Just off Valiant Lady as Mega Rockstars and it was kind of disappointing.

[Tolkmit]

14 hours ago, CruisingWalter said:

 

What happens on blogs and vlogs, your opinion or my opinion don't matter. What matters is the official policy from VV. Other cruise lines specifically mention "Order from any/select restaurants and have your dinner in your suite." In those cases the guest would be right to be upset if their butler did not bring the food to the room.

 

Virgin Voyages leaves that vague as 'no matter the ask.' Until they make it a specific perk for the suite, it's up to the agent on what they will do. 

 

Completely disagree. It 100% matters what the industry standards are for suites, what Virgin's paid 3rd party advertisers say people will get in suites, and what the expectations of the people paying for the suites are. Especially when Virgin refuses to specify what are and are not benefits of suites. Sure, Virgin is not contractually required to provide anything they did not guarantee in writing.  But suggesting that people shouldn't complain when Virgin falls short of expectations is just silly, especially when so much says those expectations were reasonable ones, despite there being no guarantee of them being met.

 

It's unusual for Virgin, once you are onboard, to fall short of reasonable expectations. The OP's experience seems to be more the exception than the rule. But people should definitely be aware of what they are, and are not, guaranteed by being Mega Rock Star before deciding if it's worth the extra cost to them. And people should definitely give feedback both here and directly, so Virgin can make sure they are meeting expectations of their highest paying customers.

[cantgetin]

I'm a little confused by the above post.  VV is a line that seems to pride itself on doing things differently, so the concept of any "industry standard" is not as meaningful as on the mainstream lines.  There is a list of Rockstar and Mega benefits on the VV website.  I think that what other posters are saying is that the only thing VV can be held to is what is posted on those sites.  They are not responsible for what someone posts here or on any YouTube video or other site.  I agree that the experience in a suite should be far more standardized among the various "agents." but standardization seems to be an area where VV falls short.    This relates to changes they are making as the line matures as well as spreading changes across the different ships.  But I've noticed a lot more inconsistency from one voyage to another than on other lines.

Bottom line, suite guests have a right to get what is listed on the VV web site.  Anything else is sort of an "extra,"

[DCGuy64]

22 minutes ago, cantgetin said:

They are not responsible for what someone posts here or on any YouTube video or other site.

 

22 minutes ago, cantgetin said:

Bottom line, suite guests have a right to get what is listed on the VV web site.  Anything else is sort of an "extra,"

This is exactly my way of looking at it. If you have a list of amenities or perks that you've paid for, that's one thing (and you have a right to expect them). But if you receive extra services or amenities because your cabin steward aka agent goes above and beyond, then that is NOT something everyone should expect, and the "failure" to get something unexpected is no reason to slam the cruise line for being inconsistent. I think sometimes people have difficulty with the concept of "going above and beyond." If it's extra and not expected, by definition it's not something you can ask/demand be given to you every time. Otherwise it simply becomes another paid-for perk like all the rest of them.

[jon81uk]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

 

This is exactly my way of looking at it. If you have a list of amenities or perks that you've paid for, that's one thing (and you have a right to expect them). But if you receive extra services or amenities because your cabin steward aka agent goes above and beyond, then that is NOT something everyone should expect, and the "failure" to get something unexpected is no reason to slam the cruise line for being inconsistent. I think sometimes people have difficulty with the concept of "going above and beyond." If it's extra and not expected, by definition it's not something you can ask/demand be given to you every time. Otherwise it simply becomes another paid-for perk like all the rest of them.

But if 4/5 people receive that level of service it’s not really going above and beyond is it?

[DCGuy64]

9 minutes ago, jon81uk said:

But if 4/5 people receive that level of service it’s not really going above and beyond is it?

It would depend...

[Eric&Pam]

17 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

suggesting that people shouldn't complain when Virgin falls short of expectations is just silly, especially when so much says those expectations were reasonable ones,

 

Expectations and what's considerd reasonable are both very subjective. Where do you draw the line?

I think the extra treatment depends on things like how you treat your agent, and if you've slipped them a few dead presidents ($).

I'd hate to see someone get in trouble because they did something extra for someone, and not for someone else.

[Tolkmit]

52 minutes ago, Eric&Pam said:

 

Expectations and what's considerd reasonable are both very subjective. Where do you draw the line?

I think the extra treatment depends on things like how you treat your agent, and if you've slipped them a few dead presidents ($).

I'd hate to see someone get in trouble because they did something extra for someone, and not for someone else.

 

When it is something the majority of similar priced cruise lines guarantee their suite guests, AND the majority of Virgin agents deliver, AND the majority of Virgin's paid advertising partners say Virgin offers; I don't see any world where it's not a reasonable expectation.

 

The idea being put forward that you can only give negative feedback if you didn't receive something you were contractually guaranteed is absolutely wild to me. I know some of the posters suggesting that are travel agents who have financial reasons for defending Virgin, but that logic doesn't hold anywhere else. Virgin offers no guarantees for food quality, do you think people aren't allowed to give negative feedback about that either?

[Tralfaz1138]

58 minutes ago, Eric&Pam said:

 

Expectations and what's considerd reasonable are both very subjective. Where do you draw the line?

