Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Don'tNeedAName

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

About Don'tNeedAName

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, following up on the above... I tried calling in again around 10:00, and was able to speak with someone after about 50 minutes of waiting. Thus, I guess my advice if you don't get to be the very first in line, then try calling later in the evening. I suppose that is the limit of my advice as it pertains to this thread, insofar as I did not have to "cancel". They were able to change rooms and honor the price drop with me on the phone. If I offered anything else, it's the usual advice of WAIT FOR EMAIL CONFIRMATION BEFORE ENDING THE CALL! As it stands, since our cruise is toward the end of July, we are still planning on taking our chances. Good luck to everyone as you decide what's right for you!
  2. Appreciate the thoughts. The travel agency line of business is operated separately, and to my knowledge does not have a physical presence in my area. Nonetheless, timing is an issue for me this week, so likely would not be able to visit in person either way. Called right at 8:00EST when they opened this morning and left the phone on speaker next to my desk for 3 hours until 11:00. As for future bookings, I will weigh the vast majority of my positive experiences with them more than this instance. I get a lot of value back via in-store credit that I make good use of (depending on your definition of good). It's more than worth it to have to deal with canceling and rebooking in this rare instance. I'm not holding anything against the warehouse club here, just want to get thoughts on whether I'm missing something. If we are able to use the credit in 2021, I view it as I might as well just cancel this sailing and create a whole new booking. Just worried that my thoughts are too simplistic here.
  3. Figure this thread makes as much sense as any to run thoughts by folks, if anyone is willing to oblige. Facts: Booked via a certain warehouse club 4 family members Sailing departs 7/18, so still outside of 90 days AND within the "Cruising with Confidence" window Paid $1,000 NRD deposit at time of booking (all on card, no credits used) We do NOT want to cancel. We want to go on this ship and sailing still, but.... Issue: A same-category suite is now available in a better location for a substantially lower price. I tried calling the warehouse travel agency today to discuss switching rooms/lower price and was on hold for 3 hours before being unceremoniously auto-disconnected. I have started to think I should just cancel the current booking using their online form and take the FCC. We would be able to make use of it in 2021. QUESTION: does it make sense (and at least avoid the hassle of not having to wait around on hold) to just use the online cancellation form to cancel current booking in exchange for FCC and create a completely new booking? I'm thinking this might be the way to go, but I would love if somebody could point out things I may not be considering. Thanks in advance!
  4. Of course you have to make a decision that you are comfortable with, but I really think you are overthinking this. The parking lots (in addition to the garage) are huge and secure at the port. Both RCI's website and Cape Liberty's website say "parking is guaranteed." I understand your concern with adding the Oasis to the mix, and while a "guarantee" doesn't really matter if they don't actually have a spot for you when you get there, I would bet the farm that you will have a spot at the cruise port if you show up on departure date in your car.
  5. Pretty low effort, but feel free to think what you wish. Once again, you do not get to set the rules; the ADA has already done so. You'll continue to do whatever you want, but your posts here certainly indicate that you're opening yourself up to risk. I should note, however, that nothing in this post constitutes legal advice! Private ownership has nothing to do with being a public accommodation. Cruise lines absolutely may not "forbid any kind of animal" if that animal meets the definition of a service animal under the ADA. Cruise ships operating in US waters must comply with the ADA. For an example, you may take a look at the DOJ's settlement with Carnival on the matter: https://www.ada.gov/carnival/carnival_sa.html (specifically, take a look at item 19.A.1.0.).
  6. You actually do not get to say that. "Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls." Nothing about crates or blankets.
  7. I suppose you are using the "royal you" in your post, because I do not have a service animal. However, as noted previously, a person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. Furthermore, people with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. This is the law. Don't like it? Then don't operate a public accommodation.
  8. How are you "SURE"? As noted earlier in this very thread, the only recent change with respect to recognized service animals was to make it more restrictive with respect to miniature horses. Now, for the purposes of titles 2 and 3 of the ADA, only dogs are recognized as service animals. Based on your responses, you have made it clear that you do not understand the implications of what you are saying. You claim to be making comments "in jest", but that shows you are ignoring the very real problems that people with disabilities face. Good for you, that you are able to joke about them. Others are not so lucky to have it be a laughing matter. There are people who have valid needs for legitimate service animals, and they are only trying to live their lives. If someone wants to run a business in the manner of a public accommodation, then they must also accommodate those legitimate service animals.
  9. Once again, you misrepresent the reality of the situation. A donkey is not recognized as a service animal under the ADA.
  10. Requiring a person with a service animal to provide a blanket to cover the seat in your vehicle and then refusing to serve them if they do not do so is discriminating against people with a disability if you do not require that from all others. If you would like to provide your own cover, then you could certainly do it. Just because others have complied, and no one has actually complained does not mean you are right. If you do not want to be required to make reasonable accommodations for those needing service animals as required by law, you are opening yourself up to risk. I see in another reply you have used the "so sue me" language. It's fine that you have a cavalier attitude about it. However, you may feel differently if you do receive a complaint, or should you ever require a service animal yourself. If you believe the law is wrong, then write your congressman.
  11. Since when has any business been permitted to run in whatever manner the owner wants to? All businesses must follow laws, and the applicable one here is the ADA. Refusing access to a legitimate service animal (note: NOT an emotional support animal) based on the lack of a blanket would not be "laughed out of court." Furthermore, your example is erroneous. First, a pony is different than a miniature horse. With respect to miniature horses, the law already provides that a business may assess whether it "can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight." If it won't fit, it won't fit. Simply because some people do not follow the law with respect to service animals (again, NOT emotional support animals) does not mean that the answer is to make life harder on those with a legitimate need for service animals.
  12. But there's the rub--you were playing by Royal's rules when you bought the package. They like to play games with dynamic pricing, and this time they got burned for once. From my point of view, I think Royal did the right thing by honoring the packages for the same reason I think it's the right thing to not smuggle booze on board.
  13. Yes, I already knew your exact argument, and as stated, that misses the point. You claim to not feel bad because they could do more to stop it, but they don't. I'm saying just because a company doesn't do everything possible within its power to stop people from breaking the rules, doesn't mean that it is OK to break the rules. If we wanted to get really theoretical in here, it also may not be as far from shoplifting as your cognitive dissonance wants you to believe. Are you telling me that if the cruise lines implemented measures that caught 100% of alcohol being brought on board that you wouldn't order even one single drink for the entirety of your cruise? If not, then your actions are economically equivalent to theft, even if they aren't actual theft. With respect to what cruise lines are already doing, you ask "what measures?" Your next sentence already recognizes what measures--they do a cursory search of bags and throw alcohol out if any is found. I've already stated that they don't do more than that precisely because of cost-benefit. That does not somehow make your breaking the rules OK. I don't follow every rule I come across in my life, and like I said before, I don't care what you do with respect to sneaking booze on board (not that it would matter if I cared anyway). But at least own your actions, and stop trying to pretend that you're not doing anything wrong.
  14. Try to justify it however you want, but it absolutely affects other cruisers. Of course the cruise lines (like any business) are worried about the bottom line... alcohol has insane profit margins, so if there are people breaking the rules (i.e., taking away from the bottom line), guess where the cruise lines make it up? Think it might have something to do with those who do play by the rules? Even by making this statement, you are recognizing that it does hurt the cruise lines (just not "enough" in your mind) and how your actions could negatively affect others. Just because a retail store doesn't do everything in its power to stop shoplifting doesn't mean that it is OK to shoplift. It's merely that the costs to implement fail-safe preventative measures exceeds the costs associated with shrinkage from shoplifting. I'm sure a response might be "but I'm not actually stealing product," but you'd be missing the point. Cruise lines have implemented measures to try to stop people from bringing alcohol on board because it is against the rules. You're now saying they could do more to stop it. As mayleeman said in the post you were replying to, examples of these additional measures might be more invasive baggage searches, increased check-in times, new restrictions on what can be brought on board, etc. These are simple and obvious examples of the types of negative impacts that your actions can have to other cruisers. You are breaking the rules, and if you are fine with that, then whatever. I'm not your dad; do what you want. Just don't try to play it like you aren't (a) doing something wrong and (b) doing something that has a negative impact on others.
×
×
  • Create New...