Oasis, The Chef's Table with a 3 and 6 year old.

[Able Seaman H]

There seems to be some confusion here. I'm genuinely not trying to nit pick or stir things up but it makes a fundamental difference. Is the limit 21 or 16, or indeed another age?

 

I can only really post in relation to Chops & Portofinos because we haven't been on an Oasis class ship yet. There the apres 7.00pm age is 13.

 

If the chef's table is 21 (rather than 16), then that might be for alcohol related reasons and that would be different. I would never dream of trying to take Emily into the ship's nightclub for instance because it is over 21 (18 on European Cruises) so as to minimise the risk of under age drinking.

 

The assumption behind all my posts is the the restaurant restrictions are based on behaviour and creating the right atmosphere for fellow diners.

 

As it happens it was a good job they did let us in because the restaurants were sadly woefully under used for most of the time. Our custom equated to around 30 covers with table guests over the cruise.

 

As being stuck in my views I think it's fair to say both sides are.

 

Once again I would welcome the chance to break bread together should we ever share a cruise and my offer of picking up the tab should you feel upset by Emily's behaviour remains an open one.

 

Keep smiling everyone

 

Henry :)

 

Edited to mention that when asked to vacate the champagne bar one evening because of Em's sitting quietly amongst us we did so with good grace. We could kicked up a fuss because our party was responsible for a large percentage of the ship's bottle sales for that cruise but we didn't. We went to Vintages instead and finished off our evening. So I do know right from wrong.

 

Re: the bottled champagne sales it was a quiet cruise!

Edited January 25, 2011 by Able Seaman H

[galavant3]

Able Seaman, I certainly do appreciate the friendly tone of your posts!

 

I am not sure that you are understanding that for some of us, this is not an issue of behavior. We just, sometimes, prefer an all adult meal. You keep referencing your daughter's behavior and that really has nothing to do with it.

 

Regardless, it would be my pleasure to meet you and your daughter one day on a cruise. If you were assigned to our table in the dining room, I am sure we would very much enjoy your company and that of your daughter.

[coffeebean]

Hi there.

 

No, not as a personal assault at all. If anything I see myself as championing the well brought up and well mannered child.

 

I think it was Rancher Dave who said it was almost a shame that people felt the need to compliment a well behaved child in a restaurant and I suppose part of me feels the same. Almost every time we go to eat out in a restaurant someone compliments Em's on her behaviour. It's heart warming to hear them and much appreciated but what a shame her behaviour isn't the norm.

 

Ultimately I blame the parents, they don't know how to behave properly themselves, the couple who had kids sit in the window by their table are a perfect example of that.

 

I see the speciality dining venues as an adult orientated rather than adult only environment. As such if a child can't behave accordingly they must be taken out, in the same way a fidgety or noisy child should be taken out of a cinema or theatre.

 

If someone objects to Emily being in there purely on the grounds of visual appearance then I have no time for them. Being the handsom devil I am I could argue their, at best average looks upset me and spoil my digestion. But I don't, I allow them in without objection.

 

Were someone to object to Emily's presence based on her behaviour then I would retire quietly and without fuss. It would never happen because she understands the rules and respects others. As a non drinker getting drunk won't be an issue either as it is on a fairly regular basis with fellow diners in the restaurants.

 

In this example the two children were perfectly behaved, the person posting had a lovely meal and so I see no problem. In the case of people who have experienced problems then the restaurant staff need to excersise their right to ask people to leave.

 

My worst experience in Portofinos was actually with a very drunk woman. I felt uncomfortable for her fellow table guests as much as myself and my wife. What are we to do? Ban alcohol?

 

I can only live in hope that some of us posting here might one day share a table on a cruise so that we can dispel a few myths and have fun together.

 

Henry :)

Henry,

Why do you continue to insist your very well behaved child has every right to attend an adults only venue? Please forgive me, but I'm still trying to understand your reasoning.

Edited January 25, 2011 by coffeebean

[Able Seaman H]

Hey, just because we're debating an issue doesn't mean we need to be rude or shout at each other. (In response to Debmarie's kind comment).

 

Explain this to me then. What is it about having a 10, 11 or 12 year old sitting quietly with her parents at a table on the other side of the restaurant having dinner which spoils a meal as compared to a 13, 14 or 15 year old.

 

Similarly if the age for the chef's table is 21 how on earth would a 20, 19 or 18 year old detract from the sense of occasion?

 

I assume, or had assumed, that is was their behaviour that was the issue.

 

With regards the 21 year age restriction for the Captain's table that can only be a result of America's somewhat conservative alcohol regulations. In the UK the drinking age is 18, (and more than one European traveller has fallen foul of this unexpected rule!).

 

I judge people as I find them and thankfully so do the restaurants we dine in here in the UK. I am not advocating high chairs, running around, feeding youngsters or any form of raise voice. I am taking about a young person who you probably wouldn't realise was there, certainly no more so than you would notice my presence.

 

So what is it that scares or concerns you about something which makes no impact? What am I missing?

 

Henry :)

Edited January 25, 2011 by Able Seaman H

[twoputt.plusone]

I assume, or had assumed, that is was their behaviour that was the issue.

 

Henry :)

 

I wasn't going to post again, honest I wasn't. :o

 

This IMO is where you're going wrong Henry. Most of this discussion has been about whether children are allowed at the Chef's Table or not. It was about the perception that RCI was not enforcing its own rules. That may or not be fine with you but if I'm paying extra for alternate dining, I believe I have every right to expect they follow them. If the rules say it's a minimum age of 21, then 20 years and 364 days is still not 21.

[Cuizer2]

Actually children are NOT allowed to attend the Chef's Table per RCCL stated rules:

 

Actually, as practical matter, children are allowed to attend the Chef's Table, unless you believe the OP's original post was a farce.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Cuizer2

[bus man]

So what is it that scares or concerns you about something which makes no impact? What am I missing?

 

Henry :)

 

I think we can all agree that there are plenty of well-behaved children out there. (And boorish adults, too!) I have no doubt that your daughter is better behaved than some adults, and is likely a delightful dinner companion. But for me, at least, that's entirely beside the point. As I understand it, RCI has established a rule that says "no one under 21 at Chef's Table." And that is the point. I don't believe that rules are merely suggestions that we may choose to follow, or not, as the mood strikes us. I believe that rules are just that -- RULES. Meaning, we are expected to adhere to them -- whether we happen to agree with them or not.

 

I try to model to my children the idea of respect for authority, and this includes adhering to the rules established by those authorities. To me, this is the central point here. If the rule is no kids at Chef's Table, then that's exactly what it means -- period. If we don't like the rule, we can appeal to the management of the company to change it. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. But unless and until they do, I believe it's incumbent upon all of us to obey.

[cello56]

Part of the ambiance of the Chef's Table is the conversation among those attending regarding the wine, the food, the preparation. I sincerely doubt that a young child - no matter how well behaved - would have anything to add to this discussion.

[Bakincakes]

I can see Henrys point.

 

This board has a slew of parents who believe that their children should be exceptions to age rules. Usually the reason given is that they are mature for their age and are very well behaved.:)

 

So who gets to make the decision about which child is the exception? If one pax can bring an underaged child, why shouldn't another, whose child may not be well behaved and mature for their age?

 

So a "cut off" age is established. Many may say it would be unfair. There are plenty of things in life that aren't fair.

 

If I am booking what I expect to be an "adult" venue, and when I arrive or shortly after I arrive someone is given entry with an underaged child then I am going to protest. It doesn't matter if that particular child is mature and entertaining. It matters that someone else may demand the same courtesy regardless of the way their kid behaves or misbehaves.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of posters on this board who have raised lovely children. I would be happy to dine with them, in the kind of venue we are discussing, after they turn 21.:)

[lovemylab]

Hi there.

 

No, not as a personal assault at all. If anything I see myself as championing the well brought up and well mannered child.

 

I think it was Rancher Dave who said it was almost a shame that people felt the need to compliment a well behaved child in a restaurant and I suppose part of me feels the same. Almost every time we go to eat out in a restaurant someone compliments Em's on her behaviour. It's heart warming to hear them and much appreciated but what a shame her behaviour isn't the norm.

 

Ultimately I blame the parents, they don't know how to behave properly themselves, the couple who had kids sit in the window by their table are a perfect example of that.

 

I see the speciality dining venues as an adult orientated rather than adult only environment. As such if a child can't behave accordingly they must be taken out, in the same way a fidgety or noisy child should be taken out of a cinema or theatre.

 

If someone objects to Emily being in there purely on the grounds of visual appearance then I have no time for them. Being the handsom devil I am I could argue their, at best average looks upset me and spoil my digestion. But I don't, I allow them in without objection.

 

Were someone to object to Emily's presence based on her behaviour then I would retire quietly and without fuss.It would never happen because she understands the rules and respects others. As a non drinker getting drunk won't be an issue either as it is on a fairly regular basis with fellow diners in the restaurants.

 

In this example the two children were perfectly behaved, the person posting had a lovely meal and so I see no problem. In the case of people who have experienced problems then the restaurant staff need to excersise their right to ask people to leave.

 

My worst experience in Portofinos was actually with a very drunk woman. I felt uncomfortable for her fellow table guests as much as myself and my wife. What are we to do? Ban alcohol?

 

I can only live in hope that some of us posting here might one day share a table on a cruise so that we can dispel a few myths and have fun together.

 

Henry :)

 

1) This thread is about the Chef's Table. It's not about Chops or Portofino. The rules clearly state that all guests must be 21 years of age to attend the Chef's Table. In comparison, Chops and Portofino allow guests under 13 during the early part of the evening.

 

2) The problem is that people paid $75 per person for an adult only event and didn't receive it. I don't care how well behaved the children were - they shouldn't have been there as they were under 21. Those are the rules. And that is the issue. This has nothing to do with behaviour.

 

I am sure your daughter is lovely. There are plenty of places on the ship where you can enjoy a wonderful meal together, but the Chef's Table shouldn't be one of them. Just like she shouldn't be in the casino or at the nightclub at 1am.

Edited January 25, 2011 by lovemylab

[DivingPrincessE]

Actually, as practical matter, children are allowed to attend the Chef's Table, unless you believe the OP's original post was a farce.

 

No, they are not. That is the whole reason for this thread originally. The point the OP made was that children are "not allowed" at Chef's Table, but yet again Royal Caribbean was not enforcing it's own rules.

 

Just b/c Royal chooses to ignore their rules, does NOT mean that the children are technically "allowed". If you pass a police officer when you are speeding and he doesn't pull you over, it doesn't mean that speeding is "allowed".

[Merion_Mom]

No, they are not. That is the whole reason for this thread originally. The point the OP made was that children are "not allowed" at Chef's Table, but yet again Royal Caribbean was not enforcing it's own rules.

 

Just b/c Royal chooses to ignore their rules, does NOT mean that the children are technically "allowed". If you pass a police officer when you are speeding and he doesn't pull you over, it doesn't mean that speeding is "allowed".

 

The perfect analogy (and the one that I have been longing to post.........but was trying to restrain myself. ;)).

[Able Seaman H]

Hmm....

 

There have been lots of posts, in fact pretty much all of them, which go along the lines of, "it's a rule and as such it should be adhered to." Even to the month, week, day or hour of birth.

 

I'm a little more free thinking in life. I see rules as guidelines. Especially ones not set by legal authorities. They say you should never discuss politics or religion with strangers at the dinner table, allow me a slight indulgence.

 

I'm not a religious man. I believe in the religeon of humanity. A book of rules which allow people to live in harmony, a sort of do unto others as you'd have done to yourself thing.

 

It means I don't always adhere to exactly 70 miles an hour on the motorway.

 

As a pedestrian I cross deserted roads when the red man is still showing on the crossing.

 

As a cyclist I have used deserted pavements along side a busy road.

 

I've taken a cup of coffee out of the loyalty lounge during the day.

 

When I was told it was against the rules to drive severely disabled kids round the race track in my Porsche 911 Race car I arranged for two more pals to bring their cars along as well for good measure :)

 

But I rarely murder people, have never assaulted anyone without good reason and a couple of warnings, I've never done a bank job, I drive round residential areas under the posted limits where I think it's applicable and I like to think I can see the bigger picture before jumping on a band wagon.

 

Royal Caribbean's difficulty is that they don't want to put their staff in a difficult situation and I can see that. Were it down me I would write the rules something along the following lines:

 

Welcome to Chops. This is a fine dining restaurant and as such guests considered by the management to be causing a nuisance to other diners will be asked to leave.

 

I wouldn't limit myself to guests under a certain age.

 

Finally, just to throw a bit of a spanner in the works, how would people upset at seeing a quiet well mannered and nicely dressed young lady sitting with her parents feel about a disabled person being given a table next to them.

 

I guess I see Emily as the thin end of a worrying wedge...........

 

 

 

 

As ever, keep smiling everyone.

 

 

Henry :)

[DivingPrincessE]

The perfect analogy (and the one that I have been longing to post.........but was trying to restrain myself. ;)).

 

I just post what's on my mind, as I'm sure you know, lol. ;) :)

[mommywholuvstocruise]

Just to throw some doubt into the mix again, here's the reply I received when requesting the Chef's Table:

 

Good Day SkyGuy747,

We received your request for Chef’s Table. Guests must be 21 or older to

attend. If the guest are under 21 we have to request special access and we

would have to arrange this ahead of time. We do not have the age of guest_2 , they are listed as unknown. Please email me back with the age information so we can proceed with the reservation. Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

 

XX

Specialty Dining – Chef’s Table

Royal Caribbean International

800-398-9819 option #

It seems the TA didn't know the age of the other guest when the booking was made so left it blank (we're both over 12.) EDIT:: We're both over 21 as well, although you wouldn't say it if you saw us blowing bubbles at sail away :) ::

 

Discuss. :D

 

I don't know if you saw this post or not but it looks like RCI bends their own rules when its convenient.

 

Using the police analogy:

Police officer clocks you speeding, pulls you over, but then lets you off the hook because you're reeeaaalllyy cute.:D

[DawnCt]

So do you think you received more generous pours, because the kids were there? There can be advantages.;)

 

That is a distinct possibility. I drank their share!

