Corporate mindset: X vs. HAL

[Sky Sweet]

I thought it was obvious. With so much Celeb experience, I try to HELP others with less experience. But I've just finished unsubscribing to my last Celeb thread. Too many gang bangers and I don't need it.

 

Am I done with Celeb? Absolutely!! Do I try to share knowledge when I can? I still do in the real world, but here, no longer.

 

Hi Veronica :)

 

If the main objective of cruise critic is to share information and opinions, based on a poster's experiences at sea, so that other people can consider that feedback in their decision making process, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are doing. In my opinion, it isn't any different than someone who only posts positive things about Celebrity as if everything was perfect.

 

What probably matters most to potential cruisers is why you use to love Celebrity but now prefer other cruise lines. Some will read your posts and think that things that are important to you aren't important to them, while others will be more influenced because they have similar expectations from a cruise.

 

BTW - on other types of travel sites, for hotels etc, it is not uncommon for someone to discuss how a hotel has changed and why they will no longer stay at one that they use to love.

[cvaty]

I thought it was obvious. With so much Celeb experience, I try to HELP others with less experience. But I've just finished unsubscribing to my last Celeb thread. Too many gang bangers and I don't need it.

 

Am I done with Celeb? Absolutely!! Do I try to share knowledge when I can? I still do in the real world, but here, no longer.

What a colorful idiom you have.

I have even been called here a babe.

You may want to explain further who they are to the newcomers.

 

 

But agree on aspects for cc members on what was mentioned here.

[Bobbie John]

I think the main difference between newer cruisers and people who have cruised for a long time is expectations based on their previous experiences at sea.

 

When my husband and I took our first cruise 35 years ago, it was truly an all inclusive vacation, so we are probably more phased by paying extra for things that were once included. On the other hand, if someone always had to pay extra for these things it wouldn't bother them as much.

 

The same is true for the main dining room. When we took our first cruise, it was the only place to eat, so all of the ships resources were devoted to providing a premium dining experience in that venue.

 

 

I couldn't agree more! We took our first Celebrity cruise in 1995 and compared to our first cruise on Carnival, we were hooked on Celebrity! However, the food has gone down hill since the exit of Michel Roux. We really used to enjoy going to dinner in the main dining room. Now the food is so so. We are used to Celebrity "exceeding your expectations." It saddens me that you have to spend $60 extra per night for the specialty restaurant to get the food quality that used to be in the main dining room.

[Bobbie John]

How true that is. Celebrity has made some poor long term business decisions lately, and in time it will come back to to haunt them. There discounting like everyone else,and it reflects in there product. They are no better then any other mass market line except for NCL. Im sure the Celebrity defence team will flame this post. I use to love celebrity but they are different today from 10 years ago. I also know the prices are a lot lower today and they have to cut some some corners but do not pretend there as good as they use to be. THANK YOU

 

You couldn't have said it better!

[rian90]

I don't see how a full ship affects the quality of the cruise. Even if you pay large rates to cruise, there is a chance the ship will be full. Have you always had bad experiences on full cruise ships?

 

Or maybe I have it wrong. Do you think the people who pay lower rates for cruises are somehow...hmmm...below par? Are they big party animals or do they wear cutoff jeans in the pool? Are they missing teeth and have bad breath? Maybe they talk funny, a southern accent or something.

 

I don't know...I eat at Applebees and they sometimes have good deals. The people around me sometimes might make less money than hubby and I and didn't go to graduate school like we did..but they seem okay to me. In fact, they seem like pretty interesting people. Some are even teachers or firemen or police officers! Of course, I guess some people prefer the $50 entree restaurants where only those who make lots of money can eat.

[Sky Sweet]

I would like to express my opinion about a ship sailing at full capacity.

 

Based on my experience almost every thing I can think of, whether it is a ship, a restaurant, a hotel, or a ballroom for a wedding reception, provides much better service in every way when the facility is not operating at its maximum capacity.

 

In New York a hotel makes you guarantee a specific number of people for a hotel reception, while in Chicago most of the hotels we looked at for our daughter's wedding five years ago made you guarantee that you would spend a specific dollar amount for food and beverage instead. That is so much better because for the same dollar amount you had a choice of having more people with a less expensive menu or less people with a better menu and more enhancements. We chose the latter because we felt that once you have more than a certain amount of people at a reception it is impossible for an establishment to provide the same level of service.

