Lengthening, of Enchantment of the Seas!

Howie wrote:



*bicker* wrote:

A Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:00:44 -0400, Howie
escribió:

Higher prices may lead to lower load levels, which would
lead to lower profitability. I'll believe the experts who
run RCI over random folk on the Internet.


You can believe whomever you like. The cruise ship's themselves are
very poor businesses



"Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s second-quarter earnings more
than doubled as the world's second-largest cruise company's
ticket prices, passengers carried and onboard sales
continued to increase."


Tell me something new. I know all about the above. Just because they
did well this quarter doesn't mean that they could not have done better.


Quarters don't reveal as much as what RCI's status in years down the
road and after the wave or when the market gets soft and they have so
many ships to fill. They also have big debts on their ships, unlike
Carnival. I'll give RCI kudos for the following. They've stopped
purchasing new big ships for Celebrity, I think a very good thing, and
they've introduced an alternative to the current standard with
Celebrity's Xpedition in both ship style and itinerary.

Anyway, I think the best business is transparent. One where the customer
goes into the business without really being aware of it. Where one is
eager to enjoy the product, spend money without having to be cajoled
into doing so, and, in the end, find it worth it to spend money on the
establishment.

An example of this is what my wife and I experienced at a jazz
restaurant in NYC. We both love Dixieland jazz and this restaurant is a
re-creation of a New Orleans jazz restaurant in New York City. We went
there, got a seat close to the musicians, were able to enjoy excellent
Cajun food from attentive, friendly service that pushed nothing, got to
interact with the musicians, enjoyed drinks that were not watered down,
and ended up spending about 35 percent more than we intented to spend
and would do it again and again without hesitation. How they would do in
subsequent visits with the food, service, etc., would determine if I
would recommend this product to others interested in its type, and my
overall assessment of this establishment. I would look for consistency
and a standard they established, and hopefully they would deliver.

I think its hard to have a really big hospitality business and deliver
something that feels personal while trying to deliver to investors'
interests. Especially at moderate prices. I think it is more possible
with a smaller outfit. I truly believe that products that try to be
everything to everybody are jack of all trades types of products. I also
believe that when products expand rapidly and to larger markets, they
tend to become harder-sell products that compromise consistency and quality.

Ben S.

Dick Goldhaber wrote:

Ben,

Changes in the configuration of a ship are important to the fine art of
cruising. How these changes could impact on future cruises is important.

Chill out, Ben.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Dick. That's exactly what I agreed
with Howie about in his initial response to the press release. I'm
addressing those that I'm calling business apologists. And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.

What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product. Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.

Ben S.

--
DG in Cherry Hill, NJ



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

Howie wrote:


HDawson228 wrote:


Folks. It's a business. Revinue enhancement is part of it. Many of

the

cruising public had shown they want larger and larger ships. The only
revinue
enhancements being added are "personal choice options". I like

options.


I know it's a business, and I know that revenue enhancement is part of
this. One way to enhance revenue is to charge somewhat higher prices
for a product that is different from, and really superior to, others in
the same category.

The name of this newsgroup is
rec.travel.cruises not
rec.travel.cruise-industry or
rec.travel.cruise.markets

It was formed in the spirit of those cruising to share their
experiences, ideas, likes, dislikes, recommendations, caveats. So

rec.travel.cruise.experienced.satisfaction
and
rec.travel.cruise.ideas.improvement

are in the spirit of the newsgroup. Cruises as businesses could be
considered from a practical standpoint for sure, but it's not the main
aim of the forum.

Ben S.


Howie

Dick Goldhaber wrote:

Ben,

Changes in the configuration of a ship are important to the fine art of
cruising. How these changes could impact on future cruises is important.

Chill out, Ben.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Dick. That's exactly what I agreed
with Howie about in his initial response to the press release. I'm
addressing those that I'm calling business apologists. And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.

What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product. Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.

Ben S.

--
DG in Cherry Hill, NJ



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

Howie wrote:


HDawson228 wrote:


Folks. It's a business. Revinue enhancement is part of it. Many of

the

cruising public had shown they want larger and larger ships. The only
revinue
enhancements being added are "personal choice options". I like

options.


I know it's a business, and I know that revenue enhancement is part of
this. One way to enhance revenue is to charge somewhat higher prices
for a product that is different from, and really superior to, others in
the same category.

The name of this newsgroup is
rec.travel.cruises not
rec.travel.cruise-industry or
rec.travel.cruise.markets

It was formed in the spirit of those cruising to share their
experiences, ideas, likes, dislikes, recommendations, caveats. So

rec.travel.cruise.experienced.satisfaction
and
rec.travel.cruise.ideas.improvement

are in the spirit of the newsgroup. Cruises as businesses could be
considered from a practical standpoint for sure, but it's not the main
aim of the forum.

Ben S.


Howie

A Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:47:49 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
Quarters don't reveal as much as what RCI's status in years down the
road and after the wave or when the market gets soft and they have so
many ships to fill.

Excellent companies predict, or at least detect, changes in
the market and adjust service offerings in response.
Waiting for the market to change to match your current (or
past) service offerings leads to bankruptcy. Woolworth's
died that way.

Anyway, I think the best business is transparent.

I think everyone would enjoy that better. It doesn't seem
that people spend more money that way, though.


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

A Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:47:49 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
Quarters don't reveal as much as what RCI's status in years down the
road and after the wave or when the market gets soft and they have so
many ships to fill.

