Take Some Blame

[mariner]

This isn't particulary easy for me to write, but some recent threads got me thinking.

We as passengers need to take some of the blame for price hikes in ship services and cutbacks in other areas.

It seems some people spend way too much time looking for ways to cruise without spending a dime aboard ship. The out of work thread illustrated at least a dozen ways, the worst being stiff the help.

HAL is forced to discount cruises to stay competitive. On our MAASDAM cruise this past winter, with the price of fuel, it was likely costing HAL $200 a piece to carry passengers in the lowest-priced cabins.

Low and behold, the ice cream bar, Lido beverages, popcorn, buffets and bloody Mary specials were popular. But a gentleman who sat behind us was insulted that they charged him to uncork the bottles of wine he brought aboard and he was really steamed they wouldn't pour it in a $300 crystal decanter like they did for the $150 bottle we purchased from the wine steward.

HAL will offset cruise discounts by charging for things that once were free, raising prices on services and finding new avenues of revenue. I always said SEO should be $OE.

That's not to say I walk up the gangway ready to have my pocket picked. But I do expect to spend money on vacation and budget accordingly.

I just think we need to consider the spending habits of our fellow travelers before we scream ``$30 for the Pinnacle. That's outreagous!'' $5 ice cream cones may not be too far behind.

[tommy k]

Well put.

[happy cruzer]

Hi, I read the two thread you are referring to but I did not read what you did. the majority on the laid off thread said it might be OK to adjust the tips. Stiffing means zero in my book and I did not see anyone saying stiff the staff, might have missed it at the end I did give up when it started repeating.

Also regarding the PG price increase most said it was not worth it to them. Many said it might be ok to others and a small no maybe 2 thought it was too much. At least 1/2 said it was competitive and justified.

So I don't think we need to apologize for watching how we spend our money. If we are not extragant spenders daily, we probably wont be in a cruise. Most of us like having most costs paid up front and do analyse it closely. We all know its not a free ride.

But I agree we should keep it all in perspective.

[HeatherInFlorida]

I'm a little surprised by this, Mariner, although I do agree with you in some respects. My complete agreement lies in my astonishment about the amount of complaining that goes on about corkage costs, not being able to bring your own alcohol, tipping, etc. I would never use a word like "blame" though.

Certainly cruising is about the cheapest possible way we can travel. It is an amazing value for what we receive. So I certainly agree that we have to expect to pay "extra" for certain things. And I have absolutely no problem with HAL charging whatever it wants in the Pinnacle because we have a choice and can eat in the DR. It's not like we're likely to go hungry;) .

I didn't see the out of work thread so I can't comment, but I do know that if DH is out of work, we aren't cruising:) .

But we don't set the price for the cruise, HAL does. So I believe we are blameless in that regard. We see the price, we pay, we cruise. Personally, DH and I spend very little extra on any cruise because we don't drink alcohol, we don't buy pictures, we shop in the shops very little and the Pinnacle could not be less important to us. We do, however, take a few excursions and we most certainly tip, but that adds very little to the cost of the cruise and it still ends up being an amazing value.

I don't think anyone should take on any "blame" for not spending more than the cruise fare. It's a simple matter of choice which is why I thought HAL priced its cruises the way it does. There is a base rate and then you spend whatever you wish over and above that.

[newmexicoNita]

ok, my humble 2 cents worth: yes, many on the thread did say it was ok to stiff the crew; many also suggested adjusting the tips. That, although I do not beleive in this in anyway is a little easier to accept than stiff the help cause I don't have the money to pay. As for PG I don't think mariner was saying anything except what most of us are: it is too bad but it might be inevitible that everything will go up in price. I am in the minority I guess as I don't want the added prices to be put on the cruise price. I would like to be able to decide where I want to spend my extra $500 or $1000 or whatever. And yes, in many cases it is the cheapies that help to increase the prices. This is not saying you need to go on board with the intention of spending your life's savings, but the overall money coming in per cruise will affect the overall prices we pay. It is all the bottom line. NMNita

[xpcdoojk]

I'm a little surprised by this, Mariner, although I do agree with you in some respects. My complete agreement lies in my astonishment about the amount of complaining that goes on about corkage costs, not being able to bring your own alcohol, tipping, etc. I would never use a word like "blame" though.

Certainly cruising is about the cheapest possible way we can travel. It is an amazing value for what we receive. So I certainly agree that we have to expect to pay "extra" for certain things. And I have absolutely no problem with HAL charging whatever it wants in the Pinnacle because we have a choice and can eat in the DR. It's not like we're likely to go hungry;) .

I didn't see the out of work thread so I can't comment, but I do know that if DH is out of work, we aren't cruising:) .

But we don't set the price for the cruise, HAL does. So I believe we are blameless in that regard. We see the price, we pay, we cruise. Personally, DH and I spend very little extra on any cruise because we don't drink alcohol, we don't buy pictures, we shop in the shops very little and the Pinnacle could not be less important to us. We do, however, take a few excursions and we most certainly tip, but that adds very little to the cost of the cruise and it still ends up being an amazing value.

I don't think anyone should take on any "blame" for not spending more than the cruise fare. It's a simple matter of choice which is why I thought HAL priced its cruises the way it does. There is a base rate and then you spend whatever you wish over and above that.

