Missed the ship...$300 per person to get on at the first port. WHY?

[Pyrate13]

For what it's worth, and this is my opinion and mine alone. If the company screws up, then I expect them to make things right, and maybe compensate me a bit, depending on how bad the screw up. If I screw up, that's on me and at my expense. Too many people these days want someone else, or some company, to shoulder the blame and cost for their mistakes. Take responsibility and deal with it.

[BNBR]

I have to agree with BNBR there: Only suckers base price on cost, and truly if you have to be thinking about cost when you're setting your price, you probably shouldn't be in business. Every dollar invested always competes with every other way that dollar can be invested, and so if you're down to the point of trying to recoup cost, then there are better places to invest your money. That's not to say that there aren't occasions within a business when you'll make little or no profit (or even take a loss). However, even in those situations, you price based on the customer's perception of value, nothing less. Cost is evident in the financials, though, but it is an after-the-fact measurement of performance, not a basis for setting price.

 

For completeness, it should be noted that regulated utilities obviously do not work this way.

 

You are a much better writer than I am. :)

[thinfool]

a few $300 fines could be very profitable.

 

Help me understand how a $300. fine is a profit center for a cruise line when the fine is passed thru from the passenger to CBP?

 

My feeble mind fails to see how that benefits the cruise line.

[Shmoo here]

Help me understand how a $300. fine is a profit center for a cruise line when the fine is passed thru from the passenger to CBP?

 

My feeble mind fails to see how that benefits the cruise line.

When a cruise line allows a passenger to violate the PVSA, they are fined - $300 per person. They pay the fine. Then in turn will put a $300 charge on the passenger's onboard account.

 

There's no benefit to the cruise line. In fact, it's on their "record" that they did allow a violation.

[BNBR]

Help me understand how a $300. fine is a profit center for a cruise line when the fine is passed thru from the passenger to CBP?

 

My feeble mind fails to see how that benefits the cruise line.

 

You may want to re-read what I wrote within the context of the full post and discussion. Seems you saw something that wasn't there and decided to write a snarky comment about it.

 

Hint: The discussion revolves around customer experience and how fares are set.

[BNBR]

When a cruise line allows a passenger to violate the PVSA, they are fined - $300 per person. They pay the fine. Then in turn will put a $300 charge on the passenger's onboard account.

 

There's no benefit to the cruise line. In fact, it's on their "record" that they did allow a violation.

 

Correct. Instead of using the situation to build customer loyalty, increase reputation and brand recognition, the cruise line dings the guest for it, gets essentially nothing positive in return and also gets to reap the negative publicity as well over a rather benign sum of money.

 

Consider the OP. Most people are not on Cruise Critic. So most don't have the opportunity to help understand what the cost is. The only thing it seems the OP originally understood, as well as most likely everyone else the guest told - was that Carnival jacked them for $300 each and is a greedy awful corporation. Perception is much more powerful than truth when it comes to business. Hence why my OPINION is that Carnival would be much better suited shielding guests from these fees, anxiety, and stress and using the issue as an opportunity to "wow" their guests with a positive solution. If I were Carnival, I would have shuttled the guests to Key West and got them on board at no charge. A few positive stories like that would pay much more in the long run than threads on the internet (and tons of word of mouth) with "Carnival charged $300 just to get on the ship, WHY!!!?"

[bUU]

Nah it really doesn't amount to any significant amount of negative publicity, as you seem to desperately wish were the case.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Edited August 23, 2017 by bUU

[jimbo5544]

Correct. Instead of using the situation to build customer loyalty, increase reputation and brand recognition, the cruise line dings the guest for it, gets essentially nothing positive in return and also gets to reap the negative publicity as well over a rather benign sum of money.

 

 

 

Consider the OP. Most people are not on Cruise Critic. So most don't have the opportunity to help understand what the cost is. The only thing it seems the OP originally understood, as well as most likely everyone else the guest told - was that Carnival jacked them for $300 each and is a greedy awful corporation. Perception is much more powerful than truth when it comes to business. Hence why my OPINION is that Carnival would be much better suited shielding guests from these fees, anxiety, and stress and using the issue as an opportunity to "wow" their guests with a positive solution. If I were Carnival, I would have shuttled the guests to Key West and got them on board at no charge. A few positive stories like that would pay much more in the long run than threads on the internet (and tons of word of mouth) with "Carnival charged $300 just to get on the ship, WHY!!!?"

