Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Pratique

  1. Absolutely. But they are building new ships every day so it's never too late to start thinking about it!
  2. I don't envision replacing the part. The part is not necessarily the problem. The issue is the overall design of the electrical system. I don't know enough to have any specific ideas, but I'm pretty certain there are design changes that can be made relatively inexpensively that would reduce if not eliminate this particular hazard of losing engine power under certain conditions. Any further mitigation is potentially helpful even if not 100% - since we are rolling the dice it makes sense to improve the odds, no? As I mentioned before, I have expertise in the design of safety systems, so I'm not entirely clueless. I'm sure some smart grad students could spend a semester researching this and proposing some options. But as you noted, individual governments can't force foreign flagged ships to make any changes, so it would take a collaborative effort and I know that is asking a lot. Maybe too much. In the meantime, let's fix the bridges too. Every little bit helps but nothing is perfect or easy. I think it's fair to be upset that the Dali collided with the bridge, and it is worth having a discussion about how to prevent it from happening again. Everything should be on the table for the solution(s) to even be considered.
  3. Who said it had to be 100% reliable? It's a false argument to say it must be 100% or not worth doing at all. But as I said, not my problem to solve.
  4. What doesn't happen all the time is lives lost, bridges destroyed, and billions in economic impact over the course of years by the failure of an $8 part. So it seems like the attitude is to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again because the mitigation is too expensive for the shipping industry (which I still don't believe needs to be expensive at all, but what do I know). Doesn't have to be that way but whatever, it's not my problem to solve.
  5. That is not how the law reads. "This act is intended to specifically prohibit drip pricing, which involves advertising a price that is less than the actual price that a consumer will have to pay for a good or service." This applies to any good or service. Also, buying a cruise is also "optional" so that logic does not work. The exercise is necessary IMHO to protect consumers from surprise charges that are not clearly disclosed in the advertisement. Seems like a consumer-friendly public policy just as much as prohibiting false ads that claim products or services that do not exist or are not delivered.
  6. The airlines and rental car companies have had to advertise the all-in price for awhile now and they don't always show the tax breakdown during the search either. Frankly the taxes doesn't make any difference in my purchasing decisions since all I care about is the final cost to me.
  7. I think the relevant change to the law is: (29) (A) Advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than either of the following: (i) Taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction. (ii) Postage or carriage charges that will be reasonably and actually incurred to ship the physical good to the consumer. So it should cover cruise planner purchases as well. The definition of "mandatory" is unclear. Gratuities are voluntary but when booking online there is no option to decline at the time of purchase, so that is getting into a grey area because the law does not specify whether the advertised price must include all fees/charges at the time of purchase or the final price (such as when a price includes a refundable deposit that can be forfeited).
  8. I think we are getting off topic. The OP says RC encouraged guests to travel to the port knowing that the ship was not in condition to sail, and that their insurance didn't cover that situation.
  9. That's not the point. The point is insurance isn't a cure all. Yes calling can help but that's not an insurance issue. As far as RC, they refunded the cruise and gave us a very limited window (about four weeks) to rebook with FCC, which we were not able to take advantage of. The OP is just telling us what we already know, which is RC is not very good on the customer service end of things.
  10. Yeah, it's not a cure all. Last year Royal canceled our cruise the day before sailing, literally as we were heading out the door to the airport I got an email on my phone. I was able to cancel the airline tickets (for travel credit) but it was too late to cancel the hotel. Interruption insurance would not have covered it since we never began the trip other than loading luggage into the car.
  11. My money is on the WAGO block. Hazard analysis: WAGO fails --> engine shutdown --> ship adrift.
  12. No conclusions should be drawn, but NTSB is looking at an $8 WAGO terminal block as the possible cause of the power outage on Dali. Wouldn't that be something. I've seen these things crack and fail from vibration or improper installation before. It's always the weakest link... https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MM031.aspx
  13. I have not inspected the posted signage on CocoCay but I have seen a note in the Cruise Compass that swim diapers are required in the pools and Spashaway Bay on CocoCay.
  14. It seems that all of the sailings through August 9 are Nassau - Coco Cay. On and after August 18 the order is reversed Coco Cay - Nassau. The website seems to be incorrect on the initial landing page for the search but if you continue to click through to one of the October dates it shows the Coco Cay - Nassau sequence. So the itinerary on the confirmation appears to be correct. Edit to add the August 9 sailing is 9 nights and the itinerary changes for the following cruises.
  15. I would just do the math at $14 per drink and see whether the package cost makes sense. If you have the budget for the package then it makes life easy - just order what you want, when you want, where you want and not have to think about it. It's a big ship and if you're not near the suite lounge bar then that limits your options for free drinks.
  16. By the time you arrive one of the lots will have been vacated by the guests getting off of the ship. It seems that they dedicate different lots for different sailings. For Symphony they are using the lot across the street from the terminal and the adjacent alley between two of the old warehouses. For other ships such as Liberty they seem to be using the lot beyond the garage structure and employee parking. I think there will be enough parking but I would suggest showing up before 1:00 pm just to make sure. At $210 a week it's not a good deal considering that I always find my car covered with bird droppings so weigh that against Uber. EDIT FWIW Royal Caribbean says "No reservations are necessary and parking is guaranteed."
  17. Well, they're not Shakespeare. It's still unambiguous though. Once my father saw a photographer on board wearing a vest with the words "Ship's Photographer" printed on it. He told the photographer that the ship is an inanimate object and therefore could not possess the photographer. The poor photog had no idea what was happening and I felt bad for him, even though I knew my dad was just kidding around.
  18. And that is also in writing. "all packages are for single guest use and cannot be shared by multiple people." https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/beverage-drink-package-products
  19. While you raise an interesting ethical question, I think that it is much more common for people to share food than drink. I usually finish eating whatever my wife doesn't eat rather than ordering more food for myself and letting hers go to waste. We also tend to swap appetizers halfway through so we each get a sample of the other's. I personally have no issues with the lobster sharing. If Royal doesn't like it then they can start charging for all lobster to stop the practice rather than scolding the guests at the table.
  20. Yes they did on Symphony last month but it was on a different day. The seafood selection in WJ overall was more impressive than usual.
  21. Royal will not do that. Especially if the ship has a large number of children on board. On a recent cruise we asked to be seated away from some children who were already in the restaurant (Giovanni’s) and we were. Until a large party arrived and had to be seated near us because it was the only large table available. The children were misbehaving before they were even seated, but the maitre d seated them anyway. And then he immediately apologized to us and moved us away from them. But whatever, I guess that’s the reality on a cruise ship.
  22. My guess is that since Royal got stingy with the lobsters the waitstaff have been told to make sure no one is getting more free lobster than permitted, and this waiter misinterpreted that directive. Anyway, once it leaves the kitchen it's not going back so too late to do anything about it. Sounds like a training issue.
  23. I think we can all agree that Royal Caribbean is catering to families. This means that they want families to feel welcome throughout the ship. That runs into conflict with the large number of venues that serve alcohol. If the parents want to enjoy an adult beverage then I think that they should be able to do so with their children present (except in the casino and Solarium). The issue is the impact the children have on other guests when the children (or parents) do not behave appropriately for the venue. A bar is not a playground. Certainly there are situations where adults (perhaps inebriated) do not behave well, and those adults should be asked to leave. But it becomes more difficult to ask children to be removed if they are just acting like children. Last month I was sitting in the R Bar and several children were running around the lounge area being disruptive. The parents were engrossed in their conversation and ignoring the kids. So long as that is permitted, then I guess the bars are not always going to be great places to sit and enjoy a drink. All I would ask of others is to be considerate. Then I see no harm.
  • Create New...