Another possible CDC no-sail extension?

[Milwaukee Eight]

5 hours ago, fla gang said:

The biggest changes are only one park per day and you have to make reservations ahead of time to visit a park. You can only have three reservations at any one time.

 

And without staying in a Disney Hotel, annual pass holders have difficulties getting a reservation for Magic Kingdom on Weekends. 
 

M8

[bigrednole]

First, the cruise line industry is not going anywhere. It is just a matter of time at this point. It will be different. They have to plan for less people onboard which makes some ships unprofitable. As such, it is better to get rid of them now instead of keeping up with maintenance, manning the ship, etc. Along with those ships go the people that operated them (additional cash on hand). Next, they have to assess the break-even point on the ships that remain, determine how to get the biggest spenders on those ships to the capacity, and inform those below the cut line that they are out of luck. It is going to be a harsh reality early on. All RCL has to do is list everyone that is booked on the cruise, sort by highest price paid, when the count of people is reached, the line is drawn. They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

Cruise lines, like any other hospitality business, will want the biggest spenders first. That family of 4 with an inside cabin for $2,000, no drink package, no excursions, or anything else vs the family of 2 in a balcony cabin for $3,500, unlimited dining, deluxe beverage package, 3 shore excursions booked, ship tours booked, etc. As a business with obligations only to the shareholders, if you had to choose which of the two groups to board, who would it be?

[John&LaLa]

14 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

First, the cruise line industry is not going anywhere. It is just a matter of time at this point. It will be different. They have to plan for less people onboard which makes some ships unprofitable. As such, it is better to get rid of them now instead of keeping up with maintenance, manning the ship, etc. Along with those ships go the people that operated them (additional cash on hand). Next, they have to assess the break-even point on the ships that remain, determine how to get the biggest spenders on those ships to the capacity, and inform those below the cut line that they are out of luck. It is going to be a harsh reality early on. All RCL has to do is list everyone that is booked on the cruise, sort by highest price paid, when the count of people is reached, the line is drawn. They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

Cruise lines, like any other hospitality business, will want the biggest spenders first. That family of 4 with an inside cabin for $2,000, no drink package, no excursions, or anything else vs the family of 2 in a balcony cabin for $3,500, unlimited dining, deluxe beverage package, 3 shore excursions booked, ship tours booked, etc. As a business with obligations only to the shareholders, if you had to choose which of the two groups to board, who would it be?

 

Knowing who the big tickets are will be a challenge as long as CWC remains in play😉

Edited September 24, 2020 by John&LaLa

[ZoeyVictoria]

17 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

First, the cruise line industry is not going anywhere. It is just a matter of time at this point. It will be different. They have to plan for less people onboard which makes some ships unprofitable. As such, it is better to get rid of them now instead of keeping up with maintenance, manning the ship, etc. Along with those ships go the people that operated them (additional cash on hand). Next, they have to assess the break-even point on the ships that remain, determine how to get the biggest spenders on those ships to the capacity, and inform those below the cut line that they are out of luck. It is going to be a harsh reality early on. All RCL has to do is list everyone that is booked on the cruise, sort by highest price paid, when the count of people is reached, the line is drawn. They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

Cruise lines, like any other hospitality business, will want the biggest spenders first. That family of 4 with an inside cabin for $2,000, no drink package, no excursions, or anything else vs the family of 2 in a balcony cabin for $3,500, unlimited dining, deluxe beverage package, 3 shore excursions booked, ship tours booked, etc. As a business with obligations only to the shareholders, if you had to choose which of the two groups to board, who would it be?

That might work for the initial, capacity-controlled cruises.  But once capacity is no longer a huge concern, how many former frequent cruisers will stay loyal to Royal after being dumped in such an offensive way?  I think it would be an extremely short-sighted move on Royal’s part and doubt that they are that stupid.

[bigrednole]

2 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Knowing who the big tickets are will be a challenge as long as CWC remains in play😉

I get it and agree. However, the cruise line can nix that very quickly when they communicate to confirm their reservation. The power is in the cruise lines at that point. They can send the confirmation as part of pre-boarding at say 90-days out. All they have to do is state: Due to CDC mandates all passengers must be confirmed. This confirmation supersedes the CWC policy. By confirming your reservation you commit all funds with no refunds or credits. If you select yes, your spot is reserved and money gone. If you select no, then you risk not being on the cruise with a FCC as the only option. 

[bigrednole]

1 minute ago, ZoeyVictoria said:

But once capacity is no longer a huge concern, how many former frequent cruisers will stay loyal to Royal after being dumped in such an offensive way?  

