Flash...RSSC goes all inclusive

[John G]

I have compared Navigator to Navigator and Mariner to Mariner and the prices are much higher. ... What I do know is that RSSC is now priced at the very top of the market. ... There is just a premium that I, personally, can't justify right now knowing what is out there from Seabourn/Silversea/SeaDream to Celebrity/HAL.

 

May we see your numbers? It would be instructive to see both comparisons of Radisson ship vs. Radisson ship - Voyager vs. Mariner. vs. Navigator - and also Radisson vs. Silverseas vs. Seabourn vs. SeaDream (Celebrity really isn't competitive). I assume since you're a TA and this is your biz you have all of this on a spreadsheet and this would be easy for you to provide?

 

It'd probably be most useful if we could see the lowest balcony stateroom comparisons and also lowest butlered balcony stateroom comparisons. I don't know how you've done your comparisons, but I would have done a per diem for the world cruise, a February or March Caribbean cruise, an Alaskan cruise (high season; say one that includes the 4th of July), a Baltic cruise (again, high season, let's say one that includes Bastille day), a 7 day Med cruise mid-September, and a late fall crossing. The important thing is to compare specific and similar cruises.

 

But anything you've done (as long as we're talking the inevitable apples vs. apples, not apples vs. the dread oranges) would be great.

 

Thanks!

[AtA]

 

I need to do a bit more work on this, but it seems like the prices are higher than Seabourn and Silversea.

 

I am not happy.:(

actually I did do some comparisons. Most that are comparible in terms of itineraries and times of year are within $100-$200 of one another when you compare Silversea to Radisson. Here's something I wrote elsewhere:

 

As much as possible I tried for an apples to apples comparison. I got close, but nothing is exactly the same.

 

comparing a 7 day Stolkholm-Copenhagen (Radisson) and a Copenhagen-Stolkholm (Silversea). Both are only taking the early booking discount.

 

7/14/07 Voyager Category F: $5,996

7/02/07 Silver Shadow midship Verandah: $6,396

 

I'm sure in some cases with all things being equal Silversea will come out to be a few dollars cheaper, and in others it will be Radisson. But explain to me why without doing any apples to apples comparisons you're so quick to dis (to use a word my kids would) Radisson? It seems all I see written by you is negatives about Radisson. If you dislike them so much, why do you even bother selling them? Or is this your way to get folks to book with you on other ships that you might get a better commission on?

[Leejnd4]

I'm sure in some cases with all things being equal Silversea will come out to be a few dollars cheaper, and in others it will be Radisson. But explain to me why without doing any apples to apples comparisons you're so quick to dis (to use a word my kids would) Radisson? It seems all I see written by you is negatives about Radisson. If you dislike them so much, why do you even bother selling them? Or is this your way to get folks to book with you on other ships that you might get a better commission on?

 

 

 

Thanks for doing the comparison, AtA! I still have some work to do to find the right '07 itinerary(s) for me, but one thing I did notice -- the Nov. 07 Voyager cruise from Monte Carlo to Funchal is very close in price to what I paid last year for my Funchal-Rome cruise, albeit it's a couple days shorter. Of course, my cruise last year was priced higher too, until a special came along and I snapped it up. Also, the crossing immediately following the '07 cruise looks to be about the same as the crossing in the opposite direction that occured just prior to our cruise last year. I'm actually considering that one -- I LOVED Funchal, and would enjoy going back there to spend some more time, and then to follow that with a relaxing transatlantic on Voyager -- that sounds very attractive to me!

 

Some of their other prices do look higher. But then, I have to agree with Barb -- why SHOULD we expect their prices to be so much lower than Silversea or Seabourne? Would be nice if they remained lower...but from all that I've read from so many who've cruise all three lines, and now with the all-inclusive, what's the justification to expect them to be lower for a similar product? Perhaps that's their strategy -- just aligning themselves with the pricing that the other, comparable lines are charging.

 

Richard, I can understand your dismay -- I too wish their prices would remain lower. But this is the real world, and if the market will bear it, they'll charge it. Capitalism at its best. (Or worst?) ;) I guess I just have to try to get a few more projects this year.

 

As long as they don't start busting me for carrying my booze onboard, or charging me $2.50 for water, or telling me who I have to eat dinner with and when, I'll continue to give them my cruise business until I can't afford it any more. (Hope that never happens!)

 

LeeAnne

[Dolebludger]

AtA:

 

You did not address this to me, but I will respond as I am the one who started all this "Radisson should be all inclusive" on this board in the first place more than two years ago. Radisson SHOULD always be at lower cost than Silversea, because Radisson has the economic cost advantage of larger ships. Further, based on '03 costs, the president of Radisson told me via email that the added cost to them of all inclusive would be $15 per day pp. Factoring this out, Radisson has increased its fares much more than the other lux lines since then.

 

I was one of the original "Radisson cheerleaders" and I believe that one should take responsibility for what one posts. Radisson was the absolute best cruise deal two years ago, and would have been a "world beater" if all inclusive with a fare of $15 per day pp more. At their prices now, they are up against some tough competition with Silversea and Seabourn. Radisson has got to add some further content to compete in this league.

 

And as far as asking a TA "why does he sell them?" If I demand it, my TA will book me on NCL!!! But she will first tell me "it's awful."

 

Thanks,

Richard

[Leejnd4]

Richard, do you really think that RSSC should charge less because their ships are larger? Some of us actually think the larger ships are a benefit. Also, I don't think that the other cruise lines charge less for cruises on their big behemoths, compared to their smaller ships. So I'm not sure that should be a reason to expect them to charge less.

 

I'm no expert in the cruise market, but if RSSC was less costly than the other luxe lines before, I'm assuming it was for the purpose of trying to get more passengers away fro the other lines on both ends of the cost spectrum. Apparently they've done that. Also, while the $15 per day cost factor for all inclusive may be accurate, the perceived value to the customer is substantially higher, so I'm not surprised that they would increase their prices accordingly. Don't LIKE it, but then they are a for-profit enterprise so they'll charge what they can get I guess. If it's too high, they'll end up lowering it.

 

LeeAnne

[Dolebludger]

LeeAnne:

 

Yes, actually, we should expect a lower price for a larger ship, all else being equal (such as no rock climbing walls or skating rinks). Why do you think that there have been NO ships built with 300 guests or below in the past ten years? It IS cheaper, per guest, to operate a 700 guest ship (like Radisson) than a 300 guest ship (like Silversea) or a 200 guest ship (like Seabourn).

 

And "perceived value" did not enter into the email exchange between Mark Conroy and I back in the fall of '03. He was wanting to fill his ships (which were then running 1/2 full) and he wanted to tell me the actual cost to Radisson of "all inclusive", in terms of lost revenue (actual cost would have been lower) which was $15 per day pp. As he knew I would, I posted that figure to all my friends on the board.

 

Oh, how things change when we "Radisson cheerleaders" (of which I was not only one, but a leader) tell the world what a great deal Radisson is. After a while, the ships fill up without "all inclusive", and then prices rise (without all inclusive), and then when "all inclusive" is announced, all is forgotten about a cruise line CEO who was desperate to fill the ships, and we go into a world of "perceived value" for "all inclusive" without regard for what was represented before.

 

Yes, we know all about inflation, and how it has been underplayed to the American public. And we know that Radisson had costs it had to pass through to us since the fall of '03. But if you compare other cruise line cost increases since then, you will find that Radisson's are by far the greatest. And the difference between their '06 fares and '07 fares greatly exceed the $15 per day pp that Mark Conroy represented to me. Here in Oklahoma, we don't do business that way. Best if Mark Conroy stays away from here.

 

Thanks,

Richard

[English Voyager]

I think any price comparison with 2003 is somewhat misleading in that that year was an extremely depressed one for the (luxury) cruise lines.

In that year we cruised with Silversea who included flights,additional nights,on half board,in hotels with excursions included,and still the ship was half full.

On our Seabourn cruise in 2003 we obtained a 70% discount on the fare,and a free upgrade.

With regard to Radisson's 2007 Programmme,could it be that they have changed their marketing strategy?

In the past,unlike the other luxury lines,Radisson's best discounts have been upon issue of the following year's programme.Perhaps for 2007,the discounts will be revealed further down the line.

Pessimists appear to be seizing on anything,as witness the Seabourn thread as to whether or not formal nights might lead to a downturn in new business.

People have mentioned Seadream as having better fares,yet currently,their best available prices for 2006 European 7 day cruises are currently rangeing from $4200 to $6200--hardly cheap!

[Dolebludger]

Well, the sole purpose of my posting about the representations by Mark Conroy upon which I relied in in my earlier posts was to insure that no board member would be angry with me for misrepresentation. If nobody is angry with me, all is well. I personally think that Radisson fares have risen far beyond cost justification, but others may well disagree with this, and that is fine. If there is a problem, the competitive market will take care of it. If not, then not.

