News on Summit

[sasset]

I totally agree with you. I too get so furious at companies (not just cruiselines) who do not clearly spell out the rules at the time of booking.

 

We have a group of 8. We come from all over the world and it took us months to sort out dates and an itinerary which suited all of us for a cruise. We booked Azamara...

Having all paid deposits, we then booked flights, hotels etc and made business arrangements.

We are ALL high end spenders, spend lots $$$$$ on drink, casino etc.. we are not in the "go to bed early" category. We ALL obey rules, and one point we make when we book ANY vacation, is to firstly check the policies regarding smoking, children etc. We book on the basis of those policies.

When Azamara "announced" the policy, (had we not been tracking internet we still would have been none the wiser), we cancelled our cruise. We were told we could not have our deposits refunded, but we could transfer.

We have of course now transferred. BUT many of us lost our deposits for our flights and hotels which were all booked to coincide with the azamara cruise. This enfuriated us.

I have no problem with any company enforcing rules, fine, so be it, BUT only if this is done at least 18 months in advance BEFORE brochure publications and BEFORE they take our money.

We often go to a land based resort where smoking indoors is banned. We dont have a problem with that at all. We can still smoke on our baclonies, and there are so many restaurants and bars outdoors, it is not the same as being at sea and therefore not an issue.

The same resort is adult only,..so therefore, suits us perfectly.

This resort however, makes it clear in its publications, the rules...

We are cruising in a matter of weeks and yet all of us, still wonder, will there be changes even as we board. We sincerely hope not or there may be "mutiny".. We have paid thousands and thousands of pounds for this cruise, not to mention the fact that we are self employed and time out for us is extremely precious.

There were loads of other cruiselines which we could travel with, but like you Drew, my argument is... dont change the rules after you take our money!

Rightly or wrongly, smoking or non smoking, it really is not important, what IS important is that the company, whomever, wherever, comes clean and clearly comes clean (not in tiny small print) PRIOR to brochure publications. This also should apply to dress codes, alcohol codes etc.

Give us your rules BEFORE you take our money and WE can make the choice.

 

Any changes made after final payment and prior to sailing should be reason for full refund without penalty. This would include itinerary changes, port times, etc. Prior to sailing would remove the weather caused changes from the equation. This would include changes due to mechanical issues.

 

Regards

[Drew B]

Rightly or wrongly, smoking or non smoking, it really is not important, what IS important is that the company, whomever, wherever, comes clean and clearly comes clean (not in tiny small print) PRIOR to brochure publications. This also should apply to dress codes, alcohol codes etc.

Give us your rules BEFORE you take our money and WE can make the choice.

 

 

I'd certainly prefer that they not change rules after they've taken our money. I would INSIST that they not change rules after we've boarded the ship. It seems that the OP's Summit voyage had new rules that had NEVER been made available to guests prior to boarding. If they had been publicized, they certainly would have been discussed here!

[usha]

I'd certainly prefer that they not change rules after they've taken our money. I would INSIST that they not change rules after we've boarded the ship. It seems that the OP's Summit voyage had new rules that had NEVER been made available to guests prior to boarding. If they had been publicized, they certainly would have been discussed here!

Yeah, the smokers would be griping about it, and the nonsmokers would be cheering about it.:)

[Shirley and Les]

Any changes made after final payment and prior to sailing should be reason for full refund without penalty. This would include itinerary changes, port times, etc. Prior to sailing would remove the weather caused changes from the equation. This would include changes due to mechanical issues.

 

Regards

Let me assure you that full refund without penalty for changes made after final payment is not Celebrity policy. In April of this year, we were on the Infinity for a two week cruise. After final payment, there were itinerary changes made (mainly reduction of times at the different ports) due to pod issues. Celebrity did throw us a bone in providing an onboard credit. We inquired about cancellation or changing to a different cruise without penalty. Celebrity would not hear of it.

Les

[kitty9]

So Darcie, any other changes? I've read in another thread that Summit was going into dry dock for a few weeks next year to spruce her up. Could it be for my cruise in Jan. '09?:D

 

Barry

 

Barry, Summit goes into drydock in April,for three weeks. On our cruise, they've begun to do the preliminary work for the drydock. We dined with Captain Berdos and he told me that they are ripping out the pods and completely replacing them. He said they will be bringing on 3000 people to handle the process.

