Jim Van Fleet out at Royal, 1 down and 2 more need to go.

[TexasRon]

18 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

I hope that isn't a backhanded way to say I was. 

 

I don't have a publicly stated opinion about meteorologists one way or the other.  I just have an opinion about RCCL having a "Corporate Meteorologist".  Obviously, I don't think they need one, at least not a celebrity one.    

Not at all.  

[Oceansaway17]

RCI survived many years without their own in house meteorologists so they will do fine.

[notscb]

3 hours ago, Kathscof said:

"do they have the same access as the public or are there more things they would have to pay for to have access to?"

 

It's both.

They have access to all of the NOAA and other related data, but companies like Royal and other usually pay for more accurate, time sensitive services to aid in decision making. When I helped run festivals, we had a service that would tell us down to the minute if there would be lightning, wind, etc. so we could clear an area if needed.

[notscb]

3 hours ago, Ret MP said:

Do I know how to put all the information together and form a commercial forecast?  NO!

 

So now I'm confused. I read your responses to my post and your responses to others and I'm confused.

 

I think you're trying to say that if a third party could do it better, then RCL should just use a third party and cut the position. The decision, in this case, is purely administrative cost saving and efficiency.

 

I'd argue that this decision being made ultimately has a higher impact on safety than you may argue, but you can't ignore the added layer of safety of having a live, trained, educated person interpreting these forecasts and making decisions.

[Ret MP]

1 hour ago, notscb said:

 

So now I'm confused. I read your responses to my post and your responses to others and I'm confused.

 

I think you're trying to say that if a third party could do it better, then RCL should just use a third party and cut the position. The decision, in this case, is purely administrative cost saving and efficiency.

 

I'd argue that this decision being made ultimately has a higher impact on safety than you may argue, but you can't ignore the added layer of safety of having a live, trained, educated person interpreting these forecasts and making decisions.

[Pratique]

2 hours ago, notscb said:

I'd argue that this decision being made ultimately has a higher impact on safety than you may argue, but you can't ignore the added layer of safety of having a live, trained, educated person interpreting these forecasts and making decisions.

I think you are both right and wrong. Right in the sense that an on-staff meteorologist can provide another layer of guidance that is tailored to the company's needs, something that would be difficult to obtain from a third-party service or someone in house who isn't doing the job full time. Wrong in the sense that it is very difficult to quantify how much more value the meteorologist adds, so getting rid of the position has no significant impact on operations.

 

For an analogy, a broad proposition that middle managers are useless is countered by a broad proposition that middle managers wouldn't exist if they had no value. On an individual basis it is hard to quantify the value of a given person in a middle management position. Maybe they did a good job but life goes on just fine without them. Or maybe they are bad at their job but keeping them on makes little difference. Royal did fine without a staff meteorologist, they did fine with one, and they will do fine without one again. And maybe the day will come where not having one will work a disadvantage but that will be more than offset by all the days where having one gave no advantage.

 

For what it's worth, Royal doesn't really need any loyalty ambassadors either. We can just all line up at Guest Services for everything. And the show will go on without having a cruise director on every ship. And so on... (By the way, the title of this thread is some weird schadenfreude).

 

[PWP-001]

21 hours ago, Ret MP said:

Nope, can't deny the facts, that's for sure.  But, like I've said, I believe that this is a result of the pinned-up cash that some/many people saved up during the COVID shutdown.  That money will, eventually dry up and costs will begin to come down to reasonable.  Again, it's just a believe, I have nothing to back it up with, and I could be very wrong.  

Your belief is that of many economists and also what influenced the FOMC to delay interest rate hikes.

 

Royal, of course is hoping this is not the case.  Record fares and passenger counts embolden them to continue with cuts to service and increases to prices.  Obviously the corporate office isn't immune.  As many of our Armchair CEO's have pointed out, there's probably a more cost effective method rather than keeping someone on staff for $100,000 annually (guessing, but including pay and benefits)

 

I'm sure there's more to come.

[bucfan2]

46 minutes ago, PWP-001 said:

As many of our Armchair CEO's have pointed out

Key phrase right there.  CEO's couldn't care less about the opinions of people on cc regarding how to do their job.  Their career progression is beyond the wildest dreams of most on here.

