Smoking ?

[lincslady]

It seems quite useless, albeit perhaps personally satisfying to some, to rant and rave here. I think cruisers should write letters to Seabourn management in Seattle, voicing their displeasure and offering suggestions.

 

While I agree with Jane that to write personally to management would be a good idea, I definitely have the impression that someone there reads these posts, and the posts can influence decisions.

 

The wines did seem to improve after many complaints on the board.

 

I also imagine that staff on the ships read this stuff sometimes - particularly if people are reporting on their current cruise.? Not that they have much time!

[MARIANH]

How in the he** did we get to be old enough to afford a luxury cruise, with all our parents and or their friends, teachers etc. blowing smoke all over us!

 

Because we were lucky! Sadly others who may have enjoyed a luxury cruise do not have the opportunity because they are no longer with us. Second hand smoke inhalation causes thousands of premature deaths worldwide and excess morbidity. The stats say it all. And that is why many Governments in the free world have banned smoking in enclosed places. Seabourn could do well to follow their lead ( IMHO of course).

[MARIANH]

While I agree with Jane that to write personally to management would be a good idea, I definitely have the impression that someone there reads these posts, and the posts can influence decisions.

 

The wines did seem to improve after many complaints on the board.

 

I also imagine that staff on the ships read this stuff sometimes quote]

 

Precisely. It is interesting to note that the recent exchanges on this thread appear to have been viewed over one thousand times over the last couple of days or so. Does that possibly reflect ongoing interest in this topic?

[JaneBP]

>"Does that possibly reflect ongoing interest in this topic?"

 

The number of individual posters is more relevant, I think. Very few of the Seabourn sailing population read this forum, even less will post. I often check, but am dead bored with the topic. I have very little faith that anything that is said here is taken seriously and acted upon by Seabourn.

[MARIANH]

>"Does that possibly reflect ongoing interest in this topic?"

 

The number of individual posters is more relevant, I think. Very few of the Seabourn sailing population read this forum, even less will post. I often check, but am dead bored with the topic. I have very little faith that anything that is said here is taken seriously and acted upon by Seabourn.

 

You may be correct; but past experience suggests that many "lurkers" are reluctant to post. This does not mean they are not interested or do not have a view. Why would so many read these postings if they were not interested in the topic?

 

I don't agree that Seabourn is completely insensitive to the views of its customers but there again you may be correct. However, all of this should not discourage us from trying to influence Seabourn through personal representations to them and keeping issues alive through discussion on the Cruise Critic site ( IMHO). And if this does not work there is always the nuclear option of voting with our feet.

 

And I suspect that Seabourn does wish to foster good relations with CC ers. As evidenced by senior officers attending CC meet and greet sessions ( eg the one you organised on Odyssey a little while ago) and arranging welcome support for CC activities on board ( eg Martita's famous parties on crossings).

 

If I am being naive and unduly optimistic no doubt others with longer experience of Seabourn will disabuse me.

[JaneBP]

>"You may be correct; but past experience suggests that many "lurkers" are reluctant to post. This does not mean they are not interested or do not have a view. Why would so many read these postings if they were not interested in the topic?"

 

That's true. But I am saying that the number of hits does not relate to a 1:1 ratio of readers. Many of us will check more than once a day and that counts as a hit.

 

I think that many of the on board staff are most helpful and gracious and participate in many of the little Hi Jinks, but we are talking head office management here.

 

Yesterday, I 'attended' the twitter chat sponsored by T&L on good service. Seabourn was represented, by whom i have no idea. However, as a loyal cruiser with experience, I could have done much better than the person who was responding.

[dhoogheralf]

Hi,

 

I just went quickly through the posts,

that were posted since this threat was “revitalised” at the end of January 2012.,

and this showed that

- only six persons account for more than 59% of all posts

- some people think that their argument wins strength by repeating again and again their single argument

 

Yes, non-smokers have the liberty / right for non-smoking indoor public rooms.

And Seabourn does an excellent job by ensuring them that all public indoor places are smoke-free, except only one indoor public room, where smoking is allowed in a corner during non-eating times.