 

We'll be doing a b2b on Summit in January '09. Should be fun

[gillianrose]

Problem with that approach is their earnings from the casinos will then go down. This has occurred regularly on ships, landbased casinos and just about everywhere they control smoking in casinos.

 

It MAY happen temporarily, but more than likely the earnings will eventually go UP. It's a numbers game, pun intended. If ALL adult smokers gamble, then out of 100 gamblers, there will be 20 smokers gambling in a casino. If only HALF the adult nonsmokers gamble, there would be 40 smokers gambling in a casino. And....don't tell me that the gamblers who smoke won't go into the nonsmoking casino, too. You just know they will. :)

 

Lots of nonsmokers never learned casino games because they couldn't bear the smoke in casinos.

[Drew B]

It MAY happen temporarily, but more than likely the earnings will eventually go UP. It's a numbers game, pun intended. If ALL adult smokers gamble, then out of 100 gamblers, there will be 20 smokers gambling in a casino. If only HALF the adult nonsmokers gamble, there would be 40 smokers gambling in a casino. And....don't tell me that the gamblers who smoke won't go into the nonsmoking casino, too. You just know they will. :)

 

Lots of nonsmokers never learned casino games because they couldn't bear the smoke in casinos.

 

That argument implies that each gambler is equal. They are not. They don't all spend the same amount of time or money in the casino.

 

I'm guessing that the 20 smokers in your example would most likely gamble higher stakes and for more hours. And if the casino was made non-smoking, the smokers wouldn't go into the nonsmoking casino because they wouldn't take that cruise. They would switch to one of the many cruiselines that DO allow smoking in the casino.

 

Also, your example presupposes that the only people going into the casino are smokers. That is not true. I would be surprised, currently, if even half the people in the casino smoke. There are simply many nonsmokers who are willing to play even with the smoke present.

[gillianrose]

That argument implies that each gambler is equal. They are not. They don't all spend the same amount of time or money in the casino.

 

I'm guessing that the 20 smokers in your example would most likely gamble higher stakes and for more hours.

 

Why?

[Drew B]

Why?

 

Just from my personal observations. WAAAAAAAY more than 20% of the big players I see are smokers. Perhaps when you get down to the smaller players, it may well split on the same lines as the general population...

 

I told a story of last time I was on Mercury. There was one guy who was there all the time playing the table maximum ($300/hand) on three hands. His play during that cruise was equal to any 50 other gamblers on that cruise. He chainsmoked the whole time. So many of the gamblers you see like that are also big smokers.

[barryod]

Barry, Summit goes into drydock in April,for three weeks. On our cruise, they've begun to do the preliminary work for the drydock. We dined with Captain Berdos and he told me that they are ripping out the pods and completely replacing them. He said they will be bringing on 3000 people to handle the process.

 

We'll be doing a b2b on Summit in January '09. Should be fun

 

Thanx much Darcie. Our family and friends cruise will be 1-17-09. If one of your BTBs is that week, we'll all have a great cruise and I'm sure we'll talk at roll calls.

 

Barry

[Shirley and Les]

Barry, Summit goes into drydock in April,for three weeks. On our cruise, they've begun to do the preliminary work for the drydock. We dined with Captain Berdos and he told me that they are ripping out the pods and completely replacing them. He said they will be bringing on 3000 people to handle the process.

In another thread, RLM77 said;

The primary purpose of this dry dock is not to refurbish the ship (although that is sorely needed IMO), but to install an auxiliary engine that runs on heavy fuel oil (relatively cheap) rather than the higher grade, more expensive fuel required to run the gas turbines on -- to use the ship's full name -- GTS Summit. The new engine is expected to power all the hotel facilities; the gas turbines will henceforth handle mainly propulsion. Millennium already has the new engine and Constellation might as well -- not sure. When all four ships (along with all of RCI's Radiance-Class) have been fitted with the new engine it will save RCCL millions of dollars each year in fuel costs. The downside is that there will now be a certain amount of black smoke/soot emanating from the funnel. It should still be a smaller amount than on those cruise ships that run completely on heavy fuel oil or bunker oil (which is nearly every cruise ship in service except for the Millennium and Radiance classes). It is very unfortunate for the environment, but with the price of fuel at today's levels the brief era of gas turbine cruise vessels is probably over.

