Just returned from cruise - don't get it...

Our first cruise on HOMELINES we paid $400.00 per person for a seven day
cruise in 1978.and it was top quality,and white glove service,something
we do not see now,and that cabi was not the lowest catagory

E.k.R. wrote:

I'm sure there are several that I left out.

whispering Commodore Cruise Lines. I am not sure I miss Commodore but
I do miss Royal Olympic. I enjoyed reading that message, Ernie.

Becca -----enjoyed the Stella Solaris...

Sleazy3 http://www.cruisemaster.com/sleazy3.htm
MOAGC http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com/
Miracle in May http://www.cruisemaster.com/miracle.htm

RTCReferee wrote:
Benjamin Smith wrote:


What I'm looking for
are "inn" ships or "bed and breakfasts" types of ships. Some inns and
bed and breakfasts are priced on a similar scale as middle class
resorts. This sort of atmosphere without some of the standard resort
features I think has a passenger base.

I see the Delta Queen steamboats as bed and breakfasts or inn ships and
the Oceania ships also as inn ships. The Deilmann Deutschland is more an
upscale inn-type ship. Somehow Delta Queen has survived (bankrupt and
were purchased and reborn)and Deilmann is doing well from what I understand.


Have you taken a look at the Hebridean Princess, Ben? Aside from being not
being modestly priced, she seems like a ship/style you might enjoy, if you like
B&B's. Have Hebridean Island Cruises send you a brochure. Their brochure is
really wonderful. There's also the Hebridean Spirit.

I'll take a look at them. Thanks for info.

Ben S.

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
nk.net...

Have you taken a look at the Hebridean Princess, Ben? Aside from being
not
being modestly priced, she seems like a ship/style you might enjoy, if
you like
B&B's. Have Hebridean Island Cruises send you a brochure. Their
brochure is
really wonderful. There's also the Hebridean Spirit.

I'll take a look at them. Thanks for info.

Ben S.


Hebridean has the nicest brochures I have ever laid eyes on. In fact I have
been keeping them for years as they are just too beautiful to throw away.
Get ready for a little sticker shock Ben, Hebridean makes Silversea and
Seabourn look cheap! Remember all prices are in Pounds. Ouch! Even if
they were in US dollars they would be VERY expensive.

Ernie

E.k.R. wrote:

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message But I'm not
looking for inexpensive. I'm looking for something that's

affordable for middle income clientele that's an alternative to the
mainstream cruise lines and perhaps priced somewhat higher. Smaller,
more focused, different entertainment options, no Park West art
auctions, different types of merchandise in the shops, different types
of activities, CDs without the canned material that they repeat cruise
after cruise, etc.

Ben S.



I think of all the smaller, unique cruise lines that have either been
swallowed up or couldn't compete with the big guys and it's sad. It really
shows just how homogenized the industry has become. Just in the last 15
years we used to have: Premier Cruises, Regency Cruises, Home Lines, Sitmar
Cruises, Dolphin Cruise Line, Majesty Cruise Line, Eastern Cruise Line,
Western Cruise Line, Admiral Cruise Line, Cape Canaveral Cruises, Royal
Viking Line, Royal Cruise Line, Sun Line, Epirotiki, Royal Olympic, Festival
Cruises, American Hawaii Cruises, United States Line, etc., etc. I'm sure
there are several that I left out.

Now we have one company that controls something like 60% of the cruise
industry, and two smaller players that basically make up the difference.
Sure there are multiple brands under each parent company, but regardless it
seems the brands lose much of their individuality once they become part of
the corporate family. Even the hardware suffers, which is a major reason I
take cruises to begin with. Let's face it, the cruise experience doesn't
differ significantly from line to line in the same price bracket (although
die hard loyalists would like to believe otherwise), so it's the hardware
that I get excited about. Currently there are no ships on the horizon that
even tweak my interest. They are all clones and hybrids of something
already out there. QM2 was the last new ship that I had any real desire to
sail on. Why, because she is unique. If Carnival builds five more like her
then her appeal will fade, at least for me.

That's exactly how I feel. None of the new ships from the mainstream
interest me whatsoever and the building boom has lost its momentum as
the new ships don't really offer anything significant. As you say, they
are just some version of something that exists in some form or another.
A few more features, balconies, alternative restaurants. Yawn. The QM2
has to remain unique for me to stay interested in her. One more, just
one more of her and she loses her unique appeal.



Carnival Corp. alone has a
single ship platform now being used for FIVE of their brands. A
Spirit/Vista Class hybrid is being used for Carnival, Costa, Holland
America, P&O Cruises, and Cunard. Why should I pay Cunard prices when I can
cruise the same type ship under P&O or HAL? RCI/Celebrity did a little
better job differentiating between the Radiance Class and M-Class, although
both classes share many similarities. These days even the "International"
staff is interchangeable between brands. We have Princess Cruises staff
working on the QM2, and Carnival staff working on Costa ships. What really
makes the experience different? Not a whole lot. Someone on another board
brought up an analogy of Carnival Corp. and General Motors. Basically
General Motors produced the same car for several of it's brands, with only
slight modifications and the signage on the car being different. Why buy a
Buick or Oldsmobile when you can basically have the same car under the
cheaper Chevrolet brand? The same could be said with Carnival's brands, or
at least they seem to be heading in that direction. GM learned that
strategy doesn't work, at least not for the long term. While production was
cheap, consumers are smarter than many corporate executives would like to
believe and they caught on. GM sales went down the toilette and now they
have a much different strategy.

Hopefully Carnival and other brands will not have to hit rock bottom in
order for cruise executives to realize that consumers want different
products to choose from, and not just a smoke screen, but real and true
differences that define a product.


Yep, agree with all of this. Carnival is driven by market share.

I think they'll probably have to hit rock bottom. They don't think
consumers need different products to choose from, they think the sheer
amount of ships hold a higher appeal than different products. It works
now. We'll see how far down the road it'll continue to work.

To be honest, I'm rooting for Carnival to crash. I think it'll be good
for consumers and the industry. The mighty will fall, and then perhaps
some form of smaller lines can again operate in the market.

Ernie

ps - I'm not holding my breath for Delta Queen considering who is President
of the line. Let's hope that "Fuzzy Wuzzy's Den" doesn't start appearing on
the DELTA QUEEN!


Nothing will surprise me, I just hope I get to sail aboard them before
this happens.

Ben S.

*bicker* wrote:

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:40:44 -0400, "E.k.R."
escribió:

QM2 was the last new ship that I had any real desire to
sail on. Why, because she is unique. If Carnival builds five more like her
then her appeal will fade, at least for me.


Yeah. This is the bit that doesn't work out the same for
me. The fact that (many) others can enjoy something doesn't
really take anything about from the experience for me.


The point is this one ship stands out amoung the many. If one more is
built she becomes a series ship, and loses her unique appeal.

Ben S.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

"Becca" wrote in message
...
E.k.R. wrote:

I'm sure there are several that I left out.

whispering Commodore Cruise Lines. I am not sure I miss Commodore but
I do miss Royal Olympic. I enjoyed reading that message, Ernie.

Becca -----enjoyed the Stella Solaris...


Hi Becca,
Yes, I missed that one! I knew there would be some I forgot. It seems even
though there are far more ships today, we had a lot more choices 15-20 years
ago. Every ship was different, had a unique personality, and so were the
cruise lines. They were much more Nationalistic, with the crews truly being
all from one country, whether it be Italian, or Greek, Dutch, or whatever.
I really miss that. Sailing on Home Lines or Sitmar was like taking a trip
to Italy. Same with many other lines and the country the crew represented.

Besides most moderately priced ship choices today being mega-clones, the
other major differences seem to be the crew, which today is mostly
International on all ships, and the onboard product. The quality is no
longer there and in exchange is the ever annoying quest to boast onboard
revenue. Remember when cruises were actually known for their amazing food?
Not so today. It's mediocre at best and presented with little to no flair.
Again, this is a trade-off for cruising becoming affordable to the masses.
It's great almost everyone can afford a cruise these days, but those of us
that have cruised for years have seen dramatic changes. The ships are large
and offer all the bells and whistles, but gone is the family-like
camaraderie that once existed between cruise passengers. It was like you
were part of a special club. Now it's more like a large resort hotel where
you never see the same person twice and passengers are walking about with
cell phones and walkie talkies.

I still love cruises, but it's fun to reminisce about how things used to be.

Ernie

"Lunyma" wrote in message
...
It was expensive, and not at all what we had hoped for.

I would say EXACTLY the same thing about Emeril's, in Orlando... What a
disappointment...


NO .... say it ain't so.

--Tom

"RTCReferee" wrote in message
...
"E.k.R." wrote:

Ernie, do you have any interest in Clipper Odyssey, especially doing some
of
her more exotic itineraries?

Clipper and Cruise West haven't been swallowed up yet, have they?


I have looked at Clipper. I don't have much interest in Cruise West. The
ships are too small and more like coastal ships. Very limited amenities and
not true ocean going vessels.

