Minors losing their Diamond status…

[Morecruisesplz]

38 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

We have seen one post being this thread VS years of what has actually happened. You see it as “gotten away with” because of your interpretation.

 

 

Instead of debating at length, one could patiently just wait and see if there are mass postings of those hitting their 18th birthday losing their status but keeping their points.  If it is going to change we will see soon enough. 

Not his style. He is after his 10000 post pin!

[A&L_Ont]

10 minutes ago, twangster said:

People do strange things during divorce proceedings.  My ex petitioned the court to be granted my airline status during our divorce.  The judge denied it on the basis the court has no power to order an airline to comply with the motion over a free loyalty program.  With all the stuff that was occurring at the time somehow my ex decided that airline status, when she rarely flew, was important enough to be a specific item that she needed.  🤷‍♂️

It’s crazy, but some divorce lawyers I know have said things rise to the top that one would never expect during proceedings.  Cars, sports tickets, and in your case airline status. Sorry you had to go through this, but the judge clearly laid down the law. 

 

4 minutes ago, LobsterStalker said:

Lol.. You can have the house and the dog , But I'm keeping the D+ status !

It’s happened with the Toronto Maple Leafs who have season ticket holders. These tickets are hard to come by and a jilted spouse might want to take away any pleasure of their ex, even if they are just going to turn them in. 

[LobsterStalker]

57 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

It was not directed at you specifically its just my own personal opinion based on the way the the policy as written has been applied over the last 10 years at least and there has only been one report of it changing recently however over the past 10 years there have been a few reports of the same thing happening.  Based on that alone I will stick with my opinion that those isolated incidents that have been errors.  Until more reports of the same thing happening emerge I will 100% stick with my interpretation of how the policy is applied regardless of how you and others interpret the policy.

 

I have said my peace and will not be replying to any more posts in this thread since it is pointless.

I am disappointed at that last statement . I have felt this was a rare healthy debate on here , and noone has turned it into rudeness . 

There is always a point to debate . I have actually learned a lot over the course of this thread , and have quite enjoyed the banter .

 

Cheers

[Ourusualbeach]

1 minute ago, LobsterStalker said:

I believe This is the first time I have seen you reference that maybe the policy could be interpreted differently . Most on here who are in disagreement with you , myself included , are not disagreeing about how it has been implemented in the past , I think that is clear .

Instead , speaking for myself , and I believe for others,I am saying maybe the policy itself has always been different from the implementation .

Leaving things vague , can often be done intentionally leaving room to change the way you actually enforce a rule ...without actually changing the 'policy'

Whether it is written or not if Royal wants to change the policy they have no issues with simply rewriting the policy to reflect what they now want it changed to.  We have seen countless policy changes and they get rewritten all the time so I do not believe that they have intentionally left something vague just so they can change it without having to rewrite the policy.

 

Again just my own opinion but there has been one reported case and the policy has not been rewritten.  I will still chalk that up to an error on the employees part

 

 

[A&L_Ont]

9 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

And I keep saying over and over again.  I can't and won't defend what is actually being done.  I'm only pointing out the policy.  We all know that there is a limit to how many bottles of wine are, by policy, allowed to be brought onboard.  But we all know that RCCL looks the other way in MANY cases, employees too lazy to enforce, weak management, whatever.  I can't help any of that but I do know that there is a policy is.

 

Again, I don't think I'm interpreting the policy, it's straightforward.

Then save your time and contact Royal Caribbean about their inconsistencies.

[nolimits]

Real Experience  

 

We cruise with a lot of families.We do one big one with all the kids now ages  20s to 30s We are 50s and 60s 

27 of our children are all D prior to turning 18 with less than required pts. The 8 couples have cruised multiple times a yr without children and moved on to D+ 

Our children didn’t get away with anything 
This is how RC interprets there own policy 

Also 9 of the 27 are married and or living with significant others and those 9 spouses are now cruising with D status 

Grand children 6 D status 

 

Thats the way it works and has for along time. OP is a one off. Hopefully she got her daughters status problems resolved 

[A&L_Ont]

11 minutes ago, LobsterStalker said:

I am disappointed at that last statement . I have felt this was a rare healthy debate on here , and noone has turned it into rudeness . 

