RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[Merion_Mom]

Just can't resist asking...

 

If there are Friends of Bill & Friends of Dorothy (& Friends of Henry), why not Friends of Winston(s)?:p

 

Happy cruising!

 

Cindy

 

How about Friends of the Marlboro Man? (he died of lung cancer, and taped a series of commercials warning against the dangers of smoking before he died - as did Yul Brynner)

[DON M.]

The Heartland Institute is a front for the tobacco and oil industries in the guise of an "environmental" group. THEIR agenda is preservation of business and profits at the EXPENSE of the environment, not the protection of the environment.[/quote

And the anti-smoking hero Richard Doll, who is one of the first who said "smoking is the cause of lung cancer and claimed that environmental and industrial pollution does not cause cancer". He was later discredited when it was disclosed that he was paid thousands of dollars a day by the manufactures of the chemicals he claimed to be safe by putting all the blame onto smoke. Next.

[dc-snoopy]

dc-snoopy, I don't think I understand your point about more people willing to pay more because of what RCI is doing with this policy. The policy on Azurmara (sp?) is limited and people cried that it was too expensive, they didn't want to pay *those* prices.

 

Although we are a small minority, there are a distinct group of vacationers that include at least one person who rather than being sensitive to smoke, is actually allergic to smoke. This means someone who actually has biophysical reactions to smoke and/or tar. Most people did what is often done (and has been done here on CC), and poo-poo'ed them as making up their problems. I've also had people say that we should just consider an alternative form of vacation. However, when businesses such as Disney and Marriott converted to non-smoking facilities for habitational rooms, this minority started voting with their pocketbooks. Even though I can go to a Quality Inn or Comfort Inn for less money, since Marriott converted to non-smoking rooms, we have stayed in Marriott properties or other properties that explicitly advertise non-smoking facilities. All it takes is one bad vacation experience to make you realize that a little extra money is well worth it rather than having a health episode that may cost you more money and certainly ruin the vacation. With this option, we have fewer worries about the problem.

 

We are not alone in this. I've encountered a number of people with similar attitudes and from what I've heard from Marriott customer service, they have noticed the same. And I know some families with an asthmatic who think the same way. I think the group is large enough to compensate for those smokers who feel the need to switch to another cruise line that will allow them to smoke in their cabins.

 

As for Azamara, there are only two ships, with limited itineraries and the cost for that line is more than "a little bit more". At discount prices, cruise packages start at close to double the cost of what RCI charge (an inside cabin that would start at $599 on RCI starts at $1029, etc). Those prices are a little out of our range for standard vacations and would only be for something really special.

[dc-snoopy]

The reason why RCCL is doing this in reaction to requests by the non-smokers is because they are the ones to contact them with complaints, but have they actually polled "all cruisers" smokers AND non-smokers. Carnival did and they found out that all the money they spent on their NON SMOKING cruise was not profitable. There ARE alot of smokers out there! Just because you are not one of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I can see them offering smoking and non-smoking cabins as most hotels do, but to eliminate it completely, I think is unfair to those people who have paid the same fare to have the same relaxing vacation.

 

Yes, I can understand your point of view. It would have been nice to have gone partially non-smoking and partially smoking. I have been asking cruise lines to provide some non-smoking cabins for years (since we started cruising in 2001) and until this month, this was the first time that any reasonably priced cruise line offered a non-smoking cabin option to us. However, smokers still have more than 70% of the industry to select from. Carnival and its subsidiaries alone have over 50% of the industry and they have not changed their policies. But non-smokers have RCI and the higher ticket lines such as Radisson, Azamara and Disney. And since RCI has not pushed this to the Celebrity lines yet, this is less than 30% of the cruises out there. So, you are saying that it is unfair that 30% of the cruise lines have barred smoking in their cabins (but allow smoking in designated areas) and 70% of the cruise industry allows smoking in cabins for an estimated roughly 25% of the American population (which for most cruise lines accounts for up to 90% of the bookings outside of Europe) which smokes?

 

I'm not sure why this is so unfair? RCI has made a business decision to cater more to those that prefer non-smoking cabins. They have not banned smoking on-board and they are answering requests that they got from prior passengers and customers. They are looking to try to cash in on the people that Marriott and Disney claim have expressed a lot of positive reaction towards those corporations change to non-smoking facilities.

 

I understand the exasperation of UK cruisers who cannot get their deposits back, but otherwise, there is plenty of time to cancel a 2008 or later cruise and book on a more smoker friendly line. I hardly think that this is unfair with six months notice.

