Ashes to Ashes

[xpcdoojk]

I have compassion for smokers as they are not doing anything illegal but yet get kicked around. What makes me see red is reformed smokers who feel that they are better than everyone else.

 

Seems like they are the worst. I am probably more tolerant because I was never a smoker. Don't like smoke, don't like smelly cars, garbage cans, dog poop, don't like the smelly guy who thinks if he wears a bottle of old spice he smells good, and yet I think smokers are contributing millions of dollars to the tax coffers should be at least given the nod that they are not lepers.

 

Moral busybodies, who think they are superior because they can't understand why other people don't agree with them drive me nuts. Which is why I am hating myself for reading this thread.....:D

 

jc

[Vitamin_Sea]

I have cancelled my cruise. I am a non-smoker. Not sure why balcony smoking is not allowed while smoking in other areas including the Casino is allowed. If cigarette smoke on a moving cruise ship bothers you, I am sure the smell coming from the ships funnel has to bother you. 21% of Americans still smoke -the numbers are higher overseas according to my research. How will this policy affect the bottom line.... My letter below from corporate.

 

 

[/i]

 

sooooo...Why did You cancel the cruise anyway ?

[Ocean Boy]

I see we have a newish member who wants to rehash the threads that I made my own rule that I am violating by posting to.:D

 

jc

 

And this is like the second time that you've broken the rule in two days.

[Ocean Boy]

sooooo...Why did You cancel the cruise anyway ?

 

The smell from the funnel.

[orville99]

Funniest thing I've ever seen. Do you know what the difference between Revenue and Profit is? Do you know that you can cut revenue while increasing profit? Which do you think shareholders are most interested in? Since you are concerned about the CVS decision are you aware that many analysts think that this will be a very smart and profitable move by them? CVS is positioning itself as a healthcare company and selling cigarettes is not in line with that goal. While you want to focus on the one cut to revenue you also are ignoring the 24% increase in revenue from the clinics they are opening. They currently have 900 and expect to expand to 1500 by 2017. You conclude that by not selling cigarettes they are committing some sort of business suicide. I disagree.

 

I still don't understand what the decision of a retail chain has to do with the never ending smoking debate on cruise ships. These are the apples and oranges, they are entirely different businesses.

 

There is a gas station down the road that could ban cigarettes without affecting the "revenue" at all but that would neither prove nor disprove a smoking position on a cruise line either. Your argument is nonsense.

 

 

A) you'll never get it, and

B) I really don't care if you do

 

Bye - Should know to never dance with a dervish.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[Vitamin_Sea]

The smell from the funnel.

 

Ok..Thats one less person we will ever see!

[orville99]

Do you think that all those smokers will all actually cancel because of the newer smoking rules? I'd guess some will cancel, some will barely be impacted because they did not have balconies anyway, some modify behavior to smoke within the new rules (with or without grumbling), and a few will quit. If the middle two categories are the largest numbers, then revenue will not drop as much as you project.

For those who do stop cruising, do you assume those cabins are all suddenly empty? I suspect most of them will be filled (by nonsmokers and compliant smokers). Maybe they will cut prices a bit to fill them, but even if they must run a sale, there will be revenue.

 

Now, let's speculate on revenue numbers in an alternate scenario. Some other cruise lines had already banned balcony smoking, then consider that Carnival bans it, then assume NCL follows Carnival's lead. Few options remain for the determined balcony smoker. If many turned to RCI, it might impact brand image and nonsmoker satisfaction. So RCI may have faced revenue impact if they had not changed policies to stay in the mainstream. The decision was to face a potential cut by acting or to face a potential cut by not acting....They came down to acting, probably a long term strategy.

 

The math is not as simple as multiply by .20...

 

 

Don't really care one way or another. The entire thread is functionless.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[rtazz17]

I have cancelled my cruise. I am a non-smoker. Not sure why balcony smoking is not allowed while smoking in other areas including the Casino is allowed. If cigarette smoke on a moving cruise ship bothers you, I am sure the smell coming from the ships funnel has to bother you. 21% of Americans still smoke -the numbers are higher overseas according to my research. How will this policy affect the bottom line.... My letter below from corporate.

 

Happy sailing to everyone!

 

 

Dear Terry:

 

Thank you for your email. We apologize for the delay in our response.

 

We appreciate your candid and valuable feedback regarding our enhanced smoking policy.

 

At Royal Caribbean International, our priority is to provide an onboard experience that is safe for all of our guests. Onboard policies, including the new smoking policy, are implemented after conducting extensive research to ensure that we continue to provide our guests with the award-winning vacation experience they have come to expect from Royal Caribbean International. Through this process, we found that many guests were displeased with second hand smoke that emanated from guests smoking on their balconies. Many of the policies on our ships are the result of feedback we have received from our loyal guests and consumers. We are confident that this new smoking policy will enhance the cruising experience for our guests.

