Treatment of Smokers on QM2 is shameful!

[Cats2010]

Can't wait until the medical marijuana complaints start: The complaints from those who don't want to be exposed to the toxic smoke versus those who claim that they need to relieve their osteoarthritis pain. :confused:

 

So am I. :D

[paulista1950]

"Smoking cigarettes is legal (for adults), and a well maintained and ventilated venue ideally should be provided for those who smoke cigarettes"

 

Skateboarding is also legal but no ship is obliged to provide a place for those who want to practice it. It's strictly a business decision.

[Cats2010]

"Smoking cigarettes is legal (for adults), and a well maintained and ventilated venue ideally should be provided for those who smoke cigarettes"

 

Skateboarding is also legal but no ship is obliged to provide a place for those who want to practice it. It's strictly a business decision.

 

True. No ship is obliged, but I am almost sure that you can find such places on the big fun ships. Ships companies provide them to please their passengers and for the same reason Cunard could provide better conditions for smokers.

[balf]

Wow. That will be news to families bankrupted by gambling or the victims of drunks.

 

Their families are their concern, obviously we are talking about fellow passengers.

 

DAVID

[foxeysandy]

I appreciate all of your opinions. While I only smoke a few cigarettes per day, I posted this because I feel that other smokers should know of the apparent attitude of Cunard toward smokers, so they may make an informed choice when they book a cruise. I have cruised on 10 other lines for over 30 trips, and none of them show such a hostile attitude toward smokers. Many of them have itineraries which are better than Cunard and have at least equally good food, choices for excursions, accommodations, spas and entertainment. They all have comfortable areas for smokers. I agree that smoking should be prohibited on balconies, in casinos and other public areas. We smokers would just appreciate one reasonably comfortable place to indulge in our nasty habit. We don't deserve to be at the very bottom of Cunard's caste system.

[MarkBearSF]

True. No ship is obliged, but I am almost sure that you can find such places on the big fun ships. Ships companies provide them to please their passengers and for the same reason Cunard could provide better conditions for smokers.

 

Agreed. I appreciate not being bothered by the smoke, but think an area for smokers is reasonable - certainly covered and sheltered for a north Atlantic ship!

 

(Confession - I was a 3 pack/day smoker until 25 years ago. I don't like it, but most family & friends growing up smoked and some still do.)

[Salacia]

Oddly enough, no one has mentioned the smell of the fuel used when the ship is in the open seas. Dark smoke flows from the funnel, leaving soot and stink in it's wake. I find that smell far more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

 

Curiously, on this thread, it's only the cigarette smell that rises ire and concern of fire on board. Perhaps it gives comfort to some to believe these dangers can be eliminated by outlawing smoking entirely?

 

Edited to add: I am not a cigarette smoker.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Salacia

[tv24]

Oddly enough, no one has mentioned the smell of the fuel used when the ship is in the open seas. Dark smoke flows from the funnel, leaving soot and stink in it's wake. I find that smell far more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

 

Curiously, on this thread, it's only the cigarette smell that rises ire and concern of fire on board. Perhaps it gives comfort to some to believe these dangers can be eliminated by outlawing smoking entirely?

 

Edited to add: I am not a cigarette smoker.

 

I don't understand this post. Sorry.

[Salacia]

I don't understand this post. Sorry.

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The fuel that the ship uses when out to sea is not the same as when it is near coastlines where cleaner burning fuel is required. To me, there are times when the smoke emitted from the funnels has a very bad smell (and emits particles that can occasional be observed on the decks) - much more troublesome to me than cigarette smoke.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Salacia

[balf]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The fuel that the ship uses when out to sea is not the same as when it is near coastlines where cleaner burning fuel is required. To me, there are times when the smoke emitted from the funnels has a very bad smell (and emits particles that can occasional be observed on the decks) - much more troublesome to me than cigarette smoke.

 

Both are carcigenic and exhaust fumes are likely to be more dangerous than the occasional breath of secondary cigarette smoke, now that Cunard has limited smoking to very selected ares of the ship (when I started cruising smoking was permitted in the dining rooms, unbeleavable now)

 

But solving the other problem is either very expensive (higher grade fuel) or very long term(LNG and fuel cells possibly)

 

If you are really worried maybe this could be the solution.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=3m+pollution+mask+n95&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#imgrc=btEp9EKLhXqB1M%3A

 

DAVID

[Cats2010]

Thanks to Salacia for her very useful comments! I mean to have read somewhere that, while in Hamburg last year to be remastered, QM2 had filters installed to reduce emissions. In addition, different oils are being used with less harmful influence on the environment.

[david,Mississauga]

Oddly enough, no one has mentioned the smell of the fuel used when the ship is in the open seas. Dark smoke flows from the funnel, leaving soot and stink in it's wake. I find that smell far more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

 

Curiously, on this thread, it's only the cigarette smell that rises ire and concern of fire on board. Perhaps it gives comfort to some to believe these dangers can be eliminated by outlawing smoking entirely?

