Seniors! Beware if you have limited mobility or are in a wheelchair!

[Seafairer]

I've had a couple of extremely minor mixups about onboard credits and Silversea simply contacted my agent to clear it up. Did they offer to do this, or did you request them to, when the mixup first became obvious? I feel so sorry that you were in a position where you had to fend for yourself.

 

I'm a huge fan of travel agents. In "real life" and here on CruiseCritic, I always recommend that people book their cruises through an agent, rather than direct with a cruise line. This is a good example of how an agent could cut through the red tape and ease an otherwise difficult situation.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Seafairer

[TLCOhio]

Ok what would poirot say? Do the clues and the puzzle pieces once put together pass the smell test? I guess we will all have to form our own opinions based on the evidence presented. however none of us can discount what Louvre felt from the interaction which was troubling and alarming for them. I hope they can heal from their perceptions of the experience.

 

Louvre12: The travel community needs to be aware what "goes on" when cruising—wonder how many people have had similar experiences---maybe they are afraid to talk about it---they will get the same "circle the wagons" treatment as is happening now. My posting was done to bring awareness' date=' not to vent or to produce ill will. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." P.S. My opinion of my travel agent is of the highest degree---but, I know, not all travel agents are created equal. [/quote']

 

fizzy: It's unfortunate that your expectations were not met' date=' but I still can't figure out who led you to believe that there would be[b'] personal attendants? [/b]

 

Appreciate the interest for Louvre12 in making people more aware for what could go on and how to better improve communications/expectations with these varied types of issues.

 

BUT, as Candy notes above, there are still questions and lack of clarity for exactly what was communicated, how, understood on both sides, etc. Glad that the travel agent provided some added information. Yes, we would love to hear more from Silversea's perspective. Was this a rare, one-time case of mis-communications? Were expectations too high for what staff could or should do? It seems that having both parties in this one cabin having some limitations could be an added factor.

 

From our Silver Cloud trip earlier this year, plus what we are planning for the same ship early next year for South Africa, there is a need through the "My Silversea" web connection and/or in printed form to answer some added questions to help the ship personnel BEFORE doing such cruises. This includes these questions:

 

Special Meals and Dietary Requirements

Do you have any special dietary preferences or requirements due to food allergies and/or intolerances?

 

Special Assistance

Do you have any physical limitations for which you require special assistance? Please list.

 

Please list any medical condition or information that you would like the ship's physician to be aware of.

 

Are you currently under the care of a physician? Yes or No?

Are you travelling with a wheelchair? Yes or No?

Do you require wheelchair assistance at the pier for embarkation? Yes or No?

 

We filled out these questions and noted our needs/situation, including listing that I have a CPAP breathing machine. I stated my needs for distilled water and an extension cord to make sure that things would work properly for this device. On the ship, as happened on our one other earlier Silversea cruise, things were in our room to satisfy these specific needs.

 

Tell us more on what was requested, how it was communicated, what was exactly promised, etc.?? Phone calls can be good, if you are connected with the right, knowing staff member. BUT, many times it is important to check and re-check that things are lined up and understood fully on both sides.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

From our Jan. 25-Feb. 20, 2015, Amazon River-Caribbean combo sailing over 26 days that started in Barbados, here is the link below to that live/blog. Lots of great visuals from this amazing Brazil river and these various Caribbean Islands (Dutch ABC's, St. Barts, Dominica, Grenada, etc.) that we experienced. Check it out at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2157696

Now at 22,938 views for these postings.

[UKCruiseJeff]

We both walk with a canes (have limited mobility but still can get into a tour bus) and at times I need a wheelchair to take me through the huge port terminals or even the airport. Well, not one person was assigned to help us or get us a wheelchair on our recent Silversea sailing (on the Spirit). We went to the guest services manager and asked her to help us obtain a wheelchair, when needed (such as when you need one to get you from the ship to the excursion bus parked miles away). She haughtily replied, "That is not my job!" "But I am a guest and you are responsible for the guests, aren't you? " She refused to answer. No one at the front desk, except 1 person, would help us. To get this done, we had to tip heavily. Not ONE person was assigned to help the handicapped or those limited mobility. We found most of the staff management had what is called the socialist-communist work ethic (just give me my paycheck--that is all I care about and I will do nothing extra). We felt, with our limited mobility, that management could have cared LESS to help the guest, especially if you asked for most anything (they were hostile as if you were bothering them and looked down on the handicapped, we felt). Seniors and people like us should know this! Beware!

