Poll: HAL Smoking Survey

[marle7]

HAL is going to lose clients whether they change the policy or not. If they leave it as is, they will lose non-smokers due to the increase in smokers coming from other lines that have implemented restrictive policies...and if they change their policy, they'll lose people like you, but gain non-smoking clients.

 

It will be interesting to see what their decision will be; I think the potential to gain more business is greater by implementing a more restrictive policy, but that's just my opinion.

 

It will be interesting. If the new cruisers that replace the smokers, it will be interesting to see if revenue is still the same. I'm am not saying that all smokers are bigger spenders, but if you get enough people like me, who always cruise in a suite, spend 3-4k in the casino and the onboard account is usually 4-5K, leave, it won't do HAL much good to replace them with cruisers who always look for the best bargain, and spend little in extras on the ship.

 

These forums are filled with people who are looking for ways to save money, get something for free, figure out how to share soda cards etc. They might well fill their ships, but that won't mean they won't experience a drop in revenue overall.

 

Then again, maybe all the replacements for people like us will spend lots. One can hope. At least the cruise lines can.

[chasetf]

It will be interesting. If the new cruisers that replace the smokers, it will be interesting to see if revenue is still the same. I'm am not saying that all smokers are bigger spenders, but if you get enough people like me, who always cruise in a suite, spend 3-4k in the casino and the onboard account is usually 4-5K, leave, it won't do HAL much good to replace them with cruisers who always look for the best bargain, and spend little in extras on the ship.

 

These forums are filled with people who are looking for ways to save money, get something for free, figure out how to share soda cards etc. They might well fill their ships, but that won't mean they won't experience a drop in revenue overall.

 

Then again, maybe all the replacements for people like us will spend lots. One can hope. At least the cruise lines can.

You know.... this is a worthless worry.

• They banned smoking in airplanes.... more people fly now than ever.
  
• They banned smoking in bars..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in restaurants..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in the workplace..... people didn't quit their jobs

And here were are not talking about banning..... just futher restrictions in the cabin and balcony. If smokers want to sail..... they will sail....... just as the now fly. :rolleyes:

[kryos]

1) Insurance Premium Costs

 

2) Amount of time need to clean cabins after a smoker was inside.

 

3) Extra expense of cleaning cabins after a smoker was inside.

And for all the money I spend on my cruises, they can't invest a little extra time/expense to clean the cabin?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

You know.... this is a worthless worry.

• They banned smoking in airplanes.... more people fly now than ever.
  
• They banned smoking in bars..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in restaurants..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in the workplace..... people didn't quit their jobs

And here were are not talking about banning..... just futher restrictions in the cabin and balcony. If smokers want to sail..... they will sail....... just as the now fly. :rolleyes:

People almost have to fly today ... so that's why the smoking ban in airplanes has not affected the airline industry. After all, how long are you generally on the aircraft? Maybe five or 6 hours on average?

 

Bars have taken a hit, you'd better believe it. Especially if smoking is only banned in a certain country, and it is not far to get to the next county, people will just drive there to do their drinking if they are smokers. Here in Philly there have been bitter complaints from restaurant and bar owners. Smoking is only prohibited in Philadelphia county. The state of Pennsylvania has not banned it. So people just drive a few miles outside of the city and patronize bars and restaurants outside of Philly county.

 

In restaurants, see above ... though I must admit that with restaurants the problem is not as severe. There are plenty of families who generally won't smoke around the kids anyway, so they don't mind going to a restaurant that does not allow smoking. They will just go outside to enjoy their smoke.

 

People had no choice when smoking was banned in the workplace. Most people do not have the option of just quitting their jobs. They had to deal with it. But, I'll tell you one thing. I'd love to know how much productive time some companies are losing on employees who take smoke break after smoke break, when in the past they would have just enjoyed a cigarette at their desks. I know of one person whose function was rather critical and he wasn't getting his work done because he had to leave his desk everytime he wanted a cigarette. They set him up in his own special office and to this day he smokes right at his desk.

 

You talk about only wanting to restrict smoking ... not prohibit it. Well, just how much more do you think it needs to be restricted? We've lost many smoking areas already. We don't have too many more to lose before smoking will be banned throughout the ship.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[marle7]

You know.... this is a worthless worry.

• They banned smoking in airplanes.... more people fly now than ever.
  
