Awful State of Ocean View Cafe for dinner

[bonagrad]

16 minutes ago, SJ1_ said:

write Lisas office  She has a staff that reads every email

I have twice already and have spoken to two different women.  Thinking about another.

[Spif Barwunkel]

27 minutes ago, bonagrad said:

This isn't a parent telling a child that they can't take the car on Friday night.  The parent doesn't have to justify that decision.  But, I'm a paying consumer.  Celebrity has my money, in full, three months before I get anything for that money.  I gave them that money under the understanding that I would have a similar experience to the one I had in April.  As it stands, that money that they have is not for the same experience.  They sure as heck owe us an explanation.  I'm the consumer, who paid them, not the other way around.

 

Yes, there are a lot of possible reasons for the cutbacks, but these were extreme and as many of us have stated, there is a happy medium.  There are ways to reduce waste without sacrificing variety or quality.

You are one of those folks who will never understand. X has my money, me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme. You say, " a lot of possible reasons for the cutbacks." Then you say, "but these were extreme." You don't know extreme. Then you say, "there are ways to reduce waste without sacrificing variety or quality." You, being the shrewd businessman and principal influencer, that you would want to be on this thread, have yet to convince me of either. That does not matter to you, I know. There are others here who want the same recognition. Again, I just don't see it. But hey, that's my judgement. Right?  

[bonagrad]

8 minutes ago, RichYak said:

Sorry, they can't have it both ways. They can't say they're reducing waste while closing the made-to-order grill station--the one station that isn't wasteful.

 

Exactly!

[JFontaine]

2 hours ago, TopoChico said:

We all knew what quality is, we paid for it and we all felt we got rolled.  

Isn't that the problem in a nutshell?  I don't know what you paid, but the average Celebrity fare per night is about $200 per person.  Take out the hotel cost, fuel, entertainment, port charges, etc. and the amount of money that you paid for your three meals a day is in Outback territory, if not less. I get that Specialty restaurants costs you more, but a good steak in Ruth's Chris is $60, plus sides, salad, dessert, tip and tax. Nowhere near what you paid on Celebrity.   Bottom line - you didn't pay for quality,  even if Celebrity tried to sell you the illusion that you did. Of course, for those paying $1000 or more per person per night on Celebrity the equation is different.   But those cruisers already know that and they aren't on Celebrity for the food. 

[Guest TopoChico]

1 hour ago, Debbra1024 said:

I have watched this topic closely. Initially I was very concerned, enough to email and speak with Celebrity. Yes they gave a company line including how many changes were suggestions from customers. When I stopped literally laughing, I made suggestions about transparency that may or may not have fallen on deaf ears. On the positive side, she was responsive and polite. 
I pondered longer and watched these threads become more negative and attack those with differing opinions. Not cool. Let me add a few of my insights and some from others more learned:

I was fortunate to take a Viking river cruise (yes, it is a smaller ship, yes it is on smaller bodies of water, yes smaller capacity, yes still relevant).  There was not an evening buffet. No one went hungry. There was not a ton of grumbling. After long port days would it have been nice to have a relaxed, shorts option, sure, but not a deal breaker. Speaking with a TA who only does Royal and Celebrity cruise’s herself, she was excited by the changes. Not what I expected. Her rationale:

1. Told a story of cruisers taking bags to the buffet and clearing out all the boxes of cereal and fruit. Their reasoning, they paid for a cruise that included food so they were entitled to take it all home

2. Shared watching people overload 4+ plates at the buffet and end up throwing away tons of food. 
3. As an insider, has seen the massive waste at the end of the night due to lower turn out at the buffet than expected. 
Food costs are high; socially responsible thinking regarding food waste is on the increase, thankfully; Covid caused changes in the way the world operates. 
Should Celebrity have been more transparent, of course. Should food quality be important, yes. Maybe by cutting waste they can focus on quality. Will Celebrity do some course corrections over time, we can hope. 
Overall, hoping for the best on my February 3rd cruise. I’m choosing to focus on the positives while being aware of the changes. Reality is perception, find a way to accept what you can’t change, make changes in future decisions if unhappy, find the positives in what you have. 
have a wonderful day 

I find it extremely difficult to believe a travel professional who earns a living selling and doing cruises would be excited by the changes.
 

