Zacharius

Just now, monctonguy said:

Well then here is no purpose to ever fly Rouge...why would you?..unless you're gullible enough to pay the same price for less....

 

But now there is pretty much no options....flying out of many cities in Canada they use Rouge now...

 

Hence why we always travel to the US for flights..way more options but bottom line is price...

I agree, I wouldn't fly Rouge for the same price. But that's kinda the trick they've pulled...are there any routes where Rouge and "regular" operate together so that you can compare? I think a new domestic routes, but I can't think of many/any outside of Canada.

3 hours ago, monctonguy said:

Basically..they were able to charge Canadians the same amount as always....and offer less services and room..brilliant on Air Canada's part...but that's NOT how they tried to sell it..as a cheaper flight for Air Canda but not the customer..lol.....come on now. I hope no one here would be stupid enough to fall for that.

 

The point of being a low cost carrier is to offer the customer a cheaper flight...albeit with less options and paying extra for add-ons......the trade off is supposed to be a lower ticket price.....

The way they tried to market it and the way they tried to operate it are two different things. If they had come out and said "hey, we have this new airline...basically, we're going to charge you the same and give you less", it would have been dead from the start. But by marketing it as an alternative to (a) "regular" Air Canada, and (b) other Canadian airlines, it had (and still has) legs. But the internal purpose was always the same - to lower costs for Air Canada, not the passenger. That's what I was getting at.

And I still stand behind my statement that "low cost carrier" can have two meanings - the obvious (lower ticket costs for the traveler), and the not so obvious (lower costs for the airline...with our without a lower cost to the passenger). The latter is Air Canada Rouge.

3 minutes ago, FManke said:

We're going to Greece. @mom2mybugs Any thoughts on this?

I would take it to be safe. If something happens and you miss the boat or need to get home or to another country, the passport is really critical. Passport cards are meaningless there.

1 minute ago, FManke said:

I know you need a passport to fly internationally, but we have passport cards from a cruise to Canada. We would like to use the passport cards when going ashore at ports of call as form of ID. More convenient than carrying the regular passport, which we would like to keep locked in our cabin safe.

Is that acceptable or do we need to carry the regular passport?

It would really depend where you are going. Some places require (or recommend) you have a full passport, whereas others a card is fine. If you're just doing something like the Caribbean, the card is probably fine. If you're doing somewhere more far flung like Asia, I would do a passport.

12 minutes ago, monctonguy said:

As for Air Canda Rouge...its a farce...started out years ago as a "discount" option to compete with charter airlines like Sunwing and Air Transat...less room....more seats...less features and options.....supposedly for a cheaper price....NEVER was...and now usually almost all flights to vacation cities are on Rouge...surprised you haven't noticed that yet if you travel at all..been years now like that.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. From day one, Air Canada Rouge was meant to be a lower cost option...for Air Canada. It was a way to lower their CASM to compete against other airlines...put more seats in the same plane, and you end up with a lower cost per available seat mile. Sure, you may have to add a flight attendant or two, but in reality that's not a huge expense. It's a bit like Southwest being a "low cost carrier"...the low cost was always the operating cost, not necessarily the ticket cost to the passenger.

2 hours ago, FManke said:

I need some advice from seasoned international flyers. Flying to Italy next year for the first time. Does booking 6mos out seem like a reasonable time frame? I know that flight prices can jump all over the place without rhyme or reason. I would just like to book a flight at a fare price. I need to have a guaranteed seat. I am not one of those people who can, pun or no pun intended, depends how you look at it, fly by the seat of my pants. I'll pay a little extra for the peace of mind.

I know like booking a cruise, at some point you just have to pull the trigger and don't look back.

To me, six months seems reasonable. I still haven't found much evidence of the "90 day" rule. I find a fare that seems good to me, and I don't look back (unless the fare can be changed without big fees). To be aware that, at six months out, schedules themselves may still change...but I've had a schedule change at one month out, so you never really know.