• They banned smoking in bars..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in restaurants..... they still thrive
  
• They banned smoking in the workplace..... people didn't quit their jobs

And here were are not talking about banning..... just futher restrictions in the cabin and balcony. If smokers want to sail..... they will sail....... just as the now fly. :rolleyes:

 

People just can't stop work. And it's easy to pop outside of a restaurant where you spend a couple of hours max. I can tell you that we don't eat out as often and we aren't bar frequenters anyway, unless we happen to be on a cruise. What we're talking about here is a huge chunk of change on discretionary spending. I don't have to cruise. And I don't have to pay cruiselines thousands of dollars to be denied. I have always said, ban on or the other, not both. For me it's that simple. I have no problem taking my dollars elsewhere if cruiselines decide to ban both. Other's mileage may vary.

[prescottbob]

As a nonsmoker -- the problem with smoking in the cabin is the environment found in the cabin for the nonsmoking cruisers who follow the smoking cruiser. The air tends to be stale and all of the soft goods wreak of smoke -- especially the bed pillows. I hate waking up with the smell of stale smoke in my hair -- it also bothers me when I smell it all night while in bed.

 

Yes, it does bother me when people next to me smoke on their verandahs when the wind is coming my way -- but they usually do not smoke 24/7 so there is still significant pleasant time to be had on the verandah. And the smell does not linger outside if a smoker occupied my cabin just before me.

 

I think the solution that allows folks to smoke on the verandahs and not in the cabin is very wise -- we have friends who are smokers and they just always book a verandah. This does not, however, address the risk of fire.

 

Ahoy!

 

And what would be the remedy for smokers who book a cabin without a porch, aka, veranda?

 

Just wondering with no disrespect intended.

 

Bon Voyage & Good Health!

Bob:)

[arzz]

I am not wise enough to know the remedy for everyone. As long as the ship has some smoking areas, I guess if you are a smoker and cannot afford a veranda then you would need to go elsewhere to smoke. Starting in October, Celebrity cruisers will no longer be allowed to smoke in either their cabins or on their verandas. I recognize that is not a great solution. Neither is it great for those who are bothered, especially those who are made physically ill from smoke, to have to live in a cabin that was previously occupied by a smoker. This is a difficult question that has no obvious solution that will please everyone. I can see no compromise that would be fair to everyone either.

 

It is clear that the cruise lines are looking at their smoking policies. It is clear from this board that at this point the majority of folks are non-smokers, yet a significant percentage still smoke. From what I understand smoking is not a habit that most people could just "put on a shelf" for the duration of their cruise and resume once at home.

 

I am also not privy to any information or statistics that would tell me which passengers spend the most in the casinos, at the art auctions or in the bars .... all of these are considerations for the cruise lines as these are all venues that produce income for the cruise companies. Wasn't the explanation about why Carnival converted their non-smoking ship to a smoking ship that though the ship sailed full it was not the same revenue producer that their other ships were? The cruise lines do have a bottom line to reach -- if their revenue from supplemental on board sources (the shops, bars, casinos, auctions) drop then they will have to raise their fares. If they raise the fares too high they are in danger of not staying competitive and losing more business. It remains to be seen if the non-smoking segment of the population alone could produce the same amount of revenue for the cruise lines.

 

Only time will tell how this set of paradigm shifts by the cruise lines will affect the industry.

[chasetf]

I am not wise enough to know the remedy for everyone. As long as the ship has some smoking areas, I guess if you are a smoker and cannot afford a veranda then you would need to go elsewhere to smoke. Starting in October, Celebrity cruisers will no longer be allowed to smoke in either their cabins or on their verandas. I recognize that is not a great solution. Neither is it great for those who are bothered, especially those who are made physically ill from smoke, to have to live in a cabin that was previously occupied by a smoker. This is a difficult question that has no obvious solution that will please everyone. I can see no compromise that would be fair to everyone either..

There is none that will satisify all. The object is to not inflict those who do not want to be inflicted. To the extent that happens is what is changing.

It is clear that the cruise lines are looking at their smoking policies. It is clear from this board that at this point the majority of folks are non-smokers, yet a significant percentage still smoke. From what I understand smoking is not a habit that most people could just "put on a shelf" for the duration of their cruise and resume once at home. .

In the United States, an estimated 25.9 million men (23.9 percent) and 20.7 million women (18.1 percent) are smokers. That percentage is and has been dropping over the years. I would not call that significant.

 

The new X policies do not ask smokers to "put on a shelf" their habit. It just asks them to take it else where on the ship.

I am also not privy to any information or statistics that would tell me which passengers spend the most in the casinos, at the art auctions or in the bars .... all of these are considerations for the cruise lines as these are all venues that produce income for the cruise companies. .

Having had to walk thru lots of cruise ship casinos it is obvious that the ones patronizing the casino are smokers or those tolerant of the smoke.