 

It is interesting that Chicago hotels realize that is it the total revenue for the event in their ballroom, not the number of guests for it, that really matters. Maybe the cruise lines can learn from that philosophy.

[richsea]

I would like to express my opinion about a ship sailing at full capacity.

 

Based on my experience almost every thing I can think of, whether it is a ship, a restaurant, a hotel, or a ballroom for a wedding reception, provides much better service in every way when the facility is not operating at its maximum capacity.

 

In New York a hotel makes you guarantee a specific number of people for a hotel reception, while in Chicago most of the hotels we looked at for our daughter's wedding five years ago made you guarantee that you would spend a specific dollar amount for food and beverage instead. That is so much better because for the same dollar amount you had a choice of having more people with a less expensive menu or less people with a better menu and more enhancements. We chose the latter because we felt that once you have more than a certain amount of people at a reception it is impossible for an establishment to provide the same level of service.

 

It is interesting that Chicago hotels realize that is it the total revenue for the event in their ballroom, not the number of guests for it, that really matters. Maybe the cruise lines can learn from that philosophy.

 

If a business, any business, can't provide the same level of service whether operating at full or less than full capacity, then they should either not stay in business or reduce their capacity to a level at which they can provide the same service regardless.

[hubofhockey]

Hi Ljberkow :)

 

Our12 night Mediterranean Cruise on Brilliance of the Seas included Rome, Florence, Naples, Nice, Mykonos, Santorini, Athens, and Ephesus. Based on our experience I would pick the longer itinerary which includes the Greek Isles and Turkey because they were the best parts of our cruise and are much closer to their gateway ports. In fact Santorini, Greece and Ephesus, Turkey were two of our favorite ports from all of our cruises.

 

There is so much to see in Florence and Rome and they are so far from their gateway ports that they are more suited to a land based vacation than a cruise. In fact, I spent almost a week in Rome a number of years ago during a land based vacation and could have easily spent more time there.

 

If you don't mind spending the extra money for a specialty restaurant on most nights, that is a good way to deal with the problem of early seating being too early for port intensive European Cruises. That is what we use to do on port intensive itineraries before we discovered my time dining on Brilliance of the Seas. In fact, as our Mediterranean cruise progressed a number of people who had assigned seating changed it to my time dining.

 

Thanks SkySweet, that's great information. If the ports are better on the longer Solstice cruise than the shorter Voyager, that's okay with me. Spending another $300 for my wife and I at specialty restaurants would be worth it to do the better cruise itinerary and ship. We are trying anytime dining on Princess next month. I'm looking forward to it. I hate rushing back from ports to make assigned dining times. I guess a lot of specialty restaurants will have to do.

 

Athens is one place I want to visit in my lifetime and Barcelona can wait. I am not sure how much time we will have on the front and back parts of the cruise for Rome/Florence. But we'll shoot for a couple extra days.

All of this inside baseball stuff about corporate mindset and who will pay $12,000 for a vacation versus who will pay $10,000 does not interest me in the least. If the itinerary is right and it's a nice new ship with a line that provides value, I'm interested.

[Jade13]

On the flip side, Holland America's Stein Kruse countered: "It's simple. Not filling our ships does not make sense; our business model is based on [filling ships].'"

 

 

Comments, anyone?

 

Stein Kruse makes more sense! These companies are in the business to fill their ships.

[Denny01]

Let me understand part of the argument on this thread: Celebrity's discounts - bad; maintaining value – good. Maintaining loyal customers - good. Expanding customer base – bad.

 

These are not connected at the hip as being presented in some of these threads. Since I've never run a cruise ship line or even worked in this business, I'm not going to start telling CEO's how to run their business. All I can do is give my opinion of whether I think the value is worth me paying and how the current economic downturn affects me. Personally, I'd love to see Celebrity discount cruises. If you think this is a bad idea – you pay full fare and I'll take the discount – all will be happy! I generally agree with the Celebrity CEO's statement that lowering below a certain cost would be detrimental, but filing a ship is important. If I wanted the cheapest cruise I wouldn't be on this forum. But this major economic crisis is affecting us and we are making decisions we didn't have to face last year. I'd love to cruise as much as I can, but we have to make choices. We will cut back on the number of cruises (after Nov I hope!), and cut back on what we expend on the cruise. I hate to get into how much we expend, but lets say about $100/day for all costs while cruising: tours, drinks, extra dining, shopping, gaming. We reduced that on our last cruse and will reduce it more. Fewer or less expensive tours – ship and private. More sipping, and less shopping. I control little what the cruise business does, but I can control what I do.