 

Edited to add: I am not a cigarette smoker.

 

There is a big difference. Until alternate fuel is developed and/or acceptable for use in ships, the exhaust is unavoidable if the ship is to move; allowing people to share their addiction with others against there will is not essential. As recently as 2008 – the last year of operation of the QE2 – smoking was permitted in a section of all restaurants on that ship except for one of the two in the Princess Grill category.

 

I see the “smoking is legal” argument is being raised yet again. Many things are legal but highly restricted by laws or by the rule of the owners of buildings, trains, ships, etc. I am tempted to make comments about the legality of guns and ammunition in some countries, but at the present time I will not. I can use another example: electric irons are legal but Cunard prohibits passengers from bringing them into their accommodation. If I don’t like that rule I can travel some other way or stay home.

[Chunky2219]

Why not take your business to Costa? I understand that they still have a very Mediterranean attitude to inconveniencing others with the foul stench of your second hand smoke. I would have suggested HAL, who were also very liberal, but even they have finally realised that catering to the whims of the 15% was costing them business from the rest of us and they've belatedly entered the 21st century.

 

 

.

[orvil]

I enjoy a smoke free environment. If Cunard weren't mostly smoke free, I wouldn't spend my vacation money aboard them. There are the occasional smoker who choses to smoke in their cabin. You can smell it up and down the hall. So, don't think we don't know. I find myself walking as fast as I can away from that area. I hate sitting on my balcony and someone's smoke wafts past me.

 

Many years ago I was a Flight Attendant/Air Hostess. We were forced to work in smoking conditions. Many suffered illness due to this exposure. You smelled like an ashtray when you got off a flight. It was disgusting. What a great change that was a long time in coming.

 

I understand that many of you suffer from a nicotine addiction. I watched my grandfather struggle to stop and fail. It killed him. It's a tough addiction to break. But, your failure to stop you addiction should not be foisted on the rest of us who choose not to enable.

 

Strangely enough, I do agree that the safest option is to provide a cigarette smoking room with appropriate filtering for the use of cigarette smokers. I remember my grandfather in his pajamas standing outside of the house in the snow smoking because my grandmother wouldn't let him smoke in the house. I know he was humiliated. I don't think anyone aboard should suffer this humiliation nor should they have to stand in the cold and spray. A smoking room would be a good, comfortable solution.

 

I hope the New Year sees just one of you managing to break this addiction.

[Teddy123]

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

[Cats2010]

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

 

Yes, you are right to look after your money. Please feel free to address your rather polemic question to the ships company, not to passengers :confused:.

[Margana]

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

 

 

Perhaps Cunard could provide information on operating costs and any related passenger tax for Churchill’s Cigar Lounge to assist with an answer to your question.

[Margana]

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

 

 

Further thought.............

 

If 15% of all passengers are smokers and 50% of them removed gratuities (unlikely), then that’s 7.5% of passengers removing gratuities.

But if only 10% of the 85% non-smoking passengers remove gratuities then that’s 8.5% of passengers.

So it’s likely that smokers actually contribute more than non-smokers. So the economics look better.

[Teddy123]

Yes, you are right to look after your money. Please feel free to address your rather polemic question to the ships company, not to passengers :confused:.

But it is (some) passengers who are asking for an additional facility which will undoubtedly cost money, simply so that they can indulge their habit, and it is reasonable to ask those making the request whether they would expect to bear the extra cost or would expect other passengers to share it.

 

I assume Churchills pays for itself (or at least offsets costs) through sales of cigars but I see no equivalent for a facility simply for people to smoke their own cigarettes - unless smokers are prepared to pay a fee of some kind.

 

Perhaps somebody will be prepared to explain how they think it would all work.

[paulista1950]

" you can find such places on the big fun ships. Ships companies provide them to please their passengers and for the same reason Cunard could provide better conditions for smokers."

As I said, it's a business decision

Edited January 7, 2017 by paulista1950

[Teddy123]

For some reason, quoting doesn't seem to work for me here, but Margana says "If 15% of all passengers are smokers and 50% of them removed gratuities (unlikely), then that’s 7.5% of passengers removing gratuities.

But if only 10% of the 85% non-smoking passengers remove gratuities then that’s 8.5% of passengers.

So it’s likely that smokers actually contribute more than non-smokers. So the economics look better."

 

Suppose there are 1,000 passengers all potentially paying $100. There would be 150 smokers and in Margana's example, 75 would pay $100, giving $7,500. There would be 850 non-smokers, and 90%, or 765, would give $76,500.

 

The average smoker contribution is $7,500 / 150, or $50 and the average non-smoker contribution is $76,500 / 850, or $90.

