RCL, Culling the faithful?

[DavyWavey70]

I, Personally, haven't sailed with SS since 2019. Mainly because I've only taken solo trips since then and because I despise being milked as a solo traveller. I've enjoyed two wonderful cruises since the pandemic on lines where I've had fantastic experiences and an amazing time at a fair price. When planning my annual trips, SS is always my first "port of call". Whilst researching my holidays for the next two years there isn't a single trip that appeals to me that I would book because if I'm paying for 2 to go on holiday, I'd be looking at that empty space in the bed next to me and begrudging all of the food, drink, excursions and even flights that I'd paid for and wasn't using. How can anyone believe that that is fair?

 

The amount of discontent on these boards and in the other place recently is striking. The comments following Berts' recent webinar are entirely critical, not a single one saying anything positive. Seemingly, the vast majority of SS passengers are either offended by their actions or policies, outpriced from the line or very dissatisfied with the recent product.

 

This seems to be much more than mere incompetence. I've read so many comments recently from people with hundreds of days on the line that are not only peeping over the fence but hurdling across it at great speed. Are SS actively trying to discourage the old faithful that are quite expensive to run from the line and remember the golden days of SS and replace them with newer, cheaper, more easily pleased upsold cruisers from their other brands? The recent status match debacle might hint that is the case. Loyalty certainly seems to have been become a one way street.

 

Bert boasts in his webinar that he reads every social media comment so why not let him know why you will or won't be handing over your dollars to Silversea?

 

 

[Port Power]

I have two more Silversea cruises booked (well, three, as one pair is back-to-back).  There was only 25% solo subsidy, so I felt it was decent value.  I must reiterate that onboard service, so far, has remained excellent .  The problems are all with head office and the future direction and inclusions of Silversea.

 

Whether I book any more SS cruises remains to be seen.  I really do like Azamara, and I believe it is better value overall.  I am still looked after onboard and have the best time.  I am also keen to try Crystal.

 

Bert’s webinar only reiterated how removed he is from the actual project. And definitely not interested in regular, long term passengers!

[AussieKef]

2 hours ago, DavyWavey70 said:

Are SS actively trying to discourage the old faithful that are quite expensive to run from the line and remember the golden days of SS and replace them with newer, cheaper, more easily pleased upsold cruisers from their other brands? The recent status match debacle might hint that is the case. Loyalty certainly seems to have been become a one way street.

I feel you are completely correct. They are actively promoting SS as a luxury product to their “ not so luxury “ other brands . I have nothing against Royal Caribbean and have done many myself when I was a lot younger . This way they have a ready clientele to step into our shoes when we “die off “ . I can understand that as this would be easier to sell to a market that hasn’t experienced the SS brand before.  Just my 2 cents worth.

[TLCOhio]

5 hours ago, DavyWavey70 said:

The amount of discontent on these boards and in the other place recently is striking. The comments following Berts' recent webinar are entirely critical, not a single one saying anything positive. Seemingly, the vast majority of SS passengers are either offended by their actions or policies, outpriced from the line or very dissatisfied with the recent product.   Bert boasts in his webinar that he reads every social media comment so why not let him know why you will or won't be handing over your dollars to Silversea?

 

YES!!!  If this new Silversea leader is reading all of the social media feedback, why does he not respond, be honest and answer some of these serious questions and concerns from experienced and smart SS customers.   

 

From our Silver Moon India to Singapore sailing in February and monitoring the Royal Caribbean finances over the recent years, my concern/fear is that the RCL CFO types and other "Bean-Counter" folks in Miami and Monaco believe they can keep upping prices higher . . . AND HIGHER!!!   But, in my view, there are limits and economic reality that will set in at a certain future point in time.  For many past Silversea customers like us, it is a question about "VALUE" and does SS keep its word to deliver what they claim and promise.  

 

Answer the questions and be honest.  Listen to experienced Silversea customers if this new leader wants to gain confidence and re-build trust.  