 

As to the negative comments about Celebrity reducing prices and new people coming in – great. This is being done by all lines - even those 'premium' lines some people are moving to because they perceive a loss of value on Celebrity. I got a brochure from Oceania touting a big discount beyond their 'normal' discounts – trying to fill their ships. So I guess Oceania should be trashed for lowering their value because they are lowering their fare, and they are attracting all those new people who will apparently adversely impact their value.

Silly.

 

 

Denny

[Sky Sweet]

If you saw two Celebrity ships with similar itineraries but different pricing, what would your reaction be?

 

Would you pick the less expensive one thinking it was a better deal, or the more expensive one because you would be concerned that the bargain cruise would be cutting too many corners?

[Cruise Junky]

If you saw two Celebrity ships with similar itineraries but different pricing, what would your reaction be?

 

Would you pick the less expensive one thinking it was a better deal, or the more expensive one because you would be concerned that the bargain cruise would be cutting too many corners?

 

No question, I'd be booking the cheaper one.

[bikerunner]

Price is always a consideration when Im looking for a cruise but I always end up back with celebrity. I tend to like the longer 11-16 day cruises and I always find the itineraries I like on celebrity. Ive seen them on others but never was happy with carnival or HAL....going to try princess one of these days. Been on 14 cruises 9 on celeb. I work in the travel industry and I know all the cutbacks hotels and resorts are doing. Have I seen a difference in celebrity...yes but I dont let it affect my overall experience. I always appreciate great service and always have gotten it.....everything is subjective. The one thing I do appreciate about celebrity is there crew is very well taken care of and that helps translate into the service. I have friends who work for them...officers....and people I know who work for other cruise lines too.

 

I really am not making any points to this conversation just everyone has there own opinions from there experiences..my opinion is I will always choose celebrity first if the itinerary is right.

[snowglobe]

If you saw two Celebrity ships with similar itineraries but different pricing, what would your reaction be?

 

I have a real example of this: both Mercury (out of Los Angeles) and Infinity (out of SFO) are repositioning to Alaska, both leaving the same date, May 11th. Both of these were discussed on our Cruise Connections forum. The Mercury is cheaper and lasts 13 nights, instead of 11. The Alaskan ports of call are identical.

 

I picked Infinity because I prefer San Francisco and loved the opportunity to go back - it was simply a hands-down no-brainer for me, even though my booking was price-sensitive.

 

Other CC forum-mates who discussed this mentioned the extra nights and extra ports (before Alaska) as being attractive for the Mercury, as well as its lower price. One cruiser switched because the price of the suite they wanted was so much cheaper on the Mercury, coupled with wanting the Astoria port of call. Others mentioned their love of one ship over the other. Incidentally, many of our forum-mates are from northern California, so San Francisco was a deciding factor for others as well.

 

At no time was "perceived" quality issues because of the lower pricing discussed.

 

The price difference was attributed more to the ship and to the port of embarkation. I think that these two factors were the major driving force in choosing the higher-priced Infinity instead of the lower-priced Mercury, for the cruisers who picked the one over the other.

 

P.S. The Mercury seems to have a lot of fans among those who have sailed her before, but are joining us on the Infinity ;)

[Denny01]

If you saw two Celebrity ships with similar itineraries but different pricing, what would your reaction be?

 

Would you pick the less expensive one thinking it was a better deal, or the more expensive one because you would be concerned that the bargain cruise would be cutting too many corners?

 

Boy, I go on and on forever, and you hit the major point with two sentences.It seems the only time we'd consider taking the more expensive cruise is because it does have a different itinerary/depart as the example given of Mercury 14 days out of LA and Infinity 11days out of SF, tough picks. We love SF and Infinity (T-spa rules), but sailed twice on Mercury (repositioning but going south) and love her AND Astoria. Glad we didn't have to choose. I'd go crazy.

 

Denny