Poll: HAL Smoking Survey

[RevNeal]

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.

 

How about this one??

 

A police officer attempts to stop a car for speeding and the guy gradually increases his speed until he's topping 100 mph. He eventually realizes he can't escape and finally pulls over. The cop approaches the car and says, "It's been a long day and my tour is almost over, so if you can give me a good excuse for your behavior, I'll let you go." The guy thinks for a few seconds and then says, "My wife ran away with a cop about a week ago. I thought you might be that officer trying to give her back!"

[gillianrose]

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.

 

Cleaning a cabin that has been heavily smoked in that is subsequently inhabited by anyone who finds the odor objectionable or is sensitive to tobacco smoke is not regular "between guests" cleaning. It's a lot more than emptying ashtrays and vacuuming.

 

On our last HAL cruise, a crew of approximately five people came into our cabin (which reeked of smoke) and removed every bit of soft goods from the cabin, including all the draperies at the window, the draperies from the entry way into the suite, the towels, the pillows (including the ones on the sofa), took off all the sheets, shampooed the carpets, ran a special heavy-duty machine, etc.

 

I did not suggest what needed to be done to the cabin. They apparently have a standard procedure for when a cabin is extremely smoky (a senior guest relations person came to the cabin and pronounced it very objectionable himself) and then they go into action to rid the cabin of its odor. They did an amazing job, but it took a lot of extra effort on the part of the staff, and that translates into money as well as tired employees.

 

I had never had a cabin that smelled this bad before, never one that needed quite the work that this one did, but I was told by staff that it happens more often than one would think, and that's why they have this "whirlwind procedure" (my term, not theirs).

[kryos]

Cleaning a cabin that has been heavily smoked in that is subsequently inhabited by anyone who finds the odor objectionable or is sensitive to tobacco smoke is not regular "between guests" cleaning. It's a lot more than emptying ashtrays and vacuuming.

And I still hold that for what we pay for our cruises, they can come and give a cabin a special cleaning if need be.

 

As for a cabin that reeked that bad, I'd bet it was a lot more than one person smoking cigarettes in there. Probably more like three or four people, or a couple of cigar smokers.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

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.

HAL will follow the money, plain and simple. If you are correct, and they see that they are losing a lot of non-smokers to other lines that have put more restrictive smoking policies in place, then believe me, HAL will revise their smoking policy. But if they see that they are picking up far more new passengers ... smoking passengers who are leaving those other lines precisely because their smoking policies have become so restrictive, then HAL will have no problem becoming known as the line that welcomes smokers.

 

As for people finding alternatives if smoking is restricted on all cruise lines ... well, that depends on just how restricted it is. If most cruise lines ban smoking in cabins and on balconies, but retain some comfortable areas around the ship where smokers can "indulge," then maybe smokers will just adapt to no longer being able to enjoy a puff in their cabin. But if cruise lines ever get to the point where they make it almost impossible for a smoker to enjoy a cigarette anywhere onboard, then I dare say smokers will certainly adapt ... by finding alternatives to cruising. Don't forget ... HAL not only competes with other cruise lines for business, but they also compete with other vacation options ... all-inclusive land resorts, destination resorts, hotels, etc. Smokers will just look at some of those options and perhaps stop cruising altogether.

 

So, like I said ... HAL will follow the money in this, as in all things. If they see they make more money by restricting or even outright banning smoking onboard their ships, then you'd better believe that that is exactly what they will do. But if they find they have a lot of smokers who spend lots of money with the line, they may just decide keeping them is financially worth p*ssing off some others.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[rebeljohn]

How about this one??

 

Somewhere, there is a joke in all of this.........I guess it should start like..........

 

'...A cigar, a cigarette and a rose walk into a Hal bar.................'

[usha]

A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against ..."Get this" ... fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars in "a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion.

 

The man sued... .. AND WON:eek:

 

In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that since the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable, and also guaranteed that it would insure the cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," it was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss. Rather than

endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in "the fires."

 

BUT WHAT COMES AROUND...:cool:

 

After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him arrested ... On 24 counts of arson!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars. He was sentenced to 24 consecutive one year terms!!

 

I suppose there's justice in there somewhere...This is a true story from the "Legal Times".

