Caribbean Princess Technical problems will persist into NEXT YEAR

[MJSailors]

My DH and I are booked on the May 1,2018 sailing on the Caribbean Princess for a 10 day Eastern Caribbean cruise.

We were just informed today by e mail that the ship will not be going to Barbados because of propulsion issues.

We chose this cruise specifically because of going to Barbados,one of the few Caribbean islands we have not visited.

This is a disappointment,so we are looking for another cruise that may have other interesting ports for us or Barbados on the itinerary.

We are even considering Alaska for a repeat cruise or Hawaii .

It seems that the Caribbean Princess has had this technical issue for quite some time.

It would help to improve customer relations and loyalty to the cruise line to have this problem corrected satisfactorily.

Although change of itinerary is not a major significant problem for customers, it does cause disappointment and effort on the part of some,perhaps many,to reschedule and/or rethink travel plans.

Princess needs to address the problem ASAP.

[pshaze]

Are you locked in to going in May?

Because there is a cruise, March 20 on the Royal, that goes to Barbados.

We actually did that cruise on the Royal the last 2 years.

Loved Barbados. Did a private sail and snorkel with Calabaza. They were fantastic.

We too are impacted by the CB on our next cruise. Very frustrating.

[Corfe Mixture]

My DH and I are booked on the May 1,2018 sailing on the Caribbean Princess for a 10 day Eastern Caribbean cruise.

We were just informed today by e mail that the ship will not be going to Barbados because of propulsion issues.

 

This is now getting the point of being unacceptable.

 

I appreciate the professional contributions explaining that parts for these vessels are not 'off the shelf' and, as they are manufactured specially, there is an inherent lead time in sourcing the replacement parts, but this problem is now going to be over twelve months in the fixing.

 

THIS CANNOT BE SIMPLY DOWN TO LEAD TIME OF THE REPLACEMENT PART.

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not it requires a complete generator replacement, which I suspect would require a hole to be cut in the side of the ship which would require a major dry-docking. So, given Caribbean Princess has only recently had a re-fit, I'm now wondering whether or not they will just re-work all the future schedules in the next brochure and then live with problem for the next couple of years until the next scheduled dry-docking.

 

Clearly, I do not have professional knowledge of the industry, but we do have contributors who do have excellent knowledge. Perhaps they would like to comment on this perception / hypothesis.

[spookyfudge]

Amazing how many folks that have bookings on the CB have not taken the time to read the information sent to them regarding their voyage. Emails are sent as soon as the decision has been made to alter the itinerary. The cruise line has the right to make these changes at any time and for any reason. Usually, these changes are the result of situations that make the voyage uncomfortable, unsafe to passengers and crew, or there is docking or mechanical issue that create the changes.

 

Our upcoming B2B starting in September on the CB has had itinerary changes on both bookings. We were told right away via email and have altered our plans accordingly. The offer of the $50 OBC is OK because they don't have to offer it. If you figure there are over 3,000 passengers on board, that's over $150,000. Surely, there will be those that don't think that this is enough of an OBC to compensate for the change, but they aren't owed anything. It's a good will offer and if they don't like it.......sorry about that.

 

 

No the point is not the credit, the point is that Princess knew it was not able to complete the cruise as advertized. Consumers (us) in good faith booked this cruise with a non-refundable deposit. They (princess) knew probably in June/July of 2017 they could not get the repairs done until probably October of 2018. We (the consumer) booked what was advertized after Princess knew they could not complete the cruise as advertized on the specfic date. I for one, dont book last minute but plan ahead. Low and behold, they offer $50 cruise credit and point to a contract statement they have the right to do this EVEN THOUGH they knew they could not fulfil the contract as advertized for quite some time and now offer this credit! Sure we all understand when the ship is underway due to weather, issues at a specfic port, etc, you need to make a change and I am ok with this, but come on, they knew of a major issue and did not make the change and continued to advertize the cruise and the specfic ports that this ship was going to stop at. When I buy a car, order a meal, I dont expect, sorry the item you ordered for the car, dinner is not available, they should know that in advance and not let us order the item. To me, this sounds like a class action lawsuite on a contract dispute with false advertizing to the consumers.

Edited August 24, 2017 by spookyfudge
link addition

[spookyfudge]

Oh here is another link where Carnival has a class action suit;

 

http://www.carnival.com/about-carniv...-contract.aspx

[chengkp75]

This is now getting the point of being unacceptable.

 

I appreciate the professional contributions explaining that parts for these vessels are not 'off the shelf' and, as they are manufactured specially, there is an inherent lead time in sourcing the replacement parts, but this problem is now going to be over twelve months in the fixing.

 

THIS CANNOT BE SIMPLY DOWN TO LEAD TIME OF THE REPLACEMENT PART.

