X...the phoney cruise line.

[canderson]

All points well taken. Mostly I do not disagree with them. But you still shy away from the posture of my previous post. You said you have come back from late excursions and dined casually. But you note that you went and changed to "informal" clothes. The whole basis of this argument is FORMAL NIGHT.

 

Ah, thought you had been referring informal night this yourself. No matter -- Had it in fact been a formal night when we got caught late, we'd have done that instead. It just happened to be an "informal" (not casual, as we had been dressed earlier).

 

Not informal night. In the scenario you describe, would you go back to your cabin and put on your formal clothes at 11:00 at night to spend an hour or so in the casino?

 

Personally, I'd probably pass on the casino if that were the only reason for dressing that evening, but if I'd been properly dressed for the show (prior posts), I'd already been in appropriate clothing, wouldn't I? I'm confused about the scenario you're setting up. You addressed the show, I addressed the show. Now we seem to be off to the casino. Be that as it may, as it stands, Celebrity does not make a distinction. What business do I have making one? There do seem to be areas considered more "sensitive" than others. Areas such as the pool deck and similar outdoor spaces have never been an issue. For obvious reasons, neither has been the casual dining area. The areas most commonly addressed are the dining room, entertainment areas (except the guitar player's area on 10 aft, which seems to be exempt for some reason), and the casino.

 

What I am saying, have been saying, and will continue to maintain that there are situations where people WILL be in casual clothing on formal nights. The cruise line cannot allow them the opportunity to dine and then force them to their cabin.

 

Well -- yes they can! Whether they do is another story.

 

If there was NOT the opportunity for casual dining, then you and I would probably be close to 100% in aggreement.

 

Ah, I'm beginning to understand what's happened here. Rather than being entirely dogmatic about it as they could have been (and likely once were before "alternative casual dining"), Celebrity has created an alternative venue for folks so that they can have a decent sit-down dinner even if they don't feel like dressing for the evening. Because Celebrity has accomodated this, it's now expected that they'll accomodate this in all other areas of the ship as well?

 

I just don't follow that jump in logic at all. It's saying that if Celebrity expects to get compliance with the dress of the evening in other areas of the ship, they should shut down casual dining options. Remember which came first! The casual dining option is a concession to a number of issues that can arise for some passengers that allow them a nice sit-down dinner where they wouldn't have had access to one before, and I don't see why they should then take that concession as license for the rest of the evening! You make it sound as though Celebrity were encouraging a break from the dress code policy as a whole. If Celebrity didn't offer the casual dining option, would you think it more reasonable that underdressed passengers be allowed access to the other public spaces?

 

But there is, and I respectfully submit that those people have just as much "right" (there's that pesky word again) to avail themselves of shipboard amenities as the "formals" do.

 

Rights such as these are decided by the line. We're all "captives" in that sense, and heaven help us if we're not properly informed of the line's expectations before we arrive (diatribe on TA's saved for later!). It is a pesky word, and one that needs to be applied carefully, especially in western society. It's misapplied SO often. I drives me nuts to hear people complain that their "First Amendment rights" have been violated in some fashion in the private sector! You wouldn't believe how many young ones think they have 1st amendment rights that apply to boards like this one!

[Ocean Boy]

My experience is that on formal nights, anywhere from 10-15% of the ship dines casually-either room service or on "Casual Dining Boulevard." Contrary to some of those who posture over and over here, that is not "extreme." It is anywhere from 150 to 300 people, depending on ship/itinerary/etc. That is a good portion of the passenger list that some want banned from virtually all areas of the ship. Trust me, though, Celebrity, has no intention of banning those people from revenue generating venues.

Your numbers also translate into 75-150 cabins that are occupied instead of sailing empty. You loose that number of cabins on each sailing and you loose Celebrity.

[canderson]

Canderson...