[JimVrhovac]

Poetic justice.....

 

Ruth & Jim

[Oceans&Rivers]

And I still hold that for what we pay for our cruises, they can come and give a cabin a special cleaning if need be.

 

Fine, but who should pay for intense cleaning if it's necessary? Shouldn't that be the person or persons who created the problem? I read a blog where it was mentioned that a small dog trashed a stateroom on a Regent cruise. The inhabitant of the stateroom was presented with a large bill to clean or overhaul the stateroom.

 

What if someone's children did the same as the dog? Who, in your opinion, should pay to clean up that? I was taught to clean up my own messes, and I think it is right to do so. I don't think it should be the responsibility of all passengers to pay to clean up out-of-the-ordinary messes or extreme tobacco odors of others. (Vomit on a seagoing vessel? Of course.)

 

If you rent an apartment or a vacation house or a home, then you put up a security deposit. It serves to ensure that renters leave property clean and usable for the next occupant. Holland America can easily identify who the prior occupant was of a cabin needing extensive cleaning, and ought to be able to send a bill to that person in order to keep the costs down for others who leave their cabins in average order.

[esther e]

A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against ..."Get this" ... fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars in "a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion.

 

The man sued... .. AND WON:eek:

 

In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that since the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable, and also guaranteed that it would insure the cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," it was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss. Rather than

endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in "the fires."

 

BUT WHAT COMES AROUND...:cool:

 

After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him arrested ... On 24 counts of arson!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars. He was sentenced to 24 consecutive one year terms!!

 

I suppose there's justice in there somewhere...This is a true story from the "Legal Times".

 

I just sent this on to a bunch of friends and they all loved it. Thanks so much for the smile you put on my face today!!!!:D

[Kane]

The poll, which discussion seems to have drifted from, indicates that there would be a 28% loss of passengers if smoking were totally banned.

 

The Math: 28 / (100 - 28) = 38.8

 

So, a 28% loss of passengers would result in a 39% increase in fares if HAL is to maintain the same revenue for a voyage.

 

The question: Would you pay 39% more to sail totally smoke-free?

 

I suspect some would but that many would not, myself included. HAL is good, but not at 39% more.

 

Are smokers already subsidizing non-smokers?

[sail7seas]

I suspect a load of non-smokers would consider booking when they might not have booked if they are accustomed to and like a smoke free environment.

 

Those of us who live in states with severe smoking restrictions get very used to not being exposed and have come to expect that sort of environment. I know some non-smokers who will not cruise on a ship that permits smoking inside in any venue. Their choice. But they might cruise if smoking was limited to outdoor areas they could easily avoid.

 

Therefore, the numbers would change. Those folks (and others like them) haven't been considered in this poll.

 

[marle7]

I suspect a load of non-smokers would consider booking when they might not have booked if they are accustomed to and like a smoke free environment.

 

Those of us who live in states with severe smoking restrictions get very used to not being exposed and have come to expect that sort of environment. I know some non-smokers who will not cruise on a ship that permits smoking inside in any venue. Their choice. But they might cruise if smoking was limited to outdoor areas they could easily avoid.

 

Therefore, the numbers would change. Those folks (and others like them) haven't been considered in this poll.

 

 

And a large number of smokers who do not visit CC have not been considered here either, particularly the European, South American and Asian markets. We can play this game forever, but again, CC members make up less that 1% of the cruising population.

 

As someone else said, HAL will follow the money. I suspect they will watch to see what happens with Celebrity before they make a major move.

[Taxguy77]

I suspect a load of non-smokers would consider booking when they might not have booked if they are accustomed to and like a smoke free environment.

 

Those of us who live in states with severe smoking restrictions get very used to not being exposed and have come to expect that sort of environment. I know some non-smokers who will not cruise on a ship that permits smoking inside in any venue. Their choice. But they might cruise if smoking was limited to outdoor areas they could easily avoid.

 

Therefore, the numbers would change. Those folks (and others like them) haven't been considered in this poll.

 

 

Last fall we sailed AZ, which is restricted smoking. The most frequent favorable comment about the cruise was the lack of smoke in the casino and in general. There were a number of smokers on board who met at a great space by the pool or an indoor venue with a good view. I don't recall any comments from smokers who would not sail the line again for that reason.

