Why do you hate HAL so much?

[iancal]

We have cruised a fair amount on X and on Princess.  We found that the service and servers in all areas were on a par with HAL.  Never really came across a ‘sullen’ server on any of the three lines.

 

We might feel differently if we confined our cruising to one line and were thus more familiar with some of the crew.  Such is not the case for us.  From our perspective the crews on all three lines are wonderful.  

 

The only real issue we ever had was on a Princess cruise.  We believe the staff at the excursion desk purposely gave  us misleading data in an attempt to sell us a tour.  Fortunately, as it turned out, we did not fall victim to their gross exaggerations.

 

We are looking at trying Azamara for our next cruise

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by iancal

[Roz]

I've never understood the "fixed income" argument some retirees use, and apparently Mr. Ashford buys into.  My income in retirement will be no more fixed than my paycheck is now.  When I retire I won't have a mortgage, and I won't be incurring commuting costs and other expenses connected with working - lunches out, professional wardrobe, etc. Unless something goes haywire with my health, I'll actually have more disposable income for things like travel.  

 

Many of the young people I work with are paying off massive student loans, trying to save for a down payment on a house, starting a family, etc.  They may take vacations, but it's along the lines of a long weekend at Gulf Shores or a quickie 3-5 day cruise on Carnival.  

 

I've had the good fortune of being able to book a Neptune Suite a few times.  Based on the Neptuners I've met in the Lounge and at breakfast in the Pinnacle,  I'd say they are overwhelmingly "older", and retirees on top of that.  Everyone seems to be going after the youth market, but it's definitely we Boomers that have the buying power.  

[AncientWanderer]

3 hours ago, Roz said:

I've never understood the "fixed income" argument some retirees use, and apparently Mr. Ashford buys into.  My income in retirement will be no more fixed than my paycheck is now.  When I retire I won't have a mortgage, and I won't be incurring commuting costs and other expenses connected with working - lunches out, professional wardrobe, etc. Unless something goes haywire with my health, I'll actually have more disposable income for things like travel.  

 

 

 

Looking at charts, age 45 to 55 do seem to have the most disposable income.  So those 45 to 55 probably can't be ignored by any cruise line with many ships to fill.   (I admit this surprises me, because I was under the impression that those a bit older were holding most of the wealth, at least in the U.S.)  

 

I'll edit to add I do know the difference between holding wealth and disposable income, but the result is the same, the 45- to 55-year-olds have some clout.)

Edited September 22, 2019 by AncientWanderer

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, Roz said:

I've never understood the "fixed income" argument some retirees use, and apparently Mr. Ashford buys into.  My income in retirement will be no more fixed than my paycheck is now.  When I retire I won't have a mortgage, and I won't be incurring commuting costs and other expenses connected with working - lunches out, professional wardrobe, etc. Unless something goes haywire with my health, I'll actually have more disposable income for things like travel.  

 

 

I think the term 'fixed income' is used by many people generally to mean that they don't have the potential to increase their earning power and tend to begin 'drawing down' on current wealth. As Kazu rightly says, for those with enough investments that their wealth continues to grow, it's a different story -- but that is not at all representative of the MAJORITY of Baby Boomer retirees, most of whom have not saved enough.

 

Younger folks still in the workforce of course have a fixed salary but they also have the potential to increase their salary by virtue of promotions (or job-hopping) -- i.e., their earning potential is less limited.

 

Times have changed. No longer can you assume that retirees do not have a mortgage, or that they are not still paying college tuitions for kids. My boss who retired last year from a C-suite position is paying a hefty mortgage on a custom-designed and built house just purchased 5-6 years ago and has one kid in graduate school and another still in college -- a legacy of choosing to have children later in life. I suspect that I, still working, have more disposable income than he does. 

 

 

[HappyInVan]

34 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

 

Looking at charts, age 45 to 55 do seem to have the most disposable income.  So those 45 to 55 probably can't be ignored by any cruise line with many ships to fill.   (I admit this surprises me, because I was under the impression that those a bit older were holding most of the wealth, at least in the U.S.)  

