bUU

21 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

With that size of group you should choose a fixed dining time to be sure that you get seated close to each other and at the same tables.  That way you can have everything set up in advance

The decision not to do fixed Early or Late has already been made (by others). 😉 I'll be happy if we can get 75% of the group together for one meal in MDR.

20 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

My experience has been that if you show up shortly after early seating starts you will get a table if they have empties. Never turned away or had to wait.

Just to put that in context with regard to the situation that I'm trying to make sure I'm prepared to deal with... We are a group of 28. 🙈

26 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

Trying to answer the why for any RCI IT issue just leads to frustration. Try the browser based planner to book MTD.

Thank you! That works fine for me. 

And I'm abashed that I didn't think to try that myself. I was under the impression that reservations was an app-only feature. 

Just now, smokeybandit said:

For my next cruise, I have no reserve now button for MTD

I did discover that I had to select the CORRECT Main Dining Room (to get to the grey'ed out button, at least). For the other dining rooms, there is no button at all. 

1 minute ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Try uninstalling the app and then reinstalling it.  You may have missed an update when they opened MTD for booking

After a 30+ year career in software, that was my first inclination, as well. 👍 Unfortunately, the button is still grey'ed out. 😞

Thanks though!
 

1 minute ago, ShillyShally said:

if you want to eat together, call Royal and make sure you both have the same dining set-up by linking your reservations!

We both have My Time dining. 

I'll update the original post with that info. Thanks!

I did a search for "Reserve Now" AND "Main Dining" and it came up with 0 results. 😞 Maybe I'm not searching for the right words? I'm in the app and I see the Reserve Now button, but it is grey'ed out and I'm told to call a telephone number, while my friend (also on the same cruise, and both of us have My Time dining) is able to click the button and go on from there. What could account for the difference?

We're booked on a 3-night Bahamas & Perfect Day cruise (not leaving the ship at Nassau, and without much intention of leaving the ship at Coco Cay). We don't drink alcohol, so we're considering the non-alcoholic beverage package, which I believe will cost around $225. Please help me understand some specific things (below) about the package so we can better understand whether it would be worthwhile to us.

I'm pretty sure it won't be worth it if we drag a flat of bottled water aboard, but that's too much of a pita as far as we're concerned, so we're factoring in a strong likelihood that we're going to end up *wanting* bottled water - roughly 16 bottles or so over the course of the three days. So that's the first question I need answered to understand whether the package is worthwhile: On Allure of the Seas, where would we get bottled water aboard ship? Would it be chilled? and How readily is it available at these places (i.e., limited hours, other restrictions that might get in the way of our quickly getting a bottle of water on our beverage package)? Given that we're going to need some of these to be available to us in our cabin overnight, is there a problem getting a few at a time to bring back to the cabin?  For comparison's sake, am I correct that 16 bottles of water aboard ship comes to about $80 (i.e., leaving about $145 to be justified by other beverages)? 

The package descriptions make a point about specialty coffees and teas (but makes clear that Starbucks isn't included). I foresee enjoying a latte with breakfast and a decaf cappuccino in the dining room after dinner. Which breakfast locations would be likely to find lattes available? Does the dining room serve *decaf* espresso drinks? Are there other spots around the ship that provides specialty coffees and teas covered by the package? I figure if this works out, that's about $40 of specialty coffee that would be covered (i.e., leaving about $105 to be justified by other beverages).

Lunch will likely mean a cola or two for me, so that's another $25. I don't have questions about that, though it wouldn't hurt to have confirmed my understanding that there's a bar in the Windjammer where I can get the soda (or, if I brought my cup, I can use the machine). Balance $80. 

So, assuming my assumptions above were correct, whether the package is worthwhile hinges on whether we'll drink at least 8 mocktails (about $80 including gratuity - yes?), which I believe is the only other component of the package. One other question about that: Do folks have a problem ordering non-alcoholic cocktails? Are "mistakes" common (i.e., bringing and charging for an alcoholic beverage not included on the package)? 

