Luminae - lunch

[RocketMan275]

 

If Celebrity finds it necessary to alter or tailor the precise experience on a cruise by cruise basis why not simply spell out the important changes to the standard product on the itinerary details before booking is completed.

 

That would be an administrative nightmare. Exactly what would constitute an "important change"? Where would this be posted? On the website? What about persons who book by phone? Should Celebrity be required to send them an official change notice? How? Email or snail mail?

 

What if "important changes" happen? Should celebrity have to allow cancellations?

 

Hotel websites typically have some kind of legal disclaimer that protects them in the case that their website information is incorrect. Hotels can change all sorts of things on their website without an obligation to inform already booked customers. Celebrity already has such a disclaimer in their contract.

[gcgold]

That would be an administrative nightmare. Exactly what would constitute an "important change"? Where would this be posted? On the website? What about persons who book by phone? Should Celebrity be required to send them an official change notice? How? Email or snail mail?

 

 

 

What if "important changes" happen? Should celebrity have to allow cancellations?

 

 

 

Hotel websites typically have some kind of legal disclaimer that protects them in the case that their website information is incorrect. Hotels can change all sorts of things on their website without an obligation to inform already booked customers. Celebrity already has such a disclaimer in their contract.

 

 

Can you please define what you mean by "contract".

 

I understand ( but not sure) that the T's & C's form the contract in North America.

 

However I am 100% sure that the T's & C's are only part of the contract in the UK ( & possibly Europe).

 

To give an example the Head of Celebrity UK publicly stated that Luminae would be serving 3 meals per day every day including Lunch on embarkation. Any UK booking made after that announcement would have that statement as part of the 'Contract' Should a Customer not get what she said they would have a legal claim against Celebrity UK. Whether anyone would wish to go down that route with all the costs etc is another matter.

 

It us important to realise that posters may not be aware of the significant differences in Consumer Protection in the UK/Europe compared to , say USA.

Edited June 22, 2015 by gcgold

[Karynanne]

I meant, did they offer the suites at a promotional price because Luminae was in soft opening / work in progress?

 

Was it clear to those people that had booked it was in soft opening?

 

No there wasn't any promotional pricing. But why should there be? We knew that this new venue was just being opened, and didn't expect perfection. We were very happy with the results. Excellent meals!

[richsea]

Can you please define what you mean by "contract".

 

I understand ( but not sure) that the T's & C's form the contract in North America.

 

However I am 100% sure that the T's & C's are only part of the contract in the UK ( & possibly Europe).

 

To give an example the Head of Celebrity UK publicly stated that Luminae would be serving 3 meals per day every day including Lunch on embarkation. Any UK booking made after that announcement would have that statement as part of the 'Contract' Should a Customer not get what she said they would have a legal claim against Celebrity UK. Whether anyone would wish to go down that route with all the costs etc is another matter.

 

It us important to realise that posters may not be aware of the significant differences in Consumer Protection in the UK/Europe compared to , say USA.

 

As someone said "Much ado about nothing".

[RocketMan275]

Can you please define what you mean by "contract".

 

I understand ( but not sure) that the T's & C's form the contract in North America.

 

However I am 100% sure that the T's & C's are only part of the contract in the UK ( & possibly Europe).

 

The contract is that document you agree to when you take a cruise. It may or may not include the T&C.

 

To give an example the Head of Celebrity UK publicly stated that Luminae would be serving 3 meals per day every day including Lunch on embarkation. Any UK booking made after that announcement would have that statement as part of the 'Contract' Should a Customer not get what she said they would have a legal claim against Celebrity UK. Whether anyone would wish to go down that route with all the costs etc is another matter.

 

Which is exactly why the cruise lines will avoid making specific statements. BTW, I understand the UK contract includes words that define an "important change" and only "Important changes" give cause to a claim. I seem to remember that a cruise line can miss one port but if it misses two ports, then that becomes an "important change". I maybe wrong in that. I only read the contract once. If that is the case, I'm not sure that missing lunch a couple of days would be considered an "important change" deserving of compensation.

 

It us important to realise that posters may not be aware of the significant differences in Consumer Protection in the UK/Europe compared to , say USA.

 

I'm not at all sure that UK/EU provides additional advantages in consumer protection. If the change is not an "important change", what protection do you get? And, those additional consumer protections prevent you from getting a refund of your deposit as well as add to the costs. Looks to me that in that case the US customer is better protected since he can always cancel the cruise and get his deposit back. We should all remember that large organizations and regulations are not always our friends. Sometimes "consumer protection" is just a synonym for "consumer exploitation".

[gcgold]

The contract is that document you agree to when you take a cruise. It may or may not include the T&C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is exactly why the cruise lines will avoid making specific statements. BTW, I understand the UK contract includes words that define an "important change" and only "Important changes" give cause to a claim. I seem to remember that a cruise line can miss one port but if it misses two ports, then that becomes an "important change". I maybe wrong in that. I only read the contract once. If that is the case, I'm not sure that missing lunch a couple of days would be considered an "important change" deserving of compensation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not at all sure that UK/EU provides additional advantages in consumer protection. If the change is not an "important change", what protection do you get? And, those additional consumer protections prevent you from getting a refund of your deposit as well as add to the costs. Looks to me that in that case the US customer is better protected since he can always cancel the cruise and get his deposit back. We should all remember that large organizations and regulations are not always our friends. Sometimes "consumer protection" is just a synonym for "consumer exploitation".

 

 

The UK/Euro Consumer protection laws are seen by many corporations as going too far to protect the consumer.

 

I wasn't saying they are better , rather different and you correctly point out that our deposits are non-refundable.

 

What I was trying to point out is that on these multi national forums it is important not to espouse opinions regarding contracts without stating which country's laws one is referring to.

 

I have on occasion booked via a USA TA in the full knowledge that I do not know my Consumer Rights , in exchange for a much cheaper cruise. If I book via a UK TA then it is with a fairly comprehensive knowledge of my rights but with an extra premium to pay.

 

According to some posts on this forum a USA booked cruise could mean that the Cruise Company could simply cruise around the sea off Miami for the duration of the Cruise? I can assure you all that this would not be tolerated in an English Court of Law IF challenged by a consumer .

[RocketMan275]

The UK/Euro Consumer protection laws are seen by many corporations as going too far to protect the consumer.

 

I do not consider that proof that UK/EU consumer protection laws are better than those in the US. Regulatory bodies are infamous for being co-opted by the corporations they should be regulating. Corporations often criticize regulations in public they support in private.

 

Consider the fact that the UK/EU regulations allow the forfeiture of your deposit. Where were these great protectors when this was allowed?

 

What I was trying to point out is that on these multi national forums it is important not to espouse opinions regarding contracts without stating which country's laws one is referring to.

 

An excellent point.

 

I have on occasion booked via a USA TA in the full knowledge that I do not know my Consumer Rights , in exchange for a much cheaper cruise. If I book via a UK TA then it is with a fairly comprehensive knowledge of my rights but with an extra premium to pay.

 

Evidently, you do not necessarily find true value in these protections.

 

According to some posts on this forum a USA booked cruise could mean that the Cruise Company could simply cruise around the sea off Miami for the duration of the Cruise? I can assure you all that this would not be tolerated in an English Court of Law IF challenged by a consumer .

 

Technically, they would not be in violation of their contract but that's mostly irrelevant since a 'cruise to nowhere' will be illegal in the US in 2016.

 

I would seriously doubt that a cruise line would attempt to market, for example, a seven day western Caribbean cruise with the usual ports intending to only cruise in circles. I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that the US courts would find that fraudulent. Not only that, the cruise line would suffer irreparable harm to their reputation.

[Pushka]

If I book in Australia on an Australian website, ie prices are in AUD automatically, then Australian consumer legislation applies regardless of the origin of the company.

[Project_gal]

Can you please define what you mean by "contract".

 

I understand ( but not sure) that the T's & C's form the contract in North America.

 

However I am 100% sure that the T's & C's are only part of the contract in the UK ( & possibly Europe).

 

To give an example the Head of Celebrity UK publicly stated that Luminae would be serving 3 meals per day every day including Lunch on embarkation. Any UK booking made after that announcement would have that statement as part of the 'Contract' Should a Customer not get what she said they would have a legal claim against Celebrity UK. Whether anyone would wish to go down that route with all the costs etc is another matter.

 

It us important to realise that posters may no be aware of the significant differences in Consumer Protection in the UK/Europe compared to , say USA.

 

Yes, and, if I remember correctly, she also stated things in the live Q&A session that were not correct and were corrected by Cruise Critic staff. Anyway, she certainly did not promise three meals a day every day on every ship which you are interpreting her to have said.

 

As our US friends have pointed out: things change. Your interpretation of EU consumer protection would have us all stuck in a time warp not allowing anything to change, let alone improve.

 

We do have better consumer protection her but I doubt there would be any compensation because you had to eat in the buffet, Blu. MDR, your suite, Bistro on Five [included if you are in a RS, PH or Reflection Suite], Aqua Spa café or Pool Grill. It is totally reasonable for each sailing [let alone, ship] to have its own opening hours for any venue depending on itinerary.

 

As I have said previously, more than one, we were disappointed that there was only brunch on most days of our 17-night cruise - until we experienced it. In the event, it was the perfect arrangement. I am assuming, from your post, that you have not yet cruised in a suite on Celebrity under the new Suite Class. Do not ruin your cruise by deciding, in advance, that you are not going to like something.

[Gordoncruickshank]

 

I am assuming, from your post, that you have not yet cruised in a suite on Celebrity under the new Suite Class. Do not ruin your cruise by deciding, in advance, that you are not going to like something.

 

After reading other posts yesterday on other threads I think he did last week.

[jenniebnyc]

Last week, it was confirmed on Celebrity's Official Facebook page, by a Celebrity Official, that 3 meals a day are being served everyday on every ship that has Luminae. And those three meals are served in Luminae. They apparently do not know what is happening on their ships. I sure hope they can fix this soon.

[TheBigCheese]

I dont like the return to having classes of service on cruise ships. I hope this fails.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[HouseRulz]

I dont like the return to having classes of service on cruise ships. I hope this fails.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps consider Carnival. They do not provide any added on-ship amenities to guests based on cabin type. Truly democratic cruising.

[TheBigCheese]

Way past Carnival. Sadly, the return to multiclass cruising is part of the trend towards charging extra for everything. We liked cruising because of the prepaid aspect and hate being nickled and dimed.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Karynanne]

Way past Carnival. Sadly, the return to multiclass cruising is part of the trend towards charging extra for everything. We liked cruising because of the prepaid aspect and hate being nickled and dimed.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I don't think you understand the concept of "Suite Dining". Celebrity has always had Suite cabins on their ships. And along with this cabin, specific amenities were included. Now included is a designated dining room. No extra fees once onboard...

 

Look at it this way...when you book a flight on an airline, you know in advance that if you book Business or First Class, specific amenities are included.

 

It's the same onboard Celebrity. You get what you pay for...

[HouseRulz]

Way past Carnival. Sadly, the return to multiclass cruising is part of the trend towards charging extra for everything. We liked cruising because of the prepaid aspect and hate being nickled and dimed.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I have to confess: I really do not understand this rather common perspective. "I do not care to cruise on X, Y or Z. I want to cruise on A, B, or C. Additionally, I expect whatever comes with my cruise fare to be the same as what everyone else gets. If someone on the same ship as me gets more than I do, I have a problem with it."

 

The issue with that logic is that, except for the "take me somewhere fun, feed me, and have some entertainment for me and my family; no frills necessary" market, there isn't a big enough market at anyone price point to allow for cruise lines to make acceptable profits.

 

The truth is, not only do cruise lines need to do things to entice people to spend more, those people who do spend more are actually subsidizing part of the experience for those paying less.

 

It's not atypical to see people pay a 40% mark-up to have a window in their stateroom. Another 40% mark-up for a 30 sqft balcony. On my upcoming cruise a Sky Suite (which is about 50% larger than an inside stateroom) costs three times as much. One could book a balcony stateroom, the inside stateroom across the hall, and the specialty dining package, enjoy more room (two full beds, two bathrooms, more closet space) and still pay less than a suite. Premium accommodations are cash cows for the cruise lines.

 

If you took an X ship, removed all the balconies, covered all the windows, and made all the staterooms 170 sqft, the price of those staterooms would be at least 50% higher than the current price of a standard inside. I doubt any cruise line could sell all those cabins at that price, as such the price would come down, and the quality of food/entertainment/amenities would come down as well.

 

I think it's normal to want to have as much access as anyone else; to have as many perks, but those perks are provided because the customer is not only paying for them, she is also paying enough of a premium such that a higher base of service can be provided to those paying far less.

[xmarksx]

I don't think you understand the concept of "Suite Dining". Celebrity has always had Suite cabins on their ships. And along with this cabin, specific amenities were included. Now included is a designated dining room. No extra fees once onboard...

 

Look at it this way...when you book a flight on an airline, you know in advance that if you book Business or First Class, specific amenities are included.

 

It's the same onboard Celebrity. You get what you pay for...

 

+1 and will add that when we took our first cruise, NCL in 1990, there were no more nickel-dime charges than Celebrity maintains today. In fact, I can make the argument that 1,2,3 promos reduce that number. In 90 we paid for booze, photos, gratuities, salon/spa, excursions. Now I can mitigate some of that cost with a promo. No such animal back then. They also had suites but we just could not afford them.

[Ma Bell]

I have to confess: I really do not understand this rather common perspective. "I do not care to cruise on X, Y or Z. I want to cruise on A, B, or C. Additionally, I expect whatever comes with my cruise fare to be the same as what everyone else gets. If someone on the same ship as me gets more than I do, I have a problem with it."

 

The issue with that logic is that, except for the "take me somewhere fun, feed me, and have some entertainment for me and my family; no frills necessary" market, there isn't a big enough market at anyone price point to allow for cruise lines to make acceptable profits.

 

The truth is, not only do cruise lines need to do things to entice people to spend more, those people who do spend more are actually subsidizing part of the experience for those paying less.

 

It's not atypical to see people pay a 40% mark-up to have a window in their stateroom. Another 40% mark-up for a 30 sqft balcony. On my upcoming cruise a Sky Suite (which is about 50% larger than an inside stateroom) costs three times as much. One could book a balcony stateroom, the inside stateroom across the hall, and the specialty dining package, enjoy more room (two full beds, two bathrooms, more closet space) and still pay less than a suite. Premium accommodations are cash cows for the cruise lines.

 

If you took an X ship, removed all the balconies, covered all the windows, and made all the staterooms 170 sqft, the price of those staterooms would be at least 50% higher than the current price of a standard inside. I doubt any cruise line could sell all those cabins at that price, as such the price would come down, and the quality of food/entertainment/amenities would come down as well.

 

I think it's normal to want to have as much access as anyone else; to have as many perks, but those perks are provided because the customer is not only paying for them, she is also paying enough of a premium such that a higher base of service can be provided to those paying far less.

 

Great explanation and very true. It also applies to many other things in this world but many people don't seem to understand it.

[richsea]

I have to confess: I really do not understand this rather common perspective. "I do not care to cruise on X, Y or Z. I want to cruise on A, B, or C. Additionally, I expect whatever comes with my cruise fare to be the same as what everyone else gets. If someone on the same ship as me gets more than I do, I have a problem with it."

 

The issue with that logic is that, except for the "take me somewhere fun, feed me, and have some entertainment for me and my family; no frills necessary" market, there isn't a big enough market at anyone price point to allow for cruise lines to make acceptable profits.

 

The truth is, not only do cruise lines need to do things to entice people to spend more, those people who do spend more are actually subsidizing part of the experience for those paying less.

 

It's not atypical to see people pay a 40% mark-up to have a window in their stateroom. Another 40% mark-up for a 30 sqft balcony. On my upcoming cruise a Sky Suite (which is about 50% larger than an inside stateroom) costs three times as much. One could book a balcony stateroom, the inside stateroom across the hall, and the specialty dining package, enjoy more room (two full beds, two bathrooms, more closet space) and still pay less than a suite. Premium accommodations are cash cows for the cruise lines.

 

If you took an X ship, removed all the balconies, covered all the windows, and made all the staterooms 170 sqft, the price of those staterooms would be at least 50% higher than the current price of a standard inside. I doubt any cruise line could sell all those cabins at that price, as such the price would come down, and the quality of food/entertainment/amenities would come down as well.

 

I think it's normal to want to have as much access as anyone else; to have as many perks, but those perks are provided because the customer is not only paying for them, she is also paying enough of a premium such that a higher base of service can be provided to those paying far less.

 

Well stated. Thanks.

 

I think the fact that Celebrity is choosing to make the suite experience more inclusive, even if they have raised suite fares, actually can enhance the overall experience for evryone.

 

What I do find disturbing, is the child-like foot stomping of some who are ready to jump ship because on some ships, Luminae might not serve lunch every day. It's like "I want ALL the crayons, 'cause you said!"

[Ma Bell]

Well stated. Thanks.

 

I think the fact that Celebrity is choosing to make the suite experience more inclusive, even if they have raised suite fares, actually can enhance the overall experience for evryone.

 

What I do find disturbing, is the child-like foot stomping of some who are ready to jump ship because on some ships, Luminae might not serve lunch every day. It's like "I want ALL the crayons, 'cause you said!"

 

Unfortunately common sense doesn't always prevail. There are just times when it makes no sense to have a dining room open for a couple of people and it's not as if there aren't other options available.

[jenniebnyc]

Unfortunately common sense doesn't always prevail. There are just times when it makes no sense to have a dining room open for a couple of people and it's not as if there aren't other options available.

 

The point trying to be made over and again by me and some others is that Celebrity Officials, as late as last week, are stating that three meals a day are being served on all ships, in Luminae. There is no footnote about soft openings, working out kinks, individual ships have discretion on how many meals are served, some people don't need three meals, no one is in diningroom so we won't serve three meals, other passengers don't care, etc. etc... It is frustrating that they are officially stating something over and over again that is just not true. Please try to see this side of the scenario.

[BILLP1]

I agree with you completely. Your only asking to get what you were promised. What is not right about that?

Imagine if they closed the pools early or in the afternoon or the Oceanview cafe for the same reasons. Would the same people posting here say " No PROBLEM"

[JaneStarr]

I agree with you completely. Your only asking to get what you were promised. What is not right about that?

Imagine if they closed the pools early or in the afternoon or the Oceanview cafe for the same reasons. Would the same people posting here say " No PROBLEM"

 

I see this exactly the same way. That being said, I personally would be OK with Brunch and dinner *If* the brunch hours were extended to include those who want either breakfast and/or lunch.

 

I do hope that the recent report of Equinox not serving an embarkation lunch was a "one of" -- perhaps the new dining room chairs were being delivered during that embarkation?

Edited June 23, 2015 by JaneStarr

[jenniebnyc]

I'll add, I don't think opening Luminae for one hour for lunch (12-1pm) is great either, which is what I have been hearing from recent passeneger who have received some sort of lunch. Ideally, 12-2 or 11:30-1:30 might work better. I don't think opening for 2 hours for lunch is asking a lot.

 

Also, extending breakfast on sea days until 10am would be nice too. :)

[JaneStarr]

I'll add, I don't think opening Luminae for one hour for lunch (12-1pm) is great either, which is what I have been hearing from recent passeneger who have received some sort of lunch. Ideally, 12-2 or 11:30-1:30 might work better. I don't think opening for 2 hours for lunch is asking a lot.

 

Also, extending breakfast on sea days until 10am would be nice too. :)

I strongly agree with this! On sea days, we are likely to want a late, leisurely breakfast followed by a smaller late lunch. We usually have supper around the late seating times.