 

 

 

IMHO, the passengers (on luxury brands) in verandas (and up) are overwhelmingly boomers. AFAIK, these customers provide the icing in terms of profitability.

 

Actually, not all boomers are asset rich. But, those that are have been well rewarded in this decade of low low interest rates. On the other hand, boomers with lots of savings (in deposits) are receiving little income.

 

From the corporate POV, the affluence frequent flyers are gold. The lifetime value of their business could run into hundreds thousands. It's suicide to turn them away in favor of occasional customers of uncertain loyalty.

 

[AncientWanderer]

11 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

IMHO, the passengers (on luxury brands) in verandas (and up) are overwhelmingly boomers. AFAIK, these customers provide the icing in terms of profitability.

 

Actually, not all boomers are asset rich. But, those that are have been well rewarded in this decade of low low interest rates. On the other hand, boomers with lots of savings (in deposits) are receiving little income.

 

From the corporate POV, the affluence frequent flyers are gold. The lifetime value of their business could run into hundreds thousands. It's suicide to turn them away in favor of occasional customers of uncertain loyalty.

 

 

Baby Boomers, 55 to 75?  That is who I supposed had the most to spend.  I'm surprised to see the charts reflecting that 45 to 55 have so much disposable income.  Perhaps the Boomers weren't savers and are now belt-tightening?  I am 62, and that is what I observe of many of my peers.

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by AncientWanderer

[slidergirl]

Just because someone diligently saved and planned for retirement, does not mean they get to see the fruits of that planning.   Go through a nasty divorce when you are in your late 50s where you get totally screwed and end up with having the 2 million in real estate, half of your stock, and half of your hard cash stolen....

 

And, on the topic of "it's ok to screw the company" - I see people trying to scam out of paying for their hotel rooms or get something for free every freakin' day.  Yes, there are those who had legitimate issues and I am wiling to work on a recovery for them.  But, those who want to stay until 6pm without paying for a half day because they didn't get to the hotel until midnight "and I deserve a whole day", those who want an upgrade for free "because it doesn't seem like you're full",  want a free night because "the floor in the room slants and I kept falling" (yes, I had that one)... it goes on and on...  If nothing else, it has me hoping that, every time I go on vacation, I NEVER behave like these people.  Stuff happens and I roll with it instead of running for compensation at the first little thing.  

[3rdGenCunarder]

4 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Just because someone diligently saved and planned for retirement, does not mean they get to see the fruits of that planning.   Go through a nasty divorce when you are in your late 50s where you get totally screwed and end up with having the 2 million in real estate, half of your stock, and half of your hard cash stolen....

 

And, on the topic of "it's ok to screw the company" - I see people trying to scam out of paying for their hotel rooms or get something for free every freakin' day.  Yes, there are those who had legitimate issues and I am wiling to work on a recovery for them.  But, those who want to stay until 6pm without paying for a half day because they didn't get to the hotel until midnight "and I deserve a whole day", those who want an upgrade for free "because it doesn't seem like you're full",  want a free night because "the floor in the room slants and I kept falling" (yes, I had that one)... it goes on and on...  If nothing else, it has me hoping that, every time I go on vacation, I NEVER behave like these people.  Stuff happens and I roll with it instead of running for compensation at the first little thing.  

 

GIMME, GIMME! I WANT COMPENSATION!!!

 

Like the guy I overheard complaining on QE2 many years ago. The wine steward broke the cork when opening a bottle one evening. This passenger actually said, "and it ruined my cruise." 

 

[AncientWanderer]

28 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Just because someone diligently saved and planned for retirement, does not mean they get to see the fruits of that planning.   Go through a nasty divorce when you are in your late 50s where you get totally screwed and end up with having the 2 million in real estate, half of your stock, and half of your hard cash stolen....

 

 

 

Higher divorce rates within any given demographic could for sure impact available disposable income.

[awhcruiser]

15 hours ago, sail7seas said:

Why?  Princess is one my favorites.  Did you have a bad experience?