Supply and demand determine the actual price. The market reflects the auction that occurs. The cruise line sets a price and then people either book cruises or don't. If they don't the cruiseline lowers the price. More people book or don't. The market is fully determining the price based on the supply ships and cruiselines provide (factoring in the substitute vacations people could take instead of cruising) and the populations desire to take a cruise vacation (and the alternative choices of how they spend their money).

jc

[hammybee]

This isn't particulary easy for me to write, but some recent threads got me thinking.

We as passengers need to take some of the blame for price hikes in ship services and cutbacks in other areas.

It seems some people spend way too much time looking for ways to cruise without spending a dime aboard ship. The out of work thread illustrated at least a dozen ways, the worst being stiff the help.

HAL is forced to discount cruises to stay competitive. On our MAASDAM cruise this past winter, with the price of fuel, it was likely costing HAL $200 a piece to carry passengers in the lowest-priced cabins.

Low and behold, the ice cream bar, Lido beverages, popcorn, buffets and bloody Mary specials were popular. But a gentleman who sat behind us was insulted that they charged him to uncork the bottles of wine he brought aboard and he was really steamed they wouldn't pour it in a $300 crystal decanter like they did for the $150 bottle we purchased from the wine steward.

HAL will offset cruise discounts by charging for things that once were free, raising prices on services and finding new avenues of revenue. I always said SEO should be $OE.

That's not to say I walk up the gangway ready to have my pocket picked. But I do expect to spend money on vacation and budget accordingly.

I just think we need to consider the spending habits of our fellow travelers before we scream ``$30 for the Pinnacle. That's outreagous!'' $5 ice cream cones may not be too far behind.

Interesting that we both posted a similar thread at the same time.

[mariner]

Heather,

Somehow I think you still spend more aboard than some people. You just don't think about it because you're on vacation to relax and enjoy yourself.

And I really don't see you hauling a few cases of soda in your luggage or dipping a bucket under the iced tea spout in Lido.

Yes, one of the suggestions in out of work was remove the tips or just remove it for the kids, as if they didn't exist for the stewards and waiters who served them.

We just can't expect HAL to deliver a first-class ``all-inclusive'' cruise when we treat the trip like a ride on Greyhound.

[hammybee]

We just can't expect HAL to deliver a first-class ``all-inclusive'' cruise when we treat the trip like a ride on Greyhound.

I like the analogy.

[HeatherInFlorida]

Supply and demand determine the actual price. The market reflects the auction that occurs. The cruise line sets a price and then people either book cruises or don't. If they don't the cruiseline lowers the price. More people book or don't. The market is fully determining the price based on the supply ships and cruiselines provide (factoring in the substitute vacations people could take instead of cruising) and the populations desire to take a cruise vacation (and the alternative choices of how they spend their money).

jc

jc, I understand all this. But if I am to believe a certain pundit that is frequenting these boards with his expertise and knowledge, HAL can't keep people off their ships. There is not a single ship going out that isn't fully booked (this is what we have been told). So clearly they're a long way from charging more than the traffic will bear.

And I would be hard pressed to find an "substitute vacation" for much less than a cruise even with the add-ons of a few drinks and tip. It is unbelievably cheap compared to everything I look at.

To suggest that a person is "cheap" (which has been said on more than one thread recently) because they don't pour a ton of money on top of the cruise fare just makes no sense to me. I'll be darned if I'll spend extra money on a cruise just to keep the prices down. Charge me what it costs and we're done.

[dougnewmanatsea]

Well, I'm not sure "blame" is the way to put it... But I do agree with you. You can't get something for nothing.

If you want to pay generally very low fares like the ones charged by HAL, you have to expect to pay a lot for "extras".

If you don't want to pay a lot for "extras", go on a luxury line where the fares are much higher but the "extras" are included.

It's pretty simple.

Lots of people here seem to claim that "it's not our fault the fares are so low". And it might not be. But if you're perfectly willing to pay higher fares for better quality, then why not go on a line that does charge higher fares for better quality? It's not as if they aren't out there. I'm sure Crystal would be more than happy to take your business.

You're going to pay for the "extras" either way... Either you pay more up front and go on a line that builds them into the fare, or you pay less up front and go on a line like HAL where you get "nickel-and-dimed" once you're aboard the ship.

If you want to pay the fares charged by HAL and not be "nickel-and-dimed", then good luck... Such a cruise line simply doesn't exist.

[Bramcruiser]

Thanks to the original OP. I agree wholeheartedly. Too many people say we're being nickeled and dimed but the reality is that with rising costs and decreasing fares the lines are having to be creative with coming up with new schemes in order to retain passengers but pay for the services they provide. I don't mind paying for some extras or paying higher fares IF it leads to quality improvements. I would hate to pay more for less though.

Our host Doug once mentioned that if the cruise lines just increased the fares overall people would instantly react negatively. That's probably true in the short run but I think its a theoretically better idea in the long run. Either way we're going to pay up front or as we go.

The cruise lines are not out to rip anyone off but we do need to realize what the true costs are.

[hammybee]

If you don't want to pay a lot for "extras", go on a luxury line where the fares are much higher but the "extras" are included.

It's pretty simple.