Do you really think they would tell this to a passenger in that way? No. It will be done behind the scenes and the obvious choices for reduced capacity is the lowest fares. If people do not realize that, then they need a little wake up call to reality. Take the cruise lines out of the picture. Look at it another way. You are selling your car. You have it listed for $10,000. A person contacts you and says they can only pay $5,000, you agree on the phone and he can't be there for a month. The next day someone is looking at it and offers you $10,000 with cash in hand. The car has not sold yet because you haven't signed over the title. Do you tell the guy, sorry I can't sell it to you for $10,000 because another guy will be here in a month to buy it for $5,000. That's right. Everyone would sell it to the guy with $10,000 in cash on the spot.

[notmyrealnameoremail]

5 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

I get it and agree. However, the cruise line can nix that very quickly when they communicate to confirm their reservation. The power is in the cruise lines at that point. They can send the confirmation as part of pre-boarding at say 90-days out. All they have to do is state: Due to CDC mandates all passengers must be confirmed. This confirmation supersedes the CWC policy. By confirming your reservation you commit all funds with no refunds or credits. If you select yes, your spot is reserved and money gone. If you select no, then you risk not being on the cruise with a FCC as the only option. 

That would wipe out all of the goodwill that Royal has built with me with CWC and L&S.  I made deposits and did L&Ss based on the rules they made, reneging on the deal at the 90 day mark would be grossly unfair.

[Ocean Boy]

30 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

 

So let me get this straight. RCI calls a guest with a paid reservation and tells them there is room for them on the ship as long as they agree to the new and increased price.

 

Well, they had better have a core of dedicated loyalist as I would never make a reservation under those circumstances. What other business can you think of that operates in such a manner?

[Ocean Boy]

7 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

Do you really think they would tell this to a passenger in that way? No. It will be done behind the scenes and the obvious choices for reduced capacity is the lowest fares. If people do not realize that, then they need a little wake up call to reality. Take the cruise lines out of the picture. Look at it another way. You are selling your car. You have it listed for $10,000. A person contacts you and says they can only pay $5,000, you agree on the phone and he can't be there for a month. The next day someone is looking at it and offers you $10,000 with cash in hand. The car has not sold yet because you haven't signed over the title. Do you tell the guy, sorry I can't sell it to you for $10,000 because another guy will be here in a month to buy it for $5,000. That's right. Everyone would sell it to the guy with $10,000 in cash on the spot.

I think you have no idea as to the differences between a verbal agreement and a contract. Though I am no lawyer and don't pretend to be.

[HBE4]

54 minutes ago, ZoeyVictoria said:

That might work for the initial, capacity-controlled cruises.  But once capacity is no longer a huge concern, how many former frequent cruisers will stay loyal to Royal after being dumped in such an offensive way?

 

Based on what I've read here on CC over the years, I'd say a lot. 

 

How many times have we read a post from someone complaining of poor treatment from Royal but continue to book cruises because they have invested so much time and money to reach a certain status. Or people that defend some of the less-than-customer friendly business practices under the "their ship, their rules" mantra.

 

Heck, even during the Great Refund fiasco earlier this year, many were quite content to let Royal keep their money for a long a possible to help the cruise line arguing "it's money already spent and we don't really need it".  As if supporting a multi-billion dollar foreign corporation is akin to supporting their local mom-n-pop business.

[Iamcruzin]

1 hour ago, bigrednole said:

First, the cruise line industry is not going anywhere. It is just a matter of time at this point. It will be different. They have to plan for less people onboard which makes some ships unprofitable. As such, it is better to get rid of them now instead of keeping up with maintenance, manning the ship, etc. Along with those ships go the people that operated them (additional cash on hand). Next, they have to assess the break-even point on the ships that remain, determine how to get the biggest spenders on those ships to the capacity, and inform those below the cut line that they are out of luck. It is going to be a harsh reality early on. All RCL has to do is list everyone that is booked on the cruise, sort by highest price paid, when the count of people is reached, the line is drawn. They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

Cruise lines, like any other hospitality business, will want the biggest spenders first. That family of 4 with an inside cabin for $2,000, no drink package, no excursions, or anything else vs the family of 2 in a balcony cabin for $3,500, unlimited dining, deluxe beverage package, 3 shore excursions booked, ship tours booked, etc. As a business with obligations only to the shareholders, if you had to choose which of the two groups to board, who would it be?

Too much work. It would be easier to limit capacity from the start, spike the prices and eliminate kids sail free sale. They can adjust as needed to fill whatever capacity they need to fill just like the old days. Also how many times do we read about people purchasing  the drink packages, cabbanans  and meal plans only to cancel for a lower price. They can still cancel all of that after they have been accepted to sail.