 

We thank you for the time you have taken to share your concerns regarding this matter. We have certainly taken your comments into consideration, and they have been shared with our leadership team for review.

 

We would appreciate the opportunity to welcome you onboard one of our cruise ships in the future. Regardless of how you choose to spend your vacations, we wish you and your family the best in your future travels.

 

Thank you for contacting Royal Caribbean International.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Customer Service Representative

Wrong thread sorry.....

Edited September 11, 2014 by rtazz17

[The Viking]

Wonder if Terry is a tobaco grower who does not appreciate the decline og places you can smoke in general.

 

I have never smoked and are not bothered by smoke. I feel for smokers who are treated as dirt many times by non smokers who stink of parfune.

[nbsjcruiser]

Wonder if Terry is a tobaco grower who does not appreciate the decline og places you can smoke in general.

 

I have never smoked and are not bothered by smoke. I feel for smokers who are treated as dirt many times by non smokers who stink of parfune.

 

I could not agree more

[xpcdoojk]

And this is like the second time that you've broken the rule in two days.

 

It is like a bad car crash, you just have to look. Oops there I go again!

 

OB, Oasis in February Anthem in January 16.... surely you can join me on one of those?:D

 

jc

[Ocean Boy]

It is like a bad car crash, you just have to look. Oops there I go again!

 

OB, Oasis in February Anthem in January 16.... surely you can join me on one of those?:D

 

jc

 

I thought you were doing Liberty?:confused:

[xpcdoojk]

I thought you were doing Liberty?:confused:

 

yes, a side to side cruise. One week on the Oasis, and 5 days on the Liberty. I have to figure out ways to avoid Malaria areas because I donate blood monthly. Being a doc, you will figure that out.

 

Join us!

 

jc

[LetsGetWet!]

Precisely! You're exactly right. I applaud the move by CVS, but RCCL isn't stupid - they know that to instantly eliminate 20% of their client base would be foolhardy. Where CVS still offers thousands of products and smokers can still choose CVS for other non-tobacco purchases, the minute RCCL bans smoking, they lose EVERY SINGLE potential revenue dollar from that segment of the population. It's apples and oranges.

Well, no they don't - some smokers will still cruise even if the cruise lines ban smoking. Smokers still fly, smokers still stay in hotels, smokers still go to restaurants - all of whom have BANNED smoking.

However, to hear the individual to whom I was responding tell it, every smoker that canceled or did not book would be instantly replaced by a non-smoker, so there would be no impact to the bottom line. That's what he was implying by saying that RCCL cruises sail at 107% occupancy. Cherry picking numbers (if they're even accurate) and ignoring the context in which they're derived and also only answering part of the question. No one in their right mind would think that eliminating smoking on board entirely would have zero financial impact. There are still way too many smokers out there - a lot of non-smokers hammer the "we outnumber you" point, but ignore the fact that even the 18% number thrown out earlier represents roughly 57,000,000 people. I don't know what percentage of the population cruises regularly, but you're looking at a lot of lost revenue.

 

Again, I am a non-smoker, but I am also a pragmatist. I don't buy into self-serving pie in the sky statements that have no basis in reality, that's the only reason I'm engaging in this discussion at all. There are alternative solutions out there, but no one's looking at them.

I didn't cherry-pick anything - YOU argued that cruise lines aren't sailing full as it is, I simply pointed out your error. And as for "self-serving, pie in the sky statements that have no basis in reality", you may not "buy into them" but you sure don't mind making them yourself, like in this post! :rolleyes:

[LetsGetWet!]

Net margin is irrelevant...

Funniest thing I've ever seen. Do you know what the difference between Revenue and Profit is? Do you know that you can cut revenue while increasing profit? Which do you think shareholders are most interested in? Since you are concerned about the CVS decision are you aware that many analysts think that this will be a very smart and profitable move by them? CVS is positioning itself as a healthcare company and selling cigarettes is not in line with that goal. While you want to focus on the one cut to revenue you also are ignoring the 24% increase in revenue from the clinics they are opening. They currently have 900 and expect to expand to 1500 by 2017. You conclude that by not selling cigarettes they are committing some sort of business suicide. I disagree.

 

I still don't understand what the decision of a retail chain has to do with the never ending smoking debate on cruise ships. These are the apples and oranges, they are entirely different businesses.

 

There is a gas station down the road that could ban cigarettes without affecting the "revenue" at all but that would neither prove nor disprove a smoking position on a cruise line either. Your argument is nonsense.

A) you'll never get it, and

B) I really don't care if you do

 

Bye - Should know to never dance with a dervish.

Don't really care one way or another. The entire thread is functionless.

