Goodbye Celebrity

[DC2OC]

Thats was a good point you brought up, and food for thought. Thanks!

 

Now if we could just have FEWER children on X and MORE on RCL...At least that will make me a happy camper!:D .

 

Dave:eek: .

 

BTW: John and I haven't booked any future cruises other than our June and September shortie, not because of the smoking issue but because we truly now feel that X is failing in its promise to deliver in the food, service and adhearance to policies...After years of cruising on what we felt was a top notch brand...we now equate it with any other mainstream brand. we have travelled in the past....perhaps we're just jaded....And to think I used to be an X 'cheerleader'....

 

So while I don't like the say "good bye" because it seems so permanent....For us it will just be taking a break and sailing some of the other lines we've sailed in the past to make some fresh comparissons.

 

Other than our shareholder credits why be loyal anyway? We go back and forth between X and RCCL.My wife has sailed HAL and Princess and we've both sailed Carnival.I've seen some nice crises on smaller ships on Princess and will certainly try them in the future.Same for HAL>I'm sure they will all have smoke free balconies in they future and it seems fewer cruisers are smoking especially during non-peak season.Heck if the price is right we'll even consider the dreaded Carnival (off season,off course when the young partiers are at work and kids are in school)

[bububr]

No need to be sorry about dissagreeing. While we have our different personal expectations, I highly respect and value your opinions, look forward to you frequent updates on press releases...and just like you in general, even if we've never met.

 

Now that guy Joel....he's a trouble maker if I ever met one:D :D . (just kidding ).

 

Dave:eek:

[FinelyCruising]

Since kids are not a social or health issue, they will be on board X for a long, long time just as they have been for many years.

 

But can start start up about diapers and all kinds of other kid related anxieties I guess for basis of argument....:rolleyes:

[Xcruiser]

Now that guy Joel....he's a trouble maker if I ever met one:D :D . (just kidding ).

 

Dave:eek:

 

Thanks Dave:D , just sitting here stirring the pot as I often do.:rolleyes: You’re not considering using your Azamara FCC are you?:confused: Wait you said short cruise so I guess your thinking of something else.

 

Joel

[flag fan]

The issue is not whether the contract allows for a change in smoking policy, but whether the right to smoke or to be free from unwanted smoke of others is a "material condition" of the contract. I'm not about to do any legal research on this, but I suspect that the cruise line would argue that what customers are contracting for are accommodations, food, and transportation, and regarding the latter, they do put a clause in the contract noting that they can change itineraries as needed. The cruise lines have a lot of benefits they provide--pool, deck chairs, rock-climbing walls, shows, etc.--but would probably argue that a failure to provide any of these would not be a material breach of contract. It is not uncommon for some benefits to be denied for various reasons on occasion--a technical glitch that affects internet reception, a charter group being given access to a particular lounge during prime time, a passenger creating a problem that requires the closing of the pool, etc.

 

With regard to smoking, the Celebrity website specifically states that its ships are non-smoking but it does allow smoking in some areas for the convenience of smokers. This was probably written by company lawyers to put everyone on notice that smoking is a privilege not a right (and that a smoke-free environment is not guaranteed). (And even if this was added to the website after the booking, the cruise line would fall back on the "material breach" argument). Even if there is a material breach of a contract, a party only has a right to damages. If one is willing to spend thousands to sue based on a change in smoking policy and in the unlikely event the passenger wins the law suit, the damage payment I think would be minimal--the cruise line is still providing all the main benefits of the cruise.

 

I realize the OP did not raise a question about law suits, this was to answer those posts that questioned whether the contract allowed a change in smoking policy.

[spamwhiches]

Ironically enough, my cruises are all funded by the money we saved when we quite smoking (that was the motivation to quit)

In Canada $8 per pack x 2 packs day x 365 days = $5840

 

Now back to the subject:

 

Any corporation has the right to change any policy if they are willing to face the legal ramifications.

Remember it is clearly stated that the captain has ALL THE POWER TO DECIDE ANYTHING HE WANTS ON THE SHIP. So IMO all legal arguments ( if someone wanted to waste their money persuing remedy) would likely fail.

