Any ships with no specialty restaurants?

[momofmeg]

Thanks! I've straightened out my own granny panties and all is now well. I understand what you say about age affecting the brain cells. I recently celebrated the 64th anniversary of my 21st birthday! :eek:

 

Friends again? :D

 

Not mad at all. I also meant to post "we will have to agree to disagree."

[Beachdude]

Burt, it is two kinds of people who spend a lot of time posting, ones who have too much time on their hands (me) an others who are mad at the world and look to argue about anything however tiny their difference of opinion is. I have run into people on forums, whose opinion was pretty much the same as mine on whatever subject we were discussing but still they would single me out to argue. Not sure why? maybe because I still too much time posting?

 

Hey, no psychologist needed!

 

Yes, well said. ;)

 

Burt

[calliopecruiser]

The point is that there IS a higher cost associated with cruising on ships that don't charge for their specialty restaurants. Those restaurants aren't 'free'.

 

But there isn't an "upcharge" for the restaurants, which was the initial question......no one ever said that restaurants on any cruise were "free". They're not "free" on Carnival or NCL either. It's hard to say whether those premium and luxury lines are more expensive because of those restaurants, or because of so many other things......the MDR food, the quality of the facilities, the lack of push for on-board selling, the quality of the service, etc.

 

As has been pointed out, cost and value are two different measurements.

[momofmeg]

But there isn't an "upcharge" for the restaurants, which was the initial question......no one ever said that restaurants on any cruise were "free". They're not "free" on Carnival or NCL either. It's hard to say whether those premium and luxury lines are more expensive because of those restaurants, or because of so many other things......the MDR food, the quality of the facilities, the lack of push for on-board selling, the quality of the service, etc.

 

As has been pointed out, cost and value are two different measurements.

 

I agree I feel it is the over all experience. I know that is why I go to Celebrity's specialties, the ambiance,as the main dining room food is still very good. I like the quieter atmosphere they have. For the same reason, we bought passes on HAL for their Tpool and lounger area in the spa. It was just nicer having a pool to use that was not super crowded.

 

I am sure I would like those lines better as there are less people so things are quieter and not everything in your face.

[boogs]

As has been pointed out, cost and value are two different measurements.

 

I fully agree! That is why I don't pay twice as much for something for only 10% more value. For example, I don't drive an expensive luxury car as I have found that a car costing half as much gets me to the same places just as efficiently and in almost the same level comfort. I also don't cruise with the luxury lines because the additional "value" for the much higher cost is relatively small.

[ducklite]

I agree I feel it is the over all experience. I know that is why I go to Celebrity's specialties, the ambiance,as the main dining room food is still very good. I like the quieter atmosphere they have. For the same reason, we bought passes on HAL for their Tpool and lounger area in the spa. It was just nicer having a pool to use that was not super crowded.

 

 

 

I am sure I would like those lines better as there are less people so things are quieter and not everything in your face.

 

 

Not singling you out.

 

This is exactly the type of post that validates my point about luxury lines not always being more costly. By the time you add in specialty dining, passes to "sanctuaries," "FTTF," soda/specialty coffees, and in some cases alcohol, airfare/transfers, and shore excursions, cruising on a luxury line can run about the same cost as paying ala carte on a mass market.

[ducklite]

I fully agree! That is why I don't pay twice as much for something for only 10% more value. For example, I don't drive an expensive luxury car as I have found that a car costing half as much gets me to the same places just as efficiently and in almost the same level comfort. I also don't cruise with the luxury lines because the additional "value" for the much higher cost is relatively small.

 

 

I have to disagree. My $20K Matrix is no where near as comfortable as my neighbors $50K BMW. In fact the BMW is three times more comfortable at less than three times the price.

[boogs]

I have to disagree. My $20K Matrix is no where near as comfortable as my neighbors $50K BMW. In fact the BMW is three times more comfortable at less than three times the price.

 

You are kidding, right? For the neighbor's BMW to be three times more comfortable, you would have to be sitting on wooden benches instead of cushioned seats. :D I have friends and relatives who drive expensive cars. These include several Mercedes, a couple of Porches, a few BMWs, three Infinities, a Jaguar, and a Tesla. None are noticeably more comfortable than my 8 year old Subaru Outback - and all (except for the Tesla) are much less reliable and much more expensive to maintain. I have been underwhelmed with all of them, except for the Tesla, which I would seriously consider if I could afford it.

 

I continue to make my purchases based on real value rather than image value. Which is why I can't see spending twice as much for a relatively small increase in service levels and food quality on a luxury line.

 

Of course, if I had too much money I would give the luxury lines a try. Until that happens, I'll stick with the real value the mass market lines provide.

Edited May 15, 2014 by boogs

[ducklite]

You are kidding, right? For the neighbor's BMW to be three times more comfortable, you would have to be sitting on wooden benches instead of cushioned seats. :D I have friends and relatives who drive expensive cars. These include several Mercedes, a couple of Porches, a few BMWs, three Infinities, a Jaguar, and a Tesla. None are noticeably more comfortable than my 8 year old Subaru Outback - and all (except for the Tesla) are much less reliable and much more expensive to maintain. I have been underwhelmed with all of them, except for the Tesla, which I would seriously consider if I could afford it.

 

I continue to make my purchases based on real value rather than image value. Which is why I can't see spending twice as much for a relatively small increase in service levels and food quality on a luxury line.

 

Of course, if I had too much money I would give the luxury lines a try. Until that happens, I'll stick with the real value the mass market lines provide.

 

Nope, not kidding. not at all. The Matrix is a reliable car and fine for driving around town, but the ride is stiff, the seats aren't plush, the climate control wasn't well thought out, and it's loud in the passenger compartment. Why do I drive it? Because I have three 85 pound dogs, and I can't get them into the rear of anything else but a minivan--no thanks.

 

To me the mass market lines provide zero value, as I tried and didn't care for the one I sailed on. (Disney is a niche product, I don't consider them in the same category as the typical mass market lines.) It was a waste of money and a weeks vacation, therefor I got zero value out of it.

Edited May 15, 2014 by ducklite

[SantaFeFan]

To me the mass market lines provide zero value, as I tried and didn't care for the one I sailed on. (Disney is a niche product, I don't consider them in the same category as the typical mass market lines.) It was a waste of money and a weeks vacation, therefor I got zero value out of it.

 

Which mass market line did you try?

Edited May 15, 2014 by SantaFeFan

[ducklite]

Which mass market line did you try?

 

 

Royal Caribbean. Mariner of the Seas. Royal Suite. Worst vacation ever.

[calliopecruiser]

I fully agree! That is why I don't pay twice as much for something for only 10% more value. For example, I don't drive an expensive luxury car as I have found that a car costing half as much gets me to the same places just as efficiently and in almost the same level comfort. I also don't cruise with the luxury lines because the additional "value" for the much higher cost is relatively small.

 

If you are just as comfortable, more power to you (as long as you're not lying to yourself). I would not make the same value judgment, so for me, a car that costs half as much is often not a better value. Like the concept of "luxury", "value" will vary for different people based on their preferences and priorities. But either way, value is not the same as price!

 

When it comes to cruising, I think the additional value is high because Crystal offers me much more of what I want for a very small increase in price. For others, they may not want what I want, and they might face a higher increase in price.....so for them, the value is not as great. But that doesn't make it less valuable to me, and doesn't make my statement that I think it offers a great value to be wrong either.

 

I don't understand how or why so many posters get up in arms when other posters suggest that luxury cruising might offer a great value, or when they say they think it offers them good value for their money. Really, why get upset at someone else's preferences and priorities?

[ducklite]

If you are just as comfortable, more power to you (as long as you're not lying to yourself). I would not make the same value judgment, so for me, a car that costs half as much is often not a better value. Like the concept of "luxury", "value" will vary for different people based on their preferences and priorities. But either way, value is not the same as price!

 

When it comes to cruising, I think the additional value is high because Crystal offers me much more of what I want for a very small increase in price. For others, they may not want what I want, and they might face a higher increase in price.....so for them, the value is not as great. But that doesn't make it less valuable to me, and doesn't make my statement that I think it offers a great value to be wrong either.

 

I don't understand how or why so many posters get up in arms when other posters suggest that luxury cruising might offer a great value, or when they say they think it offers them good value for their money. Really, why get upset at someone else's preferences and priorities?

 

 

Well put. Crystal doesn't equate value to me, as there are aspects of their product that don't fit our wants and needs when it comes to a cruise. But I would never tell anyone who sails on them that they are wasting their money.

Edited May 16, 2014 by ducklite

[momofmeg]

Royal Caribbean. Mariner of the Seas. Royal Suite. Worst vacation ever.

 

I did not care much for her either and have not bee non any of the monster RCI ships-however I like RCI radiance class. I also like Celebrity. I used to like HAL until the smoking issue became so bad on her. I do no mind some smoke but when the other lines restricted their balcony smoking all the smokers left for HAL, then it was an issue on our balcony and walking the promenade deck which HAL still has all around the ship unlike many of the other lines who has portions closed to the PAX.- but they may as well not since it can't be walked all away around the ship.

 

Mainstream lines fits our pocket books better as we are middle income, perhaps upper middle, but still middle, unlike that other poster, that does not mean I would not jump at a chance to go on a better line if I could pay for it and not go in debt for it.

 

We tried out Disney once and did a splurge. We did enjoy her, but decided it was not worth the splurge again as we enjoy Celebrity just as well, but that is us,everyone is different. That could change too I am sure if we ever had a grandchild.

 

although I doubt our financial circumstances would change enough for us to do Crystal, I do think perhaps we will splurge for Azamara or Oceania.

[lady_cruiser]

It is my feeling and again my feeling only that cruise lines that have up scale restaurants on their ships have lowered the quality in the MDR to make the experience seem better in a specialty. I can remember cruising on the old Sitmar line back in the 80's where the dining experience included salads prepared at your table, flaming desserts at the table done by your waiter. Sitmar was equivalent to Oceania. If you don't feel that dining is one of the key elements of a cruise then it won't matter to you. I know cruise lines have cut back their food budgets however eating a fantastic meal alone with your partner in a specialty restaurant and a similar meal at your table in the MDR is not the same.

 

That does make sense. I didn't cruise during the "good old days" when there were no rocking climbing walls, flow-riders, mega screen movies, or broadway productions. You spend you days walking around the deck, reading a book, playing shuffle boards, etc. Sort of wish I had at least experience that type of cruising, at least once.