[Cuizer2]

No, they are not. That is the whole reason for this thread originally. The point the OP made was that children are "not allowed" at Chef's Table, but yet again Royal Caribbean was not enforcing it's own rules.

If Royal Caribbean chooses not to enforce its own rule, then the rule does not exist.

 

Just b/c Royal chooses to ignore their rules, does NOT mean that the children are technically "allowed". If you pass a police officer when you are speeding and he doesn't pull you over, it doesn't mean that speeding is "allowed".

Yes it does, which is why the average speed on one freeway I drive on is at least 5 MPH higher than the average speed on a different freeway I drive on. It is common knowledge that the CHP is not enforcing the speed limit. Therefore, the average speed is easily more than 5 MPH above the speed limit. The same issue does not exist on the other freeways because the CHP does a better job of enforcing the speed limit.

[Cuizer2]

I just post what's on my mind, as I'm sure you know, lol. ;) :)

Really? Then how come there is no hair in your post? :confused:

[DivingPrincessE]

If Royal Caribbean chooses not to enforce its own rule, then the rule does not exist.

 

Yes it does, which is why the average speed on one freeway I drive on is at least 5 MPH higher than the average speed on a different freeway I drive on. It is common knowledge that the CHP is not enforcing the speed limit. Therefore, the average speed is easily more than 5 MPH above the speed limit. The same issue does not exist on the other freeways because the CHP does a better job of enforcing the speed limit.

 

As someone in Law Enforcement, I am telling you...your argument holds NO water. If a cop did choose to pull you over for 5 MPH, good luck using that argument in court, lol.

 

You can pass cops doing not 5 MPH over the speed limit, but maybe 15+ MPH over the speed limit. That does NOT mean that you are "allowed" to speed that much. It means that the cop is off duty, or on his way home, or on his way to court, or any other number of reasons he doesn't have time to pull you over. OR he just doesn't handle traffic enforcement. Again, it doesn't mean it's "allowed".

 

Saying that just because a rule isn't enforced at all times means that there is no rule is a ridiculous argument.

[RBKL]

I cannot understand why anyone would take small kids on any cruise.It is no holiday for the little ones or Mum and Dad, and as this post shows folks will be unhappy with children in certain venues.

Take the little darlings to Disneyland or let Granma and Grampa spoil them for a week.Thats what my family does.

 

 

We sailing on the Allure in November too. On the 20th. What sailing are you on?

[tracidanielle]

I completely understand being upset with not receiving what you paid for. If you wanted to dine in an adult environment and you paid for that priviledge that is what you should receive. I am with you.

 

However, I am put off by some of the other comments on this thread "why would you bring children cruising...send them to Disney Land" another "better yet I dont have children" WOW.

 

I am going on my first cruise this year with a 9 year old. My reasons for taking him is its an affordable safe way for him to be exposed to other countries. This time we will see three islands in the caribbean. Our next cruise we hope to go to Alaska and eventually Europe. I personally think it is a perfect vacation for children. There are many fun activities for children on the Dreamworks cruise in particular. Lots of entertainment. Less crowded than Disney World and much more educational than Disney World. ...I respect anyones right to not have children and there are cruises that are adult only. However, the tone of some of your post was deragatory to children and their parents. Remember you were children once...

[twoputt.plusone]

As someone in Law Enforcement, I am telling you...your argument holds NO water. If a cop did choose to pull you over for 5 MPH, good luck using that argument in court, lol.

 

I'm not a cop but am in Enforcement and I totally agree with you. It's called selective enforcement.

Edited January 26, 2011 by twoputt.plusone

[cruisebunnies]

We sailing on the Allure in November too. On the 20th. What sailing are you on?

We are on the November 13 sailing.We are also taking our kids and will dine in one of the upscale venues. I hope no one objects to my children eating in Chops or any other fine dining room.

[galavant3]

We are on the November 13 sailing.We are also taking our kids and will dine in one of the upscale venues. I hope no one objects to my children eating in Chops or any other fine dining room.

 

I could be wrong but I think the issue is children at the Chef's Table which is advertised as a 21 and older event. You should be fine at any other specialty dining venue. At Chops you will have your own table.

Edited January 26, 2011 by debmarie

[land lover]

I could be wrong but I think the issue is children at the Chef's Table which is advertised as a 21 and older event. You should be fine at any other specialty dining venue. At Chops you will have your own table.

 

 

Can someone show me the link and not emails where the Chef's table is advertised as an adult only event?

 

Everyone keeps on making these claims that RCI is not following their rule/policy and I have yet to see anything in black and white.

 

Remember RCI's new slogan....WHY NOT??????

 

And have you seen Celebrity's....... "X the Rules"

Edited January 26, 2011 by land lover