Although these two quotes sound similar, they are vastly different in terms of work. I really think complete pod replacement would have been preceded by major press releases where Celebrity said they had reached a lawsuit $$$ accord with the ship builder, engine manufacturer and other subcontractors and were proceeeding with pod replacement. After the press release, there would be lead time to design a retrofit and build the new engines. Finally, the downtime for pod replacements would probably be longer than three weeks. I think there would also be some time in there for a short sea trial before putting the ship back into revenue service. On the other hand, adding a small, auxiliary engine to provide non-propulsion hotel electrical power is a cost savings project that could be handled in a short timeframe.

Has anyone else heard that pods will be replaced during this drydock?

Les :confused:

[jt1120]

This is great news. I'll be able to save alot of money not playing table games.:)

 

I agree! I'll be able to blow alot of money on the table games!

[kitty9]

In another thread, RLM77 said;

Although these two quotes sound similar, they are vastly different in terms of work. I really think complete pod replacement would have been preceded by major press releases where Celebrity said they had reached a lawsuit $$$ accord with the ship builder, engine manufacturer and other subcontractors and were proceeeding with pod replacement. After the press release, there would be lead time to design a retrofit and build the new engines. Finally, the downtime for pod replacements would probably be longer than three weeks. I think there would also be some time in there for a short sea trial before putting the ship back into revenue service. On the other hand, adding a small, auxiliary engine to provide non-propulsion hotel electrical power is a cost savings project that could be handled in a short timeframe.

Has anyone else heard that pods will be replaced during this drydock?

Les :confused:

 

 

 

I can only impart what the Captain actually told us. This was not some "I heard from a friend of a friend, who may know the cousin of the captain", but actually from the man himself, told to my very own ears. He said, "they are replacing the pods". Whatever that entails, I have no idea, but that was also told to me by the Chief Housekeeper and the Hotel Director. I know that before Crystal Serenity had her maiden voyage, they had to send the Serenity back to France, two weeks before the first cruise, to replace their pods. The maiden voyage took place exactly on time, as I was on Serenity for that very first voyage.

[Shirley and Les]

I can only impart what the Captain actually told us. This was not some "I heard from a friend of a friend, who may know the cousin of the captain", but actually from the man himself, told to my very own ears. He said, "they are replacing the pods". Whatever that entails, I have no idea,...

Kitty9,

You are probably well aware of the ongoing lawsuits that X has against the pod manufacturers. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no settlement. I don't think Celebrity has the financial or technical wherewithall to accomplish a pod replacement without participation from the original engine manufacturer or another subcontractor with similar credentials. If there is an ongoing lawsuit, the manufacturer wouldn't agree to a redesign because that would be an admisssion of a faulty design in the first place.

If you read the "sticky" about the ongoing pod situation, there has been no mention of pod replacement in over 175 posts. The M class pod design is extremely unusual and replacing them is a bit more complicated than taking off a 150 horsepower Mercury outboard engine and bolting on a replacement Evinrude model.

Please don't get me wrong on this. I do not question you hearing those words from the capain. But, I seriously doubt he meant they were going to tear out the original pods and replace them with more-conventional models or go with a different type of propulsion system.

I suspect we will hear more as the drydock gets closer.

Les

[sasset]

The Captain is a PR guy, almost more than he is the ship's master...but I would go with what he says befrore I would with a poster.

 

I may be wrong and if I am, I will fall on my sword.

 

Regards

[Gonzo70]

Just from my personal observations. WAAAAAAAY more than 20% of the big players I see are smokers. Perhaps when you get down to the smaller players, it may well split on the same lines as the general population...

.

 

I agree with Drew here. It does seem that a lot of the big time gamblers are smokers; must be part of that addictive personality gene. I think this is why ships are very slow to make casinos smoke free (aside from perhaps a token night here and there). If only some ships were to make casinos smoke free I think a lot of smokers would frequent the ships that permitted smoking in their casino and the non-smoking casinos would lose significant revenue even if they gained some non-smoking clientele. However, if most ships made their casinos smoke free, within a short amount of time I would bet that most smokers would not give up cruising and would therefore still visit the casino (especially if their was a nearby smoking area). Then the revenues would go up as they would lose few customers and gain some.

 

The casinos were the biggest controversy in the Illinois public smoking ban that finally goes into effect in a few weeks.

[Shirley and Les]

The Captain is a PR guy, almost more than he is the ship's master...but I would go with what he says befrore I would with a poster.