 

On our recent Silver Moon sailing, as detailed below, there were many positives and pluses, especially by the staff on the ship.  But, there were also slips and misses, many directed/caused by the corporate higher-ups who fail to understand customer expectations and needs.  Is this new SS leader really listening and effectively responding??   I would love to chat with Bert.  Will he listen?  I am easy to find as I am the only Terry from Ohio who sailed on the Silver Moon in February.  Is Bert listening and able to make decisions to focus Silversea on the future?

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

India to Singapore 2024:  Live/Blog over 22,670+ views with many visuals, including for “Golden Triangle”, Japan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia:

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2992045-live-terryohio-india-to-signapore-silver-moon-rising-pix’s/

[Woodrowst]

7 hours ago, DavyWavey70 said:

I, Personally, haven't sailed with SS since 2019. Mainly because I've only taken solo trips since then and because I despise being milked as a solo traveller. I've enjoyed two wonderful cruises since the pandemic on lines where I've had fantastic experiences and an amazing time at a fair price. When planning my annual trips, SS is always my first "port of call". Whilst researching my holidays for the next two years there isn't a single trip that appeals to me that I would book because if I'm paying for 2 to go on holiday, I'd be looking at that empty space in the bed next to me and begrudging all of the food, drink, excursions and even flights that I'd paid for and wasn't using. How can anyone believe that that is fair?

 

 

 

One way to reframe this is to accept that cruise lines are charging by the cabin, not the person.  It is the same as booking a hotel room.  You pay the same rate for one person as you do for two and so are paying for the room and not by the person.  Do you feel hotels are being unfair by charging the same price whether there are one or two people?  

Edited October 19 by Woodrowst

[Observer]

5 minutes ago, Woodrowst said:

One way to reframe this is to accept that cruise lines are charging by the cabin, not the person.  It is the same as booking a hotel room.  You pay the same rate for one person as you do for two and so are paying for the room and not by the person.  Do you feel hotels are being unfair by charging the same price whether there are one or two people?  

I believe that your analogy goes only so far, and booking a place on a Silversea cruise is quite different from booking a hotel room. The cruise offers many amenities not available in most hotels without additional charge. For example, a cruise offers meals, excursions, alcohol, for many guests included laundry service.  Each of these implies real costs to the cruise line. The costs are non-trivial (or should be if the quality is high.) Thus, having only one guest in a cabin rather than two implies real savings to the cruise line. It is not unreasonable to expect some of those savings to be shared with the solo guest.

[Woodrowst]

25 minutes ago, Observer said:

I believe that your analogy goes only so far, and booking a place on a Silversea cruise is quite different from booking a hotel room. The cruise offers many amenities not available in most hotels without additional charge. For example, a cruise offers meals, excursions, alcohol, for many guests included laundry service.  Each of these implies real costs to the cruise line. The costs are non-trivial (or should be if the quality is high.) Thus, having only one guest in a cabin rather than two implies real savings to the cruise line. It is not unreasonable to expect some of those savings to be shared with the solo guest.

The analogy may not be as stretched as you think.  The most precious and costly part of a ship to the cruise lines is space.  Much more so than food, service, entertainment, etc.  Here is one way to look at it:  Let’s say that in the name of fairness a cruise line charged per person.  And let’s also say - just for the sake of argument- that a ship sailed with every cabin having a solo passenger.  That means that the ship sacrifices 50% of its per cabin travel fare.  That is a pretty hefty chunk of change - perhaps millions of dollars in losses for just a single sailing for a luxury line.  Well, you might say, a ship would never sail with all of the cabins being solo.  In that case, you can do the math as to how much the line would lose if 20-75% of the cabins incurred a single charge.  In any case, it is a lot of money lost by the line.

[DavyWavey70]

1 hour ago, Woodrowst said:

One way to reframe this is to accept that cruise lines are charging by the cabin, not the person.  It is the same as booking a hotel room.  You pay the same rate for one person as you do for two and so are paying for the room and not by the person.  Do you feel hotels are being unfair by charging the same price whether there are one or two people?  

 

I'd feel it was unfair if they charged me for two meals instead of one, two day trips, two lots of alcohol and an extra seat on the plane, yes. 