 

As much as I personally favor the changes it really is poor cs not to give people an opportunity to get full refund based on these "afterbooking" changes to the cruise. That should be the least they can do.

 

On the lighter side:

 

Can you imagine how many folks would book a "smoke anywhere, veggan only cruise" LOL

I think even our friends across the pond would get last minute prices to fill that sailing.

the point I'm trying to make here is that corporations exist to serve their shareholders, if there is more money to be made by catering to smokers or veggans, bet your damn last breath that they would do it!

 

Obviously they feel otherwise, and corporations should always look out for the bottom line since that is their only reason for existing.

 

spark one for me!

[bububr]

We're actually looking at doing another Alaska next year and seriously considering Princess. We've done RCL and its not our thing. TOO MUCH CRAP. While we like the entertainment a LOT more than X, we dislike the food and have not had the best of service. Also we tend to like smaller ships. Zenith was our favorite by far, along with Century and Mercury. We're not BIG ship people. Our idea is to get away from it all, not to bring it all along with us...especially with 4000 other people. Thats the reason we are not excited and don't plan to cruise on the new Solstace ships. I've seen glass blowing and the fascination runs out pretty quickly. If I wanted a lawn to play Bacci, I'd do it at home......And forget about rock climbing, ice skating, surfing, and I don't think we've ever even used the TV in the cabins other than to check our onboard accounts or see the ships positioning.

 

We've tried Azamara and love the ships. We'd love to start cruising more on them, however its a timing issue and the itineraries tend to be very long. The most we can ususalyy get away is for 10 or 11 days...most of the scheduled trips are a lot longer than that, or require extensive air travel to and from the ports.

 

Dave:eek:

 

BTW; we've met some of our best friends on Carnival cruises...we just found the announcements to be REALLY annoying and too many younger partiers....

[Jade13]

We're actually looking at doing another Alaska next year and seriously considering Princess. We've done RCL and its not our thing. TOO MUCH CRAP. While we like the entertainment a LOT more than X, we dislike the food and have not had the best of service. Also we tend to like smaller ships. Zenith was our favorite by far, along with Century and Mercury. We're not BIG ship people. Our idea is to get away from it all, not to bring it all along with us...especially with 4000 other people. Thats the reason we are not excited and don't plan to cruise on the new Solstace ships. I've seen glass blowing and the fascination runs out pretty quickly. If I wanted a lawn to play Bacci, I'd do it at home......And forget about rock climbing, ice skating, surfing, and I don't think we've ever even used the TV in the cabins other than to check our onboard accounts or see the ships positioning.

 

We've tried Azamara and love the ships. We'd love to start cruising more on them, however its a timing issue and the itineraries tend to be very long. The most we can ususalyy get away is for 10 or 11 days...most of the scheduled trips are a lot longer than that, or require extensive air travel to and from the ports.

 

Dave:eek:

 

BTW; we've met some of our best friends on Carnival cruises...we just found the announcements to be REALLY annoying and too many younger partiers....

 

We cruised on HAL's Veendam in Alaska. The ship had about 1,200 pax, very clean, very good food and great cabin stewards. They do a quiet disembarkation. You fill out a form when you want to leave and just go.

[bububr]

Actually we were able to use the future cruise credit from Azamara for our up coming Med. cruise on Galaxy.

 

We just got the okay before Azamara became a seperate entity, so just under the wire. I don't think we would be able to do it now based on the fact that even though they share the Captains Club, they are line specific.

 

But thanks for asking!!

 

Dave:eek:

 

BTW: I usually like the way you stir the pot ;) .

[bububr]

I forgot about HAL and we've never sailed them before so that might be the perfect option.

 

Dave:eek:

[greeneg]

No one seems to be considering the possibilty that there are other factors at work here: when I was told off the record in December by someone at HQ who obviously knew what they were talking about, the real reason that this change was made was because of Insurance Risks as perceived by the Insurance Underwriters after the Princess fire.

 

While I am personally happy with the change, I'm pretty certain that it wasn't made because I might have complained about the overwhelming presence of Tobacco Odor on my balcony.

 

I suspect that the Underwriters may have more clout than we do........

[Drew B]

I can't see booking a vacation based on smoking or not smoking.

