Haven Access for non-Haven Guests - Thoughts?

[mertziek]

1 minute ago, perditax said:

 

I suspect the ones I’m talking about were deleted then. They are what’s causing the echoes you’re seeing in other comments. I’m sure they’ll be back. 

Well some of my comments were deleted for referencing another’s comments about “creepy” behavior and “hyper-focusing” on other passengers as well as my saying I forgot about the ignore function here.  I don’t feel those comments were vile.  I have read the entire thread pre-deletions and most comments were about over-populating the Haven with those who have not paid for the “ship within a ship” experience.  Yes, I felt a few definitely crossed the line and those comments are actually still here.  I do not agree with those sentiments but the main issue here is people are paying for a product and after the fact, that product or experience is being diluted by NCL changing rules.

[perditax]

1 minute ago, mertziek said:

Well some of my comments were deleted for referencing another’s comments about “creepy” behavior and “hyper-focusing” on other passengers as well as my saying I forgot about the ignore function here.  I don’t feel those comments were vile.  I have read the entire thread pre-deletions and most comments were about over-populating the Haven with those who have not paid for the “ship within a ship” experience.  Yes, I felt a few definitely crossed the line and those comments are actually still here.  I do not agree with those sentiments but the main issue here is people are paying for a product and after the fact, that product or experience is being diluted by NCL changing rules.

 

Ok, the one and only thing I ever quoted/replied to you about was you questioning whether anyone here had referred to non-Haven guests as lesser-than. They did. That’s literally the only point I was making. 

 

(I never understood either side of the creepy argument and it’s not what I’m referring to.)

[mertziek]

6 minutes ago, bevkay said:

Disturbing for sure. Two misconceptions

1. That if you have money you are better behaved and less "dangerous"

2. That if you stay in the public area of the ship you don't have money and couldn't afford to stay in the Haven. 🙄

Agree with what you say.

 

[pcakes122]

3 minutes ago, FitchburgWIFamily said:

I honestly expected more Haven guests to welcome the change because I know there are people who have groups split between Haven, Suites and regular cabins.  I am more intrigued about being able to stay in the Haven and inviting my friends/relatives/etc. that are not in the Haven a chance to dine with me in the Haven restaurant.

This was always allowed for Haven guests - this new policy did not introduce that.

 

The real issue, in my opinion, is that NCL is marketing the Haven as an exclusive experience (with a hefty price tag to match.) However, they are now offering access to the Haven to the general ship population for a relatively small fee.  The question is the fairness of this new policy - whether it creates crowds or not.

[chars]

I would also assume that there will be an %18 gratuity added to the $100.  

[mertziek]

Just now, perditax said:

 

Ok, the one and only thing I ever quoted/replied to you about was you questioning whether anyone here had referred to non-Haven guests as lesser-than. They did. That’s literally the only point I was making. 

 

(I never understood either side of the creepy argument and it’s not what I’m referring to.)

No argument here.  But I felt those comments about lesser than or people to watch out for were in the minority.  I think most people are upset because we don’t know what impact this will have on the Haven restaurant seating.  If waiting times are increased due to this new policy, it’s not fair to those who paid for the exclusivity of the Haven.  The blame should be on NCL for changing the rules mid stream.  Another example of selling something they don’t intend to deliver.

[Kingkonig]

Just now, pcakes122 said:

This was always allowed for Haven guests - this new policy did not introduce that.

 

The real issue, in my opinion, is that NCL is marketing the Haven as an exclusive experience (with a hefty price tag to match.) However, they are now offering access to the Haven to the general ship population for a relatively small fee.  The question is the fairness of this new policy - whether it creates crowds or not.

 

I for one do not see $100 for a single meal as a “relatively small fee”.

 

Compared to Haven pricing?  Sure.  Compared to the rest of the ship?  No not really.  People in here are forgetting that that $100 (sorry, $50pp that will end up costing people $120 for two after gratuity) can be 5-10% of someone’s cruise.  I’m sure there will be a few people to take advantage of it (and from this thread, seems people have in the past even before this charge); but you won’t have as many people buying into it as you think.

[Shoppie124]

3 minutes ago, chars said:

I would also assume that there will be an %18 gratuity added to the $100.  

Actually 20%

[elwood_98034]

52 minutes ago, bevkay said:

Maybe Haven guests could wear some kind of gold crown/tiara and others could have a scarlet letter pinned to their chest so it was obvious who belongs and who doesn't.

