Terrible Decision to Reduce Balcony Size on New Ships

[easyboy]

This isn't brain surgery. It all came down to $$$. Princess answers to their shareholder for the best possible return of their investment. Balconies are not are revenue producing areas. It's just empty space. Remember cruise line don't make all their $$ from selling the cabins; it's the on board sales. Princess' management decided to reduce the balconies size so they put more cabins in and increased the revenue producing areas like bars, lounges, shops and casinos, etc. The more passengers; the more on board revenues they make; the better profits they make; the better the return on investments-both in dividends and share price appreciation. Now, I don't think Princess quite realized the backlash from it's passengers for this decision and I'm not sure how it's effected the overall bookings and revenue yields. Balconies do command higher fares. But we will never know. Princess nor any company will never reveal there true reasoning behind business decisions; but they don't have to. But as long as they are filling it's ships - I don't think they care too much as these ships only have just inside or balcony standard cabins. No outsides. So it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not to spend the $$ to pay for a smaller balconied cabin on the Royal or Regal. P.

Princess reduced the balcony size for passengers to spend less time in cabins and more on revenue generating outlets.

[jnc411]

I've yet to book a cruise on the Regal or Royal because of the smaller balconies. I love the Caribe balcony size. Maybe someday I'll give it a go but it would need to be a bargain for me to try them.

 

framer

 

Exactly, we have not booked on either ship, the tiny balcony and the lack of a promenade deck, we enjoy both those things, so for now it is a deal breaker for us. We are cruising on the other Princess ships as long as we can find itinerary that we want, or we will look as other cruise lines, and we have been Princess people for quite awhile. Everyone can make their own choice. Cruise happy anyway.

 

Cori

[margeg]

Exactly, we have not booked on either ship, the tiny balcony and the lack of a promenade deck, we enjoy both those things, so for now it is a deal breaker for us. We are cruising on the other Princess ships as long as we can find itinerary that we want, or we will look as other cruise lines, and we have been Princess people for quite awhile. Everyone can make their own choice. Cruise happy anyway.

 

Cori

The itinerary is a problem because the only ships going to the Carib are the regal and Royal. That's where you enjoy your balcony. There are only a couple of cruises on the crown or CB. But not the dates we want.

 

We booked our first suite on the royal last November to the Carib. It was a lovely penthouse. The balcony was the length of two regular size cabins, and it was so narrow you had to sit sideways and climb over the furniture and each other.

Marge

[Cruise Junky]

We've switched lines to Celebrity. Sad that after 13 with Princess they are no longer our line of choice. We use our balcony a lot.

[pris993]

My guess is that you hit the nail on the head! It was very telling when Princess removed the comfortable lounge chairs from the large Caribe deck balconies on the Grand-class ships, and replaced them with uncomfortable upright chairs.

 

I agree it is all about money, but what Princess does not understand... is those to pay for a balcony may like peace and quiet... where else can you get that and enjoy the sea view??? We will be on our balcony...more than any where else regardless... may be they should get rid of MUTS... if they want more folks up on deck..but then they would have to pay for some "real entertainment... MUTS is nothing more than cheap entertainment.

[floridalover5623]

I agree it is all about money, but what Princess does not understand... is those to pay for a balcony may like peace and quiet... where else can you get that and enjoy the sea view??? We will be on our balcony...more than any where else regardless... may be they should get rid of MUTS... if they want more folks up on deck..but then they would have to pay for some "real entertainment... MUTS is nothing more than cheap entertainment.

 

Cheap & noisy.

[BritinSoCal]

...Remember cruise line don't make all their $$ from selling the cabins; it's the on board sales....

 

They'll be waiting a long time if they're depending on me :D

[DrMark]

So, which cruise lines in Princess' class do have larger balconies? I've been on one celebrity cruise, and I did have a huge balcony which I loved, but I got the impression that I picked well, and that not all balconies were that large. When people say there is more similar between Celebrity and Princess than different, they are right. But, if one of the differences is a usable balcony, then it's decided for me!

[gkbiiii]

Many of my Royal Caribbean ships have had large balconies as did the Disney ships.

[Cruise Junky]

So, which cruise lines in Princess' class do have larger balconies? I've been on one celebrity cruise, and I did have a huge balcony which I loved, but I got the impression that I picked well, and that not all balconies were that large. When people say there is more similar between Celebrity and Princess than different, they are right. But, if one of the differences is a usable balcony, then it's decided for me!

 

Celebrity S class ships are all a decent size and extra large on the sides of the hump. I'd say all S class are 8-10ft bigger than the majority of Royal, Regal

[john_galt]

I hate the skinny balconies. I cancelled my reservation on the Regal and rebooked on the Crown because I saw a picture of a Regal/Royal balcony that looked like the cheap seats on Carnival. I moved my last two cruises to the PH on the Constellation because of the 1,000 square foot balconies (and you get a butler).

