Ncl Is Going Smoke Free!

[twofit]

GREAT news!! The cruise industry is finally catching up with the rest of the world.

[cruisebum50]

I guess I'll save some money from not hanging out in the bars.

 

Actually, my only problem is, if NCL is changing their policy AGAIN WITHOUT NOTIFYING PASSENGERS. :rolleyes:

 

For a lot of people this is a significant change. I'll have to find out officially but I may have to rethink my Pearl cruise. :(

 

 

My DH agrees with you on their not notifying passengers. After seeing the original post he called NCL and was told this was true. He wouldn't have booked our cruise on NCL if he had known this. He would have booked on Celebrity instead. He has already fired off an email to Mr. Veitch about NCL not notifying passengers well in advance of this new rule change. The NCL website still says you can smoke in bars. They will lose a lot of revenue when smokers realize they cannot smoke in the bars and find the casino bar so packed they can't even near it to get a drink. And for those non-smokers who don't like cigarette smoke they probably won't want to be any where near the casino because it will be packed with smokers.

[LHP]

I am not a big smoker, but I do smoke a pipe. Never planned on smoking it in my room but was definitely looking forward to having it in the casino...:( Why cigs okay but not cigars and pipes? I know the smoke is def more dense, but smells a whole lot better IMO.

 

Why is that?? I hate the smell of cigarettes but I LOVE the smell of good pipe tobacco. True not all pipes smell good, but most that I have been around do.

 

How is that possible when the strench of cigarette waste smells so bad??

[LHP]

I have never even considered NCL because (for me personally) any time dining is not what I want. Now I may have to reconsider!!

[ohioNCLcruiser]

to the person above..yes NCL America will be having this new rule. No shock there the ships are registered in Hawaii and they have a new state no smoking law.

 

 

People thought that some restaurants would lose alot of business when the states anti smoking law kicked in but numbers have all stayed the same..some have gone up!

[newmexicoNita]

LOL...if I'm on a ship, that is the only time I do smoke! Because what happenes on a ship stays on a ship! I loved my Martini and a Cigarette, before and after dinner...:mad: !!!

 

I guess I can deal with it though...actually it is a good thing:D !!!

Me too, I am concerned because I will be with my cousin in Sept on the Star, She is a good sport, but has been a non smoker for about 30 years. No way would I ask her to join me in the Cigar bar and yet, I would love to sit with her, enjoy a martini and a cigarette. I guess we will deal with it and see how it all works out.

 

Nita

[Welove2cruise2]

I smoke cigarettes, and I don't see this as a real problem. DH, on the other hand, will not be happy -- he's a cigar smoker, and loves to have a cigar on the balcony at night with a nightcap... between the prices and now this, I wonder if we'll ever sail NCL again...:rolleyes:

[meagent]

Why is that?? I hate the smell of cigarettes but I LOVE the smell of good pipe tobacco. True not all pipes smell good, but most that I have been around do.

 

How is that possible when the strench of cigarette waste smells so bad??

 

 

Part of it is because most pipe tobacco is flavored with sugar and other things (fruit, rum, brandy, vanilla), so it gives off a very pleasant armoa. At least here in the U.S. Now, if you go to Europe, alot of theirs is more straight-up tobacco and it is STRONG. Wifey loves the sugary kind but the English stuff she is not as fond of. I love the English stuff myself, but the aromatic flavored kinds still smell the best.

 

Also, like anything else, the cheaper, more mass produced product is more likely to be inferior. Not always, but alot of the times...thus cigarettes, made by the billions, go through alot more than pipe tobacco...

 

But I agree, cigs smell like crap IMO :)

 

 

However, all of that being said, I am completely against smoking bans of any kind. I hate sitting in the smoking section of restaurants. The cig smoke makes my eyes water. But, this is a free country (or it was) and the government should not step in and pass laws like the one in Ohio to ban smoking. If NCL or a private vendor wants to do it, fine, that's the market at work. But the government should not step in and decide what people can and cannot do. Time will tell whether it was a good idea for NCL, and it probably will prove to be so, though they will likely lose some loyal customers who now can only smoke in restricted areas.

[POOHISME2]

My DH agrees with you on their not notifying passengers. After seeing the original post he called NCL and was told this was true. He wouldn't have booked our cruise on NCL if he had known this. He would have booked on Celebrity instead. He has already fired off an email to Mr. Veitch about NCL not notifying passengers well in advance of this new rule change. The NCL website still says you can smoke in bars. They will lose a lot of revenue when smokers realize they cannot smoke in the bars and find the casino bar so packed they can't even near it to get a drink. And for those non-smokers who don't like cigarette smoke they probably won't want to be any where near the casino because it will be packed with smokers.

