leaveitallbehind

Just to echo your comments, as I mentioned in a prior post, this has become a rather common practice amongst a number of cruise lines. RCCL / Celebrity, as examples, initiated this with suite bookings when they introduced the NRD a number of years back. The policy has continued to morph over time to the point where suites can now only be booked via NRD with increased deposit amounts and 100% deposit forfeiture for changes or cancelations. As this is the only way they can be booked there is no discount for this v refundable deposit bookings and the prices, as expected, are certainly at a premium. Yet bookings continue to flourish with suites typically selling out first and well in advance of a given itinerary's sailing date. As a result, IMO the desired effect of inventory stabilization with, at least, suite bookings certainly must have been realized with these two lines.

Agree, as they probably have collected 100's of these in recent years cleaning the ships up at the end of each cruise.....

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not sure I'm following this. If you have to cancel pre-final payment, would the insurance not cover the deposit hence justifying making a cancelation claim? And you would lose the insurance premium anyway as by making a claim you are activating the coverage, but at least you would recover your deposit versus losing both. If I'm not seeing this right, please clarify. Also, see my response on your duplicate thread with information regarding non-refundable deposits. And BTW, non-refundable deposits are nothing new and have been in effect with many cruise lines for a number of years. It is just part of the current cruising world.

As @Hlitner alludes, the option for a non-refundable v refundable deposit occurred with many cruise lines as a result of many bookings made that were changed or cancelled altogether prior to final payment. Industry data a few years back indicated that the typical stateroom is booked and rebooked 8 times before being secured with a final payment. And the statistic for suites - which on most cruise lines are few in relationship to standard staterooms - was even higher. In order to try to reduce this revolving door of stateroom inventory fluctuation, the non-refundable deposit was introduced, supposedly at a lower fare. This, at least in our experience, was not the reality. We had several reservations booked at the time and when the "lower rate NRD" fares were introduced and we did mock bookings on each one with the result that the NRD fares were now about the same as our original refundable fares, and the refundable fares were considerably higher. So in reality, at the time, it also served as a price increase tool. Of course today there is a measurably lower NRD v refundable fare difference. But with those NRD fares came penalties for changing or canceling a booking made that way. Originally it typically was a fee with the balance held as an FCC. Now many have moved to the full deposit amount being forfeited with no FCC value. And suites with many are only available with a NRD with higher proportionate deposits. As a way around this, there are cruise lines that allow you to convert a refundable deposit to a NRD fare at the then prevailing fare just prior to final payment. Even if fares have increased since your original deposit, the NRD fares are typically still lower than the original refundable fare - at least in our experience. So there it is in a nutshell. And by the way, you must not have booked a cruise for quite some time or your cruise line of choice is late to the party, as in our experience this all went into effect 3 or 4 years or so pre-pandemic.

Well if that's the case I would expect to get flagged every time..........LOL.

Maybe your full name as it appears on your passport should also appear in the same manner on your booking. While it may not be a cruise line requirement, it may help with the customs issue you are having - especially if this was his suggestion. Just a thought.

Along with getting responses here, you may want to also post this on the Florida Departures board at this link: https://boards.cruisecritic.com/forum/386-florida-departures/

I think the problem is the OP was using 2024 simply as a reference but has not been able to secure any information on the excursion costs, and through this thread is trying to find that out. As you have been on HAL to Alaska relatively recently and used their excursions, perhaps you could provide information as to the ones you took and what they cost at the time so the OP can get a rough idea for his budget consideration.

Impossible to say what I think you would enjoy doing. But based on the fact that you would really like to do the fall Canada / New England cruise and you have already done (albeit not as you would have hoped) the Alaska cruise, if it were me I would do the fall cruise first and then at a later date revisit Alaska. Just my opinion. And happy 40th - not many can say that these days!

