Go Green—reduced housekeeping services—is this new?

[zitsky]

2 hours ago, canderson said:

M Class Celebrity suites are right across from the  mid-ship elevators.  S Class has royals clustered around the center.  Or are you also trying to get LOW, not necessarily just midship?

 

Low is not needed just midship.  I think our last cabin on Equinox was 1557 which was deck 10 or 11?  I've noticed some suites on deck 6 but I have to go back to find name. 

[bEwAbG]

7 hours ago, Lyria said:

I found this topic fascinating. 

 

Perhaps it's because I'm in that market that seems to be discussed a lot - not quite a millennial, not quite a "gen Z." I depart on the 9/25 Apex cruise. I have a TA booked shortly after. I book the top level suites exclusively, and I'm not interested in booking anything else. Celebrity has done an exceptional job of marketing to me so far - I hadn't cruised prior to a couple of years ago, but I've booked several since then and have one booked in 2022; I had 2 cancelled in 2020. 

 

I immediately opted into this. 

 

I actually book my cruises exclusively for service - if it weren't for one of my travelling companions who is worried about sea sickness, I might explore some of the higher end lines. However, my definition of service isn't about behind the scenes operations, and it definitely isn't about what I didn't know was happening. I didn't know the room was being "fully cleaned" twice a day. I don't require turndown service even at landbased hotels, so the "freshening up" is fine for me on a cruise. 

 

I've stayed at several hotels since the beginning of 2020 started, and what people have mentioned in this thread are accurate - most hotels have gone to daily housekeeping "on request." For me, that has felt safer, generally - I'd rather have fewer people coming in and out of my space.

 

On a cruise ship, knowing their protocols for crew, that perhaps may be less of a specific concern. However, I have no need to make the housekeeping staff work an additional amount of time to do a full clean of my area 2x/day. When I want service, what I want is the bartenders, the wine staff (sommeliers and their assistants), the wait staff, the butlers, the concierge, etc. Those are the people I'm making affirmative requests of and the people I most need to take care of my requests with prompt attention.  

 

When those things happen, that's when I feel taken care of. I book the top suites to ensure that I get those benefits. Celebrity has - to date - done a tremendous job of ensuring that I get those benefits.

 

Celebrity is catering to my market, and it is working. But I also encourage more things like this that are opt in for those that aren't in my market/that don't share my preferences on vacations and cruising. I share this only because I think there hasn't been much of this particular demographic represented on the thread (while acknowledging the pro "Go-Green" or whatever marketing Celebrity is using has been plenty represented here). I don't love the idea of my housekeeping attendant servicing my room in a way that I don't noticing or pay attention to. I go for the service, I pay for the service, I tip for the service (and feel really good about the way I tip/why it's important to tip) - so when there's an option to still pay the standard gratuities but take a workload off the housekeeping staff that I didn't know existed, I am going to take that 100% of the time. 

 

What I understand this thread to be saying is that some of you use that workload. Some of you not only knew that workload existed but made active use of it and responded accordingly. I am in full support of that being the reason this should be opt in - and anything else Celebrity can come up with in the same vein should be. I know a lot of people have been burned by seeing things start to be optional and then become required or mandatory. But for now - this seems to me like the exact right solution, and one that I am so far in full support of. 

 

"Reduce workload" doesn't mean the housekeeper gets to sit in their room watching TV now.  It means cutting employees to service an average workload (which management determines).  The practical effect is that they will have variable needs each cruise, but they may not be staffed adequately if everyone on the ship wants twice daily service, in which case the twice daily service is more likely to be discontinued altogether.  This current program is a pilot for that to see how it works & to see how much they might could get away from doing.  I personally am ok with the touch-up service in the evening vs a full service cleaning, and there is probably capacity there that could be trimmed some.  But having worked & stayed in hotels over many years, I've seen the evolution from housekeeping teams that could turn around several hundred rooms by a little after noon to what exists today, which is bottom-of-the-barrel from a service (& cleaning) perspective.

