Jump to content

Untypical Times Requires Royal & Passengers To Have Untypical Expectations & Explanations


LifesEz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have had itineraries, FCC, payments, and other things work to my favor and disfavor in this restart. Here is my take on it.

We passengers recognize these are untypical times.
Royal is not perfect. Nor is Royal expected to be in these untypical times.

Untypical times require untypical understanding and expectations.

Passengers are willing to suspend typical expectations.
Royal recognizes these untypical times and are giving passengers untypical exceptions.

Passengers expect and understand there may be dynamic changes to our planned cruises.
Royal appreciates passengers' understanding.

If Royal is making mistakes and not aware, I am sure Royal wants to know, so they can fix them.
Passengers expect untypical explanations for untypical mistakes or changes. 

Royal should recognize typical answers like, 'Port Planning' or 'It is in the contract' are insufficient answer in these untypical times.
Pre-NSO/CSO boilerplate form letters do not address today's untypical scenarios.
It is a mismatch when passengers Apple problems receive Orange answers.

Expect the unexpected needs to be balance with
Untypical times require untypical explanations.

Untypical transparency would confirm Royal is aware of the problems, recognizes them, and is asking for passengers understanding, while working on solutions.
It reassures passengers their untypical concerns are fully in Royal's thoughts.
 
It's a PR thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could additional change and turmoil be influenced by changing PCR testing for certain countries?   For example, St. Maarten alone had reduced the time period between test and arrival.  If a country required a negative test for example 72 hrs prior to arrival, now changes to 24 hrs prior, thing how that changes the chain of stops of that port is now #3 instead of of #1 on a stop.  (Unless the line supports an on-board test event for each of the upcoming ports with that requirement).   A whole itinerary could get flushed because of one change in 1 country due to a change in testing requirement set-backs..

This certainly doesn't justify the line not informing guest, but under todays' ever changing requirements, I can see how it happens.  i think the only way to stabilize is group ports with identical health requirements.  Not sure how many are identical at this point in time.  Greatly limits how you can sail over a 7-day period.  Just a hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been planning our family cruise since 2019 and with COVID it has had many changes.  The first thing i told the other families involved was that "ports are not guaranteed" and can be changed at any time, even on the ship.  I'm sure that the cruise lines are doing the best they can with the ever changing environment and they are in a non win situation.  If they cancel it, people are mad, if they change it, people are mad.  

 

We even had a November 2021 cruise where both the ship and the ports changed.  Sure it was disappointing, but until everything is back to normal, there was no need to fret over it.  I'm sure we will still have a great trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruisers are experiencing first world problems. Meanwhile much of the world is either trying to find safety amid horrible violence or find enough food to survive. Thousands continue to die from COVID for lack of adequate medical care.

Perspective.

Every business operation tries to control the variables to the extent they can do that. The more control of them the more predictable achieving desired outcomes become. I cannot imagine the difficulty RCG, with a huge number of moving parts, is dealing with the variables and uncertainties attached to most of them. There are some constants for sure, like fuel and food planning, maintenance schedules but those constants or controllable variables are outnumbered 10:1 by factors that have direct impact on the customer experience and are changing daily. Most of them involve on board health and safety policies and procedures - what is the requirement from the feds and the states today? Some of them have to do with changing port regulations, again, these are country and state specific - a lot of them completely different.

My view is that RCG principles - Bayley, Fain and Lutoff-Perlo - have done an outstanding job of getting ships ready to sail, actually sailing already in Europe or are soon to sail there, and are about to restart with dozens of ships sailing from several US ports under the most arduous business circumstances I think any major company has had to deal with. 

Therefore, I can excuse what may be perceived as a lack of transparency, a CSR dropping the ball or often unclear and frequently changing health and safety policies. I'm not going to worry if a future sailings check in doesn't open when I expect it to. I'll follow every rule both at check in at the pier and onboard that as a passenger I'm expected to follow. I can't advocate for RCG doing more than they already are or much differently than they are doing it. I'll be sailing on Celebrity Apex out of Athens on 7/9/21. Once aboard, my mission will be to locate every department director - because these are the guys/gals where the buck stops - and tell them what a fantastic job they have done getting us back to cruising. On my last day, I'll find them all again and tell them how much I enjoyed every minute of the cruise. Then I'll get ready for my next cruise out of PEV in August aboard Apex ........ grateful and thankful to have the opportunity to cruise again.