 

[Iamcruzin]

3 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

Based on what I've read here on CC over the years, I'd say a lot. 

 

How many times have we read a post from someone complaining of poor treatment from Royal but continue to book cruises because they have invested so much time and money to reach a certain status. Or people that defend some of the less-than-customer friendly business practices under the "their ship, their rules" mantra.

 

Heck, even during the Great Refund fiasco earlier this year, many were quite content to let Royal keep their money for a long a possible to help the cruise line arguing "it's money already spent and we don't really need it".  As if supporting a multi-billion dollar foreign corporation is akin to supporting their local mom-n-pop business.

So true. It's the newbies, the first time CC posters who won't come back. Future customers are important for continued business success. 

[johnjen]

3 hours ago, firefly333 said:

If some posters can be believed who had their jewel cruises cancelled, they are done with cruising, maybe forever. Some are pretty upset.

Jen and I talked last night. We'll start looking/booking again in 2022. Hopefully by then things might make a comeback and we will return to the real "normal" none of that "new" crap.

[HBE4]

19 hours ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Tents... it's what has been done in Chicago & the burbs.

 

Here in the northern suburbs of NYC, many restaurants did the same thing. Either expanded their outdoor patios or created new ones, in some cases in parking lots. It's been a big hit. Even though it's been on the hot and sticky side this summer, the lack of rain really encouraged people to eat outdoors. In fact, in many places, the patios were packed while indoors never got close to 50%. 

 

While outdoor heaters will extend the season by a few weeks, it'll be interesting to see what happens when Nov. arrives.

 

19 hours ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Kinda... I mean bars w/ food service are wide open. Night clubs or dance clubs etc, yes they are closed. Pubs w/ grills, Bars w/ grills, and Restaurants w/ Bars are literally wide open and have been since May.  I have been in a couple that actually removed every other bar stool. But they were open. 

 

My daughter lives in Houston and her favorite watering hole is closed. Apparently it's a revenue thing. If 51% of revenue is from food, you can be open. If 51% is from alcohol, then the place remains close.  I told her they should jack up the price of food to change that equation so they could reopen. Apparently, the food isn't that good. 

 

17 hours ago, D C said:

If we build an indoor area outdoors, isn't that the same as indoor dining??

 

Yes, no and maybe. I know in NY, a structure needs to be open on 3 sides to be considered outdoor dining. So if a outdoor tent has 2 sides ("walls") pulled down, is it inside or outside?  Will probably find out in a few weeks when a couple of establishments try to test the rules as to what they can get away with. 

 

13 hours ago, Sunshine3601 said:

Some restaurants have made some beautiful outdoor dining areas.  I'm hoping some of them become permanent as I have enjoyed eating outside at most places.

 

Agree. There are a few local places that when they first put up tents, I thought it would be miserable. But they surrounded the tents with enough potted plants/bushes/benches and piped in music to down out any road noise, I feel like I'm someplace far away and not in a former parking lot.

 

[Milwaukee Eight]

2 hours ago, bigrednole said:

You have it listed for $10,000. A person contacts you and says they can only pay $5,000, you agree on the phone and he can't be there for a month. The next day someone is looking at it and offers you $10,000 with cash in hand. The car has not sold yet because you haven't signed over the title. Do you tell the guy, sorry I can't sell it to you for $10,000 because another guy will be here in a month to buy it for $5,000. That's right. Everyone would sell it to the guy with $10,000 in cash on the spot.

I typically agree with most of what you say. This I disagree. 
 

My father taught me I was only as good as my word. If I agreed to a price, I would honor that price. 
 

M8

[kuhne]

I really hope they don’t come back until they have everything sorted. Cruising industry was one of the worst hit by the pandemic but a lot of that had to do with how some of these companies acted while the pandemic hit. 

[Pratique]

13 minutes ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

I typically agree with most of what you say. This I disagree. 
 

My father taught me I was only as good as my word. If I agreed to a price, I would honor that price. 
 

M8

You are doing the honorable thing.

 

2 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I think you have no idea as to the differences between a verbal agreement and a contract. Though I am no lawyer and don't pretend to be.

As a matter of law, there is a contract if there is consideration paid for the thing. For example, the guy buying the car gives you a deposit, then you have a contract. Otherwise, it's just a verbal agreement.

[Ocean Boy]

17 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 

As a matter of law, there is a contract if there is consideration paid for the thing. For example, the guy buying the car gives you a deposit, then you have a contract. Otherwise, it's just a verbal agreement.

