One Main Course

[richstowe]

1 hour ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

how special can you feel when the ever-so-gracious waiter asks you to pay $10 for a second main course?

Well it is a new, never before dared SPECIAL fee .

[sail7seas]

On 3/8/2019 at 2:16 PM, Bgross said:

We’ll be dead soon.

All of us. Most of us sooner than we’d wish.

But I honestly doubt that ANY of us will die of starvation or malnutrition. In fact, I suspect that more than a few of us would live longer - and be healthier - if we ate less and laughed more.

That’s what we choose. We consider a cruise successful if the ship made it to the disembarkation port and we didn’t spend the last portion in a canvas sack in the freezer. Hey, it happens.

If we sailed for a few weeks and didn’t gain 10 pounds? Our choice. Gained 15 pounds? Our choice.

HAL wants to charge extra for a second entree in the MDR? Their choice. 

Not paying it? My choice.

The villagers can grab their torches and storm the bridge if they want - I’ll be on deck watching the sea.

And I won’t be hungry!

 

 

Kill  Joy. 

 

 

sail.noordam@gmail.com

[sail7seas]

Kindly pardon me while I yawn. 

I  have 2 upcoming cruises and  will be interested  to see how many changes I notice    and/or how  much I care ab out any of  them    :shrug

 

sail.noordam@gmail.com

2 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

Kill  Joy. 

 

Quote

 

sail.noordam@gmail.com

 

[slidergirl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-an-era-of-excessive-food-waste-a-plea-to-restaurants-cut-down-your-portions/2019/03/25/724c7d94-3e01-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0E0tkM_mpTH-7O76mbtnwGFLOUUxi4W6wIbgk20OynVDTmJm2-RROomOQ&utm_term=.f216d7f80546

 

An interesting piece in the Washington Post the other day about portion sizes.   Just some "food" for thought since we were discussing shrinking portion sizes and extra servings...

[Hlitner]

Reading this thread just gets me thinking about the "cheerleader syndrome" we see on all the CC cruise line boards.  Some folks will never say or believe anything negative about their "chosen" cruise line.  So consider other possible future HAL changes.  Most of us are aware that HAL recently discontinued production shows.  So on your next cruise perhaps you walk past the main theater and there is a nice new ticket window.  Yes, production shows are back but you must buy a ticket for $10.  And then you decide to go to the BB King show (because you are on one of ships that has that option) and there is new ticket window selling tickets for $9.99 (the show is on sale and the price reduced from $10.00).  Then you later call room service to  order a pot of coffee and when the steward arrives with your coffee he/she presents you with a bill for $10.00.  So being a "cheerleader" you just smile and say something like "cruises cost less today then 20 years ago when I was 75 years old."   And then you reach your next port, which happens to be a tender port.  You go to the proper lounge to get a tender ticket and must sign a chit for $10 (plus 18% gratuity) for tender service!   The Cheerleader just smiles and says to their furious friend, "its no problem...they should have been charging for tender service years ago."   

 

You get my drift?

 

Hank

[lindaelane]

Sorry...I did not have time to read the many dozens of posts.  But I noticed a complaint -  "If you cruise solo, you paid double and should not pay $10 for a 2nd entree". I shop Holland America cruises all the time, and have cruised with them five times.  I have never remember seeing a 100% single supplement (paying double) while scouring dozens of cruises for the one I want, on many occasions.  Its normally 74%, so a $1000 per person cruise (double) would be $1740 for a single. 

[Windsailer]

1 hour ago, lindaelane said:

Sorry...I did not have time to read the many dozens of posts.  But I noticed a complaint -  "If you cruise solo, you paid double and should not pay $10 for a 2nd entree". I shop Holland America cruises all the time, and have cruised with them five times.  I have never remember seeing a 100% single supplement (paying double) while scouring dozens of cruises for the one I want, on many occasions.  Its normally 74%, so a $1000 per person cruise (double) would be $1740 for a single. 

I can assure you that for my next cruise on the NA is am paying double (or remarkably close to it) for the same cabin as my sons are paying for their cabin. Mine is $2110 and theirs is $2118. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Windsailer
Add word

[VennDiagram]

1 hour ago, lindaelane said:

Sorry...I did not have time to read the many dozens of posts.  But I noticed a complaint -  "If you cruise solo, you paid double and should not pay $10 for a 2nd entree". I shop Holland America cruises all the time, and have cruised with them five times.  I have never remember seeing a 100% single supplement (paying double) while scouring dozens of cruises for the one I want, on many occasions.  Its normally 74%, so a $1000 per person cruise (double) would be $1740 for a single. 

Then consider yourself very fortunate because for most of the solo cruising I've done on HAL, I've paid double, except for port fees/taxes.

[3rdGenCunarder]

16 minutes ago, VennDiagram said:

Then consider yourself very fortunate because for most of the solo cruising I've done on HAL, I've paid double, except for port fees/taxes.

 

Same here. I've paid 75% on Cunard, but 100% on HAL. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by 3rdGenCunarder
typo

[RDC1]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Reading this thread just gets me thinking about the "cheerleader syndrome" we see on all the CC cruise line boards.  Some folks will never say or believe anything negative about their "chosen" cruise line.  So consider other possible future HAL changes.  Most of us are aware that HAL recently discontinued production shows.  So on your next cruise perhaps you walk past the main theater and there is a nice new ticket window.  Yes, production shows are back but you must buy a ticket for $10.  And then you decide to go to the BB King show (because you are on one of ships that has that option) and there is new ticket window selling tickets for $9.99 (the show is on sale and the price reduced from $10.00).  Then you later call room service to  order a pot of coffee and when the steward arrives with your coffee he/she presents you with a bill for $10.00.  So being a "cheerleader" you just smile and say something like "cruises cost less today then 20 years ago when I was 75 years old."   And then you reach your next port, which happens to be a tender port.  You go to the proper lounge to get a tender ticket and must sign a chit for $10 (plus 18% gratuity) for tender service!   The Cheerleader just smiles and says to their furious friend, "its no problem...they should have been charging for tender service years ago."   

 

You get my drift?

 

Hank

Yep cruises are not what they used to be, and never will be again.  Yep cruise lines change with the times and their competition.  Yep, we all have to make the decision on where we spend are travel dollars.  Someone having a different view of a given situation does not necessarily make them a cheerleader, that does it make  someone that is critical of situation a hater.

 

Better to stick to points of discussion then trying to apply lbes to someone you might disagree with.

[lindaelane]

Yes, on paying double for the cruise (but not getting two entrees without  $10 surcharge)....I "double checked".  About half of the cruises are double - 100% markup, and about half are 74% markup. 

 

I confess using a third party site, - because their search feature is much, much easier for singles and then I just book with them since I see no advantage to an HA booking -  However, when I was comparing before my last cruise, I think HA was the same as the 3rd party site on most cruises.  

 

If I ever pay double for a cruise, I promise to insist on two entrees a $10 charge in the MDR (if I want them...though I'd have to skip the appetizer since I don't eat that much). 

[RDC1]

4 minutes ago, lindaelane said:

Yes, on paying double for the cruise (but not getting two entrees without  $10 surcharge)....I "double checked".  About half of the cruises are double - 100% markup, and about half are 74% markup. 

 

I confess using a third party site, - because their search feature is much, much easier for singles and then I just book with them since I see no advantage to an HA booking -  However, when I was comparing before my last cruise, I think HA was the same as the 3rd party site on most cruises.  

 

If I ever pay double for a cruise, I promise to insist on two entrees a $10 charge in the MDR (if I want them...though I'd have to skip the appetizer since I don't eat that much). 

Keep in mind the nature of cruise line economics.  Even at 100% premium, a mass market cruise line, such as HAL, still loses money compared to 2 people in a cabin.  The reason is because 25 to 30% of their revenue (25% for all CCL owned companies) ( is due to on board spend and their limiting factor is number of cabins.  With 2 people per cabin total cruise line revenue is   2(X + .33X) = 2.66X where X is the fare paid.   With one person per cabin the revenue is  2X + .33X) = 2.33X.  Basically an 8.7% drop in revenue.  They can recover some of that if they have an excess of 3-4 person cabins booked, but during a normal situation not really. 

 

The 8.7% reduction in revenue is half of CCL net income rate for last year. An unusually high profit margin for them.

