So sad...Royal one star reviews

[dmwnc1959]

Gotta love the "Promenade Patios.".....:D:D:D

 

Bob

 

 

Indeed. And that's what I've sort of been calling them from Day 1, except I used the word 'Porch'. They unfortunately don't replace the sheltered walkable promenade of the Grand-class, but it is better than absolutely nothing. And they are quite nice. ;)

 

:D

[Cruise Junky]

Indeed. And that's what I've sort of been calling them from Day 1, except I used the word 'Porch'. They unfortunately don't replace the sheltered walkable promenade of the Grand-class, but it is better than absolutely nothing. And they are quite nice. ;)

 

:D

 

Dave, are any of those areas a smoking section?

[shredie]

Those "porches" (perfect name) look nice. I would spend an hour or two there.

[dmwnc1959]

Dave, are any of those areas a smoking section?

 

This is part of the starboard side aft promenade deck, looking aft. Just past that second little block house is the smoking area...

 

 

 

 

The designated smoking area on Promenade Deck 7 aft, starboard side, looking forward.

 

Edited April 12, 2014 by dmwnc1959

[quincytoo]

We have only cruised on the Diamond (once), Sapphire (quite a few times) and Caribbean Princess (twice) and always found something to love.

 

We cruised the Royal Princess this past Jan and LOVED this ship.....seriously I got off the ship read some reviews and said to MR.QT "There was no promenade deck???? Opps didn't miss it. No Mid ship stair well?? Nope never gave it a second thought."

Yes the elevators were slow (must have been due to the lack of mid ship stairwell.....we walked stairs more and didn't gain an oz :D

 

The food, service, piazza ..WOW just WOW, except for the head waiter at Crown Grill it was amazing.

We had a mini suite (M401) and I just will never go back to a interior again, actually I said that 6 cruises ago but now it is set in stone.

Balcony allowed us to have breakfast almost every morning and drinks at night, while it was smaller then our Caribe balcony it ws just fine.

 

I don't know what we missed in thinking our best cruise yet was a 1 star in the eyes of others??:confused::confused::confused:

[dmwnc1959]

Those "porches" (perfect name) look nice. I would spend an hour or two there.

 

I did just that. A great place to relax and fall asleep...

 

[Woobstr112G]

Indeed. And that's what I've sort of been calling them from Day 1, except I used the word 'Porch'. They unfortunately don't replace the sheltered walkable promenade of the Grand-class, but it is better than absolutely nothing. And they are quite nice. ;)

 

:D

 

Some like, some dislike.....;)

 

Bob

[dmwnc1959]

Some like, some dislike.....;)

 

Bob

 

Yep yep ;)

[kendon]

Gotta love the "Promenade Patios.".....:D:D:D

 

Bob

 

Yes, they are pleasant.

[JPEvans]

I did just that. A great place to relax and fall asleep...

 

 

And not a care in the world :D

[Mom33]

 

I'll second that! :D;)

[baldercash]

Friends sailed the Breakaway last October they were NCL loyalists but after their cruise they swore never again and the Breakaway was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

I just pulled up the Breakaway reviews and the good news is it scores a 62% satisfaction rating after 531 reviews so worse then Royal at 65% after 291.

http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=642

 

The Breakaway reviews now seem to be more balanced then the reviews of Royal but the bad news is the negative ones sound very similar to Royal reviews. This is the first 2* review I found and it begins with this opening line.

 

"We had a balcony room but the balcony was very small; barely enough room for two chairs and a tiny table."

 

2* Review - http://boards.cruisecritic.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=42409229

 

I think PescadoAmarillo and JimmyVWine may be correct in their theory that overly optimistic 5* reviews by Princess loyalists that refuse to acknowledge deficiencies with Royal cause a strong backlash by disappointed cruisers posting 1* reviews.

 

The 1* posters likely intend to write a 3* review to express their disappointment with their Royal cruise and read the 5* Loyalist reviews that state the deficiencies are not a problem, they did not encounter it or say to get over yourself and they respond with a 1* in an attempt to bring some balance.

Then another loyalist posts a another glowing review in an attempt to counter the 1* review but being a Princess promoter and loyalist will not acknowledge the deficiencies with Royal and the cycle continues.

The lack of balance in the 5* reviews loaded with personal bias and not noting the physical deficiencies on Royal which are very real and measurable causes backlash.

 

So not acknowledging the impact on ones cruise experience caused by tiny balconies, smaller rooms, lack of pools, small gym with traffic through it, no windows in the spa, steam room & sauna for charge and poorly located, no centre stairs, no decent dance venue, inadequate theater capacity with poor row access and small inadequate elevator capacity or lack of promenade .... which are all measurable and real is disingenuous.

Edited April 12, 2014 by baldercash

[Mom33]

Friends sailed the Breakaway last October they were NCL loyalists but after their cruise they swore never again and the Breakaway was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

I just pulled up the Breakaway reviews and the good news is it scores a 62% satisfaction rating after 531 reviews so worse then Royal at 65% after 291.

http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review.cfm?ShipID=642

 

The Breakaway reviews now seem to be more balanced then the reviews of Royal but the bad news is the negative ones sound very similar to Royal reviews. This is the first 2* review I found and it begins with this opening line.

 

"We had a balcony room but the balcony was very small; barely enough room for two chairs and a tiny table."

 

2* Review - http://boards.cruisecritic.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=42409229

 

I think PescadoAmarillo and JimmyVWine may be correct in their theory that overly optimistic 5* reviews by Princess loyalists that refuse to acknowledge deficiencies with Royal cause a strong backlash by disappointed cruisers posting 1* reviews.

 

The 1* posters likely intend to write a 3* review to express their disappointment with their Royal cruise and read the 5* Loyalist reviews that state the deficiencies are not a problem, they did not encounter it or say to get over yourself and they respond with a 1* in an attempt to bring some balance.

Then another loyalist posts a another glowing review in an attempt to counter the 1* review but being a Princess promoter and loyalist will not acknowledge the deficiencies with Royal and the cycle continues.

The lack of balance in the 5* reviews loaded with personal bias and not noting the physical deficiencies on Royal which are very real and measurable causes backlash.

 

So not acknowledging the impact on ones cruise experience caused by tiny balconies, smaller rooms, lack of pools, small gym with traffic through it, no windows in the spa, steam room & sauna for charge and poorly located, no centre stairs, no decent dance venue, inadequate theater capacity with poor row access and small inadequate elevator capacity or lack of promenade .... which are all measurable and real is disingenuous.

 

So this is what we who have sailed and liked the ship should understand:

That we have no business liking this ship. It is missing things YOU want.

Despite having a wonderful cruise with excellent service and amenities we enjoyed, we should rate the ship as a 3 because you don't like it and never sailed it? We should not rate the cruise a 5 or 5+ because we are misleading the people that read the reviews. How can we mislead anyone if we tell the truth of our experience? It is the readers's responsibility to read all the reviews and make a decision of their own.

 

It is upsetting some CC members that there are cruisers who, not only like the ship, they have been on it more than once this year or have booked other cruises on her and her sister ship. All, in my opinion because you want Princess to never make another one. I am sure by now they know how you feel.

 

If I had listened to you and the other disappointed CC members, I would have cancelled the cruise and missed out on our wonderful cruise on the Royal.

Now, who would be at fault in this situation? You for telling me the ship is no good because some things you want aren't there, or me for listening to someone that never sailed her or other disappointed members?

 

I chose to cruise her based on the information supplied on the CC board. I had my expectations met and more. The fact that they are not your feelings does not make me any less of a cruiser than you or my ratings disengenuous.

[Casey12]

What is sad is that people who do post negative reviews of the Royal Princess on the Princess boards, they are attacked, even by people who have not sailed on the ship. No wonder there are people who post a review who have not posted on the boards before.

 

Also realize there are several areas of the Cruise Critic website. Not everyone who visits other portions of the website, visit the boards. This is no reason to discount their opinion because they don't post on the Cruise Critic boards.

 

Several people here are brutal to those who post that they don't like other people's favorite ship, even if those attacking haven't sailed the ship yet. Some seem to have only positive opinions in that Princess could do no wrong and everything they do is perfect. These individuals can't seem to think for themselves or look at things constructively. Maybe they should get out more.

[pcsunlover]

I had a really nice cruise on the Royal last week. Was it my favorite cruise to date - no, but it certainly wasn't the worst (although I have never had a bad cruise even when I had noro virus on one of them!).

 

I was definitely able to see the beauty and wonderful new features some have raved about, and also experienced first hand some of the negatives others complained about. I waited several days after returning before submitting my review to cruise critic so that I could reflect on the things I liked and didn't like and fairly assess how - if at all - they affected my cruise. I sent in a review (it hasn't been published yet) and gave my personal cruising experience on the Royal an overall score of 4.

[PescadoAmarillo]

If I had listened to you and the other disappointed CC members, I would have cancelled the cruise and missed out on our wonderful cruise on the Royal.

Now, who would be at fault in this situation? You for telling me the ship is no good because some things you want aren't there, or me for listening to someone that never sailed her or other disappointed members?

You, but not because you listened (which is always good), but because you would have allowed yourself to be so easily influenced (which is usually bad). Perhaps it is this same guilability that motivates you to see the Royal Princess only in terms of all good. Surely you can have a wonderful experience on a ship but still admit its deficiencies? And wouldn't admitting those deficiencies allow other people to take note of them, decide if they would have an insurmountable negative impact on their own cruise, and prepare themselves for dealing with them?

Edited April 12, 2014 by PescadoAmarillo

[Mom33]

You, but not because you listened (which is always good), but because you would have allowed yourself to be so easily influenced (which is usually bad). Perhaps it is this same guilability that motivates you to see the Royal Princess only in terms of all good. Surely you can have a wonderful experience on a ship but still admit its deficiencies? And wouldn't admitting those deficiencies allow other people to take note of them, decide if they would have an insurmountable negative impact on their own cruise, and prepare themselves for dealing with them?

 

Perhaps they are your deficiencies and not mine. In any case have you read my complete review? here- http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2023448

Perhaps you will see some pics of your deficiencies and comments about them.

I leave the rest to the reader to decide for themselves.

 

Guilability? Really. :rolleyes: Perhaps I am a free thinker that doesn't think like you. I would never be so presumptious as to insult you.

 

You can't take away from me, the enjoyment I had on this cruise.

I hope you had a wonderful Winter on the Emerald. I am sure you will miss her next Winter.:)

[bluesea321]

I chose to cruise her based on the information supplied on the CC board. I had my expectations met and more. The fact that they are not your feelings does not make me any less of a cruiser than you or my ratings disengenuous (SIC).

 

You have the right to rate the Royal as you deem appropriate. For me your 5+ rating is very difficult to understand but that is your prerogative and I respect it. This long thread was started by someone who could not understand why anyone would give the Royal a 1. Those that give it a 1 have the same prerogative as those like you that give it a 5. You are not disingenuous any more so than those 1 reviewers. You and them are just expressing an opinion. It is the composite of all the opinions, the 65% approval rating, that is troublesome here and no doubt to the execs at Santa Clarita, especially when other new ships like the X Reflection get 90%.

[JimmyVWine]

Surely you can have a wonderful experience on a ship but still admit its deficiencies? And wouldn't admitting those deficiencies allow other people to take note of them, decide if they would have an insurmountable negative impact on their own cruise, and prepare themselves for dealing with them?

This really gets to the heart of the matter. CC has a rating system that is industry-wide, not just Princess-wide. When someone rates a ship at either post of the spectrum, (1* or 5+*), they are implying that the ship is the worst or best on the seas today. 5+* implies flawlessness. All one has to do is find and admit to a couple modest deficiencies and the ship is no longer flawless. It is no crime to do so. If your opinion is: "We made do with the elevator issues and the lack of a central stairway, but we would have preferred if there had been one", then is the ship 5+*? If your opinion is: "I much prefer the new sized balconies on Royal and wish that Princess would retrofit its other ships to have 36 sq/ft balconies", then 5+* may be warranted. But if you prefer the larger balconies on other ships, then Royal is not flawless. What people seem to ignore or forget is that a 4* review is still really good. It is OK to love a ship and rate it with 4*s thus alerting people to the fact that there are issues with the new build. CC is asking users to rate the ship, not how much they enjoyed their vacation. I have "enjoyed" most of my cruise ship meals very much for one reason or another. But that does not sway me toward believing that I was eating 5+* food.

[bluesea321]

This really gets to the heart of the matter. CC has a rating system that is industry-wide, not just Princess-wide. When someone rates a ship at either post of the spectrum, (1* or 5+*), they are implying that the ship is the worst or best on the seas today. 5+* implies flawlessness. All one has to do is find and admit to a couple modest deficiencies and the ship is no longer flawless. It is no crime to do so. If your opinion is: "We made do with the elevator issues and the lack of a central stairway, but we would have preferred if there had been one", then is the ship 5+*? If your opinion is: "I much prefer the new sized balconies on Royal and wish that Princess would retrofit its other ships to have 36 sq/ft balconies", then 5+* may be warranted. But if you prefer the larger balconies on other ships, then Royal is not flawless. What people seem to ignore or forget is that a 4* review is still really good. It is OK to love a ship and rate it with 4*s thus alerting people to the fact that there are issues with the new build. CC is asking users to rate the ship, not how much they enjoyed their vacation. I have "enjoyed" most of my cruise ship meals very much for one reason or another. But that does not sway me toward believing that I was eating 5+* food.

 

I strongly agree with your post and Pescado Amarillo's with one caveat below. When a person writes a review Cruise Critic provides them with the following definitions for the scale (I quote):

Rate each category below by highlighting the correct number of stars as follows:

1 to 5.5 stars with 1 being the least favorable rating and 5.5 stars as being perfection!

 

A 1* to me does not imply that it is "the worst on the seas today", it may just imply that it is in the lowest 20 percentile or perhaps the reviewer just wants to give "the least favorable rating" for that category.

 

Just like you and PA said, it is hard to believe that the Royal is 5.5, i.e., perfection according to CC... but to each their own... I don't mean to pick on Mom33 as she is entitled to her views just like me but in her review she mentioned: "small balconies, small elevators, 2 power outages, one of them large enough causing them to arrive late to St. Thomas (noon instead of 8 am), cold breakfast one day..." This does not sound like perfection to me but again she is entitled to her opinion. :)

[bluesea321]

Maybe because it has taken away what many love about cruising... a connection to the sea. No decent promenade. No decent balcony. No forward observation deck... It couldn't possibly have cost Princess that much more to provide balconies of the same size as on most of their other ships. So why make them so small?

 

Loreni, I found your statement about "a connection to the sea" to be very insightful. I thought that the inside venues of the Royal were beautiful but what I missed the most on my cruise was that sea connection. I like you sail mostly for that as I can find beautiful piazzas and wonderful restaurants at home. On the Grand class I have so much enjoyed my balconies (early in the morning, mid day, even late at night) with my chair reclined and my feet propped on the glass absorbing the sounds, the waves, the moon, the ambiance... My so called "deluxe balcony cabin" on the Royal did not begin to compare - the chair could not be reclined nor my feet propped anywhere (stool or railing) as there was no room. The sad part is that from the railing I could see down to the crew-only section of the forward promenade and the promenade stuck out about 6 feet or more from the outer edge of my balcony. As an engineer I find it difficult to understand why extending the balconies 2 more feet would have been a problem.

 

There are two areas on the sides of the aft Promenade (pictures posted here earlier) that are wonderful. However with 3,800 passengers on board the handful of chairs there were very difficult to get. On the one day that we lucked out we were "rained" with black soot from the stacks above, so badly that we ended up leaving. The soot problem is not limited to the aft balconies as on our cruise it affected these patios also.

 

As "Pescado Amarillo" earlier said "the frustrating thing is that the Royal could have been so much more".

[Mom33]

I strongly agree with your post and Pescado Amarillo's with one caveat below. When a person writes a review Cruise Critic provides them with the following definitions for the scale (I quote):

Rate each category below by highlighting the correct number of stars as follows:

1 to 5.5 stars with 1 being the least favorable rating and 5.5 stars as being perfection!

 

A 1* to me does not imply that it is "the worst on the seas today", it may just imply that it is in the lowest 20 percentile or perhaps the reviewer just wants to give "the least favorable rating" for that category.

 

Just like you and PA said, it is hard to believe that the Royal is 5.5, i.e., perfection according to CC... but to each their own... I don't mean to pick on Mom33 as she is entitled to her views just like me but in her review she mentioned: "small balconies, small elevators, 2 power outages, one of them large enough causing them to arrive late to St. Thomas (noon instead of 8 am), cold breakfast one day..." This does not sound like perfection to me but again she is entitled to her opinion. :)

 

Thank you. I hope you noticed that I was truthful. I mentioned things that bothered others, but not me. Now each individual that reads the review can make up their own mind.

 

Perhaps CC should remove 5 stars from it's ratings if perfection is what they want. There is no perfection it seems, on any ship.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Mom33

[PescadoAmarillo]

You can't take away from me, the enjoyment I had on this cruise.

I hope you had a wonderful Winter on the Emerald. I am sure you will miss her next Winter.:)

 

Of course not. Why would I want to? But if discussing a ship's shortcomings detracts from your cruise experience, the issue lies with you.

 

And, yes, thanks, we had a wonderful time on the Emerald Princess...and the Royal Princess. Neither ship was perfect, and I can cite their negatives all day long (and listen to others doing the same) and it doesn't change that, nor dilute my wonderful memories.

[JimmyVWine]

A 1* to me does not imply that it is "the worst on the seas today", it may just imply that it is in the lowest 20 percentile or perhaps the reviewer just wants to give "the least favorable rating" for that category.

Fair enough.

[Loreni]

. I like you sail mostly for that as I can find beautiful piazzas and wonderful restaurants at home... As an engineer I find it difficult to understand why extending the balconies 2 more feet would have been a problem.

 

There are two areas on the sides of the aft Promenade (pictures posted here earlier) that are wonderful. However with 3,800 passengers on board the handful of chairs there were very difficult to get. On the one day that we lucked out we were "rained" with black soot from the stacks above, so badly that we ended up leaving. The soot problem is not limited to the aft balconies as on our cruise it affected these patios also.

 

As "Pescado Amarillo" earlier said "the frustrating thing is that the Royal could have been so much more".

 

I had not heard about soot on the "promenade platforms" before. I can't see ever setting foot on this ship. I am also an engineer as is DH and we wonder about some of the design problems with this ship. The soot and the power failures and the warm staterooms indicated design flaws. One reviewer wrote that their stateroom would not get below the high 70's at night and Guest Services said that there would be no repair of this because it was operating within spec. So even with the forced restrictions on using electricity in the room, and claiming high 70's is appropriate sleeping temperature, they still had power failures.

 

We also have nicer restaurants and atrium like places at home, so the connection to the sea is the main reason we sail. A convenient way of visiting far away places is nice too. And it is possible to easily have both on other ships. The Royal's itinerary in the Caribbean is certainly nothing special. It's European itinerary was just OK. So there really is no compelling reason for us to even consider this ship, and lots of reasons not to.

 

Again note the heavy-handedness and the element of coercion on this ship. You have to put a card into a slot to get lights and air conditioning. If you fear walking into a dark room I guess you could leave the curtains open, but then the room will be even hotter. Want a quick nap in comfort...not gonna happen because you need to wait for the room to cool. You can't spend money napping. Want a nice cool place? Come back to the Piazza and spend some money. Or you could try the balcony, but we have made sure you won't find it very enjoyable....so, come back to the Piazza and spend some money. Well I can't spend any money in the Piazza if I'm not on the ship, and I won't be.