I can see it on the American flagged ships, as they also don't have a casino, but I am sailing on a ship flying a foreign flag? I wonder if you cant smoke in those countries bars?

 

I dont sail Disney becuase of the tough smoking rules, now I just might have to re-think NCL too. I'm booked on a B2B in 2.5 weeks, nothing I can do about it now but just smoke on my balcony.

 

Also, Didn't Carnival try this already? The Paradise ( I know it was totally NON Smoking) But, Didn't it loose money? :rolleyes:

[newmexicoNita]

I smoke cigarettes, and I don't see this as a real problem. DH, on the other hand, will not be happy -- he's a cigar smoker, and loves to have a cigar on the balcony at night with a nightcap... between the prices and now this, I wonder if we'll ever sail NCL again...:rolleyes:

To be honest, if NCL is trying this others will follow in the next year or so. NCL is always the pioneer with the exception of Carnival trying the non smoking ship which didn't make it. Of course we have to remember that was 8 years ago, today things are different.

 

I will say, like others, I wish first they would have tried it on a couple of ships and second they would have given a little more notice.

 

Nita

[ute_fan]

I'm thrilled with this news! I only wish they'd take it a step further and have designated smoking/no smoking cabins. I will admit they do a wonderful job of getting rid of the smoke smell, but knowing that it wouldn't be an issue would be even more preferable. Smoke is definitely one of the triggers for my DD's asthma, and knowing that her cabin was "smoke free" would really be a relief. Oh well, one thing at a time.

 

Now, since I'm not a smoker, exactly where do these changes apply? I'm assuming the bars, but where else? The restaurants and theatres have been smoke free, I believe, since we started cruising. I know on the Pearl, we were sitting in Spinnakers watching the not-so-newlywed show, when the couple in front of us started smoking. I think the lounge was supposed to be divided -- you could smoke on one side but not the other, and we were clearly on the non-smoking sign. There were no ashtrays and little "no smoking" symbols on the tables. Is this a case where trying to enforce the rules is so hard that it's easier just to eliminate the problem??

[Hebejeebe]

However, all of that being said, I am completely against smoking bans of any kind. I hate sitting in the smoking section of restaurants. The cig smoke makes my eyes water. But, this is a free country (or it was) and the government should not step in and pass laws like the one in Ohio to ban smoking. If NCL or a private vendor wants to do it, fine, that's the market at work. But the government should not step in and decide what people can and cannot do. Time will tell whether it was a good idea for NCL, and it probably will prove to be so, though they will likely lose some loyal customers who now can only smoke in restricted areas.

 

The government regulates many things that you do that affect other people, e.g., how fast you drive, how loud you can have parties at night, whether you can walk in your neighborhood buck nekkid :) . Obviously, if smoke did not affect other people there would be less of a push to regulate it. As a non-smoker I can always suck it up in a bar for a while (and burn my clothes the next day) - - but my worst fear is getting a cabin previously occupied by a heavy smoker. I feel sorry for the smokers huddled outside of office buildings but I do appreciate the cleaner air. Too bad you guys just can't kick the thrill of playing cancer roulette.

[POOHISME2]

I'm thrilled with this news! I only wish they'd take it a step further and have designated smoking/no smoking cabins. I will admit they do a wonderful job of getting rid of the smoke smell, but knowing that it wouldn't be an issue would be even more preferable. Smoke is definitely one of the triggers for my DD's asthma, and knowing that her cabin was "smoke free" would really be a relief. Oh well, one thing at a time.??

Well seeing smokers can only smoke in their cabins, outside decks, casino and cigar bar.. I would think the cabins will be MORE smokey now.

[johnql]

However, all of that being said, I am completely against smoking bans of any kind. I hate sitting in the smoking section of restaurants. The cig smoke makes my eyes water. But, this is a free country (or it was) and the government should not step in and pass laws like the one in Ohio to ban smoking.

The U.S. has NEVER been a free country, not the way you interpret it. There have ALWAYS been laws governing public behavior. I would completely agree with your position if you were stating that the government should not step in and pass laws regarding smoking in private (i.e., in one's home). If someone wants to smoke in private, that's his business. The moment that behavior affects someone else, the government has the right and the obligation to step in if it deems that the behavior is detrimental to others.