 

And yes, also smokers have the right/liberty to smoke in an indoor public room,

and again Seabourn does an excellent job by providing them a corner in the observation lounge. ( And on Seabourn, smokers do respect the smoking ban that is in effect in all the other indoor public rooms and as a consequence smokers respect the liberty/right of the non-smoker to enjoy all these other non-smoking indoor public rooms. )

 

As a result, non-smoker’s and smoker’s liberties / rights are protected.

 

Non-smokers can easily avoid the smoke in the observation lounge, just by not entering the observation lounge.

And if non-smokers want to go into the observation lounge, they should also respect the fact that this is a room, where smoking is allowed in a corner and as a consequence respect the liberty/right of the smoker in the corner of this room.

 

Demanding that a non-smoker should also have a non-smoking observation lounge is a step too far, because one’s liberty / right stops when you’re trespassing in someone’s others liberty / right.

Non-smokers can enjoy all the indoor public rooms, except one room.

Smokers are confined / limited to only one corner in an indoor public room.

It seems to me that non-smoker’s liberty / rights are already very well protected.

 

So Seabourn, should you read this post, please keep the smoking policy as it is.

 

Kind regards,

Ralf

PS I don’t smoke

[MARIANH]

>"You may be correct; but past experience suggests that many "lurkers" are reluctant to post. This does not mean they are not interested or do not have a view. Why would so many read these postings if they were not interested in the topic?"

 

That's true. But I am saying that the number of hits does not relate to a 1:1 ratio of readers. Many of us will check more than once a day and that counts as a hit.

 

I think that many of the on board staff are most helpful and gracious and participate in many of the little Hi Jinks, but we are talking head office management here.

 

Yesterday, I 'attended' the twitter chat sponsored by T&L on good service. Seabourn was represented, by whom i have no idea. However, as a loyal cruiser with experience, I could have done much better than the person who was responding.

 

Thank you. As ever you make some good points. But I still contend that, notwithstanding multiple hits by individuals , the level of interest in this thread is substantial. And it does not appear to be replicated on some of the other threads. This suggests perhaps that lurkers are not just " cruising"; but are being selective. Anyhow the thread will die a natural death if and when the topic ceases to be topical and of interest.

 

As to your experience with a Seabourn representative - oh dear, not again. Does anyone know of who in Seabourn / Hal/ Carnival has the necessary clout to be worth writing to?

[JaneBP]

Unlike others who are well connected, I am not. I know no one.

 

However, after my next cruise in September I am switching to a land option, a month in Hawaii. MOre expensive than Seabourn per day, but no smoking.

[MARIANH]

Hi,

 

I just went quickly through the posts,

that were posted since this threat was “revitalised” at the end of January 2012.,

and this showed that

- only six persons account for more than 59% of all posts

- some people think that their argument wins strength by repeating again and again their single argument

 

Yes, non-smokers have the liberty / right for non-smoking indoor public rooms.

And Seabourn does an excellent job by ensuring them that all public indoor places are smoke-free, except only one indoor public room, where smoking is allowed in a corner during non-eating times.

 

And yes, also smokers have the right/liberty to smoke in an indoor public room,

and again Seabourn does an excellent job by providing them a corner in the observation lounge. ( And on Seabourn, smokers do respect the smoking ban that is in effect in all the other indoor public rooms and as a consequence smokers respect the liberty/right of the non-smoker to enjoy all these other non-smoking indoor public rooms. )

 

As a result, non-smoker’s and smoker’s liberties / rights are protected.

 

Non-smokers can easily avoid the smoke in the observation lounge, just by not entering the observation lounge.

And if non-smokers want to go into the observation lounge, they should also respect the fact that this is a room, where smoking is allowed in a corner and as a consequence respect the liberty/right of the smoker in the corner of this room.

 

Demanding that a non-smoker should also have a non-smoking observation lounge is a step too far, because one’s liberty / right stops when you’re trespassing in someone’s others liberty / right.

Non-smokers can enjoy all the indoor public rooms, except one room.

Smokers are confined / limited to only one corner in an indoor public room.

It seems to me that non-smoker’s liberty / rights are already very well protected.

 

So Seabourn, should you read this post, please keep the smoking policy as it is.

