Pay Restuarant Policy on RC

[grandmaR]

No, the only real problem is when people such as yourself decide that rules are not for you. It is not a guideline that children must be thirteen _ it is a rule!!!!

 

My youngest child is 36. So that is NOT the problem. Except for one time when my mom took my second daughter on the QEII for a transatlantic crossing, none of my children were ever on a cruise ship. She was in 8th grade - this was in 1976. I don't know what the QEII rules were at that time - I wasn't there.

 

Rule - Guideline - makes no difference. I would neither try to sneak children in where they didn't belong NOR would I COMPLAIN about other people's children unless they were creating a problem.

 

The issue I have is with all of you saying that there is a problem before there is one and getting all high and mighty about the "rule".

[Tranquil Waters]

My youngest child is 36. So that is NOT the problem. Except for one time when my mom took my second daughter on the QEII for a transatlantic crossing, none of my children were ever on a cruise ship. She was in 8th grade - this was in 1976. I don't know what the QEII rules were at that time - I wasn't there.

 

Rule - Guideline - makes no difference. I would neither try to sneak children in where they didn't belong NOR would I COMPLAIN about other people's children unless they were creating a problem.

 

The issue I have is with all of you saying that there is a problem before there is one and getting all high and mighty about the "rule".

 

The "problem" most of us are referring to is RCI allowing children into a venue that they expressly state is for passengers 13 and older. And that already is a problem - as shown by a number of the early posts on this thread. I guess as to whether this constitutes being "all high and mighty" is a matter of opinion. And IMHO, it is not......

[NoelsCat]

I agree completely with the reason of Grandma Rosalie.

 

Let me also state, that I would NOT even attempt to take my two-year old into either establishment because I do respect the atmosphere and could not guarantee that my son wouldn't disrupt adult's dining experience. Further, I am quite certain that it would be very selfish on my part, to expect a toddler to sit quietly in an environment that is not kid-oriented... selfish to both other diners and to my son.

 

That being said, the rule of thirteen is pretty arbitrary. My SIL, who is just thirteen would certainly be both able to handle herself and be delightful dining company. She is intelligent, kind, and a great conversationalist (to the great credit of my inlaws) -- and has been for some time. She would also enjoy the experience.

 

Quite frankly, someone stating that even the mere sight of a young person causing them to demand their money back -- before there is even a problem -- is simply a form of prejudice. There are many adults who would be much more daft and boarish than my SIL, for example ...

 

At one time there were "rule" (laws even) that African-Americans couldn't eat in the same place as Caucasian-Americans. Just because it was a rule, doesn't mean that it was a good rule.

 

Again, I am a parent, and I would NOT take my toddler into the alternative dining establishments. I do respect the atmosphere of fine dining. However, assuming that every young person would ruin this atmosphere is at the very least, overgeneralizing.

 

In my life experience, it has been best to wait for a problem before complaining.

 

JMHO.

[MakinGold]

When we were on the Freedom, we met a family with a 6 year old. They told me they were going to Portofino that night. I asked if they were taking their daughter. They said "Of course, why?" I said "Because under 13 aren't allowed, so we would be dropping our kids off at AO". They had NO idea. :rolleyes: She said "All I did was call and ask for a reservation for 2 adults and one child. They didn't even ask how old. And I received the confirmation card today confirming our reservation to include our daughter"

 

Well, as someone said earlier, YOU, my dear, get it. ;)

 

You can't just assume that, because someone is in Portofino with a six-year-old, they are self-centered people who break rules in all phases of life, because they don't think the rules apply to them . . .

[amybear912]

You are correct. No one has to demand it. It's pretty much common knowledge around here that if anyone calls to make a reservation at the specialty restaurants and says "Two adults, one child" they will get in with no questions asked. They will be given an earlier time.

 

When we were on the Freedom, we met a family with a 6 year old. They told me they were going to Portofino that night. I asked if they were taking their daughter. They said "Of course, why?" I said "Because under 13 aren't allowed, so we would be dropping our kids off at AO". They had NO idea. :rolleyes: She said "All I did was call and ask for a reservation for 2 adults and one child. They didn't even ask how old. And I received the confirmation card today confirming our reservation to include our daughter"

 

So there was no demanding on her part. She simply called and asked and was instantly accomodated.

