Catlover54

Perhaps the "junior butler" is a trainee.

Good question! I have a Pinnacle Suite booked for my cruise, which is supposed to be Priority Boarding at a minimum. My boarding pass does not say "Priority Boarding", it just has a black "S" next to which it then says "Pinnacle/Neptune Suite." My assigned boarding group is "Group E". I don't have a problem with the specific assigned time, but I thought Pinnacle Suite was supposed to have first priority for boarding, and I would be in Group A so as not to get stuck in a big line (sailing out of FLL). I have no idea how they assigned me "Group E" (unless Group E is the first group). I only have a couple prior HAL cruises (last in 2019) so don't have prior status and am still learning and am looking forward to a new experience with HAL regardless of when I board, but it would be nice to understand the process. It says "Pinnacle" in yellow on my luggage tags.

Does anyone who has been on a recent Ponant cruise that was NOT in Antarctica know what the typical boarding time is? Also, what are the recent Covid protocols (I'm not sure the website is up to date -- it describes PCR within 72 hours, or antigen within 24,and constant masking in public areas other than when eating, which presumably would include excursions and the gym). Again, my question is NOT about Antarctica. I understand anything can change any time and for any reason.

How does a Pinnacle Suite cruiser arrange a window table in the MDR, or a table in Club Orange? Is this something you can arrange ahead of the cruise, for a fixed seating? If you cannot arrange until you are on board, how and when do you talk to MDR personnel to arrange this for the whole cruise (other than when I have specialty reservations), especially with so many Club Orange people now receiving similar special access? Or do you have to go day by day, table by table? I have a PS booked and am looking for an orderly, accepted and fair process to hopefully select a good table for my price category (if there is such a selection benefit for the PS). I am not looking to game the system. I have sailed HAL in Neptune Suite before, but not in a PS, and have not been on HAL since 2019 (am reading a lot of reviews since). Thanks in advance.

Thank you for posting a fascinating, informative, and interesting article (subject, of course, to all the usual qualifiers and potential critiques). Our family of professional applied scientists (though not mariners) very much appreciated reading it, as we contemplate Arctic and Antarctic bookings in our retirement (though so far, not on Viking). Although there are many specifics in this article, it is now 3.5 years since the incident and I have not been able to find the final ABIN report. Perhaps I missed it, e.g., is it perhaps on another thread? I looked at the huge incident thread, ran google searches, and also looked in a few other places that had previously highlighted the preliminary report, but have not been able to find a final report. Am I correct in concluding that 3.5 years out there is simply still no final report? Does anyone know if it is normal for ABIN final reports to take more than 3.5 years, and/or if Covid is a reason/factor in the delay (if it is even a "delay" )? Thanks in advance.

Could you elaborate?

And more about the sudden Zodiak event described/partially recorded by two passengers who were on board it, in calm waters (pax were reportedly suddenly tossed several feet into the air, including the woman whose leg got smashed up): https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/local/2022/12/07/local-women-survive-rogue-wave-incident-on-viking-polaris-cruise-ship-video/69708845007/

The 62-year-old woman killed was from California, Sheri Zhu. This is an account by two other pax on board, published in the UK earlier today. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11513423/Viking-Polaris-passengers-speak-rogue-wave-crashing-cruise-ship.html

In my post #755, I questioned what else (if anything) might be going on with Polaris (but also with other lines) - is this all just coincidence? Yes, right now it is of course just speculation, and we know we have to wait 1-2 years for the preliminary report on what went wrong. But we now know what went on behind the scenes with the O rings malfunction , and with the 737 MAX, and some of us tend to be suspicious of coincidences.

