CruiseRQA

A ridiculous idea. The Celebrity suite experience is built around access to The Retreat, Retreat lounge and Luminae. Nothing particularly special about the sky suite cabins. Why would Celebrity turn a high revenue cabin into a lower revenue cabin? People are not going to pay suite prices for a nonsuite experience.

That's spot on! Last year in Fine Cuts (Beyond) I tried to order a bottle of CA cab from their "list". Didn't have it. Moved onto a Malbec from somewhere. Didn't have it. Okay, how about a glass of cab from your list? Didn't have that. Eventually they brought me something that wasn't on the list.

I'll take the job. Pay for my flight down (business class, please), a night or two in a pre-cruise hotel (4 *. at least) and then a cabin of your choice. I will be at your beck and call except for my pool time from 1-5 each day. Correction: probably best that I have a suite so I can hang out in the Retreat while awaiting your call.

DYKWIA is spot on. On Beyond last year we ordered a bottle of red wine at Fine Cuts from their menu. I don't remember what it was but probably a CA cabernet. They didn't have it. So a second choice was made. Didn't have that either. To their credit they brought me something a bit more expensive but charged me the price of our original pick.

They probably don't. There probably is a profile of combinations of people that are more likely to be sex trafficking than other combinations of people. For example, posters have commented that they have traveled with their mixed race grandchildren and never had an issue. Well it may be that statistics say that children traveling with adults >60 are not likely to be trafficked and so it would be a waste of resources to examine them more closely.

Le Grand Bistro is the French themed restaurant just next to Fine Cuts (IIRC). Lunch is terrific. You find the place maybe 1/3 full at peak lunch. At least how it was for us last year on the Beyond. Highly recommended.

Happy New Year to you Hawkstar. Limiting my NY resolutions too but aim aiming to walk 3 miles every day and lose 10 pounds before my late Jan Apex cruise.

Even worse - last year I bought a "cruise package" from my carrier, ATT. IIRC, it was $10/day but only was charged if you actually used your phone for a call or text when connected to Cellular At Sea. . Lo and behold, when I got home I found plenty of extra charges on my bill. Why? My phone occasionally connected to island cell service while in port. This year I'm going the airplane mode route and use WhatsApp on Wifi.

I think the issue at hand is child trafficking. Certainly a crime. In this case we have a white father with (we know now) an Asian daughter. How is it "racist" for the white father to have been suspected of something and therefore asked to provide additional documentation. They were acting to protect and Asian girl. Now I agree completely that the port authorities were acting stupidly and ignorantly. They seemed to have been poorly trained. There seemed to have been absent procedures to quickly and professionally deal with this. All of this could be the likely explanation rather than racism. Again again, the person being "accused" is a white guy!

Both in 2022 aboard the Apex and in Jan 2023 aboard beyond, I would ask the sommelier to bring me a wine that paired well with what I was eating. IIRC, in 2022 I was poured a glass of Cakebread pinot with my beef and a glass of some Napa savaugion blanc with fish. Treated the same way last year with pours of good wines. No charges. Waiting to see what happens in a few weeks back on Apex

Of course it does. My wife was being asked for documentation that was not required to fly. The gate agent so asking was stupid, ignorant, poorly trained or all of the above. In the OP's situation, they were being asked for documentation that was not required to cruise. My point is simply that the OP's unfortunate situation was most likely do to factors other than racism. Especially given that the person being "accused" of maybe doing something wrong was a white guy.

I don't know what "adoption papers" consist of so I can't answer this. But again, the people being "accused" of a crime in this scenario are white and the child that is trying to be protected is not white. Which is why this incident is more likely than not a result of stupidity, ignorance and/or poor training rather than racism.

Keep in mind that the goal is to protect minors from sexually trafficking. If the workers were racist wouldn't they have tried to protect the white kids and not the child of color? We don't know what the workers were trained to look for. I don't think any of us are experts on this. Maybe it is known that children of color accompanied by white adults are 10x more likely to be trafficked? In that case it would be appropriate to be more judicious in that scenario. Again the port employees certainly seemed to have been poor trained, ignorant, incompetent, rude and any other derogatory adjective you want to use. But it isn't necessarily racially motivated. Some years ago my pregnant wife and I were flying to look for a new house as I had been transferred. At the gate, my wife was asked for a doctor's letter stating that is was okay for her to fly. Nowhere in any policy of the airline was this needed and I knew this because I had specifically called the airline twice to inquire about it. (called a second time to be sure). We both as white as you can get, but is we were of color should I assume the gate agent was racist? After some calls and checking we were finally allowed on the plane. Don't assume racism when the actual cause is the list of things I said above (stupid, incompetent, poorly trained ...)

Obviously a situation mishandled by poorly trained intake personnel. But was it racially motivated? The person they were trying to protect (wrongly, I know) was the person of color. If they were racist why would they have been concerned about a person of color being trafficed? They may well have been stupid, poorly trained, ill-informed, power hungry, ignorant (and any other derogatory adjective you choose to add) but I don't think it's cut and dried a racially motivated incident.

Why do people think that the retail price of an Invicta watch is really, for example, $300, yet you can buy it for $79.99?

We don't, but most of us read fiction to be entertained.

I think the main purpose of having a "butler" from Celebrity's perspective is that they could use the term in advertising to spin the luxury aspect of being in a suite. They probably heard on post cruise surveys that most didn't really use the butler and as occupancy was near 100% they wisely decided to direct those resources elsewhere. If they hear otherwise from the 99% of cruisers who don't post here you may see the butler return.

The retail prices on Invicta are simply made up so that the naïve buyer thinks they are getting a bargain. Nobody has EVER paid the "retail" price for an Invicta. I see nothing inherently wrong with an Invicta watch. They are generally cheap Chinese made quartz and automatic watches that typically have a very flamboyant (to be kind) design. If you are aware of what you are buying and like the look, buy one. Generally watch prices on a cruise ship are comparable to what you would buy on shore, I guess you aren't paying sales tax. I bought a nice Tissot on HAL several years ago. I saw in the the ship store but looked in a few shops on the islands and it was always just about the same price.

Both E-class Caribbean 1 week cruises.

This week I paid $15 for a Subway sandwich.

I guess that depends. Our SS cabin last year was $2000 more than our SS cabin will be in a few weeks. Last year we had tips included and ~$900 in OBC. I think I am coming out ahead without the tips or OBC

Can you rewrite this? Not sure what you are getting at.

Yes, we are still reading! And I must say, I hate waking up and finding out we are back in Ft Lauderdale. We will be onboard Jan 20. Thanks for the preview.

My cabins have been maintained in the same meticulous fashion both before and after that, so "no"

Not an attorney but in a profession that is often subject to the American legal system. The American system (IMO) is set up to benefit the plaintiff and make it as easy as possible for a citizen to get "justice" by suing and getting money A court can throw out a truly frivolous case but that is a standard judges don't want to lower. You can sue me and cause me to incur thousands of dollars in expenses and if I win the plaintiff gets to walk away and say "oh well". I have not heard of sanctions levied on attorneys for this although it may happen in rare circumstances. Again, my opinion not as an attorney but as one with experience in the American courts.