Speaking of rules, HAL's not worried

[HeatherInFlorida]

One cannot argue with logic. At least it’s better than a conspiracy theory that HAL is trying to mislead its passengers.

I'm curious about your veiled reference to my earlier comment. I never suggested there was a "conspiracy". Nothing so devious. I merely said there is probably another reason for additional security other than ushering smokers or non-smokers from the Lido Deck.

 

There is a reason for plain clothes security ... it is there so that we don't notice it. Otherwise they would be uniformed. As to how long there has been added security, I question your information. We were scheduled for a Windstar (Holland America) cruise in November of 2001. Because of 9/11 we decided to cancel. However I was assured by Windstar that Holland America had placed additional security on all their ships for the added protection of their passengers.

 

So while you may not have been aware of it, I would hasten to suggest that it existed earlier than you may think.

[Vicar]

I don't know REV , you might get pulled over by security just for looking "Sneaky" *LOL*

 

I personally can't see them locking you up in the brig or even "counseling" you for smoking. Unless it got truly out of hand.

 

if you are smoking in non smoking area and a security guard says "Sir this is a non smoking area please extinguish the cigarette or move to the smoking area", and you comply , thats the end of the story.

 

Now if the security guard asks and you throw the cigarette in his face and curse at him. Weeeeeeellllllllllll then you may see some militant behavior *LOL*

[The_Hall_Monitor]

Whatever anyone may say is the reason for additional security, I agree with Anngie that the "real" reason is concern about possible terrorism. HAL will not tell us this because the last thing they need is us fearing for our safety, i.e., people will stop cruising.

 

So there may well be an increase in "incident" reports because people are aware there is more security. So it has to at least appear they are there for another reason...

 

Nope, I believe it's all a cover to explain away the additional security.

 

Think about it: conspiracy theorists (regardless of what the conspiracy might be about) always use phrases like "the 'real' reason", "(they) will not tell us", "it's all a cover to explain ...".

 

I'm guessing lknick's comment was in jest, but I read your post as suggesting HAL has a **secret** plan in operation to make the passengers feel like everything is just like before 9/11.

 

Who knows? Maybe you're right.

 

I think it would be neat if there was a paragraph or two in the docs saying, "In view of current conditions, HAL has increased their security force and added other means to assure your cruise is a pleasant one, unmarred by any untoward events."

 

I'd be very happy to hear that action steps had been taken to address the terrorist issue as well as bullies in bars, squatters in the Lido lounge chairs, smoking areas, etc.

[lknick]

I question your information. We were scheduled for a Windstar (Holland America) cruise in November of 2001. Because of 9/11 we decided to cancel. However I was assured by Windstar that Holland America had placed additional security on all their ships for the added protection of their passengers.

I think, I believe, I was told...

 

If you have a table of equipment and organization before you, as I do, then I will debate the timing and number of security officers.

 

And again, whether or not the number of security was increased and/or the timing of the increase is not the intent of my post. The intent is to say that HAL has given up on trying to maintain standards and will use security to control those who have gotten out of hand. In this way, they are following Carnival.

 

And yes, I see your comment to be akin to the 'grassy knoll' theorists. HAL has a great big secret which they are keeping from us.

[sail7seas]

lknick: Given the tone and content of many of your posts now and in the past, I think it pertinent to ask if you are employed by HAL or are a consultant for them. Are you?

[lknick]

As stated in my profile I am retired military and a retired officer from a Fortune 500 corporation.

 

I am neither currently on the payroll of HAL nor currently act as a consultant to them. I do have professional contacts with current employees.

[localady]

Ilnick reports:

"The facts are there are now 18 security people on Vistas and 16 on S class, doubled since last year. All but two are plain clothed and look just like other passengers."

 

Well I am not sure what the fuss is, but I say bravo!!!! Prior to 9/11 there were 2 Security Officers as reported by the Chief Security Officer who I had the pleasure of dining with. Post 9/11 I hope to heavens there are now 18 security people on Vistas and 16 on S class, doubled since last year.