One other note: I realize that we can probably achieve the water portion of our need with the water package ($31 plus several extra, so about $50). 

Thank you for the assistance!

 

Smaller cruise lines motivate excessive entitlement in their own way, but as you said, you're subjected to less of it just because there are fewer people around you.

10 hours ago, Hawaiidan said:

 

Actually, there is a partial solution, quit sailing on ships that take on thousands and thousands of passengers. If you confine your sailing to ships under 1000, than you cut your exposure odds by 66% of running into miscreants, entitled or otherwise social pariahas

Entitlement doesn't work that way: Those who get so ridiculously upset about other passengers wearing a bathrobe as coverup at the pool instead of some purpose-crafted pool coverup will invariably also expect that other people should quit sailing on "their" ships, rather than those complainers acknowledging that they should do so. 

[For those who didn't follow the link back to the April 2018 post that Responder responded to... It was an interchange between mek and I, both of us amazed that some people get upset at other passengers wearing a bathrobe as coverup at the pool instead of some purpose-crafted pool coverup.]

That is the problem. If you have 2,650 passenger, all behaving as if entitled to whatever they personally feel they purchased with their cruise fare, rather than just what the explicit, written promises say they are entitled to, then it is not surprising to have conflicts such as this between passengers. The reality is that the industry has been the hospitality (from the Latin hospes, which literally means hosting of guests) industry since the 14th Century, and that has shaped the expected behaviors of both sides of the transaction over and above the Uniform Commercial Code since that time. As guests become less respectful of the guest obligation, don't be surprised when hosts do so as well. Just don't complain about being treated as if you're staying in a storage locker and eating at McDonald's, given your preference to eschew the host/guest relationship. 

On 1/28/2019 at 12:47 PM, PittsburghNative said:

Many people frown on AirBnB, but I secured an entire condo in downtown Vancouver and walking distance to Stanley Park for $90/night. This price is for May, so the summer will be much more expensive.

AirBnB is only problematic when something goes wrong. 

😉

It only charged us for one.

14 hours ago, Tennessee Titan said:

To each his (or her) own, BUT IMHO, I will not pay $180 to check my email once a day for15 days......

Clearly the cost is going to reflect what a typical user will do with the service, rather than what an outlier will do with the service. 

We kept in touch with our cat sitter, checked in on our pets via security cameras in between cat sitter visits, posted selected photos from the past day on social media to share our joyous occasion (anniversary) and wonderful experiences with family and friends in real time, and made some critical changes to arrangements for our trip home.

On 1/8/2019 at 10:52 AM, Nashna said:

What we have here is a failure to communicate. 

I think practically everyone in the thread has made their beliefs known rather effectively. I think there are some people who don't like the fact that their beliefs are considered insulting or elitist, etc., but that's not really a failure to communicate. 

23 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

These sorts of expressions are the type of thing that always has me rethinking whether HAL is the right line for me... [when akav8er claims] that any who agree with HAL's relaxation of the dress code (together with virtually ever other mass market cruise line) are to be lamented for not showing proper respect; are "lazy" and not interested in putting forth an effort; and ought to opt for a "Bubba Gump" cruise.  Wow.

It's the opposite though: akav8er's claims are without merit. As such, Holland America is perhaps not the right line for akav8er; those claims don't say anything about whether it is the right line for you. 

23 hours ago, ScottC4746 said:

Sadly, society has changed.

There is a lot to be sad about with regard to how society has changed. What people wear to the grocery store isn't one of them. As a matter of fact, those things that have "sadly" changed are so severe and cause such harm to those most vulnerable in our society, that it is arguably offensive to even try to put what people wear to the grocery store in the same category. 

23 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

Bottom line for me is their ship, their rules.

Amen. It is up to Holland America to decide, judge and take action. Our obligation - a guests' obligation that has been inherent in the code of hospitality for as long as any of us have been alive, and unlike dress codes, hasn't changed one bit - is to defer to our host in matters like this, and without a doubt doing nothing to make their other guests feel unwelcome.