Wasn't the explanation about why Carnival converted their non-smoking ship to a smoking ship that though the ship sailed full it was not the same revenue producer that their other ships were? The cruise lines do have a bottom line to reach -- if their revenue from supplemental on board sources (the shops, bars, casinos, auctions) drop then they will have to raise their fares. .

So this logic says smokers gamble more. :confused: Thus because they need and want their revenue they are willing to forsake the wishes of the non smoking majority.

If they raise the fares too high they are in danger of not staying competitive and losing more business. It remains to be seen if the non-smoking segment of the population alone could produce the same amount of revenue for the cruise lines..

Bars / airlines / restaurants did not have to raise prices to offset the promised loss of smoker's patronage by smokers. Gee.... and the health of their workers improved as they were no longer at risk.

Only time will tell how this set of paradigm shifts by the cruise lines will affect the industry.

Be assured the industry will thrive in spite of which was the wave of restriction continues. The cruise lines will not cut their throats.

 

So they will watch X, just as they have with the other restrictions as they have been put in place, and will make their own decisions. The threats of smokers taking their money elsewhere will not affect their decision.... the continued rate of booking on X will.

[chasetf]

People almost have to fly today ... so that's why the smoking ban in airplanes has not affected the airline industry. After all, how long are you generally on the aircraft? Maybe five or 6 hours on average?

Overseas flights can be 10,12,14 hours. Not counting sleeping, the average smoking cruiser would not spend five or six hours in their cabin. Unlike an airplane, on a ship you can "step out" for a smoke.

Bars have taken a hit, you'd better believe it. ..............

 

In restaurants, see above ... though I must admit that with restaurants the problem is not as severe. There are plenty of families who generally won't smoke around the kids anyway, so they don't mind going to a restaurant that does not allow smoking. They will just go outside to enjoy their smoke.

Gee..... they will smoke around adults... but not kids. What... adults don't have lungs worth protecting. :confused: That is all were are asking.... same as the bar and restaurant..... to go outside to enjoy that smoke.

People had no choice when smoking was banned in the workplace. Most people do not have the option of just quitting their jobs. They had to deal with it. But, I'll tell you one thing. I'd love to know how much productive time some companies are losing on employees who take smoke break after smoke break, when in the past they would have just enjoyed a cigarette at their desks. .

Managers and supervisors have to deal with this if it is a problem. If someone's smoking habit (having to leave their work station) is affecting their work performance, the fact they smoke is not a defense of their poor performance.

I know of one person whose function was rather critical and he wasn't getting his work done because he had to leave his desk everytime he wanted a cigarette. They set him up in his own special office and to this day he smokes right at his desk.

Never would have happened at my work. Even a "special office" is not allowed by state law.

 

You must have a desperate employer to allow one individual the priviledge, but not the rest. That is what law suits are made of....... inconsistent policies.

You talk about only wanting to restrict smoking ... not prohibit it. Well, just how much more do you think it needs to be restricted? We've lost many smoking areas already. We don't have too many more to lose before smoking will be banned throughout the ship. Blue skies ... --rita

This is the same argument the NRA uses. "It I give an inch then they will want a foot. " Next thing we'll know they will ban...... guns..... smoking.....take your pick. ;)

[gillianrose]

And for all the money I spend on my cruises, they can't invest a little extra time/expense to clean the cabin?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

 

THEY are WE, and your suggestion that we all foot the bill—non-smokers as well as smokers—for cleaning the cabins smokers have inhabited, is really quite ridiculous.

 

Why should non-smokers have to participate at all in costs created by smokers?

[sail7seas]

I 'get it' but want to add that we all contribute a sum toward the total food costs. Some of us eat lightly, others more heartily. So, all of us are paying for the quantities hearty appetites consume though we may be small eaters.

 

We don't all go to the movies but pay for the rental fees the ship spends.

We don't all use the hot tubs but their maintenance carries a charge.

Some folks never go ashore in tenders but the labor costs are high for tender service.

 

Etc

Etc

Etc

 

[gillianrose]

Starting in October, Celebrity cruisers will no longer be allowed to smoke in either their cabins or on their verandas. I recognize that is not a great solution.

 

On the contrary, it is an EXCELLENT solution for the vast majority of cruisers.

 

I am looking at all Celebrity October sailings this morning and plan to book one of them if the port of departure, time, and price look attractive.

 

If the price doesn't look good (and Celebrity prices are UP a lot), then I will wait until final payment looms and grab a better-priced cabin on a Celebrity cruise in October or later.

