Don'tNeedAName

11 hours ago, npb1894 said:

Thanks for the information! We are headed on the same cruise Friday! Looking forward to a great Adventure!!

Nice, have a great cruise!  The ship was in great shape, and we really loved the amount of sea days (the stops were great too!).  Plus, getting that 8th night to push you past a full week on board really makes a huge difference.

12 hours ago, dcblack&gold said:

Thanks for the informative review, Don't!  I am on the same sailing this Friday.

Can you give me a sense about how bad (or not) the traffic getting into Cape Liberty was for you?

We will be driving up from Baltimore on Friday morning.  Planning on leaving at 7:00 and hoping

to get to Cape Liberty by 10:30.  What can we expect to see traffic wise around the port?  Thanks.

I think that 10:30 timing should be perfect, and was what we were aiming for.

We hit the entrance to the port around 11:30.  We had no problems with traffic on the drive in, but once we were at the port, it was a long, very slow line of cars that started to the left of where my first picture above cuts off.  That's ultimately why we decided to just skip the drive around to the luggage dropoff and just short-cut to the outdoor lot.

But yeah, from my understanding when I was originally planning, 10:30 should be great.  Have an awesome cruise!

10 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Available or not. it is or was the price for a port hole.

What are you talking about?  The website literally says starting at $3550 for a Sea Terrace.

Now you try to throw the "or was" in there.  Can you offer any proof that a "port hole" room was offered for "over $3,500"?

Your pathetic attempts to turn this forum into a negative place for everyone are insufferable enough, but if you must continue to post on a forum for a cruise line on which you will never sail, could you at least do so with some accuracy?

If anyone's interested, here are my $0.02 on the 7/26 - 8/3 Adventure sailing out of Cape Liberty (NJ) to Bermuda, Nassau, and Coco Cay.  It was my wife, two sons (3.5y/o & 1.5y/o), and I were in GS 1248 (Deck 10, forward) for our first real vacation as a whole family.

Pre-cruise

We drove from Ohio to NJ--just found that easier than dealing with the kids flying.  We drove most of the way, then stayed about 45 min away from the port at the 

TownePlace Suites Bridgewater Branchburg.  Being an extended stay hotel, it was easy to book a room with an actual separate bedroom, which is a plus traveling with the whole family.  We found a nice rate, and figured 45 min to port in the morning was just fine, as we wanted to park at the port anyway.  When we cruised out of NJ in 2017, we were too late to the port to get a spot in the garage, and planned on getting there earlier this time.  Of course, "best laid plans" and all that.  Getting moving took longer than expected Friday morning, and we ended up stuck in a ton of traffic right around 11:15 at the port.

Thinking we may have missed the figurative boat on the garage, we figured we'd rather just get to the literal boat faster and skipped a bunch of the line just by turning on 12th street and heading straight for the open lot (red line below) as opposed to going by the luggage dropoff area (blue line below).  This may be simpler and quicker for some if you're not toting too much luggage and you're fine parking in the open lot to avoid the line of cars.  After that, I carried our one large bag over to the porters, and we walked in with a couple carry-ons.  Check-in was fast and easy.

The Room

As noted above, we were in 1248.  It's right by the forward stairs/elevators on Deck 10.  The room was refreshed as part of the work done in early 2018, and it looked great!  I thought the location was nice, since it was the farthest forward GS.  We were just under the edge of the Solarium, where the sliding doors lead into the elevators.  Thus, we really did not get much noise from above, but did hear the occasional "call of the wild deck chair."

The suite perks were fine, but we didn't really take full advantage with the kids.  Only hit up the suite lounge once (view was great!) and just did breakfast in the WJ every day, as opposed to G's Table, for instance.  We did make use of the suite seating areas for a couple of the shows, and by the pool as well.  We never really use the pool chairs too long, so the fact that they're all sun doesn't bother us much.  Being escorted off the boat at the end of the cruise was probably the nicest aspect of it all... VERY quick.  Although I hate having the cruise end, I hate waiting in line even more.

Back to the room itself--couldn't beat the sunset views on the way down south:

Ports of Call

Bermuda--loved it.  Easy mini-bus ride to Horseshoe Beach.  We got off early and beat the long line to the rental stand.  I'm especially glad we got an umbrella since it rained pretty heavily for about 20 min.  Those beach umbrellas aren't perfect for rain, but did the trick anyway.