There is always a point to debate . I have actually learned a lot over the course of this thread , and have quite enjoyed the banter .

 

Cheers

There is a difference in discussion VS the debate of “tell me how I am wrong”.
 

One can talk about something when it is open minded, even if opinions differ.  However, when it comes to proving someone wrong it is no longer a healthy discussion IMO.

Edited March 30, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[Husky1987]

14 hours ago, Ret MP said:

Yes, I've posted this a few times in here many months ago and as recently as a few weeks ago.  I also posted it on another cruise social media site at least a year ago.  

 

I'll post the link to it after I type, the policy is part of the graph that shows the different benefits for the different C&A classes.  

 

www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/crown-and-anchor-society-benefit-grid.pdf

 

46   Children share the same tier (up to Diamond Plus) as their parent until age 18. Children of Pinnacle Club members enjoy select onboard benefits of their parents, however, not the tier. Children will be removed from a loyalty relationship with a parent or guardian upon their 18th birthday. If it is found that a dependent or child is not immediately removed from a relationship upon their 18th birthday and accumulates a higher tier status outside of this time period, the dependent’s record will be adjusted back to the appropriate tier status without notice.........

 

..........49   A Crown & Anchor Society member can be added into a relationship with other family members in the same household and receive equivalent tier status; however, Cruise Points will remain according to actual cruises taken and calculated using the Program level accrual system described above. Pinnacle Club member tier status will not be awarded to dependents if earned by their parent and/or guardian. Pinnacle Club member tier status can only be earned by an individual, spouse or significant other* by one of them accumulating 700 Cruise Points or more in the Crown & Anchor Society program. For all tiers except Pinnacle Club, a relationship is defined as a spouse or significant other* and children less than 18 years old. For Pinnacle Club a relationship is considered a spouse and/or significant other*. *In all instances, a “significant other” is defined as someone in a similar relationship to an individual as a spouse.

 

In short:

1.  Children under 18 enjoy the same C&A tier status as their parents, except Pinnacle.  But, not the points, they earn their own points.

2.  Once the child(ren) reaches the age of 18, the C&A tier status is adjusted to the level that is commensurate with the actual points earned.  

 

I'm only posting the policy.  I can't defend or explain why some people get something other than what the policy dictates.   

 

Here's your problem.  Nowhere in the policy is it CLEARLY stated that your "In short" point #2 is what happens.  It does not state that when a child reaches 18 that the tier status is adjusted to the actual points earned.

 

You highlighted in red this:  "will be adjusted back to the appropriate tier status without notice.........".  You highlighted the THEN, but you conveniently forgot the IF:  "If it is found that a dependent or child is not immediately removed from a relationship upon their 18th birthday and accumulates a higher tier status outside of this time period, the dependent’s record". 

 

The AND means something...that the child must accumulate a higher tier status "outside this time period", meaning AFTER they turn 18.  So if the parents do not remove the child from the relationship and the parents turn D+ after the child hits 18, and the child get the D+ promotion as well, then the child gets adjusted back to D if they don't have 175 points on their own.

 

Others in this thread have told you this, so I'm just repeating what they've said.  

 

It's pretty clear that the policy is that children retain tier status (even with lower points), and the instances like OP where a child's tier status is taken away is the mistake, not the rule.

 

 

[LobsterStalker]

10 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

It’s crazy, but some divorce lawyers I know have said things rise to the top that one would never expect during proceedings.  Cars, sports tickets, and in your case airline status. Sorry you had to go through this, but the judge clearly laid down the law. 

 

It’s happened with the Toronto Maple Leafs who have season ticket holders. These tickets are hard to come by and a jilted spouse might want to take away any pleasure of their ex, even if they are just going to turn them in. 

Picture vindictive X wife video taping herself burning tickets 1 by 1 with an evil laugh !

[Ret MP]

13 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

With most issues with RCI there are three possibilities:

 

1. Actual policy

2. What happens most of the time

3. Exceptions

 

Folks can argue till blue in the face on some of these threads (as evidenced in this one) but the majority of folks only really care about item 2 above. You can be right about 1, but few care (unless they want to post whore some more) since they only care about 2 (unless 3 happens often enough).

42K posts in 9 years vs. 3K in just less than 1 year.  Average it out and see who the post whore is, we're not that different in the average # of posts.  I thought this was a civil board.  I didn't think we got into name-calling on CC.  

 

I actually thought that post #180 was a helpful one, and that was my intent, not a contentious one.  But, this is CC.

 

And I don't care about 1, 2, or 3. I'm just pointing out the policy, as written.  I don't care if it's followed by you, me, or anything else.  

 

It's funny how only a few come out with word salad but don't provide or quote written word(s), from policy to discuss or debate.  And again, that's all I'm discussing, the written word/written policy.

[davekathy]

10 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Whether it is written or not if Royal wants to change the policy they have no issues with simply rewriting the policy to reflect what they now want it changed to.  We have seen countless policy changes and they get rewritten all the time so I do not believe that they have intentionally left something vague just so they can change it without having to rewrite the policy.

 

Again just my own opinion but there has been one reported case and the policy has not been rewritten.  I will still chalk that up to an error on the employees part

 

 

Hit the unsubscribe option.  

[Ret MP]

8 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

Then save your time and contact Royal Caribbean about their inconsistencies.

Don't need to.  I'm discussing/debating the written word/policy as written, not what they, you, or me are doing.  I've acknowledged that policies aren't always followed as intended.  If I come to a policy that effects me, and I believe it is inconsistent, I'll call, believe me.

[nelblu]

1 hour ago, A&L_Ont said:

To do that they should bring in the policy stating that one should cruise once every so many years or lose their status. That would cut out a fair amount of members, some of which probably don’t even remember they are members. 
 

That said, they would have to track all the current members and their IT recently doesn’t seem capable of successfully doing that. 

They should be doing that automatically.  Their data base probably has a lot of garbage with many dormant accounts due to lack of sailing and those that May Rest in Peace.  I did not want to use the word death as I was criticized on a similar discussion of being macabre.😁  

 

When Royal sometimes at the top tier events they congratulate themselves on the number of C&A members and always wondered how accurate those numbers are.

[The Fun Researcher]

5 minutes ago, Husky1987 said:

Here's your problem.  Nowhere in the policy is it CLEARLY stated that your "In short" point #2 is what happens.  It does not state that when a child reaches 18 that the tier status is adjusted to the actual points earned.

 

You highlighted in red this:  "will be adjusted back to the appropriate tier status without notice.........".  You highlighted the THEN, but you conveniently forgot the IF:  "If it is found that a dependent or child is not immediately removed from a relationship upon their 18th birthday and accumulates a higher tier status outside of this time period, the dependent’s record". 

 

The AND means something...that the child must accumulate a higher tier status "outside this time period", meaning AFTER they turn 18.  So if the parents do not remove the child from the relationship and the parents turn D+ after the child hits 18, and the child get the D+ promotion as well, then the child gets adjusted back to D if they don't have 175 points on their own.

 

Others in this thread have told you this, so I'm just repeating what they've said.  

 

It's pretty clear that the policy is that children retain tier status (even with lower points), and the instances like OP where a child's tier status is taken away is the mistake, not the rule.

 

 

Amen.  Exactly.  Thank you.  

 

and to clarify, their "appropriate tier status" is what they had upon turning 18, whether it was earned by actual points sailed, or earned by grandfathering in by sailing with a parent that had higher status.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by The Fun Researcher

[Magicat]

15 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

It’s happened with the Toronto Maple Leafs who have season ticket holders. These tickets are hard to come by and a jilted spouse might want to take away any pleasure of their ex, even if they are just going to turn them in. 

Perhaps the jilted spouse is trying to save their ex from further anguish.  😆

[A&L_Ont]

24 minutes ago, fredmdcruisers said:

Not his style. He is after his 10000 post pin!

I remember having a discussion with said member of what they believe Star Class guests should be tipping.  They wanted a percentage of the cruise cost charged as a tip, and that RC should make it a policy. The number 10% or more was thrown about by our fellow CC member.
 

