Pylon

Arxcards, Yes, it is an October cruise from Honolulu with a twist. The ship lands at Sydney in mid October from Vancouver or Los Angeles (this is the first transpacific cruise which we are not booked on) and once the ship reaches Sydney it goes back to Honolulu over 16 days before looping back over 21 days to Sydney. (Unfortunately, on the first transpacific one cannot embark in Honolulu, but one can do so on the second one.) Thus, we plan to board the second transpacific in Honolulu for the 21 day leg going back to Sydney. This 37 or 35 day cruise (with a 21 day leg) appears targeted to Australians while also allowing access to North Americans for the 21 day leg. If I apply your description above, it would appear that for the first transatlantic that begins in Vancouver or Los Angeles, the ship is a new arrival for which most if not all passengers will disembark at Sydney and perhaps Princess has that in mind, to cut the chaos down. Most North Americans will presumably disembark because the ship is going back to Honolulu. for the second transpacific that begins in Sydney or Brisbane, it should have mostly domestic passengers on a return trip to Sydney with some non Australians boarding at the the half way point in Honolulu (unlike the first transpacific this one does not go to New Zealand and instead stops over a number of days in Hawaii, Tahiti and one day each at Tonga, and an Australian Island). Most passengers should be disembarking leaving relatively few passengers in transit. the ship then does a 5 day return cruise to Tasmania overnighting in Hobart. That is the second of the B2B in our booking with the same room (but to get the same room I had to take a lower category balcony when I could have had a two category higher one for the same price, and I would like to upgrade the 21 day cruise at some point but not if that causes in transit difficulties the first day in Sydney). Accordingly, the second transpacific cruise does not appear to be a new arrival in Sydney and it may not come within the immigration and customs approach you discuss above. How do think that may change the situation in Sydney on the second transpacific? Also, as an aside, how did you find the Majestic? I was speaking to someone I know a few days ago who took the Majestic from Auckland to Los Angeles, and he was not overly keen about the ship. The ship we have booked is the Grand Princess which is a much older ship which we took many years ago when it was new on our first cruise. Presumably it is not in pristine condition but it has a nice layout and Princess certainly has created an innovative approach to sending it down under in the fall of 2025. Again, thank you for your input.

Arxcards, Thank you for the clarification.

We booked a Princess cruise that begins in Honolulu with the first leg ending in Sydney followed by a second leg beginning in Sidney that also ends in Sydney. While we currently have the same room, I am wondering what the procedure wound be if we upgrade either leg, thus no longer keeping the same room. A recent post by an American described the options if this occurs in an American port of call, but I am wondering what happens in Sydney. In the case of an American port, the options were Meet in the theatre at about 9:30 at which time the "in transit" passengers will be escorted off the ship with their "in transit" form to immigration and then back onto the ship. The room attendants move your packed luggage and hanging wear, but you keep your carryon, and medicines. Presumably when you reboard you can put that material in your new cabin, and leave the ship for a late tour etc. (This option limits one's tour options while in Sydney). Disembark and go on a tour, then reboard as an "in transit" passage. The other post did not clarify the details related to luggage (and carryon) or any time limits for reboarding in transit such as whether this stream lines the boarding process and means you do not have to check in with a new boarding pass etc. If one keeps his or her carryon, I am not sure this option would work well especially for passengers that have medicines which have to be kept refrigerated. Further, for Canadians, one presumably needs an Australian entry VISA. But I am not sure how this is handled when "in transit" landing in Sidney initially. Can someone clarify Princess' procedure in Sydney including which approach you would recommend as being the more efficient option. Thank you.

