All Inclusive HAL

[MacD]

Let me state immediately that I voted yes! However I do sympathise with all viewpoints! Whilst I can see the direction some people may be coming from, we may have overlooked one crucial point! Yes, there has been cost cutting, but that is equally balanced by the fare reductions that have been experienced over the years making cruising much more accessible to a wider market! Have the cruise lines really had it all their own way? I doubt it! They have had to invest literally billions in newer, larger & more luxurious ships & it has all had to be paid for from revenue gathered, whether it be on-board or otherwise. So whilst we may define it as cost cutting could it not be that the cruise lines are simply continuing to offer these extras at a modest cost. Whilst those of us who enjoy a drink may prefer to budget for our vacation in a pro-forma manner, we have to take cognisance of the fact that there are many tee totallers out there who would see their increased fare as a cross subsidy, who could blame them? However there could be a solution to both arguments & that is an all inclusive option, say a different fare structure & key colour/code. However HAL or any other cruise line would simply do their number crunching based on previous OBR & come up with a figure which may not appear so attractive as first envisaged! Another scenario is whilst I personally enjoy a drink my DW is virtually teetotal. Besides we hardly do any excursions & a walk up the Jetty or Quay is ample excercise for us. There are many pitfalls to consider & we may not like the eventual outome were such a proposal taken up! I can see only one winner & that is the lounge lizard who would continue to remain glued to the bar 18 hours a day & what % of passengers would he represent? However this has been an excellent thought provoking poll, but sometimes it pays to be a little cautious & to look at the wider issue before campaigning for such change.

 

MacD:)

[eyegel]

I think the ambiance would be improved if standard potables (including fountain sodas, house wines, and well drinks) and basic tours were included. I would like to be able to budget up front.

 

I have been to several "all-inclusive" resorts and it is convenient not having to worry about increased costs. The actual cost of product involved is nominal (the the mark-up on fountain sodas can be higher than the markup on liquor and I have seen the "free" booze being poured from generic plastic bottles via a funnel into "brand name" bottles). It really would not cost the cruise lines very much out-of-pocket to implement such a scheme.

 

Where they would really lose, however, would be in not being able to charge such inflated prices. It is the lost profits, not the added cost, which will prevent the implementation of such a system. The "premium" cruiselines charge "premium" prices not because the bonuses cost so much, but because they have to make their profit somewhere.

 

As for those persons who oppose on the grounds that they object to "subsidizing" others, I respectfully suggest that we are ALL subsidizing each other. The vegetarians onboard are subsidizing the carnivores. Those who eat sparingly are subsidizing those who never met a meal they didn't like, order multiple courses of the most expenive entree every night, and brag to the folks back home about how many lobsters/shrimp/steaks/desserts they packed away. Those who relax on deck are subsidizing those who are attending programs. Those who order scores of pictures are subsidizing the photo opportunities for those who order just a print or two. Those who stay aboard ship during a port call and have both food and services at their beck and call are being subsidized by those who are out on excursions. Those who purchase exorbitantly priced beauty products at the spa are subsidizing those who just work out at the gym. Those who purchase items at the onboard auctions are subsidizing those who attend to see and learn something about art, but don't buy a thing. Those without children are subsidizing the Club Hal programs for those who bring children along. The parents of those children (who pay the same price for a four-year-old as is paid by a forty-four-year old) are subsidizing the entertainment and other programs for adults.

 

Don't get too self-righteous!

[bruce-r]

I voted NO - I don't want to pay for other people's liquor consumption.

My feelings exactly. I seldom drink alcohol so I don't want to pay for what I won't consume.

[Blackneto]

Awesome thoughts Eyegel. Great way of thinking about it.

[michmike]

Most of the evidence concerning things that we've come to expect, disappearing from the HAL experience seem to be anecdotal. I'm referring to recent reports of no lemonade, no hot hors doevres, paying for drinks at the captain's reception, inability to get goldfish or peanuts in the lounges, etc.

 

Rather than looking at all inclusive, I'd simply like to see HAL quit messing with what has worked and has given them a loyal base of customers that most businesses would die for. If that means raising our fares by $25 per person for a 7 day trip, then do it. Such a move on a 1200 passenger ship would generate $30,000 a week in addtnl revenue or almost $1.6 million a yr. Certainly that would be enough to cover these little nit-picky irritations that are causing many of us to question the direction HAL is headed.