 

And we're back to the cruiseline not enforcing their own standards... or perhaps they just trust that passengers pay attention to the guidelines...

 

or could it be.... hmmmm, back to the almighty dollar... I'm guessing they charge $20 for a kid too, right???

 

These "rules" that we complain about not being enforced... well, you have to look at it from a business perspective... Being lax on a rule that isn't hurting anyone and still keeps the customer happy - that translates into $$$... Quite honestly, they probably don't receive that many complaints about it so they figure if they can make a buck and no one is complaining... businesses do it all the time, not just cruiselines... and yes, you the consumer end up paying for it somehow...

[Ida72]

I respectfully disagree that the RC rules are guidelines for parents. It is simply stated that children under 13 may not be in the restaurants. If they are, I will complain, whether or not they act up or not. I'm not going to wait and see if its going to disrupt me. Those are the rules. I think its a great rule, as well, as it gives people that wish a reasonably adult dining experience just that. Not every rule is made for parents. Other people do exist, too. And lots of those people want an adult dining atmosphere.

Also, my parents have been married for 42 years and they have tons of romance in their marriage and always appreciate dinner alone together for the romance.:)

I have 2 kids, 15 yrs old and 3. I would never bring my 3 yr old to the specialty restaurants, I don't want to be disturbed during dinner and I would not like to disturb others. However I would not complain about kids in the dining area, unless they are disruptive. Are you going to ask for ID's. My 15 yr old looks like he is 11 or 12, should I expect a visit at our table??? Just common sense guys, as parents we should follow requirements as much as possible, and when we encounter parents not following requirements, lets use common courtesy ourselves and let them be. It is RCCI that dictates these requirements, they should enforce. Like MakinGold stated who here has not passed the speed limit by a tad, etc. No one is perfect and we might offend others as much as we think they are offending us..

To the OP, if your child is over 13 he/she is more than welcome. If not, either enjoy a meal without him/her or just dine at the main dining room. You will have a pleasent time on your Mariner cruise, we did...

[Merion_Mom]

I have 2 kids, 15 yrs old and 3. I would never bring my 3 yr old to the specialty restaurants, I don't want to be disturbed during dinner and I would not like to disturb others. However I would not complain about kids in the dining area, unless they are disruptive. Are you going to ask for ID's. My 15 yr old looks like he is 11 or 12, should I expect a visit at our table??? Just common sense guys, as parents we should follow requirements as much as possible, and when we encounter parents not following requirements, lets use common courtesy ourselves and let them be. It is RCCI that dictates these requirements, they should enforce.

"I have two kids, 15 years old and 22. I would never bring my 15 year old to a bar. I don't want to be disturbed during my drinking and I would not like to disturb others. However I would not complain about kids in the bar, unless they were disruptive. Are you going to ask for ID's. My 22 year old looks 14 or 15, should I expect a visit at our table??? Just common sense, guys............."

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Ida72]

"I have two kids, 15 years old and 22. I would never bring my 15 year old to a bar. I don't want to be disturbed during my drinking and I would not like to disturb others. However I would not complain about kids in the bar, unless they were disruptive. Are you going to ask for ID's. My 22 year old looks 14 or 15, should I expect a visit at our table??? Just common sense, guys............."

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WOW!!! Talk about attacking!!! Since when is it even comparable to take a minor to bar versus a restaurant.... I choose not to stoop to your level and say anything else....

[grandmaR]

The "problem" most of us are referring to is RCI allowing children into a venue that they expressly state is for passengers 13 and older. And that already is a problem - as shown by a number of the early posts on this thread. I guess as to whether this constitutes being "all high and mighty" is a matter of opinion. And IMHO, it is not......

 

As you yourself admit, the problem is with RCI not enforcing their own rule. Why should everyone complain about the parents who are allowed to bring their children, as though they are habitual rule breakers when RCI clearly allows it? It is RCI that is at fault if anyone is.

 

That's the difference between a RULE and a GUIDELINE. Whether anyone says it is a rule or not, the REAL definition of a rule is whether it is enforced. Attending the lifeboat drill at the beginning of the cruise is a RULE. The cruise lines do their best to enforce attendance because they will get in trouble with higher authority if they don't.

 

I've only seen one post here that says they actually experienced a problem with a child in the venue and it seemed as if RCI at least attempted to fix the problem monetarily. I don't think that was the right way for RCI to go about it (I think they should have ejected the child), but I wasn't there.

 

It's like a guy who was at our table on an NCL cruise. He was complaining bitterly because someone was allowed into the dining room AT LUNCH in jeans. And the rules allowed more casual attire at lunch. But he was all bent out of shape because he apparently thought jeans should be forbidden in the dining room at all times. He made the meal unpleasant.

 

Arguing and complaining upsets my stomach, raises my blood pressure and I lose my appetite. Maybe I could stand to lose my appetite :o, but I'd rather not have to get upset to do it.

[Jsme]

We took our children to Chops and while they enjoyed the food it was not something I would ever do again. Chops is a dining experience. Meaning it is a 3 hour meal. My children were bored and left as soon as their food was ate. We asked for their food to be brought first so they could leave. They were still with us over 2 hours. Not a good experience for any of us. My son was 12 last year when we were on the Freedom. We did not have any questions asked about his age. Our DD was 13.

[Tranquil Waters]

As you yourself admit, the problem is with RCI not enforcing their own rule. Why should everyone complain about the parents who are allowed to bring their children, as though they are habitual rule breakers when RCI clearly allows it? It is RCI that is at fault if anyone is.

 

That's the difference between a RULE and a GUIDELINE. Whether anyone says it is a rule or not, the REAL definition of a rule is whether it is enforced. Attending the lifeboat drill at the beginning of the cruise is a RULE. The cruise lines do their best to enforce attendance because they will get in trouble with higher authority if they don't.

 

I've only seen one post here that says they actually experienced a problem with a child in the venue and it seemed as if RCI at least attempted to fix the problem monetarily. I don't think that was the right way for RCI to go about it (I think they should have ejected the child), but I wasn't there.

 

It's like a guy who was at our table on an NCL cruise. He was complaining bitterly because someone was allowed into the dining room AT LUNCH in jeans. And the rules allowed more casual attire at lunch. But he was all bent out of shape because he apparently thought jeans should be forbidden in the dining room at all times. He made the meal unpleasant.

 

Arguing and complaining upsets my stomach, raises my blood pressure and I lose my appetite. Maybe I could stand to lose my appetite :o, but I'd rather not have to get upset to do it.

 

You are talking two different issues here. One is RCI not enforcing their own rules. The other issue being parents who are selfish or self centered enough that they do not think that the "13 and over" rule should apply to them or their children. (Obviously any parent who honestly was not aware of the rule does not fall in this group). And, personally, I can see why people would have a concern about both issues. :)

 

As to your statement that "the REAL deinition of a rule is whether it is enforced", I'm afraid that really doesn't fly for me. Unless you want to say that speed limits are not rules/laws because they are not always enforced..... ;)

[Tranquil Waters]

I've only seen one post here that says they actually experienced a problem with a child in the venue and it seemed as if RCI at least attempted to fix the problem monetarily. I don't think that was the right way for RCI to go about it (I think they should have ejected the child), but I wasn't there.

 

This is a very instance of why I think RCI has the rule and why they should enforce it.

