BWIVince

Thanks Ken! I loved reading both articles, but especially the review of Love, Makoto. I really enjoy reading Tom Sietsema’s reviews. Reading that today reminded me of reading Phyllis Richman’s reviews in the Post when I was a kid. Her Sunday column was in the Magazine (miss that too), so my mother and I would race through the insert bag to find it, but she’d usually get distracted by the bigger and more prominently placed Parade, so I usually ended up with first dibs on the Magazine. I usually read the review (and the rest of the Magazine) while I ate breakfast, and Parade was so thin I usually got a, “are you done with that yet?”…somewhere about halfway through the meal. I had to google where Capitol Crossing is though…. Someday soon they’re going to void my ‘Native Wharshintonian’ card, if I don’t start keeping up. 😞 Vince

I’ve been hearing the same rumors, which would be consistent with the restart. It takes a year or two to work out most preferred supplier agreements, and many of them (like consortiums) get implemented in stages…. They’ll do mild initial offerings without any sales data, to get the relationship started and put the new supplier at less of a disadvantage, but then once they have more sales data, both parties can better assess the true value of the relationship and tune the benefits to work better for all parties. I agree about the prediction for the future — it seems unlikely it’ll be more than $300 for most people though, as they advertise CPP as giving “up to $300” in credits as the headline, but that does still leave the door open to potentially offering the extra $200 in credit that AmEx offers Centurion card holders booking certain lines under CPP. Time will tell. 🤞 Vince

I’m so excited Kathy!

I’ll leave it to others to provide photos for comparison, but Classic does mean it was not renovated this year. The reason they use Classic though is because different parts of the room were updated at different times. InSymphony’s case, the cabinetry, table lamps, headboards and bathroom were updated in a couple of previous refits, but the furniture, carpets and artwork were replaced in 2021. Personally, I prefer the Classic Aquamarines on Symphony to the 2017 ones. Vince

Nooooooooooooo Muriel! 😢 If you stay on for an extra cruise, I’ll buy you a drink or three! 😁 Vince

Yeah, I’m not expecting that at all, though that’s a shame because it’s technically the best spot for the casino (custom designed in a windowless, low ceiling space) and is in Crystal’s magic spot outside the main showroom (their number one market “catch” for casino activity)…. But like I said earlier, for maximum flexibility of repurpose of this space, they need all the square footage, which pretty much rules out any subdivision, sadly. Vince

I suspect this is what’s being studied, but ironically on Serenity, this might end up working in reverse, if I had to guess (unfortunately). Because the casino doesn’t need windows, the original casino was located in one of the interior spaces, but in order to get a smaller venue, it may have to go from the windowless space to one of the precious windowed ones. They could split up the old casino space and use part of that, repurposing the remainder, but that limits some of the options for the remaining space, as some concepts require more room. I shouldn’t be as down on that as I am, because Serenity’s entertainment hub aft on deck 6 is not exactly a place people see a lot of daylight right now or go to window-gaze, normally, but relative to Symphony, Serenity’s windows overall are pretty precious. TBD…. 🙂 Vince

At least pre-refit, among the evening venues besides restaurants, the Cove, Avenue and Palm Court’s bars all has espresso machines too, at least on Symphony. I’m sure Serenity is similar, and doubt that’s changed since. Vince

Meeeeeeeeeeee too! 😢. But Serenity is ok too, except for the deck 7 cabins with that dang eye-level promenade. 😒 Vince

I agree about the size…. The concessionaire charges (in a few different pricing models) for every machine and table leased, on top of the staff. Every machine that sits there unused is costing Crystal — hence the reason the casinos were cut in the first place. If they’re coming back at all, they HAVE to be smaller and at a scale closer to the actual utilization. Vince

Everybody else is doing it, I guess I should too! Just booked Serenity for July 2, 2024, Vancouver round trip. Yes, I said Serenity. 😆 That wasn’t a typo. And no, threats and a gun weren’t involved, because I know people will ask…. Probably repeatedly. Vince

