gatorskin76

8 minutes ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

WOW - Florida has Royally (pun) screwed all of this up. It's been publicly stated that economics was driving the state's court case...not "right or wrong".

 

You don't have to work at NASA to understand that you either get the vaccine or you don't - that would clearly point to 2 polar opposite views.

 

The amazing science that went into this historic vaccine development and the speed has NOTHING to do with its legitimacy.  It either works or it doesn't.

 

Again easy to understand and polar opposites.

"anti-vaxxer"

You want to make two groups, fine, do you think "anti-vaxxer" is appropriate, I don't, but I am not changing your mind.

5 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I do accept that some may have legitimate concerns about covid vaccines. But the argument that it usually takes years of testing before approval is questionable in this context. Most new vaccines have test data from at best a few hundred thousand subjects. The covid vaccines have data from hundreds of millions of subjects.

 

Admittedly long term effects are still to be  discovered. Every vaccine approved has had this limitation. I am not aware of any established time limit before vaccines can be approved.

Ok, but that isn't my point.  My point is that you don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to have reasonable concerns.  

6 minutes ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

So using some common sense....

 

If anti-vaxxers continue to resist and cause all sorts of costly things based on their position - every pays and is punished somehow.

 

If pro-vaxxers continue to become the only cruise passengers...POOF...the costs go away and the probability of problems pretty much the same.

 

Option #2 becomes easy to understand and makes the most sense for all cruise passengers, even though in denial.

On some level do you understand that you don't have to be an "anti-vaxxer" to have some concern over a new type of vaccine that has been in existence for 15 months at most?  Usually it requires several years of testing before anything gets cleared for mainstream use. Kind of hard to test long term side effects when it's been around a year.  You also can be vaccinated without being a "pro-vaxxers".  I wish the constant effort of creating 2 sides would stop.  There are people in the middle, it's just the people on the fringe that are the loudest.  You are clearly biased by your own interests on this one, so you might need to recuse yourself.

1 hour ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

Great!!

 

One has to wonder if there was a $1000 testing cost charged to each anti-vaxxer...how many would drop their excuses in 10 seconds flat..

Not everyone that hasn’t been vaccinated is an anti-vaxxer.  Stay classy.

59 minutes ago, Cobra1365 said:

Except, that’s not true.  There are many cases of reinfection.  Some cases are worse the second time around.  You’re also more likely to transmit it.

 

Now, since you’ve had it, if you were to GET the vaccine, indications are you have a greater immunity than just those vaccinated.

Source?

I’m booked on that sailing as well.  It’s over Thanksgiving, so I would guess they are just currently at or above the capacity they want to sail at.

2 hours ago, bowler15547 said:

This has been used in Europe for years for their citizens. The US is unsurprisingly behind the times. 

There is no "us" in US I see.

22 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

So ships like Empress and Majesty with fewer suites should sell their regular cabins at a premium...not happening unless it is a very unique itinerary like Cuba. No one in their right mind is going to book an inside on Empress at a premium over an inside on Oasis to go to the Caribbean.

I'll try to swing back by when I have more time, but I am not sure how you can use a straight line comparison between the Empress/Majesty and the Oasis of the Seas.  A lot of additional variables involved there that would skew your results and you mentioned a few.  

3 minutes ago, akcruz said:

 

And this is why they don't care if a suite customer, or any other for that matter, comes back over and over.  The newbies are the ones who will spend onboard buying those ship excursions, photos, souvenirs, drinks, and on and on.  Yes some of those suites get it all included but they are the minority.

 

When they have the choice of a newbie with large onboard spending vs a "loyal" that stays in a less expensive cabin or one with many discounts that drinks in the lounge for those few hours and hoards unopened items for the rest of the day who do you think they will cater to?

 

We are Diamond and have been to the lounge a few times but it's not for us.  Would prefer to be out and about and drink what we like.  However, do appreciate the discounts we can get and do use some, but definitely see changes inn the horizon.

The Disney model....

37 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

The suite dwellers don't help keep any fares down. The cruise lines will charge as much as they can for every category of cabin. Do you really think the bosses sit around and figure since all the suites are booked we will give everyone else a break? You said yourself, the cruise lines want to improve their bottom line.

It's all part of the equation, so certainly it has some impact.  They will charge as much as they can for each cabin, but they are also going to look at the entire revenue they need to generate shipwide to pay the bills and meet profit expectations.  If you had a ship full of regular cabins the prices would likely be higher for those cabins or they would need to cut somewhere else.

I can totally empathize with you.  By booking far in advance I have been able to get decent prices, but if you are willing to have your kids miss 4 to 5 days of school then you can save a lot more. 

2 hours ago, ilovetotravel1977 said:

I wish there was an easier way on the website to identify the cruises that have KSF.

If you click on the kids sale free link in the deals section you can then filter it on departure date and port of departure.  It's pretty easy doing it that way.

33 minutes ago, katiel53 said:

I guess I don't understand how it seems that so many people miss the statement on the page for the alcohol package "Price shown reflects your discount."

 

That, to me means the discount is already taken off the price so there won't be any more of a discount.  Do others not understand it the same way?  This question and comment comes up frequently.  I have to admit that the first time I saw the advertisement, I thought the same as others, but as soon as I read a bit more on the page,  it became clear that if I purchased the package, this is what the price will be.

 

It's the same way, rate, when it is advertised 25% off per person.  That price includes the discount.  To me, I've learned the price shown is what it is going to be per person.  If I like the price, I buy it.  If not, I don't.  Royal Caribbean uses a lot of "creative advertising" resulting in a price rarely going lower than what it's been for a while, unless there is some real sale, like Black Friday as an example.

I don't have that offer on my cruise planner, so I can't see exactly what you are referring to, I assume it's after you select the item because the screen shot above would be easy for anyone to misunderstand.  Showing a price that already reflects a discount for a BOGO offer is misleading.  Showing a price that is 20% off where the price reflects the discount is less misleading.  IMO