MrMarc

5 minutes ago, klfrodo said:

I wouldn’t consider knock knock run, egging houses and cars, or TP’ing yards as being respectful of others.

Sometimes TPing yards was part of tradition.  We used to b able to use common sense in enforcing rules, today all we have are bright line distinctions, if exceptions are allowed they are abused.  So I do not think Carnival had a choice, they had to take some action because the problems were actually escalating.  However, the kids causing the problems were already blatantly breaking Carnival rules, and nothing was done about it. Unless there is enforcement, it's just another rule to be ignored by many people.

The reason for this is very simple.  A large number of people will not follow rules unless they are forced to.  Just read the threads of people justifying sharing the RCCL soda cup with their children, or breaking or getting around any rule.  I am willing to bet that if they did not require this, for some reason almost everyone would reach their 15 drink limit.  Some cruise lines allow flexibility, others do not.  

I've been on 5 Carnival cruises since the restart, and while I am a "kids will be kids" kind of person, it seemed to me that the groups of kids causing problems got worse on each cruise.  And they did not wait until after 1 to cause problems.  If you follow John Heald's page you would have seen more and more complaints about thee kind of problems.  They are going to have to step up and actually have consequences for bad behavior, whatever time it happens, or it will continue to get worse as Carnival's reputation follows the same course.  If they do not step up their interventions and actual enforcement, it's a useless gesture.  

I'm not sure if I should thank you or curse at you.  I had never seen this before.

1 minute ago, coffeebean said:

Totally agree. It is in the cruise line's best interest to minimize the amount of passengers who can get seriously ill from Covid. Vaccinated individuals pose much less of a risk of becoming severely ill and requiring advanced medical care.

That' why I think the changes will be incremental and slow in coming.  We don't want to see a repeat of the end of last year.  For example Princess has left the testing requirements in place, but raised the unvaccinated percentage to 10% and not requiring any explanation, just handing the exemptions out as the requests are received.  I think they will also have more freedom since they do not have to worry if it hits 11% because of no-shows.  To me that is a rational way to test the waters so to speak rather than dropping all requirements and waiting to see what happens..  

It really is a foodie thing, and it depends on how much time and assistants the chef has.  Half of each course is the presentation and ingredients, the other half is the taste.  I did it recently, and while I enjoyed the food, I found the wines to me mediocre and the presentation and explanation of the wines snobbish.

I know the protocols are a pain, but they are generally working.  With the current surge of the Omicron flavored COVID, I just do not think it is the right time.  But then again, I could not answer the question of when would be a good time.  I think phasing it in like princess (simply raising the unvaccinated percentage but not changing the testing) is a rational way to proceed.  The good thing about the latest variant for cruising is that you generally show symptoms before you are contagious, so it is easier to keep off the ship.  This is only my opinion, I will not get sucked into a debate this time. 

You don't have to provide a reason for being unvaccinated, and the limit has been raised to 10%, and the exemptions are given out on a first-come first-served basis.  So apply early if you want to cruise at 90% vaccinated.

7 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Conspiracy theorists?

Sad how true this is.

I'm surprised that the casino allows this. They are looking for people who gamble their own money, not other peoples'.  But I see nothing unethical about it if it is stated upfront.  Not making it clear and then insisting on it is inviting a disaster.

2 minutes ago, ReneeFLL said:

He often jokes and that’s how I take this.

I really hope so.

First of all, are you kidding me?  Second, in the closeup, the piece clearly fell into that position.  If you see anything other than someone innocently laying their head in someone else's lap, that's your problem.  Besides, there is no head, so to speak.

3 minutes ago, DrSea said:

What? This is almost a bad joke. Regulation is a drop in the bucket. There are much larger issues, such as the economy, gas prices, COVID, etc. 

It has been a big deal for Carnival for quite a while.  They almost were banned from sailing from the US pre-COVID because of violating a Federal Court order relating to environmental issues.  Little regulations and Court cases can basically add insult to injury.

This is bad for people who legitimately cannot take the vaccine.   

18 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

I'm waiting for RCL to go south of $30.

You may want to go to the bathroom first, I think it's going to be a long ride.

And this:

https://investorplace.com/2022/06/cruise-stocks-news-why-are-ccl-rcl-and-nclh-sliding-lower-today/

9 minutes ago, SquishyMarie said:

My brother GF wants to cruise and she found an exemption. They sent me this and I'm sorry but I'm not understanding. Have anyone received this and was able to sail? Or had to wait for further notice 

I do not mean this in a snarkey way, but read the heading.

1 hour ago, Bandman said:

My balcony on Mardi Gras…

I was right.  That's a rarity.

On 6/12/2022 at 5:49 PM, craig01020 said:

Balconies should have smoke detectors.

I thought they did, but I might be thinking of CCL.  People think they are cameras.

10 minutes ago, Brkintx said:

I've been paying a ton of attention also - trying to see any trend information that backs up what I read here on CC.  And not because I want to argue about it, but because I want to make informed decisions.

Unfortunately, the only places I seem to be able to find talking about an increase in cases on cruise ships is CC and those who quote it as 'news' - and believe me, I'm not arguing the point, I'm really seeking the raw info that drives such assertions.

I have no problem whatsoever balancing risk and reward, but in order to do that... "Johnny Five Need Input" so to speak... 

 

 

I think all you will find is anecdotal evidence from groups from ships that stay in communication after the cruise.  Even I am tired of arguing the point.  The bottom line is that right now, although strongly recommended, very few people are wearing masks, thus rendering them pretty much useless (if you think they were ever useful).  The CDC is reporting that the case counts are rising, and there is news of a new Omicron variant.  I have read stories of 1 RCCL Capitan reinstating mask rules, but I was not there.  According to the news I like to watch, It's just gone 8 o'clock and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.

Great job on Carnival's part.  But I am not sure what they expected the airline to do.  It sounds like they could not take him on another flight, not that the air line would not let them.

It will be kind of like that car where the hood does not match the doors.  They should make merchandise with only 1 side of the whale tail to at least get a humor factor out of it.

2 hours ago, Joseph2017China said:

Tripping over a rock, in a natural setting is not something you need to have a lawyer for.  The person was fixed up, and that is all.

Just providing information that a lot of people do not know, and some cannot believe.  

1 hour ago, dcgrumpy said:

 

Who is consulting a lawyer? About what? I don't understand what any of this has to do with the OP. 

The person got hurt and RCCL is being very nice, however you give up a lot of rights and time limits in the cruise contract that most people don't know about.  Depending on how serious the injury is she might want to consult an attorney just to be sure she knows all of options.  I had a client many years ago that they were very nice to up until literally the 366th day after the accident.  Then they stopped returning her calls.  She had a back injury that really was RCCL's liability, but it didn't matter.  1 year had passed.

7 hours ago, Merion_Mom said:

There are a lot of missing words there.  Could you please clarify?

Basically they can be helpfull for the 1 year limited statute of limitations ingucing you not to file a suit and then ttotally ignore you starting on the 366 day, and there's nothing you can do about it. Don't feel bad consulting a lawyer very early on.  The cruise companies have them from day 1.  And it doesn't matter if you actually get a copy of the contract as long as the travel agent does.  It also does not matter how small the print is in a multi-fold document where terms are difficult to find even if you know what you are looking for.  This is based on a real case from the 90s, so things may have changed.