Ashes to Ashes

[Evilgrin72]

Where did you get the 4900 number? As a passenger capacity, that seems too high. I do not think RCI is trying to get 4900 passengers on LOS (135%!); much unhappiness among crew andpassengers if they tried that. Maybe she has 4900 bunks for flexibility, but they are not trying to fill them all.

 

Here are the numbers I see for FOS:

Passengers: 3,634 (do); 4,375 full capacity

Crew 1,360 International

 

Personally, I am not expecting to many (if any) toatlly nonsmoking ships. That is a far, far cry from restricting smoking areas.

 

I pulled it off a website, if it's inaccurate, c'est la vie. The point remains the same at 4,375. If they ban smoking and 10, 14,18,20 % of their customers vanish overnight, they don't have those numbers just waiting in the wings to buy up all those cabins. That's why they haven't banned it.

[Sitzmark]

A) Read the whole thread. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

I did, it isn't there. If you can't be bothered to clarify then that is my confirmation.

[LetsGetWet!]

A) Read the whole thread. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

 

I did, it isn't there. If you can't be bothered to clarify then that is my confirmation.

Agreed, it's not there - like his absurd 4,900 number - he apparently just pulls stuff out of his... Well, you know... :rolleyes:

[xpcdoojk]

You two Utopian's know that sometimes things disappear mysteriously from threads around here, right? Especially smoking threads.:D:D:D:D:eek:

 

jc

[3dog]

For example, Liberty of the Seas has 3,634 berths at double occupancy. Meaning if it's sailing at 105 percent capacity, there are approximately 3,815 passengers on board. However, its max capacity is 4,900 which means there are over 1,000 berths unsold.

 

This is a misleading argument.

 

Cruise lines sell most of their cabins as "double occupancy". 100% of capacity indicates when all passenger cabins are at the specified occupancy rate (which actually is 1 in the cases of ships that have single occupancy cabins). So a ship with 1800 cabins that are double occupancy, and 34 cabins at single occupancy is considered at 100% capacity when 3634 guests are aboard.

 

Some cabins have the ability to hold more than one passenger, and ships often sail with a number of these "berths" sold, which is why you see greater than 100%. However, these extra berths are not always available to be sold, as they cannot just sell these berths to a random person.

 

And though ships sometimes do sail with unoccupied cabins, it is typically not a very large number (cruise lines often find ways to get cabins sold at the last minute).

[Evilgrin72]

I did, it isn't there. If you can't be bothered to clarify then that is my confirmation.

 

Post 85 in this very thread. Since you seem to have missed it, here is a link.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=43992117&postcount=85

[Evilgrin72]

Agreed, it's not there - like his absurd 4,900 number - he apparently just pulls stuff out of his... Well, you know... :rolleyes:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=43992117&postcount=85

 

And here is the link to the 4,900 number :

 

http://www.cruisetimetables.com/cruise-ship-liberty-of-the-seas.html

 

So, no, I am not pulling anything out of my you know. Don't worry, I don't expect an apology, just for you to shift the paradigm again and attempt to refute what's contained in those links. I am just trying to have a rational discourse here, you seem to be interested only in making it adversarial and being "right."

 

However, until you can answer the simple question of why RCL hasn't banned smoking despite your assertion that they can currently do so without sacrificing revenue or market share, then it remains obvious to me that there still exists a problem that needs to be solved. I entered this thread solely to float one idea of how it could possibly be achieved to mutual benefit. Would it work? Who knows. But at least it goes beyond my personal preference and sensibilities. The inability to exhibit empathy for an opposing viewpoint prevents outside the box thinking needed to solve complex issues. This isn't a knock on you personally. Sadly, you're like the vast majority of people worldwide, not just on this board.

[Evilgrin72]

This is a misleading argument.

 

Cruise lines sell most of their cabins as "double occupancy". 100% of capacity indicates when all passenger cabins are at the specified occupancy rate (which actually is 1 in the cases of ships that have single occupancy cabins). So a ship with 1800 cabins that are double occupancy, and 34 cabins at single occupancy is considered at 100% capacity when 3634 guests are aboard.

