Jump to content

Balcony Smoking ending !


MCC retired

Recommended Posts

Dear Travel Agent Partner,

 

We would like to update you on an upcoming change to the Cunard smoking policy and advise you of the following notice that will be sent to booked passengers:

 

Following feedback from our guests and the results of recent customer research, smoking will no longer be permitted on stateroom balconies. Smoking is currently not permitted in staterooms or public areas but the new policy will continue to permit smoking in designated areas of the open deck.

 

With regards to electronic cigarettes which do not emit smoke, these are not permitted in public areas but they can be used in staterooms, balconies and designated areas of the open deck.

 

This change has been for the safety and comfort of our guests and means that all guests will be able to enjoy full use of their private balconies without the effect of drifting smoke.

 

The change will take effect for all cruises departing immediately after the 2014 World Cruises, as listed below: QUEEN ELIZABETHQ4049 May 2014QUEEN MARY 2M4049 May 2014QUEEN VICTORIAV40328 April 2014 Thank you,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was bound to happen. Quite a lot of people will not be truly happy in their lives until smoking is against the law.

 

Myself, as a non-smoker, I'm not fussed either way. Yes, I do much prefer pubs and restaurants now they are not full of smoke, but it never once stopped me going into said smoky pub. People make a big song and dance about smoking out, you can hardly smell it, if at all. It's just that they have become hyper-sensitive now.

 

But I doubt it will do any cruiseline's business much good. Smokers wont go anymore, and nonsmokers who used to get all upset wont go either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was bound to happen. Quite a lot of people will not be truly happy in their lives until smoking is against the law.

 

Yep, I'll be voting for the first party to put that in their manifesto. Once we've destroyed the evil of smoking, we'll be moving on to people with beards and also will seek to make excessive use of fake tan a capital ofence.

 

Myself, as a non-smoker, I'm not fussed either way. Yes, I do much prefer pubs and restaurants now they are not full of smoke, but it never once stopped me going into said smoky pub. People make a big song and dance about smoking out, you can hardly smell it, if at all. It's just that they have become hyper-sensitive now.

 

No. It sounds like you can hardly smell it. I can detect it from miles away. I always used to end up outside the boozer to get some fresh air. Now the boot's on the other foot.

 

But I doubt it will do any cruiseline's business much good. Smokers wont go anymore, and nonsmokers who used to get all upset wont go either.

 

If the smokers don't go, that means more spare cabins and more Getaway Fares. Sounds like a win to me, I can't see any downside.

 

I don't see the logic for why it will discourage non-smokers, but maybe you have some insight I can't quite tune into.

 

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we'll be moving on to people with beards and also will seek to make excessive use of fake tan a capital ofence.
As well as people who are "Cheshire Orange", can you add middle-aged men with pony-tails please? (esp if they are balding). Pass the scissors...

Thank you :)

 

And VERY best wishes :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It sounds like you can hardly smell it. I can detect it from miles away. I always used to end up outside the boozer to get some fresh air. Now the boot's on the other foot.

 

If you can detect it from miles away then how do you manage to go a city centre then ? Because there's infinitely more smoke and fumes coming out of thousands of cars than out of a few fags in the street.

 

I don't see the logic for why it will discourage non-smokers, but maybe you have some insight I can't quite tune into.

 

I did not say it will discourage non-smokers, I said it would not attract any more.

 

My logic is based on all the surveys that claimed people who never used to go to the pub because of smoking would return to them once smoking was banned. Guess what ? They did not. The reason ? Because they were too miserable to go in the first place and they used smoking as an excuse. Once their was no smoke they were still just as miserable so they never returned.

 

Therefore, banning smoking on ships wont mean non-smokers will suddenly return in their droves, because they wont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can detect it from miles away then how do you manage to go a city centre then ? Because there's infinitely more smoke and fumes coming out of thousands of cars than out of a few fags in the street.

 

 

 

I did not say it will discourage non-smokers, I said it would not attract any more.

 

My logic is based on all the surveys that claimed people who never used to go to the pub because of smoking would return to them once smoking was banned. Guess what ? They did not. The reason ? Because they were too miserable to go in the first place and they used smoking as an excuse. Once their was no smoke they were still just as miserable so they never returned.

 

Therefore, banning smoking on ships wont mean non-smokers will suddenly return in their droves, because they wont.

 

 

I don't think the point is to attract non-smokers, but to retain those who would otherwise not return because of bad experiences having smoke blown in their faces. As for "all the surveys," I think they are mixed when country and venue are considered. I don't think it's fair or accurate to say banning smoking only has a negative impact on revenue across the board, although I won't argue with your suggestion that is the case in pubs in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the point is to attract non-smokers, but to retain those who would otherwise not return because of bad experiences having smoke blown in their faces. .

 

There hasn't been smoking allowed in the bars and lounges for three years on the QM2. That didn't encourage the non smokers either, it just made for an early ending nightlife and happy bartenders and servers who are home at midnight latest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's assume smokers drink and gamble more than non-smokers. And still, Cunard chooses to ban smoking on balconies. Why? My cynical nature assumes corporate priority is profit and not promotion of good health. They're not obligated to limit smoking, but yet they do. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's assume smokers drink and gamble more than non-smokers. And still, Cunard chooses to ban smoking on balconies. Why? My cynical nature assumes corporate priority is profit and not promotion of good health. They're not obligated to limit smoking, but yet they do. Why?

 

Hi Dianacm. That is a very good guestion. I don't know the answer. But as you pointed out, "coorporate priority is profit". What profit do they make if passengers return to their cabin for a smoke on their balcony? -As opposed to being out and about on the ship before/after having a smoke on the deck or perhaps in Churchills or G32? Maybe having an adult beverage or two, popping by the casino, perhaps?

 

Or maybe they decided that bookings would increase if smoking was disallowed on balconies? - Without hard data that is impossible to come by, that's a gamble. Besides, most of the profit comes from on-board spending, not so much from fares (especially considering how many fares have been reduced in recent months).

 

Reflagging the ships, changing the dress code, disallowing smoking on balconies, and various cost cutting measures - all recent policy changes that were no doubt made in the interest of profit. As I've said before, only time will tell if these changes result in long term increased revenue.

 

Cunard has stated they want to attract a different audience. On that objective, I'm fairly certain they will succeed.

 

Regards,

Salacia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

partial quote

If the smokers don't go, that means more spare cabins and more Getaway Fares. Sounds like a win to me, I can't see any downside.

 

.

 

The downside for "more spare cabins and more Getaway Fares" is that the loss of revenue for the corporation will be made up in other ways. If you can't see the downside to that, I'd be happy to expand on my comment. -S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cunard has stated they want to attract a different audience. On that objective, I'm fairly certain they will succeed.

 

Regards,

Salacia

 

Dianacm, That's been my thinking for awhile as well. A few years ago they started offering kids free sailings out of Hamburg which changed that voyage entirely. They cut back on the days on the Holiday cruise which makes it more family friendly. It seems pretty clear that they are working twards a different demographic. What I can't figure out is where they make their on board profit if not in the casino and bars. I don't think young families do a lot shopping in the overpriced on board shops either. I'm sure Cunard will keep making money, I just think its sad to see Cunard going after the cruisers who already have every other line to choose from while those of us who don't want a family vacation only had Cunard. Unfortunately we can't afford the world cruises so that leaves us looking for different options.

 

I know Cunard won't miss us but I will miss them. :(. My husband is thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dianacm, That's been my thinking for awhile as well. A few years ago they started offering kids free sailings out of Hamburg which changed that voyage entirely. They cut back on the days on the Holiday cruise which makes it more family friendly. It seems pretty clear that they are working twards a different demographic. What I can't figure out is where they make their on board profit if not in the casino and bars. I don't think young families do a lot shopping in the overpriced on board shops either. I'm sure Cunard will keep making money, I just think its sad to see Cunard going after the cruisers who already have every other line to choose from while those of us who don't want a family vacation only had Cunard. Unfortunately we can't afford the world cruises so that leaves us looking for different options.

 

I know Cunard won't miss us but I will miss them. :(. My husband is thrilled.

 

From what I understand, the casino, shops, Canyon Ranch Spa and the boarding/disembarking operarations are consessions or paid according to contract terms; those employed therein are not Cunard employees. I don't know what other operations are out-sourced, nor do I have any idea if those that are concessions pay a flat rate to Cunard or a percentage of the take. My guess is that it's a flat rate, based on the customer service given on those operations that are out-sourced. I've been wondering for sometime if the cabin stewards, restaurant workers, and other staff members are employed by Cunard, or some off-shore employment agency.

 

I have no idea if Cunard is making a profit or not (although Carnival Cruise Line Corporation continues to report profits).

 

Even as a stockholder, I have not been able to find that information. Perhaps others have more information in that regard?

Thanks,

-S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Salacia, I remember when the casino changed concessions a few years ago, it's gone downhill ever since. I used to use the casino as my evening entertainment. It's worked out well for me....since I don't pay the on board expenses, I come home with my spending money intact. Of course the smoking rules have a lot to do with that for me. RCL allows smoking in their casinos.....when we boarded, they went non smoking within an hour siting that since we were sailing to Southampton, smoking wouldn't be allowed. We really questioned that one and were told "the Captain said so". Figure that one out.

