I will be boarding a 12 day Royal Caribbean cruise early next year.
As this is my first time ever on a cruise, I'm looking for any advice or tips and tricks you could share with me.
Thanks!
First Time Going on a Cruise - Looking for Tips and Tricks
Comments
- 1
- 2
why would you sayd that? it'll be a good experience anyway
Stuck in a big floating rsl doesn't seem fun to me
How about multi-cuisine food and drinks binge though?
Not sure which ship you've been on, but this doesn't look like any RSL I've seen:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPljzjY5BGsOK, so that not Royal Caribbean, but you get the idea - different cruise lines are aimed at different age ranges.
Don't fall off.
Don't fall off and drown.
Don't fall off and drown your sorrows at a harbourside bar.
Don't fall off and drown your sorrows at a harbourside bar without packing a towel.
Oi. You're supposed to continue the 'Don't fall off theme…'. People want to be entertained here.
Oi. You're supposed to continue the 'Don't fall off theme…'. People want to be entertained here. they are bored at work
Oi. You're supposed to continue the 'Don't fall off theme…'. People want to be entertained here. they are bored at work and cranky too!
@ChatCPT: That's what happens when greed makes them leave lose ends and trying to build a franchise instead of just telling a good story…
Make sure you book early for any shows or activities you want to do. This can be done via My Cruises from the RCCI website.
Don't bother with unlimited alcohol packages, unless you're an absolute pisshead and drinking copious amounts. Pay as you go and once you find a good bartender seek them out (they'll remember you anyway… it's incredible). Order spirits if you want better value for money as the "good" bartenders overpour a lot (be sure to tip every now and then if they're looking after you). Soda package can be convenient though.
You'll spend a hell of a lot more money if you book the shore excursions arranged by RCCI. If you have the time you can save a lot by making your own private arrangements. Convenience is a killer though…
If you're not on a RCCI shore excursion, make sure you're back on time… The ship won't wait for you…
Take something like a stretchy clothesline so you can wash and dry some clothes in your stateroom, unless you want to pay ridiculous prices for onboard laundry service.
Don't try to smuggle contraband onboard…. you'll just embarrass yourself (alcohol etc). Although we've snuck on heaps of water bottles before….
Check in online, print bag tags etc before you arrive at embarkation… you'll save so much time.
That's just a few tips…. obviously others can share more.
Interested about your comment on contraband. Are there xray machines like at the airport or drug sniffing dogs? How would you get caught? If you can smuggle water aboard, why not alcohol?
They open your bags and check I think
Some people go to the trouble of trying to put alcohol in water and soft drink bottles and reseal them…pro tip mouthwash bottle it shows up as alcohol
@nikey2k27: Hahaha, nice tip. So you turn up at embarkation with 2 litres of mouth wash and alcohol breath; "yes officier, it's all mouth wash. My dentist is the 10th one that doesn't recommend what the other 9 do."
Yep, no different to security at airport.
Security staff probably turn a blind eye to water.
There's certain allowances but we've packed heaps of water bottles before and never had a problem. We figured if they confiscate it, who cares, it's water and doesn't cost much.
They don't like powerboards either.
You're only allowed to bring 2 bottles of wine per room, anything else will be held and returned at the end of the cruise if found.
@Lysander: Have you been on a Royal Caribbean Cruise from Australia? I suggest you read the information on their website.
@Agarwal: Did the OP say he is leaving from Australia?
I cannot see that info.
If Australia has special rules (as always of course), then I guess that should be clear.Plus there is a big difference of what their rules say and (a) what the laws allows, and (b) the enforcement of such rules in practice!
If you want to buy alcohol to take home to Australia, I am sure they are happy to store it for you until you disembark - their rules are only designed for you to be forced to buy from them during the trip.
We have only ever taken alcohol for taking home but we never had any issues - I stored 8 bottles of brandy in our cabin (4 adults) - no issues either when taking them on board (and I showed the staff when going through security) or storing them.
@Agarwal: From their policy (see link by Cheapo Moose):
Additional bottles of wine beyond the two bottles allowed to be brought onboard, or any alcoholic beverages purchased in port or from onboard shops will be stored by the ship and delivered to your stateroom on the final day of your voyage
So, what I have been saying is this (and the neggers obviously needs some more reading skills):
It is okay to buy alcohol and bring it on board if the purpose is to take those bottles homes with you (Australia for example).
