twangster

The Caymans were not very open to having cruising restart as the world learned how to deal with the pandemic.  They watched as other countries were reaping the benefits of tourism cash flowing again while they had none.  
They've been pretty quick to shut down any attempts to look at a pier for years citing all sorts of doom and gloom from it.  There are a lot of anti-tourism forces at work there.
Allowing cruise lines to open the casino isn't the only reason ships leave.  Slots are open nearly all day long at CocoCay yet ships still leave the port before dinner time. 
Ships have somewhere to go and they don't move very fast.  Staying in port for hours more means they have higher fuel costs to speed to the next port of call at the same the time the world is asking ships to slow down to lower emissions.  Now GC wants ships to speed up so they can stay at GC longer?  Makes no sense.  
If they want to maintain cruise tourism they need a pier.  If they want to capitalize on the trend towards larger ships they need a pier.  Yet many there don't want a pier, many don't like tourism.  Cruise ships sail past lots of islands that don't have ship visits.  Build a pier or become another island watching ships sail past.

The Caymans were not very open to having cruising restart as the world learned how to deal with the pandemic.  They watched as other countries were reaping the benefits of tourism cash flowing again while they had none.  
They've been pretty quick to shut down any attempts to look at a pier for years citing all sorts of doom and gloom from it.  There are a lot of anti-tourism forces at work there.
Allowing cruise lines to open the casino isn't the only reason ships leave.  Slots are open nearly all day long at CocoCay yet ships still leave the port before dinner time. 
Ships have somewhere to go and they don't move very fast.  Staying in port for hours more means they have higher fuel costs to speed to the next port of call at the same the time the world is asking ships to slow down to lower emissions.  Now GC wants ships to speed up so they can stay at GC longer?  Makes no sense.  
If they want to maintain cruise tourism they need a pier.  If they want to capitalize on the trend towards larger ships they need a pier.  Yet many there don't want a pier, many don't like tourism.  Cruise ships sail past lots of islands that don't have ship visits.  Build a pier or become another island watching ships sail past.

It does appear GigSky has established a roaming agreement with Cellular@Sea.
I'm sure Cellular@Sea was eager to get some help marketing their service as I can't imagine they make very much money over and above the fees they charge when people inadvertently forget to go on airplane mode.
I do foresee some users running into issues if they are not tech savvy enough to manage multiple eSIMs on their device, one for GigiSky along with a regular SIM or eSIM from their normal home cellular provider.  If you don't manage the two eSIMs properly your device will still attempt to use your regular carrier roaming through Cellular@Sea.  Disabling your home eSIM will solve this, or setting the data to use the GigSky eSIM as long as you can figure how out to do that.  I know how but I can easily see many non-techy folks struggling with that.
The main problem I have with buying a travel SIM/eSIM is having a separate phone number.  Friends, family and co-workers won't recognize some strange number calling or texting them.  Less an issue for iMessage Apple users when texting someone with an iPhone.  More of a texting issue for Android users or making phone calls.
WiFi calling over Voom allows you to keep your normal phone number.
A plus of the GigSky solution is coverage in a number of countries when off the ship visiting a port of call.  Voom does nothing for you when you are off the ship.
My TMobile and my US Mobile cell service both cover me in many foreign countries so I'm set for off ship data coverage when travelling and I keep my normal number so no issues having different travel phone numbers.  Cuba has been the only country I have visited where TMobile didn't have roaming included (or available at all, but that's Cuba).
$20 per day for 512MB isn't great.  If you facetime with family back home you'll burn through 512 MB very quickly.  Then what?  Another $20 for 512MB more?  The next level is $35 per day which is much more than Voom and Voom has no data cap per day.
I suppose it could work for someone who does basic texting without a lot of phone data, web browsing or streaming.  
The biggest advantage I see is off ship coverage on cellular for anyone who doesn't get that with their cell plan already.
I really like have data roaming included when I'm off the ship, it's come in very handy a number of times and I won't travel without it now.  That saved me acquiring a taxi to get back to the ship one time. Love having international roaming included at no additional cost through my normal cell plan.    
Keep in mind that Cellular@Sea isn't perfect.  It still uses satellites to get off the ship so rain fade impacts service.  Cell signals don't always penetrate every corner of a steel ship especially in the bowels of a ship and for internal spaces.    
Cellular@Sea automatically cuts off when approaching land since they can't interfere with land based cell towers nor are they licensed to operate a cell tower in any country, they only operate at sea away from land, so for an hour or two approaching port or when leaving port you may not have enough land signal to connect and no Cellular@Sea signal until you are well away from land.  In some places like the Med the ship is often near land so Cellular@Sea may be off more than its on.  

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

At this rate I might as well move back to a landlocked state.
Flies to every cruise to make Pinnacle.  
Move to Florida they said.  Cruise even more they said. 
[moves to Florida, pandemic shuts down cruising and then cruise fares skyrocket due to newbie demand] 🤦‍♂️

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

I've always walked as a means to burn off Windjammer calories so for me it's a non-issue.
If someone is escorting a person with a legitimate need I am confident they won't separate an escort.  If a family of 15 capable persons wants to escort grandma that's another issue.  Pick an escort and the rest of the able bodies can walk.  It's not that far.   

I've always walked as a means to burn off Windjammer calories so for me it's a non-issue.
If someone is escorting a person with a legitimate need I am confident they won't separate an escort.  If a family of 15 capable persons wants to escort grandma that's another issue.  Pick an escort and the rest of the able bodies can walk.  It's not that far.   

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

At this rate I might as well move back to a landlocked state.
Flies to every cruise to make Pinnacle.  
Move to Florida they said.  Cruise even more they said. 
[moves to Florida, pandemic shuts down cruising and then cruise fares skyrocket due to newbie demand] 🤦‍♂️

I hope the partner is able to recover and get better soon. 
As a business owner I am surprised how willing you are to have Royal take the loss because of the partner's health issues.  At this last minute they can't sell that cabin so they would lose the money which you seem to be perfectly willing to let them do. 
Does your wife's business casually lose $4k and not blink an eye?  If it's okay for Royal to lose $4k then why isn't it okay for your wife's business to lose $4k?   
Given the last minute timing if you had set sail and then the partner had their medical crisis would you expect Royal to fly your wife home to deal with it? Of course not.
If you had bought CFAR insurance you'd be fine.  You chose not to.  That was a choice.   You should lose the money, not Royal.  I don't want my cruise fares to go up so Royal can cover their losses for someone else's unfortunate life events.

What happens when ChatGPT helps write your articles

Keep in mind generally speaking GTY fares are not made available on the website for solo cruisers.  When they are, the solo GTY fares tend to look like a great deal because they are much less.  It's a flag that something is different.  When you see a GTY solo fare offered at all, it typically will be on a ship that has Studio cabins and it's a flag that you will probably get a Studio assigned.  
It's easy to miss if all you do is search for solo fares with no context. 
In effect you aren't paying any single supplement because Studio cabins don''t have a single supplement but that isn't readily apparent.  So it's not sketchy really, except many people assume they are booking a GTY that will see them get a regular cabin, not a Studio cabin, but GTY has no such component or guarantee of a cabin meant for two guests.  
The problem is people assume.

New CD starting next week.  She is on board and starting into her duties ahead of the transition but I would expect this to be high on her list of priorities.  

DP340 has no bearing on points earned versus booking the same cabin without using DP340.
The phrase "solo cabin" needs some clarification. If the name of the cabin has the word "Studio" in it that is a cabin designed for a solo cruiser. DP340 doesn't work on Studio cabins since the cruise fare is already based on a single or solo guest. Studio cabins only receive one point per night. Not all ships have Studio cabins.
As a solo cruiser be careful booking a guarantee type cabin if that ship has Studio cabins.  Often a solo cruiser booking a guarantee type cabin on a ship that has Studio cabins will end up be assigned a Studio cabin and that means no extra points since Studio cabins only earn one point per night.  Guarantee cabins are not usually available for solo guests to book unless that ship has Studio cabins and in these cases it should be assumed the guarantee booking will result in a Studio cabin and therefore only single points.
When a solo cruiser books a cabin that is designed for two or more guests there is a single supplement that applies.  Before reaching the 340 points level the single supplement for a solo cruiser is typically 200%. DP340 reduces the single supplement charge down to 150% except for the peak summer months and holidays when DP340 is unavailable.  
DP340 has no bearing and can't be used for a couple booking a cabin since there is no single supplement that applies for a couple sharing a cabin.

When a casino rewards money off certificate is applied to a booking it converts that booking into a casino booking.
For a normal (non-group) booking the casino department takes ownership of that booking. From that point forward only the casino department can service that booking.  
The casino department doesn't have the concept of groups so groups and casino are mutually exclusive.   

It has increased my (cruise) performance. 
"Before DP340 I had a hard time getting my points up.  It took forever.  Once I discovered DP340 my points started to go up and up.  It's been a game changer."
DP340 - Endorsed by twangster and divorced men sailing solo everywhere.  

When a casino rewards money off certificate is applied to a booking it converts that booking into a casino booking.
For a normal (non-group) booking the casino department takes ownership of that booking. From that point forward only the casino department can service that booking.  
The casino department doesn't have the concept of groups so groups and casino are mutually exclusive.   

New CD starting next week.  She is on board and starting into her duties ahead of the transition but I would expect this to be high on her list of priorities.  

It excites me to see your Stiff endorsement of "DP."  With the cost of Things going "Up and Up" we must erect a stiff front if we wish to beat it.

It has increased my (cruise) performance. 
"Before DP340 I had a hard time getting my points up.  It took forever.  Once I discovered DP340 my points started to go up and up.  It's been a game changer."
DP340 - Endorsed by twangster and divorced men sailing solo everywhere.