 

Kind regards,

Ralf

PS I don’t smoke

 

No doubt some would contend that your logic is unsound and your arguments specious. They perhaps would say that it is irresponsible that the "rights" of the few ( the smokers) should be exercised without giving consideration to the deleterious effect on the majority of others. Particularly when there is a viable option. Unless perhaps in exercising their rights, smokers enjoy a certain schadenfreude. They would also no doubt point out that whilst indeed passengers can choose not to go in the Observation lounge, Seabourn employees cannot.

 

For my own part, I would merely observe that in exercising my "rights" as a non smoker I have never knowingly given anyone cancer.

 

And just to repeat at boring length, most civilised coutries have banned smoking in enclosed public areas. And for good reason.

[MARIANH]

Unlike others who are well connected, I am not. I know no one.

 

However, after my next cruise in September I am switching to a land option, a month in Hawaii. MOre expensive than Seabourn per day, but no smoking.

 

Enjoy:)

[fairbourne]

No doubt some would contend that your logic is unsound and your arguments specious. They perhaps would say that it is irresponsible that the "rights" of the few ( the smokers) should be exercised without giving consideration to the deleterious effect on the majority of others. Particularly when there is a viable option. Unless perhaps in exercising their rights, smokers enjoy a certain schadenfreude. They would also no doubt point out that whilst indeed passengers can choose not to go in the Observation lounge, Seabourn employees cannot.

 

For my own part, I would merely observe that in exercising my "rights" as a non smoker I have never knowingly given anyone cancer.

 

And just to repeat at boring length, most civilised coutries have banned smoking in enclosed public areas. And for good reason.

 

MarianH - Excellent response to dhooheralf's post.

 

Menelaus - Both my parents were smokers - my father died aged 66 after having several strokes which certainly wasn't helped by the fact that he smoked all his life; my mother died aged 73 after a stroke, again smoking was a major contributory factor. Now in my 50's I have no idea what effect their smoking all through my childhood will have on my future health. Whilst I enjoy good health now who knows what will happen in the future, so I take all precautions to keep my health that way and one of the major things I do is avoid second-hand smoke. My mother always poo poo'd the idea of second hand smoke and would NEVER acknowledge that it would affect anyone. We know differently now. But there must be people of my age who have been affected by others smoking around them without a care when we did not know the health risks. Now we do know the health risks, I cannot get my head around why anyone would actually want to smoke and affect not only their health but others.

[JaneBP]

Actually, nicotine addiction is one of the toughest to quit. As the old Monty Python quip 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." No one expects to become addicted, in my experience. For example, I like Girl Scout thin Mint cookies. I never expect to finish the whole sleeve, but I do. Even if the box is in the freezer, I know it's there. suddenly I am munching away.

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/linksaaddiction.html

But then I am preaching to the choir here, right?

[fairbourne]

Actually, nicotine addiction is one of the toughest to quit. As the old Monty Python quip 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." No one expects to become addicted, in my experience. For example, I like Girl Scout thin Mint cookies. I never expect to finish the whole sleeve, but I do. Even if the box is in the freezer, I know it's there. suddenly I am munching away.

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/linksaaddiction.html

But then I am preaching to the choir here, right?

 

 

JaneBP - excuse my ignorance but what's the little running man at the top of your posts - I know it says send you a message via AIM - what's that? :)

[JaneBP]

I think it might mean I am online. But really, I have no idea. Perhaps Host Dan will tell us.

[rl787]

If I had my way I would ban all smoking on all ships trains and all interior spaces on land sea and even 10 meters from all entrance and exits of all buildings. I hate it!! However if I was running a business I would do what is best for the financial side of the business. Would it be possible for Seabourne's accountants to estimate the number of passengers that they have lost or will loose but off set this against the number of smoking passengers that they gain through a slightly more liberal smoking policy.

I personally just grumble to myself when I come across smoke odour or even smokers but I am still happy to book a cruise with them. I also bear in mind that the smoking policy today is far better for us non smokers than say ten years ago.

[Focused1]

QUOTE Fairbourne: "But there must be people of my age who have been affected by others smoking around them without a care when we did not know the health risks. Now we do know the health risks, I cannot get my head around why anyone would actually want to smoke and affect not only their health but others."