Just another reminder NOT to book a Horseshoe Beach excursion through the ship.  I am not completely anti-ship excursions, but for the comparative cheapness of this activity, the Horseshoe Beach excursion may be the worst deal RCI offers.  It's so easy to get a mini-bus whenever you are ready, for $7p/p each way.  In addition, for the little ones, they have never charged us on 4 separate legs for having the 1.5 y/o on our lap (so 2 years ago, just paid for my wife and I; this year, just for us and the 3.5 y/o).  Don't pay the $35 p/p or whatever that RCI charges and be locked into their timing too.

We had a visitor come in while we were in port as well:

Nassau--it is what it is.  There is a lot to do, but we just stuck close by and walked to Junkanoo beach.  It's free and easy.  Plus, we didn't call until noon, and by the time we decided to get off the ship around 3:30, all the other ships in port were about to leave, so the beach was relatively empty.

We were the last ones in port for the night (departed at midnight):

Coco Cay-- They have definitely made an effort to make the experience something special (admittedly, not for everyone).  I have to be honest, I'm buying into it after one visit, and we didn't even take full advantage.  Super easy to find beach chairs and umbrellas (although we were the only ship calling that day).  Splashaway Bay is great free fun for the kids.  Also, we did the helium balloon, and WOW!  It was well worth it, especially for us with both kids free for being under 4y/o.

What a view!

Odds and Ends

Wifi- surf and stream was reliable, although slow as expected.  As some may find it useful info, I was able to connect without issue to my work's network via Cisco AnyConnect VPN.

Main Dining Room- two things.  First, my wife is a vegan, and we mentioned this to the suite concierge in an email a couple weeks prior to cruising.  When we got to dinner the first night, the MDR seemed to have no knowledge of the request.  She is not picky at all, and said anything would be fine.  We were sitting down for 90 min before any food was brought out.  It's bad enough as it is, but was made worse by having the little ones there.  Surprisingly, they did pretty well for what ended up being a 2.5 hour dinner.  Woof.  The staff were apologetic, and they were amazing the rest of the cruise, especially with the kids.  I find that many of the service staff have children of similar ages, and they seem to get genuine enjoyment out of interacting with our kids as well.

Second... dear God, do not let this turn into a dress code thread, but I'm making mention of it anyway.  I heard a man (approx 45 y/o if I had to guess) talking two tables away that he was angry because they would not allow him in the MDR with a basketball jersey on.  This did not happen on a formal night, and I note there were plenty of shorts and t-shirts every evening.  While I am firmly in the "wear what you want" camp, it gave me a bit of a chuckle nonetheless.

Pizza- I have to agree with some other reports, it seemed better this go around.  I have always been fine with it either way, as I generally agree with the idea that there's no such thing as bad pizza.  Either way, it seemed better both on the Promenade, and in WJ.  However, the kids got it most evenings in the MDR, and it was not as good there.  I think it just sits longer, and freshness makes a huge difference with this pizza especially.

Kids Pool Areas- our 3.5 y/o enjoyed the little splash area for older kids, but was still just a little short for the slide there; he preferred swimming in the main pool(s) as opposed to the splash area.  The splash area for kids in swim diapers is sufficient as well.  Not much going on, but a little fountain and a small slide-- it was enough to keep the attention of our 1.5 y/o anyway!

Casino- spent a couple nights there.  Smoke was definitely noticeable, but I didn't think it was quite as bad as I had remembered.  I especially thought it would seem worse since we were on Empress last summer with no smoking in the casino.

Shows- we went to the ice show (twice, since our older son wouldn't stop talking about it) and one of the production shows (Jackpot, the Vegas showtune production).  They kept us entertained.  We did not see any of the headliner shows. 

Other Kid-related Topics- we took our older son to Adventure Ocean on Day 1 for an intro, then for an hour or two each on days 2 and 4 (both sea days).  He did ok, and seemed to have a good time, but he told us that he didn't want to go back.  It's his vacation too, so that was that.  The staff there seem really great though from our limited experience.  The heli-pad and peek-a-boo bridge overlook were huge hits with the kids (and with us too!).