 

Why should a poor waiter or hostess have to deal with the "scene" of evicting a family from the specialty dining venue. Like an "eviction" wouldn't disturb the ambiance and elegance of other passergers' dining experience. :rolleyes: If the hostesses were allowed to enforce the rule in the first place - across the board - then there would be no question of deciding what behavior was "disturbing". Because I can guarantee you that would be a subject for debate too. :D

[MakinGold]

You are talking two different issues here. One is RCI not enforcing their own rules. The other issue being parents who are selfish or self centered enough that they do not think that the "13 and over" rule should apply to them or their children. (Obviously any parent who honestly was not aware of the rule does not fall in this group). And, personally, I can see why people would have a concern about both issues. :)

 

And the third issue, of course, are those who are so selfish or self centered that they will get upset and complain about others who they believe might have the potential of interrupting their enjoyment, whether they are causing any real problem or not. And, personally, I can see why people would have a concern about all three issues.

[Newcruiser65]

I'm waiting for the day some parent says my child is a whiney uncontrollable kid or my child does not meet the age limit and I understand why there are some places that children are not permitted.:rolleyes: Guess I better not hold my breath.:D

 

 

You can stop holding your breath now as I will say it: ( Or something similar). My 14 year old is fine. He meets the age limit, can sit quietly for two hours and appreciate a fine meal. He however prefers more casual places and while he has behaved impeccably while in fine dining establishments, he has been bored to tears. Maybe when he is a little older he will appreciate it more. In the meantime, I'll let him enjoy being an 8th grader and not expect him to enjoy the same things I do in my 40's.

 

As for my 5 year old, he is just the type of child that "adults only" restaurants are desgined for! He talks non stop, asks a million questions and is endlessly excited by just about everything. In short, he is your typical 5 year old. I adore him and think his chatter is cute, but I have sense enough to know that my neighbors at nearby tables do not know him, adore him or have any desire at all to hear him chatter through dinner.

 

I can get him to be quiet and sit still, but would I really want to, when I could just take him someplace more appropriate for his age so he can have fun? Do I need to eat there so badly that I would bore my child in order to do so? That's what sitters are for.

 

In short, a lot of people say how perfect their children are and that they can dine in the specialty restaurants without incident, but I have to wonder how the children really feel. My older one is old enough and

would do it to be nice and please me, but he would rather be somewhere else and my younger one would have to display unnnatural restraint just to get through it.

 

Kids are kids and adults are adults. I see nothing wrong with adults only areas. In truth kids probably don't either. It is usually their parents enraged on their behalf. And knowing that, children take advantage and show up in places they don't belong like the adults only Solarium.

[Tranquil Waters]

And the third issue, of course, are those who are so selfish or self centered that they will get upset and complain about others who they believe might have the potential of interrupting their enjoyment, whether they are causing any real problem or not. And, personally, I can see why people would have a concern about all three issues.

 

That being the case, I guess we have to add issue 4 - to include those that are so selfish and self centered that they concern themselves with what "concerns" others - when expressing those "concerns" is causing them no real problem at all...... :rolleyes:

[MakinGold]

That being the case, I guess we have to add issue 4 - to include those that are so selfish and self centered that they concern themselves with what "concerns" others - when expressing those "concerns" is causing them no real problem at all...... :rolleyes:

 

Does that concern you?

[grandmaR]

You are talking two different issues here. One is RCI not enforcing their own rules. The other issue being parents who are selfish or self centered enough that they do not think that the "13 and over" rule should apply to them or their children. (Obviously any parent who honestly was not aware of the rule does not fall in this group). And, personally, I can see why people would have a concern about both issues. :)

 

As to your statement that "the REAL deinition of a rule is whether it is enforced", I'm afraid that really doesn't fly for me. Unless you want to say that speed limits are not rules/laws because they are not always enforced..... ;)

 

Speed limits are enforced when there is an easy place to catch people. They aren't enforced when documenting the infraction would cause a safety problem, and/or when there isn't sufficient manpower to catch the speeders. The same for slower traffic keeping right (in the US and other places where people drive on the right).

 

You could also say that just because it isn't always enforced, that means that the law against bigamy is not really a law.

 

 

I am sure that there are parents who think the rules don't apply to them.

 

But if they make a reservation and state that there is a child in the party, and the person taking the reservation doesn't even ask the age of the child, or bother to explain to them the reasons why a younger child shouldn't be dining in that area, then I don't think it is the parent's fault. You can say that they should have known, but obviously that isn't the case.