On 1/3/2019 at 2:02 AM, akav8er said:

We cruise HAL because it's a more traditional cruise line

Not anymore. It's a mid-grade, mass-market cruise line. That's rather the point. "Traditional" cruising is a niche interest, now, just like expedition cruising, with the difference that expedition cruise is becoming more mainstream while traditional cruising is becoming less mainstream. Regardless, just as those who wanted expedition cruising had to choose boutique cruise lines for that in the past, those who want traditional cruising will now have to do so.

On 1/3/2019 at 2:43 AM, akav8er said:

In your opinion

No, that's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact for which there is overwhelming evidence here on Cruise Critic alone. Formal attire is increasingly viewed as fussy, not a sign of respect. I'm not talking about how I view formal attire; I'm talking about how it is increasingly viewed by society in general. If you don't see that as a statement of fact that there really isn't much I can do to help you understand the situation within which you find yourself.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:28 PM, slidergirl said:

If you are turned off by people dining in the MDR in clothing deemed fine by HAL, you can dine in your room in your finery.  Or, you can turn to Cunard and it's class-defining dining rooms or Crystal.

And that's the crux of the issue, I think: Those with this niche interest in traditional cruising don't want to have to pay the premium necessary to cruise a boutique cruise line that serves their niche interest (and in the process lose the frequent cruise benefits that they relish). They want to go back to a time when most everyone agreed with their personal preferences and they weren't increasingly the odd person out, as is the case today. 

On 1/2/2019 at 2:42 PM, blizzardboy said:

I don't look down on them. I was taught to lead by example. I was also taught that some will refuse to be be led, so don't let it ruin your day.

I don't think you realize it, but you contradicted yourself within the space of two sentences.

And that's really why threads like this get so heated: The people trying to defend their promotion of contexts for formal attire are apparently so desperate to do so that in the process they fail to realize how their advocacy is a baseless, and somewhat petty, insult. 

You're not "leading by example", blizzardboy. If anything, you're actually trailing by example. And there is nothing wrong with that; just as long as you don't consider it "leading". 

But the tail end of your contradiction is also worth highlighting: Some folks who are "trailing by example" will refuse to recognize that that is the reality, and will be unable to see their choice as no better than the other choice that other people make.

On 1/2/2019 at 1:47 PM, MauiWowie57 said:

I think there's a core group of HALsters that like the remaining wisps of elegance.

Very true; there is a rapidly shrinking group of customers like that. The question boils down to when they can expect to have to switch to a non-mass-market (read: more expensive) cruise line that serves their niche interests. It wasn't ten years ago. It may not have even been five years ago. It does seem now, though, that that time has been reached. 

On 1/2/2019 at 1:47 PM, MauiWowie57 said:

As has been noted, people used to dress up for airplane flights.

Some of us once danced The Hustle; that doesn't mean that that dance is some kind of paragon.

People used to do a lot of thing that society now generally realizes were superfluous or otherwise a relic to be left behind. 

1 hour ago, MauiWowie57 said:

I'm fine with folks wanting to stay informal on vacation; but they ought to be relegated to the informal dining venues and not the MDR, Pinnacle, etc.

That would deprive passengers who disagree with you the MDR food and service. Holland America's rules clearly indicate that they recognize that those folks contribute more heavily to their cruise line's success than those who agree with you.

This is quite significantly a fight between different perspectives. Understand that for decades your "side" won. Things have finally and thoroughly changed. Holland America understands that. 

21 hours ago, akav8er said:

I was lamenting the loss of effort.  

I don't think there's really been a "loss of effort". If anything, the amount of effort has increased markedly over the last decade or so. However, everyone isn't necessarily directing their efforts in the manner you personally would dictate. 

21 hours ago, akav8er said:

It's a show of respect to dress for the occasion. 😉

That's an outmoded point-of-view. Formal attire is increasingly viewed as fussy, not a sign of respect.