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my only issue with these untypical times.  I agree untypical times call for understanding and cooperation from both sides.  However, as requirements to cruise change, if I am unwillingly to comply with the new requirements/restrictions, I should not have to fight to get a refund nor only option be FCC that I may not be able to use given the current timelines.  Policies need to be fair to all involved.  I am pretty sure my Suite would be resold quickly and likely for more than I paid.  We have all effectively given them interest free loans.  I held on. I was understanding.  I will not be vaccinated and just want a refund at this point.  I don't want to incur additional cost to take tests nor wear a mask on board.  I am not forcing them to accommodate me but don't force me to accommodate their policy on a costly trip I no longer want to take.  I am nearly $8K into this trip, no one wants to walk away from their hard earned dollars.  Hopefully Royal does the right thing, it will certainly dictate whether we will remain loyal to royal if and when things return to some sense of normalcy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I use to tell my godchildren when they fought and complained that the punishment wasn't fair, that nothing and everything is fair. These have been trying and special times. RCG has offered many refunds and options. Options that were fair to cruisers and not some much to their bottom line. Pre-covid we knew buying a cruise would come with all sorts of contractual stipulations...but unless a hurricane reared it ugly head or some sort of civil unrest happened, everything remained intact. I remember in the beginning when people were still booking cruises, despite overwhelming evidence that cruise lines would not be starting June, July August....etc of 2020. Some were even booking cruises they knew weren't going to sail in hopes of getting that extra 25% in FCCs. Then came the possibility of cruising in early 2021 and the thought of restricted cruises, which to me was always in the forefront of my mind, had them up in arms expecting refunds.

But imho if you booked any cruises before the CSO was set to expire, booked cruises after frequenting this blog or even done a smidge of research. You should have been prepared for all the restrictions and vaccine requirements. I also believe just because you can doesn't mean you should. RCG offering bookings they hoped would sail is not false advertising. They are a business, that saw plenty of others open up in some capacity. The fact that getting a refund is even possible is a boon. Nobody was forced into booking a cruise, a cruise is a luxury. I don't live near a port but I have had 5 cruises cancelled, L&S one to 2022 and took the refunds on the rest because I didn't feel confident in any sailing before late 2021. My first cruise is in OCT with 4 newbies to RCG, they have adjusted expectations. I have been telling to expect masks, distancing and changes. At one point I even told them to not to expect to cruise. Thankfully it looks as though Allure will be sailing. Now as far as transparency goes, do I think RCG has dropped the ball...yes and no. We have come to expect so much information, right there and now, that it is ridiculous. Op not being told about the itinerary changes was a huge snafu but possibly unavoidable given the state of the cruise industry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ampurp85 said:

But imho if you booked any cruises before the CSO was set to expire, booked cruises after frequenting this blog or even done a smidge of research. You should have been prepared for all the restrictions and vaccine requirements

We'll agree to disagree on our views.  I was cancelled for April 2020 and immediately rebooked for August 2021.  No one was thinking cruises would not take place in Summer 2021 at that point let alone summer of 2020.  I don't view any of this as fair or unfair.  I view it as what's right and wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JSB_Z51 I know my opinions and beliefs don't always align with others so we will agree to disagree. My post was not in any way a slight to you, its just from reading the opt-eds and comments from the blogs.....whew!!!

I knew quite a few people who thought cruising would never commence again. I was always changing my stance on when cruises would start based on lots of factors. I was convinced at least 6mth after shut down but things weren't heading in a good direction so I assumed late summer 2021. So that "no one" should be most or plenty. When I was in corporate I was told that might makes right and that right and wrong are moral constructs that have no business in business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this environment cruising is risky ..... travel is risky. Our goal should be to mitigate those risks so that whatever risk one is taking is acceptable. That starts with anticipating and identifying them and then determining if you're willing to lose a pile of money because of a bad outcome on the risk you took. Buying insurance with a rider that allows cancel for any reason is something cruisers should be anticipating the need for and getting it even though it's expensive. 

I think @JSB_Z51 is correct that no one was thinking this thing was going to last for 16 months and nearly scuttle the cruise industry. Vaccines were wishful thinking even by late summer 2020...... but they were on the horizon. It just tuned out we got them sooner than expected and, wow, they work waaaay better than expected in controlling SARS2 transmission.