Closing Thoughts

We spent a lot more time in our room this cruise between naps and early bed times, so the suite was definitely a huge plus.  Love the ease of cruising out of NJ, and I also really like sea days, so making the long trip to Bermuda and then all the way up from the Bahamas was excellent.

If you have any questions, go ahead and shoot, and I'll try.  I may not be the best source of information, since we didn't get around as much as usual.  Maybe if others that were on this sailing see the post, they could fill in the gaps!

22 hours ago, beerman2 said:

Agree with the frivolous lawsuits, there is a fairly simple solution:

 

Anyone sueing for $$$$$$$$$ and you lose , they now have to pay 10,15,20% ( pick a percentage) to a true victims fund. You will see some of those ridiculous lawsuits not filed or at minimum a smaller amount suing for.

 

Hell add the lawyers to that mix also. With money coming out of one's own pocket they may think twice.

It's fun to think about "punishing" those who bring frivolous lawsuits, but the impact of a proposal like this would, in reality, be to make lawsuits a method of recourse for the wealthy only, since a completely legitimate lawsuit may be lost for any number of reasons.

If someone of meager financial standing has a legitimate lawsuit for 500k, would he or she be willing to risk being on the hook for 50k simply for losing  the lawsuit (which, again, could happen for any number of reasons not having to do with the validity of the claim itself).

Often, people blow the impact of frivolous lawsuits way out of proportion. This is great for big businesses, as they want to drive public perception in their favor when it comes to these types of things (as has been brought up previously, read up on the "real" story behind the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, not the public perception).   I am not saying frivolous lawsuits aren't a problem at all, but it's not nearly to the level the general public seems to view it.  Furthermore, the federal rules of civil procedure already provide for sanctions against an attorney who violates "Rule 11" which requires:

---

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

---

As far as I am aware, all local jurisdictions have some manner of the same rule.  If Royal's attorneys are so inclined, they can file a motion for sanctions against the opposing attorney.

16 minutes ago, 123funcruiser said:

It´s really nice to see how helpful People are in asking for a friend. 

Haha, no doubt!

As to the OP, as other's have already noted, it's hard to believe this question is anything other than a troll attempt, but here's the simple answer: if "friend's dad" is amoral when it comes to theft, then of course the only problem is whether or not they get caught.

Yes, the drinks are expensive, but if someone is willing to sell himself out for a couple hundred dollars, then I guess there's not much more to be said about his self-worth.

If you want a drink on board, then pay for it.  Others have provided a range of prices, so plan accordingly.

22 minutes ago, PTC DAWG said:

Good luck with that.  

May not be a matter of luck for the grandfather if charged or anyone who is formally subpoenaed and fails to appear.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3182 and Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987).  Extradition applies to Puerto Rico, and the governor of Indiana (assuming they remain there) generally would be required to satisfy a request from Puerto Rico authorities to deliver the parties at issue.

Edit: oops, somehow missed graphicguy's post.

3 hours ago, smplybcause said:

 

Manslaughter is for when accidents cause death, but isn't murder. Like if you're the cause of a car accident that killed someone yet you weren't trying to kill them, they could charge you with manslaughter. It's above my paygrade to determine if he actually should be charged, but this meets the literal definition of manslaughter.

 

Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

As part of this discussion, I think it would be prudent to clarify some misconceptions with respect to manslaughter, in both a general common law sense and what appears to be in the actual case of Puerto Rican law.

First, "manslaughter" is not plainly for situations involving accidents.  Most commonly manslaughter still involves an intentional act, but the mens rea (the mental element necessary for a crime) is less than that of murder (malice aforethought), or some mitigating circumstance may be present.  For instance, if a person's actions are intended to kill another but are done in the heat of the moment or in a fit of rage (classic example is walking in on cheating spouse), then the crime is manslaughter instead of murder because the killing was done intentionally but without prior thought (i.e., malice aforethought).  Of course, arguments exist as to how long something has to be considered to have been pre-planned--is one second enough... ten seconds... one minute... ten minutes...?  The law is almost never black and white.