 

IMHO This whole thread is a bit silly. So you can't smoke in your cabin or on your balcony...big deal. You can smoke up on deck in the casino and in a number of bars or other designated places.

 

Smokers...you CAN still smoke, no one is taking that away from you.

 

 

Just for clarification, you can smoke in PART of the casino, and that part does not include table games. That is the only unacceptable part of the new policy to me. I feel that it severely hampers my enjoyment of my cruise without providing any real benefits for others, who will STILL be facing a room filled with cigarette smoke! If they made the casino entirely non-smoking, I may not like it, but I would at least see the benefit of it -- the casino would look and smell better and would be a more healthful environment. As long as smoking is still allowed in part of the casino, though, it will continue to look and smell smoky and all patrons will be at whatever health risks they face when they inhale smoke. The only change will be that I and others like me will be unable to enjoy continuous gambling, as we will have to stand up and cross the room every time we wish to smoke. What have they accomplished?

[Drew B]

No one seems to be considering the possibilty that there are other factors at work here: when I was told off the record in December by someone at HQ who obviously knew what they were talking about, the real reason that this change was made was because of Insurance Risks as perceived by the Insurance Underwriters after the Princess fire.

 

While I am personally happy with the change, I'm pretty certain that it wasn't made because I might have complained about the overwhelming presence of Tobacco Odor on my balcony.

 

I suspect that the Underwriters may have more clout than we do........

 

I could understand that if they were going entirely non-smoking, but they are not. If a fire can be set from somebody smoking on their balcony, then why not from somebody smoking on deck? If a fire can be set from somebody smoking in their stateroom, why not from somebody smoking in the lounge or the casino? I see how the risk may be somewhat reduced, but not so much that there isn't still a substantial risk. Insurance underwriters should still be concerned...

[terrydtx]

No one seems to be considering the possibilty that there are other factors at work here: when I was told off the record in December by someone at HQ who obviously knew what they were talking about, the real reason that this change was made was because of Insurance Risks as perceived by the Insurance Underwriters after the Princess fire.

 

While I am personally happy with the change, I'm pretty certain that it wasn't made because I might have complained about the overwhelming presence of Tobacco Odor on my balcony.

 

I suspect that the Underwriters may have more clout than we do........

 

I have heard some of the same behind the scene reports about the Insurance risks because of the Princess fire. There have also been many not as well reported incidents of minor fires mainly from passengers smoking in bed in their cabins and falling asleep. What has surprised me is that in light of the Princess and other recent well reported fires on cruise ships, that the whole industry has not voluntarily done more to restrict or ban smoking in cabins and on balconies. Even Princess has not made these changes in their smoking policy.:confused:

[Charles4515]

I have heard some of the same behind the scene reports about the Insurance risks because of the Princess fire. There have also been many not as well reported incidents of minor fires mainly from passengers smoking in bed in their cabins and falling asleep. What has surprised me is that in light of the Princess and other recent well reported fires on cruise ships, that the whole industry has not voluntarily done more to restrict or ban smoking in cabins and on balconies. Even Princess has not made these changes in their smoking policy.:confused:

 

I read somewhere last year, that the international maritime regulators are in the process of issuing a mandate on limiting smoking onboard for all cruise lines to follow that would be something like the new Celebrity policy or even more limiting like the Oceania policy. Exact details have not been specified yet. There won't be smoking allowed in cabins or on balconies. But the exact mandate is not finished. I think I read the mandate is expected to take effect in 2010 or 2011. All the cruise lines will follow it. In the meantime cruise lines like Celebrity and RCI are starting to change their policies in anticipation. They know the handwriting is on the wall. So even though Princess has not done anything yet, they will.

[spamwhiches]

fire is a huge risk to all ships.

anyone remember this news release

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11975460/

 

For years cruise lines have discouraged irons, candles etc.

Smoking exposes everyone on the ship to more risks than just 2nd hand smoke.

 

Sorry but the smokers are going to lose this argument everytime. It really doesn't make sense anymore no matter how you look at it.

[Jade13]

No need to be sorry about dissagreeing. While we have our different personal expectations, I highly respect and value your opinions, look forward to you frequent updates on press releases...and just like you in general, even if we've never met.