Fouremco, I am not convinced this so-called "proven" strategy has in fact proven to be successful if one looks beyond it being about cost reductions. For companies, it all depends on the particular product or service including its overall quality and whether the service satisfies customer expectations and experiences. Perhaps Canadians are different from Americans on this issue because I note you list American companies only. In Canada, you should know that the two major telecoms (Rogers and Bell) take the opposite approach to this issue. Rogers staff (and advertise that) its representatives are located in Canada, and they are easy to reach in a timely manner and know what they are talking about. I would add that many are immigrants (based on their names) who speak excellent English. Bell on the other hand frequently direct incoming calls overseas to be handled. I find the contact service provided by Rogers (which has other customer relation issues) to be significantly better than that of Bell Canada, and we use both services. Every time I telephoned the major Banks I deal with in Canada during the last year or so the rep has been located in Canada except for the Bank of Nova Scotia which also has representatives in Mexico who speak excellent English. You can bet all callers who speak French are handled in Canada. This was not always the case because I recall getting diverted by some of the banks overseas which no longer seems to be the case. The banks took a lot of heat about offshoring jobs including in the national media and they seemed to have gotten the message at least in terms of handling retail callers. The major Canadian airlines do not divert customers overseas either. Even that major American big box grocery, goods and travel company (with its Canadian headquarters in Ottawa) staffs its representatives in Canada although if one calls the travel division after 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. at night you seem to be diverted to Seattle, but not overseas. When the accountants take over the corporate suite, the result tends to be a micro detail downward spiral in quality across the brand assuming it began as a quality service or product. So, what is the brand about and does it continue to meet the expectations of its clients quality wise? I think we can all agree that is for customers to decide and each will make their own decision. For me, it seems that the major cruise brands are overly focused on squeezing costs out of their product at every turn after a very hard two to three years and hoping they don't break something in the process. Kinda like central bankers raising interest rates very quickly after inflation took hold (after they flooded the economy with newly printed money to deal with the pandemic) to squeeze high inflation rates down and they are now hoping they don't break something significant. Finally, it is possible that the widespread offshoring of jobs by large corporations can result in significant adverse political implications for a country.

Following up on an email I received from the account of my personal cruise consultant, which had the word "inactive" by her name, I tried to telephone her extension and was diverted to Manilla. After waiting on the line for several minutes while the person who took the call sought to speak to a supervisor, the supervisor assigned me a new personal cruise consultant also in the Philippines who seemed very young. That and the noise in the background suggested to me Holland America is going down market in the services it provides its customers. Further, we normally sail Princess Cruises and as of earlier this week, while we still have our personal cruise consultant in California, I am worried about that given he is also under the whim of the executives at Carnival. Can others who have a personal cruise consultant with Holland America comment of this matter? My old consultant, a very experienced and knowledgeable older woman at Holland America, is out the door with an incoming young woman offshore? I am not very happy about this development (Princess Cruises has already offshored its regular representatives when booking) and I thought that was very short sighted driven from the top at Carnival. But are they planning to go after their personal cruise consultants in North America? They could destroy their Holland America and Princess brands in pursuit of lower costs.

Yesterday (Monday) I was in the process of upgrading with my cruise planner (an upgrade I placed a hold on Friday evening) - went from a BE to a DE for $140 total on a 10 day - when the planner mentioned a change in policy had occurred that day (Monday). The details of the change remained unclear as the planner had just learned there was a change but one outcome appeared to be Friday night holds followed by a Monday confirmation would no longer be allowed.

I understand that Princess is changing its approach to placing a hold on a cruise before the cruiser decides to book. The change seems to be effective today (or shortly) and I was told cruisers will have only 1 day for a hold. Besides a shorter hold period, this could adversely affect holds placed on a Friday night or Saturday while a TA or planner is unavailable. It seems such a change in policy could result in some cruisers booking the price reduction (if the saving is significant) on line and later cancelling the original booking. But I note it also appears to be getting more difficult to actually book a preferred room online, rather than a guaranteed category. Perhaps the change is part of a broader strategy being put in place to raise revenues including by reducing post booking changes when a reduction occurs? Do others with more experience with placing a hold on a reduction have a view of the implications? By the way, in case you missed it, the Princess Vacation Protection for Standard has increased to 9% from 8%.