That’s like a jeweler who only sells diamonds turning around and saying they’re thrilled to be offering cubic zirconia at the same price they were selling diamonds because it’s socially more responsible. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by TopoChico

[Oceangoer2]

1 hour ago, Pinboy said:

But , I don't believe for one minute that a CEO, CFO or any other top 500 Fortune Company or any high level Executive in any Company has time for posting on CC during working hours about Gratuities, Buffets, Lounge Hogs, or Who the hell the Captain is on our cruise in 2025.

Right on.....but when retired from whatever if was that kept your day busy....an opinion based on past experience is worth listening to whether it comes from a CEO, Exec, or not.  I suppose continually posting here is what's keeping some in the game...😉.

[LGW59]

22 minutes ago, AnnaNicole said:

They have scones?  😁

Yes but as a cost saving measure, no longer made with butter, rather I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.  And the former oatmeal raisin cookies are now oatmeal cookies, raisins are not in the budget.

[bonagrad]

29 minutes ago, Spif Barwunkel said:

You are one of those folks who will never understand. X has my money, me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme. You say, " a lot of possible reasons for the cutbacks." Then you say, "but these were extreme." You don't know extreme. Then you say, "there are ways to reduce waste without sacrificing variety or quality." You, being the shrewd businessman and principal influencer, that you would want to be on this thread, have yet to convince me of either. That does not matter to you, I know. There are others here who want the same recognition. Again, I just don't see it. But hey, that's my judgement. Right?  

You seem to have a strange take on me, me, me.  Maybe you're flush with lots of cash lying around.  That's wonderful if you do, but for most that's not the case.  I'm sorry if you think giving a multi billion dollar corporation thousands of dollars to hold onto with nothing in return for months is me, me, me.

 

If X was smart, take all that money that they want up front, without offering anything for said money, for months, and invest it.  Say I'm an airline.  You book a first class ticket 6 months out.  Then you show up and they've now replaced all their planes with puddle jumpers, all economy to save money.  So now you have a 12 hour flight on a puddle jumper next to a screaming child at the same price as your first class ticket.  Are you going to say, well that's just shrew business and applaud them?  I'm going to guess no.  Reducing a OVC by 80% overnight is extreme whether you think it is or not.

Edited January 19, 2023 by bonagrad

[LMaxwell]

Many people have a very odd way of bargaining against their own self-interests in order to "win" against some other stranger on an internet forum. 

 

When you accept less, you get less. When you champion less, you better believe less is coming for you next. 

[Guest TopoChico]

19 minutes ago, RichYak said:

Sorry, they can't have it both ways. They can't say they're reducing waste while closing the made-to-order grill station--the one station that isn't wasteful.

 

Who really thinks this is about food waste 😂 that’s absolutely ridiculous. Cruise industry is destroying the Caribbean islands.  Passenger ships are bringing income onto them, yes, at the same time they’re destroying reefs and leaving behind tons of waste and trashing the beaches.  We are now to believe that Celebrity is so concerned about the world that they’re cutting out the buffets and serving slop to save it ? Oh please.

[Guest TopoChico]

24 minutes ago, Spif Barwunkel said:

You are one of those folks who will never understand. X has my money, me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme. You say, " a lot of possible reasons for the cutbacks." Then you say, "but these were extreme." You don't know extreme. Then you say, "there are ways to reduce waste without sacrificing variety or quality." You, being the shrewd businessman and principal influencer, that you would want to be on this thread, have yet to convince me of either. That does not matter to you, I know. There are others here who want the same recognition. Again, I just don't see it. But hey, that's my judgement. Right?  

