Higher base fare for better cruise experience?

[Andy]

Sorry, I disagree. I don't believe most guests would be willing to pay more for either 1, 2, or 3 on your list. Just because you are willing to pay more for these options doesn't mean that most people would be willing to do so.

 

I happen to like the current pricing model. Why should I pay more for things that have no value to me? If you want these items, you may have them by paying more for them. Why require everyone to pay more for the things you value?

 

I agree Linda. Im happy with the current pricing model, and I have zero interest in subsidizing others who want inclusive alcohol etc. If you want it ? pay for it. One item I would pay more for, is better food... which we do, by frequenting Specialty Dining.

 

I'd love to see Celebrity improve the food in the MDR & the Buffet, which we feel is slipping. What I fear would happen - is Celebrity would take the price increase, improve the food for a while, then start the ever so slow decline again. For that reason, my vote is to pass on any such ideas.

[boogs]

Wow - what was it in my post that put you into attack mode??

 

Not in attack mode. Rather, tired of the same debate over and over again mode.

[swsfrail]

Well, if people are going to list their favorite things they want included for a nominal base fare that would be increased for everyone, then I guess I'll chime in with my list.

 

I think they should raise the base fare for everyone so I can have:

 

* Unlimited massages in the spa

* Daily ionathermie detoxifications and enemas, also in the spa

* A cruise worth's supply of free Geritol and Maalox in my mini bar

* Free use of a motorized scooter, and a personal attendant to push aside all the ambulatory passengers that get in my way

* Free laundry service for my support hose and girdle

* Free bingo games

* Ionized water and an extra large glass to place my dentures in when I retire for the night

* A personal waiter to help cut my food and feed me when I get too fatigued to do it for myself

 

Thank you for your generosity in helping me convince the cruise lines that the fares be raised so I can have all these things for "free".

[phoenix_dream]

Not in attack mode. Rather, tired of the same debate over and over again mode.

It sure felt different from this side of the internet. Be that as it may, there are a number of topics on these boards that get debated over and over again - obviously there are a number of people on both sides of the topic who feel very passionately about it. The solution? If these threads bother you so much, don't bother reading or posting on them, and refrain from chastising people who do. I usually skip the dress code threads for that reason. Problem solved.

[USVI-4-me]

Just to get some decent food. Maybe Michel Roux jr? Or what about Heston Blumenthal, or Thomas Kellar

I'm sorry Jacque Van Staden hasn't worked for me, he may have performed his cost cutting task well, but its now time for a change, and a change for the better. The RCI family of cruise ships are about the only one without a Celebrity chef at the reins of the on board culinary experience, and it tells.

 

 

Awhile back I read there were two major cruise catering services in South Florida. I don't know what service caters for Celebrity.

 

Does anyone know? Maybe I should start a thread about this.

 

Marisela

[USVI-4-me]

It sure felt different from this side of the internet. Be that as it may, there are a number of topics on these boards that get debated over and over again - obviously there are a number of people on both sides of the topic who feel very passionately about it. The solution? If these threads bother you so much, don't bother reading or posting on them, and refrain from chastising people who do. I usually skip the dress code threads for that reason. Problem solved.

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

Amen.

 

Maris

[nycmode]

Meaning no disrespect, O.P., but your question is too vague:

"Would you pay more for a better overall experience?"

 

.

 

No worries, I totally understand. I made the poll as such because I was basing my model on what I saw on some other threads, where it was more about how much folks would be willing to pay (if at all) for better MDR food or getting rid of the soda plan and making it a part of the overall cost structure. I just wanted to get a ballpark idea of how much more people would be willing to pay for a slightly 'better' (in the eyes of some) experience based on those things that were debated in other threads. ;)

[USVI-4-me]

I started a thread asking who caters the food.

 

So far, the answer is: all the food is prepared on the ship.

 

Maybe that's the problem!

 

Would $5 extra per passenger help Celebrity hire a catering service and improve the food in the MDR?

 

I'd like to see some variety in the evening buffet offerings.

 

 

Marisela

[nycmode]

I'd like to see some variety in the evening buffet offerings.

 

Marisela

 

I agree with this, though I'm not sure if that's something that requires raising fares for. I just think they need some more variety ... not necessarily more food each night. I think their bfast/lunch buffets are nice, but the dinner offerings on the Silhouette at the buffet was pretty limited.