We know this but it bears repeating in this context: People that are vaxed have a probability of death from COVID that is ZERO, serious illness < 1% and catching it at all around 2-3%. The risk of unvaccinated asymptomatic spreaders increases those probabilities in a hybrid pax manifest, albeit it is still low but apparently not low enough for most the cruise lines that have, for the most part, gone with a requirement to get vaccinated to sail.

At this point, folks wanting to cruise have a choice. Get vaccinated or don't. If one choses to not get vaccinated and a cruise line allows you to board but with restrictions, you have a choice. Put up with them or don't. Not a single cruise line is forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Choice is the byword in all aspects of vaccination policy. What the lines are doing with current vaccine policy (subject to change) is pursing their self defined  moral and ethical responsibility to create a safe onboard environment for crew and passengers. Their definition of what constitutes "safe" is debatable. That they can do that lawfully is not.  IMO, if one is eligible and able, choosing not to get vaccinated to board a line that requires it is a choice to not cruise. Choosing to not get vaccinated and not to put up with mitigation restrictions imposed on un-vaxxed is a choice  .... to cancel actually.

I do agree with @JSB that RCL has an obligation to do what is right, not withstanding @Ampurp85 quip on right and wrong being "moral constructs that have no business in business." I don't think asking for a refund is inappropriate given the past and present circumstances. You did not say, but if RCL is offering a FCC - and I believe this can be an option in your situation under RCL's Cruise With Confidence program - and you turn this down, you're turning down an accommodation that makes barriers to you receiving a full refund difficult to over-come. Not saying the right TA or CSR won't go to bat for you and make it happen. If that's what you want you should try for it. Hearty clap for good TAs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure the original message was clear enough. My apologies. 
I am a retired Fortune 20 trained manager.
As such, I was trained all of us have things we would do for free (Volunteer) and things we would not do despite the pay. 

We are early into the flood of flux and dynamics in the cruising restart.
We understand the great job all have done to get things started again.

However, when there is flux, Royal is currently using the Pre-Covid NSO/CSO standard boilerplate forms and letters.
While those were good and sufficient for those times, they do not fit today's flux and dynamic changes on the fly that have happened, are happening and are coming.

I could put it this way.

With growth comes change.
How many of us can wear the same coat we wore to kindergarten and have it fit as well?
As our children grow, we purchase, make, or acquire new clothes to fit them.

We passengers have grown through these untypical times.
Royal has grown through these untypical times.
We are both still growing and will continue to grow into and through things returning to normal.

With that change, the old ways need to adapt and change.

By small changes to the old Pre-Covid NSO/CSO boilerplate form letters
Royal would be sending a signal to passengers that would better fit today's changes with better explanations.
The passengers would be reassured with the newer, larger coat of letter and communications that Royal hears their concerns.
An assured passenger, like many of the more experienced passengers above, will be willing to suspend even more expectations.

Can Royal get by with the old explanations? Sure. But there will be a cost with some passengers.
Why not let the other lines do that and pay the price?
When those passengers drop their current lines,
pick up those free cruise loving passengers and keep more of the old Royal passengers,
with but a tiny effort into reassuring and recognition?
Nothing that hits the bottom line other than the time to change a few forms,
and perhaps a couple of news releases, which are free advertising?

A small change that would do wonders for Public Relations with passengers.
It will go much further than telling us, "Expect the Unexpected."
It would say, "We appreciate your suspending expectations and are working hard to return things to normal. Your input and patience is appreciated."

It reassures passengers their untypical suspensions of expectations are fully in Royal's thoughts.
It reassures Royal recognizes the passengers may not be pleased
However, it is a partnership where the passengers understand and are doing their part by being untypically tolerant with Royal.
It recognizes and puts the focus on the passenger's growth, not the flux Royal is experiencing and fighting.
It makes the passengers just as important and heroic in their own way as the hardworking crews.

That higher (growth) recognition, something the old boilerplate do not recognize, actually creates a new level of loyalty.
Royal would keep some passengers they would otherwise lose, and gain more passengers other lines lost.
Why? Because that recognition by Royal incorporates the passengers as part of the solution.


I am not dismissing anything Royal and Royal staff did, is doing, or will do.
I am explaining a small tweak that will help recognize the times and grow passengers loyalty.
A small short term, almost free change of attitude and perspective, that will create a stronger bond between Royal and passengers.
 