[marle7]

Last fall we sailed AZ, which is restricted smoking. The most frequent favorable comment about the cruise was the lack of smoke in the casino and in general. There were a number of smokers on board who met at a great space by the pool or an indoor venue with a good view. I don't recall any comments from smokers who would not sail the line again for that reason.

 

 

True. But I suspect any smoker who voted that they wouldn't be sailing HAL if they restricted smoking on balconies or in cabins in the polls above, would not likely be booking Azamara anyway due to their smoking policies.:)

[Susan-M]

The poll, which discussion seems to have drifted from, indicates that there would be a 28% loss of passengers if smoking were totally banned.

 

If HAL changes it's policy to a more restrictive one, and 28% of the clients go to other lines with less restrictive policies, many of the non-smoking clients on those other lines will jump ship to head to Celebrity, HAL, Oceania, Azamara and other lines with restrictive policies.

[usha]

If HAL changes it's policy to a more restrictive one, and 28% of the clients go to other lines with less restrictive policies, many of the non-smoking clients on those other lines will jump ship to head to Celebrity, HAL, Oceania, Azamara and other lines with restrictive policies.

I think that your assumption is spot-on.:)

[Susan-M]

Last fall we sailed AZ, which is restricted smoking. The most frequent favorable comment about the cruise was the lack of smoke in the casino and in general.

 

Turkey recently implemented a smoking ban ( a country where half the people smoke!) ... I thought this post from an Istanbul resident was interesting and entertaining: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g293974-i368-k1995639-Smoking_Ban_Observations-Istanbul.html

[RevNeal]

The poll, which discussion seems to have drifted from, indicates that there would be a 28% loss of passengers if smoking were totally banned.

 

The Math: 28 / (100 - 28) = 38.8

 

So, a 28% loss of passengers would result in a 39% increase in fares if HAL is to maintain the same revenue for a voyage.

 

The question: Would you pay 39% more to sail totally smoke-free?

 

I suspect some would but that many would not, myself included. HAL is good, but not at 39% more.

 

Are smokers already subsidizing non-smokers?

 

Firstly, what makes you think that if the smoking passengers quit the line there won't be other, non-smokers, who will take their place? Those of us who are formalists and traditionalists have learned that, as our numbers shrink, the numbers of non-formalists and non-traditionalists grow.

 

Secondly, the Line won't allow those cabins to sail empty. So, rather than increasing rates to support empty cabins, they'll DISCOUNT the rates to sell those cabins. In short, the law of supply and demand will drive the price of cabins DOWN (more supply and a 28% shortfall in demand will produce a drop in prices).

 

So ... in short ... smokers taking their cigarettes and leaving won't hurt the Line or non-smokers by forcing an increase in cabin prices. Instead, the drop in the passenger base (assuming others wont come in to fill the gap ... an assumption that ignores the whole market) will result in a DECREASE in the price-per-cabin.

 

Don't misunderstand me. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't want smoking banned on HAL ships. I'm not a smoker, but my mother is and no-smoking on HAL ships would impact her negatively. Likewise, I have several friends who would be hurt by such a change. However ... banning smoking would not hurt the Line's ability to sell cabins; the line will either replace the smokers with more non-smokers, or it will discount those cabins to move them, which will produce a temporary reduction in prices until the passenger base increases to fill the gap generated by the exodus of smokers. Indeed, I would suggest that it will be a combination of both.

[Robin7]

I suppose there's justice in there somewhere...This is a true story from the "Legal Times".

 

Sorry. Your information is not correct. It's not true. See http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

 

Robin

[Kane]

Firstly, what makes you think that if the smoking passengers quit the line there won't be other, non-smokers, who will take their place? Those of us who are formalists and traditionalists have learned that, as our numbers shrink, the numbers of non-formalists and non-traditionalists grow.

 

Secondly, the Line won't allow those cabins to sail empty. So, rather than increasing rates to support empty cabins, they'll DISCOUNT the rates to sell those cabins. In short, the law of supply and demand will drive the price of cabins DOWN (more supply and a 28% shortfall in demand will produce a drop in prices).