If you want to pay the fares charged by HAL and not be "nickel-and-dimed", then good luck... Such a cruise line simply doesn't exist.

Thank you Host Doug. It really is this simple.

[HeatherInFlorida]

Speaking only for myself (that's all I really ever do;) ), I don't think we're being nickel and dimed at all and I have no problem with HAL charging as much as they want for extras.

I think it's an excellent system because then we get to choose what we want over and above the base fare. My only point is that I resent being told I should eat in the Pinnacle Grill (as an example) in order to keep the fares low. Makes no sense to me.

[LAFFNVEGAS]

I agree with Mariner and Host Doug, with the exception that the cruises prices themselves at least for next year are not cheap. Every cruise I am looking at or have booked for next year is any where from 25% to 70% higher. Good example is my S Suite Alaska cruise this year compared to the same cruise for next year. The best price I can find is approx. $2100 for both of us more. The crazy thing is HAL is selling them and there does not look to be a sign of the prices reducing. I do not know about anyone else but what I pay for groceries, gas and my utilties are all a lot higher than I paid for last year this time. The sad part is Tom had to take a 30% pay decrease the first of this year and our sales are down so my commission is down:o It just stands to reason that HAL will also have to increases prices in the Pinnacle and charge for things. When I go on vacation I expect to pay for these things and if it hurts me financially I would not go plain and simple.

I admit there was a time when we would joke that the higher our ship board account was the better of a time we had. Now after you have been on 8 or more HAL cruises you do tend to slow down your purchases. We have more pictures than we need, we almost always pre pay for our excursions and I have so much jewelery that I could almost be a walking model for HAL Gift shops:D I do totally understand where they want new blood to come in and spend money, it makes total business sense. Although they still get us for a nightly bottle (or two) of champagne and a few flaming coffees in the Explorer's lounge:D

[jagsfan]

You know, I can't think of much we're asked to pay for that we haven't
always done. I started cruising in '84, and shore excursions weren't free,
ice cream on the Norway was pretty expensive. There was a corkage
charge for drinking your own wine in the dining room. Wine tastings were
3.00 per person on Premier and NCL. There was no charge for dining in the
alternative restaurant because there wasn't one. Not on any line back then.
Spa treatments were expensive in 80's and 90's dollars.
On the other hand, the entertainment was free, all dining was free, movies
were free, and you could lounge by the pool till you burned to a crisp.
Guess what!!! None of that has changed.
I have always felt, and still do, that cruises are the greatest value in
travel.............Mimi

[kryos]

I just think we need to consider the spending habits of our fellow travelers before we scream ``$30 for the Pinnacle. That's outreagous!'' $5 ice cream cones may not be too far behind.
Princess already charges for ice cream on their ships. I believe it's only the soft serve that is still free on that line.

I will admit that you make some good points, but ... I also have to say that there are plenty of people who drop a bundle during their cruises ... in the casino, on Bingo, on jewelry purchases, drinks, shore excursions, spa treatments ... the list goes on and on. Also, plenty of others book only the best accommodations onboard ship ... paying a pretty penny to do so. It's those people therefore who subsidize the rest of us ... the people of modest means who like to cruise, but are not willing to run up a huge onboard bill to do so. I hardly think HAL is losing money on any sailing ... whether or not I personally spend a dime while onboard.

If HAL is basing the cost of a cruise on what someone will spend onboard, then maybe they are charging too little ... because you can't guarantee that everyone onboard will drop a bundle. But enough will that I believe HAL can still make quite a nice profit on the average sailing. For example, when I took my 30-day cruise this past January, I had set myself up a budget for $1,000 in shipboard charges, exclusive of auto-tips and shore excursions (which I had reserved and paid for in advance) I came in pretty close ... slightly over, but still pretty close. Now, contrast that with several others I talked to ... folks who were looking at final bills in excess of five grand ... and more. I remember talking to one woman who said that she bought a $4,000 piece of jewelry while onboard and she had to figure out a way to tell her husband before he found the purchase on their onboard bill. Another couple drank quite a bit and said that their bar tab alone was gonna be well over a grand each.

There are plenty of folks like this ... folks who either are of substantial means, or who vacation so infrequently that they don't mind blowing the budget when they do. These people will always keep HAL profitable and thus subsidize the folks like myself who, by necessity, have to keep an eye on their onboard charges, especially on longer cruises.

Sure, HAL could charge more for the cruise fare to offset the "cheapskates" like myself. But if they did that, they would lose a lot of customers for whom a cruise wouldn't be such a great deal any longer. So, believe me, HAL will never do it. Rather, they will simply charge for more things in the coming years ... things that maybe today are free.

By the way, I never said $30 was too much to charge for the Pinnacle Grill. What I said was that it was too much for me ... someone for whom fancy dinners are not that important. While I enjoy the Pinnacle, I myself might find that extra $10 to be the difference between eating there three times during a cruise, to eating there just once. It's just a matter of personal preference, and how I wish to spend my money. There are plenty of others who can't see the sense of spending $60 to go parasailing, yet that's something I will gladly fork over my hard-earned cash for.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[hammybee]

I remember talking to one woman who said that she bought a $4,000 piece of jewelry while onboard and she had to figure out a way to tell her husband before he found the purchase on their onboard bill. Blue skies ...--rita

A few years back, while on the Amsterdam, the manager of the onboard Jewelry shop was one of our tablemates. According to him, his company leased space from HAL and the space included an inside cabin from him. He told us the HAL did not get a cut of the revenue but charged a fee for processing the transaction via shipboard accounts and onboard promotion.

