Joebucks

There are also uncertainties in the economy as a whole. For them to even reference, could instill fear in their model. Plus, reintroducing a dividend, and potentially having to pull it back again, would likely cause way more damage to the stock vs their current "position of improved strength."

I don't care if Michael Jackson himself came back to life and sang on stage there. I'm not sailing Virgin to save on Wifi costs.

Sure there may be challenges. However, I think we are reading too much into this. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. It doesn't need to be an exact 1:1. It doesn't need to be all brands. No, "undesirable" Carnival cruisers aren't going to overrun Princess. Most lines have your general theme of base line, next level, next level, top, etc. Just give something.

What are the difficult barriers to overcome?

Well, the point was to sail Virgin, so I don't have to pay for wifi. The absolute cheapest Virgin cruise this year is $1368 for an inside cabin to do a 4 day cruise to Key West and Bimini. These conversations always turn into "well the wifi and grats are included." Then when it's still more expensive, I have to learn about the value and the food. I still don't think it's that much of a fringe opinion that my social media internet was $6-$7 not that long ago, and now it's excessively priced.

As with any choice in life, there are pros and cons. Many people love to draw their line in the sand, and that is that. With all things considered, I think it is a smart move for Carnival to do this. No, not just because I base the decision off of my entitlement of being at the center of the universe. I think it is a great way for them to retain and upsell customers, something companies always want to do. Eventually, sailing the same brand dozens of times, can get old to many people. Instead of letting them venture off to the competition, entice them to stay in house on a more expensive brand.

Just because this decade likes to "feel" like paying more for free stuff is a better deal, I'd rather not limit my itinerary, ship, and duration choices, in honor of paying more to escape a "fee."

Eh, I'm not usually one to complain about fees or entitlements. However, the price I pay to get internet on a cruise ship in 2024 is borderline excessive. To spend hundreds a week or go without internet seems a bit off.

Great, a much higher price with negligible speed improvement. Just what I wanted.

I've always said that people would rather pay more in a "single price," than god forbid having a clear, mandatory, or even optional "fee." This story only reinforces that point. I can't remember too many announcements that have seen so much universal praise, especially on something with such little substance. Just "feels" that everything is even more "single price." There's always a trade-off, no matter how many unicorns you've seen. I'm guessing some people will be scared off by the "higher price" when comparing. Many people lack the capacity to look at the bottom line or big picture. It's all about those initial feels. In lighter news, I'm hoping this will deter the price-sensitive cruisers that bring down the experience for everyone, before it encourages them to book more.

Great, just what we need. Another misconception to discuss all over the internet, in perpetuity. "I messaged my PVP to tell them I'm not cruising. Why haven't I received a $100 balcony offer?! Is this discrimination?!"

A dinner or two together as somewhat "mandatory" would be reasonable. To expect it every day, is unreasonable.

I agree that Royal has better benefits and the amount of "included" drinks in that scenario would be sufficient for me, without a drink package. With that said, passing off a suite on Royal Caribbean as a sort of savings is where you lose me.

We've done it a few times, and it was overall enjoyable. Most of the time, we don't travel in a group. When we do, there's a few things I stand by: - Do not stay in the same room, when possible. I absolutely loathe cramming a bunch of people in one room. For any of its perceived benefits, it's overall less enjoyable. - Not having to commit to the same plans. We'll do a few things together. However, this is what we're doing. You can come if you want. You can do something else if you want. Plan the important stuff in advance and communicate early.

How many vacationers boast about all of the amazing investments they've made on rooms, food, and beverage?

Breaking news: vacation gift shops are not cheaper than internet retail

What type of answer are you looking for here? No two scenarios are going to be the same. People panic in a true emergency, some panic for no reason.

So basically, you think you're going to get a discount on cruises by booking your own?

As much as I like Blanton's, there's an increased interest over it because it is hard to find. People wouldn't care as much if you could get it anywhere. At the same time, I feel blanton's old fashioneds are a sin. It should be enjoyed straight.

As with nearly everything on the internet, it's overblown. Try telling a crew member how sad you are because you had your day planned, and no you need to replan it. They will get very sad as they work their 60 hour week for pennies on the dollar.

I still don't understand. They still charge you for drinks and it goes to your S&S, doesn't it? Regardless, Carnival doesn't have to extend it to anything. I'm sure the real answer contains more complexities. They would likely need to introduce dynamic pricing because included drinks at private islands undoubtably would be a higher expense for Cheers. Only to get complaints by more people who now "know the reason" why their Cheers was so expensive, and wanting a refund if a port is missed. It sounds like more hassle than it's worth as a whole.

Got it on my everyday cash card. Can't let it go to waste!

Just sailed out of Galveston on Royal recently. Package worked on day 1. They said they could only serve certain liquors that had been taxed out of Texas, or something to that effect. It was not the full menu. The argument against Carnival citing laws is a silly one. It absolutely is a law that disrupts their normal offering. Citing a law does not have to mean what you want it to be.

Entitled cruisers, who have never had a hardship in their life, losing their minds over trivial matters? Since when?

While your statement is right in theory, there's a reason I said it the way I did. CFAR insurance is really the only thing I'm foregoing. In I don't even know how many trips I've ever taken, never had to use it. It is not something that would bankrupt me. So why would I spend more throughout a lifetime, to insure one of them? My card covers up to $10k per person and $20k per trip of cancellation for sickness, severe weather, and other covered events. I will not pay extra "in case I can't go." CFAR doesn't even cover the entire trip either. It covers about 50-75% of expenses that wouldn't be refunded otherwise. So I'd get back port expenses, taxes, and other fees without insurance (and who knows, maybe even something a future credit or something else if I pursue it). With something I have never had to claim, why would I pay hundreds of dollars to get back 40-60% of my cruise? Those numbers do not add up. Insurance is a lifelong waste to 95%+ of people. There's a reason it is one of the few remaining things we buy that someone is getting recurring commission on. It is extremely profitable. I maintain the minimal amounts to protect myself from catastrophic loss. That is what insurance is supposed to be. Not to solve your every inconvenience. I can't even count how many times I have facepalmed about the amount of people who swear by travel insurance because after years of policies, they saved $500 or so on one event. Yes. Plus, I have money saved in an HSA should I even incur a medical expense. I've grown tired over the years of paying for fear insurance that got me little in return. Instead, I self-insure and pay myself in an account that is always mine. It is never denied because of how or where I get sick, or how I claimed it.