 

Some cabins have the ability to hold more than one passenger, and ships often sail with a number of these "berths" sold, which is why you see greater than 100%. However, these extra berths are not always available to be sold, as they cannot just sell these berths to a random person.

 

And though ships sometimes do sail with unoccupied cabins, it is typically not a very large number (cruise lines often find ways to get cabins sold at the last minute).

 

It's immaterial. The numbers themselves were provided simply to show that statistics can be used to "prove" both sides of a debate.

 

Your last paragraph is what matters. Get Wet was pronouncing that RCL could ban smoking now fleet-wide and all the cabins left vacant by smokers would be snapped up by non-smokers who are currently shut out because the ships are sailing (over) filled. If this was the case, there would never be empty cabins nor last minute sales designed to fill unsold cabins. It's simply an erroneous statement that he pointed to occupancy rates to "prove." I was simply illustrating that the same numbers can also be used to disprove the statement. The italicized sentence is all that really needs to be known in order to determine whether or not his assertion holds water.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Evilgrin72

[Starry Eyes]

I pulled it off a website, if it's inaccurate, c'est la vie. The point remains the same at 4,375. If they ban smoking and 10, 14,18,20 % of their customers vanish overnight, they don't have those numbers just waiting in the wings to buy up all those cabins. That's why they haven't banned it.

Some info on the Internet is junk. Nothing surprising there. and sometimes well intentioned people misunderstand the info on the web. there may be 4900 passenger matresses on the Freedom class (as cruiselines put in lots of matresses for flexibility), but that is not her planned capacity.

 

you also should not assume that if a ship could sail under coast guard rules at 120%, that is she sailed at "only" 105 or 108% capacity, that there empty cabins. In fact, a ship could sail at 95% capacity without a single empty cabin; some cabins are occupied by solo passenger (often paying substantial single supplements).

 

You seem to want to discuss ships totally banning smoking. the rest of us are not pushing that idea. the cruiselines are not pushing that at the moment, and I am not sure they ever will totally ban it. Why are you stuck on discussing total bans? could it be because your argument about cruiseline suddenly losing 10-20% of the customers overnight falls apart if we only discuss smoking restrictions not out and out bans? in the long run, cruiselines must think they have more to lose by not restricting smoking than by restricting it.

 

I agree with your sentiment that vapping has helped many people cut back or stop smoking. I am glad they have another tool. Still, somebody with an e-cig can go to the smoking area in order to follow the smoking rules. Or if they wish to break rules, some might well get away with vaping behind a closed door. I'm personally not concerned either way. And I still believe that if vaping is going to come out from behind closed doors and out of the smoking section, it is the duty of the manufacturer to prove their product's safety. while you may doubt that would be enough, certainly until they do so, your thoughts of compromise are surely a pipe dream (pun intended).

[LetsGetWet!]

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=43992117&postcount=85

 

And here is the link to the 4,900 number :

 

http://www.cruisetimetables.com/cruise-ship-liberty-of-the-seas.html

 

So, no, I am not pulling anything out of my you know. Don't worry, I don't expect an apology, just for you to shift the paradigm again and attempt to refute what's contained in those links. I am just trying to have a rational discourse here, you seem to be interested only in making it adversarial and being "right."

 

However, until you can answer the simple question of why RCL hasn't banned smoking despite your assertion that they can currently do so without sacrificing revenue or market share, then it remains obvious to me that there still exists a problem that needs to be solved. I entered this thread solely to float one idea of how it could possibly be achieved to mutual benefit. Would it work? Who knows. But at least it goes beyond my personal preference and sensibilities. The inability to exhibit empathy for an opposing viewpoint prevents outside the box thinking needed to solve complex issues. This isn't a knock on you personally. Sadly, you're like the vast majority of people worldwide, not just on this board.

The ONLY thing I see there is your simplistic statement of "allow E-cigs." Is that the "solution" you're offering to supposedly satisfy everyone? Allow them where? Surely you're not saying allow them anywhere & everywhere? Sorry, but you have to come up with something more substantive than "allow e-cigs" if you're claiming to offer some kind of legitimate compromise proposal.

 

You still continue to try to refute the claim that no one is trying to make that RCI could/should instantly & completely ban smoking 100%. No one is saying that, but every rule change moves them incrementally in that direction. They'll get there within a few years - be patient.

Edited September 13, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[3dog]

It's immaterial. The numbers themselves were provided simply to show that statistics can be used to "prove" both sides of a debate.

 

If you were attempting to show a point about numbers, you should have at least stated that the post is an obviously misleading use of numbers.

 

Your last paragraph is what matters. Get Wet was pronouncing that RCL could ban smoking now fleet-wide and all the cabins left vacant by smokers would be snapped up by non-smokers who are currently shut out because the ships are sailing (over) filled. If this was the case, there would never be empty cabins nor last minute sales designed to fill unsold cabins. It's simply an erroneous statement that he pointed to occupancy rates to "prove." I was simply illustrating that the same numbers can also be used to disprove the statement. The italicized sentence is all that really needs to be known in order to determine whether or not his assertion holds water.

 

FWIW, I agree with some of your points, specifically: there would be some financial impact to banning smoking entirely (as a business, it is all about maximizing profits, and it doesn't help to decrease revenue). However, some apparent assumptions are a bit faulty: all smokers would leave, and there is no source of providing the fill. It also doesn't take into account what maintenance costs might be reduced, thus changing the margin or offsetting a revenue decrease.

[Evilgrin72]

 

You seem to want to discuss ships totally banning smoking. the rest of us are not pushing that idea. the cruiselines are not pushing that at the moment, and I am not sure they ever will totally ban it. Why are you stuck on discussing total bans? could it be because your argument about cruiseline suddenly losing 10-20% of the customers overnight falls apart if we only discuss smoking restrictions not out and out bans?

 

No. As it appears you read the post of mine that I linked, you know I came in here to discuss alternate solutions to total banning. My posts in the past few pages were addressing one poster rather than the whole of this thread. He was insinuating that total ban is a certain eventuality and I was pointing out that it isn't necessarily the case. I actually agree with you and I'm done with that discussion. It seems that poster is going to cling to a single myopic viewpoint no matter what I say, so continuing that discourse is ultimately pointless.

 

Personally, I'm fine with the way it is now. Smokers can have their areas and I can choose to be somewhere else. However, it seems many others are unsatisfied, so I thought I'd offer a possible alternative. I am not naive enough to think it would be put into practice anytime in the foreseeable future, but it never hurts to throw ideas out there, even if it is a pipe dream. :D

[Evilgrin72]

If you were attempting to show a point about numbers, you should have at least stated that the post is an obviously misleading use of numbers.

 

 

 

FWIW, I agree with some of your points, specifically: there would be some financial impact to banning smoking entirely (as a business, it is all about maximizing profits, and it doesn't help to decrease revenue). However, some apparent assumptions are a bit faulty: all smokers would leave, and there is no source of providing the fill. It also doesn't take into account what maintenance costs might be reduced, thus changing the margin or offsetting a revenue decrease.

 

I thought that was obvious from my post before that one but perhaps I didn't articulate that well.

 

It's obvious there would be a financial impact, otherwise they would have already banned it. The safety issues and maintenance costs alone would justify it, so it's obvious that RCL knows they would concede market share by doing so. The smokers absolutely would abandon ship (pun intended) at a near 100% rate. So, if they want to go this route, why not look at treating the (infinitely) less noxious electronic alternative differently than regular cigarettes? That was my entire raison d'etre for being in this thread.

[LetsGetWet!]

You seem to want to discuss ships totally banning smoking. the rest of us are not pushing that idea. the cruiselines are not pushing that at the moment, and I am not sure they ever will totally ban it. Why are you stuck on discussing total bans? could it be because your argument about cruiseline suddenly losing 10-20% of the customers overnight falls apart if we only discuss smoking restrictions not out and out bans? in the long run, cruiselines must think they have more to lose by not restricting smoking than by restricting it.