 

So the assertion that "smokers contribute more" in the given example is false. Of course, there are fewer smokers removing the gratuity than non-smokers, but that's simply because they only represent 15% of the population.

 

In any case, I wasn't suggesting smokers were more or less likely to remove gratuities.

[Cats2010]

But it is (some) passengers who are asking for an additional facility which will undoubtedly cost money, simply so that they can indulge their habit, and it is reasonable to ask those making the request whether they would expect to bear the extra cost or would expect other passengers to share it.

 

I assume Churchills pays for itself (or at least offsets costs) through sales of cigars but I see no equivalent for a facility simply for people to smoke their own cigarettes - unless smokers are prepared to pay a fee of some kind.

 

Perhaps somebody will be prepared to explain how they think it would all work.

 

In this world usually it is as follows: What one buys he pays for. In this case it would be the ships company, so there is no need to worry about possible extra cost of a facility which only a selected elite uses :D.

[Margana]

For some reason, quoting doesn't seem to work for me here, but Margana says "If 15% of all passengers are smokers and 50% of them removed gratuities (unlikely), then that’s 7.5% of passengers removing gratuities.

But if only 10% of the 85% non-smoking passengers remove gratuities then that’s 8.5% of passengers.

So it’s likely that smokers actually contribute more than non-smokers. So the economics look better."

 

Suppose there are 1,000 passengers all potentially paying $100. There would be 150 smokers and in Margana's example, 75 would pay $100, giving $7,500. There would be 850 non-smokers, and 90%, or 765, would give $76,500.

 

The average smoker contribution is $7,500 / 150, or $50 and the average non-smoker contribution is $76,500 / 850, or $90.

 

So the assertion that "smokers contribute more" in the given example is false. Of course, there are fewer smokers removing the gratuity than non-smokers, but that's simply because they only represent 15% of the population.

 

In any case, I wasn't suggesting smokers were more or less likely to remove gratuities.

 

 

Don't disagree with your numbers. However, I used a highly unlikely 50% for smokers and 10% for non-smokers as comparison. I think if you compare like for like, ie 10% for each category, you might find that your case is less compelling.

For interest, do you consider that the fitness centre which is presently free should be supported financially by those of a less aerobic nature?

[h3rjp]

But it is (some) passengers who are asking for an additional facility which will undoubtedly cost money, simply so that they can indulge their habit, and it is reasonable to ask those making the request whether they would expect to bear the extra cost or would expect other passengers to share it.

 

I assume Churchills pays for itself (or at least offsets costs) through sales of cigars but I see no equivalent for a facility simply for people to smoke their own cigarettes - unless smokers are prepared to pay a fee of some kind.

 

Perhaps somebody will be prepared to explain how they think it would all work.

 

 

Well the gym is provided for those passengers who choose to indulge in treadmill time.

 

The seats on the promenade are provided for people that sit there

 

The pools are provided for people that enjoy a swim.

 

Theatres and company are provided fue those that like watchIng singing and dancing.

 

All of these cost a varying amount to install and maintain, regardless.

 

The simple economics are is that given a place to enjoy their dirty habit, if it pleasant enough they'll stick around. And like any bar on the ship, the longer they linger the more likely they are to get out their cruise card and buy drinks...

 

Plus if you care to wonder down to the ship, Cunard are very happy to provide cartons of duty free cigarettes with a wonderful profit margin....

 

So unless you would like a ship with a basic bed and an upgrade charge for everything else, you might want to accept that providing faculties for passengers either draws them into booking in the first place, or creates revenue while they are there. Or both. And whether you choose to enjoy it or not, you're aren't subsiding the provision.

 

Enjoy what you enjoy. And let others do the same (hopefully in a manner where you can't see or smell it).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Teddy123]

Well the gym is provided for those passengers who choose to indulge in treadmill time.

 

The seats on the promenade are provided for people that sit there

 

The pools are provided for people that enjoy a swim.

 

Theatres and company are provided fue those that like watchIng singing and dancing.

 

All of these cost a varying amount to install and maintain, regardless.

 

The simple economics are is that given a place to enjoy their dirty habit, if it pleasant enough they'll stick around. And like any bar on the ship, the longer they linger the more likely they are to get out their cruise card and buy drinks...

 

Plus if you care to wonder down to the ship, Cunard are very happy to provide cartons of duty free cigarettes with a wonderful profit margin....

 

So unless you would like a ship with a basic bed and an upgrade charge for everything else, you might want to accept that providing faculties for passengers either draws them into booking in the first place, or creates revenue while they are there. Or both. And whether you choose to enjoy it or not, you're aren't subsiding the provision.

 

Enjoy what you enjoy. And let others do the same (hopefully in a manner where you can't see or smell it).

Actually, on reflection, I do buy the argument that special accommodation MIGHT pay for itself - and had, believe it or not, come to that conclusion before this post, but thanks for it anyway.