 

Before someone does the math and argues that $3.57 a day per person won't cover those amenities, stop and consider that not all of us use each of those, so that isn't a truly valid basis for comparison

 

It's much like the impression I get when dining out in a restaurant, esp those that are more run of the mill as opposed to fine dining. But what message do they send when they opt to serve apple jelly or mixed fruit as opposed to the varieties we typically use at home, or serve that god awful "tater topping" instead of sour cream, or have an off brand catsup instead of hunts or heinz. It says that they don't value your business and instead are concerned about squeezing every nickle out of the bottom line. Raise the price of the meal 20 or 25 cents and provide me with the brands and the quality I expect.

 

It's the same with HAL. At a 70-80% repeat rate, I don't think price is the primary consideration folks look at when booking a cruise. A major part of the reason they continue to return is because of the components that make the HAL experience what we have come to treasure. IMHO they tinker with that at their peril.

 

So forget the all inclusive, just give us the same experience we had 5 yrs ago, even if that means at a higher price and I think most of us will be satisfied.

[boards]

We vote No. The reasons have already been mentioned above, from drinks to excursions, to the spa, the mention of why would the handicap cruise on Hal.

We enjoy Hal and we booked what we can afford. We have no problem paying for what we want to drink, where we want to go. I don't want to pay for something that I will not be using though. Hal seems to be changing, but nothing remains the same. I believe Hal is trying to give us a product that each of us can enjoy at a figure each are satisified with.

[kelmac]

Definitely not for handicapped people who can't go on excursions. Why should they help pay for your pleasure? :confused:

 

For the same reason non-handicapped people subsidize larger cabins, wider hallways, special bathrooms, special transportation.........., for handicapped individuals.

By the way, I voted no as well. :)

[gizmo]

I did not say Pinnacle would be included in the price just like Seabourn, Oceania, and Silver Sea they charge for speciality restaurants.

 

I only said pull the thread because it seems that I opened a subject that has brought some disagreements and I do not want trouble so that is why trying to be peaceful and yyes everyone has been great no issues.

 

Wow I can not believe too many do not believe the HAL brand is luxury brand yes Premium but there are things that HAL does better then Celebrity who has always said they are premium.

 

 

Paul

 

For the life of me I don't understand why you want the thread pulled.

 

Any subject can go different ways, this one included. The original subject (all inclusive) is by no means a new subject and it has been discussed before on this board.

 

Some of the posts are focused on Premium verses Luxury. This is wide open for interpretation. Everyone has their own views on which cruise line is the best and who does things better. I have seen many different advertisements using the word " Luxury" for cruise lines that many seasoned cruisers would not consider a "luxury" line. What luxury is to one may not be luxury to another.

[patval]

I am sorry the pull the thread answer I posted yesterday was not well received but to me it seemed to me that this poll was ruffling some feathers so that is way everyone has been great so no issue there lets move on.

 

I feel that this poll would be different once we sail on a Silver Sea, Seabourn, Regent Seven Sea, or Oceania because we would know the standards set there and see how much would have to be done to HAL to convert it to the next level or we might see that the product is wrose then HAL or the same. I feel like some do I want a price that included everything no ands, ifs, or buts it it cost 4000 total then I will bring an extra 500 for emgerencies and that is all.

 

Also with Shore Excursions would you be against HAL having guest lectures that are world renowed (sp) and would take you on an Excursion in their country maybe a Poet and would take you on an excursion in Rotterdam seeing visting homes of other well known Poets or maybe a Chef giving you a Culinary tour of Beijing China or the Executive Chef of the ship giving a market trip in France or Italy this you would rule out! :eek: Please remember BIG PICTURE not small.

 

Paul

[sail7seas]

Yes.......Personally...Just me. I do not wish to participate in almost any organized tours. Few, if any. I know you were giving hypothetical examples but a Culinary Tour of Bejing is not high on my list of must do's. :)

 

I see no reason to change the way tours are now offered. You can book your choice months in advance and even pay for them prior to cruising. In effect, by being able to purchase and pay for your tours prior to arriving at the ship, you could call it inclusive in that you will incur no additional charge to your onboard account.

 

The choice still remains for those who wish to wait to see what they feel like when they arrive at the ship. If there is still availability, they can book any tours they wish after they board.

 

I don't see that this is a 'broken system' and needs repair. What is wrong with it the way it is?

I think your :eek: at the thought of some of us saying No Thank You to your suggestion for Chef's Tours and other excursions is the diversity in what people want from their cruise. You may wish to be busy morning to night, everyday in every port. Other people embarked the ship with the desire to sleep, read, sun by the pool and recharge their batteries.

Both want to enjoy their vacation their way and they both should. We can't limit our thinking to suppose every guest aboard wants the same things we want.

