so does DH have to wear.....

[cle-guy]

The idea that they should just throw out rules because they don't get full enforcement seems kind of short sighted to me. Should they just let people smoke everywhere because some people get away with it? How about smuggling booze. Should they just change the rules because some don't get caught? How about chair hogs, people bringing other kinds of contraband, etc, etc?

 

Thank you for this. My thoughts EXACTLY on this. Imagine those who want to not follow or have enforced the dress code rules if we also decided to not follow or have enforced the smoking rules.

 

And of course some will say the "smoking rules are for fire safety reasons" well that's hogwash, since several lines still allow smoking on verandas and elsewhere on the ship.

[Tommy3putts]

I think Royal Caribbean handled this situation perfectly on their new Quantum of the seas. No formal nights per se, however one restaurant that is formal every night for those that want to dress up.

 

I would certainly like celebrity to take something similar to that approach. Many men, myself included don't want to go to the expense and weight a tux or dinner jacket adds ( and please no one tell me the weight is minimal, my complete tux outfit weighs twelve pounds, which is a considerable percentage of a fifty pound airline weight allowance) but still want to dine in the main dining room.

 

I really don't understand people being upset with a decent travel blazer dress shirt and khakis.

 

One more thing usually the best MDR menus are on formal nights so please bare that in mind when someone advises another to go to a specialty restaurant or the buffet.

 

 

Well stated. Hope the DD concept of the Quantum class is incorporated on Celebrity. Everyone wins.

[Cruise Junky]

Thank you for this. My thoughts EXACTLY on this. Imagine those who want to not follow or have enforced the dress code rules if we also decided to not follow or have enforced the smoking rules.

 

 

 

And of course some will say the "smoking rules are for fire safety reasons" well that's hogwash, since several lines still allow smoking on verandas and elsewhere on the ship.

 

 

But other than some sneaky people on their balcony , they do enforce the smoking policy. Light up next to a guy not wearing a jacket on formal night and see who gets pounced on

[dkjretired]

I love the "what Celebrity requires" or "what Celebrity requests" and the "in deference to your host" posts.

 

What Celebrity wants is simple: Revenue. And they want to maximize that in every way possible. Why, pray tell, do you think that Formal Attire is no longer required or requested in the Specialty Restaurants, Blu, areas of the ship other than the dining rooms, etc., etc., etc.? It is because they want to satisfy as many people as possible in as many ways as possible.

 

Want to think you are James Bond in your dashing evening wear? Handled.

Want to dress resort casual and not be tied to formal clothing? Handled.

Want to dress completely casually and still have dinner? Handled.

 

The day will come (and probably in the not too distant future) where the whole formal gig will be completely optional. That is the direction that the target demographic is headed. And yes, I am well aware that your 22 year old cousin's son just ADORES dressing in his tux, but Celebrity is looking at the big picture, not some small segment of it.

 

I have been saying for several years now that the only reason Celebrity maintains formal nights is because they are making money in the Specialty restaurants.

 

I would also throw out there that it will not be long before the people eating in Traditional dining will be eating on the second floor of the restaurants and the Select dining will be on the lower floor. Might be itinerary dependent or incorporated into some variation of the Quantum trial..

Edited August 18, 2014 by dkjretired

[gek]

I think Royal Caribbean handled this situation perfectly on their new Quantum of the seas. No formal nights per se, however one restaurant that is formal every night for those that want to dress up.

 

 

Interesting. This seems like the perfect solution but I can imagine that some people might feel self-conscious dressing formally when the rest of the ship is not.

Edited August 18, 2014 by gek

[kelmac]

Excellent point. I have long felt that Quantum will be a test for Celebrity. If the no MDR concept works there as it has worked on NCL you can bet that any Celebrity new build will reflect the concept.

 

Well stated. Hope the DD concept of the Quantum class is incorporated on Celebrity. Everyone wins.

 

I think you both are on to something! Next summer we will cruise the Reflection out of Rome for 11 nights. We will bring formal wear, as it's not a big deal to us, and we still enjoy the whole experience. After that cruise, we will head back to London to sail on the new Anthem of the Seas. I've already made reservations for all 14 evenings onboard, guess what -- we will eat four times in the Grand Restaurant, which is "formal" every evening. Problem solved (I think, if they enforce the rules):rolleyes::)

 

Enjoy!

Kel:D

[varoo]

I would also throw out there that it will not be long before the people eating in Traditional dining will be eating on the second floor of the restaurants and the Select dining will be on the lower floor. Might be itinerary dependent or incorporated into some variation of the Quantum trial..

Right. They already have the flexibility to move people around somewhat as needed, varying the use of the main dining areas from cruise to cruise.

 

On the M class ships, they utilize the space on the port side of deck 5 surrounding Blu for overflow from both main dining and select dining, as needed.

 

Sometimes they will even seat Select passengers at an empty table down on deck 4 on nights when Select is full, if they have tables on deck 4 that still remain empty more than half an hour after the starting time for that seating.

 

[boogs]

Absolutely! If your rules are not workable or practical you need to revise them so that they will be effective. Think about all the laws in the US that have been changed primarily because they could not be enforced.

 

Hmmmm. I can't think of any of these laws. Give us examples of "all the laws", please.

Edited August 18, 2014 by boogs

[fortinweb]

Absolutely! If your rules are not workable or practical you need to revise them so that they will be effective. Think about all the laws in the US that have been changed primarily because they could not be enforced.

 

Orator, I totally agree. If they can't enforce the rules, then they need to not have them. The more people see that the rules are not enforced, the more they push the envelope.

 

To use your flawed logic, they should eliminate all the speed limit laws (most people just ignore them anyway), stop sign or red light running laws (too many people just coast through them without stopping as it is), texting while driving laws (someone in your line of cars waiting for a light to change probably is doing it), shoplifting laws (happens every day in many stores), tax cheating or evasion (a whole industry has evolved around how to do this), drinking and driving (most who do it get away with it), etc. :rolleyes:

 

So, you are suggesting that if enough people ignore rules or laws they should be removed? That's a hoot! What do you prefer - a return to the Wild West style of law enforcement where the only law that mattered was who had the biggest gun decided how things were to be done? :rolleyes:

Edited August 18, 2014 by fortinweb

[NLH Arizona]

To use your flawed logic, they should eliminate all the speed limit laws (most people just ignore them anyway), stop sign or red light running laws (too many people just coast through them without stopping as it is), texting while driving laws (someone in your line of cars waiting for a light to change probably is doing it), shoplifting laws (happens every day in many stores), tax cheating or evasion (a whole industry has evolved around how to do this), drinking and driving (most who do it get away with it), etc. :rolleyes:

 

So, you are suggesting that if enough people ignore rules or laws they should be removed? That's a hoot! What do you prefer - a return to the Wild West style of law enforcement where the only law that mattered was who had the biggest weapon decided how things were to be done? :rolleyes:

We are talking about a cruise line enforcing their dress code rule, it really has nothing to do with laws made by local, state or national governments and to equate the two is really stretching it to a silly degree.

 

BTW, I don't believe anyone is saying to change the rule because people won't abide by it, they are saying don't have a rule that you can't or won't enforce.

Edited August 18, 2014 by NLH Arizona

[boogs]

Absolutely! If your rules are not workable or practical you need to revise them so that they will be effective. Think about all the laws in the US that have been changed primarily because they could not be enforced.

 

Orator, I totally agree. If they can't enforce the rules, then they need to not have them. The more people see that the rules are not enforced, the more they push the envelope.

 

We are talking about a cruise line enforcing their dress code rule, it really has nothing to do with laws made by local, state or national governments and to equate the two is really stretching it to a silly degree.

 

BTW, I don't believe anyone is saying to change the rule because people won't abide by it, they are saying don't have a rule that you can't or won't enforce.

 

Orator did and you agreed with him when you said "Orator, I totally agree." In my world, agreeing with something means that you believe it too.

Edited August 18, 2014 by boogs

[NLH Arizona]

Orator did and you agreed with him when you said "Orator, I totally agree." In my world, agreeing with something means that you believe it too.

What I said was: Orator, I totally agree. If they can't enforce the rules, then they need to not have them. In response to his post: If your rules are not workable or practical you need to revise them so that they will be effective.

 

In other words, if they can't or won't enforce the rules, then they need to get rid of them. We are talking about a cruise line enforcing their rules. I have no idea what Orator was referring to as far as US laws that were change, because after all we are talking about a cruise line and their rule.

 

BTW, there is a big difference in changing a rule/law because it can't or won't be enforced versus changing a law because some won't abide by it.

Edited August 18, 2014 by NLH Arizona

[varoo]

Apples vs. oranges: Comparing laws that exist to protect lives and property to dress codes suggesting which style of clothing should be worn to dinner.

 

 

[ECCruise]

Dress code threads are so hilarious.

[blindrid]

Does he have to? Probably not.

Should he? Probably.

Or just avoid the penguins and peahens parade and eat somewhere else.

 

However I would say he definitely must wear a shirt no matter where you dine.

 

I always enjoy those that worry more about others than their dinner mates. I could care less as I opt to enjoy my wife and friends company regardless what others are wearing.

[Seabourn Pearls]

Why book Celebrity if you don't want to follow the code? Lots of other lines as previously mentioned would suit you better. I also get tired of the excuse of flying so have to cut back on packing. Often from UK we have only a 20/23kg allowance and we have never had a problem. My husband always takes a tux or a suit and a jacket to match a couple of pairs of evening trousers. They are all very lightweight. I take a dress for every evening. For us dressing for dinner is part of our holiday as, I can honestly say, we never get changed for dinner at home.

This type of what can I get away with post is becoming very boring. Sorry to offend but it does need saying. Read the brochure before you book because that is what is expected - if it does not suit your holiday requirements then book another line. It would probably be cheaper than Celebrity anyway

 

Bingo

[Truffle]

Dress code threads are so hilarious.

 

I agree. However, I am guilty of lurking these threads--can't look away. I am responding to this one to try to convince the "askers" to stop and the responders to quit being drawn in, unless the question is truly being asked by a first-time cruiser who needs some clarification.

If one is asking this type of question, they are not really interested in following the rules/request/guidelines of the cruise line, choosing, however a type of vacation wherein a variety of clothing would be required but claiming not to like dealing with luggage, not knowing how to pack well enough to include the required clothing within airline weight limits OR being unwilling to pay overweight or extra bag fees, even though not seemingly significant when compared to the cost of a cruise vacation and even though there are so many cruise lines available that do not have formal nights at all. There are bound to be at LEAST several others with comparable itinerary and food/ambiance. Some gentlemen claim they are required to wear a suit and tie to work every day and don't want to do it on vacation, which is entirely understandable, but not when he proceeds to choose a type of vacation or vessel on which this expected for a small amount of overall time during this vacation. Posters of this type of question do not want to be bothered for maybe 5-6 hrs. out of an entire 7 or so day cruise.

 

For those who respond--why bother? One will never succeed in changing the mind of a person who posts a "what is the least level we can get away with"-type question. The information is out there in many forms that there are other venues in which to dine on formal evenings that don't require formal attire. I'm sure most have already read it but still continue to ask. Cruise lines have tried to appease the "I don't own a tuxedo" and the "can't fit a tuxedo into my luggage/don't want to pack one" arguments by offering tuxedos for rental, but the questioners don't seem interested in this option. If one claims that formal wear or a suit and tie is uncomfortable, perhaps they are not properly fitted. They also don't seem to be interested in dining in an alternate venue. Nothing one can say will change this, so why waste the time? Those on the other side of the argument, for the most part, assume that anyone contradicting their point of view is antiquated, a snob, or completely inflexible. Celebrity has offered several solutions. Many are happy to comply with alternate suggestions, while a few don't seem to appreciate the compromise. As has been stated, the solution lies in enforcement.

 

This argument will probably never cease in one form or another. No matter how casual the dress guidelines become in the future there are bound to be those who don't want to follow them.