gatorskin76

This was the right call and a great decision by them in my opinion.  I will try not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but if they did this a long time ago it would have saved a lot of frustration.  Better late than never I guess.

Royal leaving it to their customer to sell or transfer their FCC to someone else is pretty mind boggling to me.  I know there will be folks that would say they can do what they want read the fine print, but that is ridiculous.  You would think, given the circumstances, and their desire for people to be Loyal to Royal, that they would extend the expiration date since they have been holding onto your money interest free all this time.  By the end of this year they aren't likely to be back to cruising without Covid protocols still in place.  They should have extended the date to 12 months after protocols (i.e. vax mandates) were lifted, or refund the money.

15 minutes ago, JasonOasis said:

That is great advice for those who are not avid cruisers or don't know when they intend to cruise again. However if you know will be taking another cruise the FCC can be a great deal.  For example one of our cruises that I waited for Royal to cancel and we took the 125% FCC we were booked in an owners suite on Symphony I don't remember the exact dollar amount of our cruise fare but I know it was over $5500 dollars that additional 25% Royal put on the FCC amounted to an additional $1375 dollars.  For someone like me who takes at least 4 cruises a year taking the 125% FCC was the right decision. So I think people should look at both the FCC and the refund and make a decision that fits their situation.

Well, I did say for anyone that wants it.  The problem in a situation like this is you never know what the future holds, so I am not feeling the 25% I received is worth the hassle.  Of course everyone should make the decision that fits their situation, but you don't know what you don't know. 

I took the 125% on the March and May 2020 cruises I had paid in full and many cancelled cruises later am still hoping to be able to use them.  I have made the choice to not vaccinate my 13 year old daughter (the whole risk/reward thing), my wife and I are vaccinated.  I am currently sitting on the phone for the last 2 hours waiting for them to fix two of our FCC's that they are showing as inactive that shouldn't be (feel free to provide the travel agent advice to others that might want that advice, but I get it, hindsight is 20-20).  

Using an FCC shouldn't be this difficult.  There really is no excuse, in my opinion, that they couldn't have put some smart people in a room and figure out a better way.  At 2 hours and 5 minutes I am beginning to wonder if this is a strategy hoping I will just hang up.  I have heard their RCI news feed around 154 times at this point.

Piece of advice for anyone that wants it....never get a Future Cruise Credit.  Take the refund every time.

If someone is a one and done poster, and no one ever replies then it would actually slide down the list of posts on the board and disappear.  I get the point being made about it being a drive by, but doesn't the community trust that people can take a post with a grain a salt without all of the counter posts?

I don't know what your issue with the person is, or why you would call them a fool.  Seems like a convoluted situation that was resolved amicably. 

6 hours ago, Matt F said:

Regarding vaccination and testing requirements going away, I was told "not anytime soon" this last Sunday by the NextCruise rep on my cruise. CDC has lowered the cruise warning because of the protocols.

I’m pretty sure most of the folks that read RoyalCaribbeanBlog are probably more knowledgeable than your average NextCruise rep.  They aren’t in the RCI short term or long term strategy discussions.  They will know when we know.

47 minutes ago, pheenix99 said:

"full cash refunds for the unvaccinated". I'm vaccinated, so would that mean she would get the full refund and I would not should her examption not be granted?  Her exemption is purely medical (and documented).

You may realize this, so sorry for the clarification if it's not needed, but the reason for the refund is because of Royal's Covid protocols.  So if you have a reason that you can't sail because of those protocols, then you could certainly attempt to get your full refund.

41 minutes ago, TXcruzer said:

I don’t think as many people took FCC as you believe did. The 125% FCC was short lived and there were even fewer taking that. 
A quick glance at the last 2 quarters SEC filings will show you that case flowing in is relatively let strong, and growing incrementally. FCCs do not show up that way on the balance sheet. 

Once again I will have to say, if you say so.  Short lived....they were cancelling cruises through June 2021.  You certainly are an advocate for how well they are doing, I would suggest buying some more stock would be in order.

29 minutes ago, AspiringCruisePlanner said:

I'm confused why having unredeemed FCC's puts them in a bad financial position.  People who took FCC's for sailings that either Royal or themselves canceled essentially gave Royal an interest free loan that you've agreed to have them pay you back via a discount on a future sailing that must happen within a relatively short timeframe.  With FCC's, the cruise line comes out ahead.  They are basically gift certificates.  People buying gift certificates doesn't put a company out of business.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Also, FCC's are a good marketing tool because people are more likely to upgrade to a higher stateroom category than they originally purchased because the out-of-pocket cost for doing so is small in comparison to when they originally booked.

I'm not saying Royal is financially stable, I'm just saying FCC's are not going to be something that puts them under.

The interest free loan part of it was certainly beneficial for them at the time, since otherwise they would have had no revenue.  However, at this point they have robbed Peter to pay Paul.  If they have a cruise leaving in September 2022 and half their capacity are people using FCC's (paid out at 125% of the original value in a lot of cases), then that's not new revenue for them, that's money they have already accounted for.  Also, once those FCC's run out, they will see what the true demand is for cruising from "paying" customers.