His paycheck came from a company independent of HAL.

[kryos]

His paycheck came from a company independent of HAL.
But trust me ... if that store did not do a brisk business, his company wouldn't lease that space, including his inside cabin, from HAL ... and we wouldn't have onboard jewelry shops. Believe me, I'm sure the space HAL leases to his company does not come cheap. So, in effect, HAL is making money on the deal. If they weren't, the space occupied by that jewelry shop would be put to use in a more profitable way.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[mariner]

This has nothing to do with ``cheapskates.''

In 2005, our onboard expenses were $3,000 for an 11-day cruise. Not counting tips above what the line charges.

In 2006, it was $5,500.

You can set your watch to our habits.

All I'm saying is the price keeps going up onboard. Can't we think, that if we spent, they would keep the price in check?

If they didn't, then we could be mad. But since we're looking for ways not to spend, how can we complain?

That's my point.

[Maraprince]

IMO.... part of the problem is with first time cruisers who take the statement "all inclusive" literally. There are many passengers who will not spend any money on board a ship. If the tips were not automatically added, they would get off the ship owing nothing!

I am not exeraggerating...this has happened on NCL. That is why they started adding the $10 per person per day tips to passenger accounts.

Lower fares will attract more passengers but will they spend money once on board? Many of the newer passengers are the ones who also complain about set dining times and dressing for dinner. They want everything to be casual.

Every cruise line and every ship has its own personality. Not every ship is a good match for everyone. You need to know something about the ship and the line you are sailing on. Complaining can only get you so far.

IMO if on board charges are reasonable for extras, there should be no problem. But if the basic food quality and service in the dining rooms is lacking and you have to pay for the speciality restaurants to get good food and service, then you have a real problem! Paying for extras, should be that -- extras that are over and above the regular items/service provided.

Remember -- some passengers travel once, while others travel on a regular basis. So whose opinion should count more with the cruise line? If you have repeat passengers, there is a reason they keep coming back. If they were not satisfied, they would go elsewhere. It is a delicate balance to retain existing passengers while trying to fill up the larger and larger ships with new passengers. At some point the ships will become too large and too costly. Empty ships do not bring in revenue. Supply and demand will dictate the market. Cruise lines used to be distinctive. Now the lines are all blurred. Everyone is trying to build bigger and bigger and the ports are all the same. Where is the individuality between the various cruise lines and the ships? If they are all the same, of course, the passenger is going to seek out the best buy for the money.


MARAPRINCE

[dougnewmanatsea]

I agree with Mariner and Host Doug, with the exception that the cruises prices themselves at least for next year are not cheap.
Well, it's becoming a bit more of a seller's market now. But if you compare HAL's fares with a luxury line, they are cheap. If you compare HAL's fares today with 30 years ago... They are cheap.

Keep in mind that a lot of people on these boards do book suites. 90% of the people on any given cruise aren't in suites and are paying a lot less than you do.

I do not know about anyone else but what I pay for groceries, gas and my utilties are all a lot higher than I paid for last year this time.
Yes, it's called inflation ;) . And until quite recently, it hasn't affected the cruise industry much. The overall trend of the past few decades is that fares have gone way, way down. My personal opinion is that they hit bottom around the early 2000s (post-9/11) and will now at least keep up with inflation.

On the other hand, the entertainment was free, all dining was free, movies were free, and you could lounge by the pool till you burned to a crisp.
Guess what!!! None of that has changed.
All dining isn't free any more. But of course, there were no alternative restaurants in the '80s.

However, the things that aren't free - the drinks, shore excursions and so on - cost a lot more than they used to. On the other hand, cruises themselves cost a lot less than they used to. Cruise lines have discovered that selling a cheap cruise and then charging a lot for the "extras" is the most profitable way to do things.

In the past 20 years or so, generating on-board revenue has been a major goal of all the mass-market cruise lines. It more than offsets the lower fares.

Princess already charges for ice cream on their ships. I believe it's only the soft serve that is still free on that line.
Ice cream is certainly free in the dining room. At the Lido, they have an ice cream bar which sells "premium" ice cream.

The same is the case on Royal Caribbean and probably other lines as well. NCL charged for ice cream as early as the '80s (I don't know if they still do though).

If HAL is basing the cost of a cruise on what someone will spend onboard, then maybe they are charging too little ...
They base their fares on one thing: what the market is willing to pay.

IMO.... part of the problem is with first time cruisers who take the statement "all inclusive" literally.
A mass-market cruise is far from "all-inclusive"... And you will never see mass-market cruise lines advertising as such.

Travel agents are a different story and may represent cruises as "all-inclusive" when in reality they are certainly not.

"All-inclusive" is like an all-inclusive resort on land where everything is included... Including drinks.

There are a few cruise lines like that, e.g. Silversea, and they make a big point of what they include that other lines don't. (And of course, their fares are much higher.)

