New final payment due date

A couple of things.

I believe it is clear from the wording this applies to future bookings made with effect from the soon to be released 2019-20 cruises.

Consider this - Do you feel that the actions of passengers are in some way leading to all the changes and cutbacks? e.g.:

- the sharing of the drinks package = the new daily limit on the beverage package.

- people booking excursions then cancelling them whilst on board = having to pay for excursions in advance.

- people booking multiple cruises to bag their favourite stateroom just on the off chance they might go and subsequently cancelling them = non refundable deposits and the need to cutback on board.

- people constantly re-pricing cruises with each new promotion or price reduction = no more steak in the MDR or only three pats of butter.

Whilst some of changes will be because of the bean counters (but we all love that higher dividend and OBC, don’t we?) and bringing Princess into line with other brands, there’s no denying that the actions of passengers are also having an impact. Makes you think doesn’t it.

A couple of things.

 

I believe it is clear from the wording this applies to future bookings made with effect from the soon to be released 2019-20 cruises.

 

Consider this - Do you feel that the actions of passengers are in some way leading to all the changes and cutbacks? e.g.:

.

No I don't. I believe a lot of decisions have been made to be consistent with other cruise lines under the Carnival Corp umbrella and changes in leadership.

Basically: We are doing this to be competitive. In other words, instead of being unique and customer focused, we choose to be just like our competition and adopt their restrictive policies.

I believe this to be true. I think a lot of it is being driven my current leadership and organizational structure.

 

Consider this - Do you feel that the actions of passengers are in some way leading to all the changes and cutbacks? e.g.:

 

- people booking multiple cruises to bag their favourite stateroom just on the off chance they might go and subsequently cancelling them.

Thank you Princess - we often decide to cruise a few months out and this will make it so much easier to just book and ignore until it is time to pack. Now we book and have to wait for final payment cancellations to see what cabins are really available.

People on here brag about reserving multiple cruises when first available so they get cabin of their choice on the off chance they decide to go a year or more later. They now have to cancel earlier which is good for us.

Non-refundable deposits help when the deposit is more than a dollar. This drives me crazy when people post on here - we have no idea if we will go but who cares as we only lose a dollar so we booked several cruises and will decide by final payment.

Thank you Princess - we often decide to cruise a few months out and this will make it so much easier to just book and ignore until it is time to pack. Now we book and have to wait for final payment cancellations to see what cabins are really available.

The people on this board represent only a small number of those who are cruising.

Obviously Princess finds the $1 deposit beneficial as they have done it multiple times. If it wasn't to their benefit, do you think they would do it?

A couple of things.

 

I believe it is clear from the wording this applies to future bookings made with effect from the soon to be released 2019-20 cruises.

 

Consider this - Do you feel that the actions of passengers are in some way leading to all the changes and cutbacks? e.g.:

 

- the sharing of the drinks package = the new daily limit on the beverage package.

- people booking excursions then cancelling them whilst on board = having to pay for excursions in advance.

- people booking multiple cruises to bag their favourite stateroom just on the off chance they might go and subsequently cancelling them = non refundable deposits and the need to cutback on board.

- people constantly re-pricing cruises with each new promotion or price reduction = no more steak in the MDR or only three pats of butter.

 

Whilst some of changes will be because of the bean counters (but we all love that higher dividend and OBC, don’t we?) and bringing Princess into line with other brands, there’s no denying that the actions of passengers are also having an impact. Makes you think doesn’t it.

I think you have accurately determined the cause of the changes we have seen from Princess.

There are people who "game the system." Some do it to save a few dollars. Others may do it to get pleasure out of sneaking something by the system. (Think of those geniuses who brag how they sneak liquor aboard on Cruise Critic)

Booking cruise cabins or excursions you are not committed to taking, takes those cabins or excursions off the market for others who really want to take them. The people who do this probably are among those who get up at dawn to put their stuff on pool loungers that they don't use until afternoon if then.

As is so often the case, Princess has no choice but to punish everyone because of the selfish actions of a few.

I think you have accurately determined the cause of the changes we have seen from Princess.

There are people who "game the system." Some do it to save a few dollars. Others may do it to get pleasure out of sneaking something by the system. (Think of those geniuses who brag how they sneak liquor aboard on Cruise Critic)

Booking cruise cabins or excursions you are not committed to taking, takes those cabins or excursions off the market for others who really want to take them. The people who do this probably are among those who get up at dawn to put their stuff on pool loungers that they don't use until afternoon if then.

As is so often the case, Princess has no choice but to punish everyone because of the selfish actions of a few.

I disagree. Princess isn’t a parent, it’s a business. If one believes that Princess is punishing all guests for the behavior of a few, then how do you explain the multitude of cutbacks that have nothing to do with guests? And why do guests who don’t game the system tolerate being punished by Princess?