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not it requires a complete generator replacement, which I suspect would require a hole to be cut in the side of the ship which would require a major dry-docking. So, given Caribbean Princess has only recently had a re-fit, I'm now wondering whether or not they will just re-work all the future schedules in the next brochure and then live with problem for the next couple of years until the next scheduled dry-docking.

 

Clearly, I do not have professional knowledge of the industry, but we do have contributors who do have excellent knowledge. Perhaps they would like to comment on this perception / hypothesis.

 

Here are some of my posts from the other thread concerning CB's problems:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=53868731&postcount=255

 

As I said, a one year lead time for a part is not unheard of in the maritime industry, and in other industries as well. Sometimes parts that fail are only produced when an entire new unit is ordered, so the manufacturer has to either gear up to produce the part, or steal it from another customer's product in production. I can remember needing a relatively small roller bearing (about 2.5 feet in diameter, small by ship standards) for a thruster. Our company had 36 of these thrusters in the fleet, but we had never had one of these roller bearing fail. When we contacted bearing suppliers around the US, some laughed at us for needing one right away, and when we went directly to the manufacturer, we were told it would be an 18 month lead time. We closed up the thruster with a bad bearing and went without it for 2 years until the next drydock.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=53868792&postcount=256

 

And a snip from another post on that thread:

 

While drydock time is a very valuable commodity, and fairly scarce (more so for larger ships), an unscheduled docking can usually be accommodated within 3-6 months, depending on the flexibility of the shipyard and its customers. The fact that this is looking like it will take longer than that points me to a long lead time part needing to be manufactured.

I try not to comment on customer service aspects of problems like this (compensation, etc) or PR for changed itineraries, but as I said in the other thread:

And just to point out, if marketing had not required some high speed transits when they came out with the itineraries, but published the itineraries that they are now changing to, had the problem come up in June, or at any time later, they would have sailed for months with one propulsion system at reduced power, and no one would have known anything. This happens all the time, as I've posted various times before, each of CB's diesel engines gets torn down completely (think of a full engine rebuild for your car) every 12,000 running hours (about 2 years), and these overhauls take 2-4 weeks. So, for weeks at a time, the vast majority of ships are sailing around without the diesel generator capacity to produce full speed of the ship, and no one knows about it, because marketing is told of the overhauls and adjusts the itineraries accordingly.

I don't know when these cruises went on sail, in relation to when the problem came up, and I won't comment on whether the cruise line was right in not advising the necessary changes to itineraries right away, but the above comment is to show that the ship could have sailed for months with this problem and no one would have known had marketing and operations worked more closely together.

[Lenwys]

:)I just received the following email about our cruise in April 2018 -- just hope that

The "technical issues" do not turn into something more serious!

Please be advised that Caribbean Princess is experiencing a technical issue which has resulted in our inability to operate at full speed. This in no way compromises the safety of our guests and crew, which is our highest priority; however, our technical experts have determined that it is necessary to make changes to our itinerary. We will still offer a full tour program in each port of call, and tours for new and rescheduled ports will be available shortly. We will now call to Cristobal rather than Colon after the partial transit of the Panama Canal on Thursday, April 26, 2018. Additionally, our calls to Grand Cayman and Falmouth have been reversed, and some call times amended. The revised itinerary displays in full at the end of this notification.

As a goodwill gesture, each guest will receive a refundable credit of $50 USD applied to their onboard folio. We regret any disappointment these changes may cause, and look forward to welcoming you aboard

 

Caribbean Princess.

[MJSailors]

Are you locked in to going in May?

Because there is a cruise, March 20 on the Royal, that goes to Barbados.

We actually did that cruise on the Royal the last 2 years.

Loved Barbados. Did a private sail and snorkel with Calabaza. They were fantastic.

We too are impacted by the CB on our next cruise. Very frustrating.

Thank you .

I did find the March 20th cruise on the Royal . I think we may book that one instead.

Since it is a ten day cruise, that may limit the "Spring Break "crowd !

We have been on the Regal Princess and really liked that ship.

The Royal will be familiar for us.

Luckily,we are retired,so we are flexible with vacation time !

Sorry to hear that you are also impacted by the CB problem. It needs to be repaired.

Are you reading this Princess staff ?!?

[spookyfudge]

Here are some of my posts from the other thread concerning CB's problems:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=53868731&postcount=255

 

As I said, a one year lead time for a part is not unheard of in the maritime industry, and in other industries as well. Sometimes parts that fail are only produced when an entire new unit is ordered, so the manufacturer has to either gear up to produce the part, or steal it from another customer's product in production. I can remember needing a relatively small roller bearing (about 2.5 feet in diameter, small by ship standards) for a thruster. Our company had 36 of these thrusters in the fleet, but we had never had one of these roller bearing fail. When we contacted bearing suppliers around the US, some laughed at us for needing one right away, and when we went directly to the manufacturer, we were told it would be an 18 month lead time. We closed up the thruster with a bad bearing and went without it for 2 years until the next drydock.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=53868792&postcount=256

 

And a snip from another post on that thread:

 

While drydock time is a very valuable commodity, and fairly scarce (more so for larger ships), an unscheduled docking can usually be accommodated within 3-6 months, depending on the flexibility of the shipyard and its customers. The fact that this is looking like it will take longer than that points me to a long lead time part needing to be manufactured.

