bicker

My biggest concern about this policy, in the short-term, is that it will prompt folks to cancel and book on HAL, the next cruise we're going on. I surely don't want a smoky ship!

Thanks! We're just about ready to go -- bright and early flight tomorrow morning.

The problem with including the cost of service in the fare is that would artificially inflate the fare, making the cruise appear more expensive than cruises where the cost of service is separated out. Unless all competiting cruise lines make the switch simultaneously, no one cruise line can make the change unilaterally without suffering a significant loss of business (with the possible exception of Carnival, given its relative size).

I have read, though, that cruise ships limit carry-ons to those that fit in standard x-ray machines.

Factual information is always in keeping with my posts on other boards. Check out the chain of this discussion, and you'll understand my message better: Dan wrote: "But there's nothing stopping these agents from ... sending a check to the client directly as a rebate once payment has been made. The only problem is they can't advertise it." I replied, "they cannot promise it, at least not for RCI." So while all of the other choices Dan wrote about are possibilities, the last one, rebate, is not. A rebate is convertible to cash.

And they cannot promise it, at least not for RCI. My upcoming cruise was structured just-about the way from the start, and I booked it long before this new policy went into effect.

Of course, for a variety of different reasons, I've seen posters swear off NCL, HAL, RCI and Carnival recently. That's what? about 80% of the market? There is a strugging going on, between low fares and sustaintable profits. Since unprofitable companies cannot survive, we'll either end up with no cruise lines or acceptance of some of these new pricing models.

Of course, for a variety of different reasons, I've seen posters swear off NCL, HAL, RCI and Carnival recently. That's what? about 80% of the market? There is a strugging going on, between low fares and sustaintable profits. Since unprofitable companies cannot survive, we'll either end up with no cruise lines or acceptance of some of these new pricing models.

From what I've read, the availability of service and the manner in which you connect differs from ship to ship, but if the service is available, the charge for connecting from your own laptop is about $100 per week.

That is an interesting perspective, that folks could be working during the cruise, for inspiration! We always joke about it, because we've read that the best-and-brightest in our industry often are most creative in leisurely surroundings. Why not spend a work-week at sea? (Totally aside from vacations, of course.) I just got back from a week at Franconia Notch NH. I suppose I could have stood back and wondered why anyone would vacation there and NOT climb the mountains. I mean, "Duh!" :grin: Yet lots of folks were "just fishing". Like they needed to fish in the best hiking area in the Northeast? The fact is there was nothing wrong with them fishing. It didn't prevent us from hiking, even though we would have preferred meeting new people and having them on the trail with us. Several years ago we visited Egypt. We went there to marvel at the architecture and wonder about that ancient culture. We also enjoyed the cuisine, but many members of our tour group preferred steak and continental dishes. Some people took in some of the modern Egyptian culture, but most didn't. One guy was working, specially there to take photographs of ancient carvings for his work. Is there some reason why his work was more acceptable, since he used a camera? :huh: We all vacation for different reasons. What makes the choices legitimate or not is simply a matter of whether the choice is legal and compatible with the contract with the cruise line/tour operator/resort. What each of us do with the service as offered is up to us.

I think the key is choice<]. I would read the newspaper for the comics, though, and skip Page One.

Interesting. We've gotten greatly different advice on a couple of other message boards, but perhaps that's because of our specific itinerary: We're never in port beyond 5PM any night, and some nights the ship casts off at 4PM. Given that we're typically asleep by 9PM Eastern Time, starting dinner at 8PM Atlantic Time seemed at bit uncomfortable for us, and a lot of folks (about half) confirmed that they preferred the earlier seating for a variety of reasons.

I agree. Cell phones need be no more annoying than people talking loudly (which I feel is a much more common nuisance). Everyone would prefer to not be disturbed by others, whether it be talking to another person or talking into a cell phone, but within reason we need to just recognize it as part of being in a place with other people.

I do something similar with my DVC timeshare. I rent the points and use the cash for a cruise. Much more cost-effective than using the points directly for a cruise.

Well, I think everyone needs to decide that for themselves. Comfort is of great value to many, no question. By the same token, feeling like you look good is of great value, as well, and that's not necessarily any reflection of superficiality. Many people work hard to remain fit, and wearing clothing that displays that to good effect often helps strengthen the resolve to keep working at it. I've found, especially as someone who spent 25+ years morbidly obese, that a little vanity may be the only thing keeping me from regaining the 100 pounds I lost and facing the inevitable maladies associated with obesity. Of course, I wouldn't ever wear Speedos (I'm a guy, so a thong is not really a consideration), but that's because no matter how much I work to stay fit, I'll still always have too much excess skin to look good in Speedos! :D Right-on. To the extent permissible and appopriate, that's really a great perspective. Just keep in mind that what pleases each person may differ.