[USVI-4-me]

I agree with this, though I'm not sure if that's something that requires raising fares for. I just think they need some more variety ... not necessarily more food each night. I think their bfast/lunch buffets are nice, but the dinner offerings on the Silhouette at the buffet was pretty limited.

 

 

The evening buffet is a weak point; especially, when taking the longer cruises.

 

We like 14+ days and prefer 20 to 30 days for back to back Trans-Atlantic and Mediterranean. When the MDR experience is lacking, the evening buffet is sub-standard, and many nights in the Specialty restaurants is costly and boring........ what do we do for dinner?

 

Even Bistro on Five is not a choice for us due to the loud music in the Grand Foyer.

 

Marisela

[jg51]

Sorry, I disagree. I don't believe most guests would be willing to pay more for either 1, 2, or 3 on your list. ... If you want these items, you may have them by paying more for them. Why require everyone to pay more for the things you value?

 

I agree Linda. ...

 

Hello, "Happy Cruiser."

We quoted only you and "Host Andy," but there were another three people, between your post and his, who basically said what he said: "I agree, Linda."

 

The only problem is that everyone, beginning with you, "Happy Cruiser," failed to read our post carefully enough. Therefore, no one should have "agreed" with you. If you go back and re-read our post, you will see that you jumped to some unwarranted assumptions about our point of view. Here's how:

 

You wrote, "I don't believe most guests would be willing to pay more for either 1, 2, or 3 on your list."

 

The problem here is that we never said that "most guests would be willing to pay". The phrase, "most guests," denotes a majority (> 50%) -- and, for some people, it can denote a large majority. But notice the EXACT word that we used, which we will highlight: "We believe that many current guests would be willing to pay a lot more for item #1, a moderate amount for item #3, and a bit more for item #2."

 

The word, "many," denotes merely a significant number -- which could be anywhere from 10% (or even less) up to more than 50%. Even 10% of 3,500 people (350) is "many" people!

 

So, we are not happy that you changed our word, "many," into the very different word, "most," and we are even less happy that the four people who "agree" with you missed your mistake! At least one of them should have written, "Happy Cruiser, jg51 did not use the word, 'most!'"

 

Next, you wrote, "If you want these items, you may have them by paying more for them. Why require everyone to pay more for the things you value?"

 

Again you jumped to a wrong conclusion. The mere fact that we listed a few questions did not imply that we "want these items" to be included in a larger cruise fare. The truth is that we would NOT want all of the items included; at least one would probably cause the fare to go too high for us to afford.

 

Somehow, "Happy:mad: Cruiser," you ignored the fact that we introduced our questions with these words, addressed to the O.P.: "We think that more helpful polls would be ones that would ask such specific things as this: ...".

 

As you can see, we were just tossing out a few questions that someone could ask in future polls, in order to develop some statistics and/or to evoke a range of opinions that CrCr members may offer to those polls. We were NOT expressing our own opinion about what "X" should include as standard features!

 

We admit that we mentioned the fact that certain things could be included in such a way that it would cut a lot of "red tape" both for the cruise line and for guests, thereby decreasing workload and costs (perhaps even decreasing the crew by one or more slots, thus potentially resulting in an off-setting lowering of costs).

 

We were very amused to read some of the vehemently negative responses to the thought of adding some new, "standard" features to "X" cruises, thereby taking them off the "options" list. Our amusement came from the fact that "X" has already built similar charges into our fares -- charges that almost no one ever complains about, but meekly accepts, even though only a minority of passengers makes use of the goods or services involved! We could probably make a long list if we really tried, but let's start with these:

 

1. We all pay for "art" works that hang all over the ships, even though (we would bet) the great majority of people dislike these monstrosities, which are forced down our throats. Celebrity should sell them and not replace them, because blank (pastel-painted) walls would be more pleasant to see. The money obtained could be used for our benefit.

2. We all pay for the purchase, and maintenance, of "fitness center" equipment -- and for the salaries of trainers, even though the majority of passengers do not use these goods and services. We think that people should have to pay a fee to use the fitness center, just as they pay a fee for spa "services," specialty restaurants, and alcoholic beverages!