It is NOT okay to take bottles on board if you want to save money and drink your purchased alcohol on board instead of buying form them. In my opinion, if you contemplate doing this or think you have to do this, maybe you cannot really afford a cruise. Just a thought.
If you have an all-inclusive purchase where all alcohol on board is free, then they do not really care in practice despite the rule because you drinking your own stuff actually saves them money as you do not drink theirs as part of the all-inclusive package.
I hope that makes is clear now.
@Agarwal: Well, what you wrote makes it sound as if they search the rooms etc.
They do not.
As I said, you can either tell them but often, from my personal experience, if you have all-inclusive you can take it to your room and keep it there for the reason outlined above. You made it sound as if there is no difference.@Lysander: Fair enough. They don't search rooms but they search your bags when you board.
I've never heard of them allowing if you've got the drinks package, but RCI is consistently inconsistent so what works for some may not work for others 😁@Agarwal: True. For people with unlimited all-inclusive drinks package they simply do not bother for practical reasons - if they drink their own stuff that is good for RCI. As they already paid for all-inclusive they would make no loss whatsoever from allowing bottles to be taken to the cabin.
@Lysander: Royal Caribbean says otherwise….
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/onboard-alcohol…
@Cheapo Moose: Except that in practice it is fine. My parents NEVER had a single issue. Plus, in Europe that policy would run into legal problems if enforced.
Also, if you have the all-inclusive package, then they really do not care a single iota!
@Lysander: Were they RCI ships? Different ships have different rules, I know Cunard are a little more relaxed.
@Agarwal: Some were RCI ships, other ships were TUI Ships, other ships were Princess ships, other ships were Princess, other were ships were Carnival, and finally Costa. Nobody in my family has been on Cunard.
Alcohol was not allowed to be brought with you on our cruise.
@bmerigan: From their policy (see link by Cheapo Moose):
Additional bottles of wine beyond the two bottles allowed to be brought onboard, or any alcoholic beverages purchased in port or from onboard shops will be stored by the ship and delivered to your stateroom on the final day of your voyage
So, what I have been saying is this (and the neggers obviously needs some more reading skills):
It is okay to buy alcohol and bring it on board if the purpose is to take those bottles homes with you (Australia for example).
It is NOT okay to take bottles on board if you want to save money and drink your purchased alcohol on board instead of buying form them.
If you have an all-inclusive purchase where all alcohol on board is free, then they do not really care in practice despite the rule because you drinking your own stuff actually saves them money as you do not drink theirs as part of the all-inclusive package.
I hope this makes it clear now.
@Lysander: Was never unclear. I just provided an alcohol related fact regarding the cruise I went on.
Water battle more suspicious then listerine bottle. Add some edibles colour in vodka or add miduri vodka mix. Because water is free on cruise lol and who takes water when is free? Also not forget some medicines if you have motion sickness.
yeah bring 10 listerine bottles for a 12 day trip. not sus there.
not being able to bring alcohol on board is just extortion. it's like cinemas refusing to bring your own popocorn.
Yes it is. Pretty much everything on a cruise is like that.
sadly it how they make their money in this day and ages
Do get a drinks package if you think you will have more than 5-7 drinks. Drink package includes everything from bottle water, speciality coffee, cocktails, top self spirits, red bull etc.
All drinks on board if buying outside drinks package are in USD and there is 15% gratuities.
Do try smuggling on spirits if you aren't getting drinks package I recommend rum runners, put them between shampoo bottles in checked baggage. They have never once taken mine.
+1 for rum runners, work a treat and save a fortune. Definition of Ozbargain.
don't forget to take travel insurance that includes medical
This is excellent advice and includes cruises that only go to/from Australian ports. Medicare doesn't cover you once you're out on the ocean so you need insurance that will cover you for medivac back to Australia. I recently booked an Australian cruise and found my BankWest Platinum credit card international insurance will cover this because it's classed as an international trip as it's through an overseas cruise line.
And take a few basic medical things (bandaids, etc). My wife cut her foot on something while onboard and had to pay over $100 to see a doctor and get a small sticky plaster.
basic first aid kit is a must
And make sure it actually covers you on a cruise ship - some companies have a specific policy for this - such as Insureandgo - the general policy doesn’t include cruising. Also, if you’re travelling as a family, buy out the excess. If one of you gets sick and has to come home you generally have to pay an excess each as you’re each claimants notwithstanding only one of you gets sick.
