How much would cruise prices rise if you use crews fron the US or Western Europe

[ren0312]

Does anyone know how much cruise tickets will cost if cruise line use crews from the US or Western Europe for their crews like in the early 20th century, instead of people from 3rd world countries? How much of the cruise tickets goes to paying salaries of the crew?

[Twickenham]

If you want an idea, look at NCL America's Hawaii cruises, and compare the price with your average Caribbean cruise. It's a big difference.

[ren0312]

If you want an idea, look at NCL America's Hawaii cruises, and compare the price with your average Caribbean cruise. It's a big difference.

 

I just had this tought after looking at old pictures of old ocean liners.

Edited June 16, 2014 by ren0312

[Keith1010]

We have no idea except that if what is provided on the particular cruise was not cut back to offset the costs then the cruise fare would be higher. How much is anyones guess.

 

Keith

[navybankerteacher]

NCL's US flagged ship operating out of Hawaii gives you the answer. It is obvious that, if economically possible, cruise lines would prefer to be US flagged - as that would give them a much greater market: coastal cruises, not having to do closed loop, or call at "distant foreign port" on some itineraries - ie Ensenada after Hawaii, etc. US labor costs make it impossible.

 

Of course, in the early 20th century referred to by OP, much of the service staff were essentially from the equivalent of today's thrived world - Ireland, rural areas of the US and Britain - where there were no job opportunities at home.

 

The ultimate development, of course, will be once today's developing countries develop to the point of providing employment, and globalization levels the income world-wide, very few of us will be able to cruise - it will once more be the province of the very wealthy.

[Bonnie J.]

I thought NCL tried to have an all American crew in Hawaii but it didn't work out at all. Americans only want to work 8 hours a day for 5 days not 16 hours a day, everyday of the week, with no vacation for 6-8 months and count on tips for a good wage.

Anyone else have comment on NCL's try?

[KirkNC]

More but hard to say how much more.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Of course, in the early 20th century referred to by OP, much of the service staff were essentially from the equivalent of today's thrived world - Ireland, rural areas of the US and Britain - where there were no job opportunities at home.

I think you might need to check your history books. It's not true that the USA (east coast) was where all the world's wealth was congregated and Britain was an impoverished backwater.

[voyager70]

I think you might need to check your history books. It's not true that the USA (east coast) was where all the world's wealth was congregated and Britain was an impoverished backwater.

 

I don't think that's what they were saying at all. They said "rural areas of US and Britain". I gathered this to mean there was wealth in Britain's cities as well as the US cities.

[sparks1093]

I thought NCL tried to have an all American crew in Hawaii but it didn't work out at all. Americans only want to work 8 hours a day for 5 days not 16 hours a day, everyday of the week, with no vacation for 6-8 months and count on tips for a good wage.

Anyone else have comment on NCL's try?

 

NCL made the attempt with three ships as I understand it and couldn't keep them staffed, so they cut back to one. From what I've read the Pride of America does well. The crew on the POA receive an hourly wage and are covered under US labor law, so they also earn overtime if appropriate.

[Mary Ellen]

I think you might need to check your history books. It's not true that the USA (east coast) was where all the world's wealth was congregated and Britain was an impoverished backwater.

I agree that you've misread the statement. If it had been written 'Britain and rural areas of America' you'd have a valid point, but that wasn't what he wrote. I will say that from doing my own genealogy, my ancestors in the US (even rural areas) at that time could read and write, but those in England (Lancashire being a main area of my research) had to make a 'mark' and couldn't even sign their own names. Edited June 16, 2014 by Mary Ellen

[Sue Do-Over]

Some credit card companies tried charging a higher interest rate on a category of card that promises 'US-based call centers'. That is, you are assured that the person on the call will speak 'American English'. It was only moderately successful. Although lots of people complain about talking to Manilla, not enough were willing to pay the extra fee.

 

The cruise lines welcome Americans as job applicants, but they have to work the same hours for the same pay as everyone else. Not many Americans would accept those conditions, and that's why the proportion is so low.

 

Why would the cruise line improve pay and work hours to attract American crew, when (most) passengers aren't willing to pay the difference in cruise fares?

 

At what level would it matter? Maybe you want your head waiter to be easier to understand... is it important that the guy bringing the bread and water be? Cabin stewards? Bartenders? Casino dealers? Room service? Kitchen staff? Dish washers? Laundry? Where to draw the line?

 

Only those in direct customer-contact? Does keep someone who does great work, but doesn't come from the US, from being promoted? Also, just because a person is from the US, doesn't mean that they are easy to understand, has a great personality, or has good customer service skills.

 

IMHO, if an American wanted to work on the cruise ship, and was satisfied with the pay/duties, they would apply.

 

So, sorry if this sounds harsh -- I wanted to bring up other points of view and considerations that occurred to me.

[navybankerteacher]

I think you might need to check your history books. It's not true that the USA (east coast) was where all the world's wealth was congregated and Britain was an impoverished backwater.

 

Scotland and the Midlands in Britain were low income/high unemployment regions - I did not refer to Britain as a whole. If you ever watched Downton Abbey you'd get a picture of the kinds of employment very many Brits were happy to have in the first decades of the 20th century.

[dsrdsrdsr]

I agree that you've misread the statement. If it had been written 'Britain and rural areas of America' you'd have a valid point, but that wasn't what he wrote. I will say that from doing my own genealogy, my ancestors in the US (even rural areas) at that time could read and write, but those in England (Lancashire being a main area of my research) had to make a 'mark' and couldn't even sign their own names.

By 1858, 95% of British children were in school. Attendance between ages 5 and 10 was compulsory from 1880. Unemployment wasn't high, neither in cities or in the country. The cruise lines didn't much care whether the stokers could read or not, but I'm sure they weren't taking stewards and waiters from the small proportion of the population who had no education. There were no rural ghettos on third world incomes, because the people would have moved to cities and got better paid jobs if that had been true.

 

As an aside, my father once had sight of a Unitarian Church day school account book from the 1850's. They charged a penny a day or a penny a week for attendance, can't remember which, but included fairly frequent references to children not attending school because it was snowing and they had no boots. Education was valued, even then.

[navybankerteacher]

Does anyone know how much cruise tickets will cost if cruise line use crews from the US or Western Europe for their crews like in the early 20th century, instead of people from 3rd world countries? How much of the cruise tickets goes to paying salaries of the crew?

 

As an example, NCL's 7 day Hawaiian cruises in January - February 2015 run about $1,300 and up for an inside - with their American crew (or at least paid American level wages. Their 7 day Caribbean cruises in the same time period run about $400 and up for an inside.

 

From numerous reports, the service on the Hawaii cruises is well below that on NCL's Caribbean itineraries.

[BruceMuzz]

When NCL changed their NCL Sky (Bahamas Flag) to Pride of Aloha (American Flag) and hired all American crew, they had to pay American wages, benefits, overtime, and unemployment insurance.

They also had to add 100 extra crew to do the same job that the Filipinos and Romanians had done previously. That still didn't get the job done, so they tried to hire local labor to help clean the ship at several ports. Many of the hired local help didn't show up - and the ones that did show up were stealing everything they could get their hands on. So they gave up on that idea.

 

In the end, NCL received a special waiver to hire a higher percentage of foreigners who were Green Card Holders. They still had to pay the American wages, benefits, overtime, and unemployment insurance, but the job was more or less getting done.

 

Pride of Aloha's labor costs increased by $1 Million per week with the American crew.

The costs were complicated by the fact that when an American Crew Member went home for his unpaid vacation, he/she tended to claim unemployment benefits during that "vacation".

NCL America's unemployment insurance premiums went up so high that they were forced to pay the crew for a full 12 months a year when they were only working for 6 or 8 months.

 

The situation is further complicated by a US Coast Guard requirement that the majority of the crew on a US Flag ship must have a lifeboat driving certificate. Generally a good idea, but very difficult to get. If the minimum number of crew onboard does not have the certificate, the ship cannot sail with passengers. The crew quickly figured out that this lifeboat certificate is a rock solid job guarantee. They cannot be fired. At that point, discipline went out the window. Any crew member with a lifeboat certificate can do whatever he wants with impunity - and his bosses are forced to beg him to stay.

 

Although the single remaining NCL America ship in Hawaii (Pride of America) has far higher fares than the other ships, it still cannot make a profit. The American wages guarantee that the ship will always lose money. It is only the profits from the other International NCL ships that allow Pride of America to continue operating.

Edited June 16, 2014 by BruceMuzz

[BillB48]

If I understand correctly the POA does not have a casino.... is that right? If that is the case how much of an impact on the bottom line would an on board casino have??

[Karysa]

NCL's US flagged ship operating out of Hawaii gives you the answer. It is obvious that, if economically possible, cruise lines would prefer to be US flagged - as that would give them a much greater market: coastal cruises, not having to do closed loop, or call at "distant foreign port" on some itineraries - ie Ensenada after Hawaii, etc. US labor costs make it impossible.

 

Of course, in the early 20th century referred to by OP, much of the service staff were essentially from the equivalent of today's thrived world - Ireland, rural areas of the US and Britain - where there were no job opportunities at home.

 

The ultimate development, of course, will be once today's developing countries develop to the point of providing employment, and globalization levels the income world-wide, very few of us will be able to cruise - it will once more be the province of the very wealthy.

 

I have read many reviews staing that the crew on the NCL ship in Hawaii are not nearly as good as the ships with non-US staff. Even if the bottom line cost was the same in the end I think that this is important to keep in mind.

[Velvetwater]

Scotland and the Midlands in Britain were low income/high unemployment regions - I did not refer to Britain as a whole. If you ever watched Downton Abbey you'd get a picture of the kinds of employment very many Brits were happy to have in the first decades of the 20th century.

 

History books and records indicate that high unemployment/low income was actually more pocketed around England rather than geographically the Midlands/North. This is often a misinterpreted and misrepresented in fiction and the like.

 

A big example would be the engineering industries of the West Midlands and mills of East Midlands particularly. I spent my childhood in the Peak district in Derbyshire and now I am married I am in the other part of the midlands (Warwickshire) and you see evidence of that as you walk through Birmingham centre today.

 

 

If I remember rightly the 'undercover boss' episode of NCL had a ship with lots of US crew....cannot remember for the life of me if it was the Pride of America folk are talking about.

[navybankerteacher]

By 1858, 95% of British children were in school. Attendance between ages 5 and 10 was compulsory from 1880. Unemployment wasn't high, neither in cities or in the country. The cruise lines didn't much care whether the stokers could read or not, but I'm sure they weren't taking stewards and waiters from the small proportion of the population who had no education. There were no rural ghettos on third world incomes, because the people would have moved to cities and got better paid jobs if that had been true.

 

As an aside, my father once had sight of a Unitarian Church day school account book from the 1850's. They charged a penny a day or a penny a week for attendance, can't remember which, but included fairly frequent references to children not attending school because it was snowing and they had no boots. Education was valued, even then.

 

If employment opportunities were so good in Britain in mid-nineteenth century, one has to wonder why Bob Cratchett accepted Ebeneezer Scrooge's terms of employment, or why Charles Dickens and other reformers had so much to write about. Sure - Dickens was just a few years before 1850, but right in that time frame. Why were there so many willing to work as tenant farmers or domestic servants? With respect, I suggest that you review your British history - it was really the First War that broke the caste system which provided an abundance of low paid labor to make the life of the top tier comfortable. I'm not knocking Britain - merely the social system which existed throughout the developed world until early in the twentieth century.

[BruceMuzz]

If I understand correctly the POA does not have a casino.... is that right? If that is the case how much of an impact on the bottom line would an on board casino have??

 

Casinos on ships sailing from US Ports are not very successful these days. 48 of the 50 US States have casinos nearly everywhere. For Americans, gambling on a ship is no longer the exotic activity it once was.

 

Duty free goods is a much bigger issue.

The NCL America ship is a domestic carrier. They cannot purchase duty free liquor to serve in their bars, and they cannot sell any duty free goods to passengers.

Drinks sold on the ship are more expensive than the drinks on shore.

Anything sold in the onboard shops can be bought cheaper ashore.

[BillB48]

Interesting... Certainly looks like an uphill climb all the way around. I did not know about the duty free angle.

 

Thanks...

[navybankerteacher]

Casinos on ships sailing from US Ports are not very successful these days. 48 of the 50 US States have casinos nearly everywhere. For Americans, gambling on a ship is no longer the exotic activity it once was.

 

Duty free goods is a much bigger issue.

The NCL America ship is a domestic carrier. They cannot purchase duty free liquor to serve in their bars, and they cannot sell any duty free goods to passengers.

Drinks sold on the ship are more expensive than the drinks on shore.

Anything sold in the onboard shops can be bought cheaper ashore.

 

It makes me wonder why NCL America still sails.

 

Fares are three to four times what they are on other NCL ships

 

Service is widely reported as being sub-standard.

 

Bulk of passengers have to pay for flight from mainland, vs cruising Hawaii on HAL, Princess and probably others from West Coast.

 

Apparently there is no casino -does Hawaii not permit gambling.

 

Lack of duty free status makes drinks and everything on board over-priced.

 

It might be said that the passenger manifest might be appropriately titled:

 

Ship of Fools.

[dsrdsrdsr]

If employment opportunities were so good in Britain in mid-nineteenth century, one has to wonder why Bob Cratchett accepted Ebeneezer Scrooge's terms of employment, or why Charles Dickens and other reformers had so much to write about. Sure - Dickens was just a few years before 1850, but right in that time frame. Why were there so many willing to work as tenant farmers or domestic servants? With respect, I suggest that you review your British history - it was really the First War that broke the caste system which provided an abundance of low paid labor to make the life of the top tier comfortable. I'm not knocking Britain - merely the social system which existed throughout the developed world until early in the twentieth century.

The post I replied to and I were both talking about the early 20th century, which is vastly different from the 1850's. The 1850's example was just to show how, even then, some people valued education so highly that they would go without shoes to get it.

 

My great-grandfather was a mill worker in the early 20th century, as were most people in Colne in those days. He worked 60 hours a week - 5 and a half days - which is typical; he had two children and no wife (she died when the younger child was 2), which was also fairly typical. But he also was a keen amateur photographer, and a fine series of pictures of birds hatching and raising a brood have survived - people in those days did not live a life of endless drudgery, unlike (say) my great-great grandfather on the other side who started work in the 1840's and who remembered the days when they only got 2 days holiday a year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

 

People in England did not live in third world penury relative to the USA and see working on a cruise ship as the way to riches (unlike India now). Working on a ship was an option, but neither better nor worse paid than life on land.

Edited June 16, 2014 by dsrdsrdsr

[SadieN]

If I understand correctly the POA does not have a casino.... is that right? If that is the case how much of an impact on the bottom line would an on board casino have??

 

For comparison the Disney ships do not have a casino but do have an international crew.