 

Hi,

 

I thought it great of you to warn others that you had been treated poorly by SS and I'm sorry you received a rather negative reception to your comments. I think your expectations were reasonable and I think you were let down.

 

You clearly alerted SS in advance and even if you hadn't every customer however stressed should have received courtesy which you clearly didn't.

 

best wishes,

 

Jeff

[cruisr]

Hi,

 

I thought it great of you to warn others that you had been treated poorly by SS and I'm sorry you received a rather negative reception to your comments. I think your expectations were reasonable and I think you were let down.

 

You clearly alerted SS in advance and even if you hadn't every customer however stressed should have received courtesy which you clearly didn't.

 

best wishes,

 

Jeff

 

 

We are only getting one side of a story as we do not know Silversea,s side of the story. I cannot believe that a Silversea employee, no matter how much a guest may be nasty to them, would ever say "That is not my job". Expectations of having a wheelchair pusher assigned to them is not reasonable and no cruise line assigns pushers, none.

Edited May 22, 2015 by cruisr

[connlach]

This is the worst thing about these kind of forums. Someone can come on and state anything and then it is all of a sudden seen to be true by some other posters. Why does the "agent" refer to Silver Cloud and not Spirit? Why is there a huge assumption by some that Silver Sea are in the wrong here despite many reasonable questions being asked and not answered. Why is the "agent" spending time registering on here for the first time, posting twice but never stating anything else.

 

Reading this thread as a neutral person it is clear the OP has no facts to support their position and there are more holes than a swiss cheese in their story. I would take the whole thing with a pinch of salt.

[UKCruiseJeff]

We are only getting one side of a story as we do not know Silversea,s side of the story. I cannot believe that a Silversea employee, no matter how much a guest may be nasty to them, would ever say "That is not my job". Expectations of having a wheelchair pusher assigned to them is not reasonable and no cruise line assigns pushers, none.

 

 

I have re-read your responses to the OP on the first page. You didn't require hearing SS's side of the story when you launched into an attack on her and rubbished wholsale the OP's account or presumed and implied that the OP was entirely wrong, inaccuratre, untruthful, negligent, negative etc - and SS was blameless. You apparently do not need to hear both sides before reaching a conclusion which has blamed the OP from your first reply do you?

 

Without any further detail from the OP or SS, you have stated their wheelchair policy for them, presumed the OP hadn't forewarned SS and if they had they would have been warned to make alternative arrangements, said that your view of SS's responsibilities and response were also true of all other lines, told the OP that they could have avoided the situation they found themselves in, described her post as inflamatory and negative, ascribed to her motives of just creating a bad feeling towards SS.

 

In the event her agent posted simply to tell you that all of your presumptions were incorrect. You then said rather enigamitcally and regally

 

Seriously? Of course anyone is free to post anything they want and readers are free to react to that.

 

Sunprince you will now be happy as I am moving on from this thread. Its pointless to continue.

 

As you have returned to pick a fight with me, do you not think that even with the benefit of hindsight you might have been a tad nicer and given a little more sympathy to the OP? Perhaps be less partisan? Given what you said and still say, do you not think that an apology might be approprraite to the OP for your earlier inflamatory personal remarks?

 

Or does posting on forums entitle you to say "what you want without ever having the need to say sorry" if proved wrong?

 

Jeff

[UKCruiseJeff]

This is the worst thing about these kind of forums. Someone can come on and state anything and then it is all of a sudden seen to be true by some other posters. Why does the "agent" refer to Silver Cloud and not Spirit? Why is there a huge assumption by some that Silver Sea are in the wrong here despite many reasonable questions being asked and not answered. Why is the "agent" spending time registering on here for the first time, posting twice but never stating anything else.

