Sow There

Add us to the growing list of not booking another cruise on HAL in a Verandah room..............Celebrity is our choice and THEY do not allow smoking on verandahs..

Holland America is ignoring years of comments that have asked to ban smoking on verandahs. They are putting $$$$ in front of common sense when a growing number of people will just book OV cabins at less income to the line

Think about what you're saying. If HAL is putting $$$$ in front of common sense (presumably you mean prohibiting smoking on verandas is "common sense") then that means the prospective customer will spend more if smoking is allowed than if it's prohibited. That, in turn, means that the current policy generates more profit than a total prohibition of veranda smoking.

By the way, I really don't think there's more money to be made by continuing the current policy. It's my guess that HAL understands that changing the policy is an irreversible decision so they're taking their time in making the move.

I agree the old Carnival ship Paradise is such old history it is silly to keep mentioning it.

 

That ship changed to permitting smoking at a time when there were far more people still smoking. Since then, millions quit (or sadly died) and smoking is not welcome anywhere near like it used to be.

 

Also, Carnival never changed the itinerary on that ship. People who welcomed the smoke free atmosphere got tired of the same old itinerary and

 

Most importantly of all, the old Paradise argument doesn't apply to HAL's smoking policy.

 

Not many here have said they don't want any smoking on the ship. Most are saying they don't want verandah smoking but would have no issue if HAL provided a clean, comfortable area where smokers could have their smokes. The rest of us (vast majority) would not have to be exposed to their second hand smoke. It would be easily avoided...

To be specific, the Paradise was built as a no smoking ship in 1998 and stayed that way until 2003. The experiment failed during the 5 years and caused Carnival to change its policy to a limited smoking in 2003, 12+ years ago. Carnival had the opportunity to shuffle itineraries if they felt that the issue was an unchanging itinerary. Clearly they must have felt it was the smoking policy, not the static itinerary.

Similarly, Renaissance Cruises, the only cruise line that banned smoking altogether on all of its ships, went out of business in 2001. There are a number of possible reasons why Renaissance went out of business so it's unlikely anyone can legitimately blame their failure on the smoking policy alone. But telling smokers they weren't welcome on board a Renaissance ship couldn't have helped.

Carnival Corp, in particular Holland America, is fully cognizant of the history and I'm sure they understand their market. They are currently the only cruise line that still permits balcony (veranda) smoking (at least as a policy). (Who knows how well the smoking policy is being enforced on other lines? Celebrity, for one, has an enforcement problem.)

All that said, we can discuss HAL's smoking policy until the cows come home but unless and until HAL decides that, as a policy matter, smoking will no longer be permitted on verandas will result in plus business.

Ok, to me that is not going out if your way. Thx for letting me know. I let them know I don't like it on my surveys as well. My next 2 cruises are in oceanview rooms thx to their smoking policy. Eventually it will end. It's a shame Hal is dragging their feet on it. Complaining/commenting from either side will do nothing. It will end when they feel it won't hurt them financially.

I don't think they are "dragging their feet." I think they understand that the vast majority of the cruise customers out there don't decide on a particular cruise based on the cruise line's smoking policy but on many other factors. Of course there are a few who will make such choices and there are also a few who want to have the option to smoke on the balcony. but, just as Carnival learned by their failed experiment with a No Smoking ship (the Paradise). And how did that strict no smoking policy work out for Renaissance Cruise Lines? Remember them?

I really think HAL management does understand their market and how their target customers accept policies like smoking, formal night, etc. It's simply an individual choice for a customer when considering a cruise holiday.

Works for me. I'm cruising to relax not impress folks.

 

Dan

You nailed it!

As my father used to say, "You wouldn't worry so much what other people think about you, if you knew how seldom they did."

<snip>

It appears smokers shun Princess ships or refrain from lighting up on them. We observed no cheating, that is someone sneaking a puff where they were not supposed to, I'm sure there are exceptions, but rare. That is good.

On Sunday Princess showed the NFL games on the MUTS screen during the day and I noticed 2 people puffing on their cigs. and being served drinks at their viewing seats on deck. The server said nothing.

I saw no confrontations between staff and passengers or between fellow passengers. Everyone was relaxed and enjoying a gorgeous sunny day at sea.

I did not see smoking anywhere else on board (wasn't particularly trying to find it so there may have been other places). I also did not once smell any tobacco smoke nor see any ashtrays.

So I agree that there are exceptions. Rare? Possibly but who really knows.

The worst element of cruising is what I call "sloppy pricing."

When the price of a commodity or a service appears to be negotiable, both by overly complex "deals" and moving target time parameters, the seller of that commodity or service had better have clear guidelines, especially for the consumer, or the seller will be in a world of hurt.

Then when "deals" are created for regions so that if customer #1 in Florida gets a better price than customer #2 in Chicago solely because of his zip code, the seller can count on not only unhappy Chicago customers but also customers who will work the system. Finally when goodies are added in the form of OBC's and/or beverage cards, etc., and/or pre and post cruise add-ons, it's real easy to see how the customer service people can be totally incompetent to handle a booking.

SWFLCruzer's situation is a perfect example of what happens with "sloppy pricing." Misunderstandings galore occur followed by resentment and a total loss of a feeling of fair dealing by everyone.

Two solutions.

First, return the good old days of yesteryear with standard pricing. That ain't gonna happen because the consumer has been trained to look for virtually every kind of pricing gimmick when buying big ticket items like cruises. Unless every cruise line in the business changes to a standard pricing model at the same time, sloppy pricing will prevail.

Second, use a professional who lives and breathes the ridiculously complex world of cruise pricing to do the work, both in getting the best cruise accommodations and the itineraries the consumer wants. They call them travel agents. Yes, I know I may miss out on a free dinner in the Super Duper private dining restaurant, but that's OK with me when I'm comfortable with the entire package.

I completely understand SWFLCruzer's emotion, especially when Celebrity's customer service folks take inconsistent, yet rigid positions without fully evaluating the situation.

How do you know they are not hurting? Maybe that is why they are still allowing people to smoke. There are many threads about Hal losing market share. Maybe this is the reason they haven't stopped the smoking yet. They are proud to be the ashtray of the seas.

Could be. They may feel that smokers need a legitimate choice. Yes they have lost some market share but if you look "under the covers" you'll see that boarding percentages on their smaller capacity ships are actually equal to or better than RCI, NCL, and their sister companies, Carnival and Princess. HAL is doing price promotions as all lines are doing, but they haven't gotten into excessively deep discounting and/or nickel and dime extra charges for every little thing (NCL with their room service charges and Princess with their extra charge for fancier coffee drinks purchased with their coffee card and Carnival with their $60 early boarding fee).

I don't see any evidence that they take pride at being considered the ashtray of the seas by a few people on Cruise Critic. Otherwise you'd see that in their promotional material. You'd also see the return of smoking to some or all of the dining rooms and lounges. Hasn't happened, and isn't likely to happen very soon.

We are, and always have been, ambivalent about the smoking policy and have been sailing with HAL for a long time, even before they introduced their first balcony (veranda) on the ms Statendam. Every cruise since then we've had a Veranda (except one where we splurged for a full suite on the maiden voyage of the ms Maasdam).

I can't recall encountering excessive smoking on any cruise except a Baltic cruise where we attended a HAL sponsored shore excursion to a ballet performance in St Petersburg where the room was filled with smoke from Russian cigarettes. It wasn't pleasant but it was tolerable.

In any case whatever HAL decides to do regarding balcony smoking, we will probably continue sailing with them because we love the civilized atmosphere of our fellow passengers and especially the reasonable sizes of their ships (we've not sailed the Eurodam and don't expect to sail on the Koningsdam). We've sailed on a 3,000+ capacity Princess which is just too darned big and a 148 capacity Windstar which was wonderful but too expensive.

HAL has better itineraries and smaller ships than the other major mainstream cruise lines and offers a better overall experience. We would just like them to do more runs out of Los Angeles.

That said, we understand the position of those who would prefer a no smoking policy but whatever HAL decides to do is fine with us, provided they don't mess around with the overall quality of their product.

