JimmyVWine

You are close. The word was supposed to be "humored".

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I think the point of a perk is to give you something that you perceive to be a benefit to you, but which in fact does not cost the cruise line any revenue. It can be a "loss leader" that costs them money up front, which they are fairly certain that they will get back plus some in the end. Giving you free corkage takes money out of their pocket if you are the type of person who always brings on your own wine. Of course there is a benefit to you. But I don't see how they can make back that lost revenue.

Actually, I don't think they do. Otherwise we would have heard that they do by now. We haven't.

Do you really think that a single penny of your $25/$29 upcharge goes to the servers? 😆

The quoted statement applies to the suggested daily amount, not any overage. The overage is kept by the crew member as long as the daily recommended amount is also paid by the passenger. This is common knowledge.

If Cruise Critic Members reaching out to one another in times of need, and reports back thanking people for same is against the guidelines, then the guidelines need to change!! Glad you are safe, healthy and in good spirits. Hoping for the best in the upcoming days for you and everyone impacted by this storm.

Here's my overly complex analysis. Imagine that all auto-gratuities are pooled and at the end of the cruise, all of the crew members who are eligible to receive tips were gathered in the theater and the Captain then handed out the gratuity money to all who were gathered. All cabin stewards get an equal share of the steward pool. (Or perhaps all stewards within a certain sub-class of stewards get an equal share. I don't know if there are "Senior Stewards" and "Junior Stewards"). All dining room servers within their class get an equal share of the pool. ("Table Captains" getting more than "Second Servers", but still, within rank, everyone is equal), and on and on. Now, I don't know if it actually works that way or not, but I live in the fantasy world that it does. So when I dine in a Specialty Restaurant, I consider the service that I received. If I believe that the people who served our table performed above and beyond such that when the tips are handed out, those people should get more than the equal share that all other servers receive, then the only way for them to get more is if I (and other diners) give it to them. If I believe that the service was on par with what I receive elsewhere on the ship, then an equal share from the pool should be sufficient. And this applies to all the crew with whom I interact. If I think they are well above average such that an equal share from the big pool does not reflect their level of service, then I reward them.

NO!!! You aren't allowed to share your Drink Package benefits with others! 🤣🤣

.

I literally did a little happy dance in my chair when I read the newly crafted update placing Greece in the same category of all those other locations with three simple words in the right hand column. "Testing not required." Edit to add: And did I print that page to take with me to the port? Oh yes I did!!

Yes. Doing land portions on both ends with just the 7 day cruise in between.

I think they would rather collect the $20 per bottle than let you bring unlimited wine on for free. Unless the trade off is that by bringing on your own wine as part of Plus, you forfeit the beverage portion of the package. I don’t think you can have unlimited coffee, soda, beer and cocktails and receive free corkage and have that make sense financially for $25 per day. You say that if you bring your own wine you won’t consume anything from the ship. But is that really true when all the offerings of the package are taken into account? If you consume as little as $5 per day of other beverages, the ship loses.

OK. Even with that current photo, 35 years of cruising is still hard to believe! 😊

E-mail received 10 seconds ago pertaining to 10/8 departure: IMPORTANT NOTICES UPDATED GREEK HEALTH PROTOCOLS FOR YOUR CRUISE We are pleased to share that our COVID-19 protocols for your voyage have been amended. As a result, the pre-cruise testing and vaccination requirements for this voyage have changed. Guests ages 5 and above who are fully vaccinated for COVID-19 do not require pre-cruise COVID-19 testing for this voyage. To be considered fully vaccinated a guest must have completed their final dose of an approved vaccine at least 14 days prior to embarkation.

An intriguing idea. But I think it would only work at the Premier level. Since one can already bring unlimited wine on board for $20 per bottle, at $50 per day for Plus, the math does not work. $15 per day for gratuities. $10 value for internet. Add one bottle of wine per person at $20 and that brings the value of Plus up to $45 which means the monetized value per day of the drinks package is $5 per day. That is a loser for the ship. But at $75 per day it might work.