[weregoingcruising]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:11 PM, jg51 said:

.

Wow!  Dear "Luv2Crus40," you have added yourself to the seemingly long list of people that did not carefully enough read what happens under "Go Green."

 

If you opt for the program, you WILL get "clean towels every day" -- in the morning -- provided that you drop the old ones on the floor.  Under "Go Green," it is only in the evening that you will not get replacement towels -- although you will get certain other essential services in the evening.

.

.

Whenever we hear about dampness being a problem, we just scratch our heads, because our towels are never damp beyond noon (after early morning use) -- and never damp beyond midnight (after early evening use).  They always dry out "naturally" and quickly.

 

Maybe the problem that some people have is caused by their overloading the towels with water.  This can be remedied (as we know through personal experience) by -- if we may be permitted to coin a term, "hand-squeegeeing" our bodies for five or ten seconds before using a towel.  One can brush away a great deal of water, with one's hands, in just five to ten seconds, resulting in a towel not getting super-drenched.  Please give it a try. 

 

[Another possibility is that people with supersoaked towels are extremely obese, so they have twice as much water to soak up with a towel!  We don't have anything to say to those folks.]

 

We know that some are laughing, but that is only because hand-squeegeeing is new, different, and unfamiliar.  People laughed at countless good new ideas -- until they caught on -- which is why we will ignore the laughter and ridicule!

.

Been doing it for years even at home. 

[weregoingcruising]

3 minutes ago, weregoingcruising said:

LOL

 

[Gatordad1967]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:58 AM, LGW59 said:

No one ever said it was, you just need to not opt in. 

for what I am paying, I hope we sure get a cabin!

 

[Lyria]

13 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

 

"Reduce workload" doesn't mean the housekeeper gets to sit in their room watching TV now.  It means cutting employees to service an average workload (which management determines).  The practical effect is that they will have variable needs each cruise, but they may not be staffed adequately if everyone on the ship wants twice daily service, in which case the twice daily service is more likely to be discontinued altogether.  This current program is a pilot for that to see how it works & to see how much they might could get away from doing.  I personally am ok with the touch-up service in the evening vs a full service cleaning, and there is probably capacity there that could be trimmed some.  But having worked & stayed in hotels over many years, I've seen the evolution from housekeeping teams that could turn around several hundred rooms by a little after noon to what exists today, which is bottom-of-the-barrel from a service (& cleaning) perspective.

I understand your point - although I think it's slightly different on cruise ships. The crew berths are what they are. They aren't putting guests in those. They could, I suppose, turn some current double berths into single ones to reduce staffing. I'm not sure how much that would reduce overhead, all things being considered - but I suppose it would be an option.

 

I tend to think that if this "go green" is determined to be an effective cost cutting measure - it's because it is an effective cost cutting measure (and all our discussions on a forum are whistling in the wind one way or another). For a hotel housekeeper being paid hourly, you can afford to be wrong in any bet you make. For someone you make a 6 month contract to and have housing built into a ship you're keeping for the next 20 years - it's a little more complicated to be wrong about that bet. So if they build the crew quarters differently in the next set of ships, with less spaces dedicated to sleeping crew versus guests, then I'd say they're moving in the direction of what you're saying - cutting employees. But while sure, I don't think they're going to be sitting around watching TV, the hourly wages paid to the crew are really not the major expenditure for labour by a cruise line (especially not for any position eligible for tips), if my understanding is correct. 

[Hlitner]

8 hours ago, Lyria said:

I understand your point - although I think it's slightly different on cruise ships. The crew berths are what they are. They aren't putting guests in those. They could, I suppose, turn some current double berths into single ones to reduce staffing. I'm not sure how much that would reduce overhead, all things being considered - but I suppose it would be an option.

