Suites vs Non-Suites

[gssmks]

I don't mean to be dense, but I simply don't understand how suite perks affect your non-suite cruise experience. How does someone having reserved seats in the theater or pool affect you? As previously mentioned, normally those seats are the least desirable. Perhaps RCI is reserving too large of a section and some go unused, but that is a simple planning error and, if brought to their attention, will easily be remedied. I also can't see a suites-only beach changing your beach experience.

The people who stay in suites are paying significantly higher prices, not just for the cabin, but also for the perks. It's not as if those perks are thrown in for free.

I've stayed in suites several times on different cruise lines. NCL also has reserved seating in theaters, a private sundeck, and a private dining room for breakfast and lunch. I don't feel strange at all sitting in these sections because we payed for the privledge to do so. (In response to someone who wondered how the people feel being looked at funny, no, I've never received any unwelcome stares and I certainly wouldn't want to). Honestly, the seats in the theater are lousy, but we hate having to go early to get a seat. It's especially convenient because NCL doesn't have set dining times, so dinner and shows don't always flow together as smoothly as on DCL.

I don't feel it's a two class system at all. You simply get what you pay for (suites normally pay 2 to 3 times the amount of a balcony cabin).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion. However, we do not share opinions. You do get what you pay for. If you pay for an inside cabin, that is what you get. If you pay for a balcony, that is what you get. If you pay for a suite, that is what you get. If you accept your argument for suites vs. non-suites, then are you suggestion that we in fact should have multi-leveled perks? After all the person who pays for a balcony pays much more for the cabin than the person who pays for the standard inside room. At what level should the perks start and stop.

In my opinion, when it comes to taking available seating away from one group and reserving it for another, you are affecting that poeple's experience. Just as all these things made things more convenient and enjoyable for you, it made things less convenient for someone else. That is when I object. What may be bad seats to you may be just where someone else desires to sit. Paying more for your room should not mean that you treated any differently in areas of the ship that use commonly with the other passengers.

 

[Davids-Coco]

... You do get what you pay for. If you pay for an inside cabin, that is what you get. If you pay for a balcony, that is what you get. If you pay for a suite, that is what you get. If you accept your argument for suites vs. non-suites, then are you suggestion that we in fact should have multi-leveled perks? After all the person who pays for a balcony pays much more for the cabin than the person who pays for the standard inside room. At what level should the perks start and stop.

When the contract/website/what-not states that suite accommodations come with certain amenities (such as reserved seats), it is included in the cost. Realistically, anything above and beyond what is stated as "standard" for the cruise would be a reason to call foul, but paid for perks are available to anyone willing to pay the fee and are stated for all to see. So I'm not quite sure how it should be multi-leveled when only suite guests are paying for them, unless everyone starts paying for them... and then higher rates would create issues.

 

[Soccermom-Cheri]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion. However, we do not share opinions. You do get what you pay for. If you pay for an inside cabin, that is what you get. If you pay for a balcony, that is what you get. If you pay for a suite, that is what you get. If you accept your argument for suites vs. non-suites, then are you suggestion that we in fact should have multi-leveled perks? After all the person who pays for a balcony pays much more for the cabin than the person who pays for the standard inside room. At what level should the perks start and stop.

In my opinion, when it comes to taking available seating away from one group and reserving it for another, you are affecting that poeple's experience. Just as all these things made things more convenient and enjoyable for you, it made things less convenient for someone else. That is when I object. What may be bad seats to you may be just where someone else desires to sit. Paying more for your room should not mean that you treated any differently in areas of the ship that use commonly with the other passengers.

(putting on my flame suit here)... so how do you feel about a ship that has a TRUE class system? I sailed on one of those ships years ago. It was weird that I couldn't go to that pool or eat in that area. We were definitely treated different - but not badly. Now, that would REALLY chap the fannies of most DCL passengers. (Separate spaces? gasp)

Having different amenities doesn't mean someone is better than someone else. Just that they have chosen to pay for more and should get things commensurate with the price paid. First class air passengers get better "stuff" because they pay the high price. In both cases, I do not see what is so wrong.

 

[gssmks]

Again, I respectfully disagree with both of the last two posts. I do thank you for your responses. I really did not know how I felt about the changes on RCI and that is why I started this thread. I wanted both sides of the issue. I think I have decided that, at least for me, it's just not right. Fortunately, we don't have to deal with these issues on Disney as of yet and hopefully never will.