a hazard they would have stopped it right away.

 

 

 

Wise decisions are rarely made "right away". Only bad ones. Just because it took Carnival eight years to make this decision doesn't mean that it wasn't made for the sake of safety.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BeachChik]

Wise decisions are rarely made "right away". Only bad ones. Just because it took Carnival eight years to make this decision doesn't mean that it wasn't made for the sake of safety.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And unless someone is a higher up with carnival you can't say that it was for safety.

 

It could simply be that they did it to appease the masses given the percentage of people that smoke has dropped significantly in the last few years.

[First and Ten]

And unless someone is a higher up with carnival you can't say that it was for safety.

 

It could simply be that they did it to appease the masses given the percentage of people that smoke has dropped significantly in the last few years.

 

I agree with this reasoning over safety....don't get me wrong, its perfect for management to use the safety reasoning to appease the sheep. If it was that much of a safety hazard, it would not have taken them 8 YEARS to implement it

Edited June 30, 2016 by First and Ten

[42CruiseCrazy]

So what's the point here? If the masses do not want smoking on balconies then it's a good business decision. Safety may just be the added benefit. The decision was made - now, we live with it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 30, 2016 by 42CruiseCrazy

[stevenr597]

Yes, smoking on the balcony can endanger the ship. Several years ago there was a fire on one of the Princess cruise ships, due to smoking.

[firemanbobswife]

Wise decisions are rarely made "right away". Only bad ones. Just because it took Carnival eight years to make this decision doesn't mean that it wasn't made for the sake of safety.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Correct. Look how long it took them to mandate children ride in car seats that were actually strapped in just to name one. When I was little I was placed in a plastic seat that wasn't even buckled in. Heck, we used to bring my brothers and sisters in their bassinets from their swings and sit it next to me in the car. That was it.

 

Just because some people don't want to believe the reasoning, doesn't make it true. Bottom line is the rules are the rules. They can be debated from here to eternity (and apparently they will continue to be). There will always be those that believe otherwise but it really doesn't matter why things are the way they are. You either accept the rules or don't give that company your business. Plain and simple.

[dna529]

Correct. Look how long it took them to mandate children ride in car seats that were actually strapped in just to name one. When I was little I was placed in a plastic seat that wasn't even buckled in. Heck, we used to bring my brothers and sisters in their bassinets from their swings and sit it next to me in the car. That was it.

 

Just because some people don't want to believe the reasoning, doesn't make it true. Bottom line is the rules are the rules. They can be debated from here to eternity (and apparently they will continue to be). There will always be those that believe otherwise but it really doesn't matter why things are the way they are. You either accept the rules or don't give that company your business. Plain and simple.

 

Well said. Everyone can debate all day about the reasons why. It's the rule and it should be followed. Interestingly, my husband I were just discussing how his sister and her husband were going to use their e-cigs on their cruise next year. (They haven't cruised in 15 years). He said they would probably do it in the room anyway. I guess I am a strict rule follower because that would make me mad if they believe they can just do it anywhere. Will I report them? No but I do think it shows lack of respect.

Edited June 30, 2016 by dna529

[BeachChik]

Correct. Look how long it took them to mandate children ride in car seats that were actually strapped in just to name one. When I was little I was placed in a plastic seat that wasn't even buckled in. Heck, we used to bring my brothers and sisters in their bassinets from their swings and sit it next to me in the car. That was it.

 

Just because some people don't want to believe the reasoning, doesn't make it true. Bottom line is the rules are the rules. They can be debated from here to eternity (and apparently they will continue to be). There will always be those that believe otherwise but it really doesn't matter why things are the way they are. You either accept the rules or don't give that company your business. Plain and simple.

 

It works both ways. Just because you believe it was done for safety doesn't make it true. Either way it's speculation because no one here knows for sure one way or the other.

[firemanbobswife]

It works both ways. Just because you believe it was done for safety doesn't make it true. Either way it's speculation because no one here knows for sure one way or the other.

 

 

Well what does Carnival say? Guess it really doesn't matter because there are those people that don't believe them anyway. But here's a news flash - I don't give a rat's behind why. It just is. Accept the rules or don't cruise on that line. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.