 

I tend to think that if this "go green" is determined to be an effective cost cutting measure - it's because it is an effective cost cutting measure (and all our discussions on a forum are whistling in the wind one way or another). For a hotel housekeeper being paid hourly, you can afford to be wrong in any bet you make. For someone you make a 6 month contract to and have housing built into a ship you're keeping for the next 20 years - it's a little more complicated to be wrong about that bet. So if they build the crew quarters differently in the next set of ships, with less spaces dedicated to sleeping crew versus guests, then I'd say they're moving in the direction of what you're saying - cutting employees. But while sure, I don't think they're going to be sitting around watching TV, the hourly wages paid to the crew are really not the major expenditure for labour by a cruise line (especially not for any position eligible for tips), if my understanding is correct. 

A few years ago, shortly after LLP was named CEO, we were surprised to see our unlimited bottles of water (these probably cost X about 15 cents a bottle) in Aqua Class eliminated.  At the time we noticed quite a few small cut-backs (cost savings for X) and posted this with the label ("death by a thousand cut-backs.)  The changes on X (we particularly noticed the downgrade of quality/quantity in the MDR and Blu) led us to start booking more luxurious lines.   So now we see this stilly "Green" label being used by X to justify another cut-back.  Of course these kind of cut-backs reduce the cost for X and I am sure that folks are seeing reductions in pricing on X :(.  Perhaps the future will see a new X benefit of free cleaning implements in each cabin with the new benefit of being able to clean your own cabin?

 

I should add that not all "Green" ideas are bad or even cut backs.  Like most lines, Seabourn has gone to great lengths to reduce the use of plastic and paper goods.  So if you order any kind of coffee to go on Seabourn you now get a very nice ceramic cup (with lid) which is reusable.  No more of those common Styrofoam take away cups.  But I do not see staff reductions as a "green" improvement but rather as an excuse for a staff reduction (with corresponding reduction in service).

 

Hank

[little britain]

On board Apex now with the Green option. I’m 

struggling to see what has been cut back:
New towels in the evening still despite us hanging out used ones up again. ✅ 

Shower cleaned. ✅

Bed turned down ✅

Chocolates on pillows ✅

Evening low lighting waiting for our return ✅

Rubbish removed.✅

 

[Laurab23]

3 hours ago, little britain said:

On board Apex now with the Green option. I’m 

struggling to see what has been cut back:
New towels in the evening still despite us hanging out used ones up again. ✅ 

Shower cleaned. ✅

Bed turned down ✅

Chocolates on pillows ✅

Evening low lighting waiting for our return ✅

Rubbish removed.✅

 

Is bed being made in the morning?

 

[canderson]

26 minutes ago, Laurab23 said:

Is bed being made in the morning?

 

No change to morning service, just evening.

[sandancer]

We have recently taken 2 UK staycation cruises with 2 different cruise lines. On both there was no evening turn down service. I think this may well become the norm. It didn’t bother us. We are happy with a clean, comfortable cabin. 

[zitsky]

7 minutes ago, sandancer said:

We have recently taken 2 UK staycation cruises with 2 different cruise lines. On both there was no evening turn down service. I think this may well become the norm. It didn’t bother us. We are happy with a clean, comfortable cabin. 

 

Who doesn't want a clean, comfortable cabin?!  🙂

[davekathy]

9 minutes ago, sandancer said:

We have recently taken 2 UK staycation cruises with 2 different cruise lines. On both there was no evening turn down service. I think this may well become the norm. It didn’t bother us. We are happy with a clean, comfortable cabin. 

Disagree. Hope Celebrity and RC never do away with the traditional stateroom service. But that's my opinion. 

[PTC DAWG]

11 minutes ago, davekathy said:

Disagree. Hope Celebrity and RC never do away with the traditional stateroom service. But that's my opinion. 

Agree, it’s a nice touch…

[Laurab23]

4 hours ago, canderson said:

No change to morning service, just evening.

So what is the difference is you Go Green?

 

Laura

[zitsky]

1 hour ago, Laurab23 said:

So what is the difference is you Go Green?

 

Laura

 

@jg51 can you answer this question?

[canderson]

1 hour ago, Laurab23 said:

So what is the difference is you Go Green?