[Woodrowst]

21 minutes ago, DavyWavey70 said:

 

I'd feel it was unfair if they charged me for two meals instead of one, two day trips, two lots of alcohol and an extra seat on the plane, yes. 

But people do get charged for two seats on a plane when their girth will not let them fit in one seat.  So planes tie in with cruise lines and hotels: the commonality is that space is the most precious commodity across these venues.

[Port Power]

53 minutes ago, Woodrowst said:

But people do get charged for two seats on a plane when their girth will not let them fit in one seat.  So planes tie in with cruise lines and hotels: the commonality is that space is the most precious commodity across these venues.

You’re getting silly now!  
 

Back to facts. No ship is ever going to be booked 100% by solo passengers; there are not those numbers wanting to book.  Nevertheless, as @DavyWavey70 said, one person in a cabin is better than none.  But being charged for two seats on the flights is exactly what Silversea does, even though they actually only book and pay for one seat.

 

You are also missing the point that solo travellers are now much more established in the cruise and travel market and have money to spend. There are businesses that acknowledge this.  Those businesses will get our custom instead of SS.

[MrsWaldo]

Adding to this, I often stay solo at all inclusive luxury resorts.  ALL of these give me a pricing discount, At one  I have a motorised dinghy to myself each day, they don't say...oh we only have 7 so as a solo on the discount you can't.  At another, my tour goes ahead even if it is only me on that option. 

 

I am certain, there has to be at least some cost saving for having a solo.  

 

Right now, I am pretty peeved with the status match.  A colleague has done 3x7 day cruises, 4 in a cabin with RCCL. As a 4 they book a bigger suite, but always wait for a bottom end pricing deal, ergo they have 100 days VS as the cabin determines the loyalty.  

Here am I at 97 days VS, a lot higher spend and no perks.....

[Host Jazzbeau]

10 hours ago, DavyWavey70 said:

Are SS actively trying to discourage the old faithful that are quite expensive to run from the line and remember the golden days of SS and replace them with newer, cheaper, more easily pleased upsold cruisers from their other brands?

I agree with much of your premise Davy, except this part.  The status match has just created a very large potential class of 'expensive' passengers.  So saving money that way isn't the goal.  But those new passengers will be coming from Celebrity or even Royal, and will find almost everything about Silversea a huge upgrade.  That's why the old faithful are being pushed aside:  they remember the standards that Silversea used to represent and complain about the cutbacks.  The new group should be easy to please even at today's service and food levels [or tomorrow's next round of cuts...]

 

Time will tell whether the newly entitled passengers actually book Silversea (or book a second time), to make up for all those who are leaving.  And I really do think many will leave.  On other CC forums people claim that some change or cutback has destroyed their loyalty and they are moving on – but when they announce where they plan to go, it's obvious that they will find just as many cutbacks in their new cruise home.  It's different here, where there are still luxury lines that haven't cut back [Crystal for sure] and premium lines that match the new lower Silversea level at lower prices.  Those saying "bye-bye" here are likely lost to Silversea.

[tfred]

3 hours ago, Observer said:

I believe that your analogy goes only so far, and booking a place on a Silversea cruise is quite different from booking a hotel room. The cruise offers many amenities not available in most hotels without additional charge. For example, a cruise offers meals, excursions, alcohol, for many guests included laundry service.  Each of these implies real costs to the cruise line. The costs are non-trivial (or should be if the quality is high.) Thus, having only one guest in a cabin rather than two implies real savings to the cruise line. It is not unreasonable to expect some of those savings to be shared with the solo guest.

the other way to look at it is that the cruise ship has many fixed costs that have to be paid for no matter no how many people are on board. The only variable is food, but Silversea has to figure that each ship is going out full and order accordingly way ahead of time. 

 

Labor and fuel are the same no matter what. The room still needs to be cleaned. Same amount of liquor in bottles. There really isn't that much saving with a solo cabin other than food and while that number is something it is "much"

[MrsWaldo]

31 minutes ago, tfred said:. The only variable is food, but Silversea has to figure that each ship is going out full and order accordingly way ahead of time. 

32 minutes ago, tfred said:

 The only variable is food, but Silversea has to figure that each ship is going out full and order accordingly way ahead of time. 