I may be wrong and if I am, I will fall on my sword. Regards

Well, falling on your sword is one thing but never, never get hoisted by your own petard! :eek: That really hurts.

The installation of a relatively small auxillary electrical generation system for non-propulsion power is an accepted shipboard technology and could prevent the accident one of the X ships had this summer (damaging propellors by running onto rocks during a power outage). I seem to recall this already being done on an M class ship somewhere else and of course you know that anything heard on the internet is true!

I don't think Celebrity accepted the word of one of their captains when they removed him from command and escorted him from the ship last summer for drinking on duty.

I am questioning the pod replacement because it affects almost 1/2 of the Celebrity fleet. "X" would maximize the public benefit from this move by shouting it from the treetops. Right now, a pod problem is the only major negative about having an 'X' cruise cancelled or delayed. They wouldn't just slide into a massive replacement program with only 'word of mouth' information.

Les

[Drew B]

I can only impart what the Captain actually told us. This was not some "I heard from a friend of a friend, who may know the cousin of the captain", but actually from the man himself, told to my very own ears. He said, "they are replacing the pods". Whatever that entails, I have no idea, but that was also told to me by the Chief Housekeeper and the Hotel Director. I know that before Crystal Serenity had her maiden voyage, they had to send the Serenity back to France, two weeks before the first cruise, to replace their pods. The maiden voyage took place exactly on time, as I was on Serenity for that very first voyage.

 

I wonder if it is possibly a communication problem. I presume that English is not the Captain's first language (they're all Greek, right?). Perhaps he meant to say they are replacing the bearings in the pods and it came out wrong...

[Drew B]

I would bet that most smokers would not give up cruising and would therefore still visit the casino (especially if their was a nearby smoking area). Then the revenues would go up as they would lose few customers and gain some.

 

I don't think they would give up cruising, but they might give up Celebrity. If smokers are still allowed to smoke in the casino on all of the other mainstream lines, smokers who are high-stakes gamblers may very well choose a different line to continue the behavior they are used to. Celebrity would then lose the revenue in the casino as well as everywhere else these people spend money. And perhaps only 20% of the passengers are smokers, but if you lose them, you also lose their spouses and families and friends...

[bububr]

On one of the SOLD OUT last sailings of the Zenith they had two "smoke free" nights at the casino. While the casino was busy the first few nights, the first smoke free night there were maybe 20 people in there, all remarking how great it was. The next regular night it was packed again. The second "smoke free" night had much fewer players than the first, and about 10 pm the ended the ban and the place filled up a bit. I was told they were going to try a third BUT because of lost revenue they cancelled it.

 

I think what they should try is enforcing their policy already in place with the port side, and trying to designate certain tables as smoke free to see that the results will be.

 

In contrast on Quest with a smoke free casino, it was pretty busy most nights, but in comparison, on a smaller vessel there is much less to keep you busy at night so I think that may have been a large factor with the players. on a mega ship, I think there would be a lot of lost revenue.

 

If you've ever been to Vegas or any of the Indian casinos, the Non-smoking areas are usually less played than the smoking ones. My parents live in LV and the best payouts are from the machines in the smoking sections as they are played more often.

 

Dave:eek:

[gillianrose]

I don't think they would give up cruising, but they might give up Celebrity. If smokers are still allowed to smoke in the casino on all of the other mainstream lines, smokers who are high-stakes gamblers may very well choose a different line to continue the behavior they are used to. Celebrity would then lose the revenue in the casino as well as everywhere else these people spend money. And perhaps only 20% of the passengers are smokers, but if you lose them, you also lose their spouses and families and friends...

 

Isn't it sad that some of the 20% (probably the minority) can't or won't patronize what might be their families' favorite cruise line just because that cruise line has restricted smoking?

 

I'd like to see Celebrity and some other major lines take the mature and responsible step to make more venues non-smoking. If they are continuing to provide smoking casinos JUST to make a few more bucks over the short period of time, then shame on them.

 

Airlines don't permit smoking anymore, not even on extremely long flights. Have the smokers quit flying? No, some made adjustments, and some quit smoking because it was just becoming too difficult to smoke.

 

Take away the ease of lighting up and more people will quit smoking. That is a very good thing. :)

 

It's so easy!