 

We almost never go to the shows but I like knowing they are there and available should we decide to go for a few minutes. I also want them available for others. Judging by the attendance, the vast majority want to go to shows. So, I vote to keep the shows and I'll gladly pay for 'my share' as included in my fare even though I may see 1% of the shows offered on all the cruises we take.

 

People want lemonade; great. I never drink all the sugar. But I'll gladly pay my pennies in order for those who want lemonade to have it.

 

People want soda/pop/soft drinks. They should pay for it. IMO

 

If I want a glass of wine, I should pay for it. IMO

 

If you want a shore excursion, you should pay for it. IMO

 

I hope we don't see them take away many of the standard things we have come to expect on the ships.

 

And I still want the Tote Bags. We have dozens and dozens of them and I still look forward to getting our tote bag on each cruise. I use them aboard and at home. They are a signature of HAL and for the small price they cost, I hope they don't eliminate them.

 

After all, it's good advertising when I walk around at home with one thing or another tossed in that tote and people see the HAL Logo. (My favorite Logo in the world. :) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Randyk47]

I voted yes but it's actually it's a qualified "kind of/maybe" vote. What I was thinking was a limited number of cruises, not every cruise and not every ship. I fully understand and agree with the folks who are strongly against the whole line going that way. Maybe take one or two of the S class and experiment with a few exotic itineraries. I don't know, maybe not....... :confused:

[sail7seas]

What would you want included in the fare, Randy?

 

[Oceanwench]

For the same reason non-handicapped people subsidize larger cabins, wider hallways, special bathrooms, special transportation.........., for handicapped individuals.

By the way, I voted no as well. :)

 

The extra cabin space and "special" bathrooms [a few grab bars, a higher toilet and a roll-in shower] are a fixed cost that come with building the ship.

The hallways are the same whether there are HC cabins on that deck or not.

And there is no "special" transportation provided that I have ever seen.

 

Ships have at the most, two dozen or so HC cabins. Compare that to the large number of cabins able-bodied folks use. Then factor in the fact that some AB folks deliberately book HC cabins. Then factor in the fact that cruise lines use the vacant HC cabins for their guarantee pax.

 

Excursions are not going to be made accessible -- it's not something easily done. And some -- I am thinking zip lines or hiking to ruins -- can't be done.

Merchants are not going to make their shops accessible.

Restaurants are not going add elevators or accessible restrooms.

 

By the way, I am voting *no* also.

[Randyk47]

S7S - I don't have the time to research and quote exactly but my recollection of the "all-inclusive" cruise lines is that some of them offer one to two shore tours as part of their packages. Any additional tours are an extra charge. OK, so you don't do shore tours, then what? Maybe a spa treatments in lieu of? No spa treatments? OK, maybe a reduction. Of course, the point really is that cruisers who go for all-inclusive cruises probably don't worry about any of this. In fact, that's probably why they go all-inclusive, they simply don't want to be bothered with additional charges and can pretty much drink or tour or whatever without a second thought. Obviously only a relatively small portion of the cruising population is attracted to this approach or there'd be a lot more lines out there doing this than the less than hand full that do.

[HeatherInFlorida]

...............................

As for those persons who oppose on the grounds that they object to "subsidizing" others, I respectfully suggest that we are ALL subsidizing each other. The vegetarians onboard are subsidizing the carnivores. Those who eat sparingly are subsidizing those who never met a meal they didn't like, order multiple courses of the most expenive entree every night, and brag to the folks back home about how many lobsters/shrimp/steaks/desserts they packed away. Those who relax on deck are subsidizing those who are attending programs. Those who order scores of pictures are subsidizing the photo opportunities for those who order just a print or two. Those who stay aboard ship during a port call and have both food and services at their beck and call are being subsidized by those who are out on excursions. Those who purchase exorbitantly priced beauty products at the spa are subsidizing those who just work out at the gym. Those who purchase items at the onboard auctions are subsidizing those who attend to see and learn something about art, but don't buy a thing. Those without children are subsidizing the Club Hal programs for those who bring children along. The parents of those children (who pay the same price for a four-year-old as is paid by a forty-four-year old) are subsidizing the entertainment and other programs for adults.

 

Don't get too self-righteous!

 

Gosh! And I've been so nice lately:o . Time's up!:) I could not disagree more with the above!

 

There is absolutely nothing self-righteous about stating that we don't want alcoholic drinks included in the fare!!! No one is criticizing those who drink ... we're just saying we either drink very little or not al all and don't particularly want to pay for someone else's drinks!!!!! How in the world do you get to that being self-righteous!!!!!

