In its ongoing effort to put consistency of product above gimmicks, pricing and freebies, Seabourn has announced the its first wave of "cadets" from its Seabourn Academy have just boarded the Seabourn Spirit for intensive, hands on (or as Seabourn calls it "on-the-yacht"), training as the cruise line gears up for the launch of the Seabourn Odyssey.
As Seabourn explains it:
"So how does Seabourn continuously get honest, sincere and downright “gushing” reviews from their past guests? Well, they take training very seriously, and ensure their staff is completely versed on Seabourn’s incredibly high customer service standards. But with Seabourn’s expansion and the rise of luxury cruises in general, it’s challenging to always find the “best of the best.”
As a result, Seabourn created its own Seabourn Academy. Because Seabourn’s training is centered on close-up management and on-the-job experience, the training includes shoreside orientation and a rigorous three-week training period on one of the existing sisters. After they graduate, the cadets are assigned to Odyssey, Spirit, Pride or Legend. They will go aboard all three Seabourn yachts in small groups over a three month period. By the end of 2009, another 200 new recruits will have completed a Seabourn specific training program that will prepare them for a prosperous future and career with Seabourn."
It is refreshing to hear how Seabourn is working so hard to proactively assure a consistency of excellent service while the President of Regent Seven Seas felt obliged to write an open letter apologizing for its service failures and its present efforts to corrects its systemic problems and while Silvesea felt compelled not to challenge the accuracy of this blog about its service decline, but to purportedly explain it away.
Will Seabourn's service be perfect and without error during this training period? No way. Will the cadets make errors? Of course, but probably only once. While no guest wants to be part of a training program, the fact is every time a new crew member arrives on board, there is a training process which the guests are subjected to...as is true in all service business from restaurants to law firms. The key is for excellent proactive training rather than reactive corrections.
Pamela Conover, President of Seabourn, in marked contrast to the statements of the executives of Regent and Silversea, wrote to all past Seabourn guests on December 11, 2008 and stated:
"I continue to have abiding faith in the redemptive power that travel brings to people's lives. I honestly believe that it is one of the most important elements of an enlightened life. It enhances perspective, bestows knowledge and produces heightened awareness of our place in the great family of humanity...
I urge you, especially at this time, to give yourselves the gift of travel, understanding that life is to be lived and that each day is an opportunity that comes but once. It would be our privilege to assist you in enriching your life, by making your travel dreams come true."
I don't know about you, but I most certainly feel more inspired (rather than compelled) to travel after reading that; and knowing the effort Seabourn makes to assure your "travel dreams" bring you the "redemptive power".
Or we can discuss cut rate fares on the lesser desired cruises with inconsistent faux luxury service and food.
Showing posts with label crew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crew. Show all posts
Monday, January 5, 2009
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Postings on Cruise Message Boards and Blogs: The Difference Between Constructive Opinion and Personal Attacks
I have received a number of requests to comment on the post of someone ("Admiral Horatio Nelson" who says he is a former Regent Seven Seas Cruises employee) on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk that were pulled. I had said that I would post something, so here it is...
As many of you know I have very strong opinions on various topics and will not pull a punch when it comes to calling someone out for not telling the truth or if I think their perception is wrong or if they are cheerleading.
What I won't do is engage in, or endorse, personal attacks against someone who has not posted their position or is not in the public eye...or deals with a situation not posted by someone. To do so puts out possibly false or inaccurate information or violates someone's personal privacy. That is, to my mind, far different from the Cruise Critic "You weren't there, so you are not allowed to comment" policy...especially when information from other sources is know.
I tried to find a way to edit the Admiral's comments as they do have some interesting perspectives, but they are really far too engaged in personal attacks against people that simply have no way to respond and also could be inaccurate (one's perception is one thing, but the comments made go beyond that). Reading them, they could simply be designed to inflict injury on Regent Seven Seas Cruises or the named employees, rather than to discuss facts or ways to improve various situations they may exist.
That said, what I will say is, as I read the Admiral's comments, he asserts that the handling of employees changed markedly from the days of Radisson Seven Seas Cruises and became one focused on stifling crew input and solidifying one's position rather than bettering the product. These opinions are actually very common in a very corporate structured entity; as it feeds on preserving oneself rather than improving the company ala General Motors, Wall St., etc.