Lower fares will attract more passengers but will they spend money once on board?
Yes! On average, the people who spend the most money on board (on a per day basis) are first-time or infrequent cruisers on short, inexpensive cruises.

Remember -- some passengers travel once, while others travel on a regular basis. So whose opinion should count more with the cruise line?
The people whose opinion counts the most are the people the cruise line makes the most profit off of.

A cruise line would much rather have two one-time passengers who spend $3,000 on board in a week (each) than one passenger who cruises twice but only spends $500 in a week.

[newmexicoNita]

You know, I can't think of much we're asked to pay for that we haven't
always done. I started cruising in '84, and shore excursions weren't free,
ice cream on the Norway was pretty expensive. There was a corkage
charge for drinking your own wine in the dining room. Wine tastings were
3.00 per person on Premier and NCL. There was no charge for dining in the
alternative restaurant because there wasn't one. Not on any line back then.
Spa treatments were expensive in 80's and 90's dollars.
On the other hand, the entertainment was free, all dining was free, movies
were free, and you could lounge by the pool till you burned to a crisp.
Guess what!!! None of that has changed.
I have always felt, and still do, that cruises are the greatest value in
travel.............Mimi
jagsfan and we watched them beat Dallas, good for them: I do think there are a lot more expenses today, but cruise prices are about the same: we used to be able to bring our own booze on board which cut down on the bar bill: booze also was much cheaper: excursions did exist, but again were about 50% less than today. They didn't have alternative dining, you are right; they also only had one or dining rooms, depending on size of the ship with a buffet. I am not complaining, I love our choices today, but I do think they hit us in our pocket books if we don't watch out. Bingo, always there, but very cheap. As for a value vacation I totally agree. I sometimes see postings that claim all inclusives, because they cover tips and booze are a better bargain: As a TA, I can argue that up one side and down the other. Nice 4 star all inclusives in Mexico and the better locations in the Caribbean are almost twice that of cruising. You can drink an awful lot and tip pretty heavily for the difference, not to mention many don't have the dining choices offered on some ships, nor can the intertainment compare. Again, I am not knocking all inclusives either, but they can be pricey for a good one. NMNita

[hammybee]

Well, it's becoming a bit more of a seller's market now. But if you compare HAL's fares with a luxury line, they are cheap. If you compare HAL's fares today with 30 years ago... They are cheap.

Yes! On average, the people who spend the most money on board (on a per day basis) are first-time or infrequent cruisers on short, inexpensive cruises.


The people whose opinion counts the most are the people the cruise line makes the most profit off of.

A cruise line would much rather have two one-time passengers who spend $3,000 on board in a week (each) than one passenger who cruises twice but only spends $500 in a week.

Host Doug:

You made some excellent observations.

Can you give us a ballpark on what a cruise might have cost 30 years ago.

Your remark about first time cruisers spending more, hit a home run with me. Our shipboard account bill, on our first cruise, was several multiples of the cost of the cruise, and we did not buy jewelry. The more we cruise, the less we spend, while onboard.

Thank you for your insight.

[kryos]

Every cruise I am looking at or have booked for next year is any where from 25% to 70% higher. Good example is my S Suite Alaska cruise this year compared to the same cruise for next year.
I wonder, though, if that also holds true for the standard inside and outside cabins? It seems to me that the luxury suites are REALLY in demand these days, and perhaps that is what is driving the price up?

I checked the prices for my Hawaii/South Pacific cruise. I wanted to see just how much they were asking for that 30-day cruise this year, compared to what I paid for it last year. Well, for inside cabins it is only slightly higher this year than what I paid last year ... maybe about $200-$300 bucks. I never did check the price on suites, but I'd bet the increase is far more substantial there.

Again, HAL will charge what the market will bear, and they raise the price on the suites significantly because they know there are a lot of people who will not sail in any less accommodations. Yet, the type of people that book standard cabins are more driven by price. You raise those prices too high, and they won't sail ... plain and simple. So the increases on those types of accommodations tend to be far more modest.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[JLC@SD]

This has nothing to do with ``cheapskates.''

In 2005, our onboard expenses were $3,000 for an 11-day cruise. Not counting tips above what the line charges.

In 2006, it was $5,500.

You can set your watch to our habits.

Better check your watch....it is running 83% faster than last year.........I do not think the on board prices went up that much in a year.

[kryos]

Remember -- some passengers travel once, while others travel on a regular basis. So whose opinion should count more with the cruise line?
Somehow, I doubt very much HAL keeps track of how many days someone has sailed when they read the comment cards at the end of a cruise. I have a feeling that if an overwhelming number of the comment cards stated that passengers didn't like formal nights, thought the Pinnacle Grill was now overpriced, wanted flexible dining times, etc. ... HAL Marketing would act on those suggestions. In fact, I'll bet it was in some way the comment cards that were responsble for the raise in the Pinnacle service charge. Betcha tons of comment cards read something like this: "Excellent service at the Pinnacle. Food out of this world. Next cruise I'm gonna dine there more often ... " and on and on. HAL figured that since so many people love it, why not charge a heftier price for it? Clearly the market will bear that.

