Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

DougK

Members
  • Content Count

    344
  • Joined

About DougK

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The question is where one draws the line. One could separate out every component of the cruise and charge separately: all meals a la carte, entertainment, use of loungers and pools, religious services, even housekeeping, and I'm sure the list goes on and on. For each of these, some passengers use them and others don't. For example, I haven't been in a pool other than a T-pool on a cruise ship for decades (if ever), rarely use loungers, rarely go to shows, don't go to religious services, am vegetarian so never have steak/lobster/etc., and would be fine with housekeeping only every couple of days. Yet I pay the same price as passengers who do all of those, so effectively I'm subsidizing them. Why shouldn't they subsidize my internet use in return? I think much of the draw of cruising traditionally has been its inclusiveness, where passengers don't pay separately for each item. Heck, look at the uproar on these boards when HAL experimented with a charge for second entrees--even though most people don't want/need them. Imagine the uproar if they started charging for each item on the menu, or for each show. Personally, I much prefer an all-inclusive system, even though it effectively means I subsidize other passengers who use more than I do--the simplicity and absence of constant upselling is a big attraction to me, and makes up for savings I would get from a true a la carte system. I think a lot of the distinctions between what is and isn't included in the base fare come more from history than from a logical difference between items. If one were starting fresh today, I suspect that internet usage would be considered as much a staple as production shows. But nobody is starting fresh; even new cruise lines have to deal with expectations of passengers based on past cruise lines.
  2. I agree on the reasoning; my point was just that one shouldn't expect good Internet on Alaska cruises. Virtually all of them go to Skagway or other inaccessible places, since the whole attraction of Alaska is the stark nature. On some days the Internet may be fine, but on others it will be bad. I personally found that to be pretty frustrating.
  3. My experience on the Nieuw Amsterdam this summer was much different. Internet was fine on some days, but very slow or nonexistent on others. I think the worst was around Skagway, where there was no connectivity at all.
  4. Some airlines, particularly European ones, don't allow free seat assignments until checkin. Lufthansa is one of those airlines, so the only way you can get your seats now is to pay for them. It has nothing to do with the fact you booked through Flight Ease.
  5. I agree with everybody who says that the statistics are infinitely malleable, as is the presentation, so it's not a particularly meaningful claim. But I'll add this question: Is it even the mark of a good line to have the highest repeater rate? Sure, on the one hand it can be viewed to mean that people are satisfied and want to come back. But on the other hand, it can also be viewed to mean that the line, either through its product or its marketing, does little to attract new cruisers--which in the long term means the line will fail. Perhaps it would be best if the line has a middle-of-the-road repeater rate...
  6. DougK