Why are you here then? 

[LMaxwell]

1 minute ago, TopoChico said:

Who really thinks this is about food waste 😂 that’s absolutely ridiculous. Cruise industry is destroying the Caribbean islands.  Passenger ships are bringing income onto them, yes, at the same time they’re destroying reefs and leaving behind tons of waste and trashing the beaches.  We are now to believe that Celebrity is so concerned about the world that they’re cutting out the buffets and serving slop to save it ? Oh please.

 

Like many "old wives tales" something gets posted and repeated incessantly for years by people who can't think out the logical answer for themselves, but like a soundbite answer whether it is correct or not.  

 

No business I've ever seen, been a part of, or managed a budget for ever issued such fast and startling overhauls. It seldom would ever work. You must set a goal for X% reduction that is achievable and sustainable. You make small changes in one or only a few areas, then go back and measure the change. If you just cut 66% of something you can say "See, we are under budget" in the very short term, but if you kill the business who cares what you saved 3 months before? 

 

This is not about efficiency of fine tailoring the product to the client expectations, while also trying not to be wasteful. This is intentionally hollowing out the product offering in an attempt to justify killing it off altogether. 

 

When they get rid of the omelette stations in buffet for breakfast, don't say it wasn't expected.  After all, they are just cutting "waste". No one will starve. Right? You can order an omelette on room service or go to the MDR. No impact to me....says, I. hmmm.

[Guest TopoChico]

2 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

Like many "old wives tales" something gets posted and repeated incessantly for years by people who can't think out the logical answer for themselves, but like a soundbite answer whether it is correct or not.  

 

No business I've ever seen, been a part of, or managed a budget for ever issued such fast and startling overhauls. It seldom would ever work. You must set a goal for X% reduction that is achievable and sustainable. You make small changes in one or only a few areas, then go back and measure the change. If you just cut 66% of something you can say "See, we are under budget" in the very short term, but if you kill the business who cares what you saved 3 months before? 

 

This is not about efficiency of fine tailoring the product to the client expectations, while also trying not to be wasteful. This is intentionally hollowing out the product offering in an attempt to justify killing it off altogether. 

 

When they get rid of the omelette stations in buffet for breakfast, don't say it wasn't expected.  After all, they are just cutting "waste". No one will starve. Right? You can order an omelette on room service or go to the MDR. No impact to me....says, I. hmmm.

Bullseye. 🎯 

[AnnaNicole]

6 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

Like many "old wives tales" something gets posted and repeated incessantly for years by people who can't think out the logical answer for themselves, but like a soundbite answer whether it is correct or not.  

 

No business I've ever seen, been a part of, or managed a budget for ever issued such fast and startling overhauls. It seldom would ever work. You must set a goal for X% reduction that is achievable and sustainable. You make small changes in one or only a few areas, then go back and measure the change. If you just cut 66% of something you can say "See, we are under budget" in the very short term, but if you kill the business who cares what you saved 3 months before? 

 

This is not about efficiency of fine tailoring the product to the client expectations, while also trying not to be wasteful. This is intentionally hollowing out the product offering in an attempt to justify killing it off altogether. 

 

When they get rid of the omelette stations in buffet for breakfast, don't say it wasn't expected.  After all, they are just cutting "waste". No one will starve. Right? You can order an omelette on room service or go to the MDR. No impact to me....says, I. hmmm.

Exactly.  During severe and tough times, a company must be nimble and balance short term and long term goals.   If they are not careful, they kill the golden goose that lays the eggs.

 

There were many tech and telecom companies who failed to respond properly during the dot-com bust out.  Layoffs were so deep that some companies were unable to recover when the economy recovered.    They lacked the product pipeline and the skill set to be competitive, to their own demise.   