[newmexicoNita]

The government regulates many things that you do that affect other people, e.g., how fast you drive, how loud you can have parties at night, whether you can walk in your neighborhood buck nekkid :) . Obviously, if smoke did not affect other people there would be less of a push to regulate it. As a non-smoker I can always suck it up in a bar for a while (and burn my clothes the next day) - - but my worst fear is getting a cabin previously occupied by a heavy smoker. I feel sorry for the smokers huddled outside of office buildings but I do appreciate the cleaner air. Too bad you guys just can't kick the thrill of playing cancer roulette.

The good news for non smokers and cabins. Only once have I experienced the smell of smoke in a cabin. It was on HAL last year. As soon as we walked in we smelled the stale smoke. We asked the desk to have housekeeping spray or do something. I have to say, we were sorry they didn't seem to realize how bad the smell can be. Nothing was done, but as the week went by we smelled it less and less. Other than that experience either 20 plus cruises and we never had a cabin that had been occupied by smokers or the other lines including NCL did a great job of gettin the odor out. NMNita

[Planer's Edge]

On my recent Pearl cruise I was told by an officer that as of July 15, 2007 ALL OF NCL will be mostly SMOKE FREE :mad:

 

You will be allowed to still smoke in your cabins and in the Cigar Room and the Casino and on open decks. No more smoking in any inside lounges or BARS!

 

Just thought I would share the news :mad:

 

How many rumors have started off with these same words? I will wait for something official from NCL before I make any conclusions.

 

I am a retired smoker and could care less what the policy is. But all of the anti-smoking and "second hand smoke" crazies just drive me nuts.

 

Just my $.02

 

PE

[johnql]

I am a retired smoker and could care less what the policy is. But all of the anti-smoking and "second hand smoke" crazies just drive me nuts.

 

I view it as pro-health. When did a desire to breathe cleaner air become crazy?

[awfw]

We will be cruising on NCL in Oct for the first time. With approximately 15 cruises behind us, I am looking forward to trying "freestyle". This no smoking policy sounds really great to me. I'm sorry some feel that they will not be using the bars because of the policy but I, for one, will be taking their place.

We have alway avoided the bars and their immediate areas during the evening due to the smoke. I'll keep my fingers crossed that fellow passengers in the adjoining cabins are non-smokers on the balconies. It sure is upsetting to go out to sit in the fresh air and be driven inside.

Sorry to all the smokers, but maybe at last we non-smokers will be able to enjoy most areas of the ship. I'm better off staying out of the casino anyway!

 

awfw

[Gonzo70]

Also, Didn't Carnival try this already? The Paradise ( I know it was totally NON Smoking) But, Didn't it loose money? :rolleyes:

 

 

This is a common misperception. Carnival Paradise did very well for a while. Unfortunately it never changed itineraries and it was the only ship in the fleet that was non-smoking. Eventually people wanted to try different ships and itineraries so its number of customers decreased.

 

The trend worldwide has been that within a year of instututing a smoking ban, businesses have been back at their prior revenues or even gone up in revenues with few exceptions.

 

NCL appears to be going in the right direction. Hopefully they will ban smoking in the casino, staterooms, and balconies in the coming months.

[POOHISME2]

My DH agrees with you on their not notifying passengers. After seeing the original post he called NCL and was told this was true. He wouldn't have booked our cruise on NCL if he had known this. He would have booked on Celebrity instead. He has already fired off an email to Mr. Veitch about NCL not notifying passengers well in advance of this new rule change. The NCL website still says you can smoke in bars. They will lose a lot of revenue when smokers realize they cannot smoke in the bars and find the casino bar so packed they can't even near it to get a drink. And for those non-smokers who don't like cigarette smoke they probably won't want to be any where near the casino because it will be packed with smokers.

I too called NCL and they said it is true :(

[meagent]

The government regulates many things that you do that affect other people, e.g., how fast you drive, how loud you can have parties at night, whether you can walk in your neighborhood buck nekkid :) . Obviously, if smoke did not affect other people there would be less of a push to regulate it. As a non-smoker I can always suck it up in a bar for a while (and burn my clothes the next day) - - but my worst fear is getting a cabin previously occupied by a heavy smoker. I feel sorry for the smokers huddled outside of office buildings but I do appreciate the cleaner air. Too bad you guys just can't kick the thrill of playing cancer roulette.

 

Well I agree that the government regulates many things, but that doesn't mean they should :) But for most of those, they are regulating behavior in a public place: roads are generally public, neighborhood streets are public, and noise from your house can be a nuisance to others if it travels to them. Your house is private but the air around it and the streets, other houses are not yours. My point with smoking is, if you don't like it, don't get on the ship. It's a private company, so like i said, I am fine with them doing it from a private standpoint. What I think it is a problem when the gov't says that PRIVATELY owned restaurants, bars, etc must do things a certain way. If you dont like smoke, dont go to X restaurant that has lots of smokers. If enough people feel that way, the restaurant will cave. Cigarette smoking in the PRIVATE restaurant will not affect people in the PUBLIC streets. That's the difference, but unfortunately, too many people just say oooo I like the result and forget about the fact that someone's freedoms are being infringed upon, not theirs.

 

Again, just to point out again, I am only speaking of Government making the bans, private companies can do whatever they want, as NCL is doing.

[LHP]

This is a common misperception. Carnival Paradise did very well for a while. Unfortunately it never changed itineraries and it was the only ship in the fleet that was non-smoking. Eventually people wanted to try different ships and itineraries so its number of customers decreased.

 

The trend worldwide has been that within a year of instututing a smoking ban, businesses have been back at their prior revenues or even gone up in revenues with few exceptions.

 

NCL appears to be going in the right direction. Hopefully they will ban smoking in the casino, staterooms, and balconies in the coming months.

 

You are correct. The Paradise never lost money. However, it did not make ENOUGH money. It was far below the MARS of the other ships and the MARS required by the corporate office. Another major reason was that group bookings are the lifeblood of the mass market lines and there is usually always one person (even in a small family booking) that smoked. This would eliminate the Paradise as a possibility for the booking.

 

If only Carnival had put the time and money into smoking rooms (with smoking restricted to those rooms only ~~like Oceania) and proper ventilation for those rooms on all their ships...they would have been way ahead of the game.

[meagent]

The U.S. has NEVER been a free country, not the way you interpret it. There have ALWAYS been laws governing public behavior. I would completely agree with your position if you were stating that the government should not step in and pass laws regarding smoking in private (i.e., in one's home). If someone wants to smoke in private, that's his business. The moment that behavior affects someone else, the government has the right and the obligation to step in if it deems that the behavior is detrimental to others.

 

 

A restaurant is private, it is owned by someone who is most likely not the government. Just because something is not a house or a car doesn't mean it is not "private". But I completely agree with you as my above post indicates that public bans are appropriate. For example, if gov't wants to say you can't smoke in the street, in the park that they own, etc, go for it. But they should NOT be able to say that restaurants must be smoke free. They do it, but they shouldn't be able to under the powers they are supposed to have.

[johnql]

A restaurant is private, it is owned by someone who is most likely not the government. Just because something is not a house or a car doesn't mean it is not "private". But I completely agree with you as my above post indicates that public bans are appropriate. For example, if gov't wants to say you can't smoke in the street, in the park that they own, etc, go for it. But they should NOT be able to say that restaurants must be smoke free. They do it, but they shouldn't be able to under the powers they are supposed to have.

The problem is that even tho a restaurant is privately owned, it is open to the public. If you're talking about a private club (e.g., a smoking club) that has members who all sign up for the privilege of smoking together, that's different. That doesn't apply to private businesses that are open as public accommodations. When a business is open to the public, it can and is governed by local laws.

 

Let me clarify my position: I have no problem with virtually any behavior that occurs in private between/among consenting adults. To me, that includes drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, whatever - if you're an adult and you choose that behavior, fine. Where I draw the line is the moment that behavior affects someone else - that's when the government IMO has the obligation to step in. To me, if you want to drink yourself into oblivion, I have no problem with that if you do it at home. The moment you step out into public and your behavior disturbs the peace (or worse, driving drunk), the government should pass a law that makes such behavior illegal. The same goes for cigarette smoking - smoke ten packs a day indoors at home, no problem. The moment your second-hand smoke affects the health of others in a public accommodation (e.g., bar, restaurant, workplace), I draw the line and I fully support laws that prohibit it.

[cruisebum50]

My point with smoking is, if you don't like it, don't get on the ship.

 

Our point is that NCL didn't notify passengers of this change and now being less than 60 days out if we "don't get on the ship" we lose all of what we paid for the cruise. Is that fair to paying passengers? What we are saying is that NCL should have put the new rule out to the public well in advance of putting it in place so that people could make an informed choice. We would have opted for a different cruise line. As my husband told the guy at NCL, we won't cruise NCL with these rules, we will go to another cruise line and when and if all the other lines impose these rules then we will take air/land vacations instead and go where there are not smoking bans in place. The smoking bans in our area have lead us to go to the next town where the bans are not in place. Alot of bars and restaurants are closing down around here because of these bans. They are now trying to get a statewide ban because businesses are saying it is unfair because the smokers go to the next town. If and when that happens I imagine a lot more will go under because smokers will stay away. Which I imagine is what most people who don't smoke want anyway.