    transfers

    This has been recently discussed on the Scenic roll call, and I think this is the consensus: 1) If you arrange your travel and any pre- or post-cruise hotels through Scenic, then transfers are included. 2) If you arrange your travel on your own, but arrive/leave the day of the cruise, then transfers are included. 3) If you arrange your travel on your own, and arrive one or more days early, or leave one or more days late, then transfers are not included. As an example, last year we went on a Scenic cruise, and arranged our own travel. We flew into Amsterdam a couple of days early, and did our own transfer to the hotel we stayed. (On embarkation day, the "transfer" from the hotel to the ship only involved walking around the corner. 😊). In Budapest, we flew out on disembarkation day, and Scenic provided the transfer to the airport. Although we don't have that status yet, my understanding is that when you become a Platinum repeat passenger, Scenic also starts including transfers between your home and airport on both ends of your travel.
  7. The music venues, especially Lincoln Center. Much better than bland production shows. Tamarind--it's so nice to find a cruise line who understands there's more to fine cuisine than steak, seafood, and Italian.
  8. This is very odd. On our Amsterdam->Budapest cruise last year, Scenic had the bikes out and available for use at pretty much every stop, and the bikes were used quite a bit by passengers, for both short trips and longer excursions. This matches the description in their brochure, which says you can use the bikes to "discover on your own." I don't know why they weren't available on your cruise except for the one guided tour. We unfortunately missed the Melk->Durnstein bike excursion on our cruise because we were swapping ships that day due to low water levels. But we're booked on the Romantic Rhine & Moselle cruise for next year, and the itinerary says that during the Moselle cruise day there is an option for biking to Bernkastel instead of cruising during the afternoon, which I might do.
  9. I'm glad that HAL has been able to accommodate your needs--twice. But it seems to me that you should reconsider booking guarantee cabins in the future. The entire point of a guarantee is that you can end up with any cabin within that category (or higher). You should not assume that you will be able to switch cabins if you don't like your first assignment, whether or not it's due to your autism. If you need to get a cabin on a higher deck, you should book a cabin there to begin with.
  10. You've made a good argument for how the package will entice low-spending passengers to spend more, making the cruise line more money off them. But you've missed the flip side, which is that the package also entices high-spending passengers to spend less (by buying the package instead of going a la carte), which means the cruise line makes less money off them. Using the same drink example as above, unlike mr X who decides to skip the $6 beer, mr Y is willing to pay $6/beer, and still buys 6 of them a day (for total of $36). How much will mr X pay for the package? My guess is $15 or less, if he's only willing to pay $3/beer. So if the cruise line finds the package price has to be $15 or less in order to get mr X to buy it , then they're making more money than before from mr X ($15 vs. $0), but they're losing money on mr Y ($15 vs. $36). Plus their costs are higher, since both mr X and mr Y are likely to consume more than if they didn't have packages. So it's a very delicate balance on package pricing, based on estimates of how many passengers are like mr X and how many like mr Y. If they guess wrong, it's easy to see how it loses money for the cruise line. Many passengers, such as 3rdGenCunarder, will do the math, and only opt for the package if it saves them money. Is there any price that will serve to entice enough low-spenders to buy the package but not lose too much income from the high-spenders? I don't know. One indication to me is the current pricing of beverage packages, which is set high enough to IMO discourage all but high-spenders from buying them. Maybe this is seen only though my personal lenses, but I suspect most passengers don't drink enough cocktails a day to make the package worthwhile; it certainly isn't going to entice mr X, who isn't willing to pay $6 for one beer. The upshot is that as long as the package is an option, I don't think it solves the problem.
  11. I'm not sure this actually works as an escape from the box. Yes, it lets passengers avoid nickel and diming, but I'm not sure it answers the cruise line's dilemma. In fact, it might make it worse. Those passengers who do little onboard spending now will continue to book the cabin at the base fare (and possibly a loss to the cruise line). Those who do a lot of onboard spending will opt for the package if it saves them money (and thus is not as good for the cruise line). The only way this helps the cruise line is if it entices passengers who would not otherwise purchase things on board to sign up for the package, spending more than they otherwise would. Who knows? Maybe there are enough such passengers, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
  12. And this is exactly HAL's dilemma (as it is for all mass market lines). Although I'm not an insider and thus don't have the numbers, I strongly suspect that HAL does not make a profit based on the cruise fares alone. Instead, they're dependent on people spending money on board. In other words, the cruise fares may well not cover the costs to provide the cruise. Unfortunately, seasoned cruisers, such as us, often limit their onboard spending because, as you describe, they can find better value elsewhere. Which means that many of HAL's most loyal passengers may actually cost HAL money, not spending enough on board to make up for the low cruise fares they pay. Obviously, this isn't true across the board; many 5-star mariners to, in fact, spend freely on board. But, on average, I'm willing to bet that there is a strong and decreasing correlation between on board spending and number of cruises taken. So that leaves HAL in a tight spot, where they can neither afford to alienate loyal cruisers (and be unable to fill berths) nor to encourage them to fill berths at a loss to HAL. That explains moves such as slowly changing the loyalty system to incorporate on board spending, but that's only a tiny step. On a premium/luxury line which is largely or all inclusive, this dilemma doesn't exist. The line makes their profit mainly from their fares, so loyal cruisers are an undoubted benefit, providing profit each cruise--and thus worth rewarding. Decades ago, the mass market lines were similar; although there was some profit from onboard spending, there were many fewer opportunities for that, and the cruise fares themselves better reflected the actual costs of providing the cruise. But now they've boxed themselves into a corner with bargain basement fares, and a desperate need to find profit elsewhere. Which leads to the nickel and dime situation that we all hate. But there's no easy way out of this box; whichever mass market line tries to go first and raise cruise fares to actual costs is likely to see a huge loss of passengers.
  13. I've seen this said many times, but I don't really understand it. Sure, you're proofing only one charge slip against the final bill, but aren't you still proofing each drink slip against the beverage card itself? Doesn't it end up being the same amount of work?
  14. It was cheaper pre-boarding on a 7-day cruise on the NA in July. I made the mistake of waiting in expectation of an embarkation day special, but it ended up being significantly more expensive.
  15. I'll second the recommendation for Jayleen's Whale Watching. I went out with Captain Jayleen in July, and it was a wonderful trip on a small boat, captained by a woman who grew up in the area and has been driving boats since she was a young teenager. She knows her stuff, and her tour is longer than most, giving more time to locate and stay with whales.
×
×
  • Create New...