The interesting thing is that the Admiral seems to be complaining that Regent's operations are being transformed into a part, or mirror, of Oceania's. As you all know I wrote about the Oceanification of Regent months ago. Unfortunately, the Admiral seems to conclude this is a bad thing, but when the personal attacks are stripped away, there is no substance to back up the outrage.
While I actually do agree that Mark Conroy seems to be devolving into nothing more than a figurehead and that all the hype he previously provided about improvements, the new ship, etc. all seemed to be swept aside by Prestige Cruise Holdings and most of "his" people have left or be asked to leave, I do not necessarily come to the same conclusion that Oceanification is a bad thing. I must honestly state that my initial impression was that it was not a good thing, but when things kept getting worse at Regent - in my opinion - change to better efficiencies, performance, crew training, etc. even if similar/the same as Oceania's is a good option.
Regent, by many standards, has been backsliding. Even the sanitized Cruise Critic forum has become rather regularly filled with the complaints I mentioned - and was battered for - a year ago. It was the basis, in part, for Mark Conroy to write his open letter on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk. So is change a bad thing? I think not.
As I have stated, and as the Admiral does, and as Mark Conroy notes, the crew needs to be better trained and better cared for. If that means changing Human Resource personnel (and I would strongly assert those that created the problem which is admittedly so vast rarely can be a major part of the solution...part of the retraining, possibly; but not the solution) and other areas of management, shipboard controls, etc., so be it.
But when having this discussion we can be upset, and even bitter (from job issues or passenger letdowns), we need to be civil and respectful.
As many of you know I have very strong opinions on various topics and will not pull a punch when it comes to calling someone out for not telling the truth or if I think their perception is wrong or if they are cheerleading.
What I won't do is engage in, or endorse, personal attacks against someone who has not posted their position or is not in the public eye...or deals with a situation not posted by someone. To do so puts out possibly false or inaccurate information or violates someone's personal privacy. That is, to my mind, far different from the Cruise Critic "You weren't there, so you are not allowed to comment" policy...especially when information from other sources is know.
I tried to find a way to edit the Admiral's comments as they do have some interesting perspectives, but they are really far too engaged in personal attacks against people that simply have no way to respond and also could be inaccurate (one's perception is one thing, but the comments made go beyond that). Reading them, they could simply be designed to inflict injury on Regent Seven Seas Cruises or the named employees, rather than to discuss facts or ways to improve various situations they may exist.
That said, what I will say is, as I read the Admiral's comments, he asserts that the handling of employees changed markedly from the days of Radisson Seven Seas Cruises and became one focused on stifling crew input and solidifying one's position rather than bettering the product. These opinions are actually very common in a very corporate structured entity; as it feeds on preserving oneself rather than improving the company ala General Motors, Wall St., etc.
The interesting thing is that the Admiral seems to be complaining that Regent's operations are being transformed into a part, or mirror, of Oceania's. As you all know I wrote about the Oceanification of Regent months ago. Unfortunately, the Admiral seems to conclude this is a bad thing, but when the personal attacks are stripped away, there is no substance to back up the outrage.
While I actually do agree that Mark Conroy seems to be devolving into nothing more than a figurehead and that all the hype he previously provided about improvements, the new ship, etc. all seemed to be swept aside by Prestige Cruise Holdings and most of "his" people have left or be asked to leave, I do not necessarily come to the same conclusion that Oceanification is a bad thing. I must honestly state that my initial impression was that it was not a good thing, but when things kept getting worse at Regent - in my opinion - change to better efficiencies, performance, crew training, etc. even if similar/the same as Oceania's is a good option.
Regent, by many standards, has been backsliding. Even the sanitized Cruise Critic forum has become rather regularly filled with the complaints I mentioned - and was battered for - a year ago. It was the basis, in part, for Mark Conroy to write his open letter on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk. So is change a bad thing? I think not.
As I have stated, and as the Admiral does, and as Mark Conroy notes, the crew needs to be better trained and better cared for. If that means changing Human Resource personnel (and I would strongly assert those that created the problem which is admittedly so vast rarely can be a major part of the solution...part of the retraining, possibly; but not the solution) and other areas of management, shipboard controls, etc., so be it.
But when having this discussion we can be upset, and even bitter (from job issues or passenger letdowns), we need to be civil and respectful.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Global Superyacht Forum - Some Thoughts About Regulations In this Economy: It Should Be About Quality Crew and Training.
Last month I was on the following panel at the Global Superyacht Forum in Amsterdam:
This extended debating session following on from GSF 2007, will allow delegates to discuss and debate the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of rules would help improve the process of building and designing large yachts. In addition the session will highlight some of the key changes and developments amongst the Flag states and Class societies.