 

I know that from early '02 to '05, we booked and took a really excessive number of Radisson cruises. People asked me why. I told them that this was such a good deal, and that it couldn't last. For us, I guess it didn't.

 

But just as long as nobody believes that I personally was a part of some "big lie" about the ultimate cost of "all inclusive", I really have no problem.

 

ENGLISH VOYAGER:

 

Funny you should mention the Seabourn board on the formal night issue. I have posted on that thread, and have stated that, although I don't relish formal nights, I feel Seabourn is a poor choice to ask for the abandonment of them. The OP has apparently vanished!

 

Thanks,

Richard

[Iamboatman]

Richard,

 

You have to take my comment about Celebrity with the knowledge that I also look at family cruising (obviously not a concern for all), but when you are purchasing 2 suite and two of the passengers are children (no alcohol, for example) the economies change. My analysis has always been 2 Radisson suites vs. the top Celebrity suites. Regardless of that, I don't have the passion about signing for drinks, etc. It becomes a reflex action and a payment put on my credit card with no real effort.

 

I do have a passion about good service, though. And people can tell me how wonderful service is on Radisson, but I have seen a sharp drop off, as have others, and even at its height, it did not compare to say Seabourn. Want a bath drawn? Ain't happening. Want a steak at 3AM? Maybe. Want a choice of luxury soaps? Nope. Want premium liquors at no additional charge? Forget it. And let's not forget caviar...OK we'll have to. Champagne brought to the whirlpool without even asking? I've never seen it.

 

Radisson is going to be outpricing the lines with these things and virtual 1:1 passenger to crew ratios. They may not be important to some passengers, and no passengers use all the services, but to pay more and not even have the option???? I would think one would pay less...and expect to pay less.

 

Now, what are big selling points for a TA or a potential passenger: Larger ships? That's not a big draw to most. More public spaces? Again, not a huge benefit. More passengers? I don't' think so.

 

I know there are people that love the RSSC product and that is great for them. Taking one cruise instead of three? WOW. I don't think I have met many of those people. It may work great for them, but I find that most people want the most vacation time they can get. If they like cruising, they want to cruise often and well. Not expensively and infrequently.

 

As I said, we will have to wait and see. If Radisson changes its cost-cutting measures as to staff and service, brings up the level of its product to those priced similarly, then maybe, just maybe Radisson can justify the 2007 prices.

[NHcruisers]

Richard-

 

NONE of the luxury lines made money between 2001 and 2004. I'm not sure that all of them made money in 2005 but I know RSSC was profitable.

 

The luxury segment has been an extremely tough segment to compete in.

 

The reason why deals were so prevalent during 2001-2004 was because of post 911 travel jitters and because there was OVERCAPACITY in the luxury segment. Not one new ship has entered luxury service since August 2003. In fact, the luxury segment has shrunk in terms of berths. Crystal's Harmony is gone along with its 1000 pax, RSSC's Diamond is gone along with its 350 pax, and Song of Flower is gone along with its 290 (?) pax. This is not an insignificant percentage of total luxury berths. The reduction in berths has benefitted ALL four players in the luxury segment. There are no new ship building contracts on the books for any of the four lines although Crystal and RSSC have announced their intent to build but none of these new build will enter service for 2 1/2 to three years.

 

We all benefitted (in terms of rates) because ships weren't sailing full for the reasons stated previously. But luxury cruise companies cannot continue to operate in the red, either they shed a portion of their overcapacity, raise prices or cut costs or a combination of the three. Personally, it seems to me that the company that had the lowest fares would have the largest fare increases percentagewise. It has very lttle to do with RSSC's going all-inclusive. And certainly not because you communicated with Mark Conroy or posted here on the advantages of going all-inclusive.

 

There will always be an ebb and flow to pricing/discounting. And there will always be mid-course adjustments in the form of specials if a particular company's strategy isn't working. Before, RSSC was the price leader. Now MAYBE its Silversea. Tomorrow, next year, who knows?

 

While I do agree that generally larger ships are more economical to operate assuming they are sailing full, I'm not sure your specific conclusion that RSSC (with larger ships) has lower operational costs (per pax) than Silversea and Seabourn with their smaller ships. RSSC has higher costs (than normal whatever that is) on Mariner and Voyager because they do not own 100% of these ships (V-ships owns 50%). When RSSC entered into this unique joint venture, they traded a lower initial capital expense for higher ongoing expenses.

