Celebrity makes all cabins nonsmoking

[hajekfam]

I am not a smoker, but I don't really understand how much of the second hand smoke to you get from the adjoint balcony if you are in OPEN AIR space? Unless someone is smoking a stinky sigar.............

 

First of all cigar (and pipe) smoking is only allowed in a specified area of the ship.

I am not able to enjoy the use of my balcony when there is a smoker on the adjoining one - especially the adjoining forward balcony. I am talking about sea days when the ship is moving because the smoke blows toward my balcony. The smell of smoke makes me ill and I can usually detect the smoke smell quite easily - I have had to shut our balcony door many times when there was a smoker next door thereby defeating the reason for choosing a balcony.

I personally would approve Celebrity forbidding smoking in all cabins but I can sympathize with the smokers if they do change their policy.

[Sparky333]

How would they enforce that kind of policy anyway - would room stewards ever risk blowing their tip by reporting passengers?

And if someone smokes on their balcony who would know -- other than other passengers on their balconies? Would they call and report it? If so I can't imagine the smoking police running over and knocking on the door to stop them.

 

Personally, I wish all cabins & balconies were non-smoking. I couldn't enjoy much time on my balcony on our last cruise because our neighbors were chain-smoking on theirs. Obviously, that's their prerogative but I wish it didn't have to ruin my time. Having one side of the ship's cabins for smoking and one side not seems like a fair accomodation for all.

[Napi's Mom]

How would they enforce that kind of policy anyway - would room stewards ever risk blowing their tip by reporting passengers?

And if someone smokes on their balcony who would know -- other than other passengers on their balconies? Would they call and report it? If so I can't imagine the smoking police running over and knocking on the door to stop them.

 

Personally, I wish all cabins & balconies were non-smoking. I couldn't enjoy much time on my balcony on our last cruise because our neighbors were chain-smoking on theirs. Obviously, that's their prerogative but I wish it didn't have to ruin my time. Having one side of the ship's cabins for smoking and one side not seems like a fair accomodation for all.

From what I understand is ALL cabins allow smoking on Celebrity. Please look to Azamara and Oceania....they have indeed banned smoking in all but 2 small places...port side lounge on top deck, and starboard area near pool. People have indeed been put off the ship for failure to obey these rules on both lines. Look where Oceania is now...full up for the next couple of years. People said same when Gov't buildings were banned, ditto Rest. citywide in some cities...people adjusted.

[tbelian]

Bottom line is no smoking "in stateroom",

 

Readers, please make sure to read this entire thread. 'No smoking in stateroom' is not the bottom line.

 

How would they enforce that kind of policy anyway -

 

The same way they enforce other 'rules', which in general means, they don't enforce.

[Drew B]

The cruise lines are in business to make money for their stockholders. Here's the reason why from an article by Cruise Critic..

 

"It's an issue of "spoilage" (the industry's lingo for unsold cabins) that keeps cruise lines from designating some cabins non-smoking, in the fashion of hotel rooms. "It would present an inventory mess," says a spokesperson for CLIA, the cruise industry's official trade association. "The cruise lines' yield management people want the ships to sail full at all times; you can't do that if you set aside non-smoking rooms.""

 

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. That presupposes that if some cabins were designated as non-smoking and some as smoking, that people would simply not cruise if they couldn't get their first choice. I don't think that is the case at all. I imagine most non-smokers would still cruise even if they had to take a cabin on the smoking side of the ship. I mean, how different would that be for them from what they face now? And they're cruising now despite each and every one of them sailing in a cabin that permits smoking...

 

Plenty of smokers would also take cabins on the non-smoking side if smoking cabins weren't available. Heck, some of them would PREFER it! I know I always choose "non-smoking" at hotels and I don't smoke in my cabin at all. As you've seen, there have been a number of smokers on this thread who have said that they don't smoke in their cabin... Even many of those who normally would smoke in their cabin might be willing to go out on deck or to a lounge to smoke if faced with the choice between that or not cruising at all...

 

Therefore, I think that the cruise line would continue to sell a comparable amount of cabins to what they do now. However, people may be motivated to book EARLIER, as this would improve their chances of getting their desired cabin. By booking early, it would actually be a financial boon to the cruise line. They would get deposits earlier and benefit from that. Moreover, if cabins sell quicker, there is less of a need to discount fares...