[PWP-001]

22 hours ago, Ret MP said:

The captain of the ship has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the ship.  He has plenty of resources at his fingertips to adjust his route to avoid weather situations.  He also has support staff back at the mother ship to alert him/her to any storms ahead of him and other potential issues (civil unrest at ports of call, for example).  But, I'd bet that he/she knows about them long before any alert.  Hell, my local TV station shows us the building of a storm off of Africa when one builds.  The Miami stations (WSVN, WPLG, WFOR, .......) do a good job of that, too.  If all else fails:  https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc  and this is interesting, too:  https://www.buoyweather.com/#2.89/17.89/-29.55/SWELL

 

As a former Corporate Human Resources Director, I'd never argue the need for this or that Corporate position, in general.  I must add, I don't like outsourcing, not at all.  However, there are some positions that can be eliminated without any bearing on safety and if I was still an HR guy, I'd recommend the elimination of the "IN-HOUSE" weather guy, just based upon other cheaper and probably more capable options available.  Today there are just toooooooooo many resources that a captain of a cruise ship has at his fingertips.  The use of a 3rd party entity could help the captain with the finer details and interpretation of some of the more technical aspects of weather forecasting and do it cheaply.  Hell, I can get on this very laptop or my Android and see, in real-time, the seas (see link above), wind, ocean currents, jetstreams, ice packs, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, temperatures, rain, and get forecasts for all of those ..............   I don't think there is a square inch on the planet that you, me, or anyone else, can't find some sort of weather information on.  

 

This is all my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  

 

Yes, it's the Captain's call.  It would be priceless to have been able to read the captain on Allure's thoughts and reasoning behind sailing when there was that hurricane, and I wonder if he would have allowed the corporate meteorologist to influence his decision differently.

 

As an aside, as a South Florida resident myself.... our local news LOVES "WEATHER DRAMA"!   Some more than others, as they sample a soundtrack as theme music and try their darnedest for an alliteration such as FEROCIOUS FLORIDA FLOODING.  I mean they practically draw our attention when someone farts too forcefully and kicks up a wind swirl off the coast of Africa.  I appreciate their efforts most when we're in the Cone of Uncertainty and the storm is upon us.  Yes, then they are my companions all my wakeful hours.

 

Hey!  You don't think Royal has decided it's cheaper just to watch our local news at corporate for updates, do you?   Kidding!

[OCSC Mike]

5 minutes ago, PWP-001 said:

As an aside, as a South Florida resident myself.... our local news LOVES "WEATHER DRAMA"!   Some more than others, as they sample a soundtrack as theme music and try their darnedest for an alliteration such as FEROCIOUS FLORIDA FLOODING.

 

Same thing here in Orlando. Doesn't even take anything remotely close to a hurricane. Multiple channels have come up with their own "official" name for days when bad t-storms are expected (which is obviously quite often, lol). "It's a FOX35 WEATHER ALERT DAY!"

 

What makes it even worse here (might be similar down there) is that our local affiliates cover such a giant geographic area, the entire width of the state from coast-to-coast and from up in Ocala down to far South of Orlando that half the time the weather alerts don't even apply. The storms could easily be 50 miles away from where you personally live.

 

Apologies for extending the tangent.

[PWP-001]

16 hours ago, notscb said:

 

So now I'm confused. I read your responses to my post and your responses to others and I'm confused.

 

I think you're trying to say that if a third party could do it better, then RCL should just use a third party and cut the position. The decision, in this case, is purely administrative cost saving and efficiency.

 

I'd argue that this decision being made ultimately has a higher impact on safety than you may argue, but you can't ignore the added layer of safety of having a live, trained, educated person interpreting these forecasts and making decisions.

Let me clear up your confusion:  take a look at their financials and compare the most recent quarter's operating profit (In simple terms, all the monies collected from passengers left over after all the bills are paid to provide the services that generated the money, such as fuel, food, labor, and more), compare that operating profit to interest payments on debt.  The "Full Ships & High Fares" that "cheerleaders" here are shaking their pom-poms at just aren't getting it done.

 

Yes, it's all about reducing costs.  

 

The last ones to be cut are the in house lawyers who weigh in on safety, as it relates to potential liability.  So I'd say we have them looking after us, per se and to an extent when it comes to passenger safety.

[Biker19]

28 minutes ago, PWP-001 said:

It would be priceless to have been able to read the captain on Anthem's thoughts and reasoning behind sailing when there was that hurricane

Fixed.

[A&L_Ont]

Biker is right on the ship. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[molly361]

17 minutes ago, OCSC Mike said:

 

Same thing here in Orlando. Doesn't even take anything remotely close to a hurricane. Multiple channels have come up with their own "official" name for days when bad t-storms are expected (which is obviously quite often, lol). "It's a FOX35 WEATHER ALERT DAY!"

 

What makes it even worse here (might be similar down there) is that our local affiliates cover such a giant geographic area, the entire width of the state from coast-to-coast and from up in Ocala down to far South of Orlando that half the time the weather alerts don't even apply. The storms could easily be 50 miles away from where you personally live.

 

Apologies for extending the tangent.

Yeah and now we have "weather impact days" what's up with that?  And channel 9 First warning weather team or maybe it's Wesh2 😇

[PWP-001]

8 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

Edit. I think Biker is right on the ship. 

 

 

 

Did I really write Anthem when I should have written Allure?  Thank you  @A&L_Ont for putting Biker's "fixed" comment into context.

