Is the Oceania website more messed up than usual this evening?

[GeorgesGal]

On 1/19/2020 at 8:59 AM, rallydave said:

Sincerely doubt that flatbush.  The savings on the commission are significant and add to the net profit.  Staff is pretty constant so every booing direct results in an at least 10% savings plus by people booking direct O has total control especially with newbies and doesn't have to answer knowledgeable TA's supporting their customers.

Rally Dave, I've always booked directly with O then moved my reservation to a TA.  I've never seen the 10% savings you refer to, it is always the same as what is listed on line.  What am I missing?

 

Look forward to your response.  Thanks.

Donna

[rallydave]

5 hours ago, GeorgesGal said:

Rally Dave, I've always booked directly with O then moved my reservation to a TA.  I've never seen the 10% savings you refer to, it is always the same as what is listed on line.  What am I missing?

 

Look forward to your response.  Thanks.

Donna

Not talking about savings for the customer.  When people book direct and don't use a TA there are no commissions for the cruise line to pay thus the cruise line saves a minimum of 10% up to as I have heard about 18%.  And those commissions are how the TA can rebate a portion to you.  So not talking about your savings but, the cruise line savings.  Hope this explains things.

[Paulchili]

53 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Not talking about savings for the customer.  When people book direct and don't use a TA there are no commissions for the cruise line to pay thus the cruise line saves a minimum of 10% up to as I have heard about 18%.  And those commissions are how the TA can rebate a portion to you.  So not talking about your savings but, the cruise line savings.  Hope this explains things.

Exactly.

Then the TAs can decide what portion of their commission they are willing to "share" with you.

If they are no willing to share in one way or another, it's time to move on 😊

Edited January 24, 2020 by Paulchili

[pinotlover]

GeorgesGal;

 

Some here may disagree, but I have found the secret, over the long term, is to build a relationship with your Travel Agent and thus a Travel Agency. 
 

Some posters, I believe, look for the cheapest whore that will give them the best deal at the moment requested. Many of the best Agents and their Agencies won’t play that game. Building relationships and proving you’re just as much a serious traveler as they are serious business professionals in the Travel Business provides much better returns long term, than flash in the pan  bids for your business this week. 
 

If you cold called my Agent or her Agency today and said you wanted my deal, they’d act like they didn’t know me! The best relationships are two way ones, where both sides proves their worth. So don’t expect miracles on cold calls. The response you get from some may not be a miracle at all. 

[GeorgesGal]

17 hours ago, rallydave said:

Not talking about savings for the customer.  When people book direct and don't use a TA there are no commissions for the cruise line to pay thus the cruise line saves a minimum of 10% up to as I have heard about 18%.  And those commissions are how the TA can rebate a portion to you.  So not talking about your savings but, the cruise line savings.  Hope this explains things.

 

Thanks, Dave, for straightening me out!

 

Donna

[Flatbush Flyer]

38 minutes ago, GeorgesGal said:

 

Thanks, Dave, for straightening me out!

 

Donna

If anything, Dave's contention that it would be better for the cruise line if folks booked direct with them (saving commission payment to a TA) is fuzzy math.

 

Not having to foot the bill for labor costs, customer services, etc associated with 70%+ of their bookings (which are done by TAs) saves Oceania (and other cruise lines) far more dollars then those they pay through commission.

 

See  posts #9 and #12 for more info.

[rallydave]

7 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

If anything, Dave's contention that it would be better for the cruise line if folks booked direct with them (saving commission payment to a TA) is fuzzy math.

 

Not having to foot the bill for labor costs, customer services, etc associated with 70%+ of their bookings (which are done by TAs) saves Oceania (and other cruise lines) far more dollars then those they pay through commission.

 

See  posts #9 and #12 for more info.

Strongly disagree with your premise and I am NOT using fuzzy math.  Lets look at things based on numbers.  My TA is a rather large Brick and Mortar who also works out of their offices.  I know they get approx 18% for each booking.  Lets talk about a booking for 2 at say $5000 per portion so their commission is approx. $1,800.   The person booking directly uses say 2 total hours of the O representative; all other costs are the same for each booking.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say a fully wrapped Customer Service person is $100/hour.  Trying to be extremely conservative with O.  That means it costs O $200 for the direct booking vs. $1800 for the TA booking.  Remember all other costs have to be paid by O for either the TA or direct booking.

 

Take the $1600 difference divided by the  $10K cruise cost and O is making about 16% more for the direct booking than the TA booking.  These number will go up and down but, in the long run much more profit in direct booking vs. TA bookings.

