Cabins - smoking vs. non-smoking

[dkjretired]

You have put your finger on the solution to the smoking issue - money.

But you got the answer wrong.

 

The airlines didn't prohibit smoking because they worry about our health.

They realized that the cost of cleaning the overheads in an airplane that allowed smoking came to something over $100,000 per year.

As soon as they realized they could save that money by prohibiting smoking, it happened immediately.

 

The cruise lines do not have that same issue.

Cleaning a cabin that was inhabited by smokers for a week costs very little more than cleaning the non-smoking cabin.

The cabin steward gets paid the same if he works 1 hour or 13 hours, he uses the same soap and water to wipe down the bulkheads and deck heads, the soft goods in the cabin are cleaned at the end of every cruise anyway - smoking or not.

 

In a heavily smoky cabin, they sometimes shampoo the carpet an extra time, plug in an air ionizer for a day, and spray some deodorizer around the room.

 

The cruise lines know that most cruisers will continue to cruise, and continue to complain about smoking - so long as the price of the cruise is low enough.

 

The limited experience so far with prohibiting smoking on ships has not been encouraging.

 

We know that around 10% of Americans smoke, but 25% of American cruisers are smokers.

We know that Carnival's non-smoking experiment failed miserably (although it may have been premature).

We know that Celebrity's experiment with prohibiting most smoking is costing them a lot of money in lost passengers and lost revenues.

Non smokers have not filled all the cabins vacated by smokers after Celebrity changed their policies.

We also know that cruise lines that do not prohibit smoking have realized a noticeable increase in business after Celebrity chased away so many smokers.

We know that when non-smoking hotels try to operate in an area where there are also smoking hotels, the smoking hotels have higher occupancy (and higher profits) than the non-smoking hotels.

 

The comments about Celebrity losing customers because of their smoking policy is absolutely not true. In fact, they are gaining customers by the droves as their policy has become more known in the industry. Most of their ships are sailing full especially the S class ships, casinos are drawing in more customers which I did not think would happen. Comment is totally untrue...

[denims]

 

 

We know that around 10% of Americans smoke, but 25% of American cruisers are smokers.

We know that Carnival's non-smoking experiment failed miserably (although it may have been premature).

We know that Celebrity's experiment with prohibiting most smoking is costing them a lot of money in lost passengers and lost revenues.

Non smokers have not filled all the cabins vacated by smokers after Celebrity changed their policies.

We also know that cruise lines that do not prohibit smoking have realized a noticeable increase in business after Celebrity chased away so many smokers.

We know that when non-smoking hotels try to operate in an area where there are also smoking hotels, the smoking hotels have higher occupancy (and higher profits) than the non-smoking hotels.

 

Our last 3 cruises have been on Celebrity. ALL full!!

 

They are getting known as a non-smoking cabin cruise line and many of the 90% (to quote you) of the non-smokers are leaning towards X! BUT....I still love Princess!!