 

As for the rest of it, I disagree with that as well. On any given day in port I would say most of the passengers are back at the ship eating pretty darned well! While a handful may be chowing down on shore, they sure don't miss a little trip back to the ship for a "snack"! Take a look at the Lido (inside and out) on any port day and I rest my case (especially around 3:30 or 4:00 when everyone returns famished having been without food for an hour or two;) ) .

 

I believe the spas are independently owned and operated so I somehow doubt that someone getting a facial is paying for my hamburger in the Lido. If I'm wrong aboout this point, I stand corrected.

 

And vegetarians aren't subsidizing anyone! I dined with a vegan on one cruise. I have never seen such a fuss made over her meal. She would tell them exactly what to include, how to prepare it, send it back, they'd bring another ... it was unbelievable.

 

Paul, you seem to take responsibility for where this thread goes. Don't worry about it. Threads wend their way all over the place and once we post, we have no control whether posters are fair, nice, understanding, obnoxious, offended or ruffled. Not to worry ... worst comes to worst the moderators poof it!!!:D

[sail7seas]

Thank you, Heather........Echo, echo. I totally agree with everything you said.

 

[kryos]

S7S - I don't have the time to research and quote exactly but my recollection of the "all-inclusive" cruise lines is that some of them offer one to two shore tours as part of their packages.

You can get "all inclusive" (regarding shore excursions) from large travel agents as well. I just received a mailer this morning from a large travel provider offering me "good" prices on three different Celebrity cruises. The prices included r/t air fare from New York, a night or two pre or post cruise stay in a hotel, several prepaid shore excursions, and a 12 or 14 night cruise ... all for one price.

 

So, while this can be considered "all inclusive," since the line is not all-inclusive, I am sure liquor and soft drinks are still pay as you go.

 

If this travel agency can do such a thing with a Celebrity cruise, I am sure they probably offer similar on some HAL cruises.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

It's the same with HAL. At a 70-80% repeat rate, I don't think price is the primary consideration folks look at when booking a cruise. A major part of the reason they continue to return is because of the components that make the HAL experience what we have come to treasure. IMHO they tinker with that at their peril.

 

So forget the all inclusive, just give us the same experience we had 5 yrs ago, even if that means at a higher price and I think most of us will be satisfied.

Unfortunately, though, they can't give you the same experience you had five years ago ... not without raising the price. And, if HAL raises the price, they automatically lose a percentage of cruisers who do shop price.

 

Of course, a lot of us on this board are very, very "addicted" to HAL. If HAL raised their prices, but not too much, we would still continue to sail that line. However, we are not necessarily representative of all cruisers out there. True, HAL has a lot of repeat passengers ... and I think that is because they keep their prices competitive with other lines and offer some ammenities those other lines don't (fewer children, nicer boats, etc.). But, there are a lot of cruisers out there (either first time or "casual" cruisers) who book almost exclusively on the basis of price. Sure, they will stick with their preferred line if the prices are comparable, but if the price for one line shot up, they would defect in a heartbeat. They have no particular loyalty to one line or the other. They are just looking for a relaxing cruise vacation for their family. If all lines can offer them that ... and all lines basically charge the same, then they will select their favorite line. Otherwise, they will go with the one who can meet their needs at a price they can afford.

 

For the above reasons, I don't think HAL can afford to go back to the way they were five years ago. In fact, five years from now you will probably see more things incurring an extra charge than they do now. Look at Princess. They pack their ships and they charge extra for ice cream and for fresh squeezed OJ. People don't seem to be complaining. Princess also charges $25 bucks a pop for their computer classes and ceramics ... yet they generally get a lot of takers at those events. Then ... look at RCCL. They charge for Johnny Rockets and other "premium" ammenities, and I don't see their ships sailing empty.

 

So, to remain competitive ... and to tap into the ever-burgeoning first time and family cruiser market, HAL will follow the trend. They will keep their prices as low as possible and then seek to make more from onboard revenue ... by charging for a lot of the "little" things that people may want onboard ... things that maybe today come free, but won't tomorrow. That's why you now see charges for a special drink at the Mariner Reception, a scarcity of nuts and goldfish around the bars (especially during the daytime), more "extra charge" events such as cooking classes, floral arranging, arts and crafts, etc. It's just the way things are going ... and will continue to go in the future. And, let's face it ... as long as HAL's basic style stays the same, there ain't no law saying you have to buy a cocktail at the Mariner reception. You could always take the preoffered glass of wine or champaign, right?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[jtl513]