It's a PR thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, JSB_Z51 said:

Here's my only issue with these untypical times.  I agree untypical times call for understanding and cooperation from both sides.  However, as requirements to cruise change, if I am unwillingly to comply with the new requirements/restrictions, I should not have to fight to get a refund nor only option be FCC that I may not be able to use given the current timelines.  Policies need to be fair to all involved.  I am pretty sure my Suite would be resold quickly and likely for more than I paid.  We have all effectively given them interest free loans.  I held on. I was understanding.  I will not be vaccinated and just want a refund at this point.  I don't want to incur additional cost to take tests nor wear a mask on board.  I am not forcing them to accommodate me but don't force me to accommodate their policy on a costly trip I no longer want to take.  I am nearly $8K into this trip, no one wants to walk away from their hard earned dollars.  Hopefully Royal does the right thing, it will certainly dictate whether we will remain loyal to royal if and when things return to some sense of normalcy. 

I absolutely agree with you in this Royal is playing checkers when they should be playing chess. If Royal wishes to keep customers loyal to Royal then they should for a limited time (perhaps 3 weeks) make a one time offer only offer to customers for a full refunds regardless if they booked a fully refundable or nonrefundable cruise fare.  

I think you bring up a valid point by pointed out Royals policy which now states unvaccinated customers who are able to get vaccinated will incur additional cost. Although I'm fully vaccinated and have every intention on going on my cruise at the end of October I would be lying if I said I wasn't reading the blog everyday trying to get a glimpse of what life is like onboard Adventure of the Seas or Celebrity Millennium. Even though I've booked a fully refundable cruise I still haven't paid the balance because I want to read about other customers onboard experiences once cruse resumes from US ports. This way my husband an I can make an informed decision as to if we really want to do this or will we give it a few more months and wait until our January cruise.  The closer we get to cruising resuming out of US ports the more confusing the regulations have gotten from one state to the next and come October 29th 2021 it will have been 2 years since my husband and I last boarded a cruise ship. We had several cruise schedule in 2020 starting in April, June, October and November they were all of course canceled, so it's been 2 long years.  While we are excited and still love cruising I'm also adjusting my expectations of life onboard and I want to wait and read about other peoples experience about life onboard the ship.  We were both sitting down talking about this issue the other night and we were both like if we get the feeling that the changes onboard are too drastic we should just wait and cancel and book another all inclusive resort in Cabo, or Jamaica.  That is what we did last year it isn't a cruise but it still was a great vacation.  

One of the benefits of booking suites are you get to diamond+ status very quickly however being over 400 points away from pinnacle it will take years even booking suites even with their double cruise points offer.  I'll admit when it was first announced I was excited but now I'm like it meaningless for customers who are diamond+ and still have several hundred points between them pinnacle.   I think once Royal really get its US operations back up and running they should give all customers a chance to digest all of the changes.  I think people should be reading blogs like the one found on this site and educate themselves about life onboard to better manage their expectations.  I think Royal needs to be completely upfront with unvaccinated individuals who decide to cruise and let them know all the additional cost they will incur and potential cost they could incur should they or any member of their traveling party test positive during the voyage. Finally Royal should make a one time, limited time offer of full refunds for passengers like yourself and tell customers although the changes are temporary, they are also necessary at this time to protect everyone onboard.  That being said we look forward to welcoming you on a future Royal Caribbean cruise just as soon as things get back to normal. 

The value of loyal customers some companies appreciate it others take it for granted that you will alway be there. Although customers did make a choice to book nonrefundable fares they did so under different circumstances.  These are not normal times or normal circumstances and I'm a firm believer in fair is fair.  Royal should make a one time, limited time exception and those who miss the cut off, they can accept an FCC or if doesn't work then Royal wins and keeps all their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JasonOasismakes a strong case for fairness on RCL's part given shifting rules and restrictions not present at the time of booking. Like any business, cruise lines are sensitive to public perceptions of their character and honesty. We see them embracing all sorts of popular movements, e.g., Save the Seas, among many others, to advance the companies public image. That's the easy part. The hard part is actually delivering, it is especially hard when it comes to the impact on profitability of any particular customer friendly or image polishing policy they might adopt.