LOL! Yeah, if it had been pointed out that I tried to make such an utterly foolish argument as "net margin is irrelevant" I might be inclined to pronounce the thread as "functionless" and retreat in embarrassment too! :D

[orville99]

LOL! Yeah, if it had been pointed out that I tried to make such an utterly foolish argument as "net margin is irrelevant" I might be inclined to pronounce the thread as "functionless" and retreat in embarrassment too! :D

 

No embarrassment here ;) If you go back and read my post, in the context of the discussion, the net margin that CVS generates on cigarette sales is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the conversation, and as presented serves only to confirm the pre-existing bias and anti-smoking zealotry of the poster to whom I responded.

 

Bye:D

[Starry Eyes]

No embarrassment here ;) If you go back and read my post, in the context of the discussion, the net margin that CVS generates on cigarette sales is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the conversation, and as presented serves only to confirm the pre-existing bias and anti-smoking zealotry of the poster to whom I responded.

 

Bye:D

Excuse me...you quoted my post prior to the "functionless" remark. Where is the bias and zealotry in that post?

 

If you read it, my post was discussing of oversimplification of your revenue calculation. If one wanted to call names, one might say I sounded like a bean-counter...but, since you were starting the revenue analysis, that would be a pot calling a kettle, wouldn't it?

Edited September 12, 2014 by Starry Eyes

[Sitzmark]

No embarrassment here ;) If you go back and read my post, in the context of the discussion, the net margin that CVS generates on cigarette sales is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the conversation, and as presented serves only to confirm the pre-existing bias and anti-smoking zealotry of the poster to whom I responded.

 

Bye:D

 

 

LOL, The entire notion that any decision CVS makes regarding tobacco products on their shelves having any relevance to any cruise ship is the thing that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

As to anti-smoking zealotry I've seen none in this thread.

[LetsGetWet!]

LOL! Yeah, if it had been pointed out that I tried to make such an utterly foolish argument as "net margin is irrelevant" I might be inclined to pronounce the thread as "functionless" and retreat in embarrassment too! :D

No embarrassment here ;) If you go back and read my post, in the context of the discussion, the net margin that CVS generates on cigarette sales is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the conversation, and as presented serves only to confirm the pre-existing bias and anti-smoking zealotry of the poster to whom I responded.

 

Bye:D

OK, you weren't embarrassed. Actually, that's even MORE embarrassing for you, that you're not embarrassed for making a stupid statement like "net margin is irrelevant." :rolleyes:

[Evilgrin72]

Well, no they don't - some smokers will still cruise even if the cruise lines ban smoking. Smokers still fly, smokers still stay in hotels, smokers still go to restaurants - all of whom have BANNED smoking.

 

I didn't cherry-pick anything - YOU argued that cruise lines aren't sailing full as it is, I simply pointed out your error. And as for "self-serving, pie in the sky statements that have no basis in reality", you may not "buy into them" but you sure don't mind making them yourself, like in this post! :rolleyes:

 

You're off the mark here. Smokers fly because it's a few hours. They stay in hotels because they can walk outside and smoke. They are not going to get on a ship that offers nowhere to smoke for a week. You may disagree, but I assure you if you poll 100 regular smokers, 99 of them (at least) are going to tell you they're not going 7 days without a smoke. If you don't believe me, try it.

 

Also, if you go back and re-read, I said the cruise lines could only ban smoking entirely without a financial impact if every ship sailed full with a waiting list full of non-smokers waiting to absorb all the cabins left unsold if smokers cancelled. You ignored that portion of it when you posted your occupancy stats, and now you're pointing back to it yet again. You're completely missing the point. Anyone else can find a statistic to "prove" his or her assertion, but it's not germane to this discussion. If every single cruise was sailing full with a wait list, why do I constantly get emails advertising $109 last minute cruises? Charity?

 

Just once explain to me, if banning smoking entirely would have no revenue impact, why hasn't it happened? I suspect you've avoided that question because you have no good response. I'm proposing alternatives that could potentially satisfy everyone rather than simply digging my heels in and rejecting anything that doesn't comply with my personal sense of right and wrong. I wish more folks like you would try it once in a while.

[Evilgrin72]

Also, if you want to know how/why your statistic regarding occupancy rate is meaningless, those numbers are based on double occupancy. For example, Liberty of the Seas has 3,634 berths at double occupancy. Meaning if it's sailing at 105 percent capacity, there are approximately 3,815 passengers on board. However, its max capacity is 4,900 which means there are over 1,000 berths unsold. So, even though the occupancy rate is over 100 percent, there are frequently unsold cabins when the boat sails.

 

So no, if RCL tosses +/- 20 percent of its client base to other lines/vacation options, there does not exist a ready made group of people just waiting to absorb those unsold cabins, as you imply. Which makes that number you keep pointing to unimportant for the purposes of this conversation.