 

Laura

Best you start with Page 1 of this thread.

[Lyria]

11 hours ago, Hlitner said:

But I do not see staff reductions as a "green" improvement but rather as an excuse for a staff reduction (with corresponding reduction in service).

Again, while I understand your complaints regarding alterations in services that you view as important - and I'm very sympathetic to that complaint; service is critical to my enjoyment of a cruise - I do not understand how anyone is making the leap to crew reduction on cruise lines specifically. 

 

The cabins used to house crew in are very different than guest cabins. Without retrofitting or renovating ships or changing ship configurations for new ships, how do you cut staffing and make it cost effective? 

[Hlitner]

31 minutes ago, Lyria said:

Again, while I understand your complaints regarding alterations in services that you view as important - and I'm very sympathetic to that complaint; service is critical to my enjoyment of a cruise - I do not understand how anyone is making the leap to crew reduction on cruise lines specifically. 

 

The cabins used to house crew in are very different than guest cabins. Without retrofitting or renovating ships or changing ship configurations for new ships, how do you cut staffing and make it cost effective? 

While not getting too deep into economics you might consider that each cabin attendant gets a salary, transportation expenses to and from their ship, eats food, etc.  Now take a ship with 1500 cabins and just assume that each cabin attendant has 10 cabins to maintain so there are 150 attendants on the ship.  Now cut down their work load (only one visit per day per cabin) and lets assume that each attendant can now handle 13 cabins.  You would now need about 115 attendants or 35 fewer attendants per ship.  Now just assume that a line has 10 ships (I realize this is not the real count) so suddenly the cruise line has eliminated 350 full time equivalent positions   Now if you assume that the average position costs the cruise line $35,000 per year (salary, room, board, benefits) you have just saved over $12 million a year by simply doing away with a 2nd visit per day.  And that is just one small cut-back!  It is much the same with food and entertainment where it gets broken down to cost per passenger day.  Cut back a few entertainers, an ounce of meat per serving, etc. and you are saving real money.   It gets back to my "death by a thousand cut-backs" and explains certain policy changes such as taking away unlimited bottled water from Aqua Class, increasing the price of drinks by $1, etc.   

 

But we are only talking one cut-back out of many we see on mass market lines.  Entertainers have been cut (bands replaced with recordings), production shows have longer runs (instead of being replaced very 2 years perhaps they are kept for 3 years), etc.  A 12 ounce steak served in the MDR is suddenly a 10 ounce steak, or perhaps an everyday steak item is now an everyday hamburger.  Cut the cost of food by $1 per passenger day and suddenly you are talking real money when you do the math across the fleet.  Cost accounting is a beautiful thing when a CEO is trying to enhance the bottom line.  As long as too many do not complain and bookings remain strong there is a big incentive for management to find more cut-backs.  That incentive is called annual bonuses for top management.   Come to think of it, why not just increase the price of alternative restaurants and perhaps add some menu items to the MDR for which passengers must pay an extra charge? Hmmm.  Sounds like an original idea.

 

Hank

 

 

[LGW59]

Maybe find a real problem to worry about.

 

[Lyria]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Now if you assume that the average position costs the cruise line $35,000 per year (salary, room, board, benefits)

 

 

 

This seems to be the point of discussion. 

 

The "salary" is minimal, as are the benefits. Let's zero that out for sake of discussion - most of the time, benefits don't even exist. The room is what we're talking about. You cannot eliminate that. The room is going to exist. In fact, it might be the largest cost on the ship because of pure physical space. So I ask again - how are you solving for the actual square footage under your set of circumstances? You did the numbers when you talked about $1 per passenger per day per steak (?), but you seem to be ignoring it when you're talking about literally crew per bed. How are you cutting staff without cutting berths? If the number of passengers choosing "Go Green" means I need half the number of housekeeping staff on the next sailing, and I choose to disembark them all at St Thomas - great. Then what? What do I do with all of those bunks? I sure can't sell them as a Sky Suite. I signed all of those housekeeping staff to a six month contract, including those tips I sold as all inclusive fares, so now I'm sailing with those crew quarters empty and pay those housekeepers to fly home and, as another poster indicated, sit and watch TV. Maybe I'm real happy about the $.004 I'm saving on lentils that I'm not feeding them, but I've probably already contracted to spend that, so I'm paying that no matter what. 