Respect, by contrast, is shown by acknowledging each individual's inherent dignity regardless of what they wear. 

21 hours ago, akav8er said:

To borrow phrase, "if you want a -less- formal environment, then there are other cruise lines to choose from."   😉

Holland America is not a formal cruise line. 

On 12/31/2018 at 8:43 PM, akav8er said:

I've never quite understood ... 

I've found that that generally is due to a presumption that one's own situation is everyone else's situation, a presumption that one's own priorities are everyone else's, or some similar type of inward focus. To truly understand what is being discussed in the thread, it is necessary to take what other say as true for them, even if it doesn't mesh with your own situation. There are likely things that work the other way: Perhaps you're not a techie. If not, and you struggle to do things for which techies have no trouble, they could "never quite understand" what your issue is if they adopted an exclusively inward focus. 

8 hours ago, AncientWanderer said:

Particularly on long ocean crossings, things can get boring, and there are a limited number of things one can do on a ship, so the special nights just break up the monotony.  Same as "themed dinners" can do, or anything else a cruise director can cook up. Maybe with the big-screen TVs and elaborate shows, folks don't need to amuse themselves as much as in days past. 

Perhaps. "Breaking up the monotony" was clearly the impetus underlying rotating dining room arrangements, and the exponential growth of alternative dining venues aboard ship, within the American cruise market. That really underscores the point, though, doesn't it? The point is to satisfy customer needs - providing variety in the diversion. The question is "Which variety?" and invariably, in the long-run, the answer has to go back to the point of the variety: satisfying customer needs, and that of course means as the customer changes the way diversion will be delivered must change.

Formal nights are sometimes touted as harkening back to some bygone era, romanticized by "Titanic", but they really never were. The end of ocean liners as transportation irrevocably changed the industry, and what came later was always a simulation, and to a great extent a fabricated fiction crafted based on an understanding of what customers wanted. You said that formal nights serve the same function as themed dinners. I would go further than that: They were the (only) themed dinners offered on our first cruises. Then other themed dinners were offered, a reflection of new understandings about what fabricated fictions customers wanted at that particular time. And just like other types of themed dinners have fallen out of favor with passengers and are no longer offered, we'll likely see the same thing with formal night, because there's nothing about them that is fundamentally different from other themed dinners.

The only thing unique about formal dinners is how vitriolically passionate some squeaky wheels are about their passing, and consequently how disproportionately (more) slowly the cruise lines have to go reducing and/or eliminating them, while still being able to control the message.

And of course this isn't unique to cruising or even cruise dining. What can be more traditional than Christmas? Yet, the last week should have reminded any of us with a long memory just how much the way we celebrate Christmas has radically changed decade after decade. 

11 hours ago, Despegue said:

RuthC, that is why by far most people are cruising. No one cruises to experience a Class-seperated environment I hope, no one cruises to get stressed, I hope nobody cruises to be able to show-off. 

Good point. Of course there are still some traditionalists, but what seems very obvious now is that they're far outnumbered by those who look at cruising just another vacation option - as a way to take land-based vacations to sea. The main reason why we still see these elements of traditionalism aboard today's cruise ships is that it the cruise lines recognize their advantage in terms of controlling the message by making changes gradually over time.

Going back to those threads with Rev. Neal, it was often a difference of perspective between what had "always" been (on his part) and what will eventually, invariably be (on my part). If you would have come into those threads back then and told me - me, not him - how much cruising will change between then and now, I wouldn't have believed you. I don't think anyone back then figured that traditionalism would be swept aside as fast as it has been. I won't even guess when vestiges of the class-separated environment and other vestiges of traditionalism will be gone, because if the last decade and a half has proven anything is that even those of us with the most progressive eye on the future tend to speculate that things will change far slower than they actually will change. The market is a far stronger force than the traditionalists. The cruise lines will change to attract the broader market just as fast as they possibly can do so while maintaining control over the message. 

Neal was an interesting character, for sure.