I heard a real quick discussion of whether the government should save the cruise industry

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, drsel said:

The bottom line is that I wish cruise lines all the best and I hope and pray that they are back in business as soon as possible to feed our addiction

I am sure there will be providers to feed your addiction - I just would not bet on them being your previous providers - or being willing to feed you for the same low prices.

[drsel]

It is OUR addiction. there are thousands of cruise lovers all over the world

 

 

[clo]

7 hours ago, drsel said:

Cruise lines will recover all the losses in time, maybe within 5 to 10 years.    

 

Remember the cruise line makes money out of every passenger in 10 different ways

 

1. Shore excursions (way overpriced)

2. Alcohol and Alcohol packages

3. Casino and bingo

4. Art auctions (experts will agree)

5. Specialty dining

6. Photos

7. Spa (best value massages in Pattaya)

8. Shops

9. Medical center

10. Future cruises. (yes, surprisingly the future cruise consultant couldn't match the online price i showed her on my mobile. Her Prices for the exact same date, same repo cruise across all cabin categories was 30-40% more)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've cruised three times in the last two years and didn't pay for any of those things.

[drsel]

18 hours ago, clo said:

We've cruised three times in the last two years and didn't pay for any of those things.

well then U are smarter than most!

[clo]

15 minutes ago, drsel said:

well then U are smarter than most!

Full disclosure: we were on Oceania once - no charge for specialty restaurants, no photos or auctions, you can carry on as much "booze" as you want.  And, yeah, you pay more. The other two were Hurtigruten, one with 400 pax and the other with 100 so a lot of the things you mention aren't available. 

[iancal]

I see no reason to bail out the cruise industry.

 

They have had their bail out for years......in the form of taxes that they would have otherwise had to pay if they were a US registered corporation.

 

Sorry, cannot manage even a tear for them.  We do love cruising but not to the point of encourage more Government subsidization/handouts  of our optional travel activites.

Edited April 18, 2020 by iancal

[drsel]

Full disclosure: we were on Oceania once - no charge for specialty restaurants, no photos or auctions, you can carry on as much "booze" as you want.  And, yeah, you pay more. The other two were Hurtigruten, one with 400 pax and the other with 100 so a lot of the things you mention aren't available. 

Well then you are much richer than most!

"You pay more" should be changed to "you pay much more"

 

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, drsel said:

Well then you are much richer than most!

"You pay more" should be changed to "you pay much more"

 

Being willing to pay more does not necessarily mean being richer than most:  it does mean being aware of the value of a higher quality experience.

 

The success of most mass market lines indicates that the general public are perhaps more  interested in price than in quality.

Edited April 19, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[AF-1]

It's all about what your travel budget allows.  Some people have money to spend or upgrade; and some have just enough for the vacation with no wiggle room.  Either way both families can have a fun and enjoyable vacation.  Have fun out there.  

[cruisemom42]

53 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Being willing to pay more does not necessarily mean being richer than most:  it does mean being aware of the value of a higher quality experience.

 

The success of most mass market lines indicates that the general public are perhaps more  interested in price than in quality.

 

"Quality" can be defined in many different ways, however.

 

What constitutes quality to me on a cruise may have little to do with cabin size or location, onboard amenities, or a finer grade of steak on my plate, but rather an excellent itinerary with longer times in port and more days for the same or even a better price.

 

I feel my own "quality of life" is vastly improved if I can travel overseas 3x year (about the most I can wring out of my annual PTO) versus one time. Not all of those trips are cruises, but I'm also not likely to blow it all on a cruise -- that's not my priority or my idea of a quality vacation.

 

Now perhaps my view is skewed by the fact that Oceania in particular does not give any break to a solo cruiser, and also I find most of their itineraries are available on other lines (and often are slightly better). However, I did find one cruise recently on Sirena I would've considered booking -- in fact I put down a deposit -- but I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger. To me it is just not worth paying the equivalent of a new (albeit inexpensive) automobile for a vacation of about 3 weeks for one person.

 

When I cruise, I generally am not a big drinker, I don't go to specialty restaurants or gamble or patronize the spa. I don't tend to use the ship's shore excursions, and when I fly to and from the cruise I travel coach and often use FF points. So the much-vaunted "actual" cost comparisons do not come close to making an Oceania cruise a good value for me -- and in particular the extra cost of being a solo makes such comparisons insurmountable.

 

[AF-1]

good answer cruisemom42

[navybankerteacher]

5 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

"Quality" can be defined in many different ways, however.

 

What constitutes quality to me on a cruise may have little to do with cabin size or location, onboard amenities, or a finer grade of steak on my plate, but rather an excellent itinerary with longer times in port and more days for the same or even a better price.

 

 

Of course there are a number of determinants of “quality”.  One of the most significant when it comes to cruising is likely to be itinerary:  what ports are involved (when the activity is going places, the places to which you go are significant).  Of course tastes vary, but I would say ports like Malta, Madeira, St. Barth’s, Quebec, Istanbul offer more to me in that respect than Freeport, Nassau, and most Mexican ports.

 

Another determinant is food quality and service - being not overly fussy, I do not need “gourmet” experiences - so some MDR’s are fine - I do draw the line at NCL.

 

Then there is ship size: hitting any port as one in a crowd of 4,000 or so is not as enjoyable as being one of a few hundred.

 

Other considerations are activities offered: interesting presentations, and good music might appeal more than big casinos or glitzy Broadway productions.

 

Then the passenger mix counts a bit - I enjoy interacting with fellow cruisers - so it would follow that I would probably have more such interactions if I were on a ship with people who had cruise preferences similar to mine.  An extreme example might be the fact that I would probably prefer a week in solitary confinement at Attica Prison  than on a Spring Break booze cruise to the Bahamas.

 

Because those determinants count for me, and the cruises I prefer generally cost more than those with fewer such determinants, I may  sail less - but enjoy more.

[Roger88]

There is nothing to save here. A few month of a stand buy will not kill the industry. Moreover, they have already earned enough on selling the cruises for 21-22. I also doubt that many companies will lose their share on the market. Some bigger companies will swallow the little ones and all things will be the same again. The only downside is that prices might go up a bit

[clo]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Being willing to pay more does not necessarily mean being richer than most:  it does mean being aware of the value of a higher quality experience.

 

The success of most mass market lines indicates that the general public are perhaps more  interested in price than in quality.

Oh goody, I don't have to explain it cause you did a great job! As usual 🙂

Cath

[clo]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Because those determinants count for me, and the cruises I prefer generally cost more than those with fewer such determinants, I may  sail less - but enjoy more.

Yep. Again 🙂 That Oceania cruise decision came up when we wondered if there was a cruise from Rio to Buenos Aires, two places we like a lot. I'd not heard of O so started reading - a lot right here. We ARE into food and our limited cruises in the past on big ships were  yawn-worthy. I call it "lowest common denominator' food. Feed the masses. And the size of the ship was VERY appealing. AND the long days in port, beginning with two days in Rio and two in BA. (We've canceled a cruise in Sept. that would have given us THREE days in St. Petersburg.) And cost-wise, the stock market was WAY up. For comparison purposes we had a recent trip that included five nights in airbnb in Paris for $50 a night. And our Hurtigruten Norwegian coastal cruise had us in a cabin that didn't require us to go down the hall to the bathroom but...well, here's one of those picture/1000 words things. And we've no doubt that we'd rather take a beating than do all or ever most of our travel via cruise ship.