While common law provides for the concept of involuntary manslaughter, it often still requires an intentional act.  Furthermore, although manslaughter by gross negligence is yet another concept under common law, see the argument earlier in the thread about the connotative vs. denotative meaning of "accident" as to whether gross negligence still requires intent.  In addition to these common law standards, there is a statutory concept known as negligent homicide, although the definition in various jurisdictions may essentially be involuntary manslaughter.

In any event, in a quick look, Puerto Rico defines manslaughter more in line with common law voluntary manslaughter.  That is, a crime that would be murder but for the fact that it is mitigated due to occurring "in circumstances sudden heat of passion or rage" per 33 L.P.R.A. § 4736.

Puerto Rico does have negligent homicide on the books under 33 L.P.R.A. § 4737.  It is defined as a misdemeanor, but is made subject to the same penalties as a fourth degree felony.  With respect to negligence, under 33 L.P.R.A. § 4652, "A crime is deemed to be committed negligently when it is performed without intent, but imprudently, when not observing the standard care that a reasonably prudent person would have observed in the same situation as the author in order to prevent the result."

35 minutes ago, Mythbuster said:

I can't imagine any sane person being bothered by a 14 year old passing through.  The rule is designed to keep young children out of the pool splashing and making a lot of noise.  Most of the people in the Solarium have their eyes closed or buried in a book anyway.

In applying this response, first query the overlap of sane people and fellow cruise ship passengers! 😉

In all seriousness, nothing else to add for OP's benefit... should be a non-issue.  Enjoy the cruise!

Thanks, Chief--yes, I don't disagree with your points there, and having read that, I think we might be talking (or, typing, rather) to slightly different things.  I agree that a simple statement of the facts would not support making a judgment on any particular case.  However, the public does not need to make a judgment with respect to every case.  Instead, I view it more that the public as a whole should be kept informed of the general goings-on in areas of public concern, including employee safety.

Thus, I only take issue with the statement that how it happened is only of concern to the immediate parties involved, and potentially law enforcement.  Because I believe employee safety is a matter of great public concern, I therefore believe it is reasonable to expect the reporting of the circumstances of a situation like this to the public, even if it is not necessarily a full technical breakdown.

In an extreme case of dumbing this down to my level, say another report comes out next month that an employee died because of "Problem X" with no further detail.  Then the next month, and the month after, etc.  The public would not need to know the root cause of each occurrence of Problem X to raise the concern as to why Problem X keeps resulting in deaths.  The experts would be evaluating individual cases, but I think if Problem X keeps popping up, but I believe it would also be incumbent upon the general public to pressure elected officials into asking the "whys" and "hows" to get the more technical detail and ensure that appointed regulators are taking action.  Arguably, this puts entirely too much trust in the old notion of "the press" or "the people" being the "fourth branch of government," but I admit I am still a bit idealistic in that regard--hopefully not to the extent of naivete!

In any event, I do appreciate your thoughts and insight.

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Nothing at all wrong with discussing it, if you so wish, but to expect that details of how or why this happened to be disseminated to the general public isn't reasonable.  Now, if a passenger were able to do this, much like the NCL "plank", and an accident happened, then yes, you would expect some form of explanation as to what happened and what is being done, but it still wouldn't be a guarantee that information would be forthcoming.

I follow your viewpoint on this issue in the general sense, but I suspect we may agree to disagree on the position that it is unreasonable to expect certain details related to an incident involving an employee's death in the line of duty for his or her employer to be made public (if that is what happened here).  While there is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, if you'll humor me, I'll offer a couple other thoughts in response to the prior posts as to why I think additional reporting of this incident are of public interest.

I'd argue that just because the vast majority of laymen will not understand the full technical meaning behind a given set of information does not mean that such information necessarily should be excluded from the public record.  If that were the case, I fear we wouldn't have much reporting on anything.  Recognizing that we do not even know what happened, I agree with your point that, no--I would not expect a single press release 3 months from now to result in significant change.  Rather, I view reporting and making details public as part of an ongoing increase to the collective knowledge as more and more events occur.  To put it bluntly, the public doesn't have to understand the technical details to know that employee deaths are bad, and therefore raise a concern.  If those in control have done everything they can to mitigate certain risks, then they will be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Furthermore, having the proper regulatory agencies and experts in place is critical, but the general public is tasked with (a) electing legislators to pass laws and set budgets for these monitoring agencies and (b) electing the president to enforce those laws, appoint regulatory administrators to enact regulations under those laws, and--in certain cases, such as maritime law--enter into international conventions/treaties as necessary (with legislative consent).  Thus, I view reporting on dangerous working conditions, current applicable rules and regulations are, etc. as part of keeping an informed electorate (I recognize this is just one issue among countless others, and it may sound pie-in-the-sky, but I earnestly believe in the foundation of it all).