Based on the thread title and the above quoted section of their question, I kind of took it as a little of both thinking that they were wondering, if nothing to see wandering on your own on, if an excursion was required to see anything. And I assumed (I know, risky thing) that they were referencing ship tours. Either way a lot of good information was provided which should cover all bases! 🙂

Note that I said many - not all - cruise lines don't necessarily have excursion pricing readily available. Apparently Viking is one that does. I understand your frustration, which is why I have suggested posting this on the HAL board as one possible way to get some answers. If nothing else, maybe just pad your budget with an artificial amount - maybe $150 pp per excursion? - to at least have something in consideration that would hopefully cover what the actual cost might be. I hope you find the information you are looking for and can book what sounds like a very nice cruise.

Just stating the obvious, but this just means the Captain chose to maintain ship time versus adjusting to the local port time. Very common. One itinerary that we do frequently is NJ / Bermuda and the Captain always adjusts one hour on a sea day en route (to and from) to adjust to / from Bermuda local time as we are in port for 3 days. It wouldn't make sense not to change in that case.

Yes indeed! That was the only time our 32 year cruising history when that was that case. And as I recall it was with the cruise lines as an agreement with the port of call requirements for visitors to be allowed back in their country as part of the restart. At least with US based closed loop itineraries.

In our experience, the final all on board time for the initial cruise departure is typically 90 minutes prior to the scheduled departure. This is because the final manifest needs to be closed and delivered to Customs and Immigration port authorities prior to departure. As mentioned by others, most enroute ports of call require 30 minutes all on board prior to the scheduled port of call departure time. This can vary by cruise line, however.

I agree that all ship sponsored tour operators know the correct time. The only reason I say "most" local operators is because there may be that odd man out who doesn't get it right, which would make "all" a risky comment.

Using US based closed loop cruises as an example, ship time typically is that time (zone) at the originating and terminating ports for the given itinerary. As the ship may pass through and have ports of call at different time zones, the ship time may remain in those ports of call, or may change to the local time. This decision is up to the Captain. It an also vary from sailing to sailing on the same itinerary. As the crew's schedule is driven by time, it can be more disruptive to the crew to have the times change for temporary periods during the cruise than to just have the passengers note the difference and adjust their activities accordingly. Whatever time is to be used in those ports of call will be well announced on board and placarded at the departure doors when going ashore. It is not complicated and is a common situation on many cruises. All ship based tour operators are aware of the time being used and most local operators also are aware and adjust for this.

The primary demographics of Celebrity is adults 50+, so you would be their "target market". But there will be a mix of most ages on board, but few families with children as the ships are designed for a more pure cruising experience and not with amusement park whistles and bells venues that others may have whose primary demographics is families. There is a decent variety of included dining on board from the MDR to the buffet and a few other venues. The specialty restaurants are at an extra charge and IMO are well worth it. They often offer packages and specials that will vary by itinerary and demand. But $45 - $75 per person plus gratuities is a typical "standard" cost. But we have rarely paid that as the dining packages are typically considerably more attractive. BTW these are available regardless of stateroom category and are included with the higher suite classes. The entertainment is usually very good, and in particular on their newer Apex class ships, very innovative in their Eden venue. Music will be found in several venues around the ship and the theater will host the ship crew entertainers as well as comedians and other headliners. IMO Celebrity - in particular with their Solstice (of which Eclipse is one) and Apex class ships - would be a good choice based on your stated expectations. Check their website to see what is offered onboard. BTW we will be on board Eclipse in June for a Bermuda cruise.

Would not do it for any other reason than personal curiosity.

Even if transportation was required to reach a given town or attraction you can always arrange that independently. As @Mary229indicates, I am also not aware of any cruise line that requires you to do a ship sponsored excursion while in port in order to reach any given destination. You can always leave the ship and sight see on your own. Specific to your itinerary, Nice may require a taxi or other transportation to reach from the cruise terminal. And at others you may as well, depending on any specific attraction you wish to see. But you can research each port in greater detail for tour and sightseeing ideas at the Mediterranean ports of call board at this link: https://boards.cruisecritic.com/forum/472-mediterranean-eastern-western/

Then you are most likely looking at suites on all of the aforementioned lines. BTW Oceana is in somewhat of a different class of cruise lines from Celebrity and Princess as it is a premium line. You would be more comparable to Silversea, Regent, Viking Ocean, etc., in considering Oceana v Celebrity and Princess.