I think the extra treatment depends on things like how you treat your agent, and if you've slipped them a few dead presidents ($).

I'd hate to see someone get in trouble because they did something extra for someone, and not for someone else.

This is definitely part of the challenge.  In all honesty, if staff someplace does something less than trivial for me that I know isn't in the "official perks" for the place I'm at, I won't talk to others I meet about them having done it.  I just don't know if they did it "as a favor" or if it's something they do for others, so it seems best to just let it stay between us.  I imagine most Rockstar agents don't want to flat out say "I'll do this for you, but keep it between us".

 

I don't know if the free bridge tours or restaurant delivery started as favors for influencers and ballooned or started with average sailors.  At the end of the day, once it gets out there and people are posting comments here, Reddit or elsewhere saying they heard this or that is a perk then it's harder to reign that in.

[Eric&Pam]

37 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

When it is something the majority of similar priced cruise lines guarantee their suite guests

What other lines offer means nothing. One doesn’t kvetch about the service and amenities on Delta compared to Ethiad’s. They booked Delta, they get Delta.

 

37 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

AND the majority of Virgin agents deliver, AND the majority of Virgin's paid advertising partners say Virgin offers; I don't see any world where it's not a reasonable expectation.

I’m going to assume that you’ve watched every single review on YouTube, Reddit and the like and have done the math to be able to claim that the majority of them have reported receiving these non-advertised extras. Without seeing the numbers, I’m doubtful.

 

37 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

. I know some of the posters suggesting that are travel agents who have financial reasons for defending Virgin, but that logic doesn't hold anywhere else. Virgin offers no guarantees for food quality, do you think people aren't allowed to give negative feedback about that either?

Im an agent, and I book for numerous lines, and I have zero problems with valid complaints. Nor will I dismiss a complaint about a genuine problem. (In the past I’ve even given the heads-up to crew/mgmt about things I’ve read online) I’ve personally complained about the food and service on Virgin sailings when I’ve needed to, and have met with management so they could address the issue at hand, but I never complained that somebody else got something that I didn’t.

 

Virgin has been great about addressing issues when they are notified about them, at least that’s been the case for us and several other sailors I know. They have listened and responded well to feedback over the past 3 years, both good and bad.

Edited yesterday at 09:42 PM by Eric&Pam

[Tolkmit]

1 hour ago, Eric&Pam said:

What other lines offer means nothing. One doesn’t kvetch about the service and amenities on Delta compared to Ethiad’s. They booked Delta, they get Delta.

 

 

Yes, what other cruise lines offer does matter. Even in your own comparison, if Delta and American have 28 inches of legroom for first class, and United has 16, people will 100% complain about United not providing what is normal for first class. And no one would think it was ridiculous for people to expect United to provide comparable to their competitors.

 

1 hour ago, Eric&Pam said:

I’m going to assume that you’ve watched every single review on YouTube, Reddit and the like and have done the math to be able to claim that the majority of them have reported receiving these non-advertised extras. Without seeing the numbers, I’m doubtful.

 

When Virgin offers compensation to someone in exchange for them putting up positive media about Virgin on specific platforms (Virgin typically targets instagram 'influencers') that is, by definition, paid marketing. It is not required to follow US truth in advertising laws, due to it being third party. But you trying to classify stuff Virgin's paid partners say you will get as "non-advertised extras" is by definition false. Non-traditional, paid marketing, is still marketing. I guess some people might be ignorant of this; but Virgin pays people to post about them on places like instagram and youtube, and approves those posts.

 

2 hours ago, Eric&Pam said:

Im an agent, and I book for numerous lines, and I have zero problems with valid complaints. Nor will I dismiss a complaint about a genuine problem. (In the past I’ve even given the heads-up to crew/mgmt about things I’ve read online) I’ve personally complained about the food and service on Virgin sailings when I’ve needed to, and have met with management so they could address the issue at hand, but I never complained that somebody else got something that I didn’t.

 

So you are perfectly happy to complain when Virgin does not meet your expectations. You just think it's unreasonable for people to expect Virgin to provide what they have historically provided in the past, what their paid marketing partners suggest they will provide, or what is normal across the industry to be provided. I question what exactly it is you base your expectations on, if it's not any of those things.

[DCGuy64]

14 hours ago, Eric&Pam said:

What other lines offer means nothing. One doesn’t kvetch about the service and amenities on Delta compared to Ethiad’s. They booked Delta, they get Delta.

Exactly. You want Carnival? Book Carnival. You want Virgin, book Virgin. To me this is like people who know Virgin is adults only and then act offended when people use adult language around them.

 

14 hours ago, Eric&Pam said:

Without seeing the numbers, I’m doubtful.

Same here. When people make spurious claims and then provide no factual basis for those claims, I dismiss them as being contentious on purpose.

 

The overarching point, to me at least, is this: If a passenger is pleasant and friendly to a member of the crew, and that crew member goes out of his/her way for the passenger, that's a bonus. Someone who acts like a Karen and then expects the same bonuses? Nuh-uh. That's not how it works. There is already enough misbehavior on cruises as it is. We shouldn't be allowing a mentality to develop that says everyone gets "extras," no matter how they act. It would end up discouraging crew from doing anything more for anyone. They'd just stick to whatever the fine print says they have to.