2 hours ago, AshleyDillo said:

Track the prices for a little bit.  Google Flights has a graph that pulls the prices so you can see how they trend.  Check what they are 2, 3, and 6 months out right now and see if you can tell where a sweet spot is.  You can also pick up on things like Tuesday flights are always the cheapest and Sundays are highest, etc.  Just gives you a bit of reference to know when to start paying attention and take the gamble.

While there are certainly trends, I would hold off on saying things like "Tuesday flights are always cheapest" or "Sundays are highest". Different markets, different times of year, and different demands can very much change this. The peak day/highest fare day for one destination may be the lowest day/fare for another (One example would be Saturday's to somewhere like Cancun being peak, but Saturday's to a business destination may be low, even if it's the same exact date).

56 minutes ago, AshleyDillo said:

Actually it's an insurance company that underwrites the travel policy.  Royal effectively acts as the agent and sells you the policy but it is underwritten by Arch Insurance Company.

Oh, I know there's an underwriter. But I definitely believe that the underwriter's primary obligation is to Royal Caribbean, not the traveler. If push comes to shove, they will act in the best benefit of Royal Caribbean, lest Royal Caribbean choose to funnel their insurance business to someone else. A third party insurer doesn't have that conflict of interest. Again, just my preference, but I will never buy insurance through a travel provider, no matter who underwrites it.

22 hours ago, ChessE4 said:

There is also the issue of travel insurance - if you were trying to wrap the cruise and airfare together with a policy from Royal, it's all in one place.  But if you were using a 3rd party or other arrangements just decide if you need your independent air travel covered...

This is definitely a personal preference thing, I think. I personally would never, ever put my travel insurance in the hands of the group actually operating the travel, because to me that's a big conflict of interest. The insurance that Royal Caribbean is going to put you through operates on behalf of Royal Caribbean, not you (and themselves as the insurance underwriter, of course). Just my choice, to each their own.

16 hours ago, Finally Retired said:

Fares are disgusting.  Alaskan cruise has been on my bucket list for years.  Flights to Vancouver were actually half of what it was to come home from Anchorage!  Fortunately,  I had about 100K frequent flyer miles and that paid for most of the airfare.  Investigating other options for traveler cards - mine was American Airlines and their flights are not really comfortable and couldn't use Alaskan (partner with AA) because flight times were horrible.  

You can always fly in to SEA and take the very easy road trip (via car, bus, train) up to Vancouver. Often can save a good chunk of change because you avoid Canadian taxes.

I think, in addition to the drink packages, one has to also realize that it's easier for people to spread the word about things. 15-20 years ago, if someone got drunk on a ship and cause an issue, few people outside of that ship ever really heard about it. Now, someone can post their experience online and blast it to thousands and thousands of additional people.

It's kind of like network news...are bad things happening more in 2019, or are we just hearing more about what has always been happening? I think the latter.

On 8/14/2019 at 5:36 PM, Atlantix2000 said:

Just put your phone in airplane mode.  Then you can use your normal alarm clock, take pictures, and access the RC App (depending on ship) to get your menus, daily schedule, and more.

I never put my cell phone in airplane mode, and I have never received even a penny of unexpected data charges. It's really simple - make sure things like data pushing and data roaming are turned off, and boom...no need to put it in airplane mode.

53 minutes ago, Levi said:

Flights in general have gone up as the amount of flying aircraft have gone down with the 737 MAX grounding. At the airport near me they've outright canceled three routes due to plane shortages. 

There is an impact from MAX grounding, but it's often overemphasized. AA's MAX fleet is 24 out of 968 total aircraft, or 2.48%. United is 14 or 784, or 1.79%. Southwest was most hit, but still MAX is only 24 out of 754 aircraft, or 3.2%. The bigger impacts are the economy itself and the increased demand for travel. That being said, I wouldn't put it past AA/UA/WN to claim MAX groundings have some monumental impact on their fleet capabilities and they must raise fares as a result, but really...the three US airlines combined that operate MAX combine for only 62 out of 2,506 aircraft (2.47%).

33 minutes ago, Mljstr said:

You cannot count on  being in A boarding. Depends on the flight and when you buy the Early Bird. Last flight, we got B11-12 and the wheelchairs, and families and soldiers in uniform board before B. The plane was 1/3 full but we did get seats together. It is nice to not have to actually check in otherwise you cannot check in before exactly 24 hours before the flight. The 36 hours is for those that bought Early Bird.

Also important to note that A/B/C may mean nothing if the plane is already coming in fairly full and continuing on. I've experienced, more than once, a 143 seat plane come in and have 60-70 people stay onboard...so even if you're A60 and excited about being an A, you may already be stuck in a middle seat. Unfortunately, that's just something you won't really know until you step onboard, and another reason I personally prefer airlines that let you select seats.

Absolutely no. I get dressed up on a regular basis, as does my wife. No desire to do it on vacation.

2 minutes ago, mcoler18 said:

I wasnt making a comparison, just a light hearted statement of fact.

Just checking. I hear a lot of people make the argument/complaint that their airfare shouldn't cost more than their cruise since the cruise is what they really care about...I always try to let them know that it's just not quite fare to compare them.

3 minutes ago, Ray said:

Yip, i look to pay about £500 pp from uk to new york, then have to get from new york down to San Juan which is almost the same price. 

 

Do you need to stop in NYC?

"International" is pretty vague. I can fly nonstop, round trip, next week from Los Angeles to Tokyo for $700. I would say that's pretty good.

Strong US economy (assuming that's where you're leaving from, you don't say), lots of demand, and a generally fixed number of seats bring on high fares.

3 hours ago, mcoler18 said:

We are flying form the UK in October and have paid just shy of £2k for 2 adults and 2 children, practically the same price as the cruise.

I get what you're saying, but comparing the two aren't realistic or fare. Airlines and cruise lines operate on two very, very different economic models and cater to different types of travelers. An airline can offer a plane ticket and not much else...sure, a little bit extra for seat selection or bag check, maybe (many don't charge that either), but a cruise line generally has oodles of extra costs that they rely on - dining options, drinks, activities, etc. etc. These help off set an often under-priced cabin, whereas airlines don't have that option.

20 hours ago, rjac said:

Stay inside the fence! DO NOT venture out past the fence into the town of Falmouth proper. Hasty place. Great shops/places to eat inside the fence. 

I have definitely ventured beyond the fence and not had any issues. A few caveats - I am used to travel in "questionable" places and third world countries, and I blend in a bit with the locals (if you know what I mean). It's not an enjoyable place, I'll say that, but I personally haven't been fearful or uncomfortable. I understand many people do, so one has to judge their own comfort and experience level. It is, however, a good way to experience real Jamaica (or as close as you can get in a town that still has lots of tourists dumped in each day).

Out of those two? Florence, easy. I personally find Venice to be...uh...let's just go with "not enjoyable".

But that wouldn't be my top choice. Another option is to head down to Sorrento, just south of Naples, and combine it with a stop at Pompeii right next door. I personally prefer that area to Rome.

Snapper is pretty common for fried fish head in the Caribbean. Was there snapper on the menu at some other time during the week that would have used the rest of the body?

5 minutes ago, CDunninTX said:

We are planning on an outside excursion in Cozumel with a highly recommended family owned company. We've done this before with another group and it was a total dud.

My question is if we have a good catch of fish, would Royal Caribbean allow us to bring it on the ship to be cooked for us?

Just asking, I know restaurants would do it but was wondering what Royal's policy would be and if anyone has asked or encountered this. TIA

Also, not sure if this topic should go under the "excursions" group. Please advise.

Not even all restaurants allow it. It really depends, both on individual restaurant policy as well as health code laws in the location where the restaurant is.

I'm curious to see what official answers are, but my GUESS would be no for two reasons - (a) food safety issues, because that fish (of which the cruise line doesn't really know its origin) will inevitably be coming in to contact with other products, and (b) it is essentially bringing food on to the ship and then leaving the country, which may or may not run in to customs issues.