 

Reading this thread as a neutral person it is clear the OP has no facts to support their position and there are more holes than a swiss cheese in their story. I would take the whole thing with a pinch of salt.

 

Neutral?

 

You have called both the OP and their agent liars. With respect this is not my version of neutral.

 

Neutralaity is showing respect for all other posters and giving them the benefit of any doubt until shown otherwise and not presuming they are liars because you do not like what they say.

 

Presumably the quality of your neutrality extends to distrusting those that seek to make positive comments about SS?

 

My argument isn't with your opinion, it is the way you choose to express it.

 

Jeff

[connlach]

How can I be anything but neutral as per my post? I am not really overly concerned about what they say as the issue does not directly affect me but I have spent time reading the thread and it is clear it is somewhat lacking in detail and facts.

 

It would be a shame for someone to see this thread and decide on something when there is very little information to go on.

 

Perhaps that neutrality is something you should consider?

[cruisr]

How can I be anything but neutral as per my post? I am not really overly concerned about what they say as the issue does not directly affect me but I have spent time reading the thread and it is clear it is somewhat lacking in detail and facts.

 

It would be a shame for someone to see this thread and decide on something when there is very little information to go on.

 

Perhaps that neutrality is something you should consider?

 

Well said.

[cruisr]

I have re-read your responses to the OP on the first page. You didn't require hearing SS's side of the story when you launched into an attack on her and rubbished wholsale the OP's account or presumed and implied that the OP was entirely wrong, inaccuratre, untruthful, negligent, negative etc - and SS was blameless. You apparently do not need to hear both sides before reaching a conclusion which has blamed the OP from your first reply do you?

 

Without any further detail from the OP or SS, you have stated their wheelchair policy for them, presumed the OP hadn't forewarned SS and if they had they would have been warned to make alternative arrangements, said that your view of SS's responsibilities and response were also true of all other lines, told the OP that they could have avoided the situation they found themselves in, described her post as inflamatory and negative, ascribed to her motives of just creating a bad feeling towards SS.

 

In the event her agent posted simply to tell you that all of your presumptions were incorrect. You then said rather enigamitcally and regally

 

 

 

As you have returned to pick a fight with me, do you not think that even with the benefit of hindsight you might have been a tad nicer and given a little more sympathy to the OP? Perhaps be less partisan? Given what you said and still say, do you not think that an apology might be approprraite to the OP for your earlier inflamatory personal remarks?

 

Or does posting on forums entitle you to say "what you want without ever having the need to say sorry" if proved wrong?

 

Jeff

 

I did not come back to pick a fight with you and you will note that I came back on May 19 as I was really curious if OP had given any more info. How is stating what I said to you picking a fight with you? I simply stated that we only have one side of a story, the OPs. Her TA was not there. Again, it is an unreasonable expectation to expect a staff member to be "assigned" to her as a pusher.

[lincslady]

Well said.

 

I think it is a natural human response, right or wrong, to somewhat distrust any comment which appears entirely one-sided, whether a complaint or, as does occasionally happen, praise which seems to be a little over the top - I remember reading 'Dafne's' report on a Seabourn cruise which, to me and some others, did sound like a bit like something written by someone who had been offered a free cruise in exchange for a 'puff' piece. It was in fact just that she had had a marvellous time and wanted to tell the world!

 

In this particular case, obviously not all the facts and opinions of the various sides involved are available, and probably never will be. However, it is helpful for anyone who may need help on board a ship to realise they must check it out, to be sure they will get what they need - and find out if the cruise line can actually provide it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

How can I be anything but neutral as per my post? I am not really overly concerned about what they say as the issue does not directly affect me but I have spent time reading the thread and it is clear it is somewhat lacking in detail and facts.

 

It would be a shame for someone to see this thread and decide on something when there is very little information to go on.

 

Perhaps that neutrality is something you should consider?

 

Apart from the snide and uncalled for final remark, which I feel damages an otherwise decent post, this post is entirely neutral and I agree with it, but it wasn't what you said in your earlier post.

 

You sought to rubbish both the OP and her agent. The agent made remarks that seemed entirely plausible to me because they were detailed with names and dates and had detail that could be incriminating if false. I believed it. Your sole reason for rubbbishing them seemed to be because they registered only to post in the OPs defence. That was unfair and certainly not neutral was it?

[UKCruiseJeff]

I think it is a natural human response, right or wrong, to somewhat distrust any comment which appears entirely one-sided, whether a complaint or, as does occasionally happen, praise which seems to be a little over the top - I remember reading 'Dafne's' report on a Seabourn cruise which, to me and some others, did sound like a bit like something written by someone who had been offered a free cruise in exchange for a 'puff' piece. It was in fact just that she had had a marvellous time and wanted to tell the world!

 

In this particular case, obviously not all the facts and opinions of the various sides involved are available, and probably never will be. However, it is helpful for anyone who may need help on board a ship to realise they must check it out, to be sure they will get what they need - and find out if the cruise line can actually provide it.

 

My sole point is a simple one and I am clearly unable to express myself clearly.

 

It isn't what you say, it is the way you say it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I did not come back to pick a fight with you and you will note that I came back on May 19 as I was really curious if OP had given any more info. How is stating what I said to you picking a fight with you? I simply stated that we only have one side of a story, the OPs. Her TA was not there. Again, it is an unreasonable expectation to expect a staff member to be "assigned" to her as a pusher.

 

Respectfully, you have been highly selective in your choice of all of your own comments from which you might have slected. I have no particular issue with this one. It was the way in which you express most of the others.

 

As it happens I read the OP as having expected a pusher to be "assigned" simply for the assiatance in the two issues she described ie going to the coaches when they are some way away and getting on and off board - and not a permanent "nanny". Whether is right or not I have no real view other than she clearly had made some arrangements and she felt that the way she felt she was treated left her feeling disrespected and angry. There are no set of circumstances when dealing with SS that should leave her feeling that way however grumpy she might have been.

 

To be clear. I think the OP was here for two things. Firstly she was upset at the treatment and wanted to vent. I cannot speak for you, but most of us feel that way sometimes. Secondly she just sought to warn others that what she had expected as a result of her exchanges with her agent wasn't fullfilled and at a time she felt vulnerable and at the mercey of SS staff she felt badly let down.

 

I think she came here genuinely in search of a bit of tea and sympathy and to tell others not to expect what many now say she shouldn't have expected in the first place, but instead received what I felt was heartless bullying. I feel she could have received a friendlier response from regular CC'ers - that is all.

Edited May 22, 2015 by UKCruiseJeff

[connlach]

Apart from the snide and uncalled for final remark, which I feel damages an otherwise decent post, this post is entirely neutral and I agree with it, but it wasn't what you said in your earlier post.

 

You sought to rubbish both the OP and her agent. The agent made remarks that seemed entirely plausible to me because they were detailed with names and dates and had detail that could be incriminating if false. I believed it. Your sole reason for rubbbishing them seemed to be because they registered only to post in the OPs defence. That was unfair and certainly not neutral was it?

 

Thanks for the input. I did not set out to rubbish anyone. I based my opinion (which is what a forum is all about) based on the facts within it.

 

You are also entitled to your side of the story. Doesn't mean it is correct though. ....

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks for the input. I did not set out to rubbish anyone. I based my opinion (which is what a forum is all about) based on the facts within it.

 

You are also entitled to your side of the story. Doesn't mean it is correct though. ....

 

You continue to ascribe to me a disagreement with you that I do not have. I think that we should not base actions solely on what one reads in a single or indeed many threads,

 

What I disagree with you about is when you post implications or doubts about dishonesty of other posters based purely on presumptions or implications that you have made.

 

By all means make the first comment, it is only the second that I object to.

 

Jeff

[connlach]

You continue to ascribe to me a disagreement with you that I do not have. I think that we should not base actions solely on what one reads in a single or indeed many threads,

 

What I disagree with you about is when you post implications or doubts about dishonesty of other posters based purely on presumptions or implications that you have made.

 

By all means make the first comment, it is only the second that I object to.

 

Jeff

 

Thanks for the feedback and object as much as you want as it is not relevant to me. I am very dubious of the op and the agent in this thread and will continue to be based on the information I have already stated