I also think back on a totally different situation with respect to tech manufacturer Foxconn that became infamous for the number of suicides occurring at its factories, especially in 2010.  Protests occurred not only in China, but in the US as well, aimed at Apple.  Although not perfect, Foxconn at least took some measures, including a reported raise of 66% to assembly line worker pay.  What many people may not have seen in the reporting was that, based on the extremely large workforce that Foxconn employs, the suicide rate among employees was actually lower than that of China as a whole.  Nonetheless, widespread knowledge of these events did appear to spark some level of change that resulted in an ever-so-slightly improved situation for otherwise low-powered workers.

Sorry for the wall of text, but that generally gets to why I think reporting on these matters is important, even though it is a complex and sensitive issue.

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

How this happened is no one's business other than the person involved, his family, Carnival, and possibly law enforcement.

I wholeheartedly agree with respect to the privacy of the individual and his or her family.  No specifics are needed in that regard.  It is terrible that this happened, and I can only wish the family strength in this time.

If I may push back slightly regarding the general circumstances, I think there is a matter of public interest to report on the "how" of the occurrence.  As your posts already address, some jobs cannot be done in a totally safe manner; employers and employees can only hope to minimize risk.  While it is essential the parties directly affected by this understand what went wrong and consider if/how additional measures may be implemented in the future, I believe there is still value to keeping corporations under the public eye, especially with respect to major employers like Carnival Corp.  This can be difficult in such a sensitive situation, and could be exacerbated by the fact that the general public of non-mariners will lack the background to fully appreciate the risks and operations.

Still, I think I personally err on the side of more "sunlight" being shed on events involving employee danger, even if it may attract some crowd that is only after the morbid details.  Note, I am absolutely not saying that something nefarious must have happened here; rather, only stating why there may be importance to reporting these situations.

54 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

You are totally wrong about me and have no right assuming what I think. You do whatever you want and I will do what ever I want. Period. It is only my perception of what I think of the cruise ship. Only mine. Has nothing to do with anyone else especially you. Plus you just confirmed basically what I said. "Other cruise ones do not major in it". Guess you need to reread you own posts. So I would appreciate it if you do not reply saying things about me you know absolutely nothing about. I could easily do the same but have far more respect for the posters.

First, anyone certainly has the right to assume whatever they want.  However, I am not sure what you think I am assuming about "you."  I don't even know who you are--this is an anonymous message board... for most people anyway.  Nonetheless, to make it explicit, I don't think you are a bad person (not that you care, nor should you anyway).  That doesn't change the matter that stating that someone who enjoys fitness could just go to Golds Gym cheaper than going on a cruise is condescending whether you want to believe it or not.  Did you not type that, or the other things I have responded to?

Furthermore, I'm really not sure what you're getting at with: "Plus you just confirmed basically what I said. "Other cruise ones do not major in it". Guess you need to reread you own posts."  You may want to take your own advice with respect to rereading, since that was the entire point of my comment.

To spell it out more, you recognize that other cruise lines "do not major in it," yet you question why VV would go "way over the top" with health & fitness related offerings when "all cruise lines have gyms."  My point is that you are answering your own question because someone who finds exercise and fitness relaxing would enjoy a cruise line that makes it a priority (i.e., "majors" in it) as opposed to all other cruise lines with the same old gyms.

On 7/4/2019 at 1:35 PM, twodaywonder said:

Here is how it goes. You spend you money and see how it is. I won't. Simple. Getting on my tread mill later.

If it were that simple, you would have left it at "not for me" and been on your way.  Instead, it seems you prefer to come on this part of the forum and imply that others are somehow cruising incorrectly (i.e., "do you want to cruise or do you want to go to the gym?"), rather than accept the fact that many people might want to combine their enjoyment of health & fitness-related activities with their love of cruising.  You'd prefer to be condescending (i.e., "Golds Gym is available for a lot less money"), even though it could easily be turned around on whatever it is you enjoy doing on board.  For instance, grabbing a lounger at the public pool is much cheaper than a cruise; going to a casino/bar/lounge in your city is much cheaper than a cruise; etc. etc.