I'd be wildly guessing what the cost of offering full refunds would be to RCL if  a whole lot of customers meet specific requirements to obtain one. @JSB_Z51's argument, based on his particular circumstances seems to fall within reasonable circumstances for him to be offered a full refund. I have no doubt, however, that RCL's existing cruise contract is water tight with respect to their obligation to accept special circumstances as a reason to refund a cancelled cruise fare. What's going on now is, indeed, new territory and I would agree that customers who have stuck it out with Royal over the last 16 months should be recognized and rewarded. But I can see the blue suits with calculators telling their bosses a widely applicable refund policy, even for limited and very specific COVID related reasons, would be too costly.

My bet is that RCL calculates a wave of dissatisfied passengers will ebb and hard core Royal customers who chose to bail will be replaced by others. Not saying this is right or ethical. Just saying capitalism can be ugly.  Workers and customers are routinely disempowered and often treated unfairly..... at least that was Carl Marx and Vlad Lenin's claim.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 8:51 AM, JSB_Z51 said:

Here's my only issue with these untypical times.  I agree untypical times call for understanding and cooperation from both sides.  However, as requirements to cruise change, if I am unwillingly to comply with the new requirements/restrictions, I should not have to fight to get a refund nor only option be FCC that I may not be able to use given the current timelines.  Policies need to be fair to all involved.  I am pretty sure my Suite would be resold quickly and likely for more than I paid.  We have all effectively given them interest free loans.  I held on. I was understanding.  I will not be vaccinated and just want a refund at this point.  I don't want to incur additional cost to take tests nor wear a mask on board.  I am not forcing them to accommodate me but don't force me to accommodate their policy on a costly trip I no longer want to take.  I am nearly $8K into this trip, no one wants to walk away from their hard earned dollars.  Hopefully Royal does the right thing, it will certainly dictate whether we will remain loyal to royal if and when things return to some sense of normalcy. 

 

On 6/16/2021 at 11:23 AM, JSB_Z51 said:

We'll agree to disagree on our views.  I was cancelled for April 2020 and immediately rebooked for August 2021.  No one was thinking cruises would not take place in Summer 2021 at that point let alone summer of 2020.  I don't view any of this as fair or unfair.  I view it as what's right and wrong.  

 

5 hours ago, JeffB said:

@JasonOasismakes a strong case for fairness on RCL's part given shifting rules and restrictions not present at the time of booking. .............................

@JSB_Z51's argument, based on his particular circumstances seems to fall within reasonable circumstances for him to be offered a full refund..............................

I may have the dissenting opinion here, but unless I am mistaken @JSB_Z51 had the option when his April 2020 cruise was canceled to receive a full refund, but for whatever reason (price protection from increases, thinking it would all blow over) he elected to L&S ultimately kicking the can down the road, not knowing what would happen in the future. 

I understand as I kicked the can down the road also, the difference is I had not already made final payment.  I did have flights arranged to the tune of 6K and never would have been able to use the credit voucher issued in each individuals name before it ran out, but with some luck the airline moved the departure of one leg more than the old requirement which are now ~4 hours (time of my ticket purchase) by more than an hour and I was able to get a full refund. 

I also flew into IAH the Friday before my Sunday departure that was canceled on the following day Saturday by Royal one day before sailing.

Things happen and as much as I think insurance is mostly a rip off, its purpose is to offset costs you do not want to risk incurring or can't afford to incur.

I think Royal has been more than fair with the way they have handled the changes required by the Covid pandemic. 

It would be each individuals decision I would say are in question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly this is in interesting discussion that highly informed folks are contributing. Fundamentally, a debate might boil down to whether or not RCL values their image as a company with ethics - in this case a willingness to place public perception over profits.

I have two good friends, both lawyers. One is a trial lawyer the other interprets regulations as they apply to operational considerations in a large company. When they approach a debate like this the first thing that has to happen is that the system within which the debate is undertaken must be defined and bounded. If it isn't, it usually gets our of control and gets the two sides nowhere. Often, while the law is helpful, the debate hinges not on it but rather on the more vague aspects of morals and ethics. 

We can probably answer the legal question easily: Is RCL obligated to refund a cruise fare? The answer is found under the rules the company has established in the cruise contract every passenger agrees to. IMO, knowing what I know about cruise contracts and the circumstance at hand, the answer is no.