[Sitzmark]

 

Just once explain to me, if banning smoking entirely would have no revenue impact, why hasn't it happened? I suspect you've avoided that question because you have no good response. I'm proposing alternatives that could potentially satisfy everyone rather than simply digging my heels in and rejecting anything that doesn't comply with my personal sense of right and wrong. I wish more folks like you would try it once in a while.

 

What alternatives did you propose? I missed them.

 

I won't dig in my heels, but I will be patient and they will eventually be smoke free, as of 2012 only 17% of US adults at or above the poverty level smoke. How long will there be a significant enough percentage of smokers on cruise ships to make it worth it to continue catering to them?

 

Why hasn't happened yet? it's happening now, these things always happen in increments, if you didn't know that you're new to the game. Just look around. They banned smoking in public buildings, then private offices where fewer than half smoked, then all of them, then bars, then restaurants, in some communities it's in apartments. I'm not promoting it or condemning it, I'm just acknowledging that it's an irresistible force and it's coming.

 

On the ships they gave up smoking staterooms and put them on the balconies and in the bars, then out of some of the bars, then off the balconies, pretty soon it'll be out of the casino and only on certain parts of the deck, do you deny that the trend is there?

 

I read somewhere that Carnival said only 10% of their passengers smoke, that means 90% don't. The numbers of smokers are continuing to drop and as that happens the amount of space allotted to them will diminish as well

[Starry Eyes]

Also, if you want to know how/why your statistic regarding occupancy rate is meaningless, those numbers are based on double occupancy. For example, Liberty of the Seas has 3,634 berths at double occupancy. Meaning if it's sailing at 105 percent capacity, there are approximately 3,815 passengers on board. However, its max capacity is 4,900 which means there are over 1,000 berths unsold. So, even though the occupancy rate is over 100 percent, there are frequently unsold cabins when the boat sails.

 

So no, if RCL tosses +/- 20 percent of its client base to other lines/vacation options, there does not exist a ready made group of people just waiting to absorb those unsold cabins, as you imply. Which makes that number you keep pointing to unimportant for the purposes of this conversation.

Where did you get the 4900 number? As a passenger capacity, that seems too high. I do not think RCI is trying to get 4900 passengers on LOS (135%!); much unhappiness among crew andpassengers if they tried that. Maybe she has 4900 bunks for flexibility, but they are not trying to fill them all.

 

Here are the numbers I see for FOS:

Passengers: 3,634 (do); 4,375 full capacity

Crew 1,360 International

 

Personally, I am not expecting to many (if any) toatlly nonsmoking ships. That is a far, far cry from restricting smoking areas.

[LetsGetWet!]

What alternatives did you propose? I missed them.

 

I won't dig in my heels, but I will be patient and they will eventually be smoke free, as of 2012 only 17% of US adults at or above the poverty level smoke. How long will there be a significant enough percentage of smokers on cruise ships to make it worth it to continue catering to them?

 

Why hasn't happened yet? it's happening now, these things always happen in increments, if you didn't know that you're new to the game. Just look around. They banned smoking in public buildings, then private offices where fewer than half smoked, then all of them, then bars, then restaurants, in some communities it's in apartments. I'm not promoting it or condemning it, I'm just acknowledging that it's an irresistible force and it's coming.

 

On the ships they gave up smoking staterooms and put them on the balconies and in the bars, then out of some of the bars, then off the balconies, pretty soon it'll be out of the casino and only on certain parts of the deck, do you deny that the trend is there?

 

I read somewhere that Carnival said only 10% of their passengers smoke, that means 90% don't. The numbers of smokers are continuing to drop and as that happens the amount of space allotted to them will diminish as well

You said it well.

 

A) He didn't propose any alternatives that I saw either.

 

B) No one here has said the cruise line is going to go instantly smoke-free overnight. Despite the fact that no one has tried to argue that, it's the red herring he continues to bring up. But if you don't see it moving incrementally & inexorably in that direction over time, then you're in serious denial.

[Evilgrin72]

You said it well.

 

A) He didn't propose any alternatives that I saw either.

 

B) No one here has said the cruise line is going to go instantly smoke-free overnight. Despite the fact that no one has tried to argue that, it's the red herring he continues to bring up. But if you don't see it moving incrementally & inexorably in that direction over time, then you're in serious denial.

 

A) Read the whole thread. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

B) I don't think you fully understand what a red herring is. The point I've been making the whole time is that they could be looking at mutually agreeable solutions. No one denies that things are moving in a non-smoking direction. However, they haven't banned it entirely because they cannot do so yet. That's the point I was making that you were disputing with your occupancy figures. If you want to re-frame the discussion now, go ahead. If they continue to allow smoking, militant non-smokers will continue to complain until it's banned. As soon as they ban it, smokers will flee en masse. Those are the facts.

 

As long as people ignore potential compromise and spend their time trying to "win," then someone will always be disappointed.