 

It seems like a good plan to me. I REALLY don't understand why it would be dismissed before it has ever even been attempted. Sure, the spoilage concept sounds like it would have some weight, but the assumptions are not necessarily accurate...

[Iggipolka]

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. That presupposes that if some cabins were designated as non-smoking and some as smoking, that people would simply not cruise if they couldn't get their first choice. I don't think that is the case at all. I imagine most non-smokers would still cruise even if they had to take a cabin on the smoking side of the ship. I mean, how different would that be for them from what they face now? And they're cruising now despite each and every one of them sailing in a cabin that permits smoking...

 

Plenty of smokers would also take cabins on the non-smoking side if smoking cabins weren't available. Heck, some of them would PREFER it! I know I always choose "non-smoking" at hotels and I don't smoke in my cabin at all. As you've seen, there have been a number of smokers on this thread who have said that they don't smoke in their cabin... Even many of those who normally would smoke in their cabin might be willing to go out on deck or to a lounge to smoke if faced with the choice between that or not cruising at all...

 

Therefore, I think that the cruise line would continue to sell a comparable amount of cabins to what they do now. However, people may be motivated to book EARLIER, as this would improve their chances of getting their desired cabin. By booking early, it would actually be a financial boon to the cruise line. They would get deposits earlier and benefit from that. Moreover, if cabins sell quicker, there is less of a need to discount fares...

 

It seems like a good plan to me. I REALLY don't understand why it would be dismissed before it has ever even been attempted. Sure, the spoilage concept sounds like it would have some weight, but the assumptions are not necessarily accurate...

 

I completely agree with this. All hotels in DisneyWorld are non-smoking and they certainly don't suffer from "Spoilage". All of their hotels are booked solid and I know for sure that people who smoke are booking those hotels.

[dkjretired]

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. That presupposes that if some cabins were designated as non-smoking and some as smoking, that people would simply not cruise if they couldn't get their first choice. I don't think that is the case at all. I imagine most non-smokers would still cruise even if they had to take a cabin on the smoking side of the ship. I mean, how different would that be for them from what they face now? And they're cruising now despite each and every one of them sailing in a cabin that permits smoking...

 

Plenty of smokers would also take cabins on the non-smoking side if smoking cabins weren't available. Heck, some of them would PREFER it! I know I always choose "non-smoking" at hotels and I don't smoke in my cabin at all. As you've seen, there have been a number of smokers on this thread who have said that they don't smoke in their cabin... Even many of those who normally would smoke in their cabin might be willing to go out on deck or to a lounge to smoke if faced with the choice between that or not cruising at all...

 

Therefore, I think that the cruise line would continue to sell a comparable amount of cabins to what they do now. However, people may be motivated to book EARLIER, as this would improve their chances of getting their desired cabin. By booking early, it would actually be a financial boon to the cruise line. They would get deposits earlier and benefit from that. Moreover, if cabins sell quicker, there is less of a need to discount fares...

 

It seems like a good plan to me. I REALLY don't understand why it would be dismissed before it has ever even been attempted. Sure, the spoilage concept sounds like it would have some weight, but the assumptions are not necessarily accurate...

 

I buy it because people a lot smarter than us would do it if it was financially to their advantage. They don't want to sail with one empty cabin and the comparison to hotels is really not valid since I would think most people checking into hotels are not doing it for 7 to 12 nights or so except in some resort areas.

[wolfshadow]

I for one got real excited when I first starting reading this thread. I totally wish Celebrity will follow suit as to the other lines that have made their staterooms non-smoking. If there was a way to completely seal a room so that a smoker wasn't bothering anyone else's health but their own, that would be great, but that is just a fantasy. And, as for being in open air when smoking out on the balcony, it just depends if you happen to be downwind or upwind. I'm glad they make the cigar smokers (of which my DH is one) go to the aft on deck 10. That can be pretty nauseating.

[Drew B]

I buy it because people a lot smarter than us would do it if it was financially to their advantage. They don't want to sail with one empty cabin and the comparison to hotels is really not valid since I would think most people checking into hotels are not doing it for 7 to 12 nights or so except in some resort areas.