It's also odd that you don't even seem to grasp that you are answering your own question when you post something like "ALL cruise lines offer fitness, lots of it. They do not major in it."  Consider, for a moment, that might be a reason some people are excited for a new line that appears to make this aspect of cruising a focus (among other things) and not just an afterthought.

This all ignores the fact that there will be a lot more to VV than just the fitness side of things as well.

That's great!  However, I did not ask whether you considered the statement itself.  I asked whether you considered your own biases.  While it is your prerogative to respond in whatever manner you see fit, I thought it was worth pointing out the difference. 

Quite frankly, it appears that rather than be objective and recognize that others may enjoy different amenities on board, you would prefer to be condescending.

3 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Not sure what you are saying about filling a great need. ALL ships have spas and exercise rooms with plenty of equipment. Just that the Virgin line has an extreme amount. Way over the top. Why cruise if that is why you took a cruise?

Have you considered that your statement of certain amenities/offerings being "way over the top" is perhaps colored by the fact that you wouldn't be using them to their fullest extent?

That gets to my point about filling a need... different cruise lines exist to cater to different passenger sets.  Stating that all ships have spas and exercise rooms ignores the chance that an increased focus on these specific amenities (among others) by one cruise line may serve the wants/desires of many current or future cruisers.  Virgin is certainly betting on it, and I am guessing they will do just fine.  First quick example that springs to mind--I have never done yoga, nor do I have any real desire to.  Nonetheless, I can 100% see the attraction in the top deck outdoor yoga studio.  Seems like it would be an excellent location/atmosphere for it.

Asking "why cruise if that is why you took a cruise?" doesn't really make sense to me because wanting to cruise and wanting to exercise are not mutually exclusive.  Maybe they like being out on the water, experiencing different port locations as part of a single trip without having to move hotel to hotel, etc. etc.  Whatever it is, I suspect those people who enjoy exercising and find it relaxing might cruise for a number of the same reasons that you choose to cruise and enjoy doing whatever activity/ies you find relaxing on a cruise ship even though you could just as easily do them on land.  After all, could you not relax somewhere other than a cruise ship?

It's hard to convey sincerity via message board, and I am not trying to come across like a jerk with over the top explanations.  It just seems like there are a lot of people disparaging Virgin because it isn't just like every other cruise line.  I am not saying you are specifically doing this, but your point about exercising offered an opportunity to try to explain in earnest just one example of why people might enjoy this different type of cruise experience.  I don't think that means it is "way over the top."  It is just aimed at another target audience.

On 5/12/2019 at 3:40 PM, twodaywonder said:

From what I understand these ships cater to the exercise crowd. Not someone who wants to relax and enjoy a CRUISE as you would normally.

It sounds like these ships are filling a great need, then.  Many people enjoy exercising and, in fact, find it relaxing.

That being said, it seems like there will be a lot to enjoy on Virgin ships for many different "crowds."

Responses here seem on point... just thought I'd add my $0.02.  My wife and I were on the Empress for 4 nights last July, so info is about a year old.  Either way, our two young kids were staying w/ grandma and grandpa, so we made and received a number of calls back home using wifi calling on our phones with only limited issues (a couple times just had to hang up and call back).  I think we did voice only, but we may have done a video call too... just can't remember now.  We also VPN'd into work network a couple of times, and although the connection was slow, it was sufficient to send a few emails over VPN.

5 hours ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

Traditions represent a critical piece of our culture. They help form the structure and foundation of our families and our society. They remind us that we are part of a history that defines our past, shapes who we are today and who we are likely to become.

 

Certainly your response gets right to the point.

Would you suggest that (1) once a tradition is established, it must be continued no matter what, lest society crumble; and/or (2) a tradition can only serve to "help form the structure and foundation" if it is continued (rather than, say, studied)?

