Jump to content

Finbar127

Members
  • Posts

    925
  • Joined

Posts posted by Finbar127

  1. Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

     

     

    Sent from my iPad using Forums

     

    Sounds like someone getting defensive when asked to prove their point. FYI this is an internet message forum. If you don't want someone commenting on your "business" you shouldn't post it here.:cool:

  2. Of course it doesn't, I never meant to imply that. But as a father of a teenage daughter I have no sympathy for teenage punks/rapists.

     

    As the father of a teenage daughter I would have agreed with your statement if someone had punched the kid in the mouth. Considering the perp's actions your statement sounded inappropriate IMHO.

  3. Excerpt from Cruise Contract:

     

    "f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify

    Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs

    or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising

    from or related to Passenger’s conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of

    this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended

    to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or

    (iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly

    or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the

    part of the Passenger"

     

    My interpretation is it the parents responsibility to insure their minor adheres to the curfew.

     

    That clause does not indemnify RCCL While I'm not convinced that RCCL has any responsibility here I do agree that it is a matter that should be explored in court.

  4. Didn't it say they weren't monitoring cameras? That's proof enough

     

    The only ones that know they weren't monitored would be the ship

     

     

    Sent from my iPad using Forums

     

    Without reading the briefs from each side we have no way of knowing what each side is claiming or what the actual facts are. All we know is that a judge found sufficient cause to allow the case to proceed.

     

    I find it funny that cruise lines (not just RCCL) will promise people the moon to get them on their ships then go out of their way to deny responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

     

    In any case if I was on the jury the first thing I would want to know would be why the child was out at that hour.

  5. I am still debating on whether to keep our package or to cancel:confused:. We just made Diamond status:), so that is free drinks from 5-8:30 & we will be bringing 2 bottles of wine on board. Another thing is, 3 of the days we probably won't get our moneys worth, (the first day and 2 port days that we'll be off the ship until 6:30pm). Has anyone else had the same debate, what was your decision, and did you regret that decision on your cruise?

    My wife and I are diamonds and bought the deluxe package during the 30% off sale. The 3 free drinks are a nice perk but IMHO it has limited value for us since it is restricted to 5-8:30 PM. During that time we are either getting ready for or eating dinner. Most of our alcohol consumption will be during the day by the pool and in the lounges after dinner.

     

    Your question about the port days is an important one. For our itinerary there is only one day where we will be off the ship for a significant amount of time, excluding Coco Cay. If we were on a port intensive cruise we most likely would not have bought it.

     

    Thanks to the increase in drink prices our break even point is at 4-5 drinks a day. Considering it includes coffee, juice, soda, etc, and our itinerary it was an easy decision. The only way to decide if it is worth it for your situation is to honestly estimate how much you will use the package during the cruise and do the math.

     

     

     

     

     

    Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

  6. For future, I suggest looking into whether you can get 2 regular balcony rooms that are connected. We do that so that we have 2 bathrooms, extra space and additional privacy. Most of the time it's actually cheaper or just slightly more to go that route than putting 4 of us in 1 balcony.

     

    Agreed. I think connecting cabins are the way to go. More space, privacy when you need it, and the extra bathroom is worth its weight in gold.

     

     

     

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  7. I'm not sure if it is a rule on RCCL but some states do not permit children to sit at the bar. Sitting at a table is generally ok and definately ok on the ship. Personally I think children sitting at the bar is tacky.

     

    Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk

  8. [quote name='cruzsnooze']I agree a donation is compassion and we make plenty of those. People are mixing up compassion with business. As an example, should everyone who didn't have flood insurance when hurricane Sandy hit get paid from insurance companies as a "compassionate" reimbursement.
    In no way does one issue of insurance negate the tragedy of this situation for the family and friends of these 2 people. It's like asking a life insurance company to pay life insurance without having had the benefit of a policy or premiums.
    What I do find appalling is the personal attacks VS a disagreement of my point of view without the rudeness. That speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]
    The examples you cite do not apply to the OP's situation. Money was given to a company for a service that has not yet been provided. The ship has not sailed yet and there is plenty of time for RCCL to sell the cabins. It is unlikely that the company will lose any money by offering a full refund.
  9. Did you ever watch the show Mad About You? They did this once on vacation - it was hysterical. I have the worst memory - I couldn't do it - I would keep forgetting what I had said the night before.

     

     

    Season 3, Episode 19: Two Tickets to Paradise

    30 March 1995

    Paul and Jamie are headed off to a tropical island resort given to them by Paul's parents, since they changed their minds about it and the trip is non-refundable, so Paul and Jamie have to pose as Burt and Sylvia Buchman. The trip has no TV or telephones and plenty of activities; Problem is the activities and the people who were matched to them are designed for Paul's parents. Jamie convinces Paul to play a game she used to do with Lisa when they were kids, where they would see how many different people they could be. Soon, they are saying they are saying that they are anything from circus performers, rodeo clowns, and a secret service agent. Everybody seems to like them, but Paul and Jamie now have to keep track of the lies and what they told those people when they meet up with them. In addition, Jamie is in trouble when she is confronted by the resort's activity coordinator from all the lies they've told. They suspect that they are not Burt and Sylvia Buchman and this will be turned over to the resort's security. Jamie then tells her that Paul is insane. Now the Activities coordinator is alerting all the guests and staff and everyone is avoiding Paul and Paul doesn't realize what's going on until Jamie tells him what's happening. Now everyone at the resort is convinced that Paul is insane.

     

    Kathy

    You beat me to the punch. That was a great episode and the first thing I thought if when I read the OP's post. That was our favorite episode. We always talk about doing that on vacation but have never done it.

  10.  

    My younger son commented that the pizza tasted different. Like they changed either the crust or the cheese or something.

     

    We were on the same cruise. Have to agree about the pizza. It has always been sub par but this time was worse than usual. They must have changed something. That said I thought the MDR and Windjammer were excellent this trip.

  11. Everything I could find prior to the ban for cigarettes said cigar smoking was allowed in the cigar bar (if there was one) or a designated cigar smoking location. They never said it was "allowed" on balconies, so it's a semantics issue.

    Semantic and moot. Why keep it going?

×
×
  • Create New...