RCCL change in smoking policy

[The Sunset Glow]

Since she was replying to someone who said his wife was highly allergic to smoke, they were in fact risking their health knowingly. did you read the post?

 

 

Yes I did. But because she's highly allergic she won't be out on the balcony if someone is smoking nearby.

 

I get it as I too have issues with smoke. We always booked balconies and if there were smokers nearby I would not use the balcony. So we essentially paid a balcony price for an ocean view cabin. No health risk, just disappointment and wasted money on occasion.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[Out to sea!]

Let me spell it out for you. Obviously this is a past tense scenario since the smoking policy has changed.

 

When you like a certain cruise line you book with them even if there's that one thing you don't like - IMO you just won't find that 100% perfect cruise line. So you go with your preference and then have to choose a cabin.

 

Two choices:

1) choose cabin without balcony - this results in 0% chance of enjoying a balcony view.

2) choose a balcony cabin - this results in about an 80% chance of enjoying a balcony view (I based this on about 20% of adult population being smokers)

 

When you absolutely love having a balcony you'll probably take the gamble. 80% is pretty good odds don't you think? Sometimes the gamble didn't work and you can't use the balcony as much as you'd like so you stay inside. C'est la vie.

 

No one is risking their health on the gamble they're just risking the loss of the extra cost of the balcony if they can't use it.

 

Now if they'd just ban casino smoking:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

 

Being retired military I fully understand risk analysis so no need to spell anything out. And that is exactly my point, why take the risk of being exposed to something that a family member is allergic to? Is the cabin more important that the risk of getting sick? And if one is going to take the risk, why complain when you end up on the losing side of the bet? It's plain crazy.

 

80% sounds like good odds unless the 20% could cause someone you supposedly care about to become ill or die (depending on how bad the allergy is). would you give someone who has a nut allergy in your family food without checking to see if there were nut products in the food or would you go with an 80% chance that there aren't nut products in the food without checking? The poster I quoted stated his wife was allergic to smoke......so therefore he is risking her health. Also it's been a quite popular complaint by non-smokers to state that if anyone lights up with 500ft of them that they will die tomorrow from second hand smoke so there is that health issue again.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Out to sea!

[Thetrail]

Unless RCL can prove that they personally sent you and/or your TA notification of the change, you have a legal case. Simple as that. They sold a product and changed the product after it was sold.

And you live in an alternate universe...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Thetrail]

We are on Freedom now... they make it quite clear in the literature about the non-smoking on balconies and only designated areas. So I was sitting on my balcony on Day 2...and guess what? Someone is smoking close by. I looked around and sure enough, a guy and girl underneath and angled from us, were not only smoking, but standing by the rail where anyone could see them. This same couple fooled around during the Muster Drill making jokes of everything with loud behavior and not paying attention. So my gut feeling was that they were the type that didn't think the rules applied to them.

So....don't flame me... but I called Guest Services and explained what I observed. Within 5 minutes, security came to my room and asked me to point out the balcony... then they went down and talked to them. Haven't smelled anything since.

Good for you!:)

[Out to sea!]

And you live in an alternate universe...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Well, being that this is America, anyone can sue over anything and depending on how stupid the jury is, they just might win. :(

[Thetrail]

Maybe not. As the number of cruise lines that don't allow smoking on the balcony dwindles, smokers are moving to lines that allow it. As those cruise lines see an uptick in passengers that smoke, they will keep the balconies open for smoking. It becomes kind of their promo.

"Kind of their promo"....you keep believeing that.

[Adayatatime]

Yes, it was a gamble and that's why I was asking. Since one knows it's a gamble and with a spouse who is allergic to something that could legally happen (at that point in time), why would someone take such a gamble? Maybe it's just me but I don't have a habit of gambling when my families health or safety is at stake.

 

I am 100% in agreement with you. I think what you are saying makes perfect sense.

[Adayatatime]

Let me spell it out for you. Obviously this is a past tense scenario since the smoking policy has changed.

 

When you like a certain cruise line you book with them even if there's that one thing you don't like - IMO you just won't find that 100% perfect cruise line. So you go with your preference and then have to choose a cabin.

 

Two choices:

1) choose cabin without balcony - this results in 0% chance of enjoying a balcony view.

2) choose a balcony cabin - this results in about an 80% chance of enjoying a balcony view (I based this on about 20% of adult population being smokers)

 

When you absolutely love having a balcony you'll probably take the gamble. 80% is pretty good odds don't you think? Sometimes the gamble didn't work and you can't use the balcony as much as you'd like so you stay inside. C'est la vie.

 

No one is risking their health on the gamble they're just risking the loss of the extra cost of the balcony if they can't use it.

 

Now if they'd just ban casino smoking:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

 

Maybe we should ban the casino. Gambling causes stress and those addicted to gambling can become aggressive and a risk to my health. Also we should ban alcohol, I hate getting into a lift with someone who has been drinking, the fumes make me feel faint.

 

And don't get me started on people who talk loudly on their balcony.

[bouhunter]

Does anyone else see these threads come back and marvel at the re-animation of old conversations? It's night of the living dead threads.

 

Yes it really is amusing to see people on both sides still getting worked up about it:D

[Mapleleafforever]

So let me ask this question, if your wife is allergic to smoke, why dis she (you) put her in harm's way by booking a balcony on a cruise line that allowed smoking on it's balcony?? Why not book an OV or Inside? Or, if a balcony was a requirement, book a cruise line that didn't allow smoking on the balcony? People putting themselves in harm's way and then complaining about said harm just don't get any sympathy in my book. That would be like standing on train tracks in the middle of the night and complain a train almost ran you over. :rolleyes:

 

Or going forward just continue to book Royal because they now have the same non smoking rules.

[Out to sea!]

Or going forward just continue to book Royal because they now have the same non smoking rules.

 

Yes, we understand the rules have changed. This was a question of why someone would take a chance on subjecting a family member to an allergic substance back under the old rules. In part, I ask this because I see the same complaints about smoke on the balcony on cruise lines that still allow it I would really like to understand the mentality of someone who would do this. Or is it really just an excuse to complain?

[gerif]

Yes, we understand the rules have changed. This was a question of why someone would take a chance on subjecting a family member to an allergic substance back under the old rules. In part, I ask this because I see the same complaints about smoke on the balcony on cruise lines that still allow it I would really like to understand the mentality of someone who would do this. Or is it really just an excuse to complain?

 

Let me try to explain it a bit better. They booked a balcony playing the odds that they would not be subjected to smokers. If they were unfortunate enough to have smokers nearby, wife would stay inside at least while smokers were present. Disappointing, yes, but not life threatening. It would be the same as if they had booked a cabin with no balcony although presumably husband could still enjoy the balcony.

 

Now, the casino is another story and we may just stick with Celebrity until Royal sees the light.

[Out to sea!]

Let me try to explain it a bit better. They booked a balcony playing the odds that they would not be subjected to smokers. If they were unfortunate enough to have smokers nearby, wife would stay inside at least while smokers were present. Disappointing, yes, but not life threatening. It would be the same as if they had booked a cabin with no balcony although presumably husband could still enjoy the balcony.

 

Now, the casino is another story and we may just stick with Celebrity until Royal sees the light.

 

No need to explain any further. I fully understand your point of view and disagree with it. Depending on how allergic she is to smoke, he most definitely put her at risk by booking a balcony in the first place because one cannot know if there will be smokers present on their balcony until they are already in the presence of said smoke that could cause an allergic reaction. Therefor, why risk it? Book and Inside or OV and no disappointment over paying more for a balcony that cannot be used, no loss of money due to the difference in cabin price, and no chance at all of running into smokers on a balcony. It doesn't matter if you agree with my point of view but the fact is, by sitting on a balcony and waiting to see if a smoker shows up, she was at risk. Maybe her allergy is minimal and the risk minimal, maybe one whiff and she would have a seizure, I don't know and the poster didn't elaborate. But either way, it's an unnecessary risk and it's rather absurd to take a risk and then complain about it.

[DC2OC]

Let me try to explain it a bit better. They booked a balcony playing the odds that they would not be subjected to smokers. If they were unfortunate enough to have smokers nearby, wife would stay inside at least while smokers were present. Disappointing, yes, but not life threatening. It would be the same as if they had booked a cabin with no balcony although presumably husband could still enjoy the balcony.

 

Now, the casino is another story and we may just stick with Celebrity until Royal sees the light.

 

Even if you get stuck inside you still have a more open feel from the larger window .

My last cruise was on Celebrity and it was great that the casino was smoke free, hopefully it will not be a problem on the Grandeur but if it is I figure I will save a few bucks

............Frank

[Out to sea!]

Yes, thank you Geri. At least someone gets it. I thought that's what I had said in my last two posts but apparently reading comprehension is an issue for some.:rolleyes:

 

Ah, so disagreeing with your particular point of view constitutes a reading comprehension problem? Hardly. Seems everyone needs to reread the FAQs, especially the part on Disruption of Our Community.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Out to sea!

[DC2OC]

No need to explain any further. I fully understand your point of view and disagree with it. Depending on how allergic she is to smoke, he most definitely put her at risk by booking a balcony in the first place because one cannot know if there will be smokers present on their balcony until they are already in the presence of said smoke that could cause an allergic reaction. Therefor, why risk it? Book and Inside or OV and no disappointment over paying more for a balcony that cannot be used, no loss of money due to the difference in cabin price, and no chance at all of running into smokers on a balcony. It doesn't matter if you agree with my point of view but the fact is, by sitting on a balcony and waiting to see if a smoker shows up, she was at risk. Maybe her allergy is minimal and the risk minimal, maybe one whiff and she would have a seizure, I don't know and the poster didn't elaborate. But either way, it's an unnecessary risk and it's rather absurd to take a risk and then complain about it.

Common sense would dictate that if it was drop dead deadly they would not book a cruise in the first place

[The Sunset Glow]

No need to explain any further. I fully understand your point of view and disagree with it. Depending on how allergic she is to smoke, he most definitely put her at risk by booking a balcony in the first place because one cannot know if there will be smokers present on their balcony until they are already in the presence of said smoke that could cause an allergic reaction. Therefor, why risk it? Book and Inside or OV and no disappointment over paying more for a balcony that cannot be used, no loss of money due to the difference in cabin price, and no chance at all of running into smokers on a balcony. It doesn't matter if you agree with my point of view but the fact is, by sitting on a balcony and waiting to see if a smoker shows up, she was at risk. Maybe her allergy is minimal and the risk minimal, maybe one whiff and she would have a seizure, I don't know and the poster didn't elaborate. But either way, it's an unnecessary risk and it's rather absurd to take a risk and then complain about it.

 

Well, I guess that's it then. Every one of us who has health issues when around smoke better just stay home. No walking on the sidewalks, no walking through the mall or office entrance doors, no going to some beaches that allow smoking, no going through the doors of a church or even the doctor's office because we may get near someone who's smoking.:rolleyes:

 

Yes, there's a health risk but we still have to live! If the person was at such a risk that they would instantly need to be hospitalized when they get a whiff of smoke then I don't think they would be going anywhere ever. Those of us who are sensitive to smoke always carry meds for this in case something does happen. And once we know where the risks are we avoid them but we are not going to quit living. Geesh. Hyperbolize much?

Edited June 14, 2014 by The Sunset Glow

[The Sunset Glow]

Common sense would dictate that if it was drop dead deadly they would not book a cruise in the first place

 

Exactly!