 

No way! There's nobody smarter than you or I, dkj! :D

[Saveapenny]

I for one got real excited when I first starting reading this thread. I totally wish Celebrity will follow suit as to the other lines that have made their staterooms non-smoking. If there was a way to completely seal a room so that a smoker wasn't bothering anyone else's health but their own, that would be great, but that is just a fantasy. And, as for being in open air when smoking out on the balcony, it just depends if you happen to be downwind or upwind. I'm glad they make the cigar smokers (of which my DH is one) go to the aft on deck 10. That can be pretty nauseating.

 

I think the key here is for all parties to be considerate to each other..the smoker as needs so does the non smoker and until such time its illegal to smoke both have to live with it and be respectful to each other.

 

Mandy

[Bozo]

Similarly, what's the point of paying thousanda of dollars and not being able to use your balcony because of second hand smoke from next door as we experienced on Zenith. We now book inside.

I know Zenith is now gone from the Celebrity Fleet but can you tell me where were the balcony's where on her I cruised on her 2 times and there were no balcony cabins thousands more for balcony's NOT

[marle7]

or should all smokers accept that the "writing is on the wall" and find alternative vacation options? From a personal point of view, if a particular cruise line prevents me from enjoying a cigarette, smoked in a responsible way, whilst I'm on vacation and insists that I "stand outside" exposed to the elements, in much the same way as I have to at work, in order to have a smoke, I will choose other smoke tolerant cruise companies, who are up front about their smokng policies and ,when all the cruise companies "ban smokers", I will choose another form of vacation.

 

We all have a freedom of choice! But please don't change the rules after I've booked!!

 

 

Agreed. Smokers aren't particularly vocal anymore, but I wonder how many would vote with their dollars and change their choice of vacation if cruise lines did this. I don't mind not smoking in the cabin as long as I can go out on my balcony for one. I'm not throwing on my sweats (heaven forbid, my robe) to go up and out to have one in the morning.

 

I completely agree with this. All hotels in DisneyWorld are non-smoking and they certainly don't suffer from "Spoilage". All of their hotels are booked solid and I know for sure that people who smoke are booking those hotels.

 

It's a lot easier for hotels to ban smoking. You can easily walk down and out for one. And what happens on a bad weather day at sea where you can't go outside? We had two days on our recent Explorer cruise where they had roped off the doors to the outside and told passengers not to go out due to high winds.

[wolfshadow]

I think the key here is for all parties to be considerate to each other..the smoker as needs so does the non smoker and until such time its illegal to smoke both have to live with it and be respectful to each other.

 

Mandy

Well, in a perfect world, this would make sense. But, there are many laws against smoking throughout the US now and it still doesn't stop some smokers from not caring who's lives they are hurting. Especially the ones that are suppose to remain so many feet from a Hospital entrance, for example. The difference being that I may be asking them to go a little out of their way if they wish to smoke outside so that I don't have to walk through it as compared to purposely defying the law and putting someone else's health at risk unnessarily. Yes, it's a choice, but if it is a law, why should I have to suffer? If they don't care about their health that's their business, just don't interfere with mine (cancer is enough for me, thank you). These laws were written to protect other non-smokers since it has been proven how harmful it can be. If there was no health issues involved with smoking, it would be easy to just compromise. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

[sealover155]

I'd have all the staterooms and balconies smoke free with a nice "smoker's lounge" on all decks. By dedicating a well-ventilated space that would be convenient for all smokers, in their robes or not, would make the staterooms and balconies tolerable for all of us who are extremely sensitive, by health or nature, not by choice.

 

We've had to close our balcony door when our neighbor smoked on his balcony. Yes, the smoke creeps into the room when the wind blows it our way and it isn't simply offensive, it's been intolerable at times. As we were debarking from our Alaska cruise last year, we wanted to have a look at the room next to us (the balcony smoker) and we couldn't even go in. The tragedy of that was that his 12 year old son shared that room with his parents. We asked our cabin attendant what he was doing to make the room acceptable to the next occupants and he just shrugged his shoulders and said that all he could do is to just keep the doors open until they arrive.

 

Frankly, I don't feel that the cruise lines have done enough to accomodate the smokers or the non-smokers. You can't tell people to go outside every time, or up 6 decks just to have a cigarette. But the health of the non-smoker is significant as well. And, there is technology, air purifiers, not incorporated into ship designs, at least not on the ships I've been on.