It was once a tradition for wives to stay home while husbands worked.  Some families still maintain this dynamic (as they should, if that is their prerogative), but things have shifted toward more dual-earner households or stay-at-home husbands.  I'd say the societal implications of working women are far more important to the world than who-wears-what in a cruise ship's dining room.  Should women have been ridiculed and shamed to stay at home instead of joining the workforce in order to maintain this tradition?

Consider, also, that perhaps the most common "tradition" with respect to fashion is that it is cyclical.  Fashion trends have always been evolving, and I'd argue that the move to more casual dining attire is right in line with that tradition of constant change.

My wife and I have always dressed up for dinner in the MDR because she enjoys it, but I just might have to switch to shorts and a ball cap after reading this latest thread.  From all our meals, I cannot for the life of me recall one single item of clothing that anyone else around us was wearing because it had zero impact on us.  To those saying that your dining experience is ruined by the presence of shorts, I say "get a grip!"  If another cruiser's decision to wear shorts ruins your dinner, I'd argue it says more about you than the other cruiser.

As it stands, RCI has unenforced suggestions.  If one cannot bear to be in the presence of shorts while eating, then one should seek out a cruise line that has a satisfactory dress code.

My info is a couple years old, but might still be helpful and maybe others can fill in the gaps.

In June 2017, we took our 18 mo. old with us on a Bermuda overnight cruise out of NJ (5 nights on RCI Anthem).  I know he was a little bit older than yours, but it was definitely still vacation to us!

The one thing I found great about it was that we ended up napping every day along with him.  We're normally so "go go go" on vacation that it was something that actually helped us relax a bit more.  We brought the baby monitor with us so that we could be on our balcony when he napped, and it was perfect.  One of us would put him down while the other went up to the buffet and bring a plate back, then the other would go up and bring a plate back--lunch and a couple drinks out on the balcony, then nap time for us too!

As for actually being in Bermuda, we got there the first day at 9:00am.  We just did the Snorkel Park Beach right there in the Dockyard.  It's not much, but it got the job done for us as we really didn't spend a ton of time at the beach, and knew we were going to get back on board a little before 1:00 for nap time (at that age, ours wasn't quite as good at the "sleep anywhere" thing anymore).  The beach is rocky, but our son liked sitting in the sand and picking at the rocks, so it was a "win" in that regard.  As I recall, you only had to pay for admission (for the adults) once, so we could go back out/in the rest of the day.

Day 2 we woke up early and were on one of the first mini-buses to get to Horseshoe.  It was great, only $7pp each way (no charge for our son who just sat on my wife's lap).  Can't remember what the cost was for a couple of beach chairs and umbrellas, maybe $40, including tip?  Not sure, but it was nice getting there early, as the beach really wasn't crowded for most of the time we were there.  Again, we probably left around noon, and when we got up, told a family nearby that they were welcome to use the chairs/umbrella.  Seemed to make their day, which was nice.

Other than beach time, we spent time walking around the Dockyard.  The 2017 Americas cup was in Bermuda the weeks surrounding our time in port, so there were even some of the racing yachts about.  Unfortunately, the actual races were all on days other than when we were in Bermuda.  We shopped and ate there at the Dockyard... but had dinner on the ship, since the staff was so great with our son.  He was in heaven, but perhaps it's worth finding somewhere better to eat on the island.  I think we were just shy about it being his first real vacation and not wanting to push things too far.

We are booked to go back to Bermuda (only for the day this time) in July/Aug with our now two sons--3.5 and 1.5y/o.  This will be our longest cruise ever at 8 nights.  Can't wait to go back to Bermuda!

On 3/26/2019 at 2:25 PM, BooBooMonkey said:

Planning to park at the cruise port garage.  Do you pay the $22/day up front?

Hey @BooBooMonkey, we're Columbus-based cruisers as well, and will be following you through NJ just a couple months later on Adventure.  Enjoy your cruise!

As 138east mentioned earlier, the garage has a machine you can pay prior to exiting, but I am hoping she can chime in regarding the overflow lot.  When we cruised out of Bayonne a couple years ago, we ended up in the overflow lot right across the street and I think we had to pay cash upfront, but honestly cannot remember now.  Just figured it was worth a follow up in case you happen to get sent to overflow.

@138east, do you know about payment for the overflow lot?  Pre-cruise?  Also, thanks for all your knowledge sharing on NJ!

36 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Making them smoke only outside is not fair.  