 

IMHO, it is that the restaurant doesn't REALLY want to enforce the rules. They just want to make as much money as possible with the extra charge that there is for the restaurant, and would rather do that then actually restrict children from dining there. They are relying on other people not to complain, or on it being sufficient for the diners with children to be scheduled early.

 

As long as people are going to fulminate against the self centered parents and loud children, instead of putting the onus on the reservation staff where it belongs, the smoke screen will work to protect them and allow them to get away with not actually enforcing the rules.

[sustyse]

It would only give you this impression if:

 

A. You have NO experience in the restaurant industry and therefore, no idea how seating works.

OR

B. You are not accustomed to a fine dining atmosphere.

 

BTW - catering refers to cooking and prepping; has very little to do with seating:)

 

A half full Outback Steakhouse is one thing - in that case, you are correct, probably not a popular choice... A half full fine-dining restaurant indicates a well-run establishment dedicated to personal and attentive service.

 

You see very few (if any children) in a fine dining restaurant... there's no "children's menu" - that should be your first indication that the restaurant is not an appropriate venue for a child... A child-friendly restaurant makes an effort to provide a product suitable for a child... Any parent that would pay $20 and up for a child to eat probably needs to re-adjust their priorities...

 

Children are not meant to be everywhere, the world does not revolve around them and I think it is absolutely ludicrous for parents to expect the world to adjust to the presence of their children.

 

I come from the land of leprechauns so, really, what would I know about fine dining etc.??? :rolleyes:

[RevSmith]

There are always some people that think the rules are not for them. I am one that usually follows the rules or I try to change them and go through the proper channels. Again, this is what makes the world go round and life interesting. But sometimes it steams me when I see people that just think totally of themselves, sometimes at the expensive of others...if the rule is no children under 13 why can't we all just follow it...what is the big deal?

[grandmaR]

There are always some people that think the rules are not for them. I am one that usually follows the rules or I try to change them and go through the proper channels. Again, this is what makes the world go round and life interesting. But sometimes it steams me when I see people that just think totally of themselves, sometimes at the expensive of others...if the rule is no children under 13 why can't we all just follow it...what is the big deal?

 

There isn't a problem AFAI am concerned. I ate in one of the extra price restaurants once, and found it cold (in temperature) and dull (in atmosphere) and while I thought the food was good, there was too much of it. So I probably won't go back unless (as in that one time) I get it free as some kind of credit.

 

I probably wouldn't be disturbed enough if an underage child was there to complain. I didn't know Royal Caribbean's "rule" that children under 13 were not allowed because I have never cruised Royal Caribbean before. Also I don't have any under 13 children with me, so I wouldn't have paid any attention in any case.

 

I don't know how well Royal Caribbean brings the "rule" to the attention of parents. It just seems to me that if people can make reservations for a child and the "rule" isn't even mentioned, that it's very judgmental for people to automatically conclude that any parents with a child under 13 that are there are rude and self-centered when there's at least an even chance that the parents didn't know because the Royal Caribbean staff didn't attempt to enforce the "rule".

 

Why should a poor waiter or hostess have to deal with the "scene" of evicting a family from the specialty dining venue.

 

I don't know why one should feel sorry for the staff (although in that case I think it should be the maitre d and not a mere waiter - it is their job, or should be. Actually, if they didn't make it clear at the time of the reservation that the child should not be in attendance, then the family should not have been seated when they came for their dinner. (Just as in a shoreside restaurant, people that arrive improperly clad are not seated.) Or at least warned that they would be asked to leave if the child became a problem.

[flagger]

What I find humorous is if you do a search on some of the people who are posting "rules, blah blah, must follow, how dare they?" you would find that were outraged when the policy was announced to curb the bringing on of alcohol. I would be willing to bed that many of them had asked about smuggling alcohol or had admitted to doing it themselves. Apparently some people will shout rules rules only when said rule does not apply to them.

[sand and water]

Hello,

We will be sailing the Liberty of the Seas 12/1/07. Which restaurant has the better menu?