[pipedreams62]

And dressing up for dinner

[gillianrose]

I 'get it' but want to add that we all contribute a sum toward the total food costs. Some of us eat lightly, others more heartily. So, all of us are paying for the quantities hearty appetites consume though we may be small eaters.

 

We don't all go to the movies but pay for the rental fees the ship spends.

We don't all use the hot tubs but their maintenance carries a charge.

Some folks never go ashore in tenders but the labor costs are high for tender service.

 

Are you actually comparing the costs of SMOKING with all of those things you mentioned above?

 

Sorry, I DON'T GET IT. The personal habits of inconsiderate smokers (those who smoke on their balconies and those who smoke in the cabins that non-smokers are likely to subsequently inhabit) cause GREAT DISTRESS to non-smokers, yet we should actually SUBSIDIZE the smoking?

[JerseyJaguar]

Are you actually comparing the costs of SMOKING with all of those things you mentioned above?

 

Sorry, I DON'T GET IT. The personal habits of inconsiderate smokers (those who smoke on their balconies and those who smoke in the cabins that non-smokers are likely to subsequently inhabit) cause GREAT DISTRESS to non-smokers, yet we should actually SUBSIDIZE the smoking?

Excuse me, but smoking is allowed in the cabins and on the balcony, so smokers are not being "inconsiderate" by smoking there. If they lit up at your dinner table or next to you at the Lido pool, you'd have a point. But when smokers are following the rules the word "inconsiderate" is inconsiderate.

 

And I'm sure that the folks who bathe in cologne and perfume require their staterooms to have the same kind of intense cleaning to get the smell out, will you freak out about them too?

[twinkletoes4445]

And dressing up for dinner

 

You are a hoot! I don't where you come up with these pictures, but they are great. :)

[gillianrose]

Excuse me, but smoking is allowed in the cabins and on the balcony, so smokers are not being "inconsiderate" by smoking there. If they lit up at your dinner table or next to you at the Lido pool, you'd have a point. But when smokers are following the rules the word "inconsiderate" is inconsiderate.

 

I reserve the right to disagree with the notion that simply because an activity is ALLOWED, that it is "OK" or "CONSIDERATE."

 

Smokers who smoke on their balconies are being inconsiderate of everyone who is downwind of them if the ship is moving and of all the adjoining or nearby balcony occupants if the ship is not moving.

 

That is the TRUTH.

[Copper10-8]

A guy runs into the bar and says, "Quick, pour me 5 shots

of your best scotch." The bartender pours them and the

man drinks them as fast as he can. "Wow that's the fastest

I've seen anyone drink," says the bartender. "Well you'd

drink that fast if you had what I had," The man says "Oh

my god," the bartender says, "What do you have?"

The man replies "50 cents."

[Copper10-8]

And one more just for the heck of it:rolleyes:

A pastor who was badly overworked went to the local

medical center and was able to have a clone made.

The clone was like the pastor in every respect, except

that the clone used extraordinarily foul language. The

cloned pastor was exceptionally gifted in many other

areas of pastoral work, but finally the complaints about

the foul language were too much. The pastor was not

too sure how to get rid of the clone so that it wouldn't

look like murder. The best thing, he decided, was to

make the clone's death look like an accident. So the

pastor lured the clone onto a bridge in the middle of

the night and pushed the clone off the bridge.

 

Unfortunately there was a police officer who happened

by at that very moment and arrested the pastor for

making an obscene clone fall.

[JerseyJaguar]

You also said this:

and those who smoke in the cabins that non-smokers are likely to subsequently inhabit

which has nothing to do with how your current cruise is effected by a smoker who you don't want out on his or her balcony with a cigarette.

 

Which is why I mentioned the cologne and perfume, because there are plenty of folks who pile it on and I'm sure their staterooms reek yet I never hear complaints about it which tells me that those rooms are also given the big clean up.

 

But, oh, no, our fees are covering that clean up expense too, let's outlaw perfume and cologne too.

[CowPrincess]

THEY are WE, and your suggestion that we all foot the bill—non-smokers as well as smokers—for cleaning the cabins smokers have inhabited, is really quite ridiculous.

 

Why should non-smokers have to participate at all in costs created by smokers?

 

Part of getting along in society is doing things and paying for things that have no direct benefit to oneself, in order for society to function.