 

For me, when I have sailed other cruse lines,   I have  noticed a real  difference in 'some' of the   service  crew  Too many  bar staff , dining stewards had a styl we found  offensive and a bit sullen.    They (many) paled in comparison to HAL crews, IMO.  Crews are i  very  important to me and because of some RCI  crew, we sailed that line once and never returned.  We sailed Princess about 5 or so cruises  but  again.  we had some negative comments  regarding some of their interaction with gues.ts

 

 When we debarked Pirncess ship the last time we said that would be our last Princess  cruise and, indeed,  it was.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iancal]

IF we have a bad experience a cheap bottle of plonk, a few chocolate covered strawberries, or least of all a  ‘shut up and go away’ future cruise credit does nothing for us.  

 

Why on earth reward poor customer service with a re-book?  If the situation cannot be made right whilst we are on board there seems to be little value in doing it again.  Fool me once...fool me twice.

Edited September 22, 2019 by iancal

[richstowe]

3 hours ago, iancal said:

IF we have a bad experience a cheap bottle of plonk, a few chocolate covered strawberries, or least of all a  ‘shut up and go away’ future cruise credit does nothing for us.  

 

Why on earth reward poor customer service with a re-book?  If the situation cannot be made right whilst we are on board there seems to be little value in doing it again.  Fool me once...fool me twice.

Attaining higher membership tiers ? Ya I don't get it either but it is a strong incentive for some . 

[AncientWanderer]

5 hours ago, iancal said:

IF we have a bad experience a cheap bottle of plonk, a few chocolate covered strawberries, or least of all a  ‘shut up and go away’ future cruise credit does nothing for us.  

 

Why on earth reward poor customer service with a re-book?  If the situation cannot be made right whilst we are on board there seems to be little value in doing it again.  Fool me once...fool me twice.

 

I don't think it is as simple as this.  We have found with all the cruise lines we've tried that there is great variation across the fleet.  A hotel manager can make or break an onboard experience.  So I'd never write off an entire cruise line because of one bad experience.  (Unless it's something like a Carnival cruise, where we know we're just not a good fit.)

 

With Hal, we have had some "off" cruises, but predominantly excellent ones, so we keep booking.

[Woofbite]

On 9/21/2019 at 5:30 PM, Donald said:

Preaching to the choir doesn't get you very far.

That idea about fixed income passengers with low spending came directly from Orlando Ashford.

You should write him a letter and straighten him out.

Plenty of oldsters have more than enough money but by our age have also learned to consider value before spending it.

I my opinion, most ship services cost far more than they are worth to me so I drink on shore, tour with outside operators and skip the casino entirely. Pinnacle I'll pay for and even buy some wine.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Woofbite
addition

[3rdGenCunarder]

18 hours ago, iancal said:

IF we have a bad experience a cheap bottle of plonk, a few chocolate covered strawberries, or least of all a  ‘shut up and go away’ future cruise credit does nothing for us.  

 

Why on earth reward poor customer service with a re-book?  If the situation cannot be made right whilst we are on board there seems to be little value in doing it again.  Fool me once...fool me twice.

 

I mostly agree with this. How an issue is handled says a lot about a business.

 

Sometimes you have a bad experience but feel like you should give the line another shot. For me, that was QE2. Very disappointing because I bought into the hype and pictures/description of the grills but booked steerage. So it was my expectations at fault as much as the bad waiters and snooty bar staff. Plus my previous experiences with HAL service set the bar high. An interesting itinerary got me back on QE2, everything was better, and I fell in love with her.

 

Sometimes the nature of what's wrong tells you that the line is never going to work for you. For me that's Princess. The dismissive attitude of CD and computer "expert," chaotic dining room at tea and breakfast, the rude shorex staff, and most of all, the front desk's endless lies. They would say ANYTHING to get you to go away rather than deal with the problem. That overall attitude of bad service and not caring about the customer made me swear off Princess. 

 

[Hlitner]

On 9/21/2019 at 11:00 PM, AncientWanderer said:

 

The hospitality on HAL really is unique.  I don't know how they get so many "good hires," but they do.