[Mark_K]

Although we are a small minority, there are a distinct group of vacationers that include at least one person who rather than being sensitive to smoke, is actually allergic to smoke. This means someone who actually has biophysical reactions to smoke and/or tar. Most people did what is often done (and has been done here on CC), and poo-poo'ed them as making up their problems. I've also had people say that we should just consider an alternative form of vacation. However, when businesses such as Disney and Marriott converted to non-smoking facilities for habitational rooms, this minority started voting with their pocketbooks. Even though I can go to a Quality Inn or Comfort Inn for less money, since Marriott converted to non-smoking rooms, we have stayed in Marriott properties or other properties that explicitly advertise non-smoking facilities. All it takes is one bad vacation experience to make you realize that a little extra money is well worth it rather than having a health episode that may cost you more money and certainly ruin the vacation. With this option, we have fewer worries about the problem.

 

We are not alone in this. I've encountered a number of people with similar attitudes and from what I've heard from Marriott customer service, they have noticed the same. And I know some families with an asthmatic who think the same way. I think the group is large enough to compensate for those smokers who feel the need to switch to another cruise line that will allow them to smoke in their cabins.

 

As for Azamara, there are only two ships, with limited itineraries and the cost for that line is more than "a little bit more". At discount prices, cruise packages start at close to double the cost of what RCI charge (an inside cabin that would start at $599 on RCI starts at $1029, etc). Those prices are a little out of our range for standard vacations and would only be for something really special.

I guess I'm not sure what you're point is. The last I knew no vacation spot was required to make sure their policies were kind to any particular allergy, whether tobacco smoke or peanuts. I would say that I guess it's incombent upon those with allergies to do their homework and book vacations accordingly.

[dc-snoopy]

I guess I'm not sure what you're point is. The last I knew no vacation spot was required to make sure their policies were kind to any particular allergy, whether tobacco smoke or peanuts.

 

No, there is no requirement. But just as you cannot fault smokers for seeking out companies that are smoker friendly, you cannot fault people with medical problems for seeking out business that are more friendly towards their particular problems. Hence, for those that are allergic to smoke or asthmatic, we will seek out businesses that limit smoking since it is easier for us to have one less medical issue to worry about while on vacation.

 

The point was made that bookings will decrease because smokers will abandon RCI. My counter argument was there was a portion of vacationers that I believe will pick up the slack and will make up for the smokers who avoid RCI. My point was not that RCI was forced to do this, but that there is a large enough customer base that will appreciate this policy and will vote with their vacation dollars and compensate for the smokers leaving RCI.

[alcheme]

I guess I'm not sure what you're point is. The last I knew no vacation spot was required to make sure their policies were kind to any particular allergy, whether tobacco smoke or peanuts. I would say that I guess it's incombent upon those with allergies to do their homework and book vacations accordingly.

 

:rolleyes: It's not that complicated. Did anyone say RCI was required to make their cabins nonsmoking? Of course not. They're not required to provide smoking areas for those passengers who smoke, either. It's a business decision.

 

If you have any power of reading comprehension, you might get that snoopy was talking about what customers' reactions to the new policy might be. Many have suggested that it will be bad for business, because some smokers will flee to other lines. The obvious counter-argument is that some non-smokers will be attracted by the change.

[Sue L]

:rolleyes:

If you have any power of reading comprehension, you might get that snoopy was talking about what customers' reactions to the new policy might be. Many have suggested that it will be bad for business, because some smokers will flee to other lines. The obvious counter-argument is that some non-smokers will be attracted by the change.

 

 

 

I did this poll the other day and with 550 votes only 8 % were canceling, another 8% said they were NOT canceling but would look elsewhere for the next cruise. I really don't think much is going to change, here is the link if you want to look at the numbers yourself.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=596553

[SomeBeach]

Although we are a small minority, there are a distinct group of vacationers that include at least one person who rather than being sensitive to smoke, is actually allergic to smoke. This means someone who actually has biophysical reactions to smoke and/or tar. Most people did what is often done (and has been done here on CC), and poo-poo'ed them as making up their problems. I've also had people say that we should just consider an alternative form of vacation. However, when businesses such as Disney and Marriott converted to non-smoking facilities for habitational rooms, this minority started voting with their pocketbooks. Even though I can go to a Quality Inn or Comfort Inn for less money, since Marriott converted to non-smoking rooms, we have stayed in Marriott properties or other properties that explicitly advertise non-smoking facilities. All it takes is one bad vacation experience to make you realize that a little extra money is well worth it rather than having a health episode that may cost you more money and certainly ruin the vacation. With this option, we have fewer worries about the problem.