Keith nailed it, but I’ll just add a few other points, and an example since it may be clearer if we take this away from the specific parties here. I get your point, but it’s apples and oranges for the points I listed upthread. A sales incentive is in no way considered reimbursement for a host of reasons, but not the least of which that you are not able to actually receive money out of the transaction, and you’re required to actually buy something with an unrelated (to the loss) third party in order to get any kind of incentive. I would never update a claim for a loss based on some kind of sales promotion I got from a third party to book new, additional business. Let’s put it this way…. Let’s say I bought a defective Android tablet and filed a claim with the manufacturer. While that’s working itself out, I look around for alternatives to use in the meantime, and I’m lured by a local retailer that’s incentivizing much more expensive iPads, and their promotion is equal to the value of the original Android tablet, with the condition that you just need to be a current Android tablet owner (and show proof of purchase). I may consider myself whole because I sort of “got my money back” from the original Android investment, but who would consider their warranty claim settled with the original manufacturer just because an unrelated company gave you a discount on a new product you had to buy? That’s what’s happening here. I get that it may be confusing because the reverse can definitely be adjusted. Being a marketing promotion, and being A&K was in no way responsible for and is not a party in the loss, they can absolutely adjust the incentive to use current numbers and not just prior claims. They’re the ones discounting their product to incentivize new sales, so they have every right to give less of a discount if the customer already received cash back to cover part of their claimed loss. They can basically discount as much or as little as they wish, provided its consistent with the stated terms and FTC practices, and they have no reason to discount the product more than a customer actually lost. Vince

Yeah, it was three tenders starboard and two tenders port. Somehow that asymmetry stuck in my head. Has anyone seen a new exterior pic of the port side to know if that one remaining standard covered lifeboat remains? I don't think I've seen a pic from that angle since the refit yet. I also don't seem to have a single pic of the port side of the ship where at least one lifeboat isn't lowered. Just goes to show how many pics of ships I take from tenders. 🤷‍♂️ The tenders look the same to me, with the canvas flaps for doors... Which I'm fine with -- I have a complete compulsion for sitting by the open flaps and taking pics as the tender sails. After I die, someone is going to look at my series of pics deliberately taken with the orange rope stretched across and wonder what the heck I was doing. 😁 Vince

I believe Symphony had 5 tenders pre-refit, three starboard and two port, IIRC. I say that from memory though -- I'll have to check after work. Vince

Probably just an optical illusion... They're in the same places they used to be, two of them are just missing now. (One on each side, where the new CP's are.) Vince

Not just between the live boats, but in place of those two lifeboats! (1 each) Ditto on my gratitude for the awesome photo, it was nice to see such detail. Vince

I can't wait to hear y'all's reports and experiences from the cruise! The shake-down looked wonderful. Vince

MM&A doesn't have any role in EI though, except providing Crystal with updated data records... I think I would take anything they say about the rules or administration of EI with a grain of salt, especially compared with what's coming from Crystal's management. That said, it would be nice if all of Crystal's management was on the same page, but that's a fantasyland that no travel supplier I've ever worked with lives completely in, in fairness. Vince

I have to admit, I've been SHOCKED at the proportion of new-to-Crystal passengers I've seen posting here and in other forums, and how much more awareness Crystal has been getting outside their alumni base since the restart -- especially since they're just getting started with marketing and sailing again, and still don't have the full team they'll flesh out over the next couple of years. Time will tell if they're able to retain these new customers of course, but I never quite expected the level fresh interest they've been getting this early. Vince

