National Anthems: Home | Africa | Americas | Asia | Australia&Oceania | Europe | Olympic Anthem |

 
Passports: Home [ Africa ] [ Americas, Australia & Oceania] [ Asia] [ Europe] [ Other documents
Travel:
[Europe] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ Carabben ] [ Air ] [Cruises ]
Forum
Live chat




Subject: Re: Angry Smokers Cancel $3 million of Bookings! Posted on: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:44:27 MST

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:42:55 -0400, Charles
wrote something wonderfully witty:

>In article , George Leppla
> wrote:
>
>> Do you remember that Carnival once had a ship that was completely
>> non-smoking? It was a great experiment but the ship was the lowest profit
>> maker in their fleet, mainly because of lack of group business. Almost
>> every group has at least a few smokers so those groups went on other ships.
>>
>> Not enough non-smokers booked individually to make up the loss... so after
>> trying the non-smoking concept for about two years, the Paradise became a
>> smoking ship.
>
>That was one ship, on one itinerary on one cruise line several years
>ago. I think it was a set up by Carnival planned to fail. You have to
>have the same smoking policies fleet wide. Non-smoking cruise fleets
>are coming. It is only a matter of time. The public will demand it.
>
Screw the public. It isn't about the customers, it is about the
revenue. Increase profit & reduce expenditures. Do you think Cruise
Ships have crews primarily from third world countries because they
support Diversity?

A non-smoking ship, or fleet, is a Marketing gimmick as well as a way
to reduce costs. Allowing smoking means increased Cleaning,
Maintenance and Refurbishment of the ships. Reduce those costs and
possibly increase bookings by rabid anti's and you'll more then make
up any lost revenue stream from smokers.

>I enjoyed my cruise on the Azamara Journey even more because they only
>had two smoking areas, one outside and one in one of the lounges.
>Before I went I thought that was okay but even that is somewhat
>problematic. A complete smoking ban would be better. A complete ban we
>may not see for ten years but the kind of severe limitations like on
>Azamara is going to happen in the next few years.
>
A ban would be better for who? If it is better, the major factor will
be better profit. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the Capitalist
way.

BTW -- Do you realize that almost any myriad of the problems in this
country (USA) are caused by prohibition of this or that? So where
does that get you? Smoker's prisons?
--

"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues