Brenna's Mom1

Depending on the destination and what is available within driving distance of an AI, I would rather do it. The best AI I ever had was in Roatan and a week was just too darn short and the island is small enough that you can do everything from the central local we were at.

That being said, I think there are some great things about cruises...great for relaxing, not so great for really experiencing a different culture.

Either one, though, beats out the "see 10 cities in 10 days" land vacations that once were so popular.

I have no issue giving up the cabin if a HC person really does need it. Not at all. Not a problem or issue for me. I just know I want to be in a spa cabin and super close to the spa. I just don't see how they can move you to a balcony cabin w/o spa access if you paid for a cabin with spa access...

If that is what you want..go for it. The cruiseline can't ask you if you are disabled so just lie if they want to move you...heck with any real disabled person who would like "spa access"...as long as you are getting what you want.

Sometimes lawyers get in the way of common sense...I liked it a lot better when HC cabins were reserved for those with a proven "need" but now anyone can say they are disabled and no one can question that...and unless you "voluntarily" say you are not handicapped the cruise line can't do squat to make you move and so deserving folks have to struggle with smaller facilities if they want to cruise at a particular time. But if the OP "wants" what she "wants" and doesn't care about taking a specifically designed cabin out of circulation...that's her right. The bottom line for the OP is that she wants the spa package and she knows that if she books said cabin she will get it even if she gets "kicked" out of the room...and her gamble is that she'll get a more desirable cabin along with the perks if she plays her cards right and utilizes a system already in place. Its called playing the odds.

The dress code follows the dress code specified for that evening on board; if the evening is specified as Cruise Casual, shorts are not permitted

Per the website that TAs use to send you Carnival cruise information. And I don't think "jackets" are listed as part of the attire on elegant night anymore.

The $35 is "worth" it if you don't mind spending it. For what you are getting (and I'm not talking quality) it would probably cost you $50 to $75 at a good "special place" dinner restaurant in your hometown.

If not, how come?

Well, I already have my chosen dining confirmed. I get plenty to eat on the ship so priority boarding is no big deal...whether we sit and talk on the pier or on board the ship is no biggie. I don't carry anything onto the ship at embarkation that would facilitate a need to head directly to my cabin. There is nothing in my luggage I need "right away". I'm not "in a hurry" to get off the ship on port days...I'd rather have a nice breakfast. I'm always the last to leave the ship on debarkation days 'cause I want my vacation to last as long as possible. I probably only have to go to guest services once a cruise so an occasional wait doesn't bother me. Doesn't matter to me when I eat in the steak house or the italian restaurant...I just don't think they will both sell out the entire week.

The only traffic you will get are from the surrounding cabins since you are basically on the ground floor and nobody else should be coming down except to explore.

I figured Carnival was your first.

 

What bad experience did you have on NCL?

Not Rottweiler but I'll answer 'cause someone else asked me the same question. A bad experience can have very little to do with whether someone chooses a Cruise Line...and the lack of a bad experience has little to do as to whether someone chooses to cruise them again.

Cruise Lines are like clothes...you wear something, and even though you get tons of complements, you just don't feel comfortable and you hang it at the back of your closet. Later you look at it again and you still aren't enthusiastic for it so this time you just put it in the donate pile.

I had fun on NCL when it was the only game in town...but when I tried other lines they just seemed a much better fit for me and for those I travel with. The description of the cruise posted on this thread just doesn't sound at all appealing...so why should I give up cruising on lines I'm comfortable with to see if NCL is worth my effort. Appeal is appeal...that's the bottom line.

NCL was the epitome of cruising way back when I started. They were elegant and clean and provided a wonderful relaxing experience even though the ships were small without many amenities other than great food and service. But they tended to rest on their laurels, not keeping up with changing times and eventually you felt like you had wandered into a very aging old folks home. And then they tried to compete with lines that had kept up and they did it ever so poorly. In their attempts to become mass market they forgot about the passenger and their reason for cruising...the gave up cleanliness, and decorum for pie in the face Barnum and Bailey.

I just think it is a badly run company that depends way too much on stimulus instead of heart and soul. Since when my family travels together they have lots of new modern options to choose from it just isn't worth my time to travel NCL. When I cruised with just my late husband we didn't do Carnival or Princess either...though I must say my neices and nephews adore both lines and where I am in my life I move with their flow.

