1. Home
  2. Cruise Reviews
  3. Majestic Princess
Majestic Princess, Auckland to Sydney, 18 December 2018 Context: We had previously cruised on the sister ship, Regal Princess (Baltic, August 2018) We note that Majestic Princess has been specifically configured for the Chinese market, this may not be a good thing when the ship is based, albeit temporarily, in other parts of the world such as Australia. Overall: We judge “Regal” to be far superior in many respects, in particular: • “Majestic’s” roofed-in Hollywood Pool Club is nowhere near as user-friendly or relaxing as Regal’s “The Sanctuary” – which is open to the air. There was always an overpowering aroma of chlorine in the Hollywood Pool Club – possibly attributable to the lack of ventilation. • Regal’s main dining menu selection, food quality and service was significantly superior to that on offer throughout the cruise on Majestic. On the final night of the Majestic cruise the main course had only four items – no meat or fish, one game dish. Table service was indifferent: it was not unusual to have to wait up to half an hour after being seated for menus to be presented. We were disappointed at the very ordinary standard of the Christmas Dinner. This was not four or five star dining. • Even though passenger counts were very similar, “Majestic” always seemed to be very crowded, no matter which part of the ship you were in. It does need to be said that some other dining options on “Majestic” were of a good standard, in particular the lunch buffet, Alfredo’s Italian, and the “English Pub lunch” that was offered twice during the cruise in the Crown Grill. Room service was consistently prompt. Entertainment: Without exception, the stage performances on Regal Princess were exceptional. Not so on her sister ship. The first production show on “Majestic” – “Viera” – was entertaining. Regretably, this standard was not maintained at other performances, with the exception of that by a featured solo artist, singer Will Martin. The “tribute show” to the iconic band “Queen” was a disgrace in every respect, so much so that guests (including ourselves) began leaving the theatre soon after the performance started. The sound was overly loud to the point of being painful – patrons were observed covering their ears and removing their hearing aids: all in all we judged this show to be an insult to the memory of Freddie Mercury. Censorship of the internet: After buying an internet package we discovered that access to some websites was being blocked. In particular we could not access websites operated by two New Zealand Government agencies – The New Zealand Racing Board and the Lotteries Commission. (At this point the ship was actually in New Zealand waters) This was taken up with the internet manager on board, who claimed the ship had the right to block any access it pleased – and asserted that this was outlined in his briefing on internet use (presented on the first day) and in the conditions when signing up for the service. We absolutely reject those claims; he did not and they were not! When pressed further he became somewhat more aggressive and said that if we didn’t like it, that was just too bad! He refused a part-refund of the cost of the package. We suggested to him that the reason for this censorship was to eliminate any form of competition for the ship’s on-board casino and other gambling options. He did not refute this. We fully accept that the ship (or any other internet service provider) should take steps to control access to websites that might be objectionable or illegal. This was not the case here – the sites were completely legal and legitimate. These comments have been referred to Princess via our travel agent. We have not had the courtesy of a response.

A comparison - Majestic Princess and Regal Princess

Majestic Princess Cruise Review by James Coulton

4 people found this helpful
Trip Details
Majestic Princess, Auckland to Sydney, 18 December 2018

Context: We had previously cruised on the sister ship, Regal Princess (Baltic, August 2018) We note that Majestic Princess has been specifically configured for the Chinese market, this may not be a good thing when the ship is based, albeit temporarily, in other parts of the world such as Australia.

Overall: We judge “Regal” to be far superior in many respects, in particular:

• “Majestic’s” roofed-in Hollywood Pool Club is nowhere near as user-friendly or relaxing as Regal’s “The Sanctuary” – which is open to the air. There was always an overpowering aroma of chlorine in the Hollywood Pool Club – possibly attributable to the lack of ventilation.

• Regal’s main dining menu selection, food quality and service was significantly superior to that on offer throughout the cruise on Majestic. On the final night of the Majestic cruise the main course had only four items – no meat or fish, one game dish. Table service was indifferent: it was not unusual to have to wait up to half an hour after being seated for menus to be presented. We were disappointed at the very ordinary standard of the Christmas Dinner. This was not four or five star dining.

• Even though passenger counts were very similar, “Majestic” always seemed to be very crowded, no matter which part of the ship you were in.

It does need to be said that some other dining options on “Majestic” were of a good standard, in particular the lunch buffet, Alfredo’s Italian, and the “English Pub lunch” that was offered twice during the cruise in the Crown Grill. Room service was consistently prompt.

Entertainment: Without exception, the stage performances on Regal Princess were exceptional. Not so on her sister ship.

The first production show on “Majestic” – “Viera” – was entertaining. Regretably, this standard was not maintained at other performances, with the exception of that by a featured solo artist, singer Will Martin.

The “tribute show” to the iconic band “Queen” was a disgrace in every respect, so much so that guests (including ourselves) began leaving the theatre soon after the performance started. The sound was overly loud to the point of being painful – patrons were observed covering their ears and removing their hearing aids: all in all we judged this show to be an insult to the memory of Freddie Mercury.

Censorship of the internet: After buying an internet package we discovered that access to some websites was being blocked. In particular we could not access websites operated by two New Zealand Government agencies – The New Zealand Racing Board and the Lotteries Commission. (At this point the ship was actually in New Zealand waters)

This was taken up with the internet manager on board, who claimed the ship had the right to block any access it pleased – and asserted that this was outlined in his briefing on internet use (presented on the first day) and in the conditions when signing up for the service. We absolutely reject those claims; he did not and they were not!

When pressed further he became somewhat more aggressive and said that if we didn’t like it, that was just too bad! He refused a part-refund of the cost of the package.

We suggested to him that the reason for this censorship was to eliminate any form of competition for the ship’s on-board casino and other gambling options. He did not refute this.

We fully accept that the ship (or any other internet service provider) should take steps to control access to websites that might be objectionable or illegal. This was not the case here – the sites were completely legal and legitimate.

These comments have been referred to Princess via our travel agent. We have not had the courtesy of a response.
James Coulton’s Full Rating Summary
Value For Money
Embarkation
Dining
Public Rooms
Entertainment
Cabin
Service
Onboard Experience
Free Price Drop Alerts
Get Majestic Princess price drops
250,000+ people have entered their email