They could not acknowledge that this was an inherently foolish idea as a NYE cruise would be a $3,000  tip charged to you on top of the cruise cost.  Also add taxes to that. However the Genie has not done any more work that they would the second week of January, when the cost of sailing was less and they would receive much less for the same amount of work. 
 

I just gave up.  Just like Ourusualbeach did here. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[LobsterStalker]

5 minutes ago, The Fun Researcher said:

Amen.  Exactly.  Thank you.  

 

and to clarify, their "appropriate tier status" is what they had upon turning 18, whether it was earned by actual points sailed, or earned by grandfathering in by sailing with a parent that had higher status.  

Not at all saying you are wrong , but is it you that is clarifying this or Royal or someone else ?

And if it was Clear , then why would it need to be Clarified  ?

[LobsterStalker]

8 minutes ago, Magicat said:

Perhaps the jilted spouse is trying to save their ex from further anguish.  😆

LOL

[twangster]

I wouldn't be surprised if what everyone has experienced isn't based on a hard policy but their inability to implement technology to apply a policy .

 

It may seem like it should be easy to do but we all know how bad Royal is with their back office systems.  Occasionally I'll get a old phone number from 5 years ago pre-populated in a field.  Where did that come from?  Once when trying to update my address the LA couldn't.  Later I found out the system went haywire and 128 attempts to change my address were logged.  They eventually managed to get my address updated then a year later they shipped my blocks to my old address.  It was a simple address change, no weird data, just a simple address.  Yet that was too much for them. 

 

It's all they can do to keep the antiquated database up and running.  Automating an action upon an 18th birthday is way beyond their ability.

[Biker19]

12 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

I didn't think we got into name-calling on CC.  

You are inferring something that is not there.

[A&L_Ont]

13 minutes ago, LobsterStalker said:

Picture vindictive X wife video taping herself burning tickets 1 by 1 with an evil laugh !

 

9 minutes ago, Magicat said:

Perhaps the jilted spouse is trying to save their ex from further anguish.  😆

Probably a bit of both of your posts, regarding the tickets. 

[twangster]

9 minutes ago, Magicat said:

Perhaps the jilted spouse is trying to save their ex from further anguish.  😆

 

In the case of the Leafs the ex is doing them a favor.

[Ret MP]

6 minutes ago, Husky1987 said:

Here's your problem.  Nowhere in the policy is it CLEARLY stated that your "In short" point #2 is what happens.  It does not state that when a child reaches 18 that the tier status is adjusted to the actual points earned.

 

You highlighted in red this:  "will be adjusted back to the appropriate tier status without notice.........".  You highlighted the THEN, but you conveniently forgot the IF:  "If it is found that a dependent or child is not immediately removed from a relationship upon their 18th birthday and accumulates a higher tier status outside of this time period, the dependent’s record". I'm not debating the "tier Status".  I'm only saying that you only keep the points, again POINTS, "earned".  If at 18 + one day they have only 20 earned points, they get that tier/status, not D+ for example.

 

The AND means something...that the child must accumulate a higher tier status "outside this time period", meaning AFTER they turn 18.  So if the parents do not remove the child from the relationship and the parents turn D+ after the child hits 18, and the child get the D+ promotion as well, then the child gets adjusted back to D Or whatever the earned point status is (Gold) if they don't have 175 points on their own.

 

Others in this thread have told you this, so I'm just repeating what they've said.  True, but it is always about tier/status, not points. Points are earned, not granted, tier/status is granted.

 

It's pretty clear that the policy is that children retain tier status (even with lower points), and the instances like OP where a child's tier status is taken away is the mistake, not the rule.

 

 

Once again, what does this mean:

 

"A Crown & Anchor Society member can be added into a relationship with other family members in the same household and receive equivalent tier status;  However, cruise points will remain according to actual cruises taken and calculated using the Program level accrual system described above".

[Ret MP]

5 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

You are inferring something that is not there.

Post whoring isn't name calling?

[Biker19]

Just now, Ret MP said:

Post whoring isn't name calling?

No, and re-read my post real slow again.