Believe me ... those comment cards, and letters, faxes, emails, etc. to HAL carry a lot of weight, and the majority opinions are gonna carry the day. I doubt, though, very much that HAL is gonna pay a whole lot of attention to how long someone has been cruising the line when they decide how much weight to give their opinion. That's just the way it is sadly, and that's why I think you'll see even more changes on HAL in the coming year ... far more disturbing than just the price of dining at the Pinnacle going up.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[MattOsprey]

You get what you pay for. Or if you are cruising you get a lot more.

I have just booked our first HAL cruise for October 24th. The price was great bordering on crazy.

Having sailed on Princess and Celebrity, I believe that the experience is similar. And that we get fantastic value for money. If however we are charged for extra services then so be it. We are getting a very high standard of everything for the money we pay. Extras or treats are just that, and we are willing to pay for that.

If however we feel that our experience doesn't require that many extras, then the value for money overall is unbeatable.

That said I am concerned how mariner spends $5500 on an 11 day cruise. Brilliant if you have that to spend. I hope it includes some nice jewellery or art. We did spend $3500 on a Dali on a cruise but that much spent was a one off.

The one thing we have found in our short cruising experience is that ships are full of very very different people. Many with fascinating backgrounds and matching stories to tell. Some who seem wealthy but choose not to spend lavishly. Some who seem not so wealthy, but see it as a holiday of a lifetime and spend like they will never get to do it again.

The different people and experiences are what make cruising so enjoyable.

We think you should spend as much or as little as you feel comfortable with (but don't cheat on your tipping).

[newmexicoNita]

I wonder, though, if that also holds true for the standard inside and outside cabins? It seems to me that the luxury suites are REALLY in demand these days, and perhaps that is what is driving the price up?

I checked the prices for my Hawaii/South Pacific cruise. I wanted to see just how much they were asking for that 30-day cruise this year, compared to what I paid for it last year. Well, for inside cabins it is only slightly higher this year than what I paid last year ... maybe about $200-$300 bucks. I never did check the price on suites, but I'd bet the increase is far more substantial there.

Again, HAL will charge what the market will bear, and they raise the price on the suites significantly because they know there are a lot of people who will not sail in any less accommodations. Yet, the type of people that book standard cabins are more driven by price. You raise those prices too high, and they won't sail ... plain and simple. So the increases on those types of accommodations tend to be far more modest.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Rita, you are right, they haven't gone up that much. NMnita

[sirarthur]

I am so glad that cruises are made up of passengers that have such varied circumstances and experience. I welcome on board those who were able to scratch together only enough for the trip and the "necessary expenses (automatic tips etc). Simply because some may have the finacial ablitly to be extravagant should not be cause for resentment of others who are not so fortunate.

[HeatherInFlorida]

I think Doug's point is an excellent one. Most people (like us) do not book S cat or above. I have noticed that particularly on HAL's smaller ships there is a huge gap between the standard verandah cabins and suite categories pricing ... recently I priced the Veendam and it was almost double to go into the S category from a BA.

However, on the Vista class ships, you can get the SS/SY, etc., categories for a very reasonable amount and these cabins are huge (by my standards:) ). Remember we began cruising in 1980 so that is always my benchmark which is why I call cruising "cheap" by today's standards vs the 80's.

Mariner, I may have misunderstood your OP. I thought you were saying we need to take blame for HAL's added charges. I thought you suggested the reason HAL is charging more for extras is because some of us are too cheap to buy them and trying to "get away" with the base price of the cruise. This was said on another thread and I may well have brought that thought here.

[Hojo's redbeard]

Somehow, I doubt very much HAL keeps track of how many days someone has sailed when they read the comment cards at the end of a cruise. I have a feeling that if an overwhelming number of the comment cards stated that passengers didn't like formal nights, thought the Pinnacle Grill was now overpriced, wanted flexible dining times, etc. ... HAL Marketing would act on those suggestions. In fact, I'll bet it was in some way the comment cards that were responsble for the raise in the Pinnacle service charge. Betcha tons of comment cards read something like this: "Excellent service at the Pinnacle. Food out of this world. Next cruise I'm gonna dine there more often ... " and on and on. HAL figured that since so many people love it, why not charge a heftier price for it? Clearly the market will bear that.

Believe me ... those comment cards, and letters, faxes, emails, etc. to HAL carry a lot of weight, and the majority opinions are gonna carry the day. I doubt, though, very much that HAL is gonna pay a whole lot of attention to how long someone has been cruising the line when they decide how much weight to give their opinion. That's just the way it is sadly, and that's why I think you'll see even more changes on HAL in the coming year ... far more disturbing than just the price of dining at the Pinnacle going up.

Blue skies ...

--rita

Rita just reminded me of something. An old saying "The squeeky wheel gets the grease". So, it's not necessarily the majority that are catered to, but the loudest (just look at how the small vocal minority can make things that have been ok for over 200 years all of a sudden bad). If all of the Mariners who want things the way they've been, you need to be more vocal to HAL. If you don't tell them how much you like formal nights, and how you would like to see the dress code enforced, how are they to know?

[peterv]

All dining isn't free any more. But of course, there were no alternative restaurants in the '80s.


Well, actually, the Norway had Le Bistro in the 80's and I think it was $5 per person as a tip.

Cheers,
Peter

[peterv]

Looking at Carnival Corporations earnings for last year reveals that they receive $1733.43 per berth per week in earnings, after subtracting our cost of sales, it reduces to $761.41, after subtracting operating expenses, it earns $352.88 per berth per week as pure profit.

This is per berth, not per cabin.

They are feeling no pain and could afford to give a bit back instead of looking for new ways to nickel and dime.

Cheers,
Peter

[sail7seas]

Somehow, I doubt very much HAL keeps rack of how many days someone has sailed when they read the comment cards at the end of a cruise.



--rita
If memory serves me correctly, they ask on the comment card for us to enter the number of HAL cruises we have taken.

[jhannah]

Every cruise line and every ship has its own personality. Not every ship is a good match for everyone ... Cruise lines used to be distinctive. Now the lines are all blurred ... Where is the individuality between the various cruise lines and the ships? These are points that many of us hope the powers that be at Holland America will understand.

[happy cruzer]

Looking at Carnival Corporations earnings for last year reveals that they receive $1733.43 per berth per week in earnings, after subtracting our cost of sales, it reduces to $761.41, after subtracting operating expenses, it earns $352.88 per berth per week as pure profit.

This is per berth, not per cabin.

They are feeling no pain and could afford to give a bit back instead of looking for new ways to nickel and dime.

Cheers,
Peter

Thanks for looking these numbers up. I love numbers. I know these are averages but they are very informative. did they happen to compare year to year? I'm wondering whether the margin increased or decreased because of inflation (fuel costs?).

Cheers back at you!

[peterv]

Thanks for looking these numbers up. I love numbers. I know these are averages but they are very informative. did they happen to compare year to year? I'm wondering whether the margin increased or decreased because of inflation (fuel costs?).

Cheers back at you!

They don't have the lastest figures on their website, these are from the end of last fiscal year 11/05, but over the past 4 years in reverse order they have growth of 21.7% (2004-5) 55.2% (2003-4) 17.5% (2002-3) and 9.7% (2001-2).

Cheers,
Peter

[happy cruzer]

And I really don't see you hauling a few cases of soda in your luggage or dipping a bucket under the iced tea spout in Lido.



So if passengers want to bring on soda of their choice which HAL does not object to or to make one trip for tea instead of alot, they are making it so that HAL has to raise prices on some extras???

Also remember HAL has no problem offering deep discounts to fill ships or booking large groups onto ships. And letting the large groups dominate public areas that the other passengers paid to use. so it really works both ways, the passenger is free to look for ways to save money and HAL is free to look for ways to make money. No one should be shamed or blamed. It will all be what the market can bear.

[cruisequeen10]

I guess, in other words, you are calling me cheap. I always book the lowest cabin category (guarantee). My shipboard account rarely has anything on it except for the tips. I buy the embarkation picture and maybe 1 session of bingo. That doesn't mean I am cheap. I don't eat in the specialty restaurants, because there is the main dining room or the lido. I don't drink. I do bring my own water on board and maybe a couple bottles of gingerale (which I consume in my cabin). As a Canadian, we have to pay more for things that we buy, because everything is in US currency. Now that the exchange is lower, I don't mind paying for things on board. About 8 years ago, the exchange rate was 58% and boy did I pay extra for things. But to call people cheap, just because they don't buy the extras on board is not very nice. I was brought up that if you can't afford it, you can't have it. I work hard for my money and spend it wisely. If I couldn't afford to go on a cruise I wouldn't go.

[AAAAmerican]

Blame is easy to point>> hindsight is perfect for all too.

Some factors neary mentioned are.

1.) Associated costs for the line.. not limited to Fuel, Staffing, Cost of ownership/Leasing of the ships..

Look at the new Mega Liners announced for building .. Three at a BILLION $USD a piece... just from STAR for N C L now*YIKES* Can anyone spare to give me a Billion $USD?

WHo pays for these..? We all do when we go aboard ..

How many ships are upon the waters now? 30 Years ago? 55 years ago?:eek:

Holland American was! And to just think my Great Grandfather Issac turned down the Chairmanship because his wife did not want to go live in NYC...

Does anyone keep an accurate count of the vacancy rates aboard the ships? Which lines have the largest vs smallest?

Doug is so very correct in most of his observations and DATA. Kudos for Doug , propective Mariners and all fellow Mariners.

Cruise guest can/do have the choice of cabins services and goods they wish to purchase.. on board revenues are what make the cruiselines the most profits with the least costs associated to them.. a captive audience is at sea ...

[xpcdoojk]

jc, I understand all this. But if I am to believe a certain pundit that is frequenting these boards with his expertise and knowledge, HAL can't keep people off their ships. There is not a single ship going out that isn't fully booked (this is what we have been told). So clearly they're a long way from charging more than the traffic will bear.

And I would be hard pressed to find an "substitute vacation" for much less than a cruise even with the add-ons of a few drinks and tip. It is unbelievably cheap compared to everything I look at.

To suggest that a person is "cheap" (which has been said on more than one thread recently) because they don't pour a ton of money on top of the cruise fare just makes no sense to me. I'll be darned if I'll spend extra money on a cruise just to keep the prices down. Charge me what it costs and we're done.

I have no doubt that you understand economics probably much better than said professed expert. However, it is just a pet peeve of mine when I read that prices are set. They may get set, but if the set is out of whack to the perceived value of the customer it will not remain set.

I agree that a cruise vacation represents a great value as compared to other choices. I love to cruise, but there are clearly some kinds of vacations that are not well suited to cruising. So, each individual has to find their fit, between all of the options out there.

I don't like blanket "cheap" calls either, as I don't think we are to blame for the changes the business is making. Many decisions are made because of customers, but most are made by corporate dufuses who are trying to accomplish some corporate or personal goals and they hope that there is not any customer unhappiness caused. I refuse to be blamed for the current state of HAL based on one cruise with them, even if I am considering booking another. :D ;) I by their definition probably am cheap though, because in South America, I only bought one HAL excursion, otherwise I booked my own. I also, did the exact same post cruise excursions and stayed in the exact same hotels as the HAL excursions and had the exact same experience without the HAL hand holding for less than half the amount of the people that HAL robbed. (oops sorry there was no robbery, as all parties agreed to the confiscatory prices that HAL offered!:D )

Heather, would you choose a cruise on the X Mercury or the HAL Statendum if that was a choice you have. I know I would book X if it was a Mille class. :confused:

jc

[HeatherInFlorida]

...................
Heather, would you choose a cruise on the X Mercury or the HAL Statendum if that was a choice you have. I know I would book X if it was a Mille class. :confused:

jc

jc, I'm not sure whether I'd choose the Mercury over the Statendam because I've cruised neither, but I think generally I sway to X for many reasons ... certainly in the Vista vs. M class ships. But recently I do like the itineraries and schedules better on HAL.

On topic, I've given this thread continued thought because it does perplex me. I read the OP again and it still seems to suggest that we passengers are to blame for something. I just don't think we are.

In the end, HAL charges according to what lends itself to the best bottom line for themselves and Carnival's stockholders. I do think that when Carnival took over HAL they took a considerable amount of time to put their mark on HAL, but they are doing it nonetheless. To keep HAL loyalists, Carnival said it wouldn't touch the product. But we can see that slowly but surely they are.

If it were more beneficial to the company to charge a higher base price for the cruise rather than do "add-ons", then that is what they would do. But they know that more people will book with a low base.

At the end of the day, as with everything else especially in these times, it's really all about money.

[happy cruzer]

xpc you make a good point that charging double for the excursions, hotels, and air fare is a way that HAL makes alot of profit. And the cruiser is considered cheap or "to blame" if they purchase them directly or bring their own soda on board or question how much an extra costs.

It goes both ways and the market will determine the solution.

[Sea King]

[quote=mariner]

In 2005, our onboard expenses were $3,000 for an 11-day cruise. Not counting tips above what the line charges.

In 2006, it was $5,500.

Mariner, did you at least get "thank you" note from Seattle? :)

must have been some cruise:eek:

[gizmo]

Well, actually, the Norway had Le Bistro in the 80's and I think it was $5 per person as a tip.

Cheers,
Peter

It started out as "no charge". They asked that you leave a tip. It then went to 5.00 PP that was the tip.

I think whatever the charge is today covers the tip.

[gizmo]

Rita just reminded me of something. An old saying "The squeeky wheel gets the grease". So, it's not necessarily the majority that are catered to, but the loudest (just look at how the small vocal minority can make things that have been ok for over 200 years all of a sudden bad). If all of the Mariners who want things the way they've been, you need to be more vocal to HAL. If you don't tell them how much you like formal nights, and how you would like to see the dress code enforced, how are they to know?

Excellent post. :)

No one ever tells Hal that they like traditional dining, dress codes, etc.

All they ever hear are complaints from those that don't like this and they don't like that.

I would love to bet on any given Hal cruise, they never get any comments about how someone liked traditional dining. They only get the comments from those who want freestyle, hate dress code etc.

[HeatherInFlorida]

Excellent post. :)

No one ever tells Hal that they like traditional dining, dress codes, etc.

All they ever hear are complaints from those that don't like this and they don't like that.

I would love to bet on any given Hal cruise, they never get any comments about how someone liked traditional dining. They only get the comments from those who want freestyle, hate dress code etc.

Your's is great too, Gizmo. Your point is excellent. People rarely will go to the front desk or write letters saying they like everything the way it is ... it's just not done.

Same holds true for comment cards. The people who fill them out generally do so to complain. Usually the people who were thrilled with their cruise just don't bother. So the feedback is skewed in the direction of those who are not happy.

[TedC]

Your's is great too, Gizmo. Your point is excellent. People rarely will go to the front desk or write letters saying they like everything the way it is ... it's just not done.

Same holds true for comment cards. The people who fill them out generally do so to complain. Usually the people who were thrilled with their cruise just don't bother. So the feedback is skewed in the direction of those who are not happy.


You don't think the majority of HAL cruisers fill out the comment cards?

Of course they do - otherwise they'd miss out on possibly winning a HAL tote!

[Hojo's redbeard]

You don't think the majority of HAL cruisers fill out the comment cards?

Of course they do - otherwise they'd miss out on possibly winning a HAL tote!

Ted,

Of course they fill out the comment cards. It's just that "the squeeky wheel gets the grease", the people who like things the way they have been and don't want any changes aren't pushing that feedback forward as much as the ones who want change. If the traditionalists were squeeking louder, they wouldn't be changing (ie., less formal).