 

I like the wide (or oversize) balconies for the same reason I like flying first class. Room to feel comfortable. :)

 

I think the size and texture of future builds will be dictated by the Chinese market. :(

[oskidunker]

Who knows

[Mom33]

I would really like to know what went on at Princess and what genius came up with the idea to reduce the balcony sizes on Regal and Royal? After making such a big deal about them for the last 15 years and usually charging several hundred dollars per person more for them, it is really mind-boggling that Princess made that decision. I don't want to sit and face the side after paying for an ocean view balcony! I want to face the water and see the sights! How could they have forgotten that?

 

What is even more mind boggling to me is the number of Princess lovers (I thought I was one too.) on Cruise Critic that downplay the admittedly smaller balconies as if the other nice areas of the ship make up for them. They don't. The beautiful large atrium has nothing to do with enjoying the balcony.

 

And I do know the obvious, that I can book the older ships or pay more for larger suites and balconies. But not if the Regal and Royal are the only ones doing the itinerary I want. Anybody have any answers (not guesses) or explanations from Princess?

 

Here's a FYI........http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1421&source=64723

[RocketMan275]

Given that these ships were not designed to pass through the Canal, I doubt that they gave much thought to trading inches in one place for inches in another. Adding 12-18 inches of width to the balconies would have widened the ship by 2-3 feet. Hard to believe that would have mattered in the grand scheme of things. My guess, (sorry OP...nobody has an answer, so guesses are all you can get), is that Princess wants the balconies to be a bit less inviting so that people don't waste their entire day there and instead retreat to one or more of the many profit-making venues on these ships. After all, these builds have many more places to spend money as compared to Grand Class ships and they want fannies in the seats of the raw bar and not in balcony chairs. One thing is certain, and there really can be no debating this. No one at HQ looked at a mock-up of the new balcony and said: "The people who have been booking Dolphin Deck and Caribe Deck cabins for the past 15 years will love these new balconies just as much." Simply didn't happen. They knew that there would be push back, but they assumed (somewhat correctly) that many people would complain but book anyway, many people would learn to adjust, and many people would not care at all. Either way, if the per person spending on board went up, their decision would be justified.

 

I don't think that is at all the case. There have been too many people stating that they rarely use their balconies for more than a brief time. Just a cup of coffee in the morning, etc. And, there is the fact that these ships are normally on port intensive itineraries where balcony time just isn't that important.

[JimmyVWine]

I don't think that is at all the case. There have been too many people stating that they rarely use their balconies for more than a brief time. Just a cup of coffee in the morning, etc. And, there is the fact that these ships are normally on port intensive itineraries where balcony time just isn't that important.

There is no logical correlation between the length of time one uses a balcony and whether it could have or should have been built out to be one foot longer. Think about that for a minute. You have two architects mulling over how long the balcony should be. One says to the other: "Well, if people spent an average of 74 minutes per day on their balcony, then I could see making it a foot wider so that people could sit facing the ocean. But our research shows that people only spend on average 53 minutes per day on their balcony, so we should chop off that extra foot and build them so that the chairs only fit comfortably on an angle." When you see it reduced to writing, you can see how illogical that is.

[floridalover5623]

I don't think that is at all the case. There have been too many people stating that they rarely use their balconies for more than a brief time. Just a cup of coffee in the morning, etc. And, there is the fact that these ships are normally on port intensive itineraries where balcony time just isn't that important.

 

Then why pay extra for something you don't hardly use?

[JimmyVWine]

Then why pay extra for something you don't hardly use?

Or better yet, why build a ship with no OV cabins, and with 81% of all cabins having balconies (as compared to 80% on Ruby), if the trend in the industry was for people using their balconies less and less, with the feature becoming less and less important to customers?

 

There is no way to argue that Princess concluded that balconies were a less important feature if it rolled out advertising for its new ships trumpeting the fact that they have the highest ratio of balcony cabins in the fleet. No. An argument can be made that there was less of a need/desire for squash court size balconies such as those on Caribe Deck of Grand Class ships. But there is no way to build that argument around a decision to make the balconies the smallest in the entire fleet. The reason is simple. It wasn't because passengers organically were spending less time on their balconies. It was because Princess was subliminally telling people to spend less time on their balconies. This isn't rocket science, or even controversial.

[SoCal Cruiser78]

There is no logical correlation between the length of time one uses a balcony and whether it could have or should have been built out to be one foot longer...

 

I agree! I don't spend a lot of time on a balcony but, when I do use one, I want to be able to stretch out on a comfortable lounge chair. I don't want to have to fight those around the pool and noisy MUTS area for one. I go on cruises to relax, not be inconvenienced.

[Cruiser411]

IMHO, I think the design was a compromise. Adding a couple of feet to the balconies would have necessitated widening the ship which would've add thousands of tons of steel, which, of course would mean higher operating costs. I have traveled on Regal and while the balconies are small, they are not much smaller than the balconies on the Aloha, Baja, Lido, Riviera deck balconies on the Grand-class ships. I was more than happy to sit on my balcony on the Regal. I sat at an angle and could easily move my head to see more... ;) YMMV

[cattman]

Yep, hashed to death, it is what it is... so here's how we enjoy the Regal:

 

Book E402 thru E412(Cat DV, deluxe) or E420 thru E437(Cat BV, Balcony). Both listed as obstructed, but not really. Less expensive, larg(er) balcony, and midship.

 

We sail the Regal in one of these cabins and always enjoy our balcony.

[SoCal Cruiser78]

...here's how we enjoy the Regal: Book E402 thru E412(Cat DV, deluxe) or E420 thru E437(Cat BV, Balcony). Both listed as obstructed, but not really. Less expensive, larg(er) balcony, and midship.

 

This needs a sticky, if it isn't "stuck" somewhere on this board already :)!

Edited September 16, 2016 by SoCal Cruiser78

[deliver42]

This thread is getting as repetitive as the smoking thread on HAL

[RocketMan275]

There is no logical correlation between the length of time one uses a balcony and whether it could have or should have been built out to be one foot longer. Think about that for a minute. You have two architects mulling over how long the balcony should be. One says to the other: "Well, if people spent an average of 74 minutes per day on their balcony, then I could see making it a foot wider so that people could sit facing the ocean. But our research shows that people only spend on average 53 minutes per day on their balcony, so we should chop off that extra foot and build them so that the chairs only fit comfortably on an angle." When you see it reduced to writing, you can see how illogical that is.

 

For those who enjoy their balconies, there is a correlation between the size of a balcony and the enjoyment of that balcony.

 

Your conversation is illogical because that isn't how engineers and architects make trade-offs between various design features.

 

It's far more logical to think the conversation went something like this:

- We've over the budget and need ways to reduce costs.

- We could reduce the size of the balconies. If we cut a foot off the length, it would save $XX million or reducing the size of the piazza by 10% would save the same amount.

- Marketing says that our customers value the size of the piazza more than they do the size of the balcony.

 

There are other similar ways that conversation could have evolved but the point is, Princess performed a trade-off to reflect the desires of their customers and their customers are willing to accept a smaller balcony for other features.

 

Or better yet, why build a ship with no OV cabins, and with 81% of all cabins having balconies (as compared to 80% on Ruby), if the trend in the industry was for people using their balconies less and less, with the feature becoming less and less important to customers?

 

Makes perfect sense to a rocket scientist. Features that are less and less important to customers become less important to design engineers.

 

There is no way to argue that Princess concluded that balconies were a less important feature if it rolled out advertising for its new ships trumpeting the fact that they have the highest ratio of balcony cabins in the fleet. No. An argument can be made that there was less of a need/desire for squash court size balconies such as those on Caribe Deck of Grand Class ships. But there is no way to build that argument around a decision to make the balconies the smallest in the entire fleet. The reason is simple. It wasn't because passengers organically were spending less time on their balconies. It was because Princess was subliminally telling people to spend less time on their balconies. This isn't rocket science, or even controversial.

 

You're confusing the size of the balcony with the existence of balconies. If people only use their balconies for short periods of time, then it does make sense to make those balconies smaller.

 

Smaller balconies make perfect sense on ships (Regal/Royal) that sail in very port intensive areas where balcony time for the majority of passengers is focused on the few minutes entering or leaving ports. The existence of a balcony is much more important to these passengers than the size of the balcony.

[Hlitner]

In the spirit of keeping this thread alive we have a different rant (although we do agree that the tiny balconies are a silly design). We have cruised on far more then 60 different vessels (of many cruise lines) and we often enjoy sitting at lovely bar that gives us a view of where the ship is going! We are not aware of any other cruise line that fails to have a bar with a forward view! HAL has their "Crows Nest," RCI has their "Viking Crown Lounges" and Princess has their NOTHING!

 

Hank

[RocketMan275]

In the spirit of keeping this thread alive we have a different rant (although we do agree that the tiny balconies are a silly design). We have cruised on far more then 60 different vessels (of many cruise lines) and we often enjoy sitting at lovely bar that gives us a view of where the ship is going! We are not aware of any other cruise line that fails to have a bar with a forward view! HAL has their "Crows Nest," RCI has their "Viking Crown Lounges" and Princess has their NOTHING!

 

Hank

 

We found SkyWalkers to be a suitable replacement.

BTW, did you know that RCI is converting (on at least some ships) the VCL to a suites only restaurant and lounge?