[marle7]

Well, in a perfect world, this would make sense. But, there are many laws against smoking throughout the US now and it still doesn't stop some smokers from not caring who's lives they are hurting. Especially the ones that are suppose to remain so many feet from a Hospital entrance, for example. The difference being that I may be asking them to go a little out of their way if they wish to smoke outside so that I don't have to walk through it as compared to purposely defying the law and putting someone else's health at risk unnessarily. Yes, it's a choice, but if it is a law, why should I have to suffer? If they don't care about their health that's their business, just don't interfere with mine (cancer is enough for me, thank you). These laws were written to protect other non-smokers since it has been proven how harmful it can be. If there was no health issues involved with smoking, it would be easy to just compromise. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Absolutely, if a smoker is smoking in a place where the law forbids, that is wrong. The problem is also though, when smokers do smoke in places that are designated and non smokers still complain. They aren't breaking the law, but can't win anyway. You'll always have a non smoker saying it's their "right" to go into that space but they can't because of the smoke.

 

And the government may have put laws in to protect non smokers, but they are wimps about it because they get huge revenues from tobacco taxes. If they were serious about health impacts, they would make it illegal. But they haven't.

[Spurs Fans]

I know Zenith is now gone from the Celebrity Fleet but can you tell me where were the balcony's where on her I cruised on her 2 times and there were no balcony cabins thousands more for balcony's NOT

 

Good question!

[Bozo]

Well, in a perfect world, this would make sense. But, there are many laws against smoking throughout the US now and it still doesn't stop some smokers from not caring who's lives they are hurting. Especially the ones that are suppose to remain so many feet from a Hospital entrance, for example. The difference being that I may be asking them to go a little out of their way if they wish to smoke outside so that I don't have to walk through it as compared to purposely defying the law and putting someone else's health at risk unnessarily. Yes, it's a choice, but if it is a law, why should I have to suffer? If they don't care about their health that's their business, just don't interfere with mine (cancer is enough for me, thank you). These laws were written to protect other non-smokers since it has been proven how harmful it can be. If there was no health issues involved with smoking, it would be easy to just compromise. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I agree with saveapenny if everyone thinks about this if everyone in this country quits smoking and drinking the economy would collapse the goverment gets so much money in tax revenues from tobbaco and alcohol plus all the people who work in that industry that there would be a complete melt down and everyone else would have to pay for the lost revenues your taxes would sky rocket and everyone will be pissing and moaning just think about it the goverment will not tell you now what the costs would be they are afraid to tell you the truth to save votes all these politicians are full of sh-t only when they get elected they will tell you how screwed you are.

[Drew B]

Frankly, I don't feel that the cruise lines have done enough to accomodate the smokers or the non-smokers. You can't tell people to go outside every time, or up 6 decks just to have a cigarette. But the health of the non-smoker is significant as well. And, there is technology, air purifiers, not incorporated into ship designs, at least not on the ships I've been on.

 

Why not? I'd do it. As long as they provide at least one or two outdoor smoking areas and one or two indoor smoking areas (including the casinos), smokers will be able to cruise comfortably. It may be a little less convenient for them, but if that means they cut back on the amount they smoke by 10% or 20%, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Now, some people will not be willing to be inconvenienced, and the cruise line may lose some business. Determining how MANY people they would lose is the key to determining whether or not this would be a good plan...

[dkjretired]

Good question!

 

They added balconies after it left the fleet as a Celebrity ship. It maintained the same name and is sailing under the Pullmantur cruise line. Below is a link to the press release when they announced the transfer and the installation of the balconies. As far as I know, it did not have any balconies while it was a Celebrity ship.

 

http://www.celebritycruises.com/aboutceleb/pressDetails.do;jsessionid=0000WK4yzOR4j54w9wz2O5A1ECz:12hdebdrn?pagename=press_room_details&event_date=2006-10-31&event_type=press_release&sequence_code=B

[dkjretired]

No way! There's nobody smarter than you or I, dkj! :D

 

That's the same thing my wife tells me when she wants something.... She lost her credit card today.....Yea,,,,,

[marle7]

Why not? I'd do it. As long as they provide at least one or two outdoor smoking areas and one or two indoor smoking areas (including the casinos), smokers will be able to cruise comfortably. It may be a little less convenient for them, but if that means they cut back on the amount they smoke by 10% or 20%, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Now, some people will not be willing to be inconvenienced, and the cruise line may lose some business. Determining how MANY people they would lose is the key to determining whether or not this would be a good plan...

 

I wouldn't. Maybe we should start a poll. :)

[Drew B]

I wouldn't. Maybe we should start a poll. :)

 

You say that and I believe that you mean that. However, times change. A few years back (or maybe more than a few -- I'm getting older, here) I remember people saying that they wouldn't go out to bars and restaurants once smoking was banned. That lasted a short while, then guess what? They went back to bars and restaurants. Now they step outside when they need to smoke. Not that long ago, stepping outside would have been considered an unspeakable inconvenience. Now, it's not seen as that big a deal. I think the same thing could very easily happen on a cruise ship with going up a few levels to an outside deck.

[marle7]

You say that and I believe that you mean that. However, times change. A few years back (or maybe more than a few -- I'm getting older, here) I remember people saying that they wouldn't go out to bars and restaurants once smoking was banned. That lasted a short while, then guess what? They went back to bars and restaurants. Now they step outside when they need to smoke. Not that long ago, stepping outside would have been considered an unspeakable inconvenience. Now, it's not seen as that big a deal. I think the same thing could very easily happen on a cruise ship with going up a few levels to an outside deck.

 

We seldom go out to eat now, and we used to go at least three times a week. And when we do go now, we don't linger and order coffee and port and maybe a dessert and maybe another port. We spend a lot less money. It's also a bit different, nipping outside for a smoke at a restaurant at 7 at night. I'm not much good in the morning until I've done my coffee and smoke:D and I don't really want to be wandering up 6 decks to go do it and pay thousands of dollars for the privilege into the bargain. :D

 

I've got my cottage and my motorhome. I can easily stop cruising 4 times a year and spend a lot less in the process.:D A vacation is a far more considered choice when it comes to spending money as opposed to going out to a restaurant. and a lot more money at that. We can't smoke at dinner on cruise ships either and that's not a huge issue. It's a couple of hours at best.

 

I don't have any problem with them making some bars non smoking. Both cabin and balcony would be a non starter for me, (one or the other would be fine) as would the casino becoming completely non smoking. As it is, I don't frequent the casino on non smoking nights so they lose a fair amount of money from us on those nights. I had a conversation recently with the director of Casino Operations of Royal Caribbean. I told him if they don't mind losing the 6 or seven grand we drop in the casino every cruise, that's ok with us!

[Saveapenny]

Absolutely, if a smoker is smoking in a place where the law forbids, that is wrong. The problem is also though, when smokers do smoke in places that are designated and non smokers still complain. They aren't breaking the law, but can't win anyway. You'll always have a non smoker saying it's their "right" to go into that space but they can't because of the smoke.

 

And the government may have put laws in to protect non smokers, but they are wimps about it because they get huge revenues from tobacco taxes. If they were serious about health impacts, they would make it illegal. But they haven't.

 

I agree...smokers cannot win

Drug addicts have more rights these days than smokers but the goverment still want our tax money

 

It wil be interesting to see the outcome of the prisoner taking the goverment to court because he cannot smoke in prison. I think this will be a test case for the UK goverment doing a U-turn as the spanish goverment did.

 

Like I said before I chose Celebrity for the more relaxed approach to smoking. I suggest people do the same for their needs.

Its the no give attitude of some non smoking people that makes smokers dig their heels in and say "no" I wont move.

 

Mandy

[Saveapenny]

You say that and I believe that you mean that. However, times change. A few years back (or maybe more than a few -- I'm getting older, here) I remember people saying that they wouldn't go out to bars and restaurants once smoking was banned. That lasted a short while, then guess what? They went back to bars and restaurants. Now they step outside when they need to smoke. Not that long ago, stepping outside would have been considered an unspeakable inconvenience. Now, it's not seen as that big a deal. I think the same thing could very easily happen on a cruise ship with going up a few levels to an outside deck.

 

Not in the UK pub, club and restaurants are shutting down left right and centre since the smoking ban

Mandy