 

 

[lindaelane]

11 minutes ago, RDC1 said:

Keep in mind the nature of cruise line economics.  Even at 100% premium, a mass market cruise line, such as HAL, still loses money compared to 2 people in a cabin.  The reason is because 25 to 30% of their revenue (25% for all CCL owned companies) ( is due to on board spend and their limiting factor is number of cabins.  With 2 people per cabin total cruise line revenue is   2(X + .33X) = 2.66X where X is the fare paid.   With one person per cabin the revenue is  2X + .33X) = 2.33X.  Basically an 8.7% drop in revenue.  They can recover some of that if they have an excess of 3-4 person cabins booked, but during a normal situation not really. 

 

The 8.7% reduction in revenue is half of CCL net income rate for last year. An unusually high profit margin for them.

 

 

Agreed, and interesting!  But since they are in business for their shareholders (as I understand business to work) is there a reason their board believes this is a profitable practice, somehow, in the long run?  

 

  Originally, I presumed they sent "fare X" (the pp rate if cruising double) to about "4% x percent of single cruisers" higher than it would be if everyone cruised double.   Example:  if they know the pattern is 10% single cruisers, and 3 or 4 in a cabin brings your 8.7% down to 8%, then would they add ".04 x .01 = .0004" and therefore 4 tenths of a percent to each "Fare X" in order to make what they need? 

 

I hate to think of everyone paying about half a percent more (even though thats only $5 per thousand spend) to help me cruise single.  So perhaps there is some other reason they allow single cruises quite frequently at 1.74%?

 

So I got to thinking of our original subject...paying more for food...and I realized that at least while I don't have a "cruising partner" to buy all those excursions, etc. to make him worth 1.33X to the cruise line, this "phantom partner" is also not eating food 3 times a day....and their food is pretty good and must cost a lot to the bottom line....so my theory is they can do it because, though not spending more per cabin on excursions, etc., I'm also not eating as much per cabin as others.

 

In fact...perhaps they just need more single cruisers...then $10 for a second entree might not be needed.  

 

[cruzin4us]

I would so much rather HAL charge a few dollars more upfront than to get on this band wagon about the food waste.   People waste food....they shouldn't but they do.   Go to the buffet and watch somebody tear apart the pre-made sandwiches and throw 1/2 the bread away.    There is waste everywhere you look on a cruise ship.  It's about indulgence and good/bad or otherwise, it's been the cruising image forever.   

Not everyone that orders a 2nd entree wastes the food.   Some people order 1 entree and waste food.    How many times have you seen someone only eat 1/2 their burger from the dive?   Get real people, this is about HAL making $ and watching people follow along like sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.   Justifying in your own head why people order a 2nd entree is none of your concern, just like I don't tell you that you shouldn't go to the spa.....because truly, it's not necessary and it makes more laundry etc.   It's unbelievable to me some people are sticking up with HAL on this one.

[RDC1]

52 minutes ago, lindaelane said:

Agreed, and interesting!  But since they are in business for their shareholders (as I understand business to work) is there a reason their board believes this is a profitable practice, somehow, in the long run?  

 

  Originally, I presumed they sent "fare X" (the pp rate if cruising double) to about "4% x percent of single cruisers" higher than it would be if everyone cruised double.   Example:  if they know the pattern is 10% single cruisers, and 3 or 4 in a cabin brings your 8.7% down to 8%, then would they add ".04 x .01 = .0004" and therefore 4 tenths of a percent to each "Fare X" in order to make what they need? 

 

I hate to think of everyone paying about half a percent more (even though thats only $5 per thousand spend) to help me cruise single.  So perhaps there is some other reason they allow single cruises quite frequently at 1.74%?

 

So I got to thinking of our original subject...paying more for food...and I realized that at least while I don't have a "cruising partner" to buy all those excursions, etc. to make him worth 1.33X to the cruise line, this "phantom partner" is also not eating food 3 times a day....and their food is pretty good and must cost a lot to the bottom line....so my theory is they can do it because, though not spending more per cabin on excursions, etc., I'm also not eating as much per cabin as others.

 

In fact...perhaps they just need more single cruisers...then $10 for a second entree might not be needed.  

 

Looking at the amount listed in the quarterly and annual reports, CCL cruise lines spend about 12 per day per passenger on food.  That may and probably also does include the money spent on crew as well since food is not broken out in filings to distinguish between passengers and crew but just a lump some total.

 

So lets use a fare rate at the low end of $100 per passenger per day.  Then that number would mean a double would be $266 per day on income - $24 dollars = 242.  A single would be 233 - 12 = 221. A drop of 8.7%.

 

I made a mistake with my earlier numbers   2.33/2.66 = .875   or a drop of 12.5%

                                                                               221/242 = .913  or a drop 8.7%

 

The time when it makes sense for a cruise line is if they have a lot of 3 or 4 people per cabins and have cabins that they cannot put 2 into due to total capacity.  However, I think that they are more likely to cut of the sale of 3/4 cabins, then to give discounts to solo's.  Easier to manage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kennicott]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Reading this thread just gets me thinking about the "cheerleader syndrome" we see on all the CC cruise line boards.  Some folks will never say or believe anything negative about their "chosen" cruise line. 

You get my drift?

Hank

Oh, I do get your drift Hank. And I have to admit and agree that cruise line's "Cheerleaders" are indeed irritating at times. With me, it is particularly annoying when I'm doing my due diligence by looking into a new line or cruise ship and attempting to understand what is or is not provided and here comes the "cheerleader" with a chip on their shoulder or something, basically taking me to task and issuing a challenge of sorts, when all I was trying to do was understand a characteristic or two of their favorite line since I am/was getting close to booking.

 

But worse yet, are the "Cheerleaders" who flock over like mad dog trolls to another lines thread(s) after some unfortunate and unpleasant news or something has surfaced about that line and precede to expound upon almost every negativity of the line under fire, that they can dream up.  While at the same time, singing high praises of aspects of the line they adore, usually grossly exaggerated, all in an attempt to convince those faithful to the line under verbal duress to switch. "Vulture Cheerleaders".      

 

[Hlitner]

1 minute ago, kennicott said:

Oh, I do get your drift Hank. And I have to admit and agree that cruise line's "Cheerleaders" are indeed irritating at times. With me, it is particularly annoying when I'm doing my due diligence by looking into a new line or cruise ship and attempting to understand what is or is not provided and here comes the "cheerleader" with a chip on their shoulder or something, basically taking me to task and issuing a challenge of sorts, when all I was trying to do was understand a characteristic or two of their favorite line since I am/was getting close to booking.

 

But worse yet, are the "Cheerleaders" who flock over like mad dog trolls to another lines thread(s) after some unfortunate and unpleasant news or something has surfaced about that line and precede to expound upon almost every negativity of the line under fire, that they can dream up.  While at the same time, singing high praises of aspects of the line they adore, usually grossly exaggerated, all in an attempt to convince those faithful to the line under verbal duress to switch. "Vulture Cheerleaders".      

 

It is too easy to fall into the "cheerleader" mode.  We all have our favorites and many want others to feel the same way.  DW and I try not to fall into a "rut" and get too comfortable with a single cruise line or even travel place.  Once that happens a person loses their spirit of adventure and just settles for the familiar.  This is not a bad thing, but really limits the ability to grow and learn new things.  About 2 years ago, when reading a post on this very topic we decided we had fallen into one of those ruts.  We were primarily cruising on Celebrity, HAL and Princess but honestly had some issues with all three of those lines.  So we quickly got online and booked cruises with MSC (yacht club) and Seabourn.  We are now watching for some itineraries and deals on Viking, Oceania, and Azamara.  We have not given up on HAL and Princess (have nice cruises booked on both those lines) although Celebrity has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons.  

