Just returned from cruise - don't get it...

*bicker* wrote in news:40f17a19.103272625
@news.comcast.giganews.com:

A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:59:53 -0400, *bicker*
escribió:
Does the term "required" appears anywhere in Celebrity's
information?

Their web site was down earlier. It's back up now. Here's
what they say:

"For the formal nights, including the Captain's Welcome
Aboard Cocktail Party, dinner on the second night, and the
Captain's Farewell Dinner held the next-to-last night of the
cruise; both men and women MAY PREFER more dressy attire,
such as an evening gown for women and a tuxedo or dress suit
for men." [Emphasis added.]

So, again, the issue is a matter of passenger preference,
not any requirement.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html


What a change from seven years ago when the Maitre D was the clothing
police on board ready to bounce offending parties from the dining room for
failure to wear the required dark suit or tux.

Am I alone here?

Well . . . given that this is a newsgroup full of avid cruise fans, you may or
may not be.

My husband and I had avoided cruising for many years although we are
enthusiastic travelers. Our reasons were good ones: (1) we both tend to get
seasick easily (2) we don't eat much but when we do eat we do so on our own
schedule. (3) we like to immerse ourselves in the culture of places we visit,
explore them thoroughly and sample the local cuisine. (4) we like to be off on
our own, just the two of us, rather than participate in group activities or
have to make small talk with others. With lots of kids at home we go on
vacation to be alone, lol!
Nevertheless, we finally took the plunge because cruising can be an excellent
vacation for a family with children of different ages and interests and we
wanted to do something different and memorable, being "Disneyed out".

We chose our first cruise very carefully (Bermuda) with all of the above
reservations in mind. We figured if we hated it there'd be little lost since
so much of the trip is spent in port. We also chose NCL because you eat when
you feel like it, not on a fixed schedule. Bermuda is also not a destination
that makes you feel you're missing anything along the lines of exotic native
cuisine by dining on the ship.

To make a long post shorter, every member of our family was very pleased to
thrilled with the cruise (even though we did get seasick despite taking all
known precautions) and we do plan to do it again, both as a family and as a
couple without the kids.
We are not total converts and will still definitely prefer land vacations when
visiting places we want to see in depth. But, there is much that is special
about cruising. The key for us is to choose an intinerary that will satisfy
rather than frustrate and know what we want to see in each port in advance.

We found cruising very relaxing and I don't quite get the need for an entire
new wardrobe. Surely, you don't go around in rags when not cruising, afterall.
I actually found it a great opportunity to get some additional use out of
evening wear that I already owned.

(Goldylocks7115) wrote:

Am I alone here?

Well . . . given that this is a newsgroup full of avid cruise fans, you may or
may not be.

Ditto - you probably are almost alone HERE - specifically in this
newsgroup.

My husband and I had avoided cruising for many years although we are
enthusiastic travelers. Our reasons were good ones: (1) we both tend to get
seasick easily (2) we don't eat much but when we do eat we do so on our own
schedule. (3) we like to immerse ourselves in the culture of places we visit,
explore them thoroughly and sample the local cuisine. (4) we like to be off on
our own, just the two of us, rather than participate in group activities or
have to make small talk with others. With lots of kids at home we go on
vacation to be alone, lol!

These seem reasonable to me.

We don't get seasick. We do tend to get up early and start our day
early, but except when we are docking (our boat) or doing something
tricky, we tend to eat on a pretty normal schedule and have an early
dinner (preferably someplace local) and early to bed.

So our reasons were that we like to have more time at a place (agree
with you on that), we don't want to be there with a horde of other
people, we don't like to spend a lot of extra money for excursions
that we could do more cheaply on our own and we don't like dressing
up.

Nevertheless, we finally took the plunge because cruising can be an excellent
vacation for a family with children of different ages and interests and we
wanted to do something different and memorable, being "Disneyed out".

We chose our first cruise very carefully (Bermuda) with all of the above
reservations in mind. We figured if we hated it there'd be little lost since
so much of the trip is spent in port. We also chose NCL because you eat when
you feel like it, not on a fixed schedule. Bermuda is also not a destination
that makes you feel you're missing anything along the lines of exotic native
cuisine by dining on the ship.

We've always liked eating in Bermuda although it is expensive.

To make a long post shorter, every member of our family was very pleased to
thrilled with the cruise (even though we did get seasick despite taking all
known precautions) and we do plan to do it again, both as a family and as a
couple without the kids.