1. "Properly" in this lay context would likely be an expectation that there are no passengers killed. I believe that not dying is a common expectation of luxury (and other) passengers when they are simply sitting in their cabins, even in the Antarctic in a storm, but maybe that's just me. I understand that Viking is a foreign line, and I don't know how wrongful death law suits work out in such cruise situations, but in the U.S., "res ipsa loquitor" is a commonly invoked term. However, I am learning that passengers should not expect that they will not be killed, despite aggressive marketing by cruise line spokesmen (not just Viking, BTW -- it's all of them), which tell us in sales pitch presentations that such journeys are safe. Just the information posted by cheng75 reporting the tremendous forces involved with storm waves, i.e., that they can predictably bust through specially reinforced cruise ship windows (and despite tempered glass, still lead to death), are quite sobering. Apart from that, though my extensive scientific background is not in marine maneuvering, I have recently read some opinions that IF a captain is in a storm, AND has suspicion/warning a "rogue wave" (or a bigger wave, if a wave did not meet rogue critera) is coming, he can try and turn into the wave to mitigate damages (I have no idea if that is just theory or even possible to have enough warning to do anything about it, especially with a good-sized cruise ship like Polaris). 2. A few ad libs: my main worries about going to Antarctica, apart from Covid related disruptions, so far had been that I might have trouble getting in and out of the Zodiak and might land up breaking a leg or hip getting in or out in choppy waters (rather than breaking a leg after capsizing, or dying from flying window pieces, as happened on the Polaris). Though I did very well on the Crystal Endeavor in Iceland, and was encouraged, the waters there were very calm at the time. The Zodiak incident with the woman with the broken leg suggests I should worry (at least a little) about more than just the getting in and out of Zodiaks . I have been on ships around South America in big storms and though a bit nauseating, never felt worried about being killed by flying window pieces and actually overall enjoyed the ride as I was oblivious. But as I said, I am learning, and though I cognitively still understand that statistically the odds of severe injury, much less death, have been miniscule on an Antarctica trip (compared with many other activities I have engaged in during my life) , I find it odd that we had two bad incidents, close together, on one ship (coincidence or related, we do not know). These events were also just a week after the Quark Zodiak capsize which killed two, and the lesser known Scenic Eclipse incident where the submarine was unable to surface for two hours (though there were no injuries, so it was not in the news much). There is also some speculation that global warning is leading to more unstable seas in the Antarctic, and if true, have to wonder if the good old days of Antarctic cruises with near zero ship-related (as opposed to passenger health and behavior related) passenger injuries are over, but that is another topic.

Multiple news sites are reporting that the passenger killed was an unidentified 62-year-old woman and that she was hit and killed by "flying glass" from one of the shattered windows (I think they all share common news sources like AP, plus what Viking chose to say, since many use the same language). News sources don't talk about the 11/30 Zodiak event that led to the woman's broken leg (since no one died), I think that was just on Facebook, and the news stories typically do not talk about the fact that the ship was heading back to Ushuaia early due to that injury. I had assumed all the windows use tempered glass in modern construction, but I don't know, the news stories did not say. The youtube report below claims pax said they were tossed off their beds when water suddenly came gushing in through the broken windows. Thank you Heidi 13 for commenting that the reports on the investigation of what happened will be available to the public, and that "The preliminary report can take 1 - 2 yrs and the final report 2 - 3+ years." I will mark my calendar to check back in 1-2 years for the preliminary report.

There are multiple sources of early information about what happened, some posted on this CC thread below. We know a passenger's leg was severely injured by a malfunctioning Zodiak (someone called it "exploding"), but not what caused that. We have reports lay pax said the captain was rushing back to get that leg injured pax assistance (not necessarily rushing dangerously fast, or so fast that the act would result in inability to handle a rogue wave, which then killed 1 person and injured others when it broke windows -- we don't know if the so-called "rushing" event had anything to do with inability of the ship to handle the rogue wave). We also don't know if it did not. My understanding is there are not uncommonly rogue waves in the Antarctic, but they don't usually blow winodws out of cabins and thus kill passengers on cruise ships. https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/2897175-and-now-viking-experiences-tragedy/?_fromLogin=1#replyForm There are also reports in Spanish papers and in other European languages, for those interested in digging into this some more. I also read that Argentina is launching a criminal investigation. The two men killed when the Zodiak tipped over on Quark last week (also in response to a rogue wave) were 76 and 80, but I don't know how old the dead and injured are on Polaris. My guess is we will later have no access to any report on the series of events, much less on etiology or relation or capacity to assign blame. Lawyers who sue cruise ships will have better luck if any of the pax injured or the estates of those dead are interested in in suing. Any interest I had in going on Polaris is gone right now until I know more about what happened with the malfunctioning Zodiak, and why the rogue wave could not be handled properly. I hope the report and explanations do not take years to receive.