As for those persons who oppose on the grounds that they object to "subsidizing" others, I respectfully suggest that we are ALL subsidizing each other. The vegetarians onboard are subsidizing the carnivores. Those who eat sparingly are subsidizing those who never met a meal they didn't like, order multiple courses of the most expenive entree every night, and brag to the folks back home about how many lobsters/shrimp/steaks/desserts they packed away. Those who relax on deck are subsidizing those who are attending programs. Those who order scores of pictures are subsidizing the photo opportunities for those who order just a print or two. Those who stay aboard ship during a port call and have both food and services at their beck and call are being subsidized by those who are out on excursions. Those who purchase exorbitantly priced beauty products at the spa are subsidizing those who just work out at the gym. Those who purchase items at the onboard auctions are subsidizing those who attend to see and learn something about art, but don't buy a thing. Those without children are subsidizing the Club Hal programs for those who bring children along. The parents of those children (who pay the same price for a four-year-old as is paid by a forty-four-year old) are subsidizing the entertainment and other programs for adults.

 

Don't get too self-righteous!

 

Point well taken! :) But I still prefer the ala carte pricing that we have now. Personally, in an all-inclusive situation I would probably tend to drink more and use more services than I do now because I would feel that I had "paid for them" in the fare. If enough other people also feel this way, that would drive up HAL's costs, which would inevitably lead to another fare increase.

 

Let's leave well enough alone.

[Desdemona01]

And vegetarians aren't subsidizing anyone! I dined with a vegan on one cruise. I have never seen such a fuss made over her meal. She would tell them exactly what to include, how to prepare it, send it back, they'd bring another ... it was unbelievable.

 

 

First of all, vegetarians aren't vegans. Secondly, I assume you've never seen a meat-eater be picky or send their meal back? The point that the poster was trying to make is that, as a rule, the ingredients in a meatless meal are less expensive than meals that include beef, seafood, pork or poultry. As a vegetarian of many years I can absolutely confirm that this is true. Do I think I'm subsidizing anyone's cruise? No. But don't make it sound like non-meat eaters are the only demanding and picky people who dine out.

 

As an FYI, the only time I've sent a meal back is when a restaurant topped my veggie burger with bacon slices :eek:

[Desdemona01]

double post

[Randyk47]

Kyros - Thanks for the information. Actually I was responding to a previous posting by Sail7Sevens about what would I think would be included in the fare for an "all-inclusive" cruise. On top of basically all services, beverages, etc., on the ship I singled out tours as S7S mentioned not being particularly interested in shore tours. Personally I'd not consider a cruise where all shore tours were included as "free" or "all-inclusive" unless it also included the on-ship benefits.

[HeatherInFlorida]

First of all, vegetarians aren't vegans. Secondly, I assume you've never seen a meat-eater be picky or send their meal back? The point that the poster was trying to make is that, as a rule, the ingredients in a meatless meal are less expensive than meals that include beef, seafood, pork or poultry. As a vegetarian of many years I can absolutely confirm that this is true. Do I think I'm subsidizing anyone's cruise? No. But don't make it sound like non-meat eaters are the only demanding and picky people who dine out.

 

As an FYI, the only time I've sent a meal back is when a restaurant topped my veggie burger with bacon slices :eek:

 

Big sigh:o . I am aware that Vegetarians are not Vegans and vice versa. But my example just happened to be about a Vegan. I still stand by my point.

 

But much more important. Absolutely nothing in my post suggests that only Vegetarians or Vegans are "the only demanding and picky people". Where do you see that???? I think you're reading something into my post that simply is not there.

 

I was talking about the time and extra effort involved in getting the proper amount of vegetables for this woman who I happen to have liked tremendously. She generally had 3 courses of vegetables which varied completely from the items listed on the menu. And I could argue that the volume of fresh vegetables this woman consumed would very likely equal the cost of a steak or lobster tail.

 

So my point was that there is an expense involved in such an effort over and above the normal dining room service which generally calls for someone to order something from the menu and have it placed before them. So neither the Vegans nor the Vegetarians are subsidizing someone else's cruise.

 

Never was my intent to insult either Vegetarians or Vegans.

[Desdemona01]

Big sigh:o . I am aware that Vegetarians are not Vegans and vice versa.

 

 

 

Actually, Vegans ARE Vegetarians--they also do not eat any animal products of any kind (eggs, dairy).

[HeatherInFlorida]

Actually, Vegans ARE Vegetarians--they also do not eat any animal products of any kind (eggs, dairy).

 

Okay. Peace. C'mon, isn't this enough about this? I was trying to cover all bases.

 

What I'm trying so hard to tell you is that I got a complete course on what a Vegan is on that cruise over a 2 week period. A Vegan is, of course, a Vegetarian and if I want to be picky I could carry this further, but I'm not and I won't.

 

Let's drop it. It's nitpicking about my overall point and I haven't the foggiest notion why you're going after me about it. I am done with this part of the discussion.