 

And thank you Biker for doing so:  you saved at least a dozen posts that would have corrected me.

Edited May 20, 2023 by PWP-001

[goldfish65]

Funny how I never cared but now after four pages I'd like to know the real story of why he was let go. For all we know, it was not financial at all, could have been something like personality clashes or job performance.

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by goldfish65

[notscb]

57 minutes ago, PWP-001 said:

Yes, it's all about reducing costs.  

 

I know that- i was in a discussion with another member of this board who was being very confusing in their point about saving cost vs improving safety. The reality is, having an in house weather guy is one more tool in the captains toolbox when it comes to decision making. You can't say that cutting this person won't have an impact on safety.

 

 

57 minutes ago, PWP-001 said:

So I'd say we have them looking after us, per se and to an extent when it comes to passenger safety.

 

Ooof. Hard pass. RCL's lawyers are 100% looking out for the liability interests of the company and have very, very little interest in the actual safety of the passengers.

[PWP-001]

11 minutes ago, notscb said:

 

Ooof. Hard pass. RCL's lawyers are 100% looking out for the liability interests of the company and have very, very little interest in the actual safety of the passengers.

Okay, NOW I understand how easily you're confused.  

 

Let me connect the dots:  one of the fundamental ways that RCL's lawyers protect the company is ensuring that while onboard, passengers are kept safe so that nothing stupid happens to cause a liability claim.  Hypothetically speaking, while it could save hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn out all the lights on the ship between 2am & 5am when most guests are sleeping, the lawyers said "NO" to that.  

 

It's also when I tacked on "per se" to the end of that sentence.  

 

@Ret MP was also very clear.  Let me try by connecting those dots another way for you.  They could decide to station an officer on watch on every ship in front of a closed Sorrento's Pizza between the hours of 3am and 11am while it is generally closed, with the sole purpose of making sure the pizza ovens don't catch on fire.  Guests would surely be safe with that in place.  But instead, guests are just as safe with a sophisticated fire detection system that is in place on all the ships.  A stationed guard on watch doesn't improve safety.  With sophisticated weather information and improved communication technology, Royal probably didn't see the need to keep the position, and instead retain $100K annually by cutting the position.  As others have commented, this was a "Peacock Position" there for show.  

[PWP-001]

36 minutes ago, goldfish65 said:

Funny how I never cared but now after four pages I'd like to know the real story of why he was let go. For all we know, it was not financial at all, could have been something like personality clashes or job performance.

 

Perhaps.  Or perhaps he just used that tired joke about being blown by <named hurricane> one too many times.

My bet is on finances trumping a position seen as obsolete. 

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, goldfish65 said:

Funny how I never cared but now after four pages I'd like to know the real story of why he was let go. For all we know, it was not financial at all, could have been something like personality clashes or job performance.

 

you know, that was the one thing no one’s mentioned yet. However this is cruise critic, and what are the chances that the truth could get in the way.😜

[John&LaLa]

57 minutes ago, A&amp;L_Ont said:

you know, that was the one thing no one’s mentioned yet. However this is cruise critic, and what are the chances that the truth could get in the way.😜

 

I'd guess he was sleeping with Fain's wife

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, John&amp;LaLa said:

 

I'd guess he was sleeping with Fain's wife

His hair is better.  😁

[Jimbo]

19 minutes ago, A&amp;L_Ont said:

His hair is better.  😁

Plus he probably has more then 1 shirt.

[bonsai3s]

Who, other than the Captain, must be onboard, or it will not sail?

 

* This question was asked at Trivia.(and the answer subsequently confirmed by the Captain)

First correct answer gets a trophy.

[Ret MP]

I think many folks aren't interpreting my premise on this subject correctly, as usual.  First, I am really only saying that I don't disagree with Fleet's firing.  Second, I don't believe he was anything more than a figurehead, celebrity, or whitewash.  Third, we still have weather, if he was so important after the weather-related incidents in ~2017 - 2018 .... what ever the dates, why was he let go now, was he really that critical to the safety mission/task?  Forth, is the cruise line in any more exposure to weather-related lawsuits without a weather celebrity at the Corp., weather desk?  Fifth, can they provide the captains of the ships with an equal or better product by contracting a weather forecasting company?

 

NOTE:  It is reported that Fleet's salary was as high as ~$190,000.00 per year before joining RCCL.  Do you think he took that job at ~$100,000.00 per year?

 

Has RCCL announced the hiring or even advertised for a replacement?  In not, why?  Maybe, he wasn't that important after all.  

 

Bottom line:  As I've stated, I don't support outsourcing, in general.  However, this firing is, in my opinion, a good one for the company.  AND, I believe outsourcing to get a great product is very doable and cost-effective if done right in this case.  Oh, and I've never claimed to be a guru of corporate decisions.  

 

Carry on!