Couple more questions... HAL's new tipping policy.

George Leppla wrote:

"Tom & Linda" wrote in message


But George, you seemed like you SO wanted Mickey to take the Princess to

the

ball.


Actually, I would have much preferred that Carnival Corp take over NCL. As
a supplier, Princess was doing very well on their own and were easy for TA's
to work with. (That hasn't changed). NCL was a nightmare to deal with and
since Star bought them out, they have become even worse. Their cruise
product isn't bad but dealing with them on a daily basis continually
reinforces my opinion that they are the most inefficient, mismanaged company
in the cruise industry.


Fair point. There's concern about Carnival owning too much, so if not
Carnival who else? RCI?

In the long run, I am not sure that any of this matters. Cruise lines
policies... whether it be pricing, tipping, commissions, advertising, etc...
are all customer driven. If enough people dislike HAL's tipping and NCL's
service fee, they will move to other lines and these companies will change
their policy. If enough travel agents dislike NCL's back office
ineptitude, they will promote other cruise lines.


The mass group of people not liking various policies will tend to
grumble for awhile and then be appeased by something else. It is all a
numbers/majority game, IMO. We're ruled by popularity, achieved through
influence and repetition of visibility/audibility. Now you are lumping
cruise lines together, which influences my feeling about this.

Customer driven--or a skillfully controlled audience? Some of both.
Corporations produce what's provided, they make up the ideas, tests what
they can get away with and make reasonably popular, and makes it the
norm, especially if they catch the audience at the right time. Throw out
some ideas, test them, measure the responses, habits, how much are they
willing to pay for it? The majority of cruise surveys look like this.
They aren't blank slates, they tend to be based on trends. The audience
can branch out from the ideas provided. I think when customers vote no,
then they wield some power, but deprivation isn't a compromise many accept.

I don't know how many customers ask for more advertising, yet it has
grown steadily. I don't know if customers that ask for something more
inclusive will be provided if, carefully presented, a majority of them
can be shown to prefer a la carte.

What actual drive is in the customer's hands that produce variety? I
haven't found customers to be very diverse on a pie-popular overall
large scale, a lot of people seem to follow the trend. Large outfits
seem to accurately represent follow the trend, are more than happy to
provide stock. But, there is diversity in raw numbers, if not the
percentage of the total and growing number of customers.

To bring this to HAL, it wasn't a large outfit. It is significant in raw
numbers but not a majority-pie popular attractor. So I don't believe
HAL's newer policies are HAL-customer driven. IMO, they are swing
customer driven and the idea to go swing was a corporate directive, IMO,
based on expanding the line which gained more momentum with the Vista
ships and is in the form of the Vista ships. Focus on a generic customer
shields this important distinction.


Ben S.




Things have a way of shaking out.

Dillon Pyron wrote:

On 12 Aug 2004 18:05:33 GMT, ando (RTCReferee)
wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:

Even when I pay cash at the local Radio Shack they wanted all the
information on my address, phone number etc.

And you gave it to them? ;-)
What someone may want from you is not what you must provide.
We buy stuff at Radio Shack, and we don't give them our personal information.

Whenever someone asks for name, phone number, ZIP code, I just tell
them "never mind". It usually surprises them, but they'll always take
my money.

My problem was that I knew the salesperson from when I was his
teacher, and he said that he would get in trouble if he didn't get the
information. A small community is like that.

grandma Rosalie

A Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:36:48 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
escribió:
You might have a better chance of pursuing an FTC-related
issue by asserting oligopoly (in this case duopoly).
However, Carnival's acquisition of Princess was reviewed by
the FTC. Here's what the experts said:
George W. appointed a moron who was pro merger.

So casually you dismiss anyone you disagree with?

It was a commission of experts, not one person. Read up a
bit more.


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

A Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:36:48 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
escribió:
You might have a better chance of pursuing an FTC-related
issue by asserting oligopoly (in this case duopoly).
However, Carnival's acquisition of Princess was reviewed by
the FTC. Here's what the experts said:
George W. appointed a moron who was pro merger.

So casually you dismiss anyone you disagree with?

It was a commission of experts, not one person. Read up a
bit more.


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

A Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:49:57 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
Cool it, Bicker. Charles uses the word in that way as short for
"virtual" monopoly. No, it isn't the "strict" definition of the term.
I'm not claiming that Carnival is a monopoly. The argument is impact on
consumers, Carnival's savvy enough not to break the law, yet.

In other words, you can't defend the hyperbole posted
earlier. If you can't defend it, you should probably not
call attention to it by posting that you can't defend it.


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

A Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:49:57 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
Cool it, Bicker. Charles uses the word in that way as short for
"virtual" monopoly. No, it isn't the "strict" definition of the term.
I'm not claiming that Carnival is a monopoly. The argument is impact on
consumers, Carnival's savvy enough not to break the law, yet.

In other words, you can't defend the hyperbole posted
earlier. If you can't defend it, you should probably not
call attention to it by posting that you can't defend it.


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

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:41:20 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.
I guess you don't have a mind of your own.

I do indeed. I think you're blinded by your own
perspective, and unwilling to recognize that the commission
investigate both sides of the issue and, as experts,
determined the truth.

Y'know this self-serving blind bias of yours and Ben's
doesn't actually *help* customers. It just spreads
irrational discontent.


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

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:41:20 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.
I guess you don't have a mind of your own.

I do indeed. I think you're blinded by your own
perspective, and unwilling to recognize that the commission
investigate both sides of the issue and, as experts,
determined the truth.

Y'know this self-serving blind bias of yours and Ben's
doesn't actually *help* customers. It just spreads
irrational discontent.


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

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:41:20 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.
I guess you don't have a mind of your own.

I do indeed. I think you're blinded by your own
perspective, and unwilling to recognize that the commission
investigate both sides of the issue and, as experts,
determined the truth.

Y'know this self-serving blind bias of yours and Ben's
doesn't actually *help* customers. It just spreads
irrational discontent.


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

A Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:52:18 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
*bicker* wrote:
What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.
Scary. Sounds Borg like.

So I guess you also don't have any rationale for your
objection to what I posted, besides your personal dislike
for what is happening.

As I said to Charles: This blind bias doesn't actually
*help* customers. It just spreads irrational discontent.


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