 

We are not alone in this. I've encountered a number of people with similar attitudes and from what I've heard from Marriott customer service, they have noticed the same. And I know some families with an asthmatic who think the same way. I think the group is large enough to compensate for those smokers who feel the need to switch to another cruise line that will allow them to smoke in their cabins.

 

Well, thanks for repeating all of the above but I knew your reasons.

 

As for Azamara, there are only two ships, with limited itineraries and the cost for that line is more than "a little bit more". At discount prices, cruise packages start at close to double the cost of what RCI charge (an inside cabin that would start at $599 on RCI starts at $1029, etc). Those prices are a little out of our range for standard vacations and would only be for something really special.

 

Wow, is it really that big a difference? Never looked into it. Even tho I cruise RCI 4-5 times a year, I didn't pay much attention to the newest; came out at a time my mom was ill and then forgot about it. I just remember people saying it was expensive.

[Mark_K]

:rolleyes: It's not that complicated. Did anyone say RCI was required to make their cabins nonsmoking? Of course not. They're not required to provide smoking areas for those passengers who smoke, either. It's a business decision.

 

If you have any power of reading comprehension, you might get that snoopy was talking about what customers' reactions to the new policy might be. Many have suggested that it will be bad for business, because some smokers will flee to other lines. The obvious counter-argument is that some non-smokers will be attracted by the change.

FYI - attacking a posters skills as opposed to their opinions is a violation of board guidelines.

 

And for the record, I do have some power of reading comprehension, but after 800-900 posts on a thread it tends to diminish somewhat.

[DON M.]

I did this poll the other day and with 550 votes only 8 % were canceling, another 8% said they were NOT canceling but would look elsewhere for the next cruise. I really don't think much is going to change, here is the link if you want to look at the numbers yourself.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=596553

It was my opinion when this policy was first announced that of the approx. 20% smokers on any given cruise that about 15% have adjusted ( or does not want to risk divorce) and either does not smoke in the cabin now or will be able to get through the night, or will book a balcony and about 5 % will cancel or not cruise RCl. Your survey pretty much says the same thing and I think it will not effect RCL's bottom line in the long run.

[berwyn]

time to end this,PLEASE.

[alcheme]

FYI - attacking a posters skills as opposed to their opinions is a violation of board guidelines.

 

And for the record, I do have some power of reading comprehension, but after 800-900 posts on a thread it tends to diminish somewhat.

 

OK, but your "opinion" was correct. It just had no bearing on the discussion at hand and was a totally inappropriate response. I was trying to phrase it nicely, with just coming out and calling anyone was an idiot.

 

I did my best. Sorry. :)

[Lizzydri]

Yes, I can understand your point of view. It would have been nice to have gone partially non-smoking and partially smoking. I have been asking cruise lines to provide some non-smoking cabins for years (since we started cruising in 2001) and until this month, this was the first time that any reasonably priced cruise line offered a non-smoking cabin option to us. However, smokers still have more than 70% of the industry to select from. Carnival and its subsidiaries alone have over 50% of the industry and they have not changed their policies. But non-smokers have RCI and the higher ticket lines such as Radisson, Azamara and Disney. And since RCI has not pushed this to the Celebrity lines yet, this is less than 30% of the cruises out there. So, you are saying that it is unfair that 30% of the cruise lines have barred smoking in their cabins (but allow smoking in designated areas) and 70% of the cruise industry allows smoking in cabins for an estimated roughly 25% of the American population (which for most cruise lines accounts for up to 90% of the bookings outside of Europe) which smokes?

 

I'm not sure why this is so unfair? RCI has made a business decision to cater more to those that prefer non-smoking cabins. They have not banned smoking on-board and they are answering requests that they got from prior passengers and customers. They are looking to try to cash in on the people that Marriott and Disney claim have expressed a lot of positive reaction towards those corporations change to non-smoking facilities.

 

I understand the exasperation of UK cruisers who cannot get their deposits back, but otherwise, there is plenty of time to cancel a 2008 or later cruise and book on a more smoker friendly line. I hardly think that this is unfair with six months notice.