 

Now that guy Joel....he's a trouble maker if I ever met one:D :D . (just kidding ).

 

Dave:eek:

 

Dave, who was the person at Celebrity that you e-mailed? I can't find the thread. I sent a letter but my office is moving so the number that I gave will not be correct in another week.

 

Thanks!

[JCDeck]

Just for clarification, you can smoke in PART of the casino, and that part does not include table games. That is the only unacceptable part of the new policy to me. I feel that it severely hampers my enjoyment of my cruise without providing any real benefits for others, who will STILL be facing a room filled with cigarette smoke! If they made the casino entirely non-smoking, I may not like it, but I would at least see the benefit of it -- the casino would look and smell better and would be a more healthful environment. As long as smoking is still allowed in part of the casino, though, it will continue to look and smell smoky and all patrons will be at whatever health risks they face when they inhale smoke. The only change will be that I and others like me will be unable to enjoy continuous gambling, as we will have to stand up and cross the room every time we wish to smoke. What have they accomplished?

 

 

They will have accomplished Limiting Smoking,which is their goal. Next year IMHO it will even be moe of a limiting policy until it is phased out completely,it's just the way things are going.....Heck I remember my mother smoking when she would change my little sister or we would all be in the car,nowadays in some states is against the law to smoke with children in your car.

[terrydtx]

The number one cause of smoking related fires in the home are by smokers falling asleep with lit cigarettes. It is safe to assume this would also be a problem when those same smokers fall asleep in the cabins with a lit cigarette.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Karynanne]

The number one cause of smoking related fires in the home are by smokers falling asleep with lit cigarettes. It is safe to assume this would also be a problem when those same smokers fall asleep in the cabins with a lit cigarette.:eek: :eek: :eek:

 

 

I know I told this incidence before, but it bears repeating. In 1999, on Mercury, a man was smoking in bed...fell asleep...and it subsequently started a fire. It not only burned quite a bit of his cabin, but the sprinkler systems on either side of his cabin went off, and created a huge amount of water damage, and cabins on the deck below his cabin. This man was put into the brig, until he could post a bond to pay for the damages.

 

Smoking in cabins can lead to damage. Not only healthwise, but to the ship.

[Charles4515]

I know I told this incidence before, but it bears repeating. In 1999, on Mercury, a man was smoking in bed...fell asleep...and it subsequently started a fire. It not only burned quite a bit of his cabin, but the sprinkler systems on either side of his cabin went off, and created a huge amount of water damage, and cabins on the deck below his cabin. This man was put into the brig, until he could post a bond to pay for the damages.

 

Smoking in cabins can lead to damage. Not only healthwise, but to the ship.

 

Four units in my condo were heavily damaged in a fire a few years caused by a man smoking in bed. Lucky no one was injured. But one of my co-workers lost his father who set a fire after falling asleep smoking in bed.

[bayroad]

Except I am almost willing to bet that no one would sign up for a "smokers" cruise. Why? Because a ship-filled with smoke doesn't even appeal to smokers.

 

How do I know this? I am a closet smoker. You know a Mom that knows smoking is bad and only smokes in her car when the kids are elsewhere. My kids have never seen me smoke (I have a 20 year old and a 7 year old). It isn't something I am proud of but it does ease my tension after along day at work. So there you have it a smoker that doesn't want to be on a smoking cruise.

 

I have found that if I can't smoke in a public place- that I don't care. I sometimes will go outside and have a puff- but if I couldn't smoke sobeit.

 

I work in a restaurant that just went non-smoking and I can tell you that it looks so nice and crisp and clean in there at night. My work environment is so much nicer. Even smokers don't want to work in a cloud of smoke.

 

Maybe they should just outlaw cigs but the long arm of the tabacco industry isn't going to let that happen!

 

It's not the tobacco industry's job to "outlaw" cigs, it's the government's but they're not inclined to do this as they can tax cigs without the usual outcry from the citizens and be self righteous about it. The chilcren's health program the Gov. is considering to be paid for by Cig tax would required 2 million more smokers to pay for it, though. hmmm?