Excellent companies predict, or at least detect, changes in
the market and adjust service offerings in response.
Waiting for the market to change to match your current (or
past) service offerings leads to bankruptcy. Woolworth's
died that way.

Anyway, I think the best business is transparent.

I think everyone would enjoy that better. It doesn't seem
that people spend more money that way, though.


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

A Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:03:39 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
addressing those that I'm calling business apologists.

So you're continuing to apply malicious labeling... okay.

And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.

Then you're not paying attention to what people are saying.
Businesses provide services the way customers are willing to
pay for them, not the way Benjamin Smith wants them. You
don't determine what is good -- everyone does that
collectively, as evidenced by our purchasing behaviors.

If you think everyone wants to pay for perfect service, ask
yourself why Southwest Airlines is the most profitable
airline in the sky, despite not offering seating
assignments.

What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product.

The fiduciary responsibility of a business to its owners is
required by law.

Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.

Utterly self-centered claptrap.


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

A Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:03:39 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
addressing those that I'm calling business apologists.

So you're continuing to apply malicious labeling... okay.

And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.

Then you're not paying attention to what people are saying.
Businesses provide services the way customers are willing to
pay for them, not the way Benjamin Smith wants them. You
don't determine what is good -- everyone does that
collectively, as evidenced by our purchasing behaviors.

If you think everyone wants to pay for perfect service, ask
yourself why Southwest Airlines is the most profitable
airline in the sky, despite not offering seating
assignments.

What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product.

The fiduciary responsibility of a business to its owners is
required by law.

Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.

Utterly self-centered claptrap.


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

*bicker* wrote:

A Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:03:39 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

addressing those that I'm calling business apologists.


So you're continuing to apply malicious labeling... okay.


And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.


Then you're not paying attention to what people are saying.

You haven't been here long enough to realize that homogenization of
cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a substantial amount of
contributors here for at least a few years.

Businesses provide services the way customers are willing to
pay for them,

Sometimes customer pay for services by default, they can't pay for
something that's not provided.

not the way Benjamin Smith wants them.

Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.


You
don't determine what is good -- everyone does that
collectively, as evidenced by our purchasing behaviors.


Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.

If you think everyone wants to pay for perfect service, ask
yourself why Southwest Airlines is the most profitable
airline in the sky, despite not offering seating
assignments.


We're not spending an average of 7 days on airplanes.


What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product.


The fiduciary responsibility of a business to its owners is
required by law.



Yes, and...

Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.


Utterly self-centered claptrap.


Someone new to a product, or an investor in the company of a product who
hasn't experienced the product, is not better equipped than those that
have experienced the product multiple times or heavily researched the
product to judge the *product*.

Ben S.


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

*bicker* wrote:

A Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:03:39 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

addressing those that I'm calling business apologists.


So you're continuing to apply malicious labeling... okay.


And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.


Then you're not paying attention to what people are saying.

You haven't been here long enough to realize that homogenization of
cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a substantial amount of
contributors here for at least a few years.

Businesses provide services the way customers are willing to
pay for them,

Sometimes customer pay for services by default, they can't pay for
something that's not provided.

not the way Benjamin Smith wants them.

Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.


You
don't determine what is good -- everyone does that
collectively, as evidenced by our purchasing behaviors.


Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.

If you think everyone wants to pay for perfect service, ask
yourself why Southwest Airlines is the most profitable
airline in the sky, despite not offering seating
assignments.


We're not spending an average of 7 days on airplanes.


What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product.


The fiduciary responsibility of a business to its owners is
required by law.



Yes, and...

Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.


Utterly self-centered claptrap.


Someone new to a product, or an investor in the company of a product who
hasn't experienced the product, is not better equipped than those that
have experienced the product multiple times or heavily researched the
product to judge the *product*.

Ben S.


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

*bicker* wrote:

A Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:03:39 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

addressing those that I'm calling business apologists.


So you're continuing to apply malicious labeling... okay.


And when I say
business apologists I'm talking about people making excuses for lack of
consistency, lowering of established quality, lack of imagination and
playing it safe with formulaic and almost mindless and repeating
activities and features that are very recognizable to some repeating
veteran customers, simply because cruise lines are businesses.


Then you're not paying attention to what people are saying.

You haven't been here long enough to realize that homogenization of
cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a substantial amount of
contributors here for at least a few years.

Businesses provide services the way customers are willing to
pay for them,

Sometimes customer pay for services by default, they can't pay for
something that's not provided.

not the way Benjamin Smith wants them.

Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.


You
don't determine what is good -- everyone does that
collectively, as evidenced by our purchasing behaviors.


Homogenization of cruise lines has been listed as a negative by a
substantial amount of contributors in this forum.

If you think everyone wants to pay for perfect service, ask
yourself why Southwest Airlines is the most profitable
airline in the sky, despite not offering seating
assignments.


We're not spending an average of 7 days on airplanes.


What I don't for a second accept is any notion of a cruise line favoring
investors' needs over loyal customers who have spent their time and
money on a product.


The fiduciary responsibility of a business to its owners is
required by law.



Yes, and...

Customer is first they claim. And it is the most
knowledgable, not the highest number of customers, who are best equipped
to tell cruise lines where they really stand.


Utterly self-centered claptrap.


Someone new to a product, or an investor in the company of a product who
hasn't experienced the product, is not better equipped than those that
have experienced the product multiple times or heavily researched the
product to judge the *product*.

Ben S.


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