No. As it appears you read the post of mine that I linked, you know I came in here to discuss alternate solutions to total banning.

Yep, there's definitely someone being totally myopic here, but it's not me. I've explained multiple times that no one is pushing immediate, total bans. Now she's also tried to explain it to you. I think she's pretty astutely figured out why you keep flogging that dead horse though!

[Evilgrin72]

The ONLY thing I see there is your simplistic statement of "allow E-cigs." Is that the "solution" you're offering to supposedly satisfy everyone? Allow them where? Surely you're not saying allow them anywhere & everywhere? Sorry, but you have to come up with something more substantive than "allow e-cigs" if you're claiming to offer some kind of legitimate compromise proposal.

 

You still continue to try to refute the claim that no one is trying to make that RCI could/should instantly & completely ban smoking 100%. No one is saying that, but every rule change moves them incrementally in that direction. They'll get there within a few years - be patient.

 

Yep. That's what I figured.

 

"I made a suggestion earlier."

 

"I looked and it's not there. You're pulling stuff out of your - - - just like that number "

 

"Here are links to both."

 

"You have to provide more detail than that! "

 

I never claimed to have a fully fleshed out plan, just a suggestion for a possible solution. Look, you've drawn your line in the sand and that's great. I am sure that someday, cruise lines will be smoke free. Maybe the whole world will be. It doesn't change the fact that smoking is still permitted on cruise ships. You claim it's not financially motivated because "every smoker that cancels will just be replaced by a non-smoker." So, I asked you several times why they continue to allow it and you continue to dodge the question. It's clear you have no answer, so I bid you good evening.

[LetsGetWet!]

I never claimed to have a fully fleshed out plan, just a suggestion for a possible solution. Look, you've drawn your line in the sand and that's great. I am sure that someday, cruise lines will be smoke free. Maybe the whole world will be. It doesn't change the fact that smoking is still permitted on cruise ships. You claim it's not financially motivated because "every smoker that cancels will just be replaced by a non-smoker." So, I asked you several times why they continue to allow it and you continue to dodge the question. It's clear you have no answer, so I bid you good evening.

Ah, and I made that assertion solely to counter your equally non-supportable one that "100% of smokers will cancel all cruises" if there was a ban. The ban that no one has proposed or tried to claim is imminent. Duck, dive & dodge... I understand why you're checking out for the evening... ;)

[Evilgrin72]

Ah, and I made that assertion solely to counter your equally non-supportable one that "100% of smokers will cancel all cruises" if there was a ban. The ban that no one has proposed or tried to claim is imminent. Duck, dive & dodge... I understand why you're checking out for the evening... ;)

 

 

OK. You're right. Lots of smokers will book a cruise on which they cannot smoke at all for 7 days.

[Evilgrin72]

Ah, and I made that assertion solely to counter your equally non-supportable one that "100% of smokers will cancel all cruises" if there was a ban.

 

Oh, and by the way, no you didn't. Below is the first post you made that started this exchange, to which I THEN replied that smokers won't cruise if smoking were banned, but feel free to continue the revisionist history.

 

Sorry guys, but the trend is clear & unarguable. With both the number & percentage of smokers dropping every year, for each smoker (or couple/family with a smoker) who would drop a cruise line for going 100% smoke-free, there's MORE than one non-smoker to replace them.

 

Where you also insinuate that a total ban is not only inevitable but would have no financial impact. The very points I disputed but that you now claim you never made. That's why it's pointless talking to you.

 

I also like how you accuse me of ducking and dodging when I have directly addressed everything of which you have accused me (falsely, by the way) but continue to ignore a simple question I have asked you repeatedly to answer. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after looking back at the thread as a whole and watching you cast aspersions on at least 2 other posters' characters. Thus, I assume that's your M.O. and do not take it personally.

[LetsGetWet!]

Oh, and by the way, no you didn't. Below is the first post you made that started this exchange, to which I THEN replied that smokers won't cruise if smoking were banned, but feel free to continue the revisionist history.

 

 

 

Where you also insinuate that a total ban is not only inevitable but would have no financial impact. The very points I disputed but that you now claim you never made. That's why it's pointless talking to you.

 

I also like how you accuse me of ducking and dodging when I have directly addressed everything of which you have accused me (falsely, by the way) but continue to ignore a simple question I have asked you repeatedly to answer. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after looking back at the thread as a whole and watching you cast aspersions on at least 2 other posters' characters. Thus, I assume that's your M.O. and do not take it personally.

A total ban IS inevitable, but it won't happen this year or next year. It will happen (and already IS happening) incrementally over time. And just like there were when restaurants, bars and many casinos banned smoking; there are wild-eyed alarmists like you predicting financial disaster. It didn't happen for those restaurants, bars & casinos; nor to the smoke-free airlines, hotels, workplaces etc.

 

By the way, I knew you weren't REALLY leaving when you claimed to earlier! LOL! You can't resist trying to get the last word! Take it, I really AM done for the night! :)

Edited September 13, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[Evilgrin72]

A total ban IS inevitable, but it won't happen this year or next year. It will happen (and already IS happening) incrementally over time. And just like there were when restaurants, bars and many casinos banned smoking; there are wild-eyed alarmists like you predicting financial disaster. It didn't happen for those restaurants, bars & casinos; nor to the smoke-free airlines, hotels, workplaces etc.

 

By the way, I knew you weren't REALLY leaving when you claimed to earlier! LOL! You can't resist trying to get the last word! Take it, I really AM done for the night! :)

 

You were right again.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. In none of the examples you list above would a smoker need to put the heaters down for 7 days and endure physical withdrawal while on vacation. Not comparable. Nor am I a wild eyed alarmist predicting ruin. I simply said RCL will not concede market share by effectively and voluntarily reducing their client base by approximately 20 percent. For the foreseeable future it would require an INDUSTRY wide ban, and even then it seems impractical unless resorts and all inclusive went 100% smoke-free as well. I still don't know to which part of this you take issue. Why not attempt a solution that gives smokers a tangible alternative to abstinence while also eradicating the fire danger and passenger distaste associated with smoking?

 

Regrettably, many would oppose this simply because it would feel like concession as opposed to "winning" the debate on smoking. Feels like you fall into this category in your heart of hearts but I don't know you personally, so I could be off base.

[jstraw20]

Regrettably, many would oppose this simply because it would feel like concession as opposed to "winning" the debate on smoking.

 

Without singling out any poster to this thread... THIS!!!!

[LBcruzman]

On my most recent cruise this summer the smoking in the casino was so bad. They were even sitting around the casino bar in droves smoking!!! Not even necessarily drinking and most not gambling. Just smoking!! They were smoking it up because it is one of the few places they still can. Well I was coughing all week. Should I have to give up the casino for my health?

 

I emailed and answered the survey emailed to me about the situation.

 

I don't think I am the only one. Royal knows how often I cruise and how many cabins I book. They know the money we spend (and lose in the casino). How long before the smokers get the boot? Not long my friends.

 

And what about the dealers in the casino? Don't they care about their health. I don't know how they stand it.

Edited September 13, 2014 by LBcruzman

[Ocean Boy]

The OP must really be pleased that she started one more smoking thread that turned into the usual disaster.

[beerman2]

My wife quit smoking almost. 4 years ago.

Got sick, couldn't breath, and had to quit.

 

It is a Heath hazard. Not only to the smokers but to others.

 

Is there a solution for cruise lines? Maybe just dedicate a room on the top deck , as smoke usually rises, at the very least it should dissipate before affecting others .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[PerferWarmWeather]

What about a towable smoking party boat attached to the back of RCCL's ships. Once the ship is out to sea load the smoking boat and let it float behind RCCL. People could smoke, eat, and gamble. :D