 

 

Precisely the issue Fairbourne. As a long-time health professional and having a parent who died at young age due to smoking-related health issues, I became a non-smoking zealot of sorts. I cannot fathom why anyone would subject themselves or others to such health risks. It's just as simple as that. Those that prosthelytize about freedom, addiction, etc., are missing that fundamental point.

 

From an economics standpoint, ask Marriott Corporation how its decision to ban smoking in all of its hotels and affiliated hotels almost 10 years ago has impacted its bottom line--not just from increased customer loyalty, but to savings on damage to furniture and soft goods.

 

Yes, we have come a long way in terms of public smoking bans at airports, hotels, restaurants and bars in many parts of the world. But, don't we all dread playing the cruise embarkation day lottery when we find out whether or not we can enjoy sitting on our veranda or walk the ship's halls without near asphyxiation.

[stjohnrocks]

Hi,

 

I just went quickly through the posts,

that were posted since this threat was “revitalised” at the end of January 2012.,

and this showed that

- only six persons account for more than 59% of all posts

- some people think that their argument wins strength by repeating again and again their single argument

 

Yes, non-smokers have the liberty / right for non-smoking indoor public rooms.

And Seabourn does an excellent job by ensuring them that all public indoor places are smoke-free, except only one indoor public room, where smoking is allowed in a corner during non-eating times.

 

And yes, also smokers have the right/liberty to smoke in an indoor public room,

and again Seabourn does an excellent job by providing them a corner in the observation lounge. ( And on Seabourn, smokers do respect the smoking ban that is in effect in all the other indoor public rooms and as a consequence smokers respect the liberty/right of the non-smoker to enjoy all these other non-smoking indoor public rooms. )

 

As a result, non-smoker’s and smoker’s liberties / rights are protected.

 

Non-smokers can easily avoid the smoke in the observation lounge, just by not entering the observation lounge.

And if non-smokers want to go into the observation lounge, they should also respect the fact that this is a room, where smoking is allowed in a corner and as a consequence respect the liberty/right of the smoker in the corner of this room.

 

Demanding that a non-smoker should also have a non-smoking observation lounge is a step too far, because one’s liberty / right stops when you’re trespassing in someone’s others liberty / right.

Non-smokers can enjoy all the indoor public rooms, except one room.

Smokers are confined / limited to only one corner in an indoor public room.

It seems to me that non-smoker’s liberty / rights are already very well protected.

 

So Seabourn, should you read this post, please keep the smoking policy as it is.

 

Kind regards,

Ralf

PS I don’t smoke

 

I disagree with the above poster on many levels, sorry I just don't understand why no one is discussing the safety issue especially with regard to cabin smoking. As a sleeping child I was carried out of my smoke filled home all because one of my parent carelessly dropped a cigarette ash into the sofa. I for one don't want to be in the position of having to evacuate a ship because one person fell asleep while smoking. In closing this will be my last post on the safety aspect. Thanks!

[Seabourntraveller]

I disagree with the above poster on many levels, sorry I just don't understand why no one is discussing the safety issue especially with regard to cabin smoking. As a sleeping child I was carried out of my smoke filled home all because one of my parent carelessly dropped a cigarette ash into the sofa. I for one don't want to be in the position of having to evacuate a ship because one person fell asleep while smoking. In closing this will be my last post on the safety aspect. Thanks!

 

I guess Seabourn will only learn when one of their little "tin cans" catches fire like a match stick like the Star Princess did...This Company is outright friggin' STUPID with it's smoking policy....burn baby burn.:rolleyes:

[Menelaus]

MarianH - Excellent response to dhooheralf's post.

 

Menelaus - Both my parents were smokers - my father died aged 66 after having several strokes which certainly wasn't helped by the fact that he smoked all his life; my mother died aged 73 after a stroke, again smoking was a major contributory factor. Now in my 50's I have no idea what effect their smoking all through my childhood will have on my future health. Whilst I enjoy good health now who knows what will happen in the future, so I take all precautions to keep my health that way and one of the major things I do is avoid second-hand smoke. My mother always poo poo'd the idea of second hand smoke and would NEVER acknowledge that it would affect anyone. We know differently now. But there must be people of my age who have been affected by others smoking around them without a care when we did not know the health risks. Now we do know the health risks, I cannot get my head around why anyone would actually want to smoke and affect not only their health but others.