 

I very much agree with what you say. But my concern has always been that it makes little sense to offer casual dining and then expect people to have no access to the ship in the evening. They should get rid of the option and truly make the ship formal in the evening and market themselves that way. I think it sends a mixed message to say that "we offer casual dining for those you don't want to dress up. And, oh by the way, if you take advantage of this option that we offer you are barred from going to any public areas of the ship."

I fully understand your confusion about this, but not the logic that then follows from it. The option would be to stick to the policy in a rigorous fashion without the concession of a casual dining alternative. Indeed, those who cannot or will not dress for the evening are better off at least being offered a decent sit-down meal, are they not?

 

Celebrity makes this concession, so Celebrity is then, in your mind, obligated to make further concessions? I don't follow that. :confused:

[Ocean Boy]

I fully understand your confusion about this, but not the logic that then follows from it. The option would be to stick to the policy in a rigorous fashion without the concession of a casual dining alternative. Indeed, those who cannot or will not dress for the evening are better off at least being offered a decent sit-down meal, are they not?

 

Celebrity makes this concession, so Celebrity is then, in your mind, obligated to make further concessions? I don't follow that. :confused:

I follow your logic if, in fact, Celebrity instituted casual dining as a concession. However, if they brought it aboard as a way to increase the demographics that they would appeal to, and therefore, increase revenue, then I would say that my argument holds.

[canderson]

I follow your logic if, in fact, Celebrity instituted casual dining as a concession. However, if they brought it aboard as a way to increase the demographics that they would appeal to, and therefore, increase revenue, then I would say that my argument holds.

No question of the sequence. It wasn't that long ago when the folks sailing trans-Atlantic in steerage had to dress for dinner! It was indeed instituted as a concession to any number of problems that might beset someone on a cruise .... loss of luggage, late return from shore excursions (where sometimes you not only don't have time to dress, you miss your seating altogether!), too bloody tired to make the effort, kids that aren't able to handle the longer sit-down in the main dining room on a given evening --- you name it. Somebody at Celebrity determined that these and a host of other possible "events" shouldn't cause one of their passengers to miss out on the opportunity to sit down and be served their dinner instead of being stuck with room service, pizza, or a half-hearted buffet line. I think that this was commendable on Celebrity's part, as it offered a reasonably civilized alternative to those who understood the dress code issues, but weren't in a good position to comply.

 

It was a smart concession to realities by Celebrity to that treated the 'exceptions' in a nicer fashion, but didn't mess with their basic premise about dressing for the evening but -- and that's exactly why I'm so far unwilling to go with the arguments to the contrary.

[Danno]

In conclusion....I, for one, am VERY glad that this cruise line provides a first class PHONY (US spelling) experience...each day I see enough reality on the news, and even walking down the street, that 10 days in a make believe world is a welcome respite.

 

I think that's why I resent the use of cell phones, and walkie talkies so much...they are part of the everyday rude reality, even neccessity, of the work world. Their use, jolts me back to the real world...I can get all the real world I want the other 50 weeks of the year.

 

Keep up the good fight all...a few cruise lines still understand that this vacation is special, even if a few patrons don't.

[Ocean Boy]

In conclusion....I, for one, am VERY glad that this cruise line provides a first class PHONY (US spelling) experience...each day I see enough reality on the news, and even walking down the street, that 10 days in a make believe world is a welcome respite.

 

I think that's why I resent the use of cell phones, and walkie talkies so much...they are part of the everyday rude reality, even neccessity, of the work world. Their use, jolts me back to the real world...I can get all the real world I want the other 50 weeks of the year.

 

Keep up the good fight all...a few cruise lines still understand that this vacation is special, even if a few patrons don't.

Just a thought, have you ever considered the fact that for some people putting on a suit is right up there with the cell phone and the other things that are part of the everyday rude reality of the work world?