Edited January 19, 2023 by AnnaNicole

[LMaxwell]

1 minute ago, TopoChico said:

Bullseye. 🎯 

A standard corkage fee to all wine brought onboard, already done at Holland America, would create direct revenue to Celebrity, only for those that choose to bring wine onboard. This revenue can offset cost increases to the core product offerings and allow Celebrity to maintain standards. But people don't want to pay for that, because they feel it is a cost that ONLY impacts them.  So when you suggest that maybe the cruise should cost a few dollars a day more so everyone can have same high standards they claim they don't want to pay for anyone else and that the offerings of the cruise don't impact them. lol...........whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? How do you even end up at any brand of upscale vacation if you don't care about services and amenities?  How can every cutback be a non-issue? That would make enhancements non-issues as well. I don't need to run their company, but I will also call a product bad if it's bad or slipping in quality.  

[bonagrad]

4 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

A standard corkage fee to all wine brought onboard, already done at Holland America, would create direct revenue to Celebrity, only for those that choose to bring wine onboard. This revenue can offset cost increases to the core product offerings and allow Celebrity to maintain standards. But people don't want to pay for that, because they feel it is a cost that ONLY impacts them.  So when you suggest that maybe the cruise should cost a few dollars a day more so everyone can have same high standards they claim they don't want to pay for anyone else and that the offerings of the cruise don't impact them. lol...........whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? How do you even end up at any brand of upscale vacation if you don't care about services and amenities?  How can every cutback be a non-issue? That would make enhancements non-issues as well. I don't need to run their company, but I will also call a product bad if it's bad or slipping in quality.  

Right?  It's a service business.  If they don't care about the service they provide, the paying customer should call them out on it.  Shutting up and taking it doesn't make any sense!

[AnnaNicole]

19 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

When they get rid of the omelette stations in buffet for breakfast, don't say it wasn't expected.  After all, they are just cutting "waste". No one will starve. Right? You can order an omelette on room service or go to the MDR. No impact to me....says, I. hmmm.

Have you seen the price of eggs?   That very well may be the next target.  😉

[RichYak]

21 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

This is not about efficiency of fine tailoring the product to the client expectations, while also trying not to be wasteful. This is intentionally hollowing out the product offering in an attempt to justify killing it off altogether. 

Or it's putting lipstick on the pig before putting it up for sale.

[weregoingcruising]

1 minute ago, AnnaNicole said:

Have you seen the price of eggs?   That very well may be the next target.  😉

Our local supermarket is advertising up to 60 month financing for egg purchase's.

[AnnaNicole]

Just now, weregoingcruising said:

Our local supermarket is advertising up to 60 month financing for egg purchase's.

Have you seen current interest rates?  Double ouch!

[WNCtourist]

35 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

Like many "old wives tales" something gets posted and repeated incessantly for years by people who can't think out the logical answer for themselves, but like a soundbite answer whether it is correct or not.  

 

No business I've ever seen, been a part of, or managed a budget for ever issued such fast and startling overhauls. It seldom would ever work. You must set a goal for X% reduction that is achievable and sustainable. You make small changes in one or only a few areas, then go back and measure the change. If you just cut 66% of something you can say "See, we are under budget" in the very short term, but if you kill the business who cares what you saved 3 months before? 

 

This is not about efficiency of fine tailoring the product to the client expectations, while also trying not to be wasteful. This is intentionally hollowing out the product offering in an attempt to justify killing it off altogether. 

 

When they get rid of the omelette stations in buffet for breakfast, don't say it wasn't expected.  After all, they are just cutting "waste". No one will starve. Right? You can order an omelette on room service or go to the MDR. No impact to me....says, I. hmmm.

Removing the omelette stations in the buffet will be a bad, bad mistake (and I don't doubt that's one of the next cuts). That's one of the few areas that Celebrity could boast of as an advantage over other mid-level cruise lines. That, plus the loss of grilled-to-order chicken, steak, etc. at lunch and dinner, has made me look at other cruise lines. It's that big of a deal for us. We don't prefer spending 2 hours in the MDR crammed next to others.