As a normal Princess cruiser, we have also cruised on Celebrity and Royal Caribbean, I watched the webcast with interest. My first reaction was it was defiantly damage control, so afterwards I wanted to know more about what prompted this self-serving damage control? (I say this recognizing that large corporations often offer up some of their nicest marketing oriented people to carry the can for the decisions of senior officials a long way from the retail crowd who they don't relate to.) So I decided to research a bit into recent complaints on this board. Some observations are: I would never book a VI (or IV) offering, and I was not even aware that Celebrity seems locked in on that offering in its newest class. I wonder to what extent Celebrity test marketed that offering to its most loyal customer base? Celebrity must be seriously worried about the matter because it could adversely affect long-term revenue unless fixed. But the cost of doling so could blow the budget. Princess has its own issues with its most loyal customer base. The head of Carnival stated in a recent market call that it is goring to narrow the revenue gap between cruises and land based vacations. (I wonder the extent to which he knows the difference between land oriented vacationers and cruisers, as the drive to reduce costs and raise revenues may suggest to them that all vacationers are just widgets.) Those marching orders are being pushed down into the Princess brand, which generates a surprising high percentage of Carnival's group revenues. (I forget the percentage.) For the most loyal Celebrity cruisers, you like us Princess cruisers, know things have gone downhill while prices have gone up. And surprises among surprises, Celebrity now thinks All in does not include gratuities. Good luck on that. (Holland America also has that but we recently booked one of its cruises that has AL in with gratuities.) I suspect Celebrity will have to be withdraw or significantly modify its gambit. Didn't it previously attempt to require all passengers to have its ALL in package , which went over like a lead balloon? Seems like a follow up ill conceived balloon to me. Expect more freelancing by those who like to cruise across brands based on the details of a specific offering whether by fare, AL in, itinerary or dining and entertainment. The brands themselves are causing this. The question is do they care? If I understand the complaints on this board correctly, it seems Celebrity is being pushed in the direction of the of Royal Caribbean brand. That is what happened to Princess after Carnival acquired it and started making very noticeable cutbacks especially and initially on entertainment. Before, it had high profile entertainers but that is long gone. On one cruise we were on in the Caribbean, there was a high profile Vegas act (named entertainer plus his wife who was a singer) brought in for two nights as well as the number one entertainment act (husband and wife) on Brutish television. That was in the 1990s. While it is going to take some time for this to shake out, expect more changes and more complaints from the most loyal customers in each brand. Not to mention brand damage control. Meanwhile, we could be headed into a major recession in the next six to eights months, given all the money printing that occurred which caused inflation and the resulting increases in interest rates to cool inflation and the economy. If that unfortunately occurs, both Celebrity and Princess will have to up their game significantly vis a vis their most loyal customers.

Standard vacation protection is no longer 8%, which seems to have gone unnoticed. I only know because I got sick a couple of days ago the day before boarding a Princess ship. In the course of contacting our Princess Cruise planner, to cancel etc., I noticed that the posted fee is now 9%, and 12%, which I mentioned to planner. The planner was not even aware of the change and it seems to have been applied since sometime in August. A 9% charge does not explain $84 though. But it suggests that increases in charges (and service etc. reductions) are being slipped in here and there in many deferent ways. I mentioned to the planner that the 1% increase is now being applied to more expansive cruise fare amounts (compared to before fares and related charges started escalating), which are increasingly being sold with the Plus and Premier packages, with the 1% increase also being applied. Further, as an observation, I would suspect that a target of the 1% increase is that large base of Elite and Platinum members who get the 12% protection package previously for 8% and now 9%. In my view Princess is playing with fire if the target is actually Elite and Platinum members, who presumably Princess also want to purchase more expensive cruise packages. It does not seem Princess is advertising the change. I wonder what the reception will be?