So this ship had a malfunctioning Zodiak which led to the severe injury of a passenger, and lower windows that could not withstand a storm, which led to the death of another passenger and injury of others while hurrying back to get help for the first injured passenger. I wonder what else is wrong with this new ship (especially since we know that Covid consequences have created labor shortages and time crunches for companies to deliver products). Of course similar problems could occur on other lines, we just don't know about them, and in theory the odds of gettiing injured, much less killed, on an expedition remain miniscule. What do we know about the captain?

Are you feeling the "ultra-luxury" of your cruising experience? 🙄

My google search last week when I heard about it on Antarctica news (still present) showed it happened in 2013, also on Quark, in the Arctic (1 dead). https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/06/21/quark-expeditions-arctic-cruise-excursion-death/2446125/ It is, however, clearly very rare.

Thank you for reviewing! Was the ship full, and if so, how was the MDR service (or Club Orange service, if you had that or were in a suite)?

As one of the key disability leaders who travels said, "We don't mind the waits -- it's the indignities we are subjected to that are the problem."

1. I really appreciate your taking the time for this exposition, very interesting. Relevant to the topic of Octantis vs a smaller modern Antarctic adventurer ship, it was most useful for me to read, "Over almost 30 yrs in command, I have commanded many ships from 150' to 550' and size had no bearing on pax comfort. " I am inferring that the larger Viking Octantis would not necessarily have a more stable ride than the Smaller Quark Adventurer (at least all captains being equal :)) -- other variables are more important. Looking back at my transatlantic sailings in the 60's and 70's on good-sized but not huge ships, (my last one was in 1974 on the Stefan Batory), that made my mom and me so ill, it may have been in large part due to the speed at which we sailed -- passenger comfort be damned, people were there for transport, not for leisure (and of course had no cell phones :)) 2. Is it also a passenger myth that one is more likely to avoid sea sickness in a a mid-ship cabin (all else being controlled for)? Mid-ships tend to be more expensive and book up earlier. Last minute offers also not uncommonly involve offers of far aft, or (worse?) far forward cabins, rather than mid-ship (though in the Covid era, we also have seen mid-ship cabins open up when there are infection surges).

I doubt it would "allay any speculation that Seabourn is not following their own guidelines", because people have eyes and noses and experience and will still see the dog sitting on furniture (and the ectopic poo, if more than once), but I agree it might have helped in some cases, especially with the casual observer who does not care one way or the other (likely most people).

By now it's already been flushed out (for anyone paying attention to text and links posted) that SB's *official* policy is that the cruise line (like most other cruise lines) only accepts dogs that qualify as *service* dogs. They state they do *not* accept pets or emotional comfort dogs, and do not state that there are exceptions to their rule. So if the dog was on board, he has to have been approved by SB as being a "service" dog, or they are violating their own rules. Also, some pax were told by staff that the dog is indeed a service dog. The staff could have made it up, of course, but that is what they reportedly said. But unfortunately, no one here knows what procedure was required for this particular dog (from Paris) to get approved as a "service" dog prior to his transport on SB across the ocean to U.S. waters, i.e., no one knows exactly what "service" he was supposed to be performing for the lady. There is quite a bit of wiggle room even under the U.S. ADA (which apparently the line has to comply with if they sail in U.S. waters, even if some SB pax do not want ANY dog on board), but the dog at least officially has to perform some kind of "service" (action other than just being there) for him to qualify. SB is not required to disclose the information on which it based its decision to curious pax on board. All they have to do is tell you that it was a service dog. "Service" dogs, however, cannot just do whatever they want, and wherever they want, most people know this. They cannot poo anywhere at any time, run off leash, ankle bite, bark etc. One violation is not enough to turn a service dog into just a pet. But given that some of the dog's behavior (specifically, at least one ectopic poo and repeated sitting on public furniture) was not typical of that which a service dog engages in, even though there were no other reported violations, I understand why people were suspicious (putting aside people who clearly have no clue what a "service" dog is, e.g., those who apparently think it has to be on the level of a big seeing eye dog to qualify, and it does not). Since people not uncommonly have confused and inaccurate ideas about what is and is not a service dog, when you couple that with the fact that the "service" dog label has been abused by too many travelers who just want to bring their pets with them (even by people who own service dogs, such as I described), I can understand the skepticism and the speculation that maybe some strings were pulled, or the definition of "service" was amplified or modified or even ignored, in order to please a frequent cruiser (the lady has been on before), and an affluent cruiser at that (she is in the owner's suite). But it is just speculation, nothing more. If true, it would not be the first time that SB has treated some pax less equally than others, and would not surprise me (but I've never been in the camp that believe that SB treats all passengers equally). If not true, and there really is some service that the dog performs for the lady, (and he just happened to have one poo accident which even service dogs can occasionally have), AND he had to sit on furniture to perform his service, and there was no "special consideration" given to her financial status to get approval for the dog to board, then it would be appropriate for SB to tell pax who are concerned what was going on. But I doubt they will do more than restate their policy on accepting service dogs and not other dogs, and to state that for privacy reasons (or perhaps legal concerns, since the lady is identifiable), they will not discuss the issue any further.

I'm confused (I usually do not cruise HAL, but other lines like Seabourn, but that line is also in the Carnival domain). Doesn't HAL have a policy for pax that if they report their illness, and are then confined to their cabins, they receive FCC based on the number of days they were confined? Or are you just talking about getting reimbursement for the post-cruise hotel?

Could you clarify your statement about being "ordered to wear masks inside and outside of the ship"? When you say "outside", do you mean masks are required of pax when pax are on ship excursions (taken via the port), or do you mean pax must wear masks even when "outside" but still on the ship (e.g., walking around or sitting on deck)?

No. Cruise lines that accept "service" dogs (either voluntarily, or to comply with the requirement to do so if they cruise in U.S. waters, which I noted previously), do not allow dogs in the pools. The justification is "public health" concerns.

"The size of the ship has very little to do with potential comfort in a seaway. The seakeeping ability of a ship is determined by the design and scantlings. Many of the liners I worked aboard in the 70's & 80's are tiny in comparison to some of the modern ships afloat today. They were comparable in size to the current Viking ocean ships and were way more comfortable in a seaway than any current ship, with the exception of QM2. The old liners could also maintain a much higher speed through heavy seas. Those liners handled the seas way better than any of today large ships and were also better than the current Viking ocean ships. I haven't yet sailed on the Expedition ships, nor have I seen the ship out of the water, or the plans, so can't comment on their sea-keeping ability. However, since they were designed for these waters, I expect they have superior scantlings than the ocean ships, especially since they are ice strengthened." --------------------- Sorry, I think you lost my context, which was to comment about the comfort issue brought up on on posts #5 and #6. 1. *Of the ships that cruise Antarctica and offer landings*, (i.e., this context of discussing "comfort" getting to and cruising that continent) I think of the Octantis as a *big* ship, not a small ship! I think of the "adventurer" ships that go to Antarctica, e.g., along the lines of what donaldsc described (and indirectly recommended), as the *small* ships. I'm not discussing ships the size of the old liners, or the giant Norwegian Epic, or even Viking Ocean. 2. I also said, "all else being equal", and "may" (at least as one factor in determining , e.g., longitudinal stability) What is relevant in the "comfort" context is if the little and cheaper adventurer ships donaldsc was on are less stable (and cause more motion sickness) than the Octantis, or the same. Both were designed for polar waters. Is it possible for those tiny ships to be just as stable as the larger new Octantis? If so, many of us would be happy to save a lot of money and consider the cheap lines instead! 3. BTW (more context) I was very young, due to our need to repeatedly cross the Atlantic from Europe and my mother's flying phobia after a traumatic experience, I experienced the 'joy' of multiple transatlantic crossings on old fast passenger transport ships, i.e., old ocean liners. Some of these crossings were in winter, and the amount of ship rocking and rolling was quite frightening (my mother was in a low middle cabin most of the time with severe sea sickness and I was close to sick but instead preferred running around the ship -- including places where I could easily have been washed overboard). I felt almost equally concerned and quite sick when on the Silver Cloud off southern South America as few years ago, (pre-modification) but not on the Seabourn Quest (which used to go to Antarctica, pre-Venture), though those two are comparable in size, but smaller than the old liners I sailed on (like the Bremen). The modern stabilizers and construction style have definitely helped make being on a ship in stormy weather in the 21st century more comfortable for me, I just don't yet know how small (and how cheap) I could go without compromising safety and enjoyment (i.e., avoiding sea sickness).

Does anyone know if the Pinnacle Suite beddding arrangement on the Rotterdam can be converted from a king to two twins, (like the bed can be converted in Neptune suites)? I have read that the sofa in the living area converts to a sofa bed, so potentially for two unrelated people, or people who do not "sleep" together , that would be another option if the answer is no.