 

Why should my taxes go to pay for schools? So children have a place to learn. Why should my taxes go to repair roads on which I never drive? Because someone needs those roads. Why should my taxes support alcohol abuse programs? Because someone needs the programs. Why should my taxes pay for infertility treatments? Because someone is infertile. Why should I volunteer at a food bank? Because some people need food banks. I don't eat a lot, so my cruise cost covers someone else who does eat lots. I don't vomit in the hallways, or drop litter, but my cruise costs cover cleaning up after those who do. I don't take diapered babies into the pools or hot tubs, but my cruise costs help pay to clean up after those who do.

 

Our civilization/society is unfortunately becoming FAR, FAR too accepting of the "I want, I want, I want" behaviours of people, e.g., "If better benefit ME -- everyone else can go to H*ll." It saddens me to see the selfish, self-absorbed, self-righteous attitude that is running rampant in society. And the various "solutions" and "comments" made by some non-smokers reflect the overall reduction in civility and common courtesy we are all witness to in our everyday lives.

 

I wonder how pleased all the non-smokers would be if smoking was marginalized onboard so much that ships were sailing 20% empty (the smokers), so the non-smokers would see a 30% increase in the cost of their cruises. The extra 10% would cover the loss of revenues from the empty cabins, e.g., spa treatments, wine, shopping, excursion commissions.

 

None of us is the "center of the universe" but some of us certainly like to think we are. For people who despise people who are unlike you, I hope you never need the help of one you so blatantly despise.

 

I'm pretty sure THIS post of MINE will go "bye-bye". Ah well.

[NoNoNanette]

None of us is the "center of the universe" but some of us certainly like to think we are. For people who despise people who are unlike you, I hope you never need the help of one you so blatantly despise.

 

*WILDLY APPLAUDING*

 

(I see NO reason why your post should go "bye bye"! It was excellent) :)

[sail7seas]

Are you actually comparing the costs of SMOKING with all of those things you mentioned above?

 

Sorry, I DON'T GET IT. The personal habits of inconsiderate smokers (those who smoke on their balconies and those who smoke in the cabins that non-smokers are likely to subsequently inhabit) cause GREAT DISTRESS to non-smokers, yet we should actually SUBSIDIZE the smoking?

 

 

You may have noticed the many postings I have made stating I don't care to be around smoke and would be thrilled if the ship only had very small smoking areas. I've certainly made no secret about that so please don't yell at me. Thanks.

 

My post was simply demonstrating that we all pay for many of things on the cruise which we don't necessarily directly cause, use, want or enjoy. The cost of cleaning smokers' cabins is one of those things.

 

We are not subsidizing smoking. We are paying as part of our fare for the cleaning of the ship. Cleaning of the whole ship including cabins of people who smoke.

 

Maybe someone else's cabin reeks of perfume. That, also, needs to be freshened before anyone else can use the cabin IMO

[usha]

s7s, that was probably the most balanced post on this thread.:)

[gillianrose]

I wonder how pleased all the non-smokers would be if smoking was marginalized onboard so much that ships were sailing 20% empty (the smokers), so the non-smokers would see a 30% increase in the cost of their cruises. The extra 10% would cover the loss of revenues from the empty cabins, e.g., spa treatments, wine, shopping, excursion commissions.

 

I agree with most of the things you stated in the first part of your post, as I work very hard to better society in general and volunteer frequently as well as speak out at air quality meetings (regarding hazardous materials in the atmosphere), volunteer at hospice, etc. In fact, I think it's possible we belong to the same political party and are in agreement with the notion of sharing costs to benefit our society. I don't mind paying my fair share of most taxes that benefit the greater good. I am so not a "ME, ME, ME" sort of person and the fact that I am so opposed to smoking onboard and am vocal about it does not make me selfish, regardless what anyone here opposing me posts. I know who I am. You obviously don't.

 

Can you not understand the concept of my being anti-smoking on balconies and in cabins, but not against helping smokers find alternatives? I am voicing my opinion in a public forum against smokers who insist on smoking where it will impact non-smokers, and I am against cruise lines that make it very uncomfortable and even unhealthy for non-smokers onboard.

 

Why shouldn't smoking be restricted on HAL like it is on more and more other cruise lines? You know the day is coming when HAL will lose more non-smokers to other cruise lines than it will gain holding onto smokers.

 

To paraphrase YOU: I wonder how pleased all the smokers would be if non-smokers were driven off HAL so much that ships were sailing 80% empty (the non-smokers). That's a lot worse situation for HAL than what you posed.

 

Do you not understand that when smoking is made more difficult on cruise ships many of those who truly love to cruise, will likely seek a way to quit smoking? That's a good thing for everyone except the tobacco companies.

 

The extreme opinions expressed in this thread lead me to believe that there are likely some people posting here whose LIVELIHOOD depends on tobacco.