I am not sure if this has been mentioned as I just saw this thread and skimmed through it because I prefer cans instead of fountain soda and have the Plus package: there is a difference between the fine print in the terms of the pre-December 2022 Plus package https://www.princess.com/ships-and-experience/food-and-dining/beverages/ with its terms clearly stating there is a 25% discount for cans of pop. See bullet 3 of What's included. However, the revised Plus Beverage package (for departure after February 20, 2023): https://www.princess.com/ships-and-experience/food-and-dining/beverages/ does not mention a 25% discount for cans of pop. But it does continue to say there is a 25% discount for all bottles of wine and one litre bottles of water. But to confuse the matter, it does not expressly say that cans of pop are free despite saying fountain soda is free. I would have thought that if there still is a charge for a can of pop it would be stated given the terms of the older Plus package. Obviously, one way to interpret the changes is cans of pop are now subject to a 100% charge but I would think it is meant to read the other way, which is there is no charge for a can of pop of a person who has the most recent Plus Beverage Package. My solution, I plan to print both versions out for reference in case it is needed. The website states: A value of $64.99 USD* per day View Plus Beverage Package Terms & Conditions If you purchased before December 2022 and haven't upgraded: View Plus Beverage Package Terms & Conditions One can only imagine how hard it would be for servers to determine if one Plus package is subject to a charge of 75% for a can of pop (after a 25% discount) while another Plus Beverage package appears to extend free cans of pop. In such cases, I would hope the policy would be not to charge anyone for a can of pop who has the package. But of course, hope is not an answer, only a possibility.

Y21, Thank your for the link and reference to Skype and 365. The article provides a good summary. I noticed that it mentions that a Wi Fi call will be connected through a cellular or Wi Fi network depending on which network has a stronger signal when a call is made. Presumably it is not an issue if you have the Princess Wi Fi because the call will go through it automatically if WI FI call is on and the call is made through the Princess connection. But I wonder if this either or depending on the stronger signal may also explain why some posters on articles I read were unexpectedly incurring Cellular at Sea charges billed to their provider in respect of voice messages left on their phone even though it was in Air Plane Mode. I am wondering if they had WI Fi call on their phone but had not paid for the Princess Wi Fi service and the incoming message downloaded through Cellular at Sea despite being in Air Plane Mode? Just a guess. But it seems such unexpected charges are occurring because some have posted to that effect on line.

Rick and Jennie and mnocket, Thanks for your input. My being confused is a definite possibility. If I understand you correctly, you appear to saying that, if I purchase the Princess wi fi package and engage wi fi calling capability on my smartphone, I should be able to call a land line in Canada from the ship without incurring charges. That would be great, but I wonder if this would work for Canadians with a Canadian provider. As Rick and Jennie mentioned: "The ship wifi gets your signal out on the internet and then delivers it to wherever it needs to go in order to be "transferred" into the regular phone system [emphasis added]. That means for Canadians, such a call enters the Bell Canada national landline telephone network (which Rogers and Telus seem to piggy back onto for calls to landlines). I am concerned about this because it appears (and I am not sure) that Americans may be entering its the national telephone network under possibly more generous terms than we can enter Canada's network from outside. Canada has some of the highest rates in the world, and that was achieved by doing things differently than AT&T etc. If there are any Canadians reading this topic, and who have called a landline in Canada from the ship using the Princess wi fi package, while engaging Wif FI calling, please confirm the Rick and Jennie and mnocket understanding of my post. That is, I am confused which is entirely possible. Were you able to make such a call to a landline in Canada without being charged? Thanks for everyone's input.

Thank you again for the replies up to when I started drafting this post. (Three have come in since which I have not read.) I am going to try and summarize the replies and fell free to correct me if I have something wrong. I am also going to add something for Steelers36. The post is relatively long. First, Navy Veteran in Texas seems to have answered my main question which is whether there is any way to call from the ship to a landline in Canada other than to pay a steep charge. (For clarification I do not mean Whats App to another person with Whats App, Facetime to another person with Facetime, or Skype to to another person on Skype). The answer appears to be no. While Navy Veteran notes that his third party AT&T Wi Fi calling feature works well for him, Bell Canada (and Telus, based on what Sprocket indicated) do not allow WI FI calling from out of Canada to Canada as part of their service. The call appears to need to be made in and to another number in Canada as far as I can tell and that is not even available if you have a plan that also covers the United States. Presumably Rogers does not allow this either. Navy Veteran also notes that while there may be other third party Wi Fi calling apps, they are difficult to download and get working. If you recall, the reason why I want to know this is because on a cruise a few years ago, I had to telephone several financial institutions in Canada from a ship leaving port (in Texas I might add) at their land line numbers to cancel credit cards. Princess never told me the actual cost of doing so, but my estimate was it was between $600 and $1000 U.S. to make the calls. You cannot use What's App or Facetime to make those type of calls as far as I know. But, unlike the other apps, my research also suggests that Skype is one of the few apps that allow a Skype to Canada land line call (for Americans, I assume to the United States?), for persons travelling in another country such as Australia. I was researching this because we were booked on a cruise from Honolulu to Sidney for this year but had to cancel.) There is a per minute charge and a connection charge but they appear to be relatively modest; Skype also appears to allow Skype to a land line within the foreign country you are located in (e.g., Australia on a trip) for a relatively modest charge. Obviously one could get a SIM card and a pre-paid plan in that other country if there for a while. In the case of Skype, you need to preload your Skype account with cash to pay the charges if a Skype to landline call is made. While Skype seems to have fallen out of favour compared to Whats App and Facetime, I plan to try and learn how it would work if a person made a call through the Princess Wi Fi from their Skype app back to Canada? Would the charges be relatively modest or the extremely high charges that can occur such as with Cellular at Sea. (Alternatively, if necessary a person can always pick up the telephone in the cabin and call a land line in Canada at those $10 a minute or more rates).) A few commenters have noted that they have not had any concerns to date with unexpected charges for voice mail or text messages received on a ship which some persons on the internet are suggesting is possible despite engaging Airplane Mode. But that does not mean it cannot happen and as mentioned, Canadians appear to at the mercy of of their Canadian provider and its offshore arrangements. Finally, Steeler36 in Toronto. First, the Steelers? That is almost as bad as cheering for the Leafs. Second, I notice in my general review of some of the information on the Princes board, that you are engaged with a lot of up to date information especially interesting for Canadians. Thank you. Third, on your question about Bell, let me begin that I am one of those persons who has been a long time holdout against using Smartphones although I did have a smartphone for work (forced so to speak). But like some of us old geezers, we are essentially being forced to use Smartphones to do things. One can debate whether this should be the case, but I would suggest many of us holdouts are not very happy about this. I made the jump to a second hand Smartphone three weeks ago, and I am trying to learn the ins and outs. I was using an old Acatel fliphone on a pay as you go basis on the Chatr 3 G network that dates to before Rogers acquired Chatr. As of July, that service no longer works in the United States. So, I reluctantly made the move and in the process, the dealer who I purchased the smartphone from also happens to be a vendor exclusively for Bell Canada. As you know, Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada have it pretty nice carving up the Canadian market for cable television and streaming, internet and cellphones. As you indicated, "I am wondering if somehow Bell has reduced the cost for US coverage (but not thinking they would do that). We have separate Florida numbers for when we are in USA." At the exact time I was buying the smartphone, the vendor determined I was eligible for what seemed a pretty good deal to me, but I will let you decide if that is the case. For $40 a month, I could switch from Chtr to Bell and get unlimited call and texting in the Canada and the United States with 50 GBs. The regular cost is $65 a month which is down from around $100 or so if I recall. This $25 discount was available for two reasons. First, Bell came through our neighborhood installing fibre cable this summer to replace the older cooper telephone lines, and we have an old time Bell landline. If I kept the land line (the condition, there always is a condition), I could switch from Chatr to the Bell cell plan at a $25 a month discount. I decided to do so, but my DW is on the Rogers network keeping our options open in the future. When I was researching Bell's Wi Fi calling feature, I noticed that it once again changed some of the features of the plan. Bake and Shake seems to be a science with the telecoms in Canada. Now it seems the Canada United States plan that is $65 a month only covers 25, not 50, gbs. I may be one of the last persons to get the 50 gb plan and at a $25 a month discount. I wonder if Bell noticed and reduced the gbs by 50%, but that would be suggesting Bell is on top of its came, which some may question. Thanks. Correct me if I have anything wrong or missed something.

Thank you for the replies. As for WI Fi calling, Bell advises that it is not included if the plan covers Canada and the United States, only if it only covers Canada. My plan is Canada and the United States. So Wi Fi calling is not an option available under its service which I did not realize might be an option until a few minutes ago. But can it be used via the Princess package? Unlike Verizon and AT&T etc., Bell Canada provides no separate plan that could apply when calling while on a cruise.

We are planning a cruise with Princess for later this year and we have never used a smartphone on a cruise ship before, so I am interested in any feedback those who use a smartphone may have to avoid unexpected charges. Our wi fi is covered as part of the Princess Plus plan. At home we have a Canadian provider and my plan has unlimited calling and texting in Canada and the United States. It also has 50 gbs and unlimited international texting. First, correct me if I am wrong but when at sea I understand based on research the following do’s. · Put phone on airplane mode. · Turn off locater apps. · Turn off cellular data. · Turn on Princess wi fi connection through Princess app. With this, one appears to be able to use without further charge What’s app, Facetime and email. Is this correct? Anything to add on dos and do nots? Further, my understanding is that Skype has the only internet service that allows a person to make a call to a land line in Canada (if Canadian resident) if such a call needs to be made. If made from a country to Canada, there is a modest connection and per minute charge. But what about from a ship at sea? (For context, I once had my wallet stolen in the U.S. just before boarding with a back up credit card and had to make a number of calls to Canada to cancel credit cards, some off the deck with my flip phone before the ship left the dock and some through the ship’s satellite after the ship left the harbour, which took at least 1 hour as the charges piled up which the Princess Pursers desk graciously waived I might add. I thought that was pretty classy by Princess and have remained loyal.) Does anyone know if a Skype to land line connection is through Cellular at Sea or the Princess wi fi and is covered in the Princess Plus plan? Caveat, I found an old article from 2017 on using a smartphone on a cruise ship in which the author noted that “Cellular at Sea” would crowd onto his smartphone’s network and download stuff including voice messages despite being on Airplane mode. He shut the phone off to avoid further downloads and later was charged $18 American for one message. But that issue did not come up in later articles until one recently, raising whether the matter is still an issue. In particular, a poster to a recent article on using smartphones at sea advised that Cunard is warning passengers that their provider may charge them for voice mail even if in Airplane mode and connected through the ship’s Wi Fi. Does anyone know if this is an issue? On Cunard’s website I found the following (see bold) which talks about making calls rather than about receiving voice or text messages. ... whilst connected to the Guest Wi-Fi, your device should not be incurring any cellular data costs from your phone carrier. However, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not using cell phone signal or data. To avoid roaming charges on board, please turn off cellular data in your device settings or activate airplane mode (you may need to re-activate your device’s Wi-Fi afterward). You will still be charged by your phone carrier for any voice calls or text messages you make, regardless of whether you are connected to the ship’s Wi-Fi. We recommend confirming your data roaming capability and charges in advance of your voyage. Cunard is not responsible for charges incurred via your network carrier. Thanks for any input.