Will HAL Change PG Fee???

[peaches from georgia]

Peaches,

You ask a very intelligent and simple question. But the answer is rather complicated.

 

 

Sometimes the prestige of offering / owning / operating something unique or something of quality is more important than making a profit from it. But at the same time, the owners most likely want to minimize the losses from it as well.

 

However, in this case you are comparing apples and oranges. HAL is not necessarily operating at a loss like luxury lines at all and certainly not just because the PG is. In HAL's case they are devoting revenue-generating space to an enterprise that is not only not making a profit, but is operating at a loss, when it could be a profit center. The PG is also giving HAL the reputation of poor service and (other than the Sterling beef) food quality that is not commenserate with the price charged.

 

The fix is not that hard. This same space could be operated as a specialty restaurant that should make a profit with no new renovation expense, if only a little culinary imagination was used. Pax can get an excellent steak at home and obviously don't care to keep forking out $30pp for the same appetizers and sides that have been served for years, for heaven sakes. What about authentic Asian food served by Indonesian stewards, Northern Italian with a variety of dishes changing over time, and many other possibilities. With top quality ingredients, imaginative prep, and fine service, I believe pax would be anxious to dine there and HAL could make it worthwhile for themselves and for their guests. There is NO reason to have the goal for the PG be 'minimizing losses'. Most pax who sail other mass-market lines say the PG doesn't compare.

 

If HAL thinks their 'prestige' is enhanced with the PG as it is now they are sadly mistaken, IMO. You read these boards and know these are HAL's most loyal customers who would do anything possible to give HAL an A+, but most can't when it comes to the PG. We always have gone there at least 2-3 per cruise, but it has become stale and boring and not worth the price anymore.

[BruceMuzz]

Peaches,

I'm not trying to compare anything. It doesn't make sense to compare one cruise line against another; they are too different, with different agendas.

I only give examples of how cruise lines illogically operate.

 

Sometimes they will get crazy over a few dollars and ignore bleeding millions.

Sometimes they seem insanely intent on making a profit on one thing while ignoring far greater opportunities right in front of them.

 

Sometimes they are intent on operating at a loss; other times they insist on making tiny profits at great expense to their reputations.

 

I can see where HAL might think it a better option to keep their loss-leader Pinnacle Grill in operation as is - without spending a lot of money to change the concept - rather than fixing it and making some profit.

[Denn33]

For the Pinnacle Grill to be a proper "loss leader", people have to be choosing to sail on HAL based on being able to dine at the Pinnacle Grill. It seems possible that Celebrity loses money on its $30 charge for its alternative fine dining restaurants. But, if cruisers choose to go on Celebrity over other lines based on being able to go to their signature restaurant once or twice during the cruise, it could be quite worthwhile for them to do so. But if people don't really like the Pinnacle Grill, it isn't serving that purpose--I don't think anyone is picking HAL right now because they love the Pinnacle Grill so much. Now, it is sort of required that cruise lines have fancy alternative restaurants now to be seen as premium lines. But, in that case, it would make sense for HAL to, say, cut its costs a bit on the restaurant (even if it's still going to charge $30 pp), if the extra costs for, say, Sterling Beef, don't help its reputation in any way.

 

An alternative possibility: even if they lose money at $30 pp, the model could be to recoup it based on people ordering expensive wines at dinner, which seems more likely if people are eating nice steaks. In this case, maybe charging more makes sense for HAL--imagine if they only make money on people dining at Pinnacle if they buy a bottle of wine that costs $50 or more, and then imagine that people willing to pay $30pp for the privilege of eating there are more likely to order more expensive wine (and would buy more expensive wine based on dining at the more upscale Pinnacle Grill than they would have ordered if they were instead dining in the main dining room).

[SFAM]

I am going on my first cruise (Amsterdam to Alaska) later this week. I had thought about going to the PG, but for $30 each for lousy food and slow service, this makes no sense. I'll definitely be skipping this "offering."

[Krazy Kruizers]

I think HAL will keep the price at $30 as other cruise lines are starting to raise the fees for their specialty restaurants. JMO

[Orlandocruiser]

Bruce's comment about cruise lines ignoring easy "revenue enhancements" made me think of our last cruise. We had a personable, hardworking wine steward but because he had so many tables to attend to it took forever to get our wine order. For example if we needed a new bottle for dinner (and who wants to order ahead of time when you don't know what the menu will be) we wouldn't receive it until the entree was served and he was very rarely able to come around again and refill our empty glasses. Now I know we can very well do that ourselves but (a) it is more elegant to have it filled and more to the point (b) we would probably drink more. On previous cruises we would be able to go through almost a whole bottle a night (hey when you are at table for that long it's easy:) ) but on this cruise we purchased fewer bottles in 14 days than we did on 10 day cruises. If HAL doesn't want to sell me wine so be it!