Immediately, that defaults the system within which this question is being debated to the realm of ethics and morals. IOW, is it unethical or amoral for RCL to not refund a cruise fare under the specific circumstances we have at hand? In the strictest sense the term Caveat Emptor applies. OTH, that response avoids the question of how much good will is RCL willing to purchase. One can dance around all the niceties of should and could do this or that, but it's going to boil down to the question that RCL execs are going to have to answer. I have no doubt, they know the cost and how much they are willing to pay for good will, PR, retaining loyal customers and grabbing up customers from other companies who will pay less for those things than RCL might, losing some of them in the process that then switch over to RCL

I think big corporations of today care much less about the ethics and morality of their choices than they do about share prices, profits and executive pay.  That trend has been ongoing for a long time. Those are the hard truths that underlay this particular debate. The weight of those truths tend to tip the scales of justice in one particular way that isn't favorable for the OP and those who post in support of him as much as his position - give the man his money back - is ethically and morally appealing.  That, and what  @CruiseGus has to say about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree mostly with @CruiseGus

I personally think RCG from a business standpoint has been pretty generous in policy. I think in actuality to a fault because you had people booking cruises they hope or know wont sail in order to get higher FCC. I see a lot of buyer's remorse. Since I want to say Nov 2020, it has long been speculated that cruising would not commence until a vaccine was in place. Whether you believed it or not, it was always an option for cruising to return. I remember the polls of people who wouldn't sail if those conditions were going to have to be met.

I don't think in the current climate you should just expect a refund because of restrictions like masks and vaccine requirements....or even port changes.  That is just my opinion. @JeffB touched on the motion of if RCG or any business started offering refunds because people didn't want to comply for whatever reason, then where does it end?? If you didn't book a refundable deposit, you understood the risk. I understand we all want exceptions to be made when it comes to us as individuals but a bunch of individuals will eventually make a group.

I can't wait to get back to cruising...... when the complaints will be not enough lounge chairs or weird kids licking the sneeze guard in the Windjammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ampurp85 said:

Just want to say it may work out in @JSB_Z51 favor because the protocols released allow for refunds.

I hope so. I truly hope you all who don't mind the new protocols enjoy yourselves. Tip well if you can for the poor people that have been out of work and contribute to our experience on the ship.  Will keep you posted on my outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JeffB said:

Clearly this is in interesting discussion that highly informed folks are contributing. Fundamentally, a debate might boil down to whether or not RCL values their image as a company with ethics - in this case a willingness to place public perception over profits.

...

We can probably answer the legal question easily: Is RCL obligated to refund a cruise fare? The answer is found under the rules the company has established in the cruise contract every passenger agrees to. IMO, knowing what I know about cruise contracts and the circumstance at hand, the answer is no.

Immediately, that defaults the system within which this question is being debated to the realm of ethics and morals...One can dance around all the niceties of should and could do this or that, but it's going to boil down to the question that RCL execs are going to have to answer. I have no doubt, they know the cost and how much they are willing to pay for good will, PR, retaining loyal customers and grabbing up customers from other companies who will pay less for those things than RCL might, losing some of them in the process that then switch over to RCL

I think big corporations of today care much less about the ethics and morality of their choices than they do about share prices, profits and executive pay.  That trend has been ongoing for a long time. Those are the hard truths that underlay this particular debate. The weight of those truths tend to tip the scales of justice in one particular way that isn't favorable for the OP and those who post in support of him as much as his position - give the man his money back - is ethically and morally appealing.  That, and what  @CruiseGus has to say about this. 

As a stockholder of a number of shares and calls, my hope is the Royal Execs see beyond the short term, even though it is important right now, and think long term. I do not expect my RCL to do better than my TeSLA. However, I do see this moment in time a fantastic opportunity to present an expanded version of 'Our Passengers Come First.'

I have 'Diamond Hands' which means I intend to 'Hold' onto my shares long term and not sell. Though it does fit with the Loyalty status. I want Royal Execs to be thinking long term. I can ride out any small term pull back in good news impacting the stock. First responsibility is survival, next is long term survival.

Execs to often in times of stress like these, trip over tomorrow's dollars to pick up today's pennies. Avoid having short term pennies block the vision of long term dollars. 

Loyalty is another place where a small change can cost perhaps little or nothing, but make a big impact on customer loyalty. The distance between Diamond Plus and Pinnacle is huge. Sure, there are in between advantages. But you have to read the small print about 240 points additions, etc. What? Was someone too lazy to make those level breaks? Run out of gems for a new category? Did they think making a new category would widen the chart and make it too busy? That tiny dot is easy to read, folks. Those tiny 240 breakouts lettering down the left-hand column are not easy to read with older eyes. In case no one has noticed, the level to 700 points will take so much time that a majority of those reaching those levels will be older eyes.