 

I think you may be right about the flat rate. The service in a few of the shops is dismal at best, although various sales people can be outstanding. Personally I would prefer they be at least professional across the board. There is nothing so special as being totally ignored while they are busy chatting with each other, although that's not exclusive to Cunard. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There hasn't been smoking allowed in the bars and lounges for three years on the QM2. That didn't encourage the non smokers either, it just made for an early ending nightlife and happy bartenders and servers who are home at midnight latest.

 

On the QM2 a couple of years ago we often went to the Casino bar because it was not very busy. Talking to one of the barmen, I mentioned it was not busy and he told me it used to be much busier, but when smoking was banned people stopped using it as much (and he should know, he said he'd been on the ship since its very first day).

 

As I said above, if you ban smoking, the non-smokers generally don't return, because they have been using smoke as an excuse not to visit said bar/pub anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the QM2 a couple of years ago we often went to the Casino bar because it was not very busy. Talking to one of the barmen, I mentioned it was not busy and he told me it used to be much busier, but when smoking was banned people stopped using it as much (and he should know, he said he'd been on the ship since its very first day).

 

As I said above, if you ban smoking, the non-smokers generally don't return, because they have been using smoke as an excuse not to visit said bar/pub anyway.

The argument holds no water. Correlation is not the same as causation.

 

Round me there was a pub that advertised at the gates that it was resolutely non-smoking. You went inside and the place smelled fine, all the furniture was good quality, in good condition and the place was always packed out. It did a roaring trade in good quality food. The pub was on a country lane and when the smoking ban came in I fully expected it to suffer badly. Not so. People who enjoyed the place before still go there and business is booming, they've recently had to extend.

 

However, the little place in my village that a mate used to own, and where they did a good, cheap lunch has shut - I guess people still don't like the ambiance of its tar stained walls, plus the pool table and gambling machine just aren't a big enough draw. But there are half a dozen other pubs nearby which have redecorated, re-upholstered, re-focused and now appeal to "my" demographic. Guess what. They're now doing a brisk trade as well, even better than when the only busy time used to be quiz night. Stopping the ciggies was never going to re-populate pubs that didn't change in other ways to reflect the new reality of what people want.

 

 

I've never met anyone who avoided going on a cruise because of smoking regulations. And, having lost two parents to the curse of the weed I'm pretty vehemently anti smoking myself. I do, however, know people who would not cruise HAL or Costa because of their (relatively) pro-smoking policies. When HAL become less liberal about it, they'll definitely be on the list of possible lines for me and SWMBO.

 

I'd also postulate that the sort of folks attracted to the casino are proportionately more likely to be the ones who smoke. It was certainly true in my Dad's case. No amount of changes in regulations are going to draw me to the casino unless they decide to start screening F1 races there and even then, I'll be watching the TV, not playing blackjack. Maybe in the fullness of time they'll turn it into a sea-going butterfly sanctuary or an on board tattoo parlour.

.

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Reflagging the ships, changing the dress code, disallowing smoking on balconies, and various cost cutting measures - all recent policy changes that were no doubt made in the interest of profit.

 

Or survival perhaps?

 

David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chunky2219, initially I said "Quite a lot of people will not be truly happy in their lives until smoking is against the law." some posts earlier. And you clearly fall into that category of people.

 

There are plenty of things in this world that other people do that I am opposed to, but that's the way it is. It's also a fact that things change because a vocal minority shout the loudest (but the majority tend not to care very much one way or the other). Smoking is a case in point; most people who don't smoke just accept it, but a very vocal minority have manged to get their own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've never met anyone who avoided going on a cruise because of smoking regulations.

 

Chunky2219

 

You have now - me. Twenty years of loyalty to Cunard has just been blown off the balcony.

 

Good thing I booked my 2014 World Cruise before they did this.

 

andhow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that smokers who assume all those who don't want to breathe second hand smoke are extremists are at least as unreasonable as those won't be happy until smoking is illegal.

 

Those who are vocal about not wanting to inhale other people's smoke don't necessarily fall into the second camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the anti-smoking lobby has gotten 95% of what it wanted in the UK (i.e. smoking banned from indoor public places, and even some outdoor places as well). And smokers have accepted this (and many understand the feelings towards them). But, and it's a big but, some anti-smokers still wont accept this current situation. They have achieved almost everything they wanted, but they still want let it be. Smokers have compromised but some anti-smokers wont. I'd go so far as to say they are like mardi children that stamp their feet and scream their heads off until they get what they want. It's like winning the lottery and then moaning you had to share to jackpot with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...