Like any good disclaimer, it should have come with definitions or had the definitions baked in. This would have been better: At least 14 days past completion of a "primary vaccine series"[1] and no more than 270 days (9 months) from the date of disembarkation since receiving the "last dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine"[2]. A booster dose is required for guests 18 and older if the completion of the primary vaccine series was earlier than 9 months (270 days) from the date of disembarkation. [1] "completion of a primary vaccine series" means the date on which the passenger's initial round of vaccination was completed, administered either as a two-dose series (e.g., Pfizer or Moderna) or as a singe dose of a one-dose application (e.g., Johnson and Johnson). In the case of a two-dose series, the "completion" date is the date on which the second dose was administered. [2] "last dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine" means the same thing as "completion of a primary vaccine series" as set forth in #1 above. Don't ask us why we used two different iterations to describe the same thing.

My prediction was uncanny!! You are fine. At least under the current rules!

I guess all I can say to this is that most of this thread is built on a rumor (although certain perk reductions are evident irrespective of the rumor mill.) But to build another supposition on top of that, specifically what may or may not happen to HAL, is a place I can't go.

"Last dose in a series" of an approved vaccine means the second of two shots if one received Pfizer or Moderna, and it means the date of your first (and only) J&J vaccine. So for this sentence, you ignore boosters completely. When did you get your J&J shot, or the second of your P or M shots? If it was more than 270 before the date of embarkation, then a booster is required, and a single booster is sufficient. And it doesn't matter when that booster was administered. So if you were an early recipient, (let's say February of 2021 for your first of two doses, and March/April for your second of two doses), then your are way past 270 days if you are looking ahead to a upcoming cruise. So that means you need a booster. And if you have had one or more boosters, then you are good, irrespective of when that was. Let's say that you got one and only one booster and it was in November of 2021. Almost a year ago. You are still good to go. The confusing language can be distilled down to: "If your first two jabs of a two dose series was a loooong time ago, then you need a booster. And if you have had a booster, you are good to go irrespective of when you received it.

And the Carnival Corp stock price changes not one iota when you make that switch. People have a tendency to look at PCL in a vacuum instead as one of Carnival Corp's many tentacles.

I think there is a big difference between "trying to get rid of" and "not bending over backwards to cater to." I don't have access to PCL's sales data, but I'd be shocked to learn that 75% of loyal cruisers over the age of 65 have left PCL and will never come back. Indeed, I'd be surprised if that percentage was 50%, or 40%, or 30% or even 10%. I think in reality there is lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The 200-300 voices here on CC are not even close to being representative of the literally millions of passengers who board Princess ships every year.

This, exactly. Carnival Corp. needs to compete with RCCL, DCL and Virgin instead of competing with itself. All of that says that one of its lines has to trend younger while still staying family friendly and sophisticated. Hmmm. I wonder which line that might be?

Well, on your first point, there is always tension between capture and keep. Always has been, in every business. On your point about Suites, I think Princess is starting to agree. On the new Sun Princess, they are introducing quite a few cabins in a altogether new category called Signature Suites. They are Mini-Suites that come with all the Suite perks. So instead of a 1700 sq. ft. cabin, you get a 313 sq. ft. cabin that is treated as a Suite. I have not priced out a cruise on Sun yet so I don't know what the price delta is between a Mini-Suite, a Signature Suite and a 600 sq. ft. "traditional" Suite. But Princess has obviously detected an interest in suite perks in a smaller cabin, which presumably comes at a lower price.

100%. They need you now, and they need your children and grandchildren later. But in order to have them later, they need them now, if that makes any sense.

This is true. But in order to continue attracting people like you, it has to capture new customers who will become you, only in 30 years' time. Once your generation of retired cruisers stops cruising, who will be there to backfill the loss? Princess can't count on people like you coming to them organically without any past history. Expecting a new customer to jump right in and do 3-5 cruises a year is unrealistic. They have to capture that person when they are 35-50. Younger would be great too, but perhaps not realistic. The business model is to both "capture" and "keep". They desperately want to do both. But if there is ever any tension between the two goals, "capture" has to win out. It requires an entirely different skill set and product offerings. "Keep" is largely driven by inertia, familiarity and an innate fear of change. They get to keep their customers largely owing to the fact that the customers aren't incentivized to make a change. Sure, there are plenty of people with top tier status on multiple cruise lines. But as you point out, it is hard for young working people to cruise often enough to achieve that. Multi-Line Top Tier Status is the exception, not the rule. So that leaves the person asking: "Do I stick with the familiar where I have status, even though the perks of status aren't what they used to be, or do I jump ship and start from scratch elsewhere?" The cruise line won't keep 100%. But it will keep enough to sell the limited number of Suites on the ship.