 

The fact is that a cruise ship full of Americans is a target in this day and age, and if HAL and the other cruise lines didn't have security consultants telling them they would be negligent!! I am sure HAL's insurers require it, if not just common sense in this World. They advertise their 2 Million dollars of Art, that has got to be just a drop in the bucket to the value and liability of just one ship.

 

It doesn't mean we shouldn't cruise, but it does mean that we all have to have a heightened awareness of the current World situation. I feel better that the Ports and Cruise Companies are taking the threats seriously!!

 

P.S. Iknick-really enjoyed your review on the QE2!, I too prefer the smaller ship and am so excited about sailing on the Prinsendam next summer.

[sail7seas]

Thank you for your response.

The wording was careful but it seems you were once employed by/paid by HAL in one capacity or another?

[RevNeal]

...if the non-smokers don't want to sit by a smoker, why are they in the smoking area. JUST MOVE. ...Some people just like to gripe IMHO

 

You're correct, on all counts. Likewise, visa versa ... if smokers want to smoke, they shouldn't be sitting in the no smoking section. If I'm in the smoking section -- and I sometimes am, for my mother smokes and I've learned how to live with it -- I expect there to be smoking going on around me. If I'm in the no-smoking section, however, it does irk me a bit if someone lights up at the table next to me. I gave an example of that happening earlier on this thread.

[RevNeal]

I personally can't see them locking you up in the brig or even "counseling" you for smoking. Unless it got truly out of hand.

 

Well, I don't some cigarettes so the chance of that happening are about zero. My hypothetical question was asked relative to a couple who lit up in the no-smoking section of the Lido. Would security have considered it a militant act if I had asked them to stop smoking. Clearly, based upon a reasonable definition of "militant," simply asking them to stop smoking in the no-smoking section wouldn't qualify. IF, however, I had taken the cigarette from their fingers and ground it out against their foreheads ... yeah ... that would qualify. ;) Since I can't picture myself ever doing that, I'm not in any danger of being "arrested" by the "anti-militancy" police. :D

[anngie]

Smokers and non-smokers can be courteous. If someone is a non-smoker and is sitting in the smoking section he is asking for problems. If a smoker lights up in a no-smoking section he should be asked by the person in charge there to either move or put the cigarette out. If he doesn't then he should be asked to leave the area.

I am glad to see cigar bars on ships. That way hopefully all the cigar smokers will stay in the cigar bar.

[lknick]

The way things are going, I can see the day when a smoker goes into a non-smoking area, waves his arms violently, and shouts, "I'm choking on all this stinky perfume and bad breath. You know, this is offensive and may be dangerous to my health."

 

This example is just as silly as what I heard on a recent cruise. A non-smoker asked that all ashtrays be removed from smoking areas because the ashtrays were detrimental to his health.

Smokers and non-smokers can be courteous. If someone is a non-smoker and is sitting in the smoking section he is asking for problems.

But that’s not how it goes. More than once I have experienced non-smokers sit in smoking areas and demand that others around them stop smoking. When they are rebuffed, they do not move, but complain, lecture, wave their arms and make it generally unpleasant for all.

[RevNeal]

Smokers and non-smokers can be courteous.

 

Absolutely correct. And, they usually are. It's only those anecdotally rare occasions that get remembered. For the most part, people are courteous on this matter. For example, if we are sitting in a no-smoking area, or in a restaurant that is all no-smoking, my mother doesn't smoke. If we go to an area -- a lounge, a bar, a section -- where smoking is allowed and, indeed, is going on, I kindly accept and tolerate those who are smoking so as to be able to enjoy being there (for whatever reason I'm there). I don't make other people conform to me. I abide by the rules.

[HeatherInFlorida]

Lknick & The Hall Monitor: You are so far off base that it would be laughable if I wasn't so upset. I have not suggested "conspiracy" or "secrecy" and I have not theorized. While I see most of you have turned this into a smoking debate, I'm going to tell you that I am offended by the suggestions made by these two individuals.

 

I innocently made a remark (agreeing with another pollster I might add) that the security had been increased on HAL ships since 9/11. You state, Lknick, that you have professional contacts at HAL. I neither know nor care whether you do or not.