1 hour ago, BrianB said:

Royal's balance is easy to see. The current business model is working. People are booking and sailing. As they increase the supply of available cabins, demand fills them. Royal is able to continue with protocols already in place and accepted as normal by the majority of cruisers. Many potential cruisers who were on the fence, probably feel somewhat more confident that the current protocols are working and the cruise lines are really working to prevent and manage infections. Repeat cruisers see the obvious relaxing of protocols over time and the return to more normal, pre-Covid cruising.
After seeing the CDC vehemently and repeatedly condemn cruising for the last two years…and now backing away…gives the perception that the CDC now tacitly approves of cruising…or at least finally recognizes that cruising is only as risky as all other forms of travel or gatherings.
There is no need for Royal to throw caution to the wind as there is always the threat of a new ‘variant’ on the horizon. It’s easier to tweak current protocols than to have to suddenly reinstate those that have been removed. As long as passengers continue to book, I don’t see Royal risking major protocol changes…not just yet. In my opinion….

and they may not, and you may be right, but I wonder if the internal financial discussions are as rosy as you have laid out.  I have two cruises worth of FCC's on hand.  One booked in June and one yet to come.  They aren't on cruise control from a financial perspective.

Royal will definitely keep them longer than they should, but eventually, and hopefully sooner than later, they are going to chase the dollar knowing that the risk reward curve is in their favor.

16 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

The capacity is reported from nearly every sailing, every week, on multiple travel related boards.  Anyone that has sailed in the last 6 months can tell you firsthand how much fuller the ships are with every passing week.  There have been multiple ships sail at full capacity

I am not sure what else I can say but..."if you say so".  No doubt ships are getting fuller, but I tried to Google the data you referenced as being readily available, and....

22 minutes ago, TXcruzer said:

Many ships are sailing very near or at capacity with the current protocols, no need to be in a hurry to change them. 

I don’t have those figures, but if you know where to find them I’d love to take a look.  It’s been a pretty small window that they have been sailing anywhere near capacity (if they have even done 100% yet), so not sure how you would really come to that conclusion.  I am sure they had pent up demand from that group, but sooner or later they are going to need to expand their customer base.  As long as they give me money back based on their decision to keep it in place, it’s their call after all, but just like smoking in the casino, eventually they are coming for that money.

1 hour ago, Ampurp85 said:

While 4 or 5 weeks could/does make a difference in regard to lots of Covid related protocols and expectations. I wouldn't take stock in testing or Vax requirements going away, especially since capacity is increasing. Not before the end of the year at least. 

There is absolutely no incentive to opt out of the CDC protocols, nor does reducing the only two requirements to achieve the proper safeguards against liability. I stand by my assessment that the pandemic has really brought the worst out of humanity. Sueing the cruise lines because they caught Covid would be the nail in the coffin. 

Not trying to argue the point of whether they should or not, but there is definitely incentive, especially with capacity increasing.  I don't know the exact financials they have been able to achieve since the restart, but I wonder if they can actually fill the ships with the current protocols, and for how long.  They have benefited greatly from the population that has returned to cruising spending more than they did before, but how long does that last?  Especially with inflation and other economic strains that folks might be facing in the near future.  

Nothing could stop someone from suing them now.  An argument could be made that their liability increases somewhat without the vax requirement, but I am sure their attorneys would swat that down pretty easily.

Everyone is entitled to complain about testing requirements, but for those of that haven't been able to return to cruising yet, hard to have empathy for that aggravation, although I am sure it's not fun.   I can't wait to have to worry about the testing if it's still there when they drop the mandate.

11 minutes ago, jbrinkm said:

Royal is allowing a "Certificate of Recovery" - limited - for people who are not vaccinated but have proof of having had the virus from 11-90 days before cruising. Not debating what immunity means, just making sure people know this exists. (but boarding with a Certificate of Recovery does not allow for disembarkation at some ports due to local laws)

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/if-recovered-from-covid-19-need-to-be-vaccinated-or-take-a-test-to-sail

And - if you do a search for whether the vaccines reduce/lower the spread, you will find information from many reputable sources (universities, health organizations, etc. - (I won't name/link them all here but the information is widely available). It is different than stopping the spread, as you say, but reduction of spread may still be a goal the ships want to try achieve.

On your last part about stopping or reducing the spread, I know this is a sensitive topic so I won't get into it too much, but the devil is in the details there.  Both my wife and myself were vaccinated in June 2021 and both had Omicron around Christmas.  Do 2 personal experiences amount to much in the discussion, not really, but if you look at the case counts it's hard to say that vaccines have had a significant impact to spread.  Certainly one could take the position that many lives were saved due to less severe disease, and who knows what that looks like, but "spread".....