 

To echo all of those who complained about what we posted ("Why should we have to subsidize others' use of the equipment and trainer?"), we now ask: Why are the same people who (inappropriately) got upset about our previous post not complaining about having to pay for the art ... and not complaining about having to pay for the gym equipment and personnel ... and not complaining about certain other things on board that are enjoyed by a minority of guests (who pay no extra fee)?

 

Therefore, many who have complained on this thread should, in our opinion, be CONSISTENT ... by doing all of the following:

(1) telling "X" not to add new "standard features" (e.g., beverage packages, transfers, excursions, etc.) that would increase fares;

(2) telling "X" to stop wasting money on purchasing and maintaining bad "art," while passing the costs along in the fares;

(3) telling "X" to stop artificially inflating fares to pay for equipment and personnel (e.g., fitness center) that the majority of guests do not use.

.

[SusieV]

I would pay more for better food and service in the MDR. Since it doesn't look like this is happening, we opt to partake in specialty dining and simply cruise less often because of the increased cost.

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

to jg51

 

I stated my opinion. People agreed with my opinion. Sorry you didn't like it.

[CruiserChloe]

I have only been on 2 Celebrity cruises and I loved both of them. I say don't change anything, including the price.

[Bridge Maven]

Do people who think that Celebrity should keep their cruise fares low and offer a la carte options to enhance their overall cruise experience feel the same way about airlines charging extra for checked luggage, pillows,blankets, food, etc that use to be included in the price of an airline ticket?

[boogs]

Do people who think that Celebrity should keep their cruise fares low and offer a la carte options to enhance their overall cruise experience feel the same way about airlines charging extra for checked luggage, pillows,blankets, food, etc that use to be included in the price of an airline ticket?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact. I usually take a carry on, I don't need a pillow or a blanket, the food they serve is almost inedible, and for the few times I do check a bag, the added cost is still less to what the air fares used to be. So, I spend less on airfare, and don't pay for things (pillow, blanket, rubber chicken) that I don't want.

[YYC F/A]

It's interesting to see the responses.

 

EasyCruise was an interesting "unbundled" cruise option where everything (including bed linens) was additional. They didn't last.

 

The airline analogy is interesting. I think folks see airlines as a way to get from A to B, and it's a commodity based decision rather than an experience based decision. People are willing to go with carrier X vs Y to save $10 and most (not all, but most) will go with whomever has the lowest fare for the times/dates they need rather than have any brand loyalty or pay extra because "Airline Q has free snacks and blankets".

 

Cruising is different. It IS the experience. So to that end, the amount of unbundling or nickel & diming is harder to gauge.

 

Frankly, with the excellent fares that some of the luxury lines are offering, one can cruise today on Seabourn and not get your wallet out once, for fares that - when adjusting for inflation - are less than one would have paid 10 or 15 years ago for a mainstream line.

 

So for folks looking to pay a bit more for a premium (luxury) experience where you aren't constantly upcharged - that option already exists. The gulf between mainstream and luxury has narrowed. With $1999 suites on Seabourn for 7 night Med cruises, it actually works out less than Royal Caribbean when comparing a Junior Suite, and then the costs of specialty dining, drinks, tips, etc. etc. etc.

[bestmom1]

Just to get some decent food. Maybe Michel Roux jr? Or what about Heston Blumenthal, or Thomas Kellar

I'm sorry Jacque Van Staden hasn't worked for me, he may have performed his cost cutting task well, but its now time for a change, and a change for the better. The RCI family of cruise ships are about the only one without a Celebrity chef at the reins of the on board culinary experience, and it tells.

 

I have posted this also on other threads. The issue now is Van Staden. I'm a foodie and was very disappointed with the menus on our last two Celebrity cruises. Flavor and imagination doesn't cost money (except for the more rare fungi). He needs to be replaced with a Celebrity chef with talent to oversee the menu development. I don't understand how he won a James Beard Foundation rising star award. If he was good once, he has surely lost his way.

 

Liz

[nycmode]

I have posted this also on other threads. The issue now is Van Staden. I'm a foodie and was very disappointed with the menus on our last two Celebrity cruises. Flavor and imagination doesn't cost money (except for the more rare fungi). He needs to be replaced with a Celebrity chef with talent to oversee the menu development. I don't understand how he won a James Beard Foundation rising star award. If he was good once, he has surely lost his way.

 

Liz

 

Just out of curiosity, what made Roux stand out versus Van Staden? What did Roux do much better?