Time To For A Reality Check For Mr. Fain

[Biker19]

While every one is debating the merits of the CEO's strategy, the bottom line is that what he said was to appease shareholders. Having monitored prices very closely to time the booking of a cruise at the low point in the price curve, I've realized that the chances of a discount in the last 30 day are very slim. Most of the discounting happens soon after final payment - about 60 days out. The Allure/Oasis duo have had their discounts somewhat later but even those are more like 30 days out - rarely is the deep discounting 10-20 days out.

 

And then of course there's the issue of absolute prices. As many have figured out, the BOGO and other discounts are from an inflated price, so the final price may not be such a great discount after all.

 

Discounting happens all the time - again, having looked at pricing closely I've seen RCI as having some of the most volatile pricing compared to other lines.

 

In the big scheme of things this is all ado about nothing. This affects few cruisers and like all free market products, if you don't like the price don't buy it. But once you do, don't bitch about price changes afterwards.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Biker19

[Karter]

There is a business/marketing aspect to all of this that I think most people are missing. Market position is a valid and key element to business. You see this all over the place and probably don't think much of it.

 

Walmart sells clothes. Saks Fifth Avenue sells clothes, at a much higher price. How is Saks still in business?

 

Ford, Chrysler, and GM all sell a wide range of cars. Not a one of them has a car that is close to the starting price of the cheapest Lamborghini (ok, maybe one super-car each). Yet, Lamborghini remains in business.

 

The closest and most relevant example would be hotels. Motel-6 has rooms by the night. So does the Ritz-Carlton. You can bet that the Ritz-Carlton has many nights throughout the year with empty rooms. Yet, they keep their prices high and continue to profit.

 

The point is that a business can be entirely successful without being a low-cost leader. There are many other viable market positions and some of them depend on high pricing to keep the product/service "exclusive". It is not discrimination to do this as anyone with the money is more than welcome to purchase the product/service. The catch is that many simply cannot afford it.

 

Royal is clearly going from a Motel 6 position to a Ritz-Carlton position (ok, maybe not that big of a jump). Intelligent minds can disagree if that is a move to a new position or a return to an old position. Personally, when I look at the Song of Norway and it's super-swanky lounge called the Viking Crown, I lean towards a return to an old position. Either way, those whose budgets/values/preferences no longer fit with the new position are going to be upset. To put it bluntly, they are being shown the door. By the same token, those whose budget/values/preferences fit with the new position will welcome another option to consider.

 

There is no guarantee this new position will work out for Royal. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Given some of the other more "exclusive" options out there, I would be surprised if it doesn't work out for them.

 

Not sure your comparison is valid in this case. Yes both motel 6 and Ritz Carleton can both be viable business and prosper because they are targeting different consumers but if motel 6 one day decided to charge Ritz Carleton prices without out changing their product I do not think they would be in business very long.

 

This is a mass market line and there are very viable alternatives to the RCCL product NCL, Princess, Holland and even Carnival with some of their new ships. I like most consumers purchase based on perceived value. I am one of the passengers who searches for discounted fares because of the value equation. I will say I would be willing to pay a lot higher fare if the product was a higher quality product but with all the cut backs in recent years the value equation is getting very shaky. I cruise 5 - 7 times a year on 7 days or longer cruises on the newer ships because they still provide the value I am looking for. If the prices go up even 15% or 20% they value will not be there for me.

 

I have tried all the other competitors products and some of them come very close to what I am looking for so RCCL decides not to provide a product at a price point I am willing to pay I have no problem taking my business to other lines.

 

Getting back to the original point if RCCL improved their product back to like it was I would be more than happy to pay a higher premium to sail on their ships. In my case it is not about the cruise fare but the value I get for my dollars spent.

 

In the example of sailing at 2/3 full at a 50% higher price being equal that assumes you can find 2/3rds of a ship passengers that are willing to pay the 50% higher fare. I suspect with the current product that may become a problem.

 

It does seem intuitive that if you can offset the fixed costs (fuel, depreciation, crew, maintenance, etc) of operation of the ship with very little incremental cost (food, cleaning) that should help the margin situation on each sailing. At that point any on board spending is an opportunity for additional revenue that would not exist with an empty cabin.

 

Bottom line the market/demand will determine prices as it has forever.

[whitecap]

What were your several 'Hilary' comments about, if not politics?