One of the things I like about this site is the responses to posts that have not been read properly. Fairbourne, my post did not condone smoking, rabid ex smoker here, just the rights of any indiviual, the right to complain about and expect service re. cigar smoker in the quoted post. As stated before many of us are of an age where smoking was the norm. No it is not fair that smoke bothers some, me included, but hell life sucks sometimes, but if secondhand smoke is the worst of your worries I say life must be treating you okay. Have a nice day

[fairbourne]

One of the things I like about this site is the responses to posts that have not been read properly. Fairbourne, my post did not condone smoking, rabid ex smoker here, just the rights of any indiviual, the right to complain about and expect service re. cigar smoker in the quoted post. As stated before many of us are of an age where smoking was the norm. No it is not fair that smoke bothers some, me included, but hell life sucks sometimes, but if secondhand smoke is the worst of your worries I say life must be treating you okay. Have a nice day

 

I for one read and understood perfectly your post, I was merely indicating that as you had made reference to quote:"How in the he** did we get to be old enough to afford a luxury cruise, with all our parents and or their friends, teachers etc. blowing smoke all over us!"endquote. Who knows, but thankfully the world and it's attitude towards smoking has moved on and we are not subjected to this as much anymore.

 

I realise that in re-reading this bit of your post it was possibly an "off the cuff" remark, however, it hit home with me as the daughter of two life-long smokers (who had many friends who also smoked) and who sadly are no longer around when they might well still be - if they had not smoked! So mock me if you will, but for me this is a serious subject. There is no such thing as a clean smoker!

 

[MARIANH]

I guess Seabourn will only learn when one of their little "tin cans" catches fire like a match stick like the Star Princess did...This Company is outright friggin' STUPID with it's smoking policy....burn baby burn.:rolleyes:

 

Is anyone aware of the cost of this accident to Princess Cruises? For example, refurbishment costs, loss of revenue from the ship being out of service and any claims against the Company etc?

 

And also, do the big Seabourn ships have fire detectors and fire suppression equipment on balconies?

[Seabourntraveller]

Is anyone aware of the cost of this accident to Princess Cruises? For example, refurbishment costs, loss of revenue from the ship being out of service and any claims against the Company etc?

 

And also, do the big Seabourn ships have fire detectors and fire suppression equipment on balconies?

 

Yes the cost to Princess (Carnival Corp.) was over 46 million in damages of which Carnival was on the hook for the first 30 million as a deductible such as currently in the Costa Concordia mishap.

There is no fire protection on the balconies of any Seabourn ship save and except fire retardent materials for balcony furniture which was mandated on all Carnival brands fleet wide after the 2006 incident.

 

check the youtube video showing the damages!

 

[MARIANH]

. but hell life sucks sometimes, but if secondhand smoke is the worst of your worries I say life must be treating you okay. Have a nice day

 

Yes, life sucks sometimes ; but death beats it in spades. I have lost a parent, two parents in law and a sister in law to smoking and believe me it hurts. They died in ignorance, there is no excuse anymore for this. The facts are known - smoking kills. There is no such thing as a clean smoker or clean second hand smoke, it is damaging to health and should not be condoned. And the remedy is easy and not costly given the will to do something.

 

Of course there may be other threats to worry about and some we can mitigate. Others are outside of our control - smoking is not one of them.

 

Time for bed.

[MARIANH]

Yes the cost to Princess (Carnival Corp.) was over 46 million in damages of which Carnival was on the hook for the first 30 million as a deductible such as currently in the Costa Concordia mishap.

There is no fire protection on the balconies of any Seabourn ship save and except fire retardent materials for balcony furniture which was mandated on all Carnival brands fleet wide after the 2006 incident.

 

check the youtube video showing the damages!

 

 

Goodness me! I had no idea.

 

This should be compulsory viewing for smokers who cruise and others who take a permissive attitude to smoking on cruise ships.

 

You may have a point!