In Defense of Viking

[Squigmond]

Have you ever worked in sales? To be honest I haven't either, but I have been a part owner in a Travel Agency. Customer comes in, says I saw the Viking ads on PBS and I want to go. After 4 or 5 questions about "where do you want to go" and "what do you want to see" and "what are your interests" with clueless answers the average agent gives up and sells them the damn ad. Sad, but true.

 

Shouldn't the TA talk them into another cruise line by pointing out all the horrible things Viking does. A good salesman should be able to put the fear of a higher power in them. At minimum tell the customer they would never sail with Viking even for free and why. If all else fails refuse to book it because they will have such a terrible time they will bad mouth the TA and hurt their business.

[caviargal]

Shouldn't the TA talk them into another cruise line by pointing out all the horrible things Viking does. A good salesman should be able to put the fear of a higher power in them. At minimum tell the customer they would never sail with Viking even for free and why. If all else fails refuse to book it because they will have such a terrible time they will bad mouth the TA and hurt their business.

 

A professional TA would never "put the fear of a higher power" in a client. They would lay out the options, point out the relevant differences and answer the client's questions. Hopefully they will offer personal experience, across lines. If not, then there is a good amount of objective information that should be presented to help a client make a decision.

 

I cannot even imagine working with a travel agent who used fear as a sales tool.

[caviargal]

I find this statement very condescending, basically saying that Viking is a good choice only for those who don't care about quality. Especially ship design; that's a very subjective thing.

 

This is the sort of comment I think the OP objects to; it's the tone set by the comment.

 

I said nothing about quality as that is subjective.

 

Payment terms are not subjective.

 

Ship decor is subjective; ship design is very relevant to how a river boat handles water levels. An educated consumer should understand the differences and how their cruise could be impacted. The longboats in particular are known to have issues with water levels whereas other lines seem to handle them quite well, without major disruptions. How the various lines handle these issues historically is also, IMO, relevant to those who research and understand the differences between lines.

 

We have experienced high or low water on 4 river cruises to date. None turned into bus trips and two were major low water issues.

 

Water levels are a fact of life on the river. Our boat made it through while Viking's sat there empty along the river banks in three of these cases. I saw them personally and that is factual and not an opinion. The Rhine, Danube and Moselle were the rivers where we had issues over the years. We also had issues on the Rhone that were handled very well by AMA during low water conditions. No bus tour there either; just some itinerary modifications and we saw everything we were supposed to see.

 

Those facts may not be relevant to your decision, but they made a huge impression on us.

[notamermaid]

Hello caviargal,

 

your experience is very interesting seeing that Ama also sails with some large ships. I gave a quick comparison of some draughts in post #8 on this thread: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2263777

 

It is a fact. However, there are some ships on the river that have the same draught as the longships, they are part of the Arosa fleet. There has been mention of rearranged itineraries and missed stops on the internet. But reports are rare, not because they do not occur, they are just not posted that much.

 

There are a couple of ships that have a deeper draught than Viking Longships (as declared by shipyards) on European rivers. Cannot remember which ones right now.

 

On a different note (allow me to be a little malicious): I will not enter further into this discussion, as I have the feeling the original OP has thrown a cat among the pigeons and is leaning back to see the effect from a distance, not returning - after having directed the cat towards one pigeon briefly in particular. That is not my style.

 

notamermaid

[caviargal]

On a different note (allow me to be a little malicious): I will not enter further into this discussion, as I have the feeling the original OP has thrown a cat among the pigeons and is leaning back to see the effect from a distance, not returning - after having directed the cat towards one pigeon briefly in particular. That is not my style.

 

notamermaid

 

I concur and am also signing off this particular thread, which IMO serves no useful purpose.

[Host Jazzbeau]

When I first read the Original Post, my judgment [as Host] was that the broad-brushed bashing of nearly everyone who has posted a criticism of Viking was a form of Bullying and therefore a Guidelines Violation. My instructions as Host are to delete such threads, but I was afraid that I would be accused of censoring a pro-Viking thread. [My fears along those lines were certainly ratified by some of the posts on this thead.] Instead I chose to try to show the Original Poster why his arguments are not acceptable, and encourage him to explain the reasons for his positive assessment of Viking in more detail. To some extent that has happened thanks to several posters [and other posters have contributed their reasons for their negative assessments of Viking]. Therefore OP's stated intention to offer perspective "For those considering Viking" has been met, and the thread seems to have reached its natural end. Therefore this thread is now closed.