 

Bill

[Terry&Elizabeth]

Richard,

We're having a hard time following your logic. It seems that if you repetitively post your version of "facts", somehow they become doctrine and nothing others post impacts your "facts"

 

Here's a couple of facts: The Government is not understating inflation. If you set aside energy cost increases, commodity prices have remained very stable over the past 4 years due to remarkable production in the United States. The problem for the cruise lines is that fuel is a major cost of their operation. The cost of fuel on a very low mileage itinerary (7 day PG) this past November was $80,000.00 When sailing full that's $500 per cabin. When sailing 50% full that's $1,000 per couple!

 

When you refer to the $15pp in cash flow Mr. Conroy mentioned that the line enjoys from no host bars and how that would somehow equate to the total expense of going all-inclusive escapes logic. Let's say you own a bar in Oklahoma that charges $7.50 per drink and does $15 per day per customer times a thousand customers. Your bar is grossing 15 grand a day and netting around 5K. You decide to offer everyone free drinks 24/7 in your bar knowing that you pour 2000 drinks a day @$7.50. For a minute do you think that you will still pour only 2000 drinks when they become free? Try 10,000 or more at a cost of say $3 each when all overhead is factured in. You have a net swing of going from a $5,000 a day profit to a loss of $30,000 PER DAY or more. We're talkin a million a month.

[Iamboatman]

I think the point is that RSSC is MORE expensive than any other cruise line; not whether you prefer its style over another line's. My point is that there are things that cost money that RSSC does not include. (BTW, I have had more than my fill of caviar on Seabourn and have never paid for it: Sailaways, beach, cocktail parties, etc.)

 

Obviously RSSC should make a profit, but the increase is on the order of 20-30% and MORE. That is not something that the vast majority of people would find acceptable, though admittedly diehards with infinite cash or a willingness to get less (days) for substantially more money do exist.

 

It is not about cheerleading for one line, but rather comparing what you are getting for 20-30%++ more cost. So far it is only liquor in the bars...but only after taking them out of the suites. My math would say that since most people do not drink a full bottle of liquor in a week, the cost to RSSC is actually nil.

 

So, I am asking, what am I getting for the $1,000's more I am to be spending for each week of a cruise? Anyone have an answer????

 

(Please remember that even if I was a shareholder, I don't think a dividend of $1,000 per passenger is going to be distributed...as the found profit.)

[Leejnd4]

Um...on the topic of caviar, I should mention that I've had MORE than my fill of caviar on RSSC too -- at no cost. At virtually every party or event I attended, there were waiters carrying around trays of canapes, and there were always these cute little toast rounds with sour cream and caviar -- and this was the good stuff, not the stuff that they have on the buffet. I know because, well, I love caviar, and I can tell the difference. I also did order some to my room, which cost $25, which is significantly lower than what I pay here at home for less than half the amount of caviar they supplied. But anyway, the point is, they DO serve caviar, for free.

 

As for whether RSSC is MORE expensive...again I haven't had a chance to do all my research yet, but is that really true? So far I'm not seeing it -- on the itineraries I'm looking at, Radisson is coming in close to, or even less than, the other luxury lines.

 

Oh, and I'm curious -- why do you think they will be taking the bottles out of the suites? I highly doubt that. The way the all-inclusive is being positioned right now is as a complimentary package in addition to all other benefits. I would bet money you'll still get your insuite bottles. (That is, of course, if you ever cruise them again, which I can't believe will ever happen given your obvious strongly negative feelings towards them as an organization.)

 

As for raising prices, again, that's capitalism for ya. Like Barb said, sure we can grouse about it, and it would be nice if they charged less. But they are simply doing what for-profit businesses do -- charging what they think the market will bear. If you don't want to give them your money, don't!

 

By the way, what is it that "costs money that RSSC does not include"?

 

I think the point is that RSSC is MORE expensive than any other cruise line; not whether you prefer its style over another line's.

 

I don't think Barb is ignoring the cost point at all. I think she is saying that RSSC is offering a very similar product, so why should we be surprised that their rates are going to be similar? So, with things being so similar, it DOES come down to which style you prefer, since you'll be paying similar rates for a similar product. Makes sense to me.

 

So, I am asking, what am I getting for the $1,000's more I am to be spending for each week of a cruise? Anyone have an answer????

A profitable cruise line that will continue to offer the same level of vacation experience that so many of us have grown to love! :D :D :D

 

LeeAnne

[Host Dan]

LeeAnne,

I will say that when I sailed on the Diamond, it was all-inclusive (for a very limited time) and in-suite bottles were NOT offered.

Just my $.02

 

Host Dan

[DavidJ]

Am I the only one apprehensive with this AI change? What is the "all" that is inclusive? With wine at dinner, numerous cocktail parties and being off the ship during most days on shore excursions, I don't see when I would have the time or the desire to drink all this included alcohol that I now will be paying for up front. On our last trip we brought home one of the two complimentary bottles our room was stocked with on embarkation.

If "all" means only free liquor and wine outside the dinner hour, it doesn't seem to be worth the surcharge that is being discussed on the board.

[Leejnd4]

Well I'm not convinced that we are being charged a "surcharge". Nor am I convinced that Radisson's price increase is even related to the AI. I'm sure that if they didn't think they could fill their ships for the fares they are charging, they wouldn't be charging them.

 

To be honet, DavidJ I don't disagree with you about how much more drinking I'll actually do with AI. As I've mentioned in the past, I found plenty of opportunities to imbibe already, and I ended up taking home half of what they put in my room as well! My only reason for wanting the AI is that I truly believe that it will inspire more conviviality in the lounges before and after dinner, and I'm a pretty convivial person so more conviviality, the better, in my mind. (I just love that word "conviviality! :D) I'm eager to see if my theory holds true.

 

Dan, that may be the case, but then there are other luxury lines that offer AI as well as in in suite bar set up, right? It'll be interesting to see if they really do cut out the cabin bottles. But if they do, then we can always just call room service and get what we want, already mixed, right? That means I won't have to have a martini shaker in my room. :)

 

I guess I'm just a bottle-of-Grey-Goose-half-full kinda gal! :D :D Someone gives me vodka, I make martinis.

 

LeeAnne

[Leonid]

As a new poster to RSSC, let me add my two cent.

 

Dolebludger: I agree with you regarding your take on Crystal & Oceania. My wife & I stopped cruising Crystal because of the two, assigned seatings. I do wish that Oceania would adopt a "gratuitites Included" policy, as well as stop the "nickel" and diming"

 

Steambotin: Although my wife & I drink, I have to agree with you on a RSSC AI policy. The comment(by whomever) that if one sails on a "luxury" line, one should be expected to imbibe is patently absurd. The present RSSC policy is optimum as far as I'm concerned. Drinking is only a small part of a cruise. At least it is for us...maybe not for others.

 

Regarding Seabourn, my wife & I have sailed on the Pride 5 times; the latest sailing was a London to NY in 08/05.The one major problem with Seabourn is their smoking policy, which does favor smokers.My wife, who has C.O.P.D., could not use the main lounge because of 4 chain smokers. The hotel manager would not even address the issue. That is why we are trying the Mariner on the 11/30/2006 sailing. My travel agent says I will not be dissapointed.

 

This will be our 30th cruise dating back to 1981 on the old Sitmar line.

[Leejnd4]

As for the in suite bottles, I could do without that if I can simply order whatever I want whenever I want it. So I don't personally see a problem with it. Means I won't end up with a half-full bottle to take home with me. (Note that I said "half full", not "half empty"!)

 

Yes, there are differences, and that's good -- how boring would it be if all the cruise lines were the same? But "differences" don't necessarily mean better or worse. You seem to feel that RSSC is worse...others disagree. Not sure why you continue to bring up your disatisfactions on this board, tho...what purpose is it serving, other than to continue to...oh, what was that word someone else used..."dis" them?

 

As for the support for their price increases, methinks they must believe they'll be able to fill their ships at these prices, or they wouldn't be charging them. The loyalty factor will reveal itself by whether or not they do, as we all will be voting with our feet, right? Which, of course, is what I imagine you'll be doing -- so I guess I'll miss out on the pleasure of meeting you aboard a Radisson vessel!

 

Leonid, I see you've cruised on the other luxury lines. I'm sure you'll have a wonderful time on the Mariner. There are fewer people in here complaining about disappointments or service lapses than there are people raving about their wonderful cruise experiences...same as the other luxury cruise line boards. Looking forward to meeting you on board! :D :D

 

LeeAnne

[Leonid]

Iamboatman: Seabourn has indeed changed the smoking poilcy, but I doubt that it will do any good in the Constallation Lounge (Pride). When you have an inadequate ventilation system that that cannot handle 4 chain smokers, I don't care how small the area is to which they are confined. There are people who just don't care who their smoke bothers.

[azluvthesea]

Yes, there are differences, and that's good -- how boring would it be if all the cruise lines were the same? But "differences" don't necessarily mean better or worse. LeeAnne

 

Viva La Difference. I love escargot, my DH finds the idea of eating snails totally incomprehensible. So he orders a different appetiser. Does that mean that one of us is not enjoying our dish, of course not. It means we are getting the same enjoyment with some differences. Having sailed on all of the lux lines except SeaDream, I think; yes, there are some differences, but not enought, imho, to discourage one from the other.

 

Barb

[Terry&Elizabeth]

Thank the Lord that we can still laugh about this board and at ourselves!

 

We have developed a fine taste for poi (glue) living here on Maui so we would fit right in with you and your Mom on the 11/30/06 Mariner cruise. Truth is, after a belt or two in the cabin getting ready for dinner, the bread and butter normally does us in! Actually thought about taking our share of caviar snorkeling to attract the "finer" reef fish. Couldn't bring ourselves to do it so we took a dinner roll instead. LOL!

 

We would love to cruise with you and will seriously check into the Mariner on your dates. In the meantime, if you ever visit Lahaina in the future let us know and we will escort you on Maui. We have increased our prices a little, but we have fresh venison! Just joking!

 

Keep smiling and keep posting, we always learn plenty from your past voyages and "love of life". You might be part Hawaiian and don't even know it.

[joannapvb]

I think these posts say "find a cruise" you enjoy and go with it - will things be 100% perfect? Of course not - that is called "life" - everyone is capable of weighing the advantages and disadvantages per line that please or do not please them- why we have th ese helpful boards - because someone told a passenger the AI drinks would be blah blah I should disregard the line??? I think NOT - if SS has an offering I like I sure will try it - we have only cruised Radisson - why?? Because we have NOOOOOO complaints - am I able to discuss other lines from experience??- of course not - so what!!!! I am listening to all comments - I love what I have found with Radisson - for others weigh the pros and cons - if you find something else go for it!!!! - Joanna

[ChatKat in Ca.]

To whom it may concern:

 

If you are a Seven Seas Society member, Caviar is served in unlimited supply at the SSS party on all sailings with all the trimmings including creme fraiche. I believe it is Sevruga. On my galley tour I learned that the tins cost $5,000 at the time and they were kept in a locked refrigerator on Mariner.

 

I never saw any caviar of any kind on a Celebrity ship served passengers.

 

As for smoking on the RSSC Ships, it is allowed, and I too am allergic to smoke and never had any issue with it in the public rooms of either Mariner or Navigator.

[Terry&Elizabeth]

ChatKat in Ca.......................We also were offered unlimited Sevruga that was perched atop a beautiful ice sculptor on the PG. Fine, and we mean fine, bubbly and the very best vodka's were poured to wash it down. Very impressive, however the chats we had with the Captain and his staff were PRICELESS!

 

We really can't understand why anyone would want to tout other venues on a board dedicated to answer questions for newbies and seasoned sailors regarding Radisson????

 

Sounds corny, but we enjoy Hawaii because we are 2600 miles away from elite snobs. We hate to spend our hard earned dough rubbing elbows with them on a vacation and will do everything we can to avoid their gig.

 

If they perceive other lines superior, we say..."go for it". Meanwhile the uncouth will always make the "wrong" choice.

[AtA]

ChatKat in Ca.......................We also were offered unlimited Sevruga that was perched atop a beautiful ice sculptor on the PG. Fine, and we mean fine, bubbly and the very best vodka's were poured to wash it down. Very impressive, however the chats we had with the Captain and his staff were PRICELESS!

 

We really can't understand why anyone would want to tout other venues on a board dedicated to answer questions for newbies and seasoned sailors regarding Radisson????

 

Sounds corny, but we enjoy Hawaii because we are 2600 miles away from elite snobs. We hate to spend our hard earned dough rubbing elbows with them on a vacation and will do everything we can to avoid their gig.

 

If they perceive other lines superior, we say..."go for it". Meanwhile the uncouth will always make the "wrong" choice.

lmao.

 

and leeanne, seems to me if you can't distinguish between sevruga and oestra, then you couldn't possibly have an educated palette. ;) :rolleyes: