jan-n-john

Also the air really isn't free, it's included,

Not to be cheeky, but isn't that true of about everything in life?

We have sailed X several times now, always in AQ. We thought Blu was OK the first few trips, not great but OK, but over time the repetitiveness and dumbed down nature of the preparations becomes BORING. I'm not saying it has gotten any worse intrinsically, but to the individual it gets old --in fact, in my opinion, most of the observations that the food in Blu has gone downhill are due to the boring factor rather than any actual change in the food. The truth is it never changes and that's the fundamental problem. On our last trip we pretty much stopped going there -- I went down most days to check the menu, and we just couldn't get up for it.

So my advice is, if you are new or fairly new to AQ, go for it, dine at Blu, and it will probably be satisfactory. But unless you're happy with the same old thing endlessly, eventually you may need to come up with a different solution.

Just MHO.

I have the same question but more generalized.

How far in advance of any given Az cruise are the shore excursions that will be available for that cruise typically posted, for examining and/or booking? Is is 1 year, 2 years, six months, three weeks, 2 days, what? If I have a cruise booked for, say, February 2017, when should I start looking for shore excursions?

We were also on the Dec 22 cruise -- the internet was pretty bad, as reported, although we were able to make voice calls through WhatsApp much of the time, which came in handy when one of our dogs had a health situation develop and we needed to consult extensively with the vet (he's mostly OK now).

The new internet will be a vast improvement. Can't come too soon.

FWIW, if I understand correctly Azamara and Celebrity's frequent cruiser programs are effectively one and the same (not true of RCL). Your CC number is the same number on Azamara, and you accrue credits on both and get the benefits on both as if they were the same. So (if my understanding is correct, and I was told this by a Celebrity Future Sales person on board yesterday), this may be something to think about if one is looking to upgrade from Celebrity. We have been looking at Oceania, but haven't booked yet -- we did book a trip on Az. for 2017.

I agree about the silk harvest

Sushi was NOT good, but everything else was

We were at the back of the boat and saw a tender circling around for N hour before we sailed from colon

FinAlly let the people off

We commented we wouldn't have wanted to be on that excursion

Maybe that was the one?????

Helaine

That was the one. They certainly got back late, but that along doesn't seem to explain the brouhaha, so I'm still wondering what exactly happened that was so disagreeable.

Concur that the food on this trip is very good. Best we've ever had on "X" in the OC, though less so in Silk Harvest unfortunately.

One group came back from their boat tour today (to the Panama canal I think) and something had gone wrong. Several folks were madder than wet hens, and things nearly came to blows at the excursion sales desk, everybody demanding refunds and so on. I never found out what the problem was -- if anybody reading this knows I'd be interested to hear.

It has more to do with which cruise line than the agency. Princess and Holland allow discounting. The Royal Caribbean group typically does not so agents can only offer OBC or gifts (bottle of wine, specialty restaurants, etc). That's another factor in whether using a TA makes sense. Some spend little or nothing on board so OBC is not all that important. (My wife assures me that there is no reason for me to worry about unspent OBC.)

 

For what it's worth, I booked a celebrity suite under the 1/2/3 go, received gratuities, classic beverage package, and $300 OBC, all from celebrity. In addition, the TA threw in $575 in OBC. Cost of cruise was $6800. Total OBC $875. If we don't spend it all, the $575 from the TA should be refundable. My TA typically offers 10%-12.5% discounts for Princess or HAL.

Are these sorts of deals also to be found from TA's for the lux lines like Regent, Crystal, and so on?

Question about these TA-linked discounts, say from the big box TA. Do these typically get to the buyer in the form of a discount on the cruise fare (x% below the price the cruise line is charging at that time for the same cabin) or is it typically in the form of OBC, or does it go both ways? If it is OBC, all or in part, is that typically refundable or non-refundable OBC?

I'm fine with that, being new here, I didn't want it to come across as snobby :)

 

different experiences/exposures greatly influence perspectives. :)

Here is Modern Chandris' original post:

I find it interesting that the posters who don't understand what good jeans are tend to live in areas that don't have a big cultural scene. I think this probably accounts for the disconnect. Spend a little time on the weekends at a decent museum or a chef owned restaurant to get to know the difference between the type of jeans one wears with a nice jacket & the type your gardener wears.

The cut, fabric & fit are completely different, & make one appropriate for chic setting, & the other not.

& truly good jeans won't have an obvious 'designer' label, there's nothing tackier than an obvious logo on clothing or a bag, IMO

***************

What do you mean by designer jeans?

This means "nice jeans" (in the UK, they'd be referred to as "smart jeans") with no holes, rips or tears. Jeans that you dress up a bit, with a nice top and shoes/heels for women, and a dress shirt, button-down shirt, or sweater for men, with or without a jacket.

I didn't expect this little thread of mine would engender a response from Celebrity.

Unfortunately, with all due respect, the response still provides little clarity, not to mention it answers a question I didn't ask. What are "jeans"? Are jeans only pants made of blue denim, and are any and all pants made of blue denim jeans? Maybe, but many folks have other definitions, which was my basic point in the OP. If the denim is another color but everything else is the same, are those not-jeans? One could certainly find blue denim pants ("jeans") that do not have holes rips or tears but are not by any stretch of the imagination "smart" or "nice."

Basically this new standard appears to me to be a continuation of fashion anarchy, which may be a good thing, but not so great for those who are left to enforce it.

Full disclosure: my interest in this topic is totally academic -- we've sailed X 5 times now including a Transpac, and have yet to have dinner in the MDR (one lunch so far), so we're out of the loop. But I do think there is a larger point -- if X chooses to have rules it is only fair to explain those rules in ways that avoid ambiguity so people can actually follow them.

never mind

Actually your original post came through in my email and I thought it was pretty good, having addressed the point I was making in the OP better than some others.

I could repost it if it's Ok with you.

Thank you Northern Aurora

 

I’d read about the “blue” market in Argentina and was going to ask my guide for some help in exchanging some dollars. I have 10 days of Brazil and Argentina before boarding and was rather hoping to avoid carrying loads of $ bills between hotel safes. As you point out, travellers’ cheques are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain so, as in my previous note, it looks like a fat moneybelt!

If I may trouble you further, from your experience of SA tour operators, are they happy with $100 bills or do they prefer smaller denominations (which I understand could be done on the ship)? Also, did you have any experience of restaurants – do they prefer local currency or will they accept $ bills?

Thanks again

WT

Can't speak to Argentina specifically but my general experience with restaurant and other local purchases everywhere is that you can generally find places that accept credit cards without much trouble. Therefore, your best bet is to get a CC that does not charge a foreign transaction fee and uses a fair market rate for currency conversion (in the US that is usually the rate publlshed daily in the Wall Street Journal), and just pay with that denominated in the local currency. I assume you can find such a card in the UK. Use that card for all shore purchases possible and that will wind up being the most economical way to go. I can almost guarantee that restaurants which accept dollars will give an exchange rate that is highly unfavorable to you.

In my case, I use the Capital One Quicksilver Visa card for overseas purchases. Fair rate, no conversion charge (typically 3% or so on other cards) and 1.5% cash back, so not a bad deal.

Ever since this new dress code, everybody is talking about whether jeans are Ok or aren't. I've gotten completely lost. I want to know exactly what jeans are and are not, or in other words, where is the line between "jeans" and "not-jeans." How do you distinguish them one from the other? Are jeans chic, and not-jeans not chic, or is it the other way around?

When I was a kid, a pair of pants made out of blue denim fabric with a faux leather patch that said Levi Strauss and Company on the back, those were jeans. I get that. But apparently that is no longer the distinction.

And before you write me off as just another hopelessly out-of-date old fogey, before I wrote this I asked Jan to help me out, and she doesn't know either.

So it is. I confused you with jan-n-john who I am in heated debate with. :)

 

Can't keep track of multiple "conversation". Maybe I should make way for the Millennial Horde. :)

 

Cheers

Heated? I thought we were just having a friendly chit-chat! :)

Your original comment:

 

"One of the more common beliefs on cruise critic is that those who post here are representative of the demographic that cruise lines are interested in attracting."

 

was in response to my comment on a post that directly referenced millennials.

 

That made it about millennials.

Sorry wasn't me who said that. It was Rocketman in # 124, which in fact is still here.

Your suggestion that the retail experience is invalid because "anyone can see the unending problems retail companies have always had had in keeping customers and staying in business" is needlessly and inaccurately all-inclusive (nice metaphor, eh?).

Disagree. The retail industry, on the whole, has shown itself to be unable to predict how consumers will react to its initiatives. History clearly and unequivocally bears this out. it has always been a marketing research disaster zone, and remains to this day. JCP's recent trouble is another example that comes to mind.

Your statement:

 

There is also no doubt in my mind that most of the discussion on these boards is basically uninformed hot air.

 

will go without comment from me.

 

 

Cheers.

Does that mean we finally agree on something?

Well, that 's rather emphatic. Let's see...

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

 

Okay, let's use 1980 as the birth year -- the earliest of this definition. It is currently 2015 by my calendar. That puts the oldest millennial at 35, not 50. It is my opinion that, on the lines I cruise, Celebrity and Princess, there has not been a significant increase in passengers 35 and younger over the last 10 years.

 

As for those who were in their twenties back in the eighties and are in their forties and fifties now... Guess what. They are not Millennials. They are... me. They are people on CC. They are NOT who I am taking about when I refer to the Millennial demographic.

 

I cannot, of course, speak to something as ephemeral as how young someone's preferences are. Nor should any company tie their future to something so tenuous.

 

Just a dinosaur's two (devalued) cents. Not declaring you Wrong or anything.

I never said anything about millennials, nor did Celebrity. You and others did. It's an arbitrary term. I specified the age group I was referring to without pointless and misleading descriptors.

You said you were in retail for 40 years. I would demure from putting up the companies in the retail sector as any sort of paragon of marketing prowess or understanding -- anyone can see the unending problems retail companies have always had had in keeping customers and staying in business. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a Sears executive in the early 70's when I wanted to interview them for an international shipping study I was doing. He very arrogantly refused, saying I only wanted to talk to Sears because "they are the best in the business." We all can see how well that worked out. Look what's happening to Wal-mart now. No thanks.

You also overlook a key difference between keeping your retail customers and the situation facing a cruise line. A retailer can offer wildly different products to different customers. A cruise line, with its policies on dining dress, is much more in a "one size fits all" situation (nice metaphor eh?). It has to pick the one policy that will work best and go with it for everybody. So the retail analogy simply doesn't inform a cruise line in these matters.

There is no doubt in my mind that Celebrity knows what it is doing and has made the right choice to maximize its profits going forward. There is also no doubt in my mind that most of the discussion on these boards is basically uninformed hot air. PS I'm a RCL stockholder, I'm in my 70's, and I wouldn't touch a retail stock with a 20 foot pole. Just MHO.

This is news to me, but it sounds interesting. For which ships and when are these excursions programmed?

Well said.

 

The cruise industry as a whole has made changes over these last few years to entice a younger demographic. And anyone who has cruised recently knows they are, so far, failing.

Wrong. They aren't trying to attract a younger demographic per se; rather, they are trying to attract a demographic whose preferences are "younger" if you will than the preferences of the dinosaur set. The preference for casual dress developed among 20 somethings back in the 80's and 90's. Those 20 somethings are now 40 and 50 somethings. Those are the ones they not only are trying to attract, but must attract to continue to be successful for the coming decade or so. Contrary to what you said, those folks certainly are taking cruises, often with the Carnivals of the world -- now the Celebrities of the world are seeking to bring them over. All part of the natural flow of things.

At least they are being consistent when they threaten to change lines. Many times the formal dress crowd have said that one should either accept the dress code or choose another line. Now that the code has changed, it appears "the shoe is on the other foot" and they will either have to accept it or they can choose another line. The problem with that strategy is that there are fewer and fewer options to choose from. Those pesky millennials are everywhere.

Well said.

There are ways to make changes to your product without alienating longtime customers. Multi-billion dollar business do it all the time. Businesses such as McDonald's or Burger King or AMC Theaters, just to name a few, have recently began to make slight changes. However, as an example, when you walk in the theaters, you can still get your popcorn and candy, but now you can also get an actual meal and an alcoholic drink.

 

I am just of the opinion that Celebrity got tired of the complaints that their staff was doing nothing in policing the dress code, so they basically eliminated it in order to stop the complaints. They probably were not expecting any type of backlash like this.

 

Ah well, c'est la vie.

My guess is that your "backlash" is in reality little more than a tempest in a teapot on Cruise Critic. Celebrity (RCCL) isn't stupid -- they do their market research before making moves like this, and their market research, which likely is pretty sophisticated, extends far far beyond that which is posted here; in fact, I rather imagine they give very little weight to that which is posted here, and that's probably a good thing.

A bit late to this thread, but I found the pretension of this opening hilarious.

 

For what it's worth (and it's not worth anything), I've got a Master's from Cambridge and a Master's from Oxford, so my opinion must presumably be as important as that of the OP and the OP's spouse together? ;-)

 

Stuart

In my opinion, the constant disdain for the OP that has been salted through this thread is misplaced and out of order, and shows a complete misunderstanding of what the OP was trying to say. Lighten up folks! I don't believe he was suggesting that his education and accomplishments make his opinion more valid than anyone else's. That is completely beside the point. Indeed, we're not even talking about opinions, but marketplace facts. What he was saying was that the members of his demographic, by age and by accomplishment, are not "slobs" as others are trying to portray them, but simply prefer a reduction in the fomality of dress and dining style. Most importantly, since they and their preferences are becoming the majority in society in general and among the future cruise market specifically, if they haven't already, Celebrity has no option but move with the times and relax its previous "rules" in this regard, and that is what is behind this change that Celebrity has made. That's all.

I would add that for me at least these comments and threats about changing preferred cruise line because of this new policy are growing tiresome. It doesn't matter how many times you've sailed with Celebrity in the past -- No business can continue to cater to dinosaurs after the meteor has hit. Stop complaining and just go if that's what you are going to do. You will soon find that the same market realities apply elsewhere too, to one extent or another. Celebrity knows full well where the future lies, as does every other cruise line.

 

I'm not referring to those of us who have been there forever, I'm speaking of the "new" customers who came to Celebrity because they heard it was something special. It's just possible that the things that went along with Celebrity being just a little more special than some of the others may disappear a little faster than you would like too.

 

If you are 72 then you must know that the pendulum swings both ways. Personally, I see my grandchildren liking to get dressed up more than their parents did. Maybe the 30 to 50 crowd is behind the times. Jeans are not really the "fashion statement" they were just a decade ago.

I think it's quite a stretch to suggest the 30-50 crowd is "behind the times." That is the demographic whose average preferences define "the times."

Sure there are new customers who came because they "heard it was special" (though I don't know who they heard it from, in view of the excessively negative comments I see here all the time). But there is no doubt in my mind that the "30-50 set" is the primary market Celebrity wants to develop and is targeting, and on the whole they prefer less formality than the 50-80 set does, and that is the reason for the change in policy.

Jeans may not be the fashion statement they once were, I don't know, but I seriously doubt we'll see a return to tuxes and party gowns anytime soon. The pendulum will swing, but nobody knows where it will land. There will certainly be something new by the time your grandkids are purchasing their own cruises (20-30 years from now????), and the cruise lines of the world if they still exist will will move with it then. But right now, comfortable and non-fussy clothing is what the 30-50 set predominantly wants to wear to dinner, and that's the environment the lines are going to provide.

That's an interesting conclusion. I wonder why those customers came over to Celebrity in the first place since they had plenty of choices for a cruise like Celebrity is now becoming. I hope "the majority" doesn't wake up someday to find that the things they loved about Celebrity no longer exist.

I suppose those (predominantly) older customers came over to Celebrity back then because Celebrity offered the things they were looking for back then and at that time they were the future customer base. Fast forward. Now those customers are aging out and falling by the wayside. Celebrity, like any business, needs to adjust to the likes of the future customer base, not the past one, and that's what they're doing. (By the way I'll turn 72 this week). And yes, I'm sure as we go along in the future Celebrity like any business will always be adjusting to the (predominant) preferences of the future customers, and today's new customers who will then be the old timers will be complaining about standards not being respected or whatever. It's just the natural flow of life -- always has been, always will be.

Those who prefer formality were once in the majority. They aren't any more. Time to get used to it, or seek out an alternative.

As I stated on the main thread, Sad, Sad, Sad

 

........so the cruise line gives in to follow the dollars instead of holding the line to keep the bar from slipping any further... That's the sad part.

I see nothing "sad" about it. It is not the job of cruise lines to .... "hold the line to keep the bar from slipping"....... It's their job to provide the environment that the greatest number of their customers find to their liking, which is how they achieve the highest level of profitability they can, which is their true job. They are not there to lose money by catering to yesterday's forms and preferences. When the customer base's tastes have changed, they need to change their policies to reflect that, not keep them fixed for the shrinking minority that disagrees.

Those who want a different experience than that which suits the majority need to look elsewhere to find the experience they seek. There are plenty of cruise opportunities that have a standard more like the one X has now jettisoned.