It's official! Formal nights gone, evening chic in! (3 Threads Merged)

[Natalia&Nick]

That's the look? Too bad I didn't know this before I gave away my sports jackets that no longer fit.

 

 

No, the older guys look like they are wearing jackets 2 sizes too big ;)

[Natalia&Nick]

I think so many on here and Celebrity have missed the point.

Formal is a form of fancy dress or escapism.

Whether you love it or hate it, it was part of the brand when the cruise was booked. That applies to those who don't like it too. The brand has been changed after the contract was made which I feel is wrong.

For me, Americans just don't have the style that Europeans have (that's a very common theme of discussions in my experience) and this was one way of creating a special environment. Not all, before you start!!

But the jury is out until we see it. We might hate it, we might like it and we might even influence it...

[A Sixth?]

No, it's about the occasion - dress, feel and food ;)

 

Yes, you're right.... but in order I'd say

 

Companions, Feel, food, dress..

 

[Natalia&Nick]

Yes, you're right.... but in order I'd say

 

 

 

Companions, Feel, food, dress..

 

 

 

 

 

That's opinions for you ;)

[POA1]

Yes, you're right.... but in order I'd say

 

Companions, Feel, food, dress..

 

 

Excellent! I'd add Wine to the list though.

[A Sixth?]

Excellent! I'd add Wine to the list though.

 

You bet! :p

 

[Jobeth66]

I think so many on here and Celebrity have missed the point.

Formal is a form of fancy dress or escapism.

Whether you love it or hate it, it was part of the brand when the cruise was booked. That applies to those who don't like it too. The brand has been changed after the contract was made which I feel is wrong.

For me, Americans just don't have the style that Europeans have (that's a very common theme of discussions in my experience) and this was one way of creating a special environment. Not all, before you start!!

But the jury is out until we see it. We might hate it, we might like it and we might even influence it...

 

I don't think anyone's missed the point.

 

You are free to don your fancy dress and escape however you'd like. You're just not /required/ to.

 

The brand has not been changed. They've simply gone from formal wear mandatory in the MDR to formal wear optional in the MDR. It was already optional /everywhere else on the ship/. One venue has made a slight change. That's it.

 

But your cruise will still leave the same day, arrive the same day (barring incident) visit the same ports (ibid), offer the same meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

 

It hasn't changed with the exception that on one or two nights, nobody will be required to wear formal clothing in the (again) one venue that required it, but anyone who likes to is free to do so.

 

That's not a material change that warrants an intimation of 'breach of contract'. I'm curious - do you think a cruise line should announce a change like this 3 years in advance of allowing it to take effect, so that they can be sure that no one has booked a cruise yet that might be affected by the announcement? I mean, the 2017/18 itineraries are about to be announced, do you believe that is the first set of cruises that they should be "allowed" to make this change on?

 

When they banned smoking on the balconies/in staterooms - do you feel the same way? That they should've announced the change 3 years in advance so that anyone who had already booked a cruise wouldn't be affected, despite the fact that other lines had already made that change, and it could lose them customers?

 

That's a completely unrealistic and unreasonable expectation.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Jobeth66

[seapals2]

Totally agree and that indeed should be the end of the discussion .... But of course it won't be. Because ..... as we all know now the need to wear formal attire has been removed in general those that still do will feel over dressed next to someone wearing jeans who is now justified in doing so.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Natalia&Nick]

I don't think anyone's missed the point.

 

You are free to don your fancy dress and escape however you'd like. You're just not /required/ to.

 

The brand has not been changed. They've simply gone from formal wear mandatory in the MDR to formal wear optional in the MDR. It was already optional /everywhere else on the ship/. One venue has made a slight change. That's it.

 

But your cruise will still leave the same day, arrive the same day (barring incident) visit the same ports (ibid), offer the same meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

 

It hasn't changed with the exception that on one or two nights, nobody will be required to wear formal clothing in the (again) one venue that required it, but anyone who likes to is free to do so.

 

That's not a material change that warrants an intimation of 'breach of contract'. I'm curious - do you think a cruise line should announce a change like this 3 years in advance of allowing it to take effect, so that they can be sure that no one has booked a cruise yet that might be affected by the announcement? I mean, the 2017/18 itineraries are about to be announced, do you believe that is the first set of cruises that they should be "allowed" to make this change on?

 

When they banned smoking on the balconies/in staterooms - do you feel the same way? That they should've announced the change 3 years in advance so that anyone who had already booked a cruise wouldn't be affected, despite the fact that other lines had already made that change, and it could lose them customers?

 

That's a completely unrealistic and unreasonable expectation.

 

 

I don't agree with most of what you say, sorry

[GottaKnowWhen]

It looks like there was a fundraiser on Eclipse on what I am assuming was an overnight in port in NYC. Good examples of what I think they expect for "chic".

 

My opinion is some is casual chic and some evening chic. YMMV

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153754683290879.1073741864.92998025878&type=3

 

Happy sailing,

Jenna

 

I hope you are wrong. Most of the men shown are dressed in what I would call dress-down Friday, i.e. casual. I wouldn't be surprised to see that range & style of dress in small-town midwest, but I am surprised to see it at a NYC fundraiser. And I hope I don't on future sailings as well. But maybe the doom-criers are correct...

 

Stan

[LA_Design]

I don't think anyone's missed the point.

 

You are free to don your fancy dress and escape however you'd like. You're just not /required/ to.

 

The brand has not been changed. They've simply gone from formal wear mandatory in the MDR to formal wear optional in the MDR. It was already optional /everywhere else on the ship/. One venue has made a slight change. That's it.

 

But your cruise will still leave the same day, arrive the same day (barring incident) visit the same ports (ibid), offer the same meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

 

It hasn't changed with the exception that on one or two nights, nobody will be required to wear formal clothing in the (again) one venue that required it, but anyone who likes to is free to do so.

 

That's not a material change that warrants an intimation of 'breach of contract'. I'm curious - do you think a cruise line should announce a change like this 3 years in advance of allowing it to take effect, so that they can be sure that no one has booked a cruise yet that might be affected by the announcement? I mean, the 2017/18 itineraries are about to be announced, do you believe that is the first set of cruises that they should be "allowed" to make this change on?

 

When they banned smoking on the balconies/in staterooms - do you feel the same way? That they should've announced the change 3 years in advance so that anyone who had already booked a cruise wouldn't be affected, despite the fact that other lines had already made that change, and it could lose them customers?

 

That's a completely unrealistic and unreasonable expectation.

 

 

here we go again .

quoting US legislation on a multi-national forum is so banal.

 

In the UK i opine that people MAY have a case for breach of contract.

 

I would consider making arrangements for representing the people affected but doubt it would be worth the hassle and up front expense.

 

Please do not confuse / quote entitlements in the US A v UK. You stick to enjoying mcdonalds , kfc & guantanamo & we will enjoy lousy weather and rubbish football, cricket & rugby teams. We will however lead the world in fair legislation . [emoji33]

[Tura Lura]

I hope you are wrong. Most of the men shown are dressed in what I would call dress-down Friday, i.e. casual. I wouldn't be surprised to see that range & style of dress in small-town midwest, but I am surprised to see it at a NYC fundraiser. And I hope I don't on future sailings as well. But maybe the doom-criers are correct...

 

Stan

 

Wow really? As a New Yorker, I'd say they are mostly dressed hipster cool. This is a fundraiser for the LGBT center, they are dressed fab for the occasion. It's not a "gala" it's a modern chic cool event. A few I saw could get away with wearing the outfit at work on a normal day ( not dress down Friday, which is normally dark jeans or dockers), but most are much too evening, club for a day at the office.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Tura Lura

[Jobeth66]

here we go again .

quoting US legislation on a multi-national forum is so banal.

 

In the UK i opine that people MAY have a case for breach of contract.

 

I would consider making arrangements for representing the people affected but doubt it would be worth the hassle and up front expense.

 

Please do not confuse / quote entitlements in the US A v UK. You stick to enjoying mcdonalds , kfc & guantanamo & we will enjoy lousy weather and rubbish football, cricket & rugby teams. We will however lead the world in fair legislation . [emoji33]

 

While I am by no means an expert on UK law (though I do deal with it in the course of my employment), I'm fairly confident that changing the dress code in one venue of a ship for a few nights is NOT something that is an actionable breach of contract, even in the UK. It's not a material change to the terms of the cruise.

 

Maybe there's a barrister on the board who can weigh in on this. But I would be extremely shocked if even the strong protections available to those of you in the UK and EU are not going to respond favorably to any attempt to invoke them for this reason.

 

Oh, and I don't eat at McDonald's or KFC, nor do I approve of Guantanamo. And I'm so glad to hear that there is no such thing as 'unfair legislation' in the UK. I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree with you.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Jobeth66

[Cruise Raider]

Personally, I just love this change!! I mean, I really, really love this change. We always dress nicely for dinner but decided not to attend the formal nights in the MDR as we didn't want to drag the formal wear with us. Thank you Celebrity!! This is definitely a change for the better!

 

 

You are in charge of your own happiness ... people, don't let others determine this for you!!

[suzyed]

Don't see anyone under 70 in those pictures.(post #809)

I'll bet they'd also like HAL.

 

You don't have to be over 70 to sail on Cunard, even the more current ships. (We first sailed on Cunard in 1980 when we were in our 20's). But we have been sailed twice on the QM2 since 2005 and we are now early 60's. We have another booked for next year.

From our experience there are more over 70 people on Princess than on QM2. We really don't care anyway...we have nice people of all ages! ;)

Edited November 15, 2015 by suzyed

[suzyed]

here we go again .

quoting US legislation on a multi-national forum is so banal.

 

In the UK i opine that people MAY have a case for breach of contract.

 

I would consider making arrangements for representing the people affected but doubt it would be worth the hassle and up front expense.

 

Please do not confuse / quote entitlements in the US A v UK. You stick to enjoying mcdonalds , kfc & guantanamo & we will enjoy lousy weather and rubbish football, cricket & rugby teams. We will however lead the world in fair legislation . [emoji33]

 

LOL! Very funny...

[Cruise Junky]

You don't have to be over 70 to sail on Cunard

 

You don't have to be but it helps ;)

[Charles4515]

You don't have to be but it helps ;)

 

 

The sailing I did on Cunard had a lot of over 70 single women. Cunard had some elegantly dressed senior Gentleman Hosts onboard who paid a low fare to cruise in that position to be dance partners. I wonder if they still have them.

 

I think Celebrity wants to keep its demographic younger than Cunard, Princess, and HAL. That is a reason for Evening Chic.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Charles4515

[suzyed]

The sailing I did on Cunard had a lot of over 70 single women. Cunard had some elegantly dressed senior Gentleman Hosts onboard who paid a low fare to cruise in that position to be dance partners. I wonder if they still have them.

 

They did the last time we cruised on QM2...about 3 years ago. We are sailing again in the spring, so I guess we will see then!

[Tura Lura]

The sailing I did on Cunard had a lot of over 70 single women. Cunard had some elegantly dressed senior Gentleman Hosts onboard who paid a low fare to cruise in that position to be dance partners. I wonder if they still have them.

 

I think Celebrity wants to keep its demographic younger than Cunard, Princess, and HAL. That is a reason for Evening Chic.

 

I've only seen "gentlemen hosts" in that movie Out at Sea! That was my view of cruising for ages and a reason I never wanted to try it. Glad most cruises have evolved from that to something more modern. That's seriously old school. :)

[LA_Design]

While I am by no means an expert on UK law (though I do deal with it in the course of my employment), I'm fairly confident that changing the dress code in one venue of a ship for a few nights is NOT something that is an actionable breach of contract, even in the UK. It's not a material change to the terms of the cruise.

 

Maybe there's a barrister on the board who can weigh in on this. But I would be extremely shocked if even the strong protections available to those of you in the UK and EU are not going to respond favorably to any attempt to invoke them for this reason.

 

Oh, and I don't eat at McDonald's or KFC, nor do I approve of Guantanamo. And I'm so glad to hear that there is no such thing as 'unfair legislation' in the UK. I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree with you.

 

 

Firstly I highlighted MAY to indicate that it was not a clear case. My humble opinion is that the chances of winning would be about 50/50 hence why I didnt think it worth the hassle. On the one hand I could argue that the cruise wad booked with a Clear written undertaking that there would be x formal nights. We could use all the furore on here and social media to demonstrate that such a change has people cancelling cruises and vowing never to ho Celebrity again. On the other hand Celebrity would argue that the change was minor and only affects one room on the ship. The judgement would be whether the claimants expectations were reasonable and that the change would have meant them not booking the cruise if the new arrangements had been in place at the time of booking. Hard to predict an outcome.

