kguerriero

I believe you're coming from a place of good intention here, but a little curious like others on here about your concern of making sure 'skill and education' come first... According to Celebrity, 32% of their bridge officers are women, so still less than half. Do you think the male bridge officers are that concerned for fit and professional growth, when they still make up 2/3rds of all positions? Further, even if men do feel stymied or uncomfortable with the gender makeup at Celebrity, isn't it true that they could pursue a career with...literally any other seafaring company? Was there any moment you felt a particular sense of risk or danger on a Celebrity cruise? The line's track-record of navigational incidents seems as good or better than most others, so it appears they are keeping the skill and educational levels high, and not just hiring any lady who submits an application. The reason you may not think of bridge positions as being a role that women are suited for could be because they were shut out of having those occupations and careers in the first place. I'm not sure of any innate biological advantages a man would have over a woman who met the same standards of teaching and experience hours required for the job at hand on a computer-controlled ship. Progress and equality can be pretty cool when it's a net benefit for society and people's lives. If it's a deal-breaker, I'm sure the other lines are more than happy to have you on board.

There's a restaurant in my neighborhood that makes hatch chili cheeseburgers for one week, once a year. You better believe I eat burgers for a week straight! They're awesome.

I miss Gott & Blandat!!! I had the opportunity to spend some time in Sweden and Denmark last summer (Norway is on the list for the future!) and also enjoyed the salty licorice after getting used to it. We flew SAS shortly after the pilot strike and found everyone to be friendly and the food excellent. Hope to be back soon. Enjoy your vacation and looking forward to following along!

As someone with an inside/outside perspective at the moment, the communication is definitely not clear, and it seems like it takes several different news sources to get the full picture. There's a few programs running concurrently here, leading to confusion, as the FDIC steps in to wind down SVB/Sig, and the Fed handles the turbulence in the rest of the market: -For the SVB/Sig holders, all deposits are being insured through the FDIC fund, including balances above $250k. The Fed is fronting this money to the FDIC, who is then in charge of selling off the banks' remaining assets to recoup as much as possible, and pay back the Fed. Any outstanding balance will coming from the insurance pool, which will then be restored by the other banks. Until the assets are sold, there's no clear number of how much or even if the FDIC will need to dip into the insurance fund. Bonds are actually ticking up since the event, so losses, if any may be lower than estimated. -To prevent the chance of another similar bank run on any other existing financial institution, the Fed has also created a program allowing banks to offer up collateral in exchange for capital on an if-needed basis, at a .1% interest rate, to avoid selling bond portfolios at a loss and stay liquid. This was a smart move IMO, to keep consumer confidence up and money in the banking system. It's true the money has to come from -somewhere- if there is an impact to the insurance fund, but it's also true banking margins in both retail and commercial institutions are so remarkably padded at this point, that nearly any decent bank is forecasted to absorb the cost than pass it on in the existing environment. If anyone tries to tell you that you're paying a fee on your checking account or debit card because of SVB, you should probably switch banks. I strongly believe in the Dunning-Kruger effect, but from my POV it seems the path taken makes the most sense in terms of keeping employment numbers in check, shoring up banking confidence, and minimizing gov/taxpayer expenses. The FDIC is doing its job and using the allotted resources to stabilize the situation.

Money is coming from the FDIC insurance fund, which is generated by quarterly regulatory fees paid in by financial institutions who want to be insured. No tax dollars are used in the program. It's actually a pretty solid good government policy that curtails economic harm to normal people, which would then require a lot of tax dollars.

Some of us had a really fun day finding out if our paychecks would clear this morning 🙃

For anyone else whose interest is piqued, Hurtigruten is probably making the most strides forward for "sustainable" cruising, and have launched a few hybrid electric-diesel ships which are pretty neat. They currently have a partnership the Volvo Penta (boating and marine operations) for further development of batteries for ship usage. https://sea-technology.com/hurtigruten-green-ship https://www.volvopenta.com/about-us/news-page/2022/may/first-of-its-kind-hybrid-electric-vessel-enters-operation-for-svalbard-tours/ Cruising is absolutely not eco-friendly at all right now, no matter how much food gets cut from the buffet, so it's nice to see some innovation, even in the early stages. Most modern cruise ships use a cheap, less-refined "dark fuel" which creates more pollution than the diesel and gasoline used in road vehicles. There's been lots of back-patting for installing "scrubbers" that supposedly clean emissions, but all those do is prevent the burn-off from entering the air, and instead ends up in the ocean, so not great for marine life. Liquified Natural Gas is coming online as a serious fuel alternative, and Carnival Corp has been a good leader in getting adoption going to the point that RCL is catching up with some new ships. It's still a fossil fuel, but again, it's a much-needed improvement, and critical if the industry wants to stay relevant with younger people.