 

 

 

Comedy hour continues.....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[jimbo5544]

You really are joking....right?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[tarheelmjfan]

Again, I'm not saying anything about travel from Miami to Key West using this ferry service. I'm saying that there exists a US flag ferry operation from Key West to the mainland of Florida, so that if a foreign flag cruise ship is allowed to carry a passenger from Key West to anywhere on the mainland, then that ferry operation would have the ability to argue that they are being discriminated against by being forced to be a US flag operation. It has nothing to do with Miami in particular.

I understand that, but the original discussion we were commenting on was concerning Miami to KW. IMO, it would be a really hard sell to convince anyone that the ferry from Marco Island or Ft Myers is a viable option for those traveling from Miami to KW. I just don't think anyone would buy into that, if that was what it took to allow a foreign flagged vessel to do that run. Port TB would make a good argument, but that wasn't in consideration, when I originally replied to your post. Now that you've evolved the discussion to include all of Florida, in order to support your argument, the discussion has changed. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, if we're sticking to the original topic of discussion, which was MIA to KW.

[bUU]

Actually, the original discussion we were commenting on was the Passenger Vessel Services Act, and all the passenger traffic that that entire given the international definition of a "passenger" vessel: any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers, as chengkp75 said. That means that it is nonsense to ignore, among other things, ferries and Mississippi River cruises.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[sanger727]

That's not how it works. The fares are not adjusted this way. Fares have to do with occupancy and competition. They will charge as much as people are willing to pay. In which case, a few $300 fines could be very profitable. There is a reason why Disney can charge so much more and still fill their ships.

 

 

 

The price on any given day is based on algorithms that react to rate of bookings. So yes, the exact price today reflects occupancy rates. But the formulas that go into algorithms and cruise lines allowed costs (i.e. Fewer stewards = less service, fewer waiters/bartenders = less service) are based on overall profit. At the end of the day the CEO is making millions and the stocks need to go up. Any extra cruise line costs (like PVSA fines) are ultimately paid by the customers. No, if you screw up and miss embarkation and a fine is assessed that should be on you to pay. Thet were lucky they were permitted to board and pay the fine instead of simply being denied boarding in key west. They would paid more if they had to jump on a last minute flight to meet the ship at the first international port.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[BNBR]

Nah it really doesn't amount to any significant amount of negative publicity, as you seem to desperately wish were the case.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

I'd agree they don't get significant negative publicity - it's not exactly an issue that garners much public concern. Which would explain why almost nobody knows why they were charged other than a couple posters here.

 

But I might argue that the one single group of guests that were unhappy about the $300 fee is enough to make covering that fee well worth the cost for Carnival. Consider that Carnival offers discounts, OBC, etc... that exceed $300 all the time. Unhappy guests does not equal more profit.

[BNBR]

At the end of the day the CEO is making millions and the stocks need to go up. Any extra cruise line costs (like PVSA fines) are ultimately paid by the customers.

 

You could just as easily say the extra cost of covering a few PVSA fines, which is statistically a near zero on the balance sheet, are paid by the shareholders and not the customers buying cruise fares. Do you also get up in arms when Carnival offers free champagne or gifts to guests?

[GUT2407]

For what it's worth, and this is my opinion and mine alone. If the company screws up, then I expect them to make things right, and maybe compensate me a bit, depending on how bad the screw up. If I screw up, that's on me and at my expense. Too many people these days want someone else, or some company, to shoulder the blame and cost for their mistakes. Take responsibility and deal with it.

 

 

People take responsibility for their actions :eek::lips-sealed::evilsmile:

[BNBR]

People take responsibility for their actions :eek::lips-sealed::evilsmile:

 

I'd agree. To be clear, I have not advocated entitlement at any point. I responded to a question that asked if Carnival should be responsible for the costs, and suggested it would make good business sense - and here we are quite a few posts later! :eek:

[bUU]

But I might argue that the one single group of guests that were unhappy about the $300 fee is enough to make covering that fee well worth the cost for Carnival.