[Guest TopoChico]

I find it humorous that for some reason there’s a perception that just because people can afford the more expensive cabins that they somehow have finer palates and are only interested in the hoity toitiest culinary offerings.

 

My husband’s friend from college is a head surgeon at a world renowned hospital. When he comes to visit us, his favorite thing to do is go to all the dive bars in Philly and have buffalo wings and Pabst Blue Ribbons. 
A close family member was the CFO for Dow Jones for many years. His favorite meal was a burger, a Yoo Hoo and Twinkies. When they went in to New York, they could afford to eat anywhere. They always chose Fridays.
The Rothschild’s in the most expensive suite on the ship like chicken fingers with honey mustard dipping sauce just like the rest of us. 
 

[Goldenknight]

It's easier to evaluate this if one relies on facts, rather than just opinions.  The F &B director and his head chef on my Jan. 2 Solstice cruise proclaimed : (1)  Celebrity wants to push everyone into the MDR/speciality restaurants, (2) guests all "want to be served dinner", and (3) it's all about cost savings because of food waste.  That is the spin, IMHO.

 

Here's a fact:  The dinner buffet is reduced to 20% of its food offerings because of food waste?  That suggests that Ivan and Manesh (i.e. Celebrity) think they don't have food waste at breakfast and lunch buffets.  IMHO, it is contradictory.  

 

Here's a fact:  I haven't read a single post in this thread that Celebrity surveyed its finest valued patrons and asked them if they prefer to be "served dinner".  I emphasize that I'm just stating I haven't read any such post . . .  maybe Celebrity did this and that's how they intuitively know that we ALL want to be served dinner,  justifying no dinner buffet option.

 

Here's a fact: we were hunted down by the MDR head waiter, asking why we were eating at the buffet that night and not the MDR.  It's not the same as casually encountering a Celebrity employee while wandering the ship, and they inquire if all is okay.  This is Celebrity instructing their head waiter to embarrass himself and hunt down errant guests.

 

Now, my opinion:  we live in Las Vegas.  Buffets at our doorstep, many of which did not reopen post-pandemic.  I asked the G.M. of M Resort here (once had an excellent buffet) why he chose to not reopen the popular M buffet.  His excuse:  too much food waste/food costs. It wasn't about that at all, it seems, based on the numerous buffets all over Vegas that did reopen. The queue to go to the Wednesday night lobster buffet at the Palms is typically a three hour wait.  Prices have risen astronomically here for buffets ;   Wynn dinner buffet averages $80 per person.  Queues to go are up to two hours most nights. Wicked Spoon Buffet at the Cosmopolitan has always had individually plated "small plates" of most of their food choices. . .  to minimize guests scooping huge quantities of food onto their plates.

It's just my opinion, FWIW, but this isn't about food waste/food costs.  If it was, the bean counters at Wynn, Cosmo, and so on would never have reopened their buffets and funneled their guests into the equivalent of the MDR (coffee shop, steakhouse, etc)

And, just like Celebrity, Wynn, Cosmo and all the others have shareholders to whom they are accountable.  Somehow, those buffets reopened successfully.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Goldenknight

[Guest TopoChico]

If I were shopping cruises, which I’m not right now, if I saw a ship advertising a hot,

super-crispy chicken wing bar open and available 24/7, a Jewish deli with mile high pastrami and corned beef sandwiches, and guys walking around with freshly-made warm chocolate chip cookies and milk (like Princess used to do,) I’d book immediately. Screw prime rib and lobster. 

[Goldenknight]

1 hour ago, bonagrad said:

I have twice already and have spoken to two different women.  Thinking about another.

You asked if you can use my postings in such an email . . .  of course.  This is a public forum,  I wouldn't post here if I didn't have the expectation my words might be shared. 🙂