 

Labor and fuel are the same no matter what. The room still needs to be cleaned. Same amount of liquor in bottles. There really isn't that much saving with a solo cabin other than food and while that number is something it is "much"

 

Not true…

 

1. I use less power/fuel as there is only one person in my suite having a shower and I am actually less likely to spend time in my suite so less power used there.

2. My suite is cleaned more quickly as I use 1/2 the linen (so less change over)

3. I only have one selection of alcohol, the ones I want.  When I travel with my daughter or son, I will have a whole different selection of alcohol for them

 

4. Tours are included in fares, on shore providers are paid per head, so they don’t have that as an add on cost. 

 

5. in public areas I use, one lounger at the pool, so only change over one set of towels etc.  when dining I use only one set of cultlery and crockery, so once again less clean up required. 

 

6 There is only 1 set of luggage to be moved through the ship, one set of luggage for my Buttler to unpack and pack,  one persons laundry to be washed
 

Of course there is the obverse where my spend aboard could be considered to be lower, however IME, many of the solo traveler tend to book some of the select upcharge tours , my last 3 comprised of only 1 or 2 couples in 8 pax.  The rest were solos

 

 

[Observer]

1 hour ago, tfred said:

Silversea has to figure that each ship is going out full and order accordingly way ahead of time. 

 

 

If this is the case, it is remarkable that Silversea so often runs out of things as basic as sodas, artificial, sweeteners, liquors and wines and certain beers, berries and lettuce. 

[pavementends]

Those taking high single supplements as an affront are missing the point.

 

A high single supplement means that almost all of the cabins can be booked as doubles. It is a sign that, considering itinerary, cuisine, ship quality, price, etc. etc. there are plenty of people happy to book the cruise. On the other hand, attractive single supplements* are a sign that the cruise is comparatively unattractive.

 

It's not that a line doesn't "want" singles; it "wants" to get the full amount of revenue for the cabins if possible.

 

*Unless, that is, a ship actually has cabins suitable only for singles.

Edited October 19 by pavementends

[DavyWavey70]

So you all think it wouldn’t be better to sell the cabin to a solo with a lower supplement a couple of months before the cruise than have it sail empty? Really?

[Observer]

25 minutes ago, pavementends said:

Those taking high single supplements as an affront are missing the point.

 

I think that you may be missing the point if you think that I (and others?) are taking high single supplements as an affront.  I do not take my relationship with Silversea or other vendors personally. They are business relationships.  I am not personally insulted/hurt by Silversea's decision to increase the cost for solo travelers.  I am disappointed by this corporate decision, as it will almost certainly mean the end of my more than quarter century relationship with the cruise line. But I am a grown-up, and I will move on.  I wish Silversea (and especially its crew) only the best.

 

BTW: I would be affronted if Silversea decided to address this issue by offering much lower supplements only for Vista cabins, implying that solos do not want/need/value verandas..

[DavyWavey70]

1 hour ago, pavementends said:

Those taking high single supplements as an affront are missing the point.

I’m certainly not affronted, I Just take my money elsewhere. I’ve just booked a Club World Owners Suite on Azamara for 12 nights in January at zero solo supplement with a line that has made me feel that they wanted my business. Never sailed with them before but happy to give them a go. I’ll probably spend much more onboard than most couples. No cruise line makes a loss from me. 

[goofysmom99]

5 hours ago, MrsWaldo said:

Right now, I am pretty peeved with the status match.  A colleague has done 3x7 day cruises, 4 in a cabin with RCCL. As a 4 they book a bigger suite, but always wait for a bottom end pricing deal, ergo they have 100 days VS as the cabin determines the loyalty.  

Here am I at 97 days VS, a lot higher spend and no perks.....

 

I am also peeved with the status match.  I earned top status (3000 points) on Celebrity which took a long time and a lot of money to attain.  My status match with SS is identical to someone who has attained 300 points on Celebrity.  I find that insulting to both me and VS members.  

 

5 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

The new group should be easy to please even at today's service and food levels [or tomorrow's next round of cuts...]

 

Time will tell whether the newly entitled passengers actually book Silversea (or book a second time), to make up for all those who are leaving.

I don't think I'm that easily pleased/fooled.  Many moons ago, I was a food service officer in the Air Force and learned lots about budgeting and food prep for large groups.  I'll be interested to see if the food supplies brought onto the Moon in Fort Lauderdale are the same quality provided for Celebrity suites.  My bet's on "the same" but I'd like to be surprised.  RCG's dividend this month wasn't because they ignored economy of scale. I think that has contributed in part to repetitive ports of the newly released itineraries.  I departed Celebrity primarily because the food quality had declined to an unacceptable degree, even in specialty restaurants, where they haven't changed menus in almost two decades.  I'm planning to give SS two shots at it since two were booked with nonrefundable deposits.  Whether the third, refundable, occurs is "to be determined."

 

Edit:  I forgot to add that the last time I had a solo discount from Celebrity was 2013 on a last minute TA.  I was delighted to see 125% and 150% on SS, which brought the price for me solo lower than a suite (always 200%) on Celebrity.  The prices SS wants now are causing me to look elsewhere too; Crystal and Azamara are now on my horizon. 

Edited October 20 by goofysmom99

[Host Jazzbeau]

32 minutes ago, goofysmom99 said:

Crystal and Azamara are now on my horizon.

Look at Windstar too.  They are a member of the James Beard Foundation and have a reputation for really good food.  [I'll find out in January]

[texanaust]

7 hours ago, Observer said:

 

If this is the case, it is remarkable that Silversea so often runs out of things as basic as sodas, artificial, sweeteners, liquors and wines and certain beers, berries and lettuce. 

 

I thought you were talking about Seabourn.

[MHF]

I am leaving in a week to board the Ray.  Haven't sailed Silvesea since last fall on the Whisper so it will be interesting to see any changes.  I have the Spirit (Africa) and the Cloud (Antartica) for 2025 but am looking elsewhere now that the solo "specials" have disappeared.  Booked Explora at 25% solo sup and Paul Gaughin for 0 sup.  Have cruised with Regent and Seabourn before and will continue to look at them as they have kept some decent solo rates.  Enjoyed Viking this summer with my cousin but they don't usually do solo specials.  We also tried the Celebrity Retreat to the Panama Canal on the Beyond...never again.  Once you are outside your Retreat bubble, there are lines, lines, lines.

 

Missy in Maryland (thinking about packing...is it too early??)

[labrasett]

18 hours ago, DavyWavey70 said:

I’m certainly not affronted, I Just take my money elsewhere. I’ve just booked a Club World Owners Suite on Azamara for 12 nights in January at zero solo supplement with a line that has made me feel that they wanted my business. Never sailed with them before but happy to give them a go. I’ll probably spend much more onboard than most couples. No cruise line makes a loss from me. 

But if you were travelling on Silversea you wouldnt be spending much if anything at all whilst on board.

 

[Hlitner]

Just a word about what economists call "Opportunity Lost Revenue."  An empty cruise berth, such as what happens when a solo is booked into a cabin/suite, is revenue lost forever.  The economic truth, about solo cruisers, is that they are only important (economic wise) to a cruise line when they cannot possibly fill both slots in a cabin.  This is even more of a factor, on the small ship luxury lines, where the all-inclusive system makes each cruise fare of bigger importance, than on mega ships.   In fact, mega ships will routinely give cabins away to some folks (such as gamblers) and interline fares) because they contribute to the "maximizing onboard revenue" business plan related mass market lines.  But on the luxury lines (such as SS, SB, etc) the onboard revenue issue is minor, and most costs are covered via the basic cruise fare.

 

Given that we are now in an era when cruise lines are enjoying unprecedented demand, there is less incentive for most lines to consistently offer good deals to solo cruisers.   While many cruisers like to talk about "loyalty" the cruise lines are simply businesses that are trying to maximize their bottom line.  Loyalty is only important when it enhances the bottom line.  That is also why we are now seeing more companies move to status match...since it attracts more customers and helps enhance that bottom line.

 

Hank