9 minutes ago, FloridaCruiseGirl1210 said:

Also as I have found in my west coast trip investigating don't be hard set on flying into the exact destination. 

When I originally looked at booking Alaska 2020, I was at the point where it was cheaper to fly to Seattle (or somewhere in Oregon) and then take the train up to Seattle or Vancouver. Definitely check out those options as well. 

Yes, this is definitely the case where flying in to/out of Canada adds some (sometimes substantial) money, often in the form of taxes. Flying in to a US city and then getting across the border by land is common for both Americans and Canadians. Just make sure you add actual cost on top of "opportunity cost" for lack of a better term, and remember that you're not protected like you would be a for a flight. Missing a train because a flight is delayed, or vice versa, often means you're SOL since they are not on the same ticket (much like purchasing separate plane tickets, let's say Southwest LAX-SEA and Alaska SEA-ANC...if Southwest gets you to Seattle five hours late and you miss your Alaska flight, too bad, neither airline cares and you may very well find yourself purchasing a last minute, walk-up fare).

Just things to consider, always.

4 hours ago, vanelli56 said:

Yea. We are definitely going to be getting premium economy seats at a minimum. Maybe even splurge for 1st class since we have to go X-country. We've been banking up the travel miles/points to help pay for some of that extra cost to splurge on the nicer seats.  

Keep in mind that true "premium economy" doesn't generally exist on domestic US flights. You may be getting an "economy plus" product, but that's usually just a few extra inches of legroom. Premium Economy is generally a wider seat, more legroom, and upgraded amenities (such as better meals, etc.). Many people confuse the two, but they're very different (with very different pricing as well)

4 hours ago, BunnyHutt said:

My experience has been that airfare rarely goes down. And prices have been higher than normal recently... not sure if it’s trickle down from the MAX8 issues or what (seeing it across the board, not just SWA). 

My trick when I know I’ve got a large air expenditure coming up is to use CC rewards - either save up cash back, open an airline CC for the signup bonus FF points, or a combination of the two. We always pay our cards in full every month so might as well get the perks for money we’d be spending anyway.

The MAX is really a small part of it. It's an impact, but not a big one. MAX makes up only 4.5% of Southwest's current fleet, only 1.8% of United's fleet, and only 2.5% of American's fleet. Now, they can use the "MAX is grounded, our capacity is way down, we have to charge more!!" line to justify higher prices, but in reality it's not much of an impact on their fleet size. The biggest thing is that the US economy is just doing really, really well right now, so more people have more money to travel for both work and pleasure, increasing demand faster than fleet size. This is why prices are up. When the US economy goes back down over the next few years (because economies always go up and down), the prices may very well go back down. But for now, in this economy, they'll stay high because demand is high.

3 hours ago, ellcee said:

The only thing I can tell you is to check, a lot. Incognito mode. My flight to Italy I checked almost daily, and caught a crazy glitch where I got my flight for $850, roundtrip...for the remainder of the six months until I actually flew the exact flight never went below $1400 and mainly stayed at $1600.

Another example. Last night I checked for an upcoming trip to Texas - It was $346. This morning I checked again, $286.

I fly 125,000+ BIS miles each year, and book flights for others totaling several hundred thousand miles more each year. I have never, ever, ever seen any proof that using something like Incognito mode helps. An airline would, frankly, be stupid to do it...if American and Delta are offering the same price, but American sees your IP address constantly looking up the same flights and decides to raise the fare in some mythical effort to pressure you to buy, but Delta doesn't, you'll likely just go over to Delta. Thus, American has lost your business because of it. Not a very smart business move by American.

Everyone's opinion and experience is going to be different. Only you know you and if you think you can do 12 days. If you're concerned about spending 12 days on a ship, remember (I assume) many/most of those days you'll stop in a port. If you're concerned about a 12+ day trip in general, only you know your time and money constraints.

1 hour ago, Pima1988 said:

made what Italians call an anti pasta plate

Technically they would call it antipasto or antipasti, depending on if it's before a meal or just a plate of meats/cheese/veg. Many Italians tend to be very pro-pasta.