Princess is looking for one thing, to maximize profits to contribute to CCL’s Earnings per Share (EPS). That’s all that matters. If guests somehow benefit from a profit maximizing action (eg. new entertainment options causing guests to try Princess) that’s great, but that’s a happy by-product.

Obviously, with the earlier final payment dates and pre-paying shore excursions, Princess is trying to remove guest flexibility that is costing them money, either by securing earlier access to cash or a reduced need to drop fares after final payment. Time will tell if the latter is successful. Apparently other cruise lines feel it has been for them.

 

Obviously, with the earlier final payment dates and pre-paying shore excursions, Princess is trying to remove guest flexibility that is costing them money, either by securing earlier access to cash or a reduced need to drop fares after final payment. Time will tell if the latter is successful. Apparently other cruise lines feel it has been for them.

Bingo!!

I disagree. Princess isn’t a parent, it’s a business. If one believes that Princess is punishing all guests for the behavior of a few, then how do you explain the multitude of cutbacks that have nothing to do with guests? And why do guests who don’t game the system tolerate being punished by Princess?

 

Princess is looking for one thing, to maximize profits to contribute to CCL’s Earnings per Share (EPS). That’s all that matters. If guests somehow benefit from a profit maximizing action (eg. new entertainment options causing guests to try Princess) that’s great, but that’s a happy by-product.

 

Obviously, with the earlier final payment dates and pre-paying shore excursions, Princess is trying to remove guest flexibility that is costing them money, either by securing earlier access to cash or a reduced need to drop fares after final payment. Time will tell if the latter is successful. Apparently other cruise lines feel it has been for them.

Your first sentence says it all----Princess is a business. It is not a charity . A business will cease to exist if it doesn't make a profit. Princess cannot determine who books more cruises or excursions than they know they will take so all they can do is to require earlier payment from everyone. For those who don't book cruises they are not committed to taking and who prefer to keep their money in their bank account or mattress as long as possible----consider the policy change to be a punishment in that it is not to their benefit.

Some people seem to think every corporation trying to make a profit is evil. That is just not always true.

Personally, I would rather have Princess make more money by having my final payment in their possession for a few weeks longer, than by raising fares or cutting food and entertainment quality.

I have no problem with Princess changing policy to require earlier payment for cruises. But I do have a problem with a refusal to "grandfather" existing terms for those who made a reservation for something prior to a policy change of terms like happened with the All Inclusive Beverage Package change to the Premium Beverage Package.

Your first sentence says it all----Princess is a business. It is not a charity . A business will cease to exist if it doesn't make a profit. Princess cannot determine who books more cruises or excursions than they know they will take so all they can do is to require earlier payment from everyone.

Princess existed fine with out pre-payment from excursions. They have stats and I have no doubt that they know approx how many people will book excursions based on previous similar cruises.

Princess also did fine when they allowed people to bring their own wine (more than one bottle) and alcohol and just charge a corkage fee.

This is purely on increasing profits. Unfortunately - it comes across as nickel and diming to me.

Princess is built to make a profit. They will implement these changes, and the market will decide whether Princess has made the right call.

Too much nickel and diming etc. and Princess will lose business.

We are new to cruising, but I was talking to my father, and he said he does not think prices have gone up very much in the last 20 years.

Princess has kept there prices low, but of course what they give in return has diminished. I think that is true of all the middle level cruise lines.

This is just a natural progression of the middle level lines keeping their fares low.

Customers will either accept it or go elsewhere. Personally, as a relatively new cruiser, I find that Princess still gives pretty good value. If my perception changes,I will spend my money elsewhere. All businesses must balance creating profit with satisfying their customers.

I do agree with some of the posters that many of these changes have been precipitated by customers' actions. Sharing drink packages, which was very common, and booking multiple cruises with little intent to take them increase costs. It is just good business to address issues like this.

I actually like the idea of two tiers of fares: refundable and non-refundable deposits. I would take advantage of the non-refundable fare, if I was sure to go.

So has Princess actually canceled cruises because of low bookings?

Starting with the 2019-2020 Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific Program, going on sale April 17, 2018, and for all subsequent program releases, a new final payment policy goes into effect aimed at encouraging guests to finalize their cruise bookings earlier and help reduce the likelihood of cruise cancellations. Cruises through the end of Summer 2019 are unaffected and will continue to use the existing policy.

 

The chart below reflects the current and new final payment policy due dates:

 

5 days or less cruises: from 60 days prior to sailing changed to 75 days

6-24 days cruises: from 75 days prior to sailing changed to 90 days

25-29 days cruises: from 75 days prior to sailing changed to 120 days

30+ days cruises: no change at 120 days prior to sailing

Apparently it's already in place for us "lucky" Brits - our 2 7 day Alaska cruises have to be paid in full at 90 days plus

So has Princess actually canceled cruises because of low bookings?

No, but they have greatly reduced pricing to help fill up the ship.

I was on one cruise where, due to a set of circumstances not likely to be repeated, the ship sailed only 2/3rd full.