[ocngypz]

In another thread, RLM77 said;

Although these two quotes sound similar, they are vastly different in terms of work. I really think complete pod replacement would have been preceded by major press releases where Celebrity said they had reached a lawsuit $$$ accord with the ship builder, engine manufacturer and other subcontractors and were proceeeding with pod replacement. After the press release, there would be lead time to design a retrofit and build the new engines. Finally, the downtime for pod replacements would probably be longer than three weeks. I think there would also be some time in there for a short sea trial before putting the ship back into revenue service. On the other hand, adding a small, auxiliary engine to provide non-propulsion hotel electrical power is a cost savings project that could be handled in a short timeframe.

Has anyone else heard that pods will be replaced during this drydock?

Les :confused:

 

 

Could be replacing pod PARTS, but the reason for the drydock is the installation of the diesel aux to power the hotel plant.. thus saving on the VERY expensive MGO fuel burned otherwise.

[Drew B]

Airlines don't permit smoking anymore, not even on extremely long flights. Have the smokers quit flying? No, some made adjustments, and some quit smoking because it was just becoming too difficult to smoke.

 

 

You've hit on an important difference. ALL airlines have prohibited smoking. Smokers have no choice -- if they want to fly, they have to fly without smoking. With cruising, there is still a choice. If some cruise lines prohibit it and some don't, the smokers will choose the ones that still allow it. Also, while a smoker can go without smoking for a matter of hours for a flight, he/she probably CAN'T go without smoking for the days/weeks a cruise lasts. Yes, he/she can smoke in port, but that probably won't be enough.

 

If ALL cruise lines banned smoking, smokers would be faced with a difficult decision. Some of them might cruise anyway, but I have to assume that most wouldn't. There are still other vacation options besides cruising, so they wouldn't be left without another choice as they are with air travel. Do cruise lines really want to lose 20% of their market? I don't think so. Especially since evidence shows that an adequate portion of the 80% who don't smoke are still willing to cruise on ships that allow smoking. Now if non-smokers stopped cruising because of the smoke, it would be a very different situation...

 

I think there is a middle ground. I think the cruise lines could restrict smoking far more than they do now without losing this market. That seems the wise thing to do to keep the maximum percentage of their clientele happy...

[lvcruiser]

There is one thing you are not taking into consideration when quoting percentages re: smokers. Although the latest statistics indicate that 19% of the adult population of the U.S. are smokers, that percentage nearly triples to 49% when discussing casino patrons. Since I have been in the casino industry for nearly two decades, I try to stay up on these things. The question in everyone's mind in the St. Louis area casino industry at present is how much of an affect the new Illinois ban on smoking will have on the largest casino on their side of the river and how much business they will lose to Missouri casinos because of it. When that question is answered, it may also answer the questions posed in this thread about the gain or loss of business for the cruise line or more particularly, their casinos. We'll know in another month or so since the ban goes into effect in two days.

 

I will share two thoughts with you concerning this argument that may shed some light. First, most casinos limit the number of non-smoking tables to a very small number. As an example, the casino in which I am presently employed has 90 tables and on an average day, three or four of them will be non-smoking. There's a reason for that and it's the same reason that when OSHA visited Nevada several years ago and demanded that all casinos become smoke free just like government buildings, the State of Nevada told them no. OSHA responded by threatening to pull all federal funding from the state and the state responded by saying, "Do you really think we need your money?" The casino lobby is the largest in the state of Nevada and it had spoken, knowing full well that if smoking were to be banned in casinos, they would lose so much revenue, it could put many of the casinos out of business. Many years ago, there was one smoke free casino in Las Vegas across from Circus Circus. It didn't remain non-smoking for very long and eventually had to close because its reputation preceded it in the minds of the tourists who visited the town.

 

As someone said in an earlier post, smoking and gambling go together. If the casinos on =X= go non-smoking, they might gain a few new non-smoking patrons who avoided the smoke filled casino before now, but it won't make up for the loss they will take from the smokers who have to satisfy their habit when it is at its strongest - the stress filled scenario of winning or losing your money. When I smoked and lived in Las Vegas, I would chain smoke three packs of cigarettes in eight hours while playing blackjack. When I quit nearly six years ago, I also had to limit my gambling because I knew it was a trigger for the smoking habit. They simply go together. If I still smoked and sailed on a ship that had a non-smoking casino, I wouldn't play because satisfying the nicotine addiction and habit is far more important than gambling.

[Coreopsis]

The times they are a changing . . .

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_smoking_ban_to_hit_french_cafes-1.html