I appreciate that you consider a gratuity to be separate from the HSC. I don't think that HAL sees it that way though. On its website, HAL has the HSC under the heading Tips. Under this heading, HAL specifically writes, "Is there a Hotel Service Charge (Gratuity/Tip)?" The use of the parentheses is to clarify or to provide explanation. In this context, HAL appears to be denoting that the HSC, gratuity and tip are all one and the same.

I understand and, for now, I hope that interpretation stands.

But it may also be just the next step in the transition from the former "Tipping Not Required" policy where HAL said the staff works for the pleasure of serving the public to now with an almost mandatory HSC which will shortly become mandatory like a "resort fee" and will be a mandatory extra charge loaded on every passenger's bill.

Then many people will start to feel uncomfortable not tipping the cabin steward and the dining room people directly so they will start leaving tips for them. That may well be followed in 4 or 5 years with HAL reinstating the "Tipping Not Required" policy statement without any reference to the HSC so we'll be starting yet another "tradition."

Then out will come the dictionary definition of tip/gratuity to establish the distinction between the HSC and tips.

In other words, my cynicism gene is alive and well.

A gratuity is defined as:

noun, plural gratuities. 1. a gift of money, over and above payment due for service, as to a waiter or bellhop; tip.

2.something given without claim or demand.

The charge at HAL is called a Hotel Service Charge.

That means the HSC is, definitionally, a payment to HAL for services rendered and not a gratuity.

This means we're now in an era of an all inclusive fare (almost) by the (almost) mandatory HSC.

I don't understand how there's any reason to consider the taxation of pay to crew has any bearing at all on the HSC.

I was pocket picked twice; once in Sao Paulo Brazil and once in Madrid Spain.

In the first instance I was carrying my wallet in my front pants pocket and succeeded at foiling the attempt by instinctively using a technique I learned in the Army as part of hand to hand combat training. The poor dude didn't get my wallet and ran away holding his now seriously injured wrist.

The second instance was much more sophisticated where two little early 20's (I think) girls were standing outside our hotel studying a map. They spoke broken English and asked me to help find their location. While helping the gal with the map, the other circled behind me and slipped my wallet out of my back pocket. As soon as the deed was done, the two ran off. I saw my wallet in the accomplice's hand as they ran off.

In both instances neither I nor my DW incurred any injuries, but we became much more aware of the possibilities.

We no longer carry any valuables anywhere and stay aware of our surroundings. Although we've traveled extensively since these instances occurred, we've been incident free.

Methinks Princess, sister company to Holland America, may have created a serious problem. Princess is currently running a promotion that includes, among other things, "complimentary gratuities." The material says if you sign up, Princess pays the full amount of your gratuities.

Let's say you didn't feel obligated to tip the staff, can you opt out when Princess provides the gratuity? A Princess CS rep told me no, you cannot.

So I guess that means the gratuity becomes just another name for a pay subsidy, doesn't it?

We just completed a cruise on the Ruby Princess. We had a balcony cabin on a ship on a cruise line that has a total ban on stateroom, balcony and open deck smoking.

Amazingly we still had cigarette smoke drifting past us on a few occasions (not very many) and saw several (not very many) empty drink classes with butts swimming in the bottom on the Lido deck.

This suggests that, although Princess has a policy that many in this thread would like to have on HAL, it didn't stop the smoking on board.

We met a couple on the last night who said they abhor smoking. They said they noticed the butts as well but did not notice any tobacco smoke drift except on shore.

This suggests to me that while a smoking ban policy may be a good one, it's impossible to enforce it fully.

If HAL cannot keep up visa information for the passengers how do they know who to deny boarding to

Exactly right.

It sounds to me like the decision to deny boarding was either an arbitrary (baseless) one made by the HAL boarding staff, which is clearly unfair, or was based on a legitimate issue with the documentation, which means that HAL has a detail summary of all of the visa information that they should be sharing with the paying customer; not just the HAL boarding staff.

Hugger, you are exactly right. You said what I tried to say in my earlier post.

One other aspect of tipping that neither one of us mentioned is that in some cultures, tipping is considered an insult; that you are really looking down on the recipient.

Tipping in Japan, for example, is "not done." Tipping of flight attendants is also "not done," although when food and/or beverages are served they provide virtually the same service as one gets on board a ship.

As we go down the all too familiar trail that occurs on virtually every tipping thread on Cruise Critic (not just HAL), let's try to be realistic. HAL sails internationally far more than in the USA so its customers experience a variety of tipping policies in every port.

Just one example. In Paris you will encounter a service charge, usually 10%, that is added to a restaurant bill. When paying by cash it is the usual custom to leave an even amount and the staff gets the rounding. (Example, a EU45.00 bill is increased by 10% to Eu49.50. The standard is to leave Eu50.00. As an American I always feel uncomfortable doing that but my French associates tell me that this is the standard practice. BTW, I round up the same way when paying by credit card.)

In Indonesia, it's the same. In the Philippines it's the same. In the Caribbean, it's pretty much the US style simply because that's the primary source of tourism. I don't recall ever seeing an automatic tip in any Caribbean restaurant (or hotel, for that matter).

Because we have Indonesian staff, should we follow Indonesian (and European) custom or US custom when we're on a Mediterranean cruise?

Frankly I like the HSC so much more than HAL's former (and ambiguous) "Tipping Not Required" policy where we customers had no idea at all if we really should tip anyway, especially when tip envelopes were provided.

The really important aspect to all this is that the policies and the amounts of the HSC are clearly disclosed by HAL so there should not be any surprise at all.

Whether or not one should remove the HSC is a strictly personal decision that can't be resolved in an internet forum. Where I may feel the staff are underpaid and therefore pay the HSC regardless of service quality, others may feel this is the only way to address lousy service in a meaningful way.

...

While there's no way to prove it, apparently Carnival corporate management made a conscious decision to continue to allow balcony smoking on one of its two premium lines (HAL, but not Princess) and on half of the ships on its luxury line (Seabourn), in order to attract smokers. Other ships catering to the US market do not allow smoking on balconies, and that's as it should be. ...

This makes total sense. As I've said before we've been cruising for almost 30 years and our first cruise was to Alaska on the Nieuw Amsterdam. There were no balconies on the ship, nor were there balconies on any other major lines that I am aware of. Smoking was permitted just about everywhere and to the best of my knowledge there was no major hue and cry made by non-smokers.

Balconies, which were introduced in the nineties, followed the norm, smoking permitted.

Carnival Corp's Carnival Cruise Line, responding to an increase in anti-smoking pressures generally, decided in 1998 to take one Fantasy class newbuild, the Carnival Paradise, and institute a total no smoking policy. Pax caught smoking were fined $250 and tossed off the ship at the next port.

In 2003, due to lousy bookings, Carnival dropped the strict no smoking policy but retained the no smoking on balconies policy.

In other words, once burned, twice shy. They responded to the pressure of the anti-smoker pressure and found out that the general public took a "ho hum" attitude.

So, Joanandjoe is probably right on point. Carnival made a call with its higher end cruise line in the "mid-market" category not to turn away the smoking passenger who is willing to pay a premium to bool a balcony so they can smoke in the comfort of their own quarters, albeit just outside and not in their own stateroom.

I am part of the 80% (a questionable stat often repeated in this thread) who don't smoke but I'm also ambivalent because I'm not bothered by others who smoke or by the aroma. (I don't understand the smokers' motivation to spend so much on cigarettes,etc., but that's their business.)

In other words, live and let live. We'll spend our money cruising on a ship on my favorite cruise line that goes where we want to go. If we get better booking opportunities because folks won't book on a ship that permits balcony smoking, that's a bonus for us.

Bottom line, if the economic pressures cause CCL to tighten up its smoking policies on HAL or any other of its lines and ships, no sweat. Won't make any difference to us.

I've always seen the "live from" threads to be just that, someone who is posting a real time comment about their cruise whilst being on board a cruise ship on the water. I have seen a few that are really day by day logs of the cruise but most of the time it's a spot news item sorta like a news at 11 comment by a reporter reporting on an incident "live from" the scene.

Considering the very high cost of internet access on board ship. I would think that it's a bit excessive to expect someone to provide a daily report.

For that reason I agree with POA1, Ruth and Kazu.

...As a non-smoker, but not one who is overly sensitive to exposure (if I can smell it lightly in a room or furniture, it isn't what I'd call pleasant but doesn't cause me any grief...

Our very first cruise was on the old Nieuw Amsterdam in Sept. 1987, a 7 day Alaska cruise.

Back then there were no ships in the HAL fleet with any balcony cabins at all, so there was no issue with smokers in veranda areas.

Back then we non-smokers had to be satisfied with seats in the non-smoking section of the airplane to Vancouver that was one row in font of the smoking section.

Back then smoking was permitted in all public rooms on board (bars, restaurants, show rooms, etc.).

Back then tobacco companies offered free sample packs containing five cigarettes.

Back then there was no political correctness associated with smoking.

That was about 28 years ago. Boy have times changed.

Sow, thanks for your input. The law is vague in many ways and doesn't necessarily address all our issues but it's a head start and we need head starts and, as vague as they may be, some sort of legal standing. SLOW.....that's how our government works.....very SLOWLY!

 

Horton and I will go on every cruise and airline that we can to show how a Service Dog should behave. AWARNESS and desensitization is what the public needs to witness a true Service Dog in action.

I'm 100% with you. (Well, almost. "government works" is an oxymoron.:confused:)

I think you have, and will continue to serve as an effective ambassador for service dogs and their owners, which, IMHO, is far more effective than any silly legislation that has no prescribed way of dealing with phonies or with businesses who don't play by the ADA rules.

FYI:

 

...

Is it true businesses are not allowed to question people with service dogs?

 

Businesses are not allowed to ask for proof of certification or medical documentation regarding a service dog. They are not allowed to ask specifically about the person's disability or if the dog is a service dog. They are, however, allowed to ask TWO questions, per the ADA:

1.Is the animal required because of a disability?

2.What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

So a business is not allowed to ask specifically about the person's disability, but is allowed to ask if the animal is required because of a disability. A hair can be split more easily than a business who has a complaint filed for asking the "are you disabled" question. More importantly, a business cannot ask about the person's disability but is permitted to as what work or task the animal is trained to perform. YIKES How does one ask the question without violating the ADA?

...

Is this new Florida law enforceable?

 

"That remains to be seen," said Martha Johnson, spokesperson for Canine Companions for Independence. "We sure hope so."

Hope so??? That's what's wrong with our legislatures (both state and Congress) is that they don't think these things through before passing legislation. If Florida's legislature is counting on "hope," as the enforcement mechanism, it simply ain't enforceable.

...

"I think what it really does is just build awareness and make someone think twice before they pass their dog off as a service dog when they're not," Johnson said.

Is that the legitimate role of a legislature; to "just build awareness?"

=======================

Sorry to jump in, but this new law is really silly and appears to be yet another full employment act to benefit trial lawyers.

I absolutely agree with the intention, which is far more consequential than, say, falsely using a handicap placard to park in a handicap spot, because of the incredible importance of service animals to their owner.

But a poorly crafted law like this can make things worse because it will force out a lot of small businesses because of a fear of an ADA or state of Florida action if they ask the wrong question.

(side note; this law is something we Californians expect from our legislature, but Florida? I thought they were smarter than California.)

I will again put on my stockholder (and active investor) hat regarding CCL tax avoidance. The Board of Directors of most for profit corporations has a fiduciary obligation to its stockholders to maximize profits. Tax reducing strategies are now a very important part of any large corporation's business plan. The reality about US Corporate taxes is that we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. This has forced most corps. to implement off-shore strategies. There have been several proposals for Congress to modify our corporate tax code to encourage companies to bring their money/assets back to the USA. But like all things political various agendas have blocked any helpful legislation.

 

Actually, the cruise industry is forced to work around several unhelpful laws. Besides the high corporate tax rate there is the PVSA (and Jones Act) which causes cruise lines to often avoid US Ports (costing both jobs and revenue to port communities). And US labor and tax laws, which are not compatible with ship operations, also drive all cruise lines to register their ships in other countries (often flags of convenience). Another sad reality is that tax, labor and other maritime laws/regulations have just about destroyed the US ship building industry. There is a good business reason why nearly all cruise ships are built in Italy, Finland, France and even Japan. None of these are third-world low income countries, but yet they are able to attract the ship building industry. But in our country we are just too darn good at throwing away good opportunities to satisfy the political whims of a few. So our old ship yards rust away while American-based cruise lines and shipping countries spend billions a year building ships in Europe and Asia.