 

So ... in short ... smokers taking their cigarettes and leaving won't hurt the Line or non-smokers by forcing an increase in cabin prices. Instead, the drop in the passenger base (assuming others wont come in to fill the gap ... an assumption that ignores the whole market) will result in a DECREASE in the price-per-cabin.

 

Don't misunderstand me. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't want smoking banned on HAL ships. I'm not a smoker, but my mother is and no-smoking on HAL ships would impact her negatively. Likewise, I have several friends who would be hurt by such a change. However ... banning smoking would not hurt the Line's ability to sell cabins; the line will either replace the smokers with more non-smokers, or it will discount those cabins to move them, which will produce a temporary reduction in prices until the passenger base increases to fill the gap generated by the exodus of smokers. Indeed, I would suggest that it will be a combination of both.

 

I like the theory and wish it were realistic, but don't believe it is.

 

In summary, the theory says that banning smoking will result in lower revenue for HAL, caused by discounted fares to attract replacements for smokers. I don't think that this will happen.

[marle7]

Firstly, what makes you think that if the smoking passengers quit the line there won't be other, non-smokers, who will take their place? Those of us who are formalists and traditionalists have learned that, as our numbers shrink, the numbers of non-formalists and non-traditionalists grow.

 

Secondly, the Line won't allow those cabins to sail empty. So, rather than increasing rates to support empty cabins, they'll DISCOUNT the rates to sell those cabins. In short, the law of supply and demand will drive the price of cabins DOWN (more supply and a 28% shortfall in demand will produce a drop in prices).

 

So ... in short ... smokers taking their cigarettes and leaving won't hurt the Line or non-smokers by forcing an increase in cabin prices. Instead, the drop in the passenger base (assuming others wont come in to fill the gap ... an assumption that ignores the whole market) will result in a DECREASE in the price-per-cabin.

 

Don't misunderstand me. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't want smoking banned on HAL ships. I'm not a smoker, but my mother is and no-smoking on HAL ships would impact her negatively. Likewise, I have several friends who would be hurt by such a change. However ... banning smoking would not hurt the Line's ability to sell cabins; the line will either replace the smokers with more non-smokers, or it will discount those cabins to move them, which will produce a temporary reduction in prices until the passenger base increases to fill the gap generated by the exodus of smokers. Indeed, I would suggest that it will be a combination of both.

 

Reverend, while I agree that HAL would deeply discount cabins in order not to sail empty, I don't think that would help onboard revenue, unless the people who snap up the cheap cabins are prepared to spend the same onboard. I've said before, these boards are filled with people who are looking for ways to have a cheap cruise. There's even a thread going in Ask a cruise question about being a "tightwad" cruiser". Filling their cabins is one thing. On board revenue will be completely another, and it will be a wait and see game to see if on board spending levels remain the same, increase or decrease.

[esther e]

Sorry. Your information is not correct. It's not true. See http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

 

Robin

 

Too bad. It still made me laugh and send it to friends.:)

[Mary Ellen]

If HAL changes it's policy to a more restrictive one, and 28% of the clients go to other lines with less restrictive policies, many of the non-smoking clients on those other lines will jump ship to head to Celebrity, HAL, Oceania, Azamara and other lines with restrictive policies.

That is the big reason we're now giving serious consideration to trying Celebrity, Azamara and Oceania - their more restrictive policies on smoking. While we've had some problems with smoke on HAL, seeing the numbers of smokers from the lines with now more restrictive policies (i.e. Celebrity) wanting to cruise on HAL, we won't be surprised to see an increase in the % of smokers (and thus problems). We no longer book verandahs on HAL due to smoking being allowed on them.

[rebeljohn]

Sorry. Your information is not correct. It's not true. See http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

Robin

 

............I've been e-mailed that story several hundred times................

Does make for a good story, though.............

[sail7seas]

I agree that HAL could quickly become known as the smokers' cruise line if they don't follow the lead of other lines and do so in the near future. That definitely will lead to a mass exodus faster than any other single or aggregate thing HAL chooses to do or not do.

 

The effects of Formal vs. no formal; AYWD vs. Traditional, cutbacks in any and all departments will pale to an influx of smokers chasing away many non-smokers.