I'll trust that they're making the right decision for them rather than believe that you are making the right decision for them. Your comments seem to be driven by what would be good for consumers without any real data-based foundation for the baseless assumptions you're making about what would actually be good for the business.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[BNBR]

I'll trust that they're making the right decision for them rather than believe that you are making the right decision for them. Your comments seem to be driven by what would be good for consumers without any real data-based foundation for the baseless assumptions you're making about what she actually be for for the business.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

That's a cop out.

[GUT2407]

I'd agree. To be clear, I have not advocated entitlement at any point. I responded to a question that asked if Carnival should be responsible for the costs, and suggested it would make good business sense - and here we are quite a few posts later! :eek:

I follow your argument and to some degree see merit in it. Clearly the line doesn't look at things the same way, probably because they don't mind losing a few customers.

 

Probably because currently demand is at least equal to supply. Back when cruising was more expensive, compared to income, and demand was thus lower there wasn't as much nickel and diming as there is today because it would turn people off, problems, complaints etc were dealt with promptly and more often than not in the passengers favour. Now that most cruises sail at capacity or close to, they can be harder.

[bUU]

That's a cop out.

Not even a little. You are making wild pronouncements without any data backing up your assumptions. You want what you're saying to be true, but that's all there is to what you are saying. Furthermore, what you're saying is ridiculous, that you know better how to run a profitable cruise line then the people actually doing it. It is self ratifying nonsense without basis.

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[BNBR]

I follow your argument and to some degree see merit in it. Clearly the line doesn't look at things the same way, probably because they don't mind losing a few customers.

 

Probably because currently demand is at least equal to supply. Back when cruising was more expensive, compared to income, and demand was thus lower there wasn't as much nickel and diming as there is today because it would turn people off, problems, complaints etc were dealt with promptly and more often than not in the passengers favour. Now that most cruises sail at capacity or close to, they can be harder.

 

You are right about demand being high! And this comes back to competition. Much like airline baggage fees. If they all do it... What choice do you have? What's interesting is that Southwest doesn't charge for bags and provides a generally excellent product. They don't have listings on every booking site, offer lower fares, don't nickel and dime you, yet manage to sell out almost all their flights. More importantly, they are one of the largest and most profitable airlines in the US with margins well above the "big 3."

[BNBR]

Not even a little. You are making wild pronouncements without any data backing up your assumptions. You want what you're saying to be true, but that's all there is to what you are saying. Furthermore, what you're saying is ridiculous, that you know better how to run a profitable cruise line then the people actually doing it. It is self ratifying nonsense without basis.

 

Your blind executive worship is equally nonsensical if that is the simple test for how valid our opinions are. You don't have any data to back up the claims that their decisions are correct on this topic. The idea that all decisions made by Carnival is correct is ridiculous. Companies make good and bad decisions all the time and there is nothing wrong with providing your opinion concerning those decisions. But you are now copping out of the discussion with irrational and baseless attacks because you really can't make a coherent argument. It's cool, I'm blocking you, as you don't have much to say that interests me.

[bUU]

Your blind executive worship is equally nonsensical if that is the simple test for how valid our opinions are.

Nonsense. You don't have any proof of what you claim. You're blowing smoke and you don't like that you've been called out on it. Now you're trying to save face. The folks doing the job may not always make the right decision but they do so more often than a customer presuming that what HE WANTS is best for the company. Just admit that you don't have any basis for what you've been claiming and move on.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[sanger727]

You could just as easily say the extra cost of covering a few PVSA fines, which is statistically a near zero on the balance sheet, are paid by the shareholders and not the customers buying cruise fares. Do you also get up in arms when Carnival offers free champagne or gifts to guests?

 

 

 

Sure, but that's a super easy business decision. They can spend $900 making 3 people happy; or they can spend $900 making 90 people happy with free champagne/gifts. Let's say those 'happy customers' turn around and generate an extra $1,000 in revenue in the next year. A $900 investment to generate $3,000 in extra revenue is silly; a $900 investment to generate $90,000 in revenue is smart.

 

I'm not 'up in arms' at all. But I've never heard of a cruise line covering the pvsa violation fine so it's competitive to not. And my sense of personal responsibility says that if I am not responsible enough to make embarkation that I'm going to be stuck with additional costs and those are on me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[steelshark1]

There are some strange federal laws related to change of embarkation ports. Call your congressman about this one.

See 2e of the cruise contract.

 

 

 

Has something to do with the Jones Act! Which is up for review this year or next in congress!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums