Cabin Category changes and Goldstein's Response

[cle-guy]

By the way, cle-guy has just provided a great example of a big problem with restricting booking of adjoining cabins. It's easy to claim some NEED for adjoining cabins, and if the most coveted cabins are adjoining ones, the potential for abuse will be huge in order to snag those cabins by claiming a NEED.

 

Again, I never Never NEVER ever Ever EVER said NEED was the deciding factor.

 

As long as someone calls and has a wish/desire for the connecting cabins and is willing to book together, they can book it, no need to give ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.

 

Just book both rooms at the same time. And if you later cancel one, you lose the pair and have to relocate the single, unless within the all cabins released for sale period.

 

Yes, there will be some unscrupulous people who will book both and release the suite later. And shame on them. Karma will await them, find your priest and go confess to your misdeeds if you do so.

 

This is EXACTLY how it should work. Adjoining rooms need booked as a pair until released for general sale closer to sailing or the higher category adjoined room was booked without the adjoining cabin.

 

Heck, I'll even say if it's the last cabin for sale in a category and it's an adjoiner let it go, suite guest be damned.

[LetsGetWet!]

cle, you were the one who brought this up, you're the only one who has complained about Celebrity not reserving those prime suits for you. No one else has complained, rather they just went and booked them per the existing rules - and that's what you're upset about.

 

I don't think any line is restricting booking of SUITES, like that. I'm not even sure RCI is restricting cabins like that. What they ARE starting to do is restrict bookings of cabins capable of accommodating more than 2.

 

So what you're asking for, is a brand new rule to specifically benefit you, at the expense of others. And, yes, in your first post you complained that you NEEDED those suites and it was simply unfair they hadn't reserved them for you - while specifically admitting that those were much more desirable than any other suites in their class.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[Ocean Boy]

Interesting thought, but I think I fall on the other side of the fence with this one. Cruising is inexplicably unique in the fact that you get to book a very specific room, and not just a category. I don't know of many land based resorts (other than maybe some very unique boutique or villa setups) that do this. And, I think in part as a result, people have understandably become a bit obsessed with room location. I'm heading to Vegas this Friday. I have a suite at The Wynn. There are numerous floors and locations where I can end up. Some are a bit more appealing than others, but in that category, none are really "terrible". Maybe the same should be true on cruise ships. Granted I LIKE my ability to choose a specific room (and I am doubtful we'll see this disappear. But it only behooves the cruise line to make sure they have the ability for big commitments. No land based resort would commit a room (even a suite) that is connecting to someone and then not be able to combine them if possible should someone be looking to do so.

 

This is why cruise lines will at times allow people to book a guarentee category and usually for somewhat less than picking an actual room. It gives the ship more flexibility to accomodate the passenger mix. I hope they never go to just letting you pick a category and then assign a cabin. I usually pick the cabin that I do for specific reasons. That is why I never go for the guarentee categories.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Ocean Boy

[Paulxyz2004]

A practical discussion on the practical effects of reserving limited unique cabins is helpful here. That's really what the thread is about.

 

...

 

Sorry, but this thread is about an email exchange between the OP and the CEO of RCI and you took this completely OT with your discussion which isn't even RCI but X related.

[raffles]

As another poster asked , where is the policy that says two people cannot book a D1 if ther are only two guests. I just did and there are only two of us.

 

I have only read the first page of this thread - and only as I was bewildered by my recent attempt to book a D1 cabin and I wanted some answers. Last week my TA tried to book a D1 cabin on Allure for either 24 May / 5 July 2015. Bookings opened here in the UK at 12.30; at 11am she called to say she had been on the phone to RCI and there were NO D1 cabins anywhere on the Allure for either date. No explanation. We were offered D2/3 cabins obviously not in the prime locations we wanted (hump or aft). I also did a mock on-line booking and no D1's available. Perhaps the US site offers D1's but not in the UK (sofa bed, adjoining cabins or otherwise). I don't care if the cabins are D1/D2/D3 etc, it is the location that matters but I was not given an option.

Edited February 17, 2014 by raffles
missed point

[Aggiebuttercup]

To help enforce it, Require bookings to be with same credit card. This would lessen further the number of people who would be willing to square up with strangers after putting themselves out there.

 

Not a great idea.

 

I'm planning a family reunion cruise. It's very likely that we'll have a lot of sets of adjoining rooms - parents connected to minor children, adults connected to their sibling, adults potentially connected to their parents. In some of those situations, there will be two different credit cards used.

 

One could say no one NEEDS connecting cabins except in the case of minor children connecting to their parents. It certainly makes it easier, and I'd rather share a connection with someone I know, and who I know isn't going to complain about the noises through the connecting door....plus I get to spend more time with family I haven't seen in years.

[cle-guy]

 

So what you're asking for, is a brand new rule to specifically benefit you, at the expense of others. And, yes, in your first post you complained that you NEEDED those suites and it was simply unfair they hadn't reserved them for you - while specifically admitting that those were much more desirable than any other suites in their class.

/QUOTE]

 

1) I'm suggesting I hope Celebrity will follow RCI''s lead in protecting special cabin arrangements. Not that X make a rule just for lil ol' me.

 

I've also suggested a means to make those cabins available at some point to everyone.

 

I'm not saying it's gonna happen any time soon, but am hopeful it will. X is more quickly these days adapting RCI ways of doing things, a reason I am now following the RCI boards more often.

 

2) Until you post my exact quote in full context It didn't happen. I went back and didn't think I ever did say I NEEDED them but looked, and can't find it. So please back yourself up with the accusation. (sarcastic whitty comment deleted here before posting).

 

I've said all along want/desire/think it'd be more convenient. If you see any of my threads and posts thru out cruise critic, you see a never ending theme of not accepting entitlement and accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions. I'm the guy yelling at people in suites ticked off they can't get into BLU when they want - its not an entitlement for suites. I'm the guy who says something to someone smoking in a nonsmoking area or veranda.

 

 

And again back to it -- I welcome your argument as to logistically, logically, and physically why it would not make more sense to reserve connecting cabins for those who want to have 2 cabins with a private connection, versus allowing someone who just wants that particular cabin just because, even if the same cabin type is available elsewhere, whereas there may not be a set of connecting still open if allowed to be booked without reserving them for double cabin bookings.

 

It just seems to me one feels more appropriate than the other, without any further discussion or presentation of opinion to that topic. But I may also share the minority opinion, who knows, I just know what I think reaches the most logical conclusion.

[cle-guy]

Not a great idea.

 

I'm planning a family reunion cruise. It's very likely that we'll have a lot of sets of adjoining rooms - parents connected to minor children, adults connected to their sibling, adults potentially connected to their parents. In some of those situations, there will be two different credit cards used.

 

One could say no one NEEDS connecting cabins except in the case of minor children connecting to their parents. It certainly makes it easier, and I'd rather share a connection with someone I know, and who I know isn't going to complain about the noises through the connecting door....plus I get to spend more time with family I haven't seen in years.

 

I think the "acquainted" can sort it out. Or have such circumstances booked through a "groups" department for such occasions.

 

Generally, Parent and Kids will be same payment.

 

People traveling for work or business together can have business pay and sort it out

 

I would think parent and adult kid trust each other enough to settle up as well as other family members.

 

But in any case without any of those cases being the cause for connecting cabins, Paypal makes it simple to reimburse each other with credit card as a 'gift' with no transaction fees to settle the math individually.

 

And all else fails, call Groups department and plead a case. The people that would go to this level of entitlement to beat the system would be statistically unimportant, and would quickly come to be known if it was a bigger problem.

 

In this case, the passenger would simply need to affirm their understanding that in the event either cabin changes primary occupant name or location, both cabins may be subject to relocation in the event a request for the cabin combination arises, even to a lesser cabin category if current category is unavailable, without refund for chaining in fare. However, any perks on the reservation shall be kept in full. If BOTH cabins are canceled before final payment, no penalty will apply.

Edited February 17, 2014 by cle-guy

[Ocean Boy]

Booking a cruise used to seem so easy.:rolleyes:

[killtheump]

I have only read the first page of this thread - and only as I was bewildered by my recent attempt to book a D1 cabin and I wanted some answers. Last week my TA tried to book a D1 cabin on Allure for either 24 May / 5 July 2015. Bookings opened here in the UK at 12.30; at 11am she called to say she had been on the phone to RCI and there were NO D1 cabins anywhere on the Allure for either date. No explanation. We were offered D2/3 cabins obviously not in the prime locations we wanted (hump or aft). I also did a mock on-line booking and no D1's available. Perhaps the US site offers D1's but not in the UK (sofa bed, adjoining cabins or otherwise). I don't care if the cabins are D1/D2/D3 etc, it is the location that matters but I was not given an option.

 

Many cabins that used to be D1's are now D2's. Only D1's that have a sleeper sofa stayed D1. There are still many cabins on The Allure & Oasis in " Prime Location" that are now D2. Example cabins 6600, 7600, 8600, 9600, 10600, 11600, 12600 dead center hump. There many others also but these are just a example.

[LetsGetWet!]

1) I'm suggesting I hope Celebrity will follow RCI''s lead in protecting special cabin arrangements. Not that X make a rule just for lil ol' me.

I'm not saying it's gonna happen any time soon, but am hopeful it will. X is more quickly these days adapting RCI ways of doing things, a reason I am now following the RCI boards more often.

 

You keep ignoring the fact, stated multiple times, that RCI is NOT doing this, especially with respect to upper level suites. That tends to blow your argument out of the water about hoping X will follow RCI's lead, rather than asking for an entirely new & different rule. ;)

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[cle-guy]

Sorry, but this thread is about an email exchange between the OP and the CEO of RCI and you took this completely OT with your discussion which isn't even RCI but X related.

 

A little housekeeping on this one.

 

The thread title is Cabin Category changes and Goldstein's Response

 

The initial part of thread title is about the new cabin scheme.

 

But without arguing that nuance, the thread's first OT post under your guidelines for such was post number 10 where it continued on throughout the thread. My first post was not till post 115 where I in fact discussed the email reply and not cabin designations.

 

My first post with regard to cabin types was 174 (where again, never said NEED...). So to say I took the thread COMPLETELY off-topic is incorrect..

 

And the true "meat" of the OP's initial letter that led to the response was about the cabin types and new designations.

 

And finally RCI owns X, and as I have mentioned in posts, I'm following closely as X has started to implement many RCI policies and amenities on their ships.

[cruisenfever]

 

And finally RCI owns X, and as I have mentioned in posts, I'm following closely as X has started to implement many RCI policies and amenities on their ships.

RCI and X are owned by RCCL.:D Mr. Goldstein is CEO of RCI and has nothing to do with X.

Edited February 17, 2014 by cruisenfever

[cle-guy]

You keep ignoring the fact, stated multiple times, that RCI is NOT doing this, especially with respect to upper level suites. That tends to blow your argument out of the water about hoping X will follow RCI's lead, rather than asking for an entirely new & different rule. ;)

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

 

Blown out of the water?

 

So RCI's website does not enforce restrictions (minimum occupant) on many of their top end suites? Most of which actually don't even adjoin to another cabin so don't fall in the discussion any way...? That's weird I keep seeing that message that certain cabin types are not bookable online because they require me to call.

 

I want a set of restrictions placed on certain unique cabin arrangements and configurations. Sometimes it's minimum occupants (family verandas) sometimes it's need to have to also book the same or higher category room connecting to it unless you are booking the final cabin in a category or are within the open for all for booking period.

 

Sometimes it's restricting cabins with sofa beds to booking with 3 people and ones with pullmans to 4 people, until a certain defined point in time - which is what RCI has just done

 

Please stop twisting words, and carefully selecting, and rewording my position on this.

[Ocean Boy]

RCI and X are owned by RCCL.:D Mr. Goldstein is CEO of RCI and has nothing to do with X.

 

There you go, throwing some facts in the way.:rolleyes::p:D

[cruisenfever]

there you go, throwing some facts in the way.:rolleyes::p:d

lol The Devil made me do it!!!!!

Edited February 17, 2014 by cruisenfever

[cle-guy]

RCI and X are owned by RCCL.:D Mr. Goldstein is CEO of RCI and has nothing to do with X.

 

Touche! :D

[LetsGetWet!]

And it's happened to me yet again....

 

Group of us going on 1/24/15 Celebrity Summit. I was able to nab the Penthouse, and now find the adjoining cabin is already taken.

 

Can't wait for X to start holding back adjoiners and special cabins like RCI is now doing.

 

I suppose we can play the piano non-stop until they get tired of the noise and ask to relocate......

 

I realize the 2 cabins that adjoin the PH on the X M class ships are much fancier than the other cabins in the category and that's why people nab them so early on, but it ruins the PH guest who may be traveling with kids and wants an adjoiner.

 

Here you go - actually, for your edification, here is your ENTIRE first post on the topic. The ONLY argument you made there was that the policy "ruins the PH guest who may be traveling with kids and wants an adjoiner." That admittedly makes a much nicer sounding argument (and a justifiable need) than the truth in your case - you wanted those exclusive suites for your adult buddies. You only admitted that after I suspected it and asked the blunt question.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[cle-guy]

Here you go - actually, for your edification, here is your ENTIRE first post on the topic. The ONLY argument you made there was that the policy "ruins the PH guest who may be traveling with kids and wants an adjoiner." That admittedly makes a much nicer sounding argument (and a justifiable need) than the truth in your case - you wanted those exclusive suites for your adult buddies. You only admitted that after I suspected it and asked the blunt question.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

 

 

I guess nicely done there detective? :confused:

 

And I've held ALL ALONG the reason for wanting the adjoiner isn't important. I proposed but one of a million reasons for it. Kids, grandma, hooker, business colleague, it makes no matter.

 

Simply having a want for it to use its unique custom built features should be enough since it was built specifically for the purpose of sharing the cabins and for no other reason.

 

But I do appreciate that you have accepted I have never said I NEEDED it. That's never been the purpose of this. It's been to keep unique cabin configurations reserved for unique circumstances they are initially intended for until closer to final payment.

[raffles]

Many cabins that used to be D1's are now D2's. Only D1's that have a sleeper sofa stayed D1. There are still many cabins on The Allure & Oasis in " Prime Location" that are now D2. Example cabins 6600, 7600, 8600, 9600, 10600, 11600, 12600 dead center hump. There many others also but these are just a example.

 

Thank you, I now understand why I was not able to book a D1. It would have been helpful if RCI informed my TA, she was unaware of this and suggested that as no cabins were available they were being held back for the US market.

The D2 cabins offered were not in my preferred locations, ie very far forward or aft on all decks. My TA and I worked through the deck plans while she was on the phone to RCI and had to opt for a location I would not normally have chosen, however I do want to experience Allure so no great hardship. This conversation took place prior to the official opening time for bookings, so all the prime D2 cabins had sold out prior to going on sale ???? or they had, in fact, been held back.

Thank you for the information on cabin numbers, I will note these for future use. Just as an aside, here in the UK we don't have the luxury of cancelling cruises or changing cabins without penalty should a better cabin become available.

Thank you again.

[JalenR]

I just booked a group of us on Independence last week for December. I have 3 D1s in a row with two people in each. I'm confused now..

[leisuretraveler223]

Here you go - actually, for your edification, here is your ENTIRE first post on the topic. The ONLY argument you made there was that the policy "ruins the PH guest who may be traveling with kids and wants an adjoiner." That admittedly makes a much nicer sounding argument (and a justifiable need) than the truth in your case - you wanted those exclusive suites for your adult buddies. You only admitted that after I suspected it and asked the blunt question.

 

Not that Cle-Guy needs my help, because he seems to be doing a very good job of explaining himself despite your refusal to hear it, but I think you are intentionally manipulating what is being said here.

 

Let's say, HYPOTHETICALLY, there is a premium suite (penthouse, owners, whatever you want to call it) WITH an adjoining room. I THINK all Cle-Guy is trying to say is it doesn't make a lot of sense to allow the connecting room to be booked prior to the suite being booked. This way, if a party is looking for that combination of large suite with adjoining room, it will be available. If you somehow take this as a personal affront, then I don't really know what to tell you. But I think this sounds like reasonable hospitality practice- particularly if there are other equivalent rooms to that adjoining room that are still available.

 

As already mentioned, perhaps at some predetermined point prior to sailing (60 days? 90 days?), then all bets are off (as is currently the case with large suites that require a minimum number of guests, but then appear without restriction as sailing gets closer.

 

What part of this strikes you as so objectionable?:confused:

[Donut23]

I would like to send an email to Mr. Goldstein. Can anyone share an email address. I plan to be sugary sweet but to the point.

[LetsGetWet!]

I guess nicely done there detective? :confused:

 

And I've held ALL ALONG the reason for wanting the adjoiner isn't important. I proposed but one of a million reasons for it. Kids, grandma, hooker, business colleague, it makes no matter.

 

Simply having a want for it to use its unique custom built features should be enough since it was built specifically for the purpose of sharing the cabins and for no other reason.

 

But I do appreciate that you have accepted I have never said I NEEDED it. That's never been the purpose of this. It's been to keep unique cabin configurations reserved for unique circumstances they are initially intended for until closer to final payment.

 

Hey, I showed where you strongly implied you NEEDED it by being less than honest & implying it was due to traveling with kids.

 

Your claim that the reason for wanting the adjoining SUITE isn't important is just nuts - since both parties have reasons for wanting it. There's no reason why their reason is any less valid than your reason, since we've established that neither of you has a NEED.

 

Another absurd argument - that it was "built specifically for the purpose of sharing cabins and for no other reason." If that were true, I guess it would always be empty unless the PH-holder took it (BOTH of them!) since they have "no other reason" and we all know that's most definitely not the case.

 

And you're obviously going to continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that it would be exactly the same on RCI for a high-end suite like that. :rolleyes:

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Edited February 17, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[TonyFred]

You might want to bring a pen if you want to fill out the comment card. It doesnt take up a lot of space in your luggage.