We are not total converts and will still definitely prefer land vacations when
visiting places we want to see in depth. But, there is much that is special
about cruising. The key for us is to choose an intinerary that will satisfy
rather than frustrate and know what we want to see in each port in advance.

We found cruising very relaxing and I don't quite get the need for an entire
new wardrobe. Surely, you don't go around in rags when not cruising, afterall.
I actually found it a great opportunity to get some additional use out of
evening wear that I already owned.

I don't have any evening dresses anymore (that I could wear). I
suppose I could wear the dress that I was the mother of the
bride/groom in for the last 3 of my children's weddings (that's the
closest I have to a cocktail dress),and I guess Bob could pack a
suit. But it doesn't seem like fun to me and I no longer have any
suitable shoes.


grandma Rosalie

"Tom & Linda" wrote in message
et...

"deedee_tv" wrote in message
. ..

Vacations are a time to relax and unwind. I wasn't able to
begin to unwind on this trip.


I'm curious. Why couldn't you unwind?

Would you have preferred more quiet days at sea? Or more time in ports?

I'm not the OP, but I know on a land vacation I sleep in, and know
breakfast will still be somewhere when I wake up. If I want to head
out and see waterfalls, or whatever I leave when I'm ready. If I don't
get back until late I eat out near where I am. I don't have to worry that
the hotel will be gone if I'm out late. Also, the size of the ships make it
harder to get away from people. The size of the pool deck is small
compared to the pool deck at a resort. People are closer to you, so
if you are like me, having people in close proximity make it harder to
relax, then it's harder to relax on a cruise. (So sea days actually
make it worse, it's harder to get away from people on sea days.)


--Tom

A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:48:13 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
So, again, the issue is a matter of passenger preference,
not any requirement.
I get the impression you don't get it.

You'd be mistaken then.

As a many time Celebrity cruiser
I think you should know that while they don't say required, they really
do mean that you should wear what they request.

"I get the impression you don't get it."

Marketing people are often very smart, and professionals
typically recognize when the market has changed, and adjust
their offerings as a result.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
:: I get the impression you don't get it. As a many time Celebrity
cruiser
: I think you should know that while they don't say required, they
really
: do mean that you should wear what they request. And on Celebrity in
: particular, you don't see people who are not wearing the suggested
: attire on formal night.

On Celebrity, I seen a many, althought not a majority who were not
"dressed" up.

In article O6iIc.73757$WB5.605@pd7tw2no, Sam
wrote:

On Celebrity, I seen a many, althought not a majority who were not
"dressed" up.

I have never seen very many who were not dressed up on a formal evening
on Celebrity. I have seen it break down from dress up on the informal
evenings, particularly the second and third one.

--
Charles

Rosalie B. wrote:

That's true - that's one of the downsides of cruising. If you don't
want to see the port, you might as well go on a cruise to no-where.

If they had a seven day cruise to nowhere and it sailed in the
carribean, I would gladly book it.

sue

"deedee_tv" wrote in message
. ..
I just returned from a 7 day western Caribbean cruise on Celebrity
Century.
I guess it is me but I don't get it. Although this was my first
cruise, I
have traveled extensively (25+ European trips, 5 trips to Far East,
Hawaii...). I really did not enjoy the cruise. The food was OK but
seemed
to emphasize quantity over quality. I saw people ordering 3 shrimp
cocktails each dinner even though it wasn't a menu option. I
definitely do
not care for the "all you can eat" mentality.

I had to start thinking about wardrobe options about a month prior
and
needed $700 worth of clothes to fulfill the requirements of the
evening
dress code. I followed the guidelines but was in the top 5-10% in
terms of
actually wearing what was "required".

The port destinations were far too short to accomplish anything.
All ports
(Ocho Rios, Jamaica, Grand Cayman, Cozamel and Key West) left you in
the
most touristy areas which gave little ability to get to see the
country.

I ended up with the $3000+ cruise price plus an additional $1600
spend on
board for shore excursions, drinks, spa treatments, bingo and very
light
gambling.

I don't need that much structure to relax. I know people who rave
about
cruising but give me a condo on just about any beach and the ability
to pick
which restaurant I eat at in the evening and I will save thousands
and be
much happier.

Am I alone here?



No, you are not alone. Inver understood Caribbean cruises, either.
Cruising is a great way to relax -- if that is what you want. For
this, an ocean crossing is great. It is also an excellent way to see
certain areas (Fiords, South Pacific Islands, etc.) If I wanted a
Caribean vacation, I'd hop a plane to St. Marteen.