Think outside the box! There has never been a more important time to think that way in cruise line industry history. This from a person who worked for McDonnell-Douglas and retired from Boeing McDonnell-Douglas and knows the history of how it used to be Douglas Aircraft, but fell to McDonnell-Douglas.

You do not do like Mr. McDonnell and order a case of peas, open each can, count the number in each can, and average them out. Then divide the number of Shareholders coming into the minimum number of cases that can be purchase. Finally, require the Chefs at the next Shareholders dinner to put exactly X-number of peas on each plate because that is the number of cases you are buying. Good idea on saving cases of peas. However, how much costs for the Chef's time? You either need to hire more Chefs, have the Chefs work longer hours to get the count right, or have Shareholders have to wait longer for a colder meal. All when you could donate those cases to charity and get a write-off. The later could result in lower per case acquisition costs because of the extra quantity of case bought, in lower Chef production costs, happier Shareholder in fresh served meals, and better PR image by a news release and big promotion of the donation event. All this beyond the good of being seen as community friendly for a small or perhaps, after all things considered, for little or no costs.

Here is a current example of what I mean about the story of Mr McDonnell and the peas. I have a local well known sub sandwich company that recently switched to very thin sliced turkey meat. This is obviously some accountant's idea of saving money. However, with my management background, looking from the other side of the glass as the sandwich is prepared, there are two huge and obvious flaws. First, it is so thin it takes the employee longer to separate the meat, thus any advantage in reducing costs is lost in the increase of employee to make each sandwich. Second, the customer is right there looking at the struggle and recognizes they are spending extra time waiting while the employee struggles, plus the struggle highlights there has been a change in the amount of product for their same amount or higher payment.

Sometimes, in the attempt to 'Save Cost for a Better ROI' and company bottom line, the best decisions are made looking at the entire system, not the projected numbers on a sheet of paper.

As a stockholder, I do hope the Royal Execs are paying attention to this hopefully 'Once in a Lifetime' untypical opportunity. Watch knowing the situation is going to cause other lines to make significant PR  errors. To seek out, focus on, and promote places where with little or no costs, up to reasonable appreciation for future long term loyal customers and act swiftly and with force over the competition.

I think to have chosen this time to expand and return to the Port of Los Angeles with a ship the size of Navigator, knowing the risk of being there with a smaller ship than the competition, is an example of such thinking. In a few years when the financials change, to double down and be the first on the West Coast with their own Cay would more than counter any competition in ship size or customer loyalty as right now the port selection is otherwise so small. It would change up the entire West Coast customer choice consideration, bringing in new customers and returning former customers they lost when they left the West Coast a decade ago.

If Congress passes the Bill by Senator Lee eliminating the need to stop in at least one foreign port, there is another opportunity for Royal to leap frog the competition. They had Former Federal Health & Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt on their Safe Sail Committee. I know Secretary Leavitt and Senator Lee are friends, because I know both very well and helped both in their first election victories. That is a 'Little to Free' opportunity to work for the benefit of customers, if it has not already been happening behind the scenes.

Avoid jumping to the quick strategy meeting of how to make the most profit at the moment. Think survival at the moment with eyes on long term. What resources are already or can be added for little or free to the Royal Execs Tool Box? How can they be used in these unusual times to exponentially grow the customer loyalty base long term? What is the true costs in finances and customer loyalty of each decision? Do we serve thin turkey that is harder to handle and impact customers time and wallet to their face? Do we count peas in a case and average out? Or do we consider all things in the system for short term survival and their long term impact?

My apologies for the length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LifesEz said:

As a stockholder of a number of shares and calls, my hope is the Royal Execs see beyond the short term, even though it is important right now, and think long term. I do not expect my RCL to do better than my TeSLA. However, I do see this moment in time a fantastic opportunity to present an expanded version of 'Our Passengers Come First.'

I have 'Diamond Hands' which means I intend to 'Hold' onto my shares long term and not sell. Though it does fit with the Loyalty status. I want Royal Execs to be thinking long term. I can ride out any small term pull back in good news impacting the stock. First responsibility is survival, next is long term survival.