 

Hank

Hank, you are right on point in your post. Consider that Carnival Corp, Royal Caribbean International and Viking, all huge cruise line companies with headquarters based here in the good old USA. The support staff (reservations, etc.) for these companies also are all based here in the USA so they do contribute their share of corporate payroll and other taxes as, of course, do their employees.

The loss of corporate income taxes and the unmeasurable loss to the US employment and tax revenues because of seriously outdated government regulations is shameful.

Interestingly, those who decry CCL's new "fathom" product because CCL can deduct the cost of their contribution to, in this case, the Dominican Republic totally misunderstand that CCL gets no tax benefit at all for this effort.

As a satisfied CCL shareholder (good dividend and even better shareholder on board credit benefit) I am pleased by this new move and hope that it is emulated by other cruise lines.

Just curious. What was the itinerary of your cruise? On days when you were in port and you did not go ashore, did MSC provide a good assortment of activities aboard the ship?

It's great that everything went so well for you, especially with an 8 month old on board. Sounds like you're very likely to do another cruise.

This can get ridiculous. The occasional "whiffs" of smoke is not what people are talking about. Being clouded in smoke, having it all around you on your personal balcony, and being unable to even walk through the casino is the discussion. I doubt people are complaining about a tiny whisper of smoke. We are entitled to clean air, as much as you think there are "considerate" smokers. There aren't any as long as they are polluting my space.

I don't disagree at all. As I said earlier, we can handle occasional whiffs. We avoid the casinos, for example, because they have entirely too much smoke (and also because I have totally lousy luck when I gamble).

You missed my point. The only way smoking will ever be snuffed out (pun intended) is by a total ban, not by half measures like banning smoking in specified areas. So long as our investments in CCL and RCI are not negatively impacted by a total smoking ban, we're all in for that change.

But we have noticed, and are less than ambivalent about, those few people who make anti-smoking an obsession such as when we saw a woman complaining loudly and obnoxiously about a person who was smoking what turned out to be a smokeless e-cigarette.

As I've said before, occasional whiffs of tobacco smoke do not bother us. I and my DW grew up in the mid 20th century when smoking was a normal activity and the smoking car on trains was a place one could easily find a seat. I remember several times on elevator rides in NY skyscrapers where ashtrays were omnipresent and some folks even puffed on pipes and cigars as we traveled vertically.

We began our cruise "habit" in the late 1980's (and what a great habit it is!) and the issue of smoking on board evolved from then, where there were no balcony cabins and smoking was generally permitted anywhere on board except in a few areas (engine rooms, etc.).

Then the anti-smoking efforts in general became increasingly popular with steadily increasing restrictions on where one could smoke.

The "elephant in the room" was/is the increasing legal and regulatory involvement of various levels of government including, especially, law enforcement.

It was about 10 years ago that Carnival launched a newbuild, the Paradise, which was a smoke free ship. That experiment failed because not enough people booked cruises on Paradise for some reason. (Some say it was their smoking prohibition while others say it was they had lousy itineraries assigned to Paradise.) Carnival abandoned the policy and Paradise was added as just another ship in the fleet.

The historic lesson from all this is that anti-smoking rule enforcement requires more than a company's "policy statement" and essentially voluntary compliance by smokers. It requires a legal basis and enforcement capabilities that are available to enforce the legal aspect. That's not available on board a cruise ship except in a manner similar to the procedures employed by Carnival in its failed Paradise experiment.

The vignettes cited in this thread about second hand smoking experiences on lines with, arguably, more restrictive smoking policies than HAL demonstrate that the absolute prohibition of all smoking activity on board cruise ships can only occur with a re-institution of the rules originally established in the Paradise experiment.

Perhaps the market is now ready for such a restart, but there are no cruise lines willing to be the first to give it a try.

Although we aren't bothered by occasional whiffs of tobacco smoke, it also wouldn't bother us at all if smoking were, indeed, totally prohibited on a cruise ship. Except one thing. How would such a policy affect the stock price of the cruise line that tries it first?