Peter Southgate - Cayman Islands Shipping Registry
David Ralph – Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Eric Goldring – Goldring & Goldring
Robert Curry - American Bureau of Shipping - Europe
Paolo Moretti - RINA
Engel de Boer - Lloyd's Register
The discussion started out with ABS (a Classification society - which is charged with "classing" or determining and assuring the structural/mechanical/operational quality of the yacht) discussing some new regulations regarding windows, port lights and some other items, followed by MCA discussing the need to regulate further and then a discussion about actual work toward some consistency between the government regulators (MCA), the shipping registries (the governmental agencies involved with "home ports" such as you see noted on the stern of ships) and the classification societies.
Discussion then led to a comment that many of the "theories" used in creating these regulations do not work in practice; that walking on a Superyacht during construction is worthwhile, but seeing how the regulations actually work in practice...when the Superyacht is in operation...is quite another thing. And, to be sure, that is not regularly done or those experiences regularly considered with the new regulations.
I then raised the subject of why "Cost Benefit Analysis" is not being done in relation to the ever increasingly stringent regulations on design and equipment, noting that the Superyacht industry has not had a fatality or life-threatening injury due to a yacht's failure in well over a year (possibly over 2 years or more); evidencing the industry is one of the safest in the world. I further stated that while I am sure there will, unfortunately, be a catastrophic accident in the future there most probably will invariably be a significant human element in that loss. (No one disagreed with my premise.)
With that preface I asked why the regulators, registries and classification societies do not run the cost benefit analysis that are run in literally every other business whether it be automotive, aviation or even the space shuttle; noting that in the present economy the concept of there is plenty of money so spending it on supposed increased safety doesn't work...if it ultimately causes yards to fail and yachts not to be built or purchased.
After not really hearing much of a substantive response, another reprsentative from the MCA noted from the audience that they had an "ethical responsibility" to generate the ever more stringent regulations. My response was "Don't get me started with the problems of regulating ethics. I could give an entire seminar on the topic."
To me that "canned" response was, as it has been in the past, shameful. Regulations are to be based upon "engineering"; not "ethics". The MCA's demand that "saving human lives!!!!!" is what is all about and anyone that doesn't prescribe to that philosophy is unethical is, frankly, horrific. To me it is a smoke screen for politicians trying to justify their existence. How can I so boldly state this? It is easy.
In an industry where there is a history of years of no catastrophic losses due to items which are the subject of these regulations we are, fortunately, already at the supposed "Theoretical Zero." You cannot improve on that kind of consistent history simply by throwing regulations and creating higher standards in the hope that it "may" at some point cause one or two theoretically possible losses from happening at some unknown point in the future.
What you can do is use the, now more than ever, finite amount of available dollars available for designing safety on what is the weakest link in the Superyacht...and cruise...industry: Crew.
Imagine how much safety could actually be improved with the millions of dollars expended on crew recruitment, education, training and safety? Dollar for dollar, euro for euro and pound for pound I do not believe there is a single soul in the Superyacht or cruise industry that could...or frankly, would...argue that my position is incorrect.
The MCA will argue that it has training requirements. The fact is that within the Superyacht industry captains, crew and managers are screaming that taking MCA required tests do not make good captains: years of actual experience (and not just sea time) does. A head in a book versus a head in an engine room, a seat in a classroom or at the helm, where do you think the knowledge actually is obtained?
When you walk on a superyacht or a cruise ship even the most novice of passengers (forget the professionals) can instantly identify the crew members that "get it", that having the training and who exude the confidence and knowledge that puts every one of us at ease.
In an emergency, do you want:
1. A supposedly "idiot-proof" designed piece of equipment with an idiot standing by the ready to use it; or,
2. A still well designed piece of equipment with a well-trained and knowledgeable crew member able to operate the equipment, even if it doesn't work perfectly, to its optimum level?
Personally, I would guess that 100% would vote for keeping the word "idiot" out of the equation!
So my question is simple: Why to the regulators like MCA insist on more regulations on equipment with a history of excellent safety, drawing millions in funds away from actual crew recruitment and improvement, when the real improvements in avoiding accidents lies with crew?
I have no answers. Do you?
This extended debating session following on from GSF 2007, will allow delegates to discuss and debate the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of rules would help improve the process of building and designing large yachts. In addition the session will highlight some of the key changes and developments amongst the Flag states and Class societies.