 

Banning smoking for all indoors is not fair.  It is very one sided.

 

These days fair is whatever someone wants to make THEM happy. 😄

 

BTW, I am not smoker, just tired of the SJW and their idea of "fair".

Is it fair to require someone to take a phone call outside of a movie theater instead of inside?  Would it be unfair for the theater to remove a customer who would not stop talking on his phone in the theater?  Society places restrictions on these things all the time, and it is certainly fair to ask people to take reasonable steps (such as going outside) to partake in certain activities.

By your un-ironic use of a term like SJW, I can tell we will likely never agree on this, and if you are insinuating that I am a SJW, you are incorrect.  Using your logic, smokers are the ones who want things their way "to make THEM happy"--forget the consequences to anyone else.

However, you are missing the point.  It has nothing to do with making people "happy."  Secondhand smoke is dangerous.  That is a fact.  It is absolutely fair to place restrictions on the place and manner in which people choose to engage in dangerous activities that put others at risk.

Racing in the wrong environment (public streets) is dangerous; if people want to race, they can take it to a track.  This allows safe enjoyment of public streets, and it is fair because it doesn't prohibit racers from using public streets.  Similarly, prohibiting smoking indoors allows for safe enjoyment of indoor common areas, and it is fair because it does not prohibit smokers from enjoying those areas where smoking indoors is prohibited.

Although the impact of secondhand smoke may not be as immediate as some other examples, it exists nonetheless.  Of course, another significant difference is that other dangerous activities like racing or shooting guns can be done safely.  There is no way to smoke safely.

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

As a non-smoker you have the choice to not go into those locations.

 

Yes, I mentioned that in my post.  You originally asked about fairness, and your reply here gets to my point exactly.  To slightly rephrase your own question back to you: "But how is that fair to the [non-]smokers?  Why should it be fair for only one side?"

By banning indoor smoking, smokers and non-smokers alike can enjoy an area equally (i.e., the fairness you originally asked about).  Smokers do not have to avoid the area; rather they need only step outside to smoke.

22 hours ago, kiska said:

No one has to work in those conditions. Employees are always making a choice where they work, the same goes for all the bar staff and cleaners. They can choose to go work somewhere else, whether it is a different cruise line, or land based something or other. No one is forcing them to work on the ships, they are choosing it. Why should they be dictating to their employers how the place of employment is run? I have to work Monday-Friday, 8 hours a day. Would you defend me if I complained that I don't like the work schedule and prefer to work Wednesday-Friday 4 hours a day? I realize it's the same argument that was used for waitstaff when restaurants went smoke free, but my argument still applies there - you don't like to work in a smoking restaurant, find another line of work, it's really not a complicated matter.

No doubt, Biker's post a few back about beating a dead horse is right on, but I'm sorry... this post is just wrong.

First off, many people working in these types of environments may not always find it as easy as you suggest to "go work somewhere else."  Furthermore, your attempted analogy to not liking your work schedule is erroneous.  For most lines of work, an employee's schedule is not a matter of safety.  For lines of work that involve safety concerns related to employee schedules, timing regulations do exist (e.g., air traffic controllers, truck drivers).

The real problem, isn't simply that people don't like second hand smoke; it is that second hand smoke is irrefutably dangerous to be around.  I don't think you would suggest that all workplace health and safety regulations are wrong... would you?  Employers should take reasonable steps to ensure that employees and customers alike are fostering a safe and healthy work environment.  Permitting smoking is antithetical to that proposition.  Requiring smokers to take it outside is undeniably reasonable when the other option is to put the health of others at risk.

There is also a consistency problem with the "go work somewhere else" suggestion.  If it were just a matter of working somewhere else, and all workplaces applied that rule, then ultimately people wouldn't have a place they could work because people would be smoking inside everywhere.

22 hours ago, smc99 said:

We talked to more than one couple who said this was their first RCCL cruise and it would be their last.

Pretty extreme.  Like having a bad night at the Texarkana Holiday Inn and saying I'll never stay at the Intercontinental Tahiti.  Same parent company, totally different experiences/purposes.

Not good news about problems with the toilets, etc. though.  We went on Empress last year and had possibly our most relaxing cruise we've ever had.  Definitely a different experience on such a small ship.