 

Do'n't see any possible way booking with a TA will be cheaper for any cruise line than booking direct with the cruise line.  No fuzzy math in these calculations.

[Flatbush Flyer]

2 hours ago, rallydave said:

Strongly disagree with your premise and I am NOT using fuzzy math.  Lets look at things based on numbers.  My TA is a rather large Brick and Mortar who also works out of their offices.  I know they get approx 18% for each booking.  Lets talk about a booking for 2 at say $5000 per portion so their commission is approx. $1,800.   The person booking directly uses say 2 total hours of the O representative; all other costs are the same for each booking.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say a fully wrapped Customer Service person is $100/hour.  Trying to be extremely conservative with O.  That means it costs O $200 for the direct booking vs. $1800 for the TA booking.  Remember all other costs have to be paid by O for either the TA or direct booking.

 

Take the $1600 difference divided by the  $10K cruise cost and O is making about 16% more for the direct booking than the TA booking.  These number will go up and down but, in the long run much more profit in direct booking vs. TA bookings.

 

Do'n't see any possible way booking with a TA will be cheaper for any cruise line than booking direct with the cruise line.  No fuzzy math in these calculations.

Perhaps not fuzzy math but definitely incomplete math. 

You are not recognizing that (per CLIA data), 70% of cruisers look to travel agents for cruise information and bookings rather than to the cruise lines themselves.

So (using your argument), if the net revenue per booked cruise could be higher if a particular  cruise line used only its own sales employees, that $ increase (due to saving commissions)  would pale in comparison to the loss of sales/revenue associated with all the potential customers who rely primarily on travel agents. 

 

So, accepting your still questionable 16% commission premise but considering who CLIA says sells the most cruises, would  O rather gross 84% of each dollar associated with 70 cruise sales (i.e., $58.80)  done via TA or 100% of revenue associated with only 30 cruise sales (i.e., $30.00) done by their own employees?

 

And it is that volume quotient that explains why O pays TAs on a sliding scale tied to volume of sales. Those TAs make the company far more income than their own employees ever could. 

[Paulchili]

3 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

And it is that volume quotient that explains why O pays TAs on a sliding scale tied to volume of sales. Those TAs make the company far more income than their own employees ever could. 

I believe that the philosophy of excluding TAs from booking with Renaissance was ONE of the reasons for their demise.

Of course, post 9/11 travel (or lack thereof) had a lot to do with it as well as was their large order of new ships at the wrong time.

[rallydave]

7 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Perhaps not fuzzy math but definitely incomplete math. 

You are not recognizing that (per CLIA data), 70% of cruisers look to travel agents for cruise information and bookings rather than to the cruise lines themselves.

So (using your argument), if the net revenue per booked cruise could be higher if a particular  cruise line used only its own sales employees, that $ increase (due to saving commissions)  would pale in comparison to the loss of sales/revenue associated with all the potential customers who rely primarily on travel agents. 

 

So, accepting your still questionable 16% commission premise but considering who CLIA says sells the most cruises, would  O rather gross 84% of each dollar associated with 70 cruise sales (i.e., $58.80)  done via TA or 100% of revenue associated with only 30 cruise sales (i.e., $30.00) done by their own employees?

 

And it is that volume quotient that explains why O pays TAs on a sliding scale tied to volume of sales. Those TAs make the company far more income than their own employees ever could. 

Talk about fuzzy math????  And 18% not 16%  and profit vs gross sales. your analogy makes absolutely no sense.  Companies report both profit and gross sales but, would a company and the stock market prefer high gross sales and low gross profit or high gross profit and low gross sales.  I think not.   While both are important, the profit is more important than the sales and is what puts real dollars in their and your pocket.  

 

Agree Agents are an important part of the process and completely selling direct hurt Renaissance greatly and for sure not trying to take agents out of the process but this discussion is about profits.

[Flatbush Flyer]

26 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Talk about fuzzy math????  And 18% not 16%  and profit vs gross sales. your analogy makes absolutely no sense.  Companies report both profit and gross sales but, would a company and the stock market prefer high gross sales and low gross profit or high gross profit and low gross sales.  I think not.   While both are important, the profit is more important than the sales and is what puts real dollars in their and your pocket.  

 

Agree Agents are an important part of the process and completely selling direct hurt Renaissance greatly and for sure not trying to take agents out of the process but this discussion is about profits.