 

But for some reason you've got a chip on your shoulder about this subject and some sort of beef with me personally. I don't know why. I did not "hear" or "surmise" the information I gave. I spoke directly with a HAL representative when I wanted to cancel my cruise in 2001 and in fact received a letter shortly thereafter that went to all passengers who would be travelling in the coming few months. They were very clear that they had added additional security personnel to their ships.

 

You can believe or disbelieve me. I really don't care. I have no idea why you decided to pick on me. I'm just a lady sitting in my house in Florida making a simply observation. To even bring up "grassy knolls" is ludicrous.

 

No one has a right to accuse me of suggesting any conspiracy or underhandedness on the part of HAL when anyone who has read any of my posts knows that it is my favorite cruiseline.

 

And now I'm done with this thread.

[chellbird]

I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I read in an earlier post that one of the touchy issues is kids swimming in the adult pool. When we went on our last cruise, we never saw many kids and didn't realize that there were specific pools for adults only. It wasn't an issue for us last time because our kids stayed with friends. When we sail this time, we don't want to offend anyone, but we certainly want our girls to be able to swim. Are there any other "child etiquette" rules that we need to be aware of? I get the idea that just having them there may be offensive to some people :confused:

[lknick]

I spoke directly with a HAL representative when I wanted to cancel my cruise in 2001 and in fact received a letter shortly thereafter that went to all passengers who would be travelling in the coming few months. They were very clear that they had added additional security personnel to their ships

Here’s the arithmetic: Before 9/11, HAL had 2-3 security people on S class ships [there were no Vistas at that time]. My statement was HAL had doubled their security contingent to 16 over the last year. That means a year ago (which is two years after 9/11), there were 8 security people onboard and that number has now increased to 16. Since 8 is greater than 2-3, what you reported was factually correct. But, you reported it out of context to support a contention.

 

Maybe the first 5-6 added were due to international security concerns. My information and belief says the most recent 8 were not.

While I see most of you have turned this into a smoking debate.

Unhappily, this is true. However, it is only one of the issues I mentioned.

No one has a right to accuse me of suggesting any conspiracy or underhandedness on the part of HAL when anyone who has read any of my posts knows that it is my favorite cruiseline.

In my opinion, your choice of words [like "the 'real' reason", "(they) will not tell us", "it's all a cover to explain…”] whether intentional or otherwise, indicated you thought HAL was implementing a plan but not letting us know of it for some conspiratorial reason. If you had not written these words, conspiracy would have never crossed anyone’s mind.

But for some reason you've got a chip on your shoulder about this subject and some sort of beef with me personally. You can believe or disbelieve me. I really don't care. I have no idea why you decided to pick on me. I'm just a lady sitting in my house in Florida making a simply observation. I'm going to tell you that I am offended by the suggestions made by these two individuals. I neither know nor care whether you do or not.

Disagreeing with your conclusions is not picking on you.

 

This is a forum...a place for discussion and debate. It is beyond me why people cannot have disagreements without reverting to personal barbs.

[sail7seas]

When we sail this time, we don't want to offend anyone, but we certainly want our girls to be able to swim. Are there any other "child etiquette" rules that we need to be aware of? I get the idea that just having them there may be offensive to some people :confused:

 

Seeing as you have asked this question on at least two threads, you seem to really want a response. I doubt you (or anyone else) needs me (or anyone else) to answer this question but you seem serious about it, so.......

 

Good manners, courtesy, respect and consideration are always in order and a good way to behave and to teach young children.

 

 

I hope you and the girls have a great cruise.....and that all other pax aboard with you do as well.

[The_Hall_Monitor]

I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I read in an earlier post that one of the touchy issues is kids swimming in the adult pool. When we went on our last cruise, we never saw many kids and didn't realize that there were specific pools for adults only. It wasn't an issue for us last time because our kids stayed with friends. When we sail this time, we don't want to offend anyone, but we certainly want our girls to be able to swim. Are there any other "child etiquette" rules that we need to be aware of? I get the idea that just having them there may be offensive to some people :confused:

Children’s cruiseship etiquette? I would think the same rules apply as in any other situation where a large number of strangers congregate.