 

BekkaW; I was referring to Bill and Hillary Lawsdontapplytous. I think they are long time "cruisers". :D :D

 

Just a little humor BekkaW, just a little humor

[poncho1973]

Gregg, could you imagine what would happen if a developer began building homes and purposely raised the prices by $100,000 to exclude certain "discount seekers" and "cheap home buyers".

 

You know this happens in every major city in the country, every day of the year, right?

 

Maybe not $100,000 each time, but it happens every single day.

 

Pick any building with multiple home sites. Just pick a builder. DR Horton, Pulte, Lennar, Toll Brothers, and Taylor-Morrison are currently the 5 largest in the US.

 

1. Go to any of their websites.
   
2. Find a floorplan you like.
   
3. Note that floorplan is built in several communities.
   
4. Note that it isn't the same price in each community.
   
5. Understand this is because it is based on the part of town you are building that floorplan in.
   

Seriously. I live in Orlando, if I built the same exact house in Windermere that I built in Parramore... the exclusive nature of Windermere (you get Shaq and Tiger Woods as neighbors!) would mean that house would be insanely more expensive than in what is currently one of the less desirable areas of town.

[whitecap]

You know this happens in every major city in the country, every day of the year, right?

 

Maybe not $100,000 each time, but it happens every single day.

 

Pick any building with multiple home sites. Just pick a builder. DR Horton, Pulte, Lennar, Toll Brothers, and Taylor-Morrison are currently the 5 largest in the US.

 

1. Go to any of their websites.
   
2. Find a floorplan you like.
   
3. Note that floorplan is built in several communities.
   
4. Note that it isn't the same price in each community.
   
5. Understand this is because it is based on the part of town you are building that floorplan in.
   

Seriously. I live in Orlando, if I built the same exact house in Windermere that I built in Parramore... the exclusive nature of Windermere (you get Shaq and Tiger Woods as neighbors!) would mean that house would be insanely more expensive than in what is currently one of the less desirable areas of town.

 

Poncho, I understand your example however charging what the community will agree to pay for living in a certain area is not the issue that was raised by CoachT; he stated that he was ok with RCCL raising prices to keep a certain class of people from being able to afford to cruise with RCCL. Completely different situation. He even goes further later on disparaging Carnival cruisers.

 

Oh, and Poncho just so you know, my momma didn't raise her no liar!! :cool:

[Biker19]

One other thing to consider - most of the folks who get upset when hearing people booking late got a deal don't realize many late bookers got that deal via a GTY rate. So while someone may have lucked into a D1 balcony at 1/2 the price someone else paid, that is totally by chance and they could have ended up with an E3 as well. :cool:

Edited April 22, 2015 by Biker19

[Paul65]

Poncho, I understand your example however charging what the community will agree to pay for living in a certain area is not the issue that was raised by CoachT; he stated that he was ok with RCCL raising prices to keep a certain class of people from being able to afford to cruise with RCCL. Completely different situation. He even goes further later on disparaging Carnival cruisers.

 

Oh, and Poncho just so you know, my momma didn't raise her no liar!! :cool:

 

Despite your apparently smear campaign against a poster with whom you disagree, YOU actually described it as "class warfare" before CoachT even mentioned the word class. He started talking about "cheap cruisers" who don't spend much, once on-board, and interpreted that as class warfare and have been all over his case ever since.

 

I'm not agreeing with everything CoachT said, but I think you're out of line with your campaign to insult and discredit.

 

Oh, and home builders do, very much, try to establish developments/subdivisions with minimum home sizes/price points to attract different types of people. It happens all the time. You could call it discrimination, if you want, but it's just a fact that some people either want or can afford different things.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul65

[Big_G]

My personal philosophy is that you book something like this, a cruise, a flight, a hotel at the price you are comfortable paying and deal with it. The value is not determined by how much someone else paid, but by how much it is worth to me.

 

I agree. There are differences between Carnival and Royal policy when it comes to price drops so I think there are less complaints about it on the Carnival boards. We check for price drops after final payment only when we're looking for an upgrade.

[Polarbear Pa]

Mr Fain must remember if we don't like the policy or prices we as the customer can go elsewhere and I have seen a lot of big major retailers go bust with an attitude like he has. Take it or leave it , well it might be time to take it somewhere else. I was also wondering haven't fuel prices dropped how come no drop in fares? I have been loyal to Royal but Mr Fain there are lots of options out there.