You made a comment, Sail7Seas, about HAL being the only cruise line you feel comfortable going solo on.

That comment stuck with me.  I realized that if a time comes when I'm cruising solo, I'd feel exactly the same way.  And that says a lot about the warmth that is present on a HAL cruise.  Even if the food happens to be mediocre sometimes.

 

While we have enjoyed the hospitality on HAL, we have found similar and even better crew on other lines.  There are good and not so good staff on every ship and line.  I think the best staff we have ever had was on the MSC Divina in its Yacht Club.      Seabourn would be in 2nd place and then HAL.  Princess has been hit and miss as has been Celebrity.  But Celebrity bar tenders have been among my favorites.

 

Hank

 

[DougK]

3 hours ago, Woofbite said:

Plenty of oldsters have more than enough money but by our age have also learned to consider value before spending it.

I my opinion, most ship services cost far more than they are worth to me so I drink on shore, tour with outside operators and skip the casino entirely. Pinnacle I'll pay for and even buy some wine.

 

And this is exactly HAL's dilemma (as it is for all mass market lines). Although I'm not an insider and thus don't have the numbers, I strongly suspect that HAL does not make a profit based on the cruise fares alone. Instead, they're dependent on people spending money on board. In other words, the cruise fares may well not cover the costs to provide the cruise.

 

Unfortunately, seasoned cruisers, such as us, often limit their onboard spending because, as you describe, they can find better value elsewhere. Which means that many of HAL's most loyal passengers may actually cost HAL money, not spending enough on board to make up for the low cruise fares they pay. Obviously, this isn't true across the board; many 5-star mariners to, in fact, spend freely on board. But, on average, I'm willing to bet that there is a strong and decreasing correlation between on board spending and number of cruises taken. So that leaves HAL in a tight spot, where they can neither afford to alienate loyal cruisers (and be unable to fill berths) nor to encourage them to fill berths at a loss to HAL. That explains moves such as slowly changing the loyalty system to incorporate on board spending, but that's only a tiny step.

 

On a premium/luxury line which is largely or all inclusive, this dilemma doesn't exist. The line makes their profit mainly from their fares, so loyal cruisers are an undoubted benefit, providing profit each cruise--and thus worth rewarding.

 

Decades ago, the mass market lines were similar; although there was some profit from onboard spending, there were many fewer opportunities for that, and the cruise fares themselves better reflected the actual costs of providing the cruise. But now they've boxed themselves into a corner with bargain basement fares, and a desperate need to find profit elsewhere. Which leads to the nickel and dime situation that we all hate. But there's no easy way out of this box; whichever mass market line tries to go first and raise cruise fares to actual costs is likely to see a huge loss of passengers.

[sail7seas]

On 9/21/2019 at 11:00 PM, AncientWanderer said:

 

The hospitality on HAL really is unique.  I don't know how they get so many "good hires," but they do.

You made a comment, Sail7Seas, about HAL being the only cruise line you feel comfortable going solo on.

That comment stuck with me.  I realized that if a time comes when I'm cruising solo, I'd feel exactly the same way.  And that says a lot about the warmth that is present on a HAL cruise.  Even if the food happens to be mediocre sometimes.

 

 

 

I can have all  the 'great food'   I may want at home.   I found HAL's food on my recent Zaandam cruises  to be better t han  'fine by me'.  Being a solo, food has become less important to me and that is  true at home as well as on a ship.  I had more than enough variety from which  to choose and more than enough VERY good meals to satisfy me.   Though I've been told by many I sam a very good, I hardly cook at all now  but,  of course still enjoy a well prepared, very tasteybeautifully played meal.

 

I feel safe on HAL ships ( though I am cognizant there is crime in every community)  but that being the case I cannot remember ever in all  the years in dozens and dozens of cruises ever feeling unsafe on a HAL ship.  I cannot say the same for RCI,  "X"   The smiling   familiar crews of HAL create a welcome atmosphere and a feeling of good safe hospitality which I like.

