Royal intended to be at full capacity by May/June. They also knew about potent staff shortages. So then why push forward for a capacity that they could potentially not cater to? The past sailings of around 40 to 70% were doable. So mathematically, if they wanted more passengers, they should have had the staffing and contingency plans in place prior to full sailings.
a business is usually in a greater position of power and knowledge, passing off the shortage issues onto the consumer is somewhat wrong. I’m not saying we can play dumb and be blissfully ignorant, but the opposite is to say that we should not expect the greatest possible outcome as a consumer, ever.
I feel like you're consistently ignoring two factors:
- the companies need to ramp up capacity to keep their businesses going. Don't forget that all these ships earned no money at all (whilst still incurring costs) whilst they were sat doing nothing.
- you can't have contingency staffing INA cruise ship. Where are they supposed to live? The lifeboats?
Staffing Issues Query
in Royal Caribbean Discussion
Posted
I feel like you're consistently ignoring two factors:
- the companies need to ramp up capacity to keep their businesses going. Don't forget that all these ships earned no money at all (whilst still incurring costs) whilst they were sat doing nothing.
- you can't have contingency staffing INA cruise ship. Where are they supposed to live? The lifeboats?