 

I agree. 5 years down the line, these decisions make a difference. Indicate your preferences by opting in or opting opt. Most importantly - indicate how important it is that Celebrity is giving you the choice to opt in or opt out. 

 

But I'm still waiting for someone to indicate to me how this is actually affecting staffing, realistically, on a cruise ship. Everyone who has actually participated, either by opting in or opting out, has said they've had a positive experience. I'd like to understand, realistically, how this could affirmatively affect staffing other than a logistical fallacy. Beyond that, it seems like the opt-in is going well, and anyone else...well, you're literally given the choice. Choose to not. 

[upwarduk]

8 hours ago, sandancer said:

We have recently taken 2 UK staycation cruises with 2 different cruise lines. On both there was no evening turn down service. I think this may well become the norm. It didn’t bother us. We are happy with a clean, comfortable cabin. 

Not the case on Silhouette 06/08/21.

I opted for the GoGreen reduced laundry service and I noticed we ALWAYS had the bath mat and towels replaced. Chocolates on the pillows as well.

[sandancer]

They were not (unfortunately) Celebrity cruises and I’m pleased that they are still offering the service. We have taken several short hotel breaks and almost all of the, said that the room would not be serviced during our stay. 

[little britain]

19 hours ago, Laurab23 said:

Is bed being made in the morning?

 

Of course it is. 

[bEwAbG]

10 hours ago, Lyria said:

 

This seems to be the point of discussion. 

 

The "salary" is minimal, as are the benefits. Let's zero that out for sake of discussion - most of the time, benefits don't even exist. The room is what we're talking about. You cannot eliminate that. The room is going to exist. In fact, it might be the largest cost on the ship because of pure physical space. So I ask again - how are you solving for the actual square footage under your set of circumstances? You did the numbers when you talked about $1 per passenger per day per steak (?), but you seem to be ignoring it when you're talking about literally crew per bed. How are you cutting staff without cutting berths? If the number of passengers choosing "Go Green" means I need half the number of housekeeping staff on the next sailing, and I choose to disembark them all at St Thomas - great. Then what? What do I do with all of those bunks? I sure can't sell them as a Sky Suite. I signed all of those housekeeping staff to a six month contract, including those tips I sold as all inclusive fares, so now I'm sailing with those crew quarters empty and pay those housekeepers to fly home and, as another poster indicated, sit and watch TV. Maybe I'm real happy about the $.004 I'm saving on lentils that I'm not feeding them, but I've probably already contracted to spend that, so I'm paying that no matter what. 

 

I agree. 5 years down the line, these decisions make a difference. Indicate your preferences by opting in or opting opt. Most importantly - indicate how important it is that Celebrity is giving you the choice to opt in or opt out. 

 

But I'm still waiting for someone to indicate to me how this is actually affecting staffing, realistically, on a cruise ship. Everyone who has actually participated, either by opting in or opting out, has said they've had a positive experience. I'd like to understand, realistically, how this could affirmatively affect staffing other than a logistical fallacy. Beyond that, it seems like the opt-in is going well, and anyone else...well, you're literally given the choice. Choose to not. 

 

The answer is in your second to last paragraph.  Of course those opting out right now are not going to be affected on their current sailings.  The effects would be felt in six months or a year once they establish that they don't have to sign as many people to contracts as they had in the past.  As far as crew bunks, it is cheaper to have that crew room sail empty than it is to have two people in it.  More likely, they'd just offer single rooms to those who normally share with two or three others.  You're focusing on the physical crew space on existing ships, which is a cost that will never be recovered & should not be the driver of future decisions related to staffing (sunk cost fallacy).  If anything, it could inform how many crew quarters are put on future builds.