Paul

E.k.R. wrote:
You are not alone. My partner is not a fan of cruises. He goes with me now
and then to appease me, but he doesn't get it either. He feels the shows
are repetitive (on all ships), cabins small (compared to a hotel), food
mediocre (compared to restaurants on shore), and time spent in port too
short. In short he finds a cruise boring. He has valid points to be
certain, especially concerning the cruise industry today. The experience
has become too homogenized on ships that are far too much alike one another.
I guess that is what happens when a product is opened up to the masses. It
becomes affordable but there are trade-offs to be certain. So I can
understand where he is coming from, but I am still fascinated by the
physical aspect of ships and being at sea. I love the sea and the closer I
am to it the happier I am. As of late I have become a bit turned off to the
entire "cruise experience", but I will continue to choose them as my main
form of vacation so long as I still find ships interesting and they offer a
good value.

I actually like the structured environment as I don't want to worry about
what to wear or where I'm going to eat that night. That is how I can relax
on vacation, by having those decisions made for me. My partner is just the
opposite. He wants to fly to a city, pick his hotel, have a rental car,
decide what to wear on a whim, and choose from thousands of great
restaurants. I find that a lot of work! I fly for a major airline for a
living and the last thing I want to do is fly to a city and stay at another
hotel. That's all I do week after week. A cruise is really something
different for me, but if cruise lines don't get beyond the mass-market
mentality of nickel and diming, declining food and service, typical evening
shows, declining overall quality, etc. I will be forced to look at other
options. I guess I'm one of the few who would rather pay a few more dollars
for the cruise ticket rather then have the onboard product decline any
further. At the very least I will have to consider the luxury cruise lines
more so in the future which will cut into my vacation dollar and translate
to less cruises, or something like an all-inclusive resort (which I probably
wouldn't find as interesting as a ship).

So you are not alone, but don't expect too many sympathizers on a newsgroup
devoted to cruise advocates.


Ernie, here's what I think the problem is and I thought about being away
from cruising and visiting small towns.

After visiting several towns I've identified what I think the problem
with the cruise lines is. This is no great revelation as it has been
identified before. It's corporate, not mom and pop, not small lines from
people with a vision, like Chandris.

I've visited a few towns nearby, an hour or two drive from my home in
New Jersey. Some towns had quaint buildings and feel, but most of their
shops are what appears in malls: William Sonoma, Bombay, Foot Locker,
Pottery Barn, etc., with the standard design of these establishments, so
the feel inside of the stores was "standard". What is subtly different
is the training of the employees, the more upscale towns have more
upscale, less intrusive service, music is softer, the goods are more
spread out.

The other types of towns have mom and pop stores featuring goods of
artists, small specialized companies, local goods from the community,
with little to none of the commercial products and feel to be found. The
prices of the goods are not necessarily low, but aren't necessarily out
of reach for people of the middle income. The majority of the clientele
are people of the middle income, middle-middle to upper-middle income,
not that many low-upper, mid-upper, or upper-upper income. Some of the
upper income folks may be there purchasing the more expensive items.

There are towns with a mixture, some commercial establishments mixed
with mom and pop stores. However, in some of these one gets a feeling
that it will stay mixed, while others there is a sense that the mom and
pop establishments are going to be bought out.

To bring this to cruising, the problem with the cruise lines we discuss
here is that they are corporate owned. Mass market you'll say, my
problem is more they are corporate, but in a sense it is the same thing.
Expand and standardize. I think this is fine for some of them, but not
all of them. I'm quite frankly tired of being told that if I want a
"different" cruise experience I have to go to expensive lines. That
should not be the case and it *does not* have to be the case. What we
need is not more expensive lines, but new lines that aren't corporate
owned. If you want real differentiation what is needed are people who
want to create something for a target clientele and aren't fueled by
expansion and stockholder values (which tend to not be related to
product). The income of the clientele need not be upper income but the
recognition of the clientele and their size is key. Also key is the
character you want in your town (town represented as a river or ocean
vessel), and when making changes what basic character stays constant
while some particulars change.

If and when we go back to small lines being run not by big corporations,
and maybe Oceania is one of them and Dielsmann another, then we'll get
away from this common denominator, barely distinguishable, constantly
expanding cruise type "industry" we are currently in.

Ben S.



Ernie