 

 

My recent cruises were the first time in my 70+ year life I ever vacationed alone.  LOTS of vacations to lots of destinations but not ever alone.     Either with my late dh,  girl friends and once or twice (long ago), a family member.

 

I had to dig deep  into my store of gumption  to do it but the crew of  Zaandam (all  ranks and positions) made be so happy I went and I have  booked ano ther  cruise for  2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by sail7seas

[3rdGenCunarder]

5 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

I can have all  the 'great food'   I may want at home.   I found HAL's food on my recent Zaandam cruises  to be better t han  'fine by me'.  Being a solo, food has become less important to me and that is  true at home as well as on a ship.  I had more than enough variety from which  to choose and more than enough VERY good meals to satisfy me.   Though I've been told by many I sam a very good, I hardly cook at all now

 

I feel safe on HAL ships ( though I am cognizant there is crime in every community)  but that being the case I cannot remember ever in all  the years in dozens and dozens of cruises ever feeling unsafe on a HAL ship.  I cannot say the same for RCI,  "X"   The smiling   familiar crews of HAL create a welcome atmosphere and a feeling of good safe hospitality which I like.

 

 

My recent cruises were the first time in my 70+ year life I ever vacationed alone.  LOTS of vacations to lots of destinations but not ever alone.     Either with my late dh,  girl friends and once or twice (long ago), a family member.

 

I had to dig deep  into my store of gumption  to do it but the crew of  Zaandam (all  ranks and positions) made be so happy I went and I have  booked another  cruise for  2020.

 

 

 

Congratulations on finding your gumption! I'm glad to see you've booked another cruise.

 

When you don't have the familiarity of your long-time travel partner, the familiarity of the cruise line helps a lot. And when that line changes, I think solos feel the loss of familiarity more than those who aren't solo.  LIke you, I eased into solo travel by starting with a cruise with good friends. I remembered your posts about this and that helped. I have traveled alone quite a bit in the past (for work not vacation), and that made traveling solo less daunting than it might have been. I've cruised solo now, but sticking with my standbys, HAL and Cunard, gives a level of comfort that I want.

 

When I do a land trip, I'm not in one place or hotel for many days, so if one hotel isn't great, oh well, I'm moving on in a day or so anyway. But with a cruise, I'm committing to be on that ship for a week, ten days, maybe 2 weeks. I don't want to be unhappy about my choice and unable to change. (I actually have bailed on a horrible hotel once or twice, can't do that with a cruise) To restate something you said earlier, I know what I like and that's what I want.

 

 

[AmazedByCruising]

 

1 hour ago, DougK said:

But, on average, I'm willing to bet that there is a strong and decreasing correlation between on board spending and number of cruises taken.

 

Someone who knows things told me exactly that. Also, fresh cruisers are scared into booking "safe" (the ship will wait) shorexes by the ship, the seasoned cruiser knows CC to find out which company to call for a better and much cheaper excursion.

 

1 hour ago, DougK said:

Obviously, this isn't true across the board; many 5-star mariners to, in fact, spend freely on board.

 

I've asked before, and there seems to be no system to reward guests for their on board spending. (Or the TA sending them to the right ship). The Casino does exactly that, but when the line knows you'll be drinking $200 bottles of wine during dinner, book the most expensive helicopter ride, buy at least three paintings because the color matches the wall, there's no VIP cruise planner calling you that you might like a free suite.

 

1 hour ago, DougK said:

But now they've boxed themselves into a corner with bargain basement fares, and a desperate need to find profit elsewhere. Which leads to the nickel and dime situation that we all hate. But there's no easy way out of this box; whichever mass market line tries to go first and raise cruise fares to actual costs is likely to see a huge loss of passengers.

 

If I understand correctly how the Celebrity Go Big, Go Better, Go Best program works, it does seem to be an attempt to escape from the box. You can pay this fare, so we're still highly ranked when you sorted the cruises based on price, but click here for a higher fare, and we'll stop nickel and diming for drinks, internet, DSC and you get about one excursion for free ($150 OBC). 

Edited September 23, 2019 by AmazedByCruising

[3rdGenCunarder]

41 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

Someone who knows things told me exactly that. Also, fresh cruisers are scared into booking "safe" (the ship will wait) shorexes by the ship, the seasoned cruiser knows CC to find out which company to call for a better and much cheaper excursion.

 

 

I've asked before, and there seems to be no system to reward guests for their on board spending. (Or the TA sending them to the right ship). The Casino does exactly that, but when the line knows you'll be drinking $200 bottles of wine during dinner, book the most expensive helicopter ride, buy at least three paintings because the color matches the wall, there's no VIP cruise planner calling you that you might like a free suite.

 

 

If I understand correctly how the Celebrity Go Big, Go Better, Go Best program works, it does seem to be an attempt to escape from the box. You can pay this fare, so we're still highly ranked when you sorted the cruises based on price, but click here for a higher fare, and we'll stop nickel and diming for drinks, internet, DSC and you get about one excursion for free ($150 OBC). 

 

I agree that most experienced cruisers are spending less than newbies, especially on excursions. 

 

HAL does reward spending with Mariner points, which is more than some other lines do. The problem is that what you get for those Mariner points isn't a lot. Considering how low my onboard spending is, no VIP planner is going to call me.  

 

I don't sail Celebrity so I didn't know about that program. That's smart. People may buy the internet package or beverage package online at some point before the cruise, but the convenience of buying "bundled" add-ons during booking is an attractive idea. Are the upclick packages cheaper than buying the same things individually after booking? 

 

[cruisebie]

3 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

If I understand correctly how the Celebrity Go Big, Go Better, Go Best program works, it does seem to be an attempt to escape from the box. You can pay this fare, so we're still highly ranked when you sorted the cruises based on price, but click here for a higher fare, and we'll stop nickel and diming for drinks, internet, DSC and you get about one excursion for free ($150 OBC). 

 

NCL has a version of this scheme, too.  And they charge gratuities on the "free" packages, thus getting a higher fare & additional funds from the gratuities.

 

There's a lot still to love on HAL.  At least they haven't started this kind of thing yet.

[AmazedByCruising]

2 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

HAL does reward spending with Mariner points, which is more than some other lines do. The problem is that what you get for those Mariner points isn't a lot. Considering how low my onboard spending is, no VIP planner is going to call me. 

 

I believe trinkets, a handshake with the Captain and maybe a discount on laundry, isn't it? But even if you'd spend $500 a day, it appears no VIP planner is calling you. After just one night in the Casino the host asked if I got "the letter" yet. Not a free cruise, but $250 in cash if I would be on another one. When you look at the Casino forum on CC, people get comped more cruises than fit their schedule. Of course, the core business of a casino is to make it seem a good deal to return since dice were invented. Yet I don't understand why there's not a similar program for cruisers who do buy spend a lot on board.

 

2 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

I don't sail Celebrity so I didn't know about that program. That's smart. People may buy the internet package or beverage package online at some point before the cruise, but the convenience of buying "bundled" add-ons during booking is an attractive idea. Are the upclick packages cheaper than buying the same things individually after booking? 

 

I have sailed X, but my (Dutch) TA never mentioned the program, so I don't know the details.

However, if it was expanded to  "Go Big, Go Better, Go Best, Go even better than Best" to include shorex as well, besides getting an expensive haircut there's not much nickel and diming left :)

 

[Dunelm]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 6:25 PM, ChinaShrek said:

 

People are screwed everyday by nameless, faceless corporations.  If someone can get their "revenge" by getting a little compensation then more power to them.  Big businesses only worry only about profit.  They do not care about their workers or the customers.  If a customer manages to "scam" a company every now and then, what's the harm?

Any kind of "scamming" is harmful.  Are you writing with your tongue in cheek, or do you really think that scamming is fine?

[RuthC]

2 minutes ago, Dunelm said:

Are you writing with your tongue in cheek, or do you really think that scamming is fine?

Based on the body of his posts, I would be surprised if poster is writing tongue in cheek.