[RocketMan275]

Would increased fares necessarily translate to higher quality food, better entertainment, and increased staffing and service? Maybe they are willing to let that ride for awhile, too.

 

True, higher prices do not necessarily lead to higher quality food, better entertainment, and increased staffing and service but the last few years should demonstrate that lower prices do lead to lower quality food, poorer entertainment, decreased staffing and service. Since cruise lines have to protect their profit margins due to a variety of economic factors such as their access to necessary credit, etc., and the limits to improving efficiency; quality and price are positively related.

 

Which would you prefer: cruise lines that compete on price or on the quality of their product? I know most people would prefer not to make that choice and prefer cruise lines that have low costs and high quality. I like unicorns too, don't you?

 

I'm not saying that RCI should become Azamara or Silverseas. I am saying that increased prices are a necessary condition to fund increased quality while remaining a mainstream cruise line. Of course, the increased prices would have to have limits.

[whitecap]

Despite your apparently smear campaign against a poster with whom you disagree, YOU actually described it as "class warfare" before CoachT even mentioned the word class. He started talking about "cheap cruisers" who don't spend much, once on-board, and interpreted that as class warfare and have been all over his case ever since.

 

I'm not agreeing with everything CoachT said, but I think you're out of line with your campaign to insult and discredit.

 

Oh, and home builders do, very much, try to establish developments/subdivisions with minimum home sizes/price points to attract different types of people. It happens all the time. You could call it discrimination, if you want, but it's just a fact that some people either want or can afford different things.

 

Sorry Paul but you have it a little backwards. CoachT used the term "cheap cruisers" in post 5 of this thread. My first post, in which I quoted him, wasn't until post 10. No smear campaign on my part, just took exception to him categorizing others as "cheap cruisers" and "discount seekers" as being a lesser class of person than he believes himself to be. I was simply trying to stick up for those like me, who bargain hunt and shop for the best product with the best price. I will not apologize for that.

[Paul65]

Sorry Paul but you have it a little backwards. CoachT used the term "cheap cruisers" in post 5 of this thread. My first post, in which I quoted him, wasn't until post 10. No smear campaign on my part, just took exception to him categorizing others as "cheap cruisers" and "discount seekers" as being a lesser class of person than he believes himself to be. I was simply trying to stick up for those like me, who bargain hunt and shop for the best product with the best price. I will not apologize for that.

 

Nope, I didn't have it backward at all. That's exactly what I said. HE mentioned "cheap cruisers" then YOU started talking about "class."

 

Frugality or "cheapness" doesn't necessarily relate to class, even if you associate it as such. Just don't be too surprised if you end up the one in trouble with the board moderators for the way you're posting.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul65

[Debde]

I admittedly have skimmed through these 9 pages but could it be, that when all is said and done, it is us who will get the reality check and Mr. Fain will continue on, skipping off the the bank as they say!!:p

[whitecap]

Nope, I didn't have it backward at all. That's exactly what I said. HE mentioned "cheap cruisers" then YOU started talking about "class."

 

Frugality or "cheapness" doesn't necessarily relate to class, even if you associate it as such. Just don't be too surprised if you end up the one in trouble with the board moderators for the way you're posting.

 

If you agree that it is ok to separate people into groups (classes)as to what they can afford and then increasing fares to exclude certain groups, isn't that "class warfare"? Just saying.

[Paul65]

If you agree that it is ok to separate people into groups (classes)as to what they can afford and then increasing fares to exclude certain groups, isn't that "class warfare"? Just saying.

 

Again, YOU are the one talking about separating people into classes. He was talking about eliminating deep discounts being a good move, from a stockholder point of view, under the premise that those who buy low-priced cruises tend to be those who are on a tight budget and won't spend much on the ship, therefore are not good for profit.

 

I'm not so sure his premise is right, but it's not the class warfare that you want to pretend it is, so that you have a reason to criticize. I'm just suggesting a little introspection, but if you don't want to do that, this is the last I'll say about it.

[whitecap]

Again, YOU are the one talking about separating people into classes. He was talking about eliminating deep discounts being a good move, from a stockholder point of view, under the premise that those who buy low-priced cruises tend to be those who are on a tight budget and won't spend much on the ship, therefore are not good for profit.