 

In my opinion, I think it’s not true that HAL passengers dislike having kids on board. One sees people look at each other and smile when well-mannered kids come by, then often they’ll speak to the kids in a friendly manner.

 

What they don’t like is kids screaming and yelling, running helter-skelter through a crowd, doing cannonballs into a crowded pool, bumping into people, etc. In short, all the same things NO ONE likes anyplace else!

 

Regarding pools – the big Lido pool is for all passengers. Kids can go there at any time but as a matter of courtesy, if its crowded, it would be best if kids do not play vigorous games with lots of splashing and screaming. The other pool is posted “adults only” but when its empty (and it frequently is), there seems to be no problem with kids using it. However, if adults decide to go in the water and the kids will shift their activities to quiet water play, I doubt they’ll be asked to leave.

 

Regarding other locations such as dining room, theatre, etc. – you’ll see that mannerly behavior will make them the object of very positive attention with smiles, nods and maybe some nice compliments.

[ryansmemom]

Children’s cruiseship etiquette? I would think the same rules apply as in any other situation where a large number of strangers congregate.

 

In my opinion, I think it’s not true that HAL passengers dislike having kids on board. One sees people look at each other and smile when well-mannered kids come by, then often they’ll speak to the kids in a friendly manner.

 

What they don’t like is kids screaming and yelling, running helter-skelter through a crowd, doing cannonballs into a crowded pool, bumping into people, etc. In short, all the same things NO ONE likes anyplace else!

 

Regarding pools – the big Lido pool is for all passengers. Kids can go there at any time but as a matter of courtesy, if its crowded, it would be best if kids do not play vigorous games with lots of splashing and screaming. The other pool is posted “adults only” but when its empty (and it frequently is), there seems to be no problem with kids using it. However, if adults decide to go in the water and the kids will shift their activities to quiet water play, I doubt they’ll be asked to leave.

 

Regarding other locations such as dining room, theatre, etc. – you’ll see that mannerly behavior will make them the object of very positive attention with smiles, nods and maybe some nice compliments.

 

 

Well said. I agree. I think the parents of children get unnecessarily defensive when it comes to having children on a cruise ship. In general, most other people enjoy having well behaved people of any age sharing their vacation with them. A wild, unruly child is just as disruptive as a wild, unruly adult.

 

We took our 3 year old grandson on our November cruise on the Maasdam and took responsibility for his behavior. When he was in public, he was very well behaved. Our cruise was centered on his needs. He was not overtaxed or over tired. People who were with us told us how much they enjoyed his company.

 

Other children are just as welcome as my grandson was. They will be just as appreciated and accepted if their parents act responsibly and insure that their children behave appropriatly. The problems occur when the parents do not control their children.

 

Linda

[Seadoc]

Kudos to lknick for his spot-on, razor-sharp and comprehensive analysis: "...My point is simple: There is nothing to make me believe that all of our yammering, parsing, opinionating, point-of-view taking, emoting, tail flapping or anything else has any impact on HAL’s decision making proces...".

HAL's biz position (reduced to its essence):

-We're here to maximize revenue.

-We can't afford to sufficiently offend any pax if they split from us because of that offense. (Hence no enforcement of anything, "rules" or otherwise, other than ad hoc "confrontations" at sea).

-No booze to be brought on board (it impacts negatively on our revenue).

-Smoking areas exist (presumably for smokers...all others should avoid them or suffer silently while in them).

-Kids who do the "#1 or #2 dance" in our pools/hot tubs are the ultimate responsibility of their (irresponsible) parents.

-Seat hogging/saving/claiming is "outside the purview of our rules". (I personally simply move the "personal effects" of the loutish persons who deposit their books/towels/lotions/sandals/etc. on deck prior to hitting the feed line...and NEVER comment on the issue).

Civility, decorum, common sense and empathy are behavior commodities disappearing at warp speed from this society. Fortunately no one has to accept the consequences of that disappearance.