You cannot have profit if there is no income. And there is no income if there is no sale. 

 

In any case, I think we can both agree that, if Oceania wanted to increase its bottom line "net profit" by going to "direct sales," it would go out of business (particularly with two more ships in the works).

[rallydave]

5 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

You cannot have profit if there is no income. And there is no income if there is no sale. 

 

In any case, I think we can both agree that, if Oceania wanted to increase its bottom line "net profit" by going to "direct sales," it would go out of business (particularly with two more ships in the works).

Never even came close to promoting getting rid of TA's or moving to no income.  And yes, agree cutting out TA's again would not be a good move.  Cutting out TA;s would most likely lead to bankruptcy.  All I have been saying is that use of direct booking by some customers vs going thru a TA does increase the profit dollars.

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 minute ago, rallydave said:

Never even came close to promoting getting rid of TA's or moving to no income.  And yes, agree cutting out TA's again would not be a good move.  Cutting out TA;s would most likely lead to bankruptcy.  All I have been saying is that use of direct booking by some customers vs going thru a TA does increase the profit dollars.

Have a good weekend.

 

[rallydave]

28 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Have a good weekend.

 

You as well

[Flatbush Flyer]

25 minutes ago, rallydave said:

You as well

Ours will be interesting.

Flying today to Cape Town to board Nautica at the start of February. Going through Hong Kong, which should be interesting given protests/virus and who know what else.

[rallydave]

10 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Ours will be interesting.

Flying today to Cape Town to board Nautica at the start of February. Going through Hong Kong, which should be interesting given protests/virus and who know what else.

Strange routing to Cape Town even from the West Coast.  Guessing you found FF point free tickets or is O taking you on that circuitous route.  Know Regent people are having issues with circuitous routing for non deviated flights.

 

I recently flew Singapore airlines from Houston to Singapore going the long way to the east but, that is the only way Singapore flys out of Houston with a stop in Manchester, UK.  Wonderful airline in Business, especially for $50 round trip.

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 hour ago, rallydave said:

Strange routing to Cape Town even from the West Coast.  Guessing you found FF point free tickets or is O taking you on that circuitous route.  Know Regent people are having issues with circuitous routing for non deviated flights.

 

I recently flew Singapore airlines from Houston to Singapore going the long way to the east but, that is the only way Singapore flys out of Houston with a stop in Manchester, UK.  Wonderful airline in Business, especially for $50 round trip.

At the time we booked, nothing else came anywhere near Cathay's pricing (in all cabins).

Also, perfect flight times/layover, etc.

[pinotlover]

23 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

At the time we booked, nothing else came anywhere near Cathay's pricing (in all cabins).

Also, perfect flight times/layover, etc.

Not suggesting that United’s services compare to Cathay Pacific, but United’s non stop service from EWR to Cape Town, to me, beats the dickens out of those long hours on a plane with your routing! UA has also been offering some very attractive BC fares on that route. 
 

Unless the plan was just to fly around the world, your routing entails a lot of seat time breathing mostly very dry recirculated air. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

31 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

Not suggesting that United’s services compare to Cathay Pacific, but United’s non stop service from EWR to Cape Town, to me, beats the dickens out of those long hours on a plane with your routing! UA has also been offering some very attractive BC fares on that route. 
 

Unless the plan was just to fly around the world, your routing entails a lot of seat time breathing mostly very dry recirculated air. 

United Polaris is always where we look first (I was a 1K flier for years while I wa working) followed by Star Alliance partners (where it makes the most sense). We've even done United's relatively new Premium Plus, which was surprisingly very nice (though w/o lay flats).

 

For this multi-city SFO-CPT outbound and SIN-SFO inbound (after the cruise), Cathay just ticked every checkbox -particularly price.

 

Two years ago, we did SFO-SYD to start a transpacific O cruise. United Polaris direct was $8k/ticket. Star Alliance partner, Korean Air, was <$2k/ticket for bizclass through Seoul with a 5 hour layover. Took us twice as long to get there but saved more than $10k. Side note (the second leg flight schedule changed significantly and I asked Korean Air to assign my tix to United. We got it including better timing and arguably better bizclass for no added charge.

 

In May, we'll do bizclass Philippine Air SFO-SIN and NRT-SFO (at end of cruise) both via Manila for little more than was coach or premium economy price on most other carriers at the time we booked.

 

Many times, we'll "bite the bullet" on direct vs connect. But, when the savings pass four figures, dinner at an airport loyalty lounge becomes very palatable.