[Blazerboy]

Well, Danno, you tried....:rolleyes:

 

Andrew

[Gimpster]

"All of this started because I defended the very few number of people who, on a formal night, may want to take part in some of the ship's activities without being in formal clothes, whether because they changed or did not dine in the formal dining room. I brought up a scenario, which no one took the time to discuss, let alone refute:

 

Passengers have just returned from a late shore excursion (bought and paid for through Celebrity) and have missed early seating dinner. Having no problem with the situation, they dine on Casual Dining Boulevard, gladly paying the $2 per person fee. Obviously, they are dressed casually, but well. Dress shirt and slacks for the man, a coordinated outfit for the woman. Done dining, they would like to see the show, since on formal nights it is generally one of the gala shows. My contention was that these folks have as much right to attend the show as those who dined in the formal dining room."

 

ECCruise, I'll defer to your having had the benefit of cruising on Celebrity much more than I have, and ask you to correct me if I'm wrong here. Aren't formal nights almost exclusively on sea days? The topic of the discussion is changing out of formal wear after supper on formal nights. The example you gave doesn't seem to fit the topic.

[ECCruise]

"All of this started because I defended the very few number of people who, on a formal night, may want to take part in some of the ship's activities without being in formal clothes, whether because they changed or did not dine in the formal dining room. I brought up a scenario, which no one took the time to discuss, let alone refute:

 

Passengers have just returned from a late shore excursion (bought and paid for through Celebrity) and have missed early seating dinner. Having no problem with the situation, they dine on Casual Dining Boulevard, gladly paying the $2 per person fee. Obviously, they are dressed casually, but well. Dress shirt and slacks for the man, a coordinated outfit for the woman. Done dining, they would like to see the show, since on formal nights it is generally one of the gala shows. My contention was that these folks have as much right to attend the show as those who dined in the formal dining room."

 

ECCruise, I'll defer to your having had the benefit of cruising on Celebrity much more than I have, and ask you to correct me if I'm wrong here. Aren't formal nights almost exclusively on sea days? The topic of the discussion is changing out of formal wear after supper on formal nights. The example you gave doesn't seem to fit the topic.

 

Not in Europe. Too many ports to exclusively have formal nights on sea days. This, though, is only an example that we have seen. It is not the be-all, end-all of the discussion.

[Lifes2short]

Thanks for your input but I refuse to go round and round with you again and get this thread pulled.

 

All of the examples I used were instances that I have seen on Celebrity ships. They are not "dramatic exaggeration." And someone dining in casual dining could very well go to their cabin to change, they would not go in their "excursion wear". Since they were dining casually, they would not change into formal wear. Nowhere did I say, "elegant casual clothes" which you attributed to my post.

 

And your "36 days on Celebrity" more than qualify you for an opinion. I said people with substantially less time on the line, much of it not in the last year or so. And my 40 days is recent cruising on Celebrity (to give an up-to-date assessment) not total time on the line.

 

Let's be adults and just agree to disagree and stop going round and round with this topic. Neither you or I will change anything on the ships. People will continue to be in casual clothing on formal nights, Celebrity will not do anything about it. Some will be upset. Others will see no big deal.

You've done a splended job EC of explaining the way so many others feel.

It's sad to see you get the grief from those who accuse you of "dramatic exaggerations" when their own posts should've been and continue to be pulled for the "outrageous abuse" they are determined to verbalize others with who don't agree w/their opinions. I as well as several others got the same abuse from the poster as well.

I say "good job" don't let em get you down. You're a sharp lady and strong/tough at that. Some people just can't deal w/change and fight it every step of the way. It sounds like you embrace change which is why you don't feel the need to attack to get your point across. It's called being "wise." There's a saying, "only fools think w/their mouths not their heads." You're no fool and there are others on this forum who have shown you the respect/grace you deserve. To those I applaud you....This is only a forum ;)

[Danno]

Well, Danno, you tried....:rolleyes:

 

Andrew

 

 

Sigh...:o

[ECCruise]

You've done a splended job EC of explaining the way so many others feel.

It's sad to see you get the grief from those who accuse you of "dramatic exaggerations" when their own posts should've been and continue to be pulled for the "outrageous abuse" they are determined to verbalize others with who don't agree w/their opinions. I as well as several others got the same abuse from the poster as well.

I say "good job" don't let em get you down. You're a sharp lady and strong/tough at that. Some people just can't deal w/change and fight it every step of the way. It sounds like you embrace change which is why you don't feel the need to attack to get your point across. It's called being "wise." There's a saying, "only fools think w/their mouths not their heads." You're no fool and there are others on this forum who have shown you the respect/grace you deserve. To those I applaud you....This is only a forum ;)

 

Thanks Lifes2Short. Really appreciate it. And love your screen name...my philosophy too!

[Lifes2short]

Just a thought...by Ocean Boy!

You made a really good point(again) Kudos to you.....I never thought of it that way before. :rolleyes: As DH always says,"To each his own."

Great insight.....thanks!

[canderson]

Some people just can't deal w/change and fight it every step of the way.

You seem to miss the point that there are certain things that a person might not WANT to see changed, and that a cruise line could actually make a good business out of catering to those who enjoy some of the older customs of cruising.

 

Further, your philosophy (although only insofar as you've stated it above) appears to assume that all change is good. That's an argument for a thread on a different board altogether, but you should certainly expect it to be challenged, even in this context.

[canderson]

The editor and I aren't having a good relationship today.

 

The paragraph that read:

 

It was a smart concession to realities by Celebrity to that treated the 'exceptions' in a nicer fashion, but didn't mess with their basic premise about dressing for the evening but -- and that's exactly why I'm so far unwilling to go with the arguments to the contrary.

 

should have read

 

It is a smart concession to realities by Celebrity that treats the need for 'exceptions' in a nicer fashion, but doesn't mess with their basic premise about dressing for the evening -- and that's exactly why I'm so far unwilling to go with the arguments to the contrary.

[canderson]

Just a thought, have you ever considered the fact that for some people putting on a suit is right up there with the cell phone and the other things that are part of the everyday rude reality of the work world?

No question at all! I know people in this boat (literally and figuratively), and I know what kinds of cruises they prefer. My TA's husband has lived in a suit and tie world for a very long time, and when they last cruised together, it was on Windjammer, NOT Celebrity! More power to them, I say. They took a cruise that helped them get away and enjoy themselves, not the cruise I take to get away!

 

They didn't just look at many other things they might like about Celebrity and choose it, and then complain about having to dress for the evening! They took a cruise where casual is the norm.

 

There really ARE people who are better served on other cruise lines, and while this is obvious (else Celebrity would be the only cruise line left after all of the consolidation!) it does seem to escape people at times when it's suggested that they consider looking around at something more appropriate for them. Why should we have to duck and cover for suggesting that once in a while?

[Lifes2short]

You seem to miss the point that there are certain things that a person might not WANT to see changed, and that a cruise line could actually make a good business out of catering to those who enjoy some of the older customs of cruising.

 

Further, your philosophy (although only insofar as you've stated it above) appears to assume that all change is good. That's an argument for a thread on a different board altogether, but you should certainly expect it to be challenged, even in this context.

Sorry, if it came across as meaning all change is good. Change can be good and not so good. :( It just seems to me life is constantly changing good/bad. The more I fight it instead of accepting it, the farther behind I fall.

I totally agree w/you that there are people who might not want to see a certain change but it might be inevitable. What choice is there at that point?

Happy Sailings! :)

[Ocean Boy]

No question at all! I know people in this boat (literally and figuratively), and I know what kinds of cruises they prefer. My TA's husband has lived in a suit and tie world for a very long time, and when they last cruised together, it was on Windjammer, NOT Celebrity! More power to them, I say. They took a cruise that helped them get away and enjoy themselves, not the cruise I take to get away!

 

They didn't just look at many other things they might like about Celebrity and choose it, and then complain about having to dress for the evening! They took a cruise where casual is the norm.

 

There really ARE people who are better served on other cruise lines, and while this is obvious (else Celebrity would be the only cruise line left after all of the consolidation!) it does seem to escape people at times when it's suggested that they consider looking around at something more appropriate for them. Why should we have to duck and cover for suggesting that once in a while?

I just brought the point out since the post seemed to be against the normal trappings of work. Many of those trappings invade life aboard a cruise ship. Lets not be choosy about which ones we accept. I wasn't trying to make any other point.

 

Yes, there really ARE people who are better served by other cruise lines. But does Celebrity want people here telling those folks who might choose Celebrity to go somewhere else? That is Celebrity's call to make, not ours. I have nowhere read, or heard, an advertisement by them saying "This is who we are. If you don't think we are a good fit for you please look somewhere else."

[Leela]

Wow, this has turned into that other thread that got locked down! It's like a mutant zombie -- cut off the head and it comes back!

 

By the way, did you all know that the famous casino in Monte Carlo won't let you inside unless you're dressed according to their dress code? I guess it's to ensure some high-quality James Bond stylin' phony fakery.

[Lifes2short]

Wow, this has turned into that other thread that got locked down! It's like a mutant zombie -- cut off the head and it comes back!

 

By the way, did you all know that the famous casino in Monte Carlo won't let you inside unless you're dressed according to their dress code? I guess it's to ensure some high-quality James Bond stylin' phony fakery.

 

Ahh, a good sense of humor when you really need one. Love the "mutant zombie" comment.

Hopefully, we can move-on and keep this thread from turning out like yesterday's. That got a little crazy. ;)

Hey.....

Lifes2Short :)

[ROCruiser]

I'll be a phoney, just put me on a Celebrity Cruise! The 2 Celebrity cruises we had were the best ever!

[Lifes2short]

Right on the money OB. That is the main crux of the argument that has gotten me bashed repeatedly (mostly by the same cadre). My experience is that on formal nights, anywhere from 10-15% of the ship dines casually-either room service or on "Casual Dining Boulevard." Contrary to some of those who posture over and over here, that is not "extreme." It is anywhere from 150 to 300 people, depending on ship/itinerary/etc. That is a good portion of the passenger list that some want banned from virtually all areas of the ship. Trust me, though, Celebrity, has no intention of banning those people from revenue generating venues.

I've read where the cruise lines are going after "younger families" I also read where RC is lowering the ages of booking a cabin on board from 25 to 21 starting this summer. Will others fall suit? Wonder what impact that will have on "formal dining" across the lines?? Does the younger generation prefer formal/informal?

[Ocean Boy]

Wow, this has turned into that other thread that got locked down! It's like a mutant zombie -- cut off the head and it comes back!

 

By the way, did you all know that the famous casino in Monte Carlo won't let you inside unless you're dressed according to their dress code? I guess it's to ensure some high-quality James Bond stylin' phony fakery.

Second person to make me laugh today!:D

[WeBeCruisin']

By the way, did you all know that the famous casino in Monte Carlo won't let you inside unless you're dressed according to their dress code? I guess it's to ensure some high-quality James Bond stylin' phony fakery.

 

Leela, my wife and I were in the Casino at Monte Carlo in July. The tour description repeatedly said that shorts and jeans and t-shirts were absolutely not allowed. It was 90 degrees the day we were there and my wife and I dressed in long pants and "appropriate" attire. They let everyone in, even those who were wearing short-shorts. t-shirts and tube tops. Maybe they're stricter at night, but this was an RRCL tour during the daytime which specified no admission unless properly dressed. We beat the Casino, though! We each one five Euros at the slots. The Blackjack tables didn't open up until 5:00 p.m. and our tour left at 4:30. The only things that were going on in the Casino while we were there were the slot machines and the Baccarat tables, although everyone playing was speaking French, so it was hard to follow what was going on. We heard the word "banc" a lot, though. :)

 

Allen