12 minutes ago, Vancity Cruiser said:

No cruise lines have given any indication that they are even considering dropping the vaccine requirement. From everything I have heard and read we shouldn’t expect the vaccine requirement to be removed for cruising at any point in 2022

No cruise line would give any indication they were going to remove the requirement until they were ready to do it, so not sure the giving of indication is really a sign.  I agree with you that it's unlikely that anything changes in 2022 based on their actions to date and willingness to comply with CDC.  That being said, no one really knows.  I can't see the CDC changing their guidance, so I think Royal would need to unvolunteer themselves from the CDC voluntary program, which I also doubt will happen.  So I agree with your conclusion, but we won't know until we know.  

Releasing protocols through 5/31/22 and having a Kids Sail Free promotion that started with 6/1 sailings....likely means nothing, but it will be interesting to see what happens if the virus doesn't have a significant spike in the next month or so and continues with current status.  

Not trying to make a political statement with these comments, but just based off what we appear to know about the vaccines and specifically the Omicron variant.  I am sure there are benefits to the vaccine, but it doesn't appear to stop the spread.  That was really the main argument for cruise lines when they put the vaccine requirement in place.  That it was in their best interest to ensure that there were no positive cases on their ships.  The majority of people are vaccinated and a lot more have natural immunity (which they currently won't take into consideration in their protocols, but surely they aren't ignoring in their risk calculations).

I hope for all our cases that they surprise us and remove them sooner rather than later, because that will definitely mean that the virus is relatively under control, but not holding my breath for 2022.

1 hour ago, AspiringCruisePlanner said:

I feel like they would be obliged to do so, especially if the age eligibility limit is removed by the CDC. I think they are finding it hard enough to maintain a >95% rate right now. When you factor in kids sail free, Summer sailings, and possibly the CDC eliminating age limit vaccine eligibility they are going to struggle.

I'm not arguing that they won't do the sale. I'm sure it will happen. I'm just saying that unless something changes with their involvement in the CDC program or a change in the program itself (in Royal's favor), they likely wouldn't meet the criteria on many of their sailings.

I don't like to have to explain a meme, but the concept was: Royal sees news about Moderna seeking EUA for under 6, decides to say screw it, offers a kids sail free promo, and says "imma head out" to the CDC program.

Yeah, it makes sense now, sorry you had to explain it.  Here is to hoping you are correct as I have a June 25th cruise booked with an unvaccinated 13 year old.

interesting that Moderna is going for under 5 when I didn’t think they were even yet approved for 5-11.

17 minutes ago, ChanaC said:

If you have a legit medical exemption I'm sure your doctor can write something. But if not, don't except an exception. In fact, you probably should just not book anything for a while. That, or just get vaccinated. 

I am sure the option of getting vaccinated was probably already considered.  Don't you?

12 minutes ago, AspiringCruisePlanner said:

That's correct, as of today.  However. they specifically don't include them as they are not vaccine eligible (quote from their footnotes below). If Moderna gets EUA, then kids 5 and under are now eligible which might lead them to changing their rules for the ratio count. Note the first words of the footnote.

"[5] At this time, children under the age of 5 years (i.e., children who are not eligible for COVID-19 vaccines) will not be counted when determining the percentage of passengers on board who are fully vaccinated or up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines."

from https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/management/technical-instructions-for-cruise-ships.html

Obviously this is is speculation, but I don't think it's unsubstantiated. 

So what is your speculation then, that they are going to leave the voluntary program?  If your speculation on 5 and under being included is correct, that wouldn't help RCI with hitting the 95% figure as I would imagine children under 5 will be vaccinated at a much lower rate than the other age groups, especially at this stage of the virus.  So unless you are speculating that they drop from the CDC program, I am not sure how that would change their calculus with offering kids sail free.

2 hours ago, AspiringCruisePlanner said:

Maybe Royal read this news and said...

Since 5 and under don't count against the 95%, not sure how that would be a factor at all.

1 hour ago, Ampurp85 said:

It might be a combination of all three. With some port stops having such a low vax rate, it will be easier to contain if those who aren't vaxxed stay in a bubble. In regard to the CDC and RCG, it might help with contact tracing and reduction of spread.

They can certainly hope.  

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Just got a protocol update.  Certificate of recovery is permitted finally 

 

That’s great.  Wonder if or when they might consider antibodies in lieu of vaccine.

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

The smoking policy has a financial basis behind it. Protocol stuff doesn't.

I'm not sure I understand the significance of the financial basis, or how protocols wouldn't have a financial basis.

My point was that you have a group of people that want to smoke and a group of people that don't want to, and don't want other people to smoke around them.  The prevailing opinion is that smokers shouldn't have access.  Insert those that aren't vaccinated, or don't want to vaccinate their kids. 

Yes there are a lot of differences, but both are treated as second class citizens.  If you don't want smoking on cruise ships, then there is zero consideration for those that do.  I don't think people should smoke, for their own health reasons, but if Royal doesn't want people to smoke they can make the casinos non-smoking, but they don't and we all know why.

27 minutes ago, HeWhoWaits said:

The difference here is that smoking vs. not smoking doesn't turn political. 

Is the concern things turning "political" or personal?  We could all have political conversations, the problem is they turn into personal attacks....imo