Execs to often in times of stress like these, trip over tomorrow's dollars to pick up today's pennies. Avoid having short term pennies block the vision of long term dollars. 

Loyalty is another place where a small change can cost perhaps little or nothing, but make a big impact on customer loyalty. The distance between Diamond Plus and Pinnacle is huge. Sure, there are in between advantages. But you have to read the small print about 240 points additions, etc. What? Was someone too lazy to make those level breaks? Run out of gems for a new category? Did they think making a new category would widen the chart and make it too busy? That tiny dot is easy to read, folks. Those tiny 240 breakouts lettering down the left-hand column are not easy to read with older eyes. In case no one has noticed, the level to 700 points will take so much time that a majority of those reaching those levels will be older eyes.

Think outside the box! There has never been a more important time to think that way in cruise line industry history. This from a person who worked for McDonnell-Douglas and retired from Boeing McDonnell-Douglas and knows the history of how it used to be Douglas Aircraft, but fell to McDonnell-Douglas.

You do not do like Mr. McDonnell and order a case of peas, open each can, count the number in each can, and average them out. Then divide the number of Shareholders coming into the minimum number of cases that can be purchase. Finally, require the Chefs at the next Shareholders dinner to put exactly X-number of peas on each plate because that is the number of cases you are buying. Good idea on saving cases of peas. However, how much costs for the Chef's time? You either need to hire more Chefs, have the Chefs work longer hours to get the count right, or have Shareholders have to wait longer for a colder meal. All when you could donate those cases to charity and get a write-off. The later could result in lower per case acquisition costs because of the extra quantity of case bought, in lower Chef production costs, happier Shareholder in fresh served meals, and better PR image by a news release and big promotion of the donation event. All this beyond the good of being seen as community friendly for a small or perhaps, after all things considered, for little or no costs.

Here is a current example of what I mean about the story of Mr McDonnell and the peas. I have a local well known sub sandwich company that recently switched to very thin sliced turkey meat. This is obviously some accountant's idea of saving money. However, with my management background, looking from the other side of the glass as the sandwich is prepared, there are two huge and obvious flaws. First, it is so thin it takes the employee longer to separate the meat, thus any advantage in reducing costs is lost in the increase of employee to make each sandwich. Second, the customer is right there looking at the struggle and recognizes they are spending extra time waiting while the employee struggles, plus the struggle highlights there has been a change in the amount of product for their same amount or higher payment.

Sometimes, in the attempt to 'Save Cost for a Better ROI' and company bottom line, the best decisions are made looking at the entire system, not the projected numbers on a sheet of paper.

As a stockholder, I do hope the Royal Execs are paying attention to this hopefully 'Once in a Lifetime' untypical opportunity. Watch knowing the situation is going to cause other lines to make significant PR  errors. To seek out, focus on, and promote places where with little or no costs, up to reasonable appreciation for future long term loyal customers and act swiftly and with force over the competition.

I think to have chosen this time to expand and return to the Port of Los Angeles with a ship the size of Navigator, knowing the risk of being there with a smaller ship than the competition, is an example of such thinking. In a few years when the financials change, to double down and be the first on the West Coast with their own Cay would more than counter any competition in ship size or customer loyalty as right now the port selection is otherwise so small. It would change up the entire West Coast customer choice consideration, bringing in new customers and returning former customers they lost when they left the West Coast a decade ago.

If Congress passes the Bill by Senator Lee eliminating the need to stop in at least one foreign port, there is another opportunity for Royal to leap frog the competition. They had Former Federal Health & Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt on their Safe Sail Committee. I know Secretary Leavitt and Senator Lee are friends, because I know both very well and helped both in their first election victories. That is a 'Little to Free' opportunity to work for the benefit of customers, if it has not already been happening behind the scenes.

Avoid jumping to the quick strategy meeting of how to make the most profit at the moment. Think survival at the moment with eyes on long term. What resources are already or can be added for little or free to the Royal Execs Tool Box? How can they be used in these unusual times to exponentially grow the customer loyalty base long term? What is the true costs in finances and customer loyalty of each decision? Do we serve thin turkey that is harder to handle and impact customers time and wallet to their face? Do we count peas in a case and average out? Or do we consider all things in the system for short term survival and their long term impact?

My apologies for the length.

Only made it to "Diamond Hands"30 Rock Fellow Kids GIF by PeacockTV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...