Smoking on NCL Ships

[Host CMLA]

The only place a cigarette plugs in is to a person's mouth!

And, it does have fire on the end of it.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. If I'm putting something that's on fire in my mouth, I'd be pretty careful about how it's handled. As I said before, there are numerous fire hazzards onboard a ship. I'm guessing that cruise lines think passengers will take adequate precautions.

[SailAways]

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. If I'm putting something that's on fire in my mouth, I'd be pretty careful about how it's handled. As I said before, there are numerous fire hazzards onboard a ship. I'm guessing that cruise lines think passengers will take adequate precautions.

 

No point here, Cecilia - just my feeble effort at humor - sorry if it came off differently!

[johnql]

I could be wrong, but I think SailAways's point is that all the other items that you listed were appliances ("anything that plugs in"), all of which have practical functions. There really is no practical function to smoking, other than satisfying a physical craving. (I'm assuming that we're excluding young smokers, who often do it because of peer pressure or to appear cool.)

[johnql]

Oops, I was posting at the same time as SailAways. So, I guess there really WAS no point.

[SailAways]

Oops, I was posting at the same time as SailAways. So, I guess there really WAS no point.

 

You are right on both posts - I guess my humor is somewhat strange. The difference which you point out (plug-in's) was so obvious to me, that it tickled my funny bone, thus the "pointless-point" has been clarified!!

[rickcohen2]

I bet some cruise line will have a totally non-smoking ship in the future.....So it is just a matter of time until some cruise line jumps on this again!

Donna,

I've been on one of those. The 350-pax R4 in Tahiti. Not a pretty sight.

 

The smokers were complaining they didn't know (maybe a few actually didn't) and the non-smokers were complaining that everytime they went ashore they had to walk past the smokers dockside. Seems the non-smokers thought because the ship was non-smoking the docks should be too.

 

Anyway, I don't know if it was the air conditioning or what, but several areas of that ship ALWAYS smelled like smoke. Especially in the hallways directly behind reception. Even pot smoking was evident (somebody told me what it smells like :rolleyes: ).

 

It may have been a non-smoking vessel, but the rule, I guess, wasn't enforced. The bottom line turned out to be the Bottom Line. They went belly-up, as did their experiment catering to "the 75%" (half of which I'm sure would not be "willing to drive an extra 30 to 45 minutes to have a smoke-free environment").

[Happy ks]

Most hotels have non-smoking rooms; wouldn't it be nice to have non-smoking cabins and non-smoking cabin areas so that we would not get second-hand smoke on our balconies?

I hope Cecilia won't delete this post because she thinks it it argumentative!

What do my follow-cruisers think on this issue?

 

I wish that hotels would start using whatever it is that ships use to get rid of the cigarette smoke stench from their hotel rooms. Unfortunately, I've never stayed in a non-smoking hotel room that does not reek of cigarette smoke. I think they probably have more smoking rooms than non, or the smokers don't want the yucky smelling smoking rooms, either.

 

Of course, I can smell smoke from very far away. We have lived in our house for 16 years now, there was a smoker that lived here before us. I know he only smoked in one room of the house, it was the only place that smelled bad. After painting numerous times, replacing carpeting, I can still smell the odor when it rains.

 

I'm always surprised on a cruise ship, it is not nearly as offensive as a hotel.

[Host CMLA]

No point here, Cecilia - just my feeble effort at humor - sorry if it came off differently!

I'm sorry. :o I didn't get it. But then I read what johnql wrote and I saw the play on words you were making. Oops! Now I get it. And yes, it was a good attempt at humor and it went right above my head. I will use my most recent excuse for all the things that go over my head or I completely miss...I'm seven months pregnant. I can barely remember what was for dinner last night or what my feet look like. I miss a lot of things these days. LOL :D Sorry again.

[johnql]

It may have been a non-smoking vessel, but the rule, I guess, wasn't enforced. The bottom line turned out to be the Bottom Line. They went belly-up, as did their experiment catering to "the 75%" (half of which I'm sure would not be "willing to drive an extra 30 to 45 minutes to have a smoke-free environment").

I always felt that Renaissance operated on too narrow a profit margin. They offered excellent bargains, but with much smaller ships than today's megaships, they weren't dealing in high-enough volume to make up for the skimpy profits. They were skating on thin ice just as 9/11 put a tremendous damper on travel, leading to their bankruptcy. I honestly don't think they went belly-up because of their non-smoking policy. We could just as well speculate that their no-kids policy led to their demise.

[SailAways]

I'm sorry. :o I didn't get it. But then I read what johnql wrote and I saw the play on words you were making. Oops! Now I get it. And yes, it was a good attempt at humor and it went right above my head. I will use my most recent excuse for all the things that go over my head or I completely miss...I'm seven months pregnant. I can barely remember what was for dinner last night or what my feet look like. I miss a lot of things these days. LOL :D Sorry again.

 

Thank You Cecilia - But, no apology necessary, really.

 

Sit, down, put your feet up, and there they are! You can actually see them!

I remember being in that same situation several times, even though it was over forty years ago! :eek:

 

Have a beautiful pregnancy.

[seahorse]

I always felt that Renaissance operated on too narrow a profit margin. They offered excellent bargains, but with much smaller ships than today's megaships, they weren't dealing in high-enough volume to make up for the skimpy profits. They were skating on thin ice just as 9/11 put a tremendous damper on travel, leading to their bankruptcy. I honestly don't think they went belly-up because of their non-smoking policy. We could just as well speculate that their no-kids policy led to their demise.

 

One of the main reasons that they went belly-up is that they stopped paying comissions to TA`s. They had a great product. They would "steal" our clients anyway they could so we stopped booking them and when clients would ask about them we would book away.

 

After a time when they were losing money they came back and "begged" the TA community to book them again. Most of us refused.........we didn`t trust them. I am sure there were other reasons but that was one BIG mistake on their part.

[johnql]

Thanks, seahorse. I didn't know about the commissions.