ABSOLUTELY, if you received a refund from AmEx, you were disqualified from either offer. You suffered no net loss of the original charge, which disqualifies you from EI, and you’d have nothing to claim from the Assignee. My point was that reimbursement is distinctly different from a sales incentive. A reimbursement from AmEx is money that was involved in the original transaction ecosystem. The refund came from one three sources, all connected with your original transaction: - The money came from a linked Crystal account at some point - The money came from AmEx’s reserve of Crystal’s merchant account after the shutdown (money Crystal supplied or guaranteed through bonds) - Money supplied by AmEx in their role as one of Crystal’s processors, for which they collected fee revenue for that service, The reimbursement is not contingent on any new investment by the customer. EI is a sales incentive giving someone a discount on a new purchase. - The discount has no cash value — you can’t get it back in cash no matter what you do. - You get no value whatsoever if you don’t buy something new. - The money being discounted was never involved in a transaction with GHK or it’s subsidiaries, and never changed hands with any of their banks, affiliates, or merchant. processors. So basically EI can set whatever rules Crystal wants for qualification because it’s their promo, and can absolutely exclude someone that was reimbursed or disqualified from a claim from getting EI, but for the same reasons MM&A can’t consider EI as a reimbursement, because it’s not. An insurance payout is a reimbursement against a loss. A refund or chargeback from a credit card company is a reimbursement against a loss. EI is a discount incentive for a new sale. Vince

It can't be considered double-dipping because Crystal is just offering a rebate/discount incentive for people to book a cruise with them, and had no connection in any way to the old bookings with GHK. Even if MM&A wanted to count EI as compensation, I don't think they legally could. NOW, if Crystal wanted to mail everyone an unconditional cash reimbursement, that might be a different story. Even then it would be kind of questionable because, again, they still don't have any connection to the original transaction, but at least that would be closer to an actual reimbursement. ...But getting up to 1/5 of your loss back from another company via a discount on up to 5 new bookings is not technically a reimbursement, even if people feel like that makes them closer to whole. Vince

To the point of the discussion earlier, the drought is young... It's all fun and games for a cruise line to say they refuse to turn any inventory back, but at the end of the day, them paying a premium doesn't solve the constraint problem -- it only helps prioritize the requests. If enough cruise companies don't actually cancel enough slots, the Authority will have to take further action one way or another. (Either cancelling the slots at their priority, or up the surcharges until more companies give... Remember these companies had existing contracts that were voided/amended the same way.) I hope it's not the case, but I seriously doubt the transit schedule across the industry in a couple months look like it does today... But maybe the conditions will ease quickly and capacity will improve. Vince

Cruise lines across the board are turning back their slots at the authority's request.. It's not a scam by the authority to get more money, they legitimately need cruise lines as a community to use fewer slots because the capacity has been incredibly constrained. Cruises are an important source of revenue for the Authority, but in terms of priority, whether someone sails back and forth for leisure through the canal has one of the lowest impacts on the global supply chain and economies of the world than any other traffic through the canal, so you an see the issue. Crystal is not the only line impacted, though some lines have a better case than others based on date of bookings and purpose of voyage (repositioning, etc.). Other lines doing sequential transit sailings are also turning back their slots. Vince

Funny enough, that exact error comes up again on another dish! The breakfast sandwich (is it truffled eggs, prosciutto and brie? I'm recalling that from memory) usually (not not ALWAYS, like the Benedicts) gets thrown under the broiler/hollandaise coagulation machine, completely desiccating the croissant. Not toasted, not crunchy, anti-hydrated. That's one example of what I'm talking about... Well, technically it's two examples, but one of them is decades old and pre-dates the current menu. Vince

They do only so much as to Larry's point about jumping before they're pushed. They ASK the cruise lines to prioritize their needs to help them get the number reduction they need, but if they don't get what they need they absolutely have the authority to just cancel the reservations under force majeure... And then the cruise lines will lose the flexibility of cancelling/changing what causes the least impact to them (roundtrips vs. repositioning, holidays vs. off-peaks, etc.). So it's in the cruise lines collective best interest to give back the slots they can voluntarily that cause the lowest impact, because the next step is the Authority taking them back -- usually starting with the lines that didn't play ball voluntarily, to catch them back up. Vince