That is pretty much as I thought. So the idea that cruise lines can call guests with reservations and tells them they can still sail if they agree to a higher price sounds to me like a feeding frenzy for lawyers.

 

It is just like when you begin the process of making a reservation and you are informed that the price is not guarenteed until the deposit is made.

[Pratique]

5 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

It is just like when you begin the process of making a reservation and you are informed that the price is not guarenteed until the deposit is made.

Correct.

 

This is one way to think about it: what is the remedy for breach of the agreement?

 

If the buyer offers to buy the car for $5,000 and the seller agrees but then sells the car to someone else, then the buyer has lost nothing other than the opportunity to buy the car. What is the value of the opportunity? If it is zero, then no harm, no foul. Otherwise, the buyer should put money on the table (such as a deposit) to secure the opportunity at the agreed-to selling price. In that case, breach of the agreement has some value that can be established as a remedy to make the buyer whole again. Both parties have to guarantee their promises.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

44 minutes ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

I typically agree with most of what you say. This I disagree. 
 

My father taught me I was only as good as my word. If I agreed to a price, I would honor that price. 
 

M8

 

This. All. Day. Long.  

 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

19 hours ago, firefly333 said:

Someone needs to get judge Jenkins onboard. I dont think we are open that much and havent read plans to. I'm in dallas

 

You are correct.  The Governor has set the state standards but he has also allowed countues to establish what they feel might be best. So while one county of small rural population can open up a bit further, another county w/ a larger population may not able to do the same because of the County Judge's rulings.  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Goodtime Cruizin

[D C]

3 hours ago, bigrednole said:

First, the cruise line industry is not going anywhere. It is just a matter of time at this point. It will be different. They have to plan for less people onboard which makes some ships unprofitable. As such, it is better to get rid of them now instead of keeping up with maintenance, manning the ship, etc. Along with those ships go the people that operated them (additional cash on hand). Next, they have to assess the break-even point on the ships that remain, determine how to get the biggest spenders on those ships to the capacity, and inform those below the cut line that they are out of luck. It is going to be a harsh reality early on. All RCL has to do is list everyone that is booked on the cruise, sort by highest price paid, when the count of people is reached, the line is drawn. They email those "above the line" to confirm their spot. If they choose not to, then next in line is offered that spot at the rate the other people were at. 

 

Cruise lines, like any other hospitality business, will want the biggest spenders first. That family of 4 with an inside cabin for $2,000, no drink package, no excursions, or anything else vs the family of 2 in a balcony cabin for $3,500, unlimited dining, deluxe beverage package, 3 shore excursions booked, ship tours booked, etc. As a business with obligations only to the shareholders, if you had to choose which of the two groups to board, who would it be?

 

If I were the cruise line and I had to pick, I would look at the demographic data for similar parties and/or the past history for those exact guests in order to determine which room generated the highest revenue with the least expense.  

 

Raising prices in desperate times is not a winning strategy in all likelihood

Cancelling booked reservations is a loss of deposit $$ now and revenue later, so it looks bad twice.

 

Only the cruise lines know what their current/future booking status is.  If they were smart, they limited capacity on future cruises months ago with the foresight of needing to sail less full.

 

We can only wait and see what happens. 

 

 

[Ocean Boy]

4 minutes ago, D C said:

 

Only the cruise lines know what their current/future booking status is.  If they were smart, they limited capacity on future cruises months ago with the foresight of needing to sail less full.

 

 

Sometimes businesses, and oeople in general, can be a bit short sighted. They will snap up a dollar today even if doing so ends up costing them ten dollars tomorrow.

[D C]

3 hours ago, johnjen said:

Well, our beloved RCL has already cancelled MANY cruises as far into June next year. Carnival is tossing 12 (no wait, EDIT that, EIGHTEEN) of their ships from their fleet. I am wondering if RCL will take the same course? 

 

I also see both cruise lines' stock has TANKED the other day. Maybe this is the end of cruising for a LOT of us, if not ALL.

 

Remember these 18 are from Carnival the Corporation, not Carnival the cruise line.  According to the Carnival statement:

A total of 18 less efficient ships have left or are expected to leave the fleet, representing approximately 12 percent of pre-pause capacity and only three percent of operating income in 2019.

 

Not a big hit. These aren't high-load, high-profit ships.  

[grandgeezer]

If they have to cut travelers because of capacity limits. Priority to sail should be the passengers who have paid in full, not the ones who paid the most. If they have to cut fully paid passengers, it should prioritized by the who paid the earliest sail.  That's the fairest way. My mistake, I forgot who is going to have to make the decision, the answer is who paid the most.