I don't meant to be fixated on the 3X - but that is a focal point being made in the article, to which I challenge the interpretation. As mentioned, you and I are in basic agreement. Any amount over the typical solo rates is not good or justified IMO. (And there likely are good arguments against even that!) And my efforts with the mock bookings and looking back at history that I have access to is only to satisfy me that whatever had been taking place is no longer the case. I am not a solo traveler, but I do cruise frequently with Celebrity and this information as presented is disturbing. I wish the article in balance would have also included a comparison of the dedicated single (solo) veranda stateroom category with Celebrity as that may have shown the favorable rates I found. Just trying to be balanced with the information as IMO most "pointed" articles (regardless of source) tend to promote a single point of view and lack objectivity with balance. Good for controversy, but not necessarily good with all of the facts. But the information presented nonetheless is not good. Hopefully, if it hasn't already, things will change and a new article praising the self examination and corrections made by the cruise line will surface. Have a good day and enjoy your cruising.

Please understand I am not arguing against you or the basic point being made in the article. I guess its all in how one words and interprets the data. Solo cruisers on most lines have historically paid about 2X the individual fare portion in a double occupancy rate - or basically approximately the full double occupancy rate. That is the "normal rate" paid by a solo traveler and is nothing new with most cruise lines. So to say, with this example, that it is nearly 3X the normal rate is a bit misleading as the "normal rate" is not the individual rate, but the total double occupancy rate (less one set of port fess and taxes) as - right or wrong - that is approximately what is historically normally charged a solo passenger. So if the $1,461 is the full single rate portion of the double occupancy rate, then the double occupancy rate would be $2,922, which would approximately be the "normal solo rate" charged by most cruise lines - not the $1,461 being indicated as the "normal rate". That would make the $4,346 indicated in the example $1,424, or about 48%, higher than the "normal" rate, not 3X the amount. Its all in how you wish to interpret the data. Again, we are basically in agreement as IMO there is little justification for charging a significant premium to a solo passenger who is already paying approximately the double occupancy rate to begin with. I am only trying to understand the data and how it is being presented and interpreted, which to me as indicated seems skewed to support a position. I also appreciate your feedback in information presented.

All of the above referenced cruise lines' web sites will have descriptions of the various staterooms and suites that will include the square footage, as well as balcony size in those categories that have one. This site - cruisemapper - will also provide layouts and size descriptions as well. Here is the link: https://www.cruisemapper.com Typically, however, most standard double occupancy staterooms will be in the 175 - 200 square foot range, with suites scaled larger depending on category.

No I didn't read it in full detail but what I scanned over certainly indicated a problem. I understand there were issues and not denying it. Just saying there is a difference between someone saying the pricing was 3 or 4X double occupancy and what the pricing likely was. If that was the case then, as example, a $4,000 double occupancy price would translate to a $12,000 - $16,000 solo price, which doesn't seem realistic. That's why I wondered if there is an actual example to confirm it. I'm just thinking its exaggerated. That is what prompted me to do the mock bookings and go back to the April and November actual pricing that I am familiar with. And those facts contradict the other facts, so maybe the issue has been corrected - that's all I'm saying. At least I certainly hope so! But solo passengers always have been penalized as stateroom rates are based on double occupancy - as that is what would typically occupy the space, so they traditionally maximize the price for the total space, even when only one occupies it. So, minus the second set of port fees and taxes, the solo traveler would pay close to, if not equal to, the double occupancy fare. Nothing new there. The concern would be if that was now being increased to a premium above the double occupancy - that would certainly not seem right. But one thing I find interesting is that Celebrity is the focus on this when they are one of the lines who have introduced dedicated solo staterooms at a reduced fare less than the double occupancy rate - which I can attest to. Guess somewhere along the line they dropped the ball?

10% is a far cry from 3X, but it is what it is. Well I guess it has been corrected then as the rates I found would confirm. I would also like to confirm that I am directly aware of attractive solo rates, both less than double occupancy, on Apex last April and again this past November. Looks like there may be facts to support both points of view. I will continue to check at random and will report any anomalies that support the above concerns.