UnorigionalName

If mobility is an issue definitely go with flora. Those zodiacs with stairs and ramps are like cheating. Depends on maturity level of teenagers. Both for their enjoyment and the quiet enjoyment of your fellow passengers.

Because, surprisingly, there are many people like you want to give $2 bills. Of course if it makes you feel better so you will tip more, they will accommodate you and provide you with $2 to tip to make that money. Would they rather have 2 $1 bills? probably. Would they prefer to have a $2 bill over nothing? most definitely.

It's because American tipping culture is very strange. You have to think of it from a wider view of the tipping system and why people tip. For example, in many cultures, tipping is considered rude. The view is, I'm a professional doing my job, I take pride in the quality of my work from my own professionalism, tipping for it diminishes that aspect of my work. In an area where tips may be more infrequent, it can be more of a polite gesture for extraordinary service that leaves both parties happier. However, in the US, where tipping is more or less mandatory, it feels a little degrading and turns service workers into like, performing monkeys dancing and singing at the whims of their customers , and the tradeoff is you get paid MUCH much better than similar non-customer facing jobs. On the other hand, it's why do American's feel like they must tip? I'm betting the majority do it because it is culturally mandatory, and its factored already into worker's compensation, so to deny it is like stiffing the worker, but many would be more than willing to give up the whole system if it were feasible. But then there are the others who enjoy and are for some reason emotionally attached to tipping and get angry at the though of it going away. It feel like they are wanting to feel like patricians or the petty nobility, doling out their largess to the unwashed masses, huddling at their generous feet. So getting back to the crux of the matter, it's to answer truthfully "why do you want to give a $2 instead of 2 $1 bills?" It's not for the benefit of the workers, since it's slightly inconvenient and it's probably better for them to just give them 2 $1 bills. People are attached to it because it's for THEM. It makes them feel important and 'quirky'. And tipping because of how it makes you feel, in spite of the preferences of the workers, from an outside perspective, seems awful degrading. Of course workers are going to say they don't mind the $2 bills, money is money. Tip a bunch of workers generously with $1 and $5's and ask at the end of the cruise if they would have preferred $2.

Forget about type of clothes, that doesn't have that much effect. There should be a dining room for all the hot young skinny people, the ones that look like the brochures, and then a dining room for all the rest of us ogres.

Why is your culture superior?

Can look up your ship's berth here: https://www.portsamerica.com/operations/cruise-los-angeles-terminal-schedule

Why is everyone perseverating over this Bailey's issue? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Maloney's is probably a heck of a lot cheaper than Bailey's and 99% of cruisers probably can't tell the difference and/or don't care. Norwegian wants to move everyone to non-bailey's instead for cost cutting with minimal passenger impact. Like seriously, if it were like $10 a shot of Bailey's, how many people without a alcohol package would order it on a cruise? like 50? per year? Everyone has a drink package, the easiest way to move everyone over is is to create this nominal interference in having bailey's in having to go through the trouble of requesting, extra dollar, gratuity, etc etc. Most people aren't going to go through the effort, and will be perfectly happy, and those Bailey's die-hards will just have to pay like $1 and change. For those 10 people that like to order only Bailey's and not have a drink package, well, how about considering Maloney's instead? For those 2 people that only order Bailey's a few time and don't have a drink package where Maloney's is unacceptable... I guess you are out of luck.

Would that make it an Italian 77? ...

Can you 2 lovebirds take it to DMs and leave the rest of the thread alone.

So it was expensive, and you are surrounded by people happy to pay the price, but you think only you appreciate the ambiance and not your surrounding cruise passengers that paid the same good money that you did? You realize cruise companies use dynamic cabin pricing right? Why do you think the E-class ships can demand such a price premium? Who carries physical books in the day of kindles and e-readers. Geez, maybe the ship isn't for you. Is it wrong for ships to be for other people?

.

It's mostly because for celebrity, positives outweigh the negative. I bet their market research shows that most people who are purchasing balcony level staterooms don't mind the difference too much between iv and traditional balcony. The plus for celebrity is the significant fuel savings in having a more aerodynamic ship. There are less suites, and they can take up the part of the ship where the effect the drag the least, so don't have as big of an effect. So for celebrity it's basically, which makes more money: Cost of fuel for traditional balcony + price people willing to pay for traditional balcony vs. Cost of fuel for IV + price people are willing to pay for IV. I am sure they have thoroughly done the market research, and it seems to have been correct, looking at the direction of future cruise ships. More and more companies are moving towards at least having partial IV type cabins in their new builds. I don't understand why this board perseverates so much over the IVs (well, I have my hypothesis but it's not the most generous so maybe i'll keep it to myself). If it's not your thing, it's not your thing. Evidently plenty of people don't mind it.

In-ear canal earbuds have better noise cancelling, but they can be annoying to wear, especially if you don't use them frequently. They can cause pain and discomfort after a while. Over ear may be more comfortable, I have and like the sony wh-1000xm4. They are one model old so there are frequently good sales for them, and they are more travel convenient than the new xm5 model. The noise cancelling was class leading at the time, now the xm5 is slightly better.

probably about time to lock this thread... Clearly "class" only refers to what type of items you wear, not behavior and speech.

I feel like a person wearing nice fitting trendy shorts is dressed a lot 'smarter' than overweight people wearing ill-fitting suits that were unfashionable 30 years ago. The day and age where "category of clothes" defined fashion and class stratification has ended decades ago. A lot of people just haven't accepted it yet. My personal conspiracy theory is that celebrity has done the market research, and the purpose of leaving the outdated dress code in is so that people who get offended at seeing knees can feel morally superior, and the rebels can get their cheap thrills at defying the rules, all the while celebrity takes money from both of them to the bank. edit: in many of the modern metropolises around the world, no one at the nicest of the nice restaurants would give a second thought to someone wearing shorts. The class stratification is by the fact you can get a reservation and afford the food.