The big sauna with the window on the Millennium is gone now, however there's still a (smaller) sauna in the mens' and womens' locker rooms: https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/200724-mens-spa-facilities-on-cruise-ships-which-ones-do-you-think-are-the-best/?do=findComment&comment=56822057 From what I've read, they're free to access without any spa pass required.

Attaching the email. As indicated, the change was voluntary by Celebrity. Happy for the whales, but would be happier if they felt like throwing some additional OBC our way for the change. We booked dinner with some local friends we hadn't seen in a while that had to be cancelled.

Was reading the transcript the other day and some interesting subtext: -Q3 call was all about customer satisfaction as a supporting factor of business, demonstrated excellency in execution, and high NPS scores. NPS not mentioned once during this last one, so I'm sure some interesting (negative) developments on the passenger experience side. -With the spotlight on yield and capacity, I'm wondering if/how the Blue Chip cruises are playing into this. Some users are reporting elevated levels of offers, and a new $7-$10 daily fee. Is this to categorize them as rev passenger and goose the numbers? -"Closing the gap" to more expensive land-based vacations was brought up, and Liberty seemed a little more bearish than last time. They don't intend to close the gap in pricing and value this year, so I'm wondering if getting their heads bitten off with current cutbacks spooked them a little, or they're just intending to play more of a long game. I'm with some of the other folks in this thread that it's going to take some careful work and serious brand positioning skills to keep everyone intact on the other side. RCL is progressively moving upscale, which might end up leaving the entry level of the market open for Carnival, and cannibalize some of X if they get too glitzy, while Celebrity cheapens the core product. Retention is super important for the industry, getting people in the door is just half the battle, they actually have to come back too through indoctrination. Worried if X is more of a wet blanket than the other lines with their cuts, passengers who jump ship (figuratively of course) may never come back, and will migrate to offerings from Princess/Virgin/RC after getting burned, provided they keep cruising at all.

Considering it's the NOAA, the guidance comes from the federal level. I don't place much blame on them- they exist in part to be the stewards of the oceans, and I trust their recommendation is scientifically sound. What's not great is Celebrity upending the itinerary after final payment without much regard for passengers in what's likely a cost-savings move.

Yeah, we're far from happy with the idea of spending another day on the ship, especially as we had built out plans to see a few different friends in SF. To spring something like this on us -with an explanation it was voluntary- less than 90 days out is ridiculous. It gives the impression that X is doing whatever suits them by the seat of their pants and have little respect for the passengers spending quite a few thousand dollars to be on board.

As a tangentially related update, I just received an email from Celebrity that our May 6th Pacific Coast Itinerary has changed due to their "voluntary participation" in a new program to help whale migration (or something...) that reduces cruising speeds. As a result, our docking at Catalina has shifted, and we've lost our overnight in San Francisco for another sea day. Disappointed as we were looking forward to a nice dinner in San Francisco. Not to poke the hornets nest but also wondering if this is yet another cost cut. Slower ships use less fuel.

We booked cabin #E108 on Regal- an obstructed deluxe balcony, for our first cruise when we sailed back in 2019 and loved it! It was right at the front of the ship, and if you can live with hearing the anchor in the morning (it was a great alarm clock for us), I recommend it and the nearby rooms. The value is awesome. Pros: -Massive deep balcony. Plenty of room for a group of 4 or 5. -Nice sightlines. The balcony is built into the hull of the ship, so the bottom is steel instead of glass, but you get a full view if you don't mind coming up to the edge. No lifeboats in the way. -Quiet. Because we were so far forward, we didn't have any neighbors on either side. Didn't ever hear the crew coming or going from the service door either. Cons: -Somewhat of a long walk. Not bad if you're burning off the buffet but it's a slog if you forgot your sunglasses. -Aforementioned anchor. After the initial panic in bed the first morning, we looked forward to hearing it as a sign to start our day! -Without the glass balcony, you lose some of the water view from inside, but we got our fill being out there and didn't miss it. -Can get windy at times. You're pretty sheltered if you stay close to the door, but moving further towards the rail can get a little blustery.

Leaving LA for Catalina, Overnighting in SF and continuing on to Victoria and Vancouver on a 6-day repo and our taxes/fees come to....$247 a head. Depending on the itinerary in question, maybe it's Seattle or Oregon? Could also be San Diego/Santa Barbara.