 

We wouldnt initially need a Barrister to pursue a case and only if the case reached a certain level of court. We might possibly seek counsel's opinion but unlikely .

Again this shows why one should not post about other Country's legal system.

 

Apologies for the poor terminology 'fair legislation'. What I should have said was legislation that is fair to all in consumer protection issues.

[DYKWIA]

Firstly I highlighted MAY to indicate that it was not a clear case. My humble opinion is that the chances of winning would be about 50/50 hence why I didnt think it worth the hassle. On the one hand I could argue that the cruise wad booked with a Clear written undertaking that there would be x formal nights. We could use all the furore on here and social media to demonstrate that such a change has people cancelling cruises and vowing never to ho Celebrity again. On the other hand Celebrity would argue that the change was minor and only affects one room on the ship. The judgement would be whether the claimants expectations were reasonable and that the change would have meant them not booking the cruise if the new arrangements had been in place at the time of booking. Hard to predict an outcome.

 

We wouldnt initially need a Barrister to pursue a case and only if the case reached a certain level of court. We might possibly seek counsel's opinion but unlikely .

Again this shows why one should not post about other Country's legal system.

 

Apologies for the poor terminology 'fair legislation'. What I should have said was legislation that is fair to all in consumer protection issues.

 

it's little more than a name change. If you want to dress Formal and eat Lobster / crayfish you can.

 

People seem to want it both ways - they want to book up cruises 3+ years in advance without accepting the fact that is a long time and things happen in 3 years and businesses might need to change.

 

That said, Celebrity does seem to be pretty terrible at communicating these things, there seems to be little discipline. A few months ago you had a CEO saying Formal Nights were here to stay and then.... It's not as though an extraordinary event happened that forced a sudden announcement. It would have been easy for her to say at the time, "we will continue to offer special nights giving everyone the opportunity to dress up"

 

It's as though they don't realise that every utterance from Celebrity doesn't undergo microanalysis by the members on Cruise Critic, perhaps they don't care

Edited November 15, 2015 by DYKWIA

[LA_Design]

it's little more than a name change. If you want to dress Formal and eat Lobster / crayfish you can.

 

People seem to want it both ways - they want to book up cruises 3+ years in advance without accepting the fact that is a long time and things happen in 3 years and businesses might need to change.

 

That said, Celebrity does seem to be pretty terrible at communicating these things, there seems to be little discipline. A few months ago you had a CEO saying Formal Nights were here to stay and then.... It's not as though an extraordinary event happened that forced a sudden announcement. It would have been easy for her to say at the time, "we will continue to offer special nights giving everyone the opportunity to dress up"

 

It's as though they don't realise that every utterance from Celebrity doesn't undergo microanalysis by the members on Cruise Critic, perhaps they don't care

 

 

Personally I agree it is a minor thing to me. Others seem to view it as a major event.

 

However the poster was giving opinions on the legality or not for bookings in the UK. He/she is an American with obviously no detailed knowledge of our consumer protection laws.

 

I wouldnt pontificate on US legislation as I have only limited knowledge - and my next cruise is under their jurisdiction as we booked via a USA travel agent.[emoji32]

Edited November 15, 2015 by LA_Design

[roundthenextcorner]

Personally I agree it is a minor thing to me. Others seem to view it as a major event.

 

However the poster was giving opinions on the legality or not for bookings in the UK. He/she is an American with obviously no detailed knowledge of our consumer protection laws.

 

I wouldnt pontificate on US legislation as I have only limited knowledge - and my next cruise is under their jurisdiction as we booked via a USA travel agent.[emoji32]

 

With regard to 'pontificating', don't say 'our laws' in relation to UK if you really mean England.

Scotland has it's own legal system, including in the area of consumer law (the new Consumer Rights Act reflects this).

 

Also, on other threads you've been dissing cle-guy, stop it now. Curt puts so much time into helping others out and you're being petty.

[Natalia&Nick]

Would you be happy if you went to the Last Night of the Proms and there were people around you in jeans?

Celebrity made a mistake. Even just one formal night would be nice!!