Personally, I would rather have Princess make more money by having my final payment in their possession for a few weeks longer, than by raising fares or cutting food and entertainment quality.

 

Yet Princess has managed over the last several years to:

a) raise fares significantly

b) cut food quality

c) Reduced entertainment on board (less guests entertainers, but more passenger games; less members in the show band; quartets that became trios that became duets; etc.)

d) And, newly announced, require final payment earlier

Consider this - Do you feel that the actions of passengers are in some way leading to all the changes and cutbacks? e.g.:

 

- people booking excursions then cancelling them whilst on board = having to pay for excursions in advance.

Paying in advance does not prevent someone from cancelling an excursion once onboard (before the announced cancellation deadline).

Carnival handles this by having a 25% cancellation fee for any excursion canceled on board up to 24 hours before the excursion at which time it is a 100% fee.

With Carnival being a sister company within the CCL Corp umbrella, I expect this policy to make its way to Princess sooner or later.

...

 

Carnival handles this by having a 25% cancellation fee for any excursion canceled on board up to 24 hours before the excursion at which time it is a 100% fee.

 

With Carnival being a sister company within the CCL Corp umbrella, I expect this policy to make its way to Princess sooner or later.

Hmmm ... too bad the converse probably wouldn't be true. We take a lot of "Off the beaten path" excursions and sometimes they are cancelled at the last minute. This leaves us scrambling for another excursion and much of the time, the good ones are all sold out. If there was a 25% cancellation fee on the passenger, it would be nice if there was some kind of compensation for Princess cancelling. Something like a 25% discount on a different excursion or a 125% refund on the cancelled excursion would be appropriate.

Hmm. Interesting. As a person who has booked cruises withing the (old) 75-day final payment time, I may like these new time frames.

It starts with booking for Australia 2019/2020 and the Europe 2020 etc.

Existing bookings stay the same.

Yet Princess has managed over the last several years to:

a) raise fares significantly

b) cut food quality

c) Reduced entertainment on board (less guests entertainers, but more passenger games; less members in the show band; quartets that became trios that became duets; etc.)

d) And, newly announced, require final payment earlier

Yes have done all that and managed to increase passengers and add ships so it's an excellent strategy and decisions for them

truthfully I think princess can do a lot more nickle and diming and is overly generous with cancelation, final payments and minimal onboard extras compared to other suscessful lines like royal Carribean, NCL etc .I've sailed on many others and don't understand why princess is so lenient when their product is as good if not better and should follow their lead as a business

new final payment policy goes into effect aimed at encouraging guests to finalize their cruise bookings earlier and help reduce the likelihood of cruise cancellations.

My reading of this is, given that it is a quote from an email received by a TA, is the new policy is aimed at discouraging a TA's clients from cancelling their bookings. This is what "cruise cancellations" may refer to. The wording is also meant to appeal to TA's, not passengers. "Dear TA: We made this change so your commissions will be more predictable. You're welcome." Princess may also hope it reduces the churn of bookings dropped that have to be resold and resold as the departure date approaches.

Does that interpretation make sense?

My reading of this is, given that it is a quote from an email received by a TA, is the new policy is aimed at discouraging a TA's clients from cancelling their bookings. This is what "cruise cancellations" may refer to. The wording is also meant to appeal to TA's, not passengers. "Dear TA: We made this change so your commissions will be more predictable. You're welcome." Princess may also hope it reduces the churn of bookings dropped that have to be resold and resold as the departure date approaches.

 

Does that interpretation make sense?

Yes, as long as "encouraging" does not mean "mandatory."

My reading of this is, given that it is a quote from an email received by a TA, is the new policy is aimed at discouraging a TA's clients from cancelling their bookings. This is what "cruise cancellations" may refer to. The wording is also meant to appeal to TA's, not passengers. "Dear TA: We made this change so your commissions will be more predictable. You're welcome." Princess may also hope it reduces the churn of bookings dropped that have to be resold and resold as the departure date approaches.

 

Does that interpretation make sense?

Close, but IMNSHO, no cigar.

The aim is to get those who are going to cancel to cancel earlier so Princess has

more time re-sell the stateroom with less flash-sale drama.

As a customer I'm less happy than I am as a stockholder.

I got a "final payment" bill today, 91 days before my 7 day Alaskan cruise. It must be because my cruise compete TA is located in Great Britain.

I just made a booking today for a Sept. 2019 cruise, and the final payment date is 75 days before the cruise. I'm in the USA. Apparently the change has not yet hit the USA cruisers.

What is does do is eliminate price reductions for a longer period of time. Price reductions generally do not apply after final payment date. So if the final payment date is 15 days sooner, that is 15 more days booked passengers cannot take advantage of lower pricing if it occurs.

For those booking after final payment is due, it actually offers potential price reductions for a longer period of time. I guess it all depends on your perspective :D:)