 

In reply to why this is unfair, you stated the point exactly...."to cater MORE to those that prefer non-smoking cabins". Is that money better than mine - why can't they cater equally? I fully agree that there should be smoking and non-smoking lounges and I think there should be a non-smoking casino. I tried to convey in my earlier post - I understand both sides of the fence and believe no one group should be favored. I think the better business decision would be to try to cater equally to both sides. It's everyone's vacation to enjoy the way they chose to. (naturally within reason - before someone goes off on another tanget - lol)

[alcheme]

time to end this,PLEASE.

 

How 'bout we all just start openly insulting everyone who posts an idiotic opinion. Then they'll get fed up and close the thread. ;)

 

 

 

*It's the weekend, and I'm in a devilish mood. :p*

[Lizzydri]

Very nice post and well put. Thank you for sharing your view. I agree with you 100%. I'd welcome you to have a smoke on my balcony anytime! ;)

 

My maternal grandfather, who never smoked a day in his life nor did anyone in his home, died of lung cancer. My paternal grandmother, who was a smoker for 40 years, died of pancreatic cancer. Cancer is a devastating disease with seemingly no rhyme or reason. Just when you think you understand it, less than "normal" reasons confuse you even more. I do know that cancer is a mutation of the genes, but as for what causes those mutations....I hope and pray that the answers are found.

 

I'm sorry your family (and all of those here who have stated they have as well) has had to deal with it as well.

 

I graciously accept your invitation to your balcony - I'll bring the Doritos and an ashtray! :)

[Captain Jake]

Great Post Merion Mom!

[Mark_K]

OK, but your "opinion" was correct. It just had no bearing on the discussion at hand and was a totally inappropriate response. I was trying to phrase it nicely, with just coming out and calling anyone was an idiot.

 

I did my best. Sorry. :)

Perhaps you coud have said something like - while that is a valid opinion, I don't believe it has much bearing on the discussion at hand, which is ...

[DON M.]

Great Post Merion Mom!

 

I thought you were leaving to have your house tested for Radon.

[Captain Jake]

I thought you were leaving to have your house tested for Radon.

 

 

Mine was tested before we bought it.We are getting ready to go to a bar that going smoke free 1 year before the new law goes in effect.HOOORAY!

[pmshirl]

ROFLMAO.......... Got too much nose trouble...LOL

[DON M.]

Mine was tested before we bought it.We are getting ready to go to a bar that going smoke free 1 year before the new law goes in effect.HOOORAY!

Have a great time, Iam glad they made the decision themselves.

[SomeBeach]

By the way in ares of the country where business went down in most cases it was due to sobriety check points

 

We are getting ready to go to a bar that going smoke free 1 year before the new law goes in effect.HOOORAY!

 

Enjoy your evening out. Make sure you have a designated driver. It would be terrible if a sobriety check point shut down your bar! ;)

Seriously Jake, I'm happy for you that a bar you like to go to made the choice before the mandatory law goes into effect.

It's just a shame that all bars couldn't make a choice without mandatory laws, kind of like some hotel chains got to do. Then any reasonably intelligent person could have made a choice of where they would like to go to enjoy a drink, just like you have a choice in hotels to stay at.

When you say BAR, I believe you to mean a place where no food is served and no one under 21 is allowed. At least, that is what I call a bar.

[dc-snoopy]

In reply to why this is unfair, you stated the point exactly...."to cater MORE to those that prefer non-smoking cabins". Is that money better than mine - why can't they cater equally? I fully agree that there should be smoking and non-smoking lounges and I think there should be a non-smoking casino. I tried to convey in my earlier post - I understand both sides of the fence and believe no one group should be favored. I think the better business decision would be to try to cater equally to both sides. It's everyone's vacation to enjoy the way they chose to. (naturally within reason - before someone goes off on another tanget - lol)

 

Oh, please. This decision no more devalues your money or devalues you as a customer than having an adults only solarium devalues families cruising with children. I would have more sympathy with your perspective had the smoking changes been more severe or smoking was banned altogether. But there are still plenty of places that smoking is allowed on board. If smoking in your own cabin is such a priority or necessity, then you can cruise in a balcony cabin or select another cruise line. If you feel that strongly, there are plenty of businesses that do offer smoking cabins.

 

As you said, it is everyone's vacation to do as they choose with. This gives non-smokers the option to have a non-smoking cabin. There are still well over 70% of the cabins available on cruise lines that offer smoking. This does give everyone the choice of cruising in a cabin that allows smoking or cruising in one that doesn't.

[libertybelle41]

I think we've now come full circle with discussion...:)