Peter Southgate - Cayman Islands Shipping Registry
David Ralph – Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Eric Goldring – Goldring & Goldring
Robert Curry - American Bureau of Shipping - Europe
Paolo Moretti - RINA
Engel de Boer - Lloyd's Register
The discussion started out with ABS (a Classification society - which is charged with "classing" or determining and assuring the structural/mechanical/operational quality of the yacht) discussing some new regulations regarding windows, port lights and some other items, followed by MCA discussing the need to regulate further and then a discussion about actual work toward some consistency between the government regulators (MCA), the shipping registries (the governmental agencies involved with "home ports" such as you see noted on the stern of ships) and the classification societies.
Discussion then led to a comment that many of the "theories" used in creating these regulations do not work in practice; that walking on a Superyacht during construction is worthwhile, but seeing how the regulations actually work in practice...when the Superyacht is in operation...is quite another thing. And, to be sure, that is not regularly done or those experiences regularly considered with the new regulations.
I then raised the subject of why "Cost Benefit Analysis" is not being done in relation to the ever increasingly stringent regulations on design and equipment, noting that the Superyacht industry has not had a fatality or life-threatening injury due to a yacht's failure in well over a year (possibly over 2 years or more); evidencing the industry is one of the safest in the world. I further stated that while I am sure there will, unfortunately, be a catastrophic accident in the future there most probably will invariably be a significant human element in that loss. (No one disagreed with my premise.)
With that preface I asked why the regulators, registries and classification societies do not run the cost benefit analysis that are run in literally every other business whether it be automotive, aviation or even the space shuttle; noting that in the present economy the concept of there is plenty of money so spending it on supposed increased safety doesn't work...if it ultimately causes yards to fail and yachts not to be built or purchased.
After not really hearing much of a substantive response, another reprsentative from the MCA noted from the audience that they had an "ethical responsibility" to generate the ever more stringent regulations. My response was "Don't get me started with the problems of regulating ethics. I could give an entire seminar on the topic."
To me that "canned" response was, as it has been in the past, shameful. Regulations are to be based upon "engineering"; not "ethics". The MCA's demand that "saving human lives!!!!!" is what is all about and anyone that doesn't prescribe to that philosophy is unethical is, frankly, horrific. To me it is a smoke screen for politicians trying to justify their existence. How can I so boldly state this? It is easy.
In an industry where there is a history of years of no catastrophic losses due to items which are the subject of these regulations we are, fortunately, already at the supposed "Theoretical Zero." You cannot improve on that kind of consistent history simply by throwing regulations and creating higher standards in the hope that it "may" at some point cause one or two theoretically possible losses from happening at some unknown point in the future.
What you can do is use the, now more than ever, finite amount of available dollars available for designing safety on what is the weakest link in the Superyacht...and cruise...industry: Crew.
Imagine how much safety could actually be improved with the millions of dollars expended on crew recruitment, education, training and safety? Dollar for dollar, euro for euro and pound for pound I do not believe there is a single soul in the Superyacht or cruise industry that could...or frankly, would...argue that my position is incorrect.
The MCA will argue that it has training requirements. The fact is that within the Superyacht industry captains, crew and managers are screaming that taking MCA required tests do not make good captains: years of actual experience (and not just sea time) does. A head in a book versus a head in an engine room, a seat in a classroom or at the helm, where do you think the knowledge actually is obtained?
When you walk on a superyacht or a cruise ship even the most novice of passengers (forget the professionals) can instantly identify the crew members that "get it", that having the training and who exude the confidence and knowledge that puts every one of us at ease.
In an emergency, do you want:
1. A supposedly "idiot-proof" designed piece of equipment with an idiot standing by the ready to use it; or,
2. A still well designed piece of equipment with a well-trained and knowledgeable crew member able to operate the equipment, even if it doesn't work perfectly, to its optimum level?
Personally, I would guess that 100% would vote for keeping the word "idiot" out of the equation!
So my question is simple: Why to the regulators like MCA insist on more regulations on equipment with a history of excellent safety, drawing millions in funds away from actual crew recruitment and improvement, when the real improvements in avoiding accidents lies with crew?
I have no answers. Do you?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Seabourn Staff Receive Unique Training and Compensation
Last week I discussed a bit about Seabourn taking back control of its officers and ship's management by abandoning a short-lived V.Ships relationship. Today I thought I would mention a unique aspect of Seabourn as it relates to its hotel staff; that is stewardesses, waiters, etc.
One thing that is unique about Seabourn is that it has maintained a European/South African staff while virtually (if not literally) most other lines, including other luxury lines, have focused on reducing costs by utilizing less expensive Filipino and other Southeast Asian staff. In an industry where finding and keeping well trained staff is becoming an bigger and bigger problem, the challenges are many.
As a bit of background, most cruise lines hire staff, put them through a short shore-based program and then put them to sea; starting them out as assistant stewards and assistant waiters generally in the lesser cabins and easier areas of the dining rooms/buffets and allowing "on the job" training to run its course. As the demand for crew has increased...as have the number and sheer size of new ships increase...some lines have taken to using private "schools". The problem is, of course, that while it is better than just starting to work without any training at all, there is a big difference between the school room and the ship.
Seabourn is unique in that it does not hire untrained, or merely school trained, staff for its hotel service positions. Generally, Seabourn has the following criteria: 1. The potential staff must be a minimum of 20 years old years (eliminating many "youth issues"); 2. They must have a certificate from a recognized professional training institution; 3. (And I think this is key) they must have at least 2 years of full-time restaurant or hotel service experience in a five star establishment catering to an international clientèle; and, 4. They must have a good written and oral use of English.
(Having suffered through Regent's overnight change from European to Filipino staffing, the frustrations of the lack of training and the lack of a good command of English was, to me shocking. As time goes by this problem has dissipated quite a bit, but it still remains with too many new staff. I have heard of similar problem on Silversea.)
But Seabourn does not end its training there. With the Seabourn Odyssey coming onboard, Seabourn is in need of more staff...and the staff has to be experiences not only in a classroom and a hotel or restaurant. So Seabourn is taking the unusual step of taking a certain number of suites out of service so that the new staff can come onboard and shadow the existing staff. Remember the term is "shadow"; not replace. The full compliment of trained staff will remain on the ship to service the guests. The new staff are in addition to the full compliment. So when some of the more experienced staff migrate over to the Odyssey, trained staff to replace them will already be onboard. (Will this be perfect? Probably not. Will it be significantly better than pilfering the existing crew and leaving new and not so well trained staff on the triplets? Every indication is that it should work quite well.)
[Side Note: When it comes to hiring galley staff, Seabourn actually travels to the schools and puts the applicants for jobs as chefs, bakers, butchers, etc. through tests before they are hired; again taking that extra step which reduces the pitfalls of mere "on the job" training. Many cruise lines take the graduate sight unseen, evaluate them once onboard and then figure out where they might fit.]
The other major issue is compensation. Until last week's 5% drop in the value of the Euro, the U.S. Dollar has been the standard rate of pay for most crew...and one of the biggest bones of contention as crew has seen their net pay in their home countries actually reduce. It is very difficult to maintain staff when compensation reduces. It is, in part, why the concept of automatic gratuities being added to your onboard account started...and then the newest things: mandatory service charges being added; the concept obviously being the higher percentage of passengers that pay the full gratuity (and the fewer that pay none...and those folks do exist), the easier it is for the cruise lines to boost or at least stabilize crew wages...but at the passenger's expense.
Seabourn, once again, takes a unique position in the industry. It pays its staff in the currency of their residence. So a South African has a contract paid in Rand, British in Pounds, Dutch in Euros, etc. This is a huge benefit for the staff because their pay is, regardless of currency international fluctuations, their pay...just like it would be at home. This sort of...consistancy...is a very good tool to obtain and retain high quality staff.
One thing to consider is that while as a guest Seabourn is a fantastic place to be, the employees don't get to have the same experience. They are in charge of assuring you the experience. This, in large part, can affect the international mix of the staff. Some have wondered why there are so few American staff. The reasons range from the rate of pay, to living conditions, to the requirement to work seven days a week at times. With all of the employment opportunities in the U.S., obtaining and retaining U.S. staff can be very difficult. Just ask Norwegian Cruise Lines when they were pulling their hair out in Hawaii.
Also, keep in mind that societal and cultural differences also come into play as to the type of service being provided. While European/South African staff are more outgoing and engaging, Filipino staff can be very charming, but generally take a more distanced or subservient approach. To be sure, each individual is different, but you can most definitely tell the difference when you walk aboard a Holland America ship versus a Seabourn ship. It is, alas, part of what the product is that is being provided to the guests.
Hopefully this has helped answer some of the questions concerning training, pay and interactions with the staff aboard the ships.
One thing that is unique about Seabourn is that it has maintained a European/South African staff while virtually (if not literally) most other lines, including other luxury lines, have focused on reducing costs by utilizing less expensive Filipino and other Southeast Asian staff. In an industry where finding and keeping well trained staff is becoming an bigger and bigger problem, the challenges are many.
As a bit of background, most cruise lines hire staff, put them through a short shore-based program and then put them to sea; starting them out as assistant stewards and assistant waiters generally in the lesser cabins and easier areas of the dining rooms/buffets and allowing "on the job" training to run its course. As the demand for crew has increased...as have the number and sheer size of new ships increase...some lines have taken to using private "schools". The problem is, of course, that while it is better than just starting to work without any training at all, there is a big difference between the school room and the ship.
Seabourn is unique in that it does not hire untrained, or merely school trained, staff for its hotel service positions. Generally, Seabourn has the following criteria: 1. The potential staff must be a minimum of 20 years old years (eliminating many "youth issues"); 2. They must have a certificate from a recognized professional training institution; 3. (And I think this is key) they must have at least 2 years of full-time restaurant or hotel service experience in a five star establishment catering to an international clientèle; and, 4. They must have a good written and oral use of English.
(Having suffered through Regent's overnight change from European to Filipino staffing, the frustrations of the lack of training and the lack of a good command of English was, to me shocking. As time goes by this problem has dissipated quite a bit, but it still remains with too many new staff. I have heard of similar problem on Silversea.)
But Seabourn does not end its training there. With the Seabourn Odyssey coming onboard, Seabourn is in need of more staff...and the staff has to be experiences not only in a classroom and a hotel or restaurant. So Seabourn is taking the unusual step of taking a certain number of suites out of service so that the new staff can come onboard and shadow the existing staff. Remember the term is "shadow"; not replace. The full compliment of trained staff will remain on the ship to service the guests. The new staff are in addition to the full compliment. So when some of the more experienced staff migrate over to the Odyssey, trained staff to replace them will already be onboard. (Will this be perfect? Probably not. Will it be significantly better than pilfering the existing crew and leaving new and not so well trained staff on the triplets? Every indication is that it should work quite well.)
[Side Note: When it comes to hiring galley staff, Seabourn actually travels to the schools and puts the applicants for jobs as chefs, bakers, butchers, etc. through tests before they are hired; again taking that extra step which reduces the pitfalls of mere "on the job" training. Many cruise lines take the graduate sight unseen, evaluate them once onboard and then figure out where they might fit.]
The other major issue is compensation. Until last week's 5% drop in the value of the Euro, the U.S. Dollar has been the standard rate of pay for most crew...and one of the biggest bones of contention as crew has seen their net pay in their home countries actually reduce. It is very difficult to maintain staff when compensation reduces. It is, in part, why the concept of automatic gratuities being added to your onboard account started...and then the newest things: mandatory service charges being added; the concept obviously being the higher percentage of passengers that pay the full gratuity (and the fewer that pay none...and those folks do exist), the easier it is for the cruise lines to boost or at least stabilize crew wages...but at the passenger's expense.
Seabourn, once again, takes a unique position in the industry. It pays its staff in the currency of their residence. So a South African has a contract paid in Rand, British in Pounds, Dutch in Euros, etc. This is a huge benefit for the staff because their pay is, regardless of currency international fluctuations, their pay...just like it would be at home. This sort of...consistancy...is a very good tool to obtain and retain high quality staff.
One thing to consider is that while as a guest Seabourn is a fantastic place to be, the employees don't get to have the same experience. They are in charge of assuring you the experience. This, in large part, can affect the international mix of the staff. Some have wondered why there are so few American staff. The reasons range from the rate of pay, to living conditions, to the requirement to work seven days a week at times. With all of the employment opportunities in the U.S., obtaining and retaining U.S. staff can be very difficult. Just ask Norwegian Cruise Lines when they were pulling their hair out in Hawaii.
Also, keep in mind that societal and cultural differences also come into play as to the type of service being provided. While European/South African staff are more outgoing and engaging, Filipino staff can be very charming, but generally take a more distanced or subservient approach. To be sure, each individual is different, but you can most definitely tell the difference when you walk aboard a Holland America ship versus a Seabourn ship. It is, alas, part of what the product is that is being provided to the guests.
Hopefully this has helped answer some of the questions concerning training, pay and interactions with the staff aboard the ships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)