The CLIPPER ODYSSEY looks lovely, although again she is quite small.
Certainly something to consider in the future.

Ernie

*bicker* wrote:

A 12 Jul 2004 12:17:14 -0700, (Benjamin
Smith) escribió:

*bicker* wrote in message ...

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:01:23 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

Mass market you'll say, my
problem is more they are corporate, but in a sense it is the same thing.
Expand and standardize. I think this is fine for some of them, but not
all of them. I'm quite frankly tired of being told that if I want a
"different" cruise experience I have to go to expensive lines.
That should not be the case and it *does not* have to be the case.

Folks often begrudge the premium they have to pay for
something exclusive, yet that is the nature of economies of
scale. I can understand your frustration at that fact,
though.

I'm not. What I'm saying is that some products may cost more to offer
to a smaller clientele, but they don't have to be in the "luxury"
category to have enough of a clientele to sustain a profitable
business.


I didn't say anything about "luxury" so it seems to me that
you're talking about something other than what you replied
to.


I used bed and breakfasts and small shops in small towns as
an example.


Low barrier-to-entry. Try that with a $100 million
bed-and-breakfast.


And I'd love if some of the premium lines would start
charging premium prices again.


The number of people who *say* that they would pay a premium
for a premium product doesn't have any impact on the
profitability of the business. Only the number of people
who actually *do* pay the premium for a premium product can.
You may be one of those who actually *would* but clearly
there aren't enough of such folks, as evidenced by these
premium lines moving closer and closer over time to the
mainstream lines.



The shipbuilding boom dropped the price of admission, and after the
economy became soft (the dotcom collapse, the impact of 9/11, and the
accounting scandals) prices went down. Then, people became accustomed to
low prices and have an idea of what they think cruises should cost. A
lot of this is due to the overbuilding of new ships and making them
bigger and bigger. What you had throughout the years and in many
establishments isn't an emphasis on new as truly what is being pushed
now. It is more on consistency and familiarity with enough variation and
unpredictability to keep the product interesting and vibrant. With
hospitality industries familiar service from familiar servers,
interesting and unpredictable activities, upgrades to certain areas that
need shoring up. Identify who wants consistency--the size of the market
and make enough product for these people. Give people who are willing to
pay the money for the product the high quality they expect with
consistency and they'll come back. Skimp and go toward a lower common
denominator and you'll be profitable, but you'll also have a different
type of product.


What we
need is not more expensive lines, but new lines that aren't corporate
owned.

That's a red-herring, IMHO. If I owned a cruise line --
invested my own money -- I'd want to make the best decisions
I could to foster my long-term financial security, even if
that means crafting a cruise line that isn't to my own
personal specifications. I can always use the extra money I
make to buy the specific aspects I want, over-and-on-top of
what is offered to the mass market.

The we I'm talking about are consumers.


Granted. It's a bit like saying, "What we television
viewers need is not more pay channels, but new free channels
that don't have commercials." It is unquestionably true
(given the way you used "need" above), but isn't very
enlightening as a statement.


Smaller companies that focus on the product. Not huge corporations that
focus on market share and growth and doing whatever it takes to maximize
both.


Your business decisions are
sound but you would not have the type of consumer-based focus and
vision that I would be interested in as a client.


You're mistaken. A business that provides products and
services that its customers aren't willing to pay for isn't
focusing on its customers. (I used to work for Ma Bell,
back when it was Ma Bell, so I can tell you great stories
about all the great stuff we just *knew* you wanted, even
though you didn't express any appreciable interest it
beforehand.) Customer-based focus is actively listening to
your customers and crafting from that information the most
profitable product and service offerings, to best satisfy
your fiduciary responsibilities.



Depends on who you listen to. If you are interested in constantly
expanding you'll listen to those that want to transform your style of
business. You'll be numbers driven. If you have a solid customer base
saying don't change the product and will except slow but steady growth
and people willing the pay the price, you can listen to what may be a
minority that want a particular product. You are driven to providing
something for them. When you say "most profitable" I think that's where
the corporate mentality is driven. There's most profitable and there's
profitable or at least sustainable, and those that have a vision of a
product and do research and have a viable client base can run profitable
businesses without an overwhelming need to expand to trends. In other
words, they desire to have niche products that satisfy their clients
(whatever size they may be).

A lot of customer comments are based on perceptions of what companies
have to offer, so there's a directive from the corporation. Corporations
influence people's ideas as people are mostly sheep and the corporations
take advantage of this.

Ben S.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html