OP, thank you for your review. That sounds like what I've been talking about. Carnival is cutting all those little things that really make it feel like a cruise. Some people may not care to lose those things, as long as they have their balcony and 2.0, but some of us really enjoyed those things when Carnival had them.

 

I noticed comments here about the room size and beds on Carnival. Carnival actually lies about many of their room sizes, especially on their standard interior rooms. They claim a much larger number (185) than it actually is, just so they can claim to have the largest insides. Several ships have them beat there, as far as actual size. I still do enjoy cruising Carnival, but I also will call these things as I measure them, even if some people get mad at me for ruining their illusion. But the Pearl's insides (140) are slightly smaller than Carnival's. Carnival does have many ships beat as far as oceanview & balcony (indoors) room sizes. And as far as the beds go, Carnival has been changing over to harder, less comfortable beds. Some people prefer hard beds, but most people prefer how they used to be.

I always find it interesting that people "know" that rooms aren't the size a cruise line says they are. Rooms are measured from the center of the wall that surrounds the room and includes the square footage used for bathrooms, closets, and built-ins. Some cruise lines give you a bathroom the size of one you find in a truck camper, and provide you with one miniscule closet, and a small counter with a couple of drawers. Sure the room "looks" bigger because there is nothing in it but a bed. And I am positive that "hard" beds are the choice of many a discerning sleeper...old beds used to fold you in half when you slept.

And I am pleased that NCL is providing all the bells and whistles that many old cruisers enjoy and I appreciate that the OP has pointed ALL of them out very boldly. Helps me confirm that my choice never to cruise NCL is a very good decision.

Of all the things the OP posted I don't think more than a meagar handful from the washy-washy girl would entice me back to NCL. They had their heyday in the 70s and it, for me, has been down hill from there. All the peppy shows, and costumes, and Love Boatesqueness wouldn't phase me. I haven't been to a revue in 30 years, watched a 3rd rate comedian, or participated in a free for all "party" on any cruise line. Not my style. I want good company, a peaceful place to relax, a comfortable bed and space in my cabin. I want cleanliness, orderliness, and some decorum. I want to talk to my waiters and bartenders, not be entertained by them. I want to be treated like an adult not a 10 year old who is impressed by balloons and confetti.

All in all I think my decision to abandon NCL was a good one. Not saying Carnival is top dog (far from it) but am looking forward to another family cruise with them that everybody can afford.

Do people even begin to realize that Carnival may have up to 50,000 passengers (or more) on their ships every single day...and of those 50k probably the majority of them have different perspectives of what they want or assume they want from their cruise experience. Any cruise line attempts to provide their passengers an experience that meets their expectations...but not all 50k are going to have their needs satisfied. A cruise is really only a hotel on the water that endeavors to take people to the places they want to go to....the ports and the shore experiences are not really the cruises' ultimate responsibility because they are an extra...what the cruise does is provide you with food to eat and a place to sleep. Nothing else is really a guarantee...just like an all inclusive resort can't guarantee it won't rain everyday, or that all their amenities will be open for use whenever a patron wants them.

Many people realize that ports and shore days are a nice bonus...but most also are savvy enough to know that if they want unlimited time on shore, or an experience at a certain place, or want to really see a natural feature the best thing is to book a land vacation and do cruising for what cruising really does offer.

Once upon a time I winter vacationed at an all-inclusive ski resort and got a really good price because it was 5 days with lift passes included and was part of a non-refundable package. Well, I spent lots of money on some new ski equipment, bought some fancier ski duds and we flew into the nearest city, paid for transportation to the resort and chomped at the bit to get onto the mountain. Well, as LUCK would have it the winter winds started blowing and the ski lifts couldn't run, safely. Every morning we woke hoping for the best and every night we went to bed disappointed. After 5 days we packed up and headed home...never having used any of the new, fancy ski gear.

To be honest...I never ever thought of asking for compensation even though I had paid a bundle since the lift passes were part of the deal and helped defray the costs of very (for me) expensive rooms and amenities. Instead of skiing we swam in the indoor pool (I even had to buy a bathing suit) sat on the deck and drank some luscious hot drink concoctions, danced into the wee hours, went to a couple of movies (both which we had seen before), played cards and board games and met a lot of wonderful, enthusiastic people.

We got nothing from the resort in compensation...but you know, the rest of the trip was so much fun that we could of cared less and a few years later we went back and skied for days and days. How is this different than a cruise line vacation that has weather problems...don't know.

Junior 1220...I'm giggling here because I can't quite understand why you feel your expenses because YOU tried to still get a cruise after your's folded should be someone else's responsibility. All of the choices you made were not directed by someone else, were they?

My cruise for Glory got cancelled for 10/28. Carnival said they will refund in two weeks however they did not offer discount % off future cruise, hotel stay credit and food per night like other ship passangers got.

Why ? we suffered same loss and $$?

 

does anyone know how can i get it?

Considering the loss of life and property associated with "Sandy" I think that anyone who has come out of it unscathed, except for the disruption of their vacation, should feel themselves pretty lucky at this point. A previous poster seems to be all knowledgeable about the facts of "their" cruise and know that Carnival was out to milk every last cent out of all the "captured" passengers. Kudos to them for their insight. And while they are blasting Carnival this disgruntled passenger should also make sure that "mother nature" gets her fair share of the blame....oh but then Carnival is much more powerful and insightful than mother nature.

I have my own thoughts about dilettantes...and I have my own thoughts about the stupidity of people who don't get that 85 mile winds and 35 foot swells are not the norm and that these type of conditions are disruptive at the least. Life isn't fair...I've scheduled land vacations to sunny climates where it has rained for the entire trip, been on ski trips where the wind was so bad we never-ever were able to get out onto the mountain, been at the lake when conditions prevented us from ever getting our boat into the water and doing some water skiing.

The people who "think" that other peeps are in agreement with them and that a cruise line should be boycotted because of a weather incident are in for a rude awakening, I suspect. Most peeps have enough common sense to understand that the forces of nature aren't the responsibility of an airline, a cruise line, a resort, or well you get the drift.

Just off a week of misery on the Fascination. To be fair, no the hurricane is not their fault, but the way Carnival handled it is. 20% off of a cruise most first timers will never take is a joke. We were off the coast of Jax and could see lights, but could we dock....no. If we docked a day early the rocking and puking would have stopped, but the casino would of had to close. They were not about to let that happen, so it was money over people, as usual.

Do you have a clue as to what it takes to dock a ship and what is involved...I don't, but I assume it is a major undertaking and several peeps need to be involved. Anything that "blows" a schedule for a ship also impacts the schedule for shore workers, parking attendants, security, immigration, and the list goes on and on. A cruise line is definitely in the money making business but that doesn't mean that the passengers who provide that revenue are at the bottom of their list of concerns...in fact I am sure that the safety and comfort of passengers (and notice the plural) are of a primary concern of theirs...but for all those who "wanted to go home" hundreds more wanted their vacations to continue and were making the best of the situation (as they should).

That sure sounds fair to me since ports aren't part of the guarantee. More than I got when I was on a land vacation and got caught up in some very severe weather. In fact we got stuck for two extra days 'cause no air travel out....two more nights in hotels, more food costs and the rain never stopped. One of the funnest family vacations I ever remember.

I love kids, have had a few, and am still surrounded with scads of neices, nephews, grandkids but have NEVER cruised with any youngster under the age of 12. Vacations with the younger ones (6 to 12) have always been vacations of the kids type...Disneyland, beach trips, national parks. Anyone under 6 has been left home.

I frequently see families with babies (and I mean teeny weeny babies), a couple still in diapers (that can't be fun on vacation) and a preschooler or two. Mom and Dad (and the Grandparents if they are roped into coming along) spend all their time feeding, watching, running after, disciplining, cleaning up after, etc. their brood and don't seem to have any Mommy Daddy time, or adult conversation.

Most children don't remember what they did in life before the age of 6 and don't care about a lot until they are 12 as far as "doing" something different on vacation. So why do parents do it? Just wondering....and I'm not complaining as long as they don't cry in my ear, make stinkies during dinner, or don't knock me down as they are running as fast as they can to get away from Daddy. They are someone else's headache, not mine.