Bobbiegentry

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Didn't say that.  I don't doubt he got sick from the water, but likely it was a massive dose of calcium scale, which can cause vomiting.  But, running the water until it cleared would have prevented it, and it wasn't something they added to the water.

Good answer to those pseudo-experts who choose to put words in the mouth’s of others. 

On 12/20/2021 at 2:41 PM, CineGraphic said:

 

Thanks for the info. It's either a crappy design or user error.

I keep mine in my pants pocket.

It's not as if I'm at a convention or trade show, I'm on vacation.

 

Guess no more coming from Princess?

1 minute ago, ROXIETHEHORSE said:

Dis I miss a change in the Covid testing rules for Greece? I believe previously the Princess website indicated if your cruise was going to be visiting Greece, you needed a negative test to board the ship.

 

I was just reviewing the Covid info on the Princess website. The only thing listed for Greece now is if your cruise is departing from Greece you need a negative test. Nothing about visiting Greece or getting off the ship in Greece.

 

Am I reading this correctly?

Following……

21 hours ago, awhcruiser said:

Why is this a "horrific" problem?  Have the TA take care of it.

Geez….first thought that someone had died!

The tap water in your cabin is exactly the same water that is served in the MDR and everywhere else on the ship 

So, yes. It’s safe to drink. 

Unlike Carnival, no wanna-be thugs running up and down the hall at all hours of the day and night.

And again, like Carnival, absolutely no 3 AM brawls involving a dozen and more people.

Call your TA. Let them sort it out. In the past I’ve canceled a cruise on a ship that was alleged to have been completely full.
My TA rebooked, got the new package and we kept the same cabin. 

1 minute ago, sloopsailor said:

 

Not Carnival, but perhaps HAL - unless you cruise with them as well. 

Not to worry.  I care about you!!!

Never mind what all the other meanies say!

I offered the perfect solution for you in an earlier post. Assuming you missed it, it’s reposted below:

How about this - one cabin class and size across the entire ship with each cabin priced exactly the same. 
 

Equal access for everyone to all shipboard restaurants, entertainment and all other amenities. 

This provides a completely democratic cruise experience. 
 

Problem solved! Simple, huh? 

1 hour ago, ldtr said:

How about different cabins with different cabin sizes, with different in cabin benefits, but most areas on the ship open to everyone on the ship or can be purchased ala carte by anyone in any cabin.  So that what one picks drives their benefits, but does not impact anyone else on the ship.

 

Oh wait thats what we have now.

 

 

Nope. Not nearly democratic enough for me. You sure you’re not an elitist?

NOTHING LESS than total and complete equality for each and every passenger aboard. 

9 hours ago, JimmyVWine said:

Not that difficult of a concept.  Take the Sanctuary as an example.  There will be a "Signature" area within the Sanctuary.  We don't yet know how that will work.  But let's assume that among typical Sanctuary bookers, there is a consensus that certain lounger locations are preferred, and that there are 50 such loungers.  People scramble on departure day, falling all over themselves to get one of these 50.  And if they can't get one of these, there are 30 more that are solid second choice.  Not as good, but they'll do.  The remaining loungers are better than nothing, but not all that special.  Now suppose that the 3% (60 cabins, for a total of roughly 120 people) are allocated all of the 80 best loungers described above as part of their special section.  BOOM!  Your ribeye inventory is now affected.  Your usual Sanctuary booker who locks in a space during B2B cruises, and those who scramble up to the Sun Deck on departure day all of a sudden become #121+ in line as there are 120 "virtual" people ahead of them each and every time.  Their days of getting the plum loungers is over.  The very simple and predictable result of increasing demand without increasing supply, and then allocating the existing supply in an inequitable manner.  (Inequitable in terms of "effort to obtain" and past procedure, as opposed to inequitable based on $$$.)  At some point, giving someone a large balcony, and giving them teak furniture, and then on top of that giving them a plum location in the Sanctuary is going to have an impact downstream.  It has to.    

Lots of “supposing” going on in all of your posts on the subject, amigo.

11 hours ago, SantaFeFan said:

 

Then why not cruise on luxury cruise lines instead of wanting the mainstream lines to carve out areas exclusively for you? It's fine for you because you can afford it. It's absolutely not fine for those of us who have to save for a cruise and will now be banned from more areas of a ship to satisfy you. 

How about this - one cabin class and size across the entire ship with each cabin priced exactly the same. 
 

Equal access for everyone to all shipboard restaurants, entertainment and all other amenities. 

This provides a completely democratic cruise experience. 
 

Problem solved! Simple, huh? 

On 9/12/2022 at 10:38 PM, Tierun said:

Just the daily planner on my Divina sailing last month as far as I can remember.

When you say daily planner, is this a printed document or electronic presentation you are referring to?

CFAR insurance returns at best, 75% of one’s money. 
Some policies only 50%

Were I you, I’d reconsider my stance on getting a single booster. Typically done at no cost to those getting the vaccination.

For a decision based totally on cost (many decisions, I realize, aren’t), it’s really a no brainer.

Not meant to be preachy. Just my $.02 worth. 
 

1 hour ago, c-boy said:

 🤔    I tried doin' that and I got finger cramps

You romantic, you. 

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

So, I have no problem with whatever people want to wear - however,  for some reason,  you do not want to allow me to wear what I want. 

If I want to wear a tuxedo, what harm does it do ?

Now there you’ve gone and done a complete about face. Is this the same individual who for ages has looked down his nose at anyone

who fails to dress “properly” or up to his standards? Of course it is. 

Since you asked, speaking for myself and I’m reasonably certain a whole bunch of others here, I couldn’t care less if you decide to dress like the Christmas turkey in the MDR at dinner or anywhere else for that matter. 

That said, if your revised point of view now includes making peace with the fact that there are others who don’t subscribe to your dress demands on others, it’s a new day!

Enjoy your tux. I believe everyone here, including me, support you wearing  it. Be happy with your choice of dress. I am. Is it too much to ask that your support the dress choices of others?
 

12 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

Like I said, if that's what you want - forget about here and just go to Canada government website pages.

And you are so right! Which is exactly what I did 👇. I guess what I'm really wondering is if anyone has a different interpretation than I have on the official word on the subject from the Canada government website pages.

Lord knows I'm anything but an expert on deciphering "governmentese". Any government!! 

Yes, however further down in the same section is the following:

Choose the scenario below that best fits your cruise plans:

Starting an international cruise in Canada or arriving by cruise from another countryCruises that are staying in Canadian waters or not returning to Canada

All travellers are required to take a pre-embarkation COVID-19 test before embarking on a cruise in Canada, even if the cruise ship is not leaving Canadian waters

Travellers who are staying within Canada throughout their entire journey or who are leaving Canada and not returning don’t have to complete ArriveCAN.

https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/cruise

2 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

If some information is backed up by official Canadian government website documentation, then it really isn't a point of view!  It's fact.

I phrased it as I did in an effort to keep from offending. I could have said:

What I'm keenly interested in are points of view that can be substantiated via official Canadian government documentation and which avoid conjecture, opinion, impression, presumption, assumption, speculation, presupposition, feeling, sentiment and plain old guesses which are pulled from one's nether regions. Just the facts as presented by the Canadian government, please. 

But all of that is just too wordy. 

1 hour ago, Jersey42 said:

I found this thread because I hoped it would offer some clarity for an upcoming cruise.  In our situation we will be flying from the USA to Canada (ArriveCAN submission is required). After spending two nights in a Canadian hotel at the port, we board a cruise with a final destination of Florida.  The cruise stops in several Canadian ports, but once it departs Canadian waters, it never reenters Canada.  My take is no second ArriveCAN is required.  Several good posts from @broberts support this and @Bobbiegentry shows official information from travel.gc.ca to support this as well. 

 

Does anyone disagree with this and why?  If you do, how would I even fill out the second ArriveCAN with accurate information?

1. How are you entering Canada?  I'm am already in Canada and I already filled out an ArriveCAN to enter.  If I select Air or Land, the next questions make no sense.  So Marine is the only option left. Then . . .
2. Country of original departure: Is this the USA or Canada?
3. Port of entry. Note: This is the first port of arrival in Canada: Is this my embarkation port or my second port in Canada?  (My first port in Canada is not even on the dropdown list, so that's not an option)
4. Date and Time of Arrival: To where?  Embarkation port, 2nd port, final destination in Florida?  If I try to make the embarkation and arrival date/time the same, will it even let me do that?

 

I have been told by several well meaning people that there is no harm in filling out a second AriveCAN, just in case I am wrong.  But I can't figure out how to do this without providing bogus, or at the least, misleading information to the Canadian government. 

 

Extremely thorough summary!! Nicely done. 

Like you, I’m also interested in any other points of view that can be substantiated via official Canadian government documentation.  

4 hours ago, nini said:

The following is from the https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/cruise

This is the very first I have heard about this. I have not seen any mention on CC. Thought I would post. I did not find this on:

https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services-agency/services/arrivecan.html

 

Comments?

 

 

Entering Canada by land or air before embarking on a cruise

You must complete your ArriveCAN submission before entering Canada, no more than 72 hours of boarding your flight or before entering Canada by land.

• If you’re flying in to join a cruise immediately, enter the address of your terminal.
• If you’re not joining the cruise immediately, enter the address of your hotel.

You must also submit a second ArriveCAN submission no more than 72 hours before boarding the cruise. This applies even if your second ArriveCAN submission is within 72 hours of the first submission.

Upon your entry to Canada by air or at a land border crossing, the border services officer may notify you that you’ve been randomly selected for a mandatory arrival test.

Mandatory random testing is part of the Government of Canada surveillance program to track the importation of COVID-19 virus into Canada, and identify new variants of concern.

Not sure it’s correct to state definitely that completing ArriveCan for a second time is always correct. 
Reading down further in the section of instructions you provided will reveal the following:

Choose the scenario below that best fits your cruise plans:

Starting an international cruise in Canada or arriving by cruise from another countryCruises that are staying in Canadian waters or not returning to Canada

All travellers are required to take a pre-embarkation COVID-19 test before embarking on a cruise in Canada, even if the cruise ship is not leaving Canadian waters

Travellers who are staying within Canada throughout their entire journey or who are leaving Canada and not returning don’t have to complete ArriveCAN.

https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/cruise

Lyft/Uber

1 hour ago, PacnGoNow said:

It will be, except out in the open ocean. That, they have to work on for Starlink satellites. 
Maybe by next year.

 

I had hoped that PCL would have led the way on this rather than being skunked by RCCL. 

We’ll done mods!

Be comfortable. 

38 minutes ago, Homosassa said:

Us three.

 

The only time we left was in 2001 and we were  at our then second home in Marathon in the Keys.

 

Hurricane Michelle (November storm) had intensified to a Cat 4 and was predicted to go to a Cat 5 and go up the Keys. We left and went up to Port St Lucie to ride it out.

 

Turn out to be a bad choice as Michelle missed the Keys, went into the Atlantic, up the Florida east coast to the Bahamas. We enjoyed Michelle in our Port St Lucie hotel room. 

Yawn……….

6 minutes ago, Cruise Raider said:

I respect your opinion but love the new direction Princess has taken, especially with the DMW feature.  In my view, it is so much improved.  I used to get skunked out of going to dinner in the MDR unless we wanted to eat very early or very late.  Now, I’m always able to eat at the time I choose.  And, we’ve had spectacular service and the food has been anywhere from very good to a excellent.  
I feel as though there have been so many positive aspects of cruising on Princess since their return to service.  I can’t be the only one .. so, I’m sure that with as many of those that want the old and familiar way of cruising back, there are probably just as many, if not more, that like the newer way of doing business.  In addition to the newbie cruisers that don’t have anything to compare it to, I don’t see things going back to the way it was.  

We’ll said. I completely agree.