- You can book your shore excursions 100+ days ahead so keep an eye out for sales, they don't offer a big discount perhaps 5-20%, same for drinks and meal packages. If you've already bought them you can cancel and buy again at the lower price.
- The internet on RCI ships is awesome, you can usually get it for ~$12/day for one device (at a time, you can log out and log another one in)
- Drinks packages are great insurance against overspend. I don't drink a lot but I've had a premium drinks pack on every cruise. It is ~$70/day but as it covers any beverage up to ~$14 each (and includes the 15% tips) you can get a real kick out of walking up to any bar and ordering any drink. Or having the waiter bring you non-stop frozen mojitos in the spa.
- There are shore excursion companies that offer pretty much the same experience - such as shoretripsandtours.com for about half the cost of the cruise ship. and they guarantee getting you back to the ship in time. in case you don't want complete freedom.
- If you have kids the kids club is fantastic to give you some time away - our first time the kids didn't want to leave the club for the whole trip, they were having too much fun there.
I could go on, but if you're freaking out about all the decisions, etc, just relax you'll have a great time.
I am very very far from an Environmental warrior in most aspects and as much as I would love to experience a cruise trip, their disastrous impacts on the environment have always stopped me from going on one.
I would suggest consider how you can offset the damage you are contributing towards through other means. Have a research online on how bad they really are. The bunker fuel they use and emit is terrible. It's suggested Carnival cruise ships are more polluting than all of Europe’s cars.
is that you Greta?
Only on weekends. Point still stands, it's one of the worst polluting industries and shouldn't be something we're supporting. If we chose to, we need to think about offsetting it somehow.
Not at all, hence I said I'm far from the ideal, though I do try and pay extra for the 'carbon offset' when booking flights. Whether or not it actually does anything is another matter.
But I also don't dump motor oil onto the garden and throw bottles and trash over the beach and run around purposely destroying animal habitats. Should I, since I do take flights anyway so might as well? There's a line to draw on these things and everyone will have a differing view.
Maybe google "carbon offsets" - you will be surprised at the results.
https://theconversation.com/carbon-offsets-can-do-more-envir…
@Lysander: There are better and worse offsetting schemes. This one seems (to my untrained eye) to avoid the problems mentioned in the article - they reforest land in Australia: https://cncf.com.au/ It is of course much more expensive than $3 a flight, but you get the tax deduction rather than the airline.
Of course reducing emissions is better than offsetting them, but if we take it as given that OP is going on their cruise, isn't it better that they offset the emissions? The cruise company is not replacing their diesel/oil engines with sails and solar electric systems tonight.
To me this "some offsetting schemes are suboptimal" angle seems like a way to convince yourself it's ok to ignore the pollution generated by your lifestyle.
@abb: Actually, there are cruises on sailing boats. Of course, due to the lower number of people, they are quite a "bit" more expensive, especially for someone browsing a website where price is absolute king in many instances.
But no carbon offsetting needed there.
Motor oil in the garden does little damage. It used to be common practice to spray used motor oil onto gravel roads to stop dust. Once young greenies kicked a stink and they used bulldozers to put it onto a heap. 2 years and millions of studies they spread it out again and microbes ate it all. Freight ships pollute the most. Stop buying rags and cheap junk from Asia for the sake of it and this is better for the environment.
very good point you've made here.
I drove a petrol powered car once, now I've given up the hypocrisy and spend my life trying to start as many bin fires as possible
On that note, did you know Twitter alone emits around 3650 metric tons of CO2 per year.
If we turned off the internet (or at least Netflix, Amazon Prime etc), used mobile phones 3-5 years instead of getting a new one every 6 or 12 months, did not buy phones from companies that do not let us exchange batteries (a fruit comes to mind here), stopped gaming, and only ate meat once a week - a LOT of CO2 emissions would disappear very quickly.
It is funny that every time we present the studies and articles about this to the environmental warrior who often are teens and young adults they quickly become very quiet and do not want to know about it as those are all things (except maybe the meat) they really do not want to forgo.
I guess it is easier to tell others to live without than doing it yourself. ;-)
Hang on, isn't that what the communists did as well, except not in relation to the environment but luxury items?!?
A very valid point, like I said above, there's a line to draw on things for each person and it will differ. I wouldn't personally swap my V6 for a 4-pot or Electric car but I guess cruise ships are where I wouldn't be happy supporting.
That's perfectly valid and I totally support that.
However, that little angry Swedish person who basically did not want to go to school, then needed an excuse, and then the whole thing ran away from her is a total scam, especially since her parents and Swedish business men make millions with those shenanigans!
If she believes an elected head of government (or many people other than those who have other reasons to jump on the train) is impressed by an angry little person and it changes anything, she better think again.
In fact, a lot of the real more established climate activist (and I used to be one myself (working for Greenpeace etc.) and have quite a few friends still in that scene in Europe, are pretty upset and angry with Greta Thunfish for making a mockery of effective and constructive activism all for the sake of a big show effect and enriching herself via her parents and the business man behind her.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greta-thunberg-and-the-pl…
Climate change is real - no doubt - and needs to be stopped. However, making a show of such activism and using it for commercial and other nefarious purposes is not right.
So far, it has not achieved anything constructive but just face-saving and token measures and in fact has taken focus of the people who actually effect change (and have been doing it for decades).
Plus, one could argue, using an autistic girl to make money is just evil - clearly she does not understand how effective activism is implemented - just talking and accusing people will not help - on the contrary, humans in that case normally employ a "I will do the opposite of what you want me to do" reaction - and that is exactly what I am seeing around me and in the news and social media abroad - more and more people are getting fed up by her - in all honesty, she does look and act like an angry little girl whose mum did not buy her a lollipop at the supermarket check-out - it is time for her to disappear again and let someone for reasonable and constructive take over - otherwise the whole thing will disappear as quickly as it came up when the next big thing arrives on the scene.@Lysander: Viewers can choose to confront the valid points she raises, or they can pick on the teenage girl trying to make a difference.
Your choice says a lot.@bmerigan: There are many other people who actually do and make a difference instead of making a show to make millions for mummy and daddy and some savy businessmen. She is a disgrace and joke for real activists who do not only just talk and cry when people say no to them.
@Lysander: So what global changes to environmental policy have you made? Or have you only insulted a teenage girl?
She has achieved more than an 'activist' laying on a road in Brisbane CBD has.@bmerigan: Well, since you asked: I worked at the very place she was giving her hate speech in the legal department and helped pass and implement certain laws for fair work and improvement of life such as water, food etc. in countries where the UN had assistance missions. I also was part of a team stopping the pollution of the environment through local industry in those places by assisting with technology etc. through the UN and its missions.
During the time I worked there the UN as a whole won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Is that enough for you?So far, she has achieved nothing other than making millons for her parents and the Swedish businessment and alienating a lot of people and other activists by being an angry little girl. She has been likenend by many, many people to an angry poison dwarf (as in Cinderella dwarf) and an angry little girl who acts and looks as if someone took away her lollipop.
Her bull becomes evident very quickly - for example, she claims her "childhood" was stolen and yet she is 16 and only started this a year or so ago.
There are many, many other things in the world much more important than an unreasonable, uninformed, uneducated angry little girl - such as forcing countries like Australia etc. to ship their electronic waste to African countries for example, where 8 year old children are forced to extract the valuable metals from phones, PCs etc. without protection and inhales poisonous gas for 12+ hours each day - many die before they are even 20!
Do you think something like this might have priority over the Thunfish's media circus and being a cry-baby?You know, with Greta it is like with some people on Ozbargain:
there are those who contribute (and often stay very quiet) and post deals and comments and then there are those who shout the loudest making lots and provocative comments but do not contribute at all or very little by finding deals (have no or few posts but plenty of comments).
I own hybrid fuel save are worth it but I see the car as a tool, not pride thing.
This is a flawed point to make though. Yes the modern world is one of energy consumption. Yes this can be alleviated if we all become cavemen.
But it can also be alleviated if we shift to better energy sources. How much CO2 would Twitter emit if their servers were entirely solar powered, for instance? Less to none.Data centres already make a massive deal about reducing energy consumption while increasing capability. Your home appliances have 5-star energy ratings and perform better then the stuff you owned 10 years ago. Modern cars use much less petrol than they did 20 years ago while being faster and safer.
Energy efficiency has always been a concern of technological development. It is exactly this efficiency that has allowed energy use to increase so much, because it has allowed energy consuming devices to become more and more integrated in our lives.
You can't blame young adults for using computers that didn't exist 30 years ago. It's not like older people were more environmentally friendly at their age. A lot of modern technology simply didn't exist, or was less good in it's early forms. eg There were laptops in the 90s, but their usefulness was limited by necessity, capability and energy efficiency (ie they were big and heavy and not much fun), which limited their ubiquity. Now we have convenient and capable mobile devices that can do a bunch of stuff, so we all carry them and use them on a whim, which has also turned them into necessary items.
But new stuff with new benefits and downsides has always been the usual state of technological development. We try to increase the good and decrease the bad. And the bad of modern computing is not the enormous cumulative energy consumption from everyone using a little bit all the time, but the environmental impact of energy production needed to keep with that consumption. So why not expand our view from simply reducing consumption by limiting usage and improving the energy efficiency of products in the home, to decreasing environmental damage caused by energy production at the source?
A consequence of this would be that personal energy consumption would have much less effect on the environment and we could all be more wasteful, as long as we have the production capacity. The implication though is that we personally already have little effect on the environment anyway, and a single person throwing away their phone (or staying off cruise ships) won't make any difference beyond perhaps spreading a bit of awareness.
But as we are (hopefully) seeing, that awareness is nearing a tipping point that might have some potential to improve energy production. Which means that telling environmentalists to forgo their own luxuries before they talk about the environmental impact of anything else actually promotes terrible energy production, and forces all of us to live less luxuriously because there is greater personal awareness of energy consumption.
So, if you listened to those teens, instead of telling them to stop using their phones, we could all dump our crappy little phones that barely meet our modern needs, and start wheeling around 70" televisions everywhere we go, guilt-free in the knowledge that their wheelbarrow batteries are charged by harmless wind and solar.
Which makes you seem like the communist. Stop standing in the way of wheelie-TVs!
Yeah, I do not think too many people would go for your brainchild that is a 70" television on wheels (ever though of expanding it with a solar powered battery fridge for the cold beer).
On a serious note though, the fact that all the countries or people think "If just I do it won't make a difference, so I won't do it" is exactly why nothing can or will change - someone must do the first step even if others are not.
Which brings me back to the silly protests: those kids tell the adults and everybody else "You cannot do this, you cannot do that, you cannot buy this, you cannot buy that" but they are unwilling themselves to give up any of their fun stuff or conveniences themselves and/or make the first step.
Sure you can make energy environmental friendly, but that does not it is a happy world. The more energy is consumed, the more solar etc. power stations we require - the components for that need to be produced and replaced, fertile land used up etc. The emissions from this manufacturing remain in the atmosphere and further drive climate change.
Of course one could plant more trees - that takes care of the CO2 but uses up scarce water and could turn fertile ground into deserts (see the article I linked above re carbon offset) etc.
The only way is for everybody everywhere to cut back and use as little resources (whether it is actual things, energy, water, land etc.) as possible - only then there is a chance.By the way, I am not blaming them for using computers - just for being short-sighted, selfish and destructive (instead of being constructive).
Finally, yes many things became better but as many if not more became worse (comparatively) due to the magic two words for business: planned obsolescence (there is a great documentary about light bulbs on Youtube - when they were first invented they lasted 10000+ hours until business decided they can only last 1000 hours as longevity destroys profits - same goes for appliances such as washing machines - swapping a plastic cog for a metal one could double the life of the machine but manufacturers do not want that of course).
@Lysander: Solar is the best form of energy as it's essentially "free". However the challenge with electricity-solar is two major things:
- Energy Density of Lithium batteries is around x50-x100 lower than fossil fuels
- Energy Generation from fossil fuels is immense thanks to our know-how, technology, and vast amount of stored inside the planet. Solar energy can't match charging lithium batteries at a rate of something like 0.1, compared to handfuls of fuel generated in that same time. The difference is about x1,000 (iirc).@Kangal: In addition; How do we transition to a nearly fully solar future?
1) By increasing battery density by at least x10-x30 fold
2) Increasing Solar Cell Efficiency about x5 fold from 15% to 75% conversion rate
3) Whilst increasing rollout of solar panels by at least x20-x50 fold.This would be competitive against fossil fuels in energy production and storage. So yeah, a LONG way to go.
3650 tons sounds like a lot, but, how much more would be created if their 300 million users communicated in any other manner?
3650,000kg / 300,000,000 users = 0.012kg per person PER YEAR. That's the equivalent of a car driving about 100 metres [https://people.exeter.ac.uk/TWDavies/energy_conversion/Calculation%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20fuels.htm].
So, sure, if everyone stopped using twitter then we'd save some CO2, but, if we, instead, drove 5km to buy a newspaper or talk to a friend -once per year- then we'd create an order of magnitude more CO2.
Electronic devices use power which creates CO2, but, it's still immensely more "Green" than replacing the electronic function with any type of travel.
You are missing the point here. This is only Twitter. Plus, 99% of all tweets are totally unnecessary and garbage and therefore, 3650 tons for nothing is a lot and too much. I do not need to know that John Smith just arrived home after a long day of work or that someone is sitting on the look reading a great article.
Also, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. cause more emissions than some countries such as Chile - per year.
The point is, if we use electronic devices to do something necessary then I agree with you. However, 95% of all internet usage is unnecessary and for entertainment and hence a luxury and superfluous (yes, I include gaming there, too). Instead one could play board games for example.
If the internet was limited to certain uses only enormous amount of emissions could be saved (electricity for users' devices, cooling servers, replacing hardware such as servers etc.). Of course, I am aware that this is not something people want to heae, especially the young people who are glues to their devices and according to surveys and studies would rather take their smart phone to a lonely island rather than a human being such as their partner. But it is the truth. We cannot pretend to care about the climate and then be unwilling to cut certain things out completely or at least reduce significantly.@Lysander: So before the internet people didn't drive to their friends' houses to socialise? That board game that you played, how did it get to you - it was created in another country, freighted to Australia, travelled by road to the store, then you drove and collected it. And then, unless you only want to play board games with the people within walking distance of you, you're going to be creating emissions any time someone comes around to play it with you.
The point is, yes electronic devices use power, but the amount of CO2 emissions they create are less than the non-electric alternatives generally.
@macrocephalic: Not medium to long term.
The problem is that you assume one totally substitutes the other. That is not true.
People become more mobile AND use more electricity through more electric and electronic devices.By the way - the board games I am referring to are made in the country and was picked up on foot from the store to minimise pollutions - the only emission was from the manufacturer to the store (plus very little from the manufacturing process as materials are mainly sustainable such as paper, carton, and wood).
Also, people can use bicycles and walk - incredibly some people are able to do this over several kilometres. ;-)
And then there is public transport.
turning off soft porn by the name of soap operas would make people share houses again and go to work instead of swallowing prozac. Stop printing onto paper would also save entire forests. So much could be done by just using common sense.
TLDR: Whining boomer is still mad about supermarkets getting rid of plastic bags
Oh Please!!!
take some meds for motion sickness.
Yep those meds
And also
Take a snorkel and gogglesYep, snorkelling gear costs a fortune on board.
You can get meds for free from the medical centre on board
Many said above so just adding ones not mentioned:
If travelling in a group or with kids, maybe take a walkie-talkie system if you think people will do different things/activities and you want to meet up etc
Pack a swimming outfit on your "carry-on". It might take a few hours to get the bags into your room so if you're keen to swim early, I suggest taking a pair of swimmers in hand
You'll need a US power adapter if you're bringing anything that needs plugging in.
They have both US and European power outlets in the stateroom.
Take European adapters if you need 230v.
Don't go. Get a refund.
Fly somewhere warm and enjoy the fact you aren't stuck on a boat with 1000s of people, eating subpar food, drinking expensive booze, with SFA to do except consume said subpar food and expensive booze.
Listen to zeggie. My partner and I actually got off our cruise at the first port and didn't get back on the ship it was so terrible. Like adult day care. But worse somehow. We had a lovely holiday in that port we ditched the boat at, actually seeing things, doing things and having real food. We then grabbed a ferry then plane home.
I don't think food was really that bad.. it felt like as though I was attending a big fat wedding with a big spread every single meal.
Each to their own. On my ship I couldn't get a brie blue and cheddar together for a cheeseplate. Didn't even care about quality really. Was happy to even pay! I did find precut slices of plastic cheese.
The dinner food reminded me of opening a packet of old el paso, chicken tonight, passage to India, <insert other interesting packet flavour> and most of it was lukewarm while also being dry. Our paid restaurants had terrible offerings. Nary a T-bone in sight and the international dish was Swedish meatballs.
Breakfast I will say was awesome. It was the trashy very bacon heavy deep fried hash brown pancake with icecream feat of diabetes I expected.
- 1
- 2
Don't