[retiredgram]

Even if you get stuck inside you still have a more open feel from the larger window .

My last cruise was on Celebrity and it was great that the casino was smoke free, hopefully it will not be a problem on the Grandeur but if it is I figure I will save a few bucks

............Frank

 

You're going to save a few bucks.

[akcruz]

No need to explain any further. I fully understand your point of view and disagree with it. Depending on how allergic she is to smoke, he most definitely put her at risk by booking a balcony in the first place because one cannot know if there will be smokers present on their balcony until they are already in the presence of said smoke that could cause an allergic reaction. Therefor, why risk it? Book and Inside or OV and no disappointment over paying more for a balcony that cannot be used, no loss of money due to the difference in cabin price, and no chance at all of running into smokers on a balcony. It doesn't matter if you agree with my point of view but the fact is, by sitting on a balcony and waiting to see if a smoker shows up, she was at risk. Maybe her allergy is minimal and the risk minimal, maybe one whiff and she would have a seizure, I don't know and the poster didn't elaborate. But either way, it's an unnecessary risk and it's rather absurd to take a risk and then complain about it.

 

The other part some just do not get is that the vacation revolves around more than just one person. I have sailed with my family for many years and what Royal can provide for my kids brings me to their ships. Fortunately for us we do not have the medical issues that some here do, but we do try to stay away from smoking areas whenever possible. Why does the whole family have to stay off a ship, or sail in an OV due to one person? Of course it would be great to have everyone be able to use something such as the balcony. Fortunately Royal has seen the light.

[ATC cruiser]

The heck with health risks, it just plain stinks and I don't want to smell it. If I were in charge you wouldn't get half the pool deck. Now if you want to smoke your e-cigs on your balcony I really don't care.

[YEZROD]

They say only 18% of people smoke but then say all the balconys are smokers the casino is all smokers that smokers should not be allowed on deck. One cruise line tried a non smoking ship and changed that in 6 months. Don't see the problem with making balconys on one side smoking.

and stop the non smokers from going onto the smoking side of the ship and complaining about the smoke. don't have a problem with making the casino non smoking on every other night. But you complain about me taking your right away but you don't have a problem with taking my rights away instead of finding a comprismise :eek:

[gerif]

They say only 18% of people smoke but then say all the balconys are smokers the casino is all smokers that smokers should not be allowed on deck. One cruise line tried a non smoking ship and changed that in 6 months. Don't see the problem with making balconys on one side smoking.

and stop the non smokers from going onto the smoking side of the ship and complaining about the smoke. don't have a problem with making the casino non smoking on every other night. But you complain about me taking your right away but you don't have a problem with taking my rights away instead of finding a comprismise :eek:

 

So, let me explain the problem with making balconies on one side smoking. As you yourself stated, 18% of people smoke (although I do believe the figure is lower amongst the socioeconomic group that takes cruises). If they make the balconies on one side of the ship smoking, who is going to book the rest of the balconies on that side of the ship? Sorry to put such a hole in your theory but (pun intended) it does not hold water.

 

Yes, it would be nice to make the casino non-smoking every other night but as one who had to book a smoking room in a hotel once, believe me, there is no way to get rid of that stench. It was horrible, permeated my clothing even though the room had been thoroughly cleaned.

[Charles4515]

They say only 18% of people smoke but then say all the balconys are smokers the casino is all smokers that smokers should not be allowed on deck. One cruise line tried a non smoking ship and changed that in 6 months. Don't see the problem with making balconys on one side smoking.

and stop the non smokers from going onto the smoking side of the ship and complaining about the smoke. don't have a problem with making the casino non smoking on every other night. But you complain about me taking your right away but you don't have a problem with taking my rights away instead of finding a comprismise :eek:

 

Make the casino non smoking every night!

[Mapleleafforever]

Make the casino non smoking every night!

 

It's only a matter of time before that happens.