 

My message to cheerleaders is to either expand your horizons (we are not talking about memories of what you did in the last century) or keep an open mind to what others say when comparing your favorite line to the competition.   When somebody tells me they have recently (within the past 2 years) cruised on several lines and prefer one particular line...then I am all ears and want to know why.  But when a cheerleader who has 1000 days on a particular cruise wants me to believe that their beloved line is the best....I wonder how they can possibly know.  I still remember one particular HAL "cheerleader" who would often trash Carnival (on several boards).  I finally posted on one of her threads and asked her "when is the last time you cruised on Carnival?"  She quickly responded that she had Never cruised on Carnival and never would!  That said it all.  And yes, we have cruised on Carnival (3 times) and will likely not cruise on that line anytime in the future.  Nothing wrong with Carnival (their Lido Buffets were actually better then on HAL) but at our age it is just not a good "fit."  I would no faster recommend then somebody in their 70s+ go on Carnival anymore then I would recommend that a young 20 something couple go on the smaller HAL vessels.

 

Hank

[RDC1]

5 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

It is too easy to fall into the "cheerleader" mode.  We all have our favorites and many want others to feel the same way.  DW and I try not to fall into a "rut" and get too comfortable with a single cruise line or even travel place.  Once that happens a person loses their spirit of adventure and just settles for the familiar.  This is not a bad thing, but really limits the ability to grow and learn new things.  About 2 years ago, when reading a post on this very topic we decided we had fallen into one of those ruts.  We were primarily cruising on Celebrity, HAL and Princess but honestly had some issues with all three of those lines.  So we quickly got online and booked cruises with MSC (yacht club) and Seabourn.  We are now watching for some itineraries and deals on Viking, Oceania, and Azamara.  We have not given up on HAL and Princess (have nice cruises booked on both those lines) although Celebrity has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons.  

 

My message to cheerleaders is to either expand your horizons (we are not talking about memories of what you did in the last century) or keep an open mind to what others say when comparing your favorite line to the competition.   When somebody tells me they have recently (within the past 2 years) cruised on several lines and prefer one particular line...then I am all ears and want to know why.  But when a cheerleader who has 1000 days on a particular cruise wants me to believe that their beloved line is the best....I wonder how they can possibly know.  I still remember one particular HAL "cheerleader" who would often trash Carnival (on several boards).  I finally posted on one of her threads and asked her "when is the last time you cruised on Carnival?"  She quickly responded that she had Never cruised on Carnival and never would!  That said it all.  And yes, we have cruised on Carnival (3 times) and will likely not cruise on that line anytime in the future.  Nothing wrong with Carnival (their Lido Buffets were actually better then on HAL) but at our age it is just not a good "fit."  I would no faster recommend then somebody in their 70s+ go on Carnival anymore then I would recommend that a young 20 something couple go on the smaller HAL vessels.

 

Hank

Why not just eliminate using the term Cheerleaders all altogether.It really does not add to your information or argument at all.  Instead it just leads to people not even bother to evaluate the logic at all.  Applying labels to people in their arguments are not productive no matter how one tries to justify it.

 

For example you could have just as easily said

 

My message to other passengers is to either expand your horizons (we are not talking about memories of what you did in the last century) or keep an open mind to what others say when comparing your favorite line to the competition.   When somebody tells me they have recently (within the past 2 years) cruised on several lines and prefer one particular line...then I am all ears and want to know why.  But when a passenger who has 1000 days on a particular cruise wants me to believe that their beloved line is the best....I wonder how they can possibly know.  I still remember one particular HAL passenger who would often trash Carnival (on several boards).  I finally posted on one of her threads and asked her "when is the last time you cruised on Carnival?"  She quickly responded that she had Never cruised on Carnival and never would!  That said it all.  And yes, we have cruised on Carnival (3 times) and will likely not cruise on that line anytime in the future.  Nothing wrong with Carnival (their Lido Buffets were actually better then on HAL) but at our age it is just not a good "fit."  I would no faster recommend then somebody in their 70s+ go on Carnival anymore then I would recommend that a young 20 something couple go on the smaller HAL vessels.

 

 

[whogo]

3 hours ago, lindaelane said:

Yes, on paying double for the cruise (but not getting two entrees without  $10 surcharge)....I "double checked".  About half of the cruises are double - 100% markup, and about half are 74% markup. 

The third party site I use figures the markup incorrectly, claiming there is a 74% single supplement when, for instance, the single occupancy price is $1415 and the double occupancy price (for each of two) is $719. I don't know what is up with that website, but there is no way that arithmetic works out.

[slidergirl]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

It is too easy to fall into the "cheerleader" mode.  We all have our favorites and many want others to feel the same way.  DW and I try not to fall into a "rut" and get too comfortable with a single cruise line or even travel place.  Once that happens a person loses their spirit of adventure and just settles for the familiar.  This is not a bad thing, but really limits the ability to grow and learn new things.  About 2 years ago, when reading a post on this very topic we decided we had fallen into one of those ruts.  We were primarily cruising on Celebrity, HAL and Princess but honestly had some issues with all three of those lines.  So we quickly got online and booked cruises with MSC (yacht club) and Seabourn.  We are now watching for some itineraries and deals on Viking, Oceania, and Azamara.  We have not given up on HAL and Princess (have nice cruises booked on both those lines) although Celebrity has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons.  

 

My message to cheerleaders is to either expand your horizons (we are not talking about memories of what you did in the last century) or keep an open mind to what others say when comparing your favorite line to the competition.   When somebody tells me they have recently (within the past 2 years) cruised on several lines and prefer one particular line...then I am all ears and want to know why.  But when a cheerleader who has 1000 days on a particular cruise wants me to believe that their beloved line is the best....I wonder how they can possibly know.  I still remember one particular HAL "cheerleader" who would often trash Carnival (on several boards).  I finally posted on one of her threads and asked her "when is the last time you cruised on Carnival?"  She quickly responded that she had Never cruised on Carnival and never would!  That said it all.  And yes, we have cruised on Carnival (3 times) and will likely not cruise on that line anytime in the future.  Nothing wrong with Carnival (their Lido Buffets were actually better then on HAL) but at our age it is just not a good "fit."  I would no faster recommend then somebody in their 70s+ go on Carnival anymore then I would recommend that a young 20 something couple go on the smaller HAL vessels.

 

Hank

 

I agree.  And, I think you touched a nerve or two... ;-)

As much as some people love to live in the past, things move on.  Some have a major affinity for their beloved HAL and we all know it.  But, if something changes on HAL, but they will whine about it and try to say "as a Mariner, this shouldn't apply to me."   I am a solo; what I pay is what I pay and I don't whine about it.  If some day, I have a Jones for a second portion of the vegetarian entree, I'll pay the $10.   If I don't like it, I'll use my free agency and select another cruise - I'm not wedded to HAL.

[iancal]

Some people will actually pay for bottled water when there is plenty of it for free on the ship.  If people will pay $2 or $3 for water, they will pay $10. for a second meal.  

 

Certainly agree that there are lots of people living in the past.  Times change, attitudes change.  Sometimes you just have to move forward a little and broaden your horizons.

Edited March 31, 2019 by iancal

[KroozNut]

11 minutes ago, iancal said:

Some people will actually pay for bottled water when the is plenty of it for free on the ship.

 

Agree, and never understood why people would pay for bottled water onboard, or even worse, carry cases of it onboard at embarkation. I f you look at the science of what modern ships do to desalinate and purify their drinking water, you will quickly learn that it is better quality than any bottled water you can buy.

[TiogaCruiser]

2 hours ago, whogo said:

The third party site I use figures the markup incorrectly, claiming there is a 74% single supplement when, for instance, the single occupancy price is $1415 and the double occupancy price (for each of two) is $719. I don't know what is up with that website, but there is no way that arithmetic works out.

It’s the New Math.🙄

[caribill]

6 hours ago, whogo said:

The third party site I use figures the markup incorrectly, claiming there is a 74% single supplement when, for instance, the single occupancy price is $1415 and the double occupancy price (for each of two) is $719. I don't know what is up with that website, but there is no way that arithmetic works out.

 

Does the $1415 or $719 include the usual added taxes/fees? If not, since a solo passenger does not have to pay the additional taxes/fees for the non-existent 2nd passenger, maybe the 74% is based on basic price + taxes/fees.

[lindaelane]

20 hours ago, whogo said:

The third party site I use figures the markup incorrectly, claiming there is a 74% single supplement when, for instance, the single occupancy price is $1415 and the double occupancy price (for each of two) is $719. I don't know what is up with that website, but there is no way that arithmetic works out.

Believe me, when they say 74% I don't book it for twice the pp double rate.  My site is really 74%