 

I'm not so sure his premise is right, but it's not the class warfare that you want to pretend it is, so that you have a reason to criticize. I'm just suggesting a little introspection, but if you don't want to do that, this is the last I'll say about it.

 

You are absolutely correct...to a point. CoachT agreed with the statement from the CEO; no problem there; but he then took it further when he stated that he, personally, was ok with RCCL increasing prices for the "purpose" of excluding "discount seekers" and "cheap cruisers"; and it was at that point that I took offense to his categorizing people who shop for discounts and cheaper fares as people who should be excluded from RCCL. Question: can we agree that people who shop for "discount fares" or who "spend less onboard a ship" are no different then those who simply agree to pay full fare price and spend loads of money at the shops and bars? I think we can.

[Paul65]

Question: can we agree that people who shop for "discount fares" or who "spend less onboard a ship" are no different then those who simply agree to pay full fare price and spend loads of money at the shops and bars?

 

We certainly can't agree on that, because if they have different habits, then they are different. And that can even mean that they have different value as a customer to a company. I think where you're getting hung up is in assuming that "different" has to mean that one group are "better people" than the other. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse.

[setsail]

Hello, coacht is in business, he/she is a travel agent. Why would he/she be against prices going up, exclude discount seekers, etc..

 

Higher prices with no discounts ='s higher earnings/comission:rolleyes:

[bouhunter]

OMG, 170 Posts!!!!!!!!!:D:D:):D

[whitecap]

We certainly can't agree on that, because if they have different habits, then they are different. And that can even mean that they have different value as a customer to a company. I think where you're getting hung up is in assuming that "different" has to mean that one group are "better people" than the other. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse.

 

Ok, maybe I used the wrong word, different. What I was asking is can we agree that whether or not you pay full fare and spend lots of money on board, you are no more or less deserving to cruise on Royal Caribbean? Hope I asked it right that time.

[Paul65]

Ok, maybe I used the wrong word, different. What I was asking is can we agree that whether or not you pay full fare and spend lots of money on board, you are no more or less deserving to cruise on Royal Caribbean? Hope I asked it right that time.

 

On that, I can agree. Can you agree that the other poster you're targeting didn't say anything about "deserving" to cruise on Royal Caribbean?

[aurelius180]

If you agree that it is ok to separate people into groups (classes)as to what they can afford and then increasing fares to exclude certain groups, isn't that "class warfare"? Just saying.

 

 

There are plenty of wealthy people who could be considered "cheap."

[whitecap]

On that, I can agree. Can you agree that the other poster you're targeting didn't say anything about "deserving" to cruise on Royal Caribbean?

 

First let me say that I haven't "targeted" anyone, just disagreed with his use of certain terms to describe people. And yes, I do not recall him using the word "deserving", instead he simply stated that he was ok with a procedure that "excludes" certain people he feels don't benefit the cruise line by seeking out discounts and fare reductions or budgeting less for onboard expenses than other may. Look at this; we have just accomplished more in 10 minutes than most governments get done in a year! :D

[Paul65]

First let me say that I haven't "targeted" anyone, just disagreed with his use of certain terms to describe people.

 

Target: select as an object of attention or attack

 

You've given a lot of attention to his posts, and, yes, there has been some attacking, as well, saying he is arrogant and "looking down his nose" at others. But I didn't really even mean "targeting" in a bad way, necessarily. My recent posts on this thread are targeting you - meaning you're the one they're directed toward.

 

So, enjoy your cruise, and don't worry that other people on the ship will be looking down their noses at you. There will be all kinds of people there.

[whitecap]

Target: select as an object of attention or attack

 

You've given a lot of attention to his posts, and, yes, there has been some attacking, as well, saying he is arrogant and "looking down his nose" at others. But I didn't really even mean "targeting" in a bad way, necessarily. My recent posts on this thread are targeting you - meaning you're the one they're directed toward.

 

So, enjoy your cruise, and don't worry that other people on the ship will be looking down their noses at you. There will be all kinds of people there.

 

I have truly enjoyed the bantering back and forth and believe that we have come to "some type of agreement". So to seal the deal I suggest that you book either the May 2d or May 9th 2015 Oasis cruise and I will spring for dinner at the Windjammer! ;)

 

p.s. CoachT is invited also !

Edited April 22, 2015 by whitecap