[Bobblsc]

I agree that a change in the smoking policy between when a cruise was booked and when the ship sails is a material change (emphasis added) in the contract and the cruise line should provide some recompense to the smoker who booked with the expectation that they would be allowed to smoke on the ship on the places indicated at the time of booking. This is not really a smokers/nonsmokers issue but a question of honoring a contract.

However, because these contracts do provide for changes at any time, the compensation should be relatively modest.

[some omissions in the interest of brevity. bobblsc]

 

The issue is not whether the contract allows for a change in smoking policy, but whether the right to smoke or to be free from unwanted smoke of others is a "material condition" (emphasis added) of the contract. I'm not about to do any legal research on this, but I suspect that the cruise line would argue that what customers are contracting for are accommodations, food, and transportation, and regarding the latter, they do put a clause in the contract noting that they can change itineraries as needed. The cruise lines have a lot of benefits they provide--pool, deck chairs, rock-climbing walls, shows, etc.--but would probably argue that a failure to provide any of these would not be a material breach (emphasis added) of contract. It is not uncommon for some benefits to be denied for various reasons on occasion--a technical glitch that affects internet reception, a charter group being given access to a particular lounge during prime time, a passenger creating a problem that requires the closing of the pool, etc.

 

With regard to smoking, the Celebrity website specifically states that its ships are non-smoking but it does allow smoking in some areas for the convenience of smokers. This was probably written by company lawyers to put everyone on notice that smoking is a privilege not a right (and that a smoke-free environment is not guaranteed). (And even if this was added to the website after the booking, the cruise line would fall back on the "material breach" argument). Even if there is a material breach of a contract, a party only has a right to damages. If one is willing to spend thousands to sue based on a change in smoking policy and in the unlikely event the passenger wins the law suit, the damage payment I think would be minimal--the cruise line is still providing all the main benefits of the cruise.

 

I realize the OP did not raise a question about law suits, this was to answer those posts that questioned whether the contract allowed a change in smoking policy.

 

You appear to be an attorney. Thank you for your answers. However, as I read your two posts, it appears that each reaches a slightly different conclusion. Perhaps it is necessary for attorneys to communicate somewhat like economists. "On the one hand this may be the result of the stated economic policy, but on the other hand the outcome may be different." :D It seems to me that a "material change" would be consistent with a "material condition", and this unilateral change would result in a "material breach of the contract". But I am not an attorney. Heck, I'm not even an economist. :rolleyes:

 

I do see your point about a minimal damage payment. Heck, I'm not even a smoker now. :) I am, however, shocked at the treatment given the Brits concerning the cancellation penalty. Surely the penalty is a decision made by Celebrity alone, and is not mandated by some British regulation. Does this treatment apply to all European cruisers? Does it apply to all cruise lines?

 

Brits, it is great that we are finally getting along after 200 years. (A Brit on a curse ship once responded "Yes, but you still owe us those damn taxes.") Is there anything we can do to help?

 

Bob :cool:

[Gold Coast Cruisers]

As has been said on another thread about the smoking policy changes. Celebrity wouldn't be doing this unless it new the majority wanted it, so that's obviously why this policy is being changed.

They did the same with the airlines because so many complained about having to be in an area with smokers. It ended up that a 747 would have all but about 4 rows non-smoking on the whole airplane. Obviously it was then that the airlines changed their policy, and it works well for the majority. I am sure once the feathers settle all will be fine and we can all look forward to enjoying a non-smoking, healthier environment during our cruise vacation.

 

Jillybean:)

[Drew B]

They will have accomplished Limiting Smoking,which is their goal. Next year IMHO it will even be moe of a limiting policy until it is phased out completely,it's just the way things are going.....Heck I remember my mother smoking when she would change my little sister or we would all be in the car,nowadays in some states is against the law to smoke with children in your car.

 

I'll be very interested to see if those who avoid the casino now because of the smoke will be any happier after this policy is in place. If people cannot enjoy their balconies because a little cigarette smoke carries in the breeze from a nearby balcony, I can't imagine that they will be able to visit the casino if even one person is smoking in the designated smoking area. We shall see. I hope that the non-smokers ARE happy with the outcome. It would be very disappointing if the result of the new policy in the casino is that nobody - not the smokers nor the non-smokers - is happy...