I was planning on wearing a red t shirt with

"HAVEN GUEST

SUPREME BEING

APPROACHING"

printed on the front and back. Or would that be not inclusive?

[Shoppie124]

4 minutes ago, elwood_98034 said:

I was planning on wearing a red t shirt with

"HAVEN GUEST

SUPREME BEING

APPROACHING"

printed on the front and back. Or would that be not inclusive?

😂😂😂😂

[elwood_98034]

27 minutes ago, mertziek said:

Boy I have not read it that way.  A couple derogatory comments but most were respectful discussions.  It’s not a matter of needing protection as I read comments but more expecting getting the experience they paid for whereas others have not paid for the exclusivity.

He/She was talking about me. That was pretty much exactly what I said. 

 

[perditax]

16 minutes ago, mertziek said:

No argument here.  But I felt those comments about lesser than or people to watch out for were in the minority.  I think most people are upset because we don’t know what impact this will have on the Haven restaurant seating.  If waiting times are increased due to this new policy, it’s not fair to those who paid for the exclusivity of the Haven.  The blame should be on NCL for changing the rules mid stream.  Another example of selling something they don’t intend to deliver.

 

It’s possible I misunderstood your original post, as I though you said “no one” was saying those things. It’s been edited now so can’t say for sure. 

 

In any event, I agree this isn’t a great move from NCL if it results in diluting of the Haven amenities (meaning, longer waits and worse service). Not because it somehow places someone at risk.

 

I mean, cards on the table, I did my first Haven cruise a few months ago, and aside from getting on and off the ship faster, I was roundly unimpressed. I laughed out loud when I saw that the French toast triangles and the hash brown rounds in the Haven restaurant at breakfast were exactly the same as the ones in the buffet. “French dip” at lunch is a roast beef sandwich with a small side of buffet brown gravy. Duck and prime rib at dinner were way overlooked. Like, literally every piece of prime rib I’ve had at o’sheehans over the years was better than this.

Edited June 17, 2019 by perditax

[pcakes122]

1 minute ago, Kingkonig said:

 

I for one do not see $100 for a single meal as a “relatively small fee”.

 

Compared to Haven pricing?  Sure.  Compared to the rest of the ship?  No not really.  People in here are forgetting that that $100 (sorry, $50pp that will end up costing people $120 for two after gratuity) can be 5-10% of someone’s cruise.  I’m sure there will be a few people to take advantage of it (and from this thread, seems people have in the past even before this charge); but you won’t have as many people buying into it as you think.

I will say that I definitely think people who have actually paid to cruise in the Haven will view this differently than people who have not.

[mertziek]

12 minutes ago, FitchburgWIFamily said:

Wow.   I am taken aback by the comments and the ire raised here.   Of all the policy changes to start a wave of "that's the last time I'll ever sail on NCL" this is not the one I would have picked.

Well if you purchased exclusivity for premium dollars you might be angry too if the  rules changed mid-stream.

 

I get that Haven people pay for a haven:  a place to get away from the crowds, the ship within a ship.   Apparently, Haven people think there are hoards of people waiting to spend $100.00 per couple per night to crowd them out of that place.   Really?  

No way to know the impact this will have.  Some have commented here that they felt waiting times at the Haven restaurant increased for them where this is already in effect.   And some Haven restaurants and lounges are not that big to start with.

 

Because I am part of the great hoard you fear and I am NOT going to spend that much money getting a meal in a different part of the ship.

But you have no way of knowing how many will select this just because you won’t.  There are already people complaining about get dining times in specialty restaurants so will that happen in the Haven? 

 

I honestly expected more Haven guests to welcome the change because I know there are people who have groups split between Haven, Suites and regular cabins.  I am more intrigued about being able to stay in the Haven and inviting my friends/relatives/etc. that are not in the Haven a chance to dine with me in the Haven restaurant.   This is something I might do it one night out of a 7 or a 10 night cruise.  

And many of us who paid for the “ship within a ship” experience feel you should go to the MDR or specialty restaurants to eat with your non-Haven family or friends or God forbid, book in the Haven themselves.

 

As to the "crowds" that are going to ruin the experience, on any given night, aren't a few of the Haven diners in the specialty restaurants?  Aren't some more of them dining in the solitude of their own cabin with their included room service?   Some might even be trying the MDRs, or gasp, the buffet!   The possibility of a crowd generated by all Haven passengers making the same dining decision on any given night far exceeds the potential of that many non-haven guests coughing up cash to dine in the Haven.

Others here have reported longer wait times and crowds.

 

There are a lot of people on this thread that have given some pretty pointed references to "those people" being somehow lower class or not as desirable as the Haven guests.   I hate to break it to you, but paying more for your cruise doesn't make you any better than paying less for a cruise makes someone else worse.  

100% agree with you.

[elwood_98034]

13 minutes ago, chars said:

I would also assume that there will be an %18 gratuity added to the $100.  

I was under the impression you get charged 18% to watch a seagull fly past.

[mertziek]

15 minutes ago, pcakes122 said:

This was always allowed for Haven guests - this new policy did not introduce that.

 

The real issue, in my opinion, is that NCL is marketing the Haven as an exclusive experience (with a hefty price tag to match.) However, they are now offering access to the Haven to the general ship population for a relatively small fee.  The question is the fairness of this new policy - whether it creates crowds or not.

Exactly the point!  Thank you.

[elwood_98034]

6 minutes ago, Shoppie124 said:

😂😂😂😂

Want one? I was about to place an order.

[thistimeplease]

37 minutes ago, perditax said:

 

Maybe some of the posts have been deleted, but there is a regularly-occurring burst of posts suggesting that non-Haven customers, having not paid as much money, are 1) lowlifes 2) don’t have as much to lose and therefore 3) will probably use this as a means to gain access to unwitting victims. 

 

Unless this is your first time in this thread, I’m sure you saw some of them.

 

I’m not in favor of this policy (or really, any of the customer-hostile changes NCL has made since I started cruising), but I’m even less in favor of the suggestion that mass-market cruise ship passengers in one section of the ship need protection from those in another section. It’s vile.

 I saw most of them and couldn't agree with you more.

[perditax]

3 minutes ago, pcakes122 said:

I will say that I definitely think people who have actually paid to cruise in the Haven will view this differently than people who have not.

 

In what sense? I can’t tell if you mean that people who have sailed in the Haven “know” it’s worth $100 (I’ve sailed in Haven and know it’s not), or something else. 

[Shoppie124]

1 minute ago, elwood_98034 said:

Want one? I was about to place an order.

The temptation!

[mertziek]

4 minutes ago, perditax said:

 

It’s possible I misunderstood your original post, as I though you said “no one” was saying those things. It’s been edited now so can’t say for sure. 

 

In any event, I agree this isn’t a great move from NCL if it results in diluting of the Haven amenities (meaning, longer waits and worse service). Not because it somehow places someone at risk.

Yay!  We agree.  Enjoyed the discussion, too.  Sometimes the nuance of conversation is lost with social media.  I think a lot of that is what happened here.

[pcakes122]

1 minute ago, perditax said:

In what sense? I can’t tell if you mean that people who have sailed in the Haven “know” it’s worth $100 (I’ve sailed in Haven and know it’s not), or something else. 

I think that people who have actually paid for a Haven cabin will have a different opinion about the fairness and impact of this new policy then people who haven't.

[perditax]

1 minute ago, mertziek said:

Yay!  We agree.  Enjoyed the discussion, too.  Sometimes the nuance of conversation is lost with social media.  I think a lot of that is what happened here.

 

Honestly, I think most people in this thread more or less do agree. It’s the level of hyperbole from some angles that causes the unpleasant tangents.

[mertziek]

4 minutes ago, perditax said:

 

In what sense? I can’t tell if you mean that people who have sailed in the Haven “know” it’s worth $100 (I’ve sailed in Haven and know it’s not), or something else. 

I think people in the Haven expected exclusivity, paid dearly for it and do not expect non-Haven passengers populating the Haven.  Personally I don’t feel it’s worth $100 either but that’s just me.

[perditax]

1 minute ago, pcakes122 said:

I think that people who have actually paid for a Haven cabin will have a different opinion about the fairness and impact of this new policy then people who haven't.

 

Well, sure, they’re the ones who’ve paid for a product that’s being diluted.

 

But the poster you were responding to was only making the case that they didn’t think a lot of people would really go for the offer because it didn’t seem worth the price tag. That seems like a reasonable opinion too, since no one knows for sure how it’ll all play out yet.