I try not to comment on customer service aspects of problems like this (compensation, etc) or PR for changed itineraries, but as I said in the other thread:

And just to point out, if marketing had not required some high speed transits when they came out with the itineraries, but published the itineraries that they are now changing to, had the problem come up in June, or at any time later, they would have sailed for months with one propulsion system at reduced power, and no one would have known anything. This happens all the time, as I've posted various times before, each of CB's diesel engines gets torn down completely (think of a full engine rebuild for your car) every 12,000 running hours (about 2 years), and these overhauls take 2-4 weeks. So, for weeks at a time, the vast majority of ships are sailing around without the diesel generator capacity to produce full speed of the ship, and no one knows about it, because marketing is told of the overhauls and adjusts the itineraries accordingly.

I don't know when these cruises went on sail, in relation to when the problem came up, and I won't comment on whether the cruise line was right in not advising the necessary changes to itineraries right away, but the above comment is to show that the ship could have sailed for months with this problem and no one would have known had marketing and operations worked more closely together.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with item 1 response. I have worked in nuclear industry with technology from the 60's and parts do fail. But when we need a part due to the company no longer in business, we PAY to have a part made. We also have them run 24/7 to get that part because without it we dont run a plant. So not having a part is not valid, they can get a part manufactured if THEY WANT TO PAY FOR IT, but its probably cheaper to change cruise schedules, pay the money and inconvience the customers!

[phantomII]

I have to respectfully disagree with item 1 response. I have worked in nuclear industry with technology from the 60's and parts do fail. But when we need a part due to the company no longer in business, we PAY to have a part made. We also have them run 24/7 to get that part because without it we dont run a plant. So not having a part is not valid, they can get a part manufactured if THEY WANT TO PAY FOR IT, but its probably cheaper to change cruise schedules, pay the money and inconvience the customers!

I agree. The engineering drawings (blue prints) will still be available as I am sure no manufacturer is going to dispose of them. I used to work in the aviation manufacturing industry and we could make almost anything if we had the drawings.

[chengkp75]

I have to respectfully disagree with item 1 response. I have worked in nuclear industry with technology from the 60's and parts do fail. But when we need a part due to the company no longer in business, we PAY to have a part made. We also have them run 24/7 to get that part because without it we dont run a plant. So not having a part is not valid, they can get a part manufactured if THEY WANT TO PAY FOR IT, but its probably cheaper to change cruise schedules, pay the money and inconvience the customers!

 

Your example is not quite accurate, and I've even experienced having to obtain parts that were originally designed for the nuclear power industry, in the offshore oil business, and not being able to get parts for many months because the parts were considered "lifetime". If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then the part is no longer proprietary, or your reactor manufacturer owns the proprietary rights to the parts/drawings, so you can go to another company to get something made. However, in the case of CB, the manufacturers of either the propulsion motor or the diesel engine/generator are still in business, so the drawings necessary to manufacture a part are their proprietary property. They sell the rights to make their parts to other companies, but if they choose not to license anyone to make their parts, then no one but the original manufacturer can do so.

 

The other part of your example is not valid either. The nuclear power industry is basically a unique user of certain technology or equipment, so the manufacturer will be willing to shift a production schedule for their only client, for a price. The equipment used in maritime power generation and propulsion, as seen on cruise ships, is widely used outside the cruise industry in other areas of the maritime industry (cruise ship only account for about 5% of the world's shipping) and in a great number of industries outside the maritime field, so these manufacturers look at the cruise industry as a small customer, and if they are producing at capacity, why should they inconvenience their other, larger clients, regardless of the price the cruise line is willing to pay.

 

And, the required part is not stopping the ship completely (you're example of "we don't run a plant"), it is only a partial loss of service, say if one turbogenerator in your plant is down for a part, would the company pay "whatever it takes" to get it back up and running, when the rest of the plant is still generating power and bringing in revenue? Do you pay enough to "ransom" this part from the manufacturer to the point where the company loses money? I doubt it. Now, if the NRC says you have to have that part to keep the plant running, even though it could be operated at reduced capacity, then that is a different situation. And here, the classification society, like the NRC, regulates how the ship is able to operate, and they say the ship can continue to operate safely.

 

As another poster noted, the OBC being given is costing the line about $150k per week, and going with the approximately 9 months that they have already changed itineraries for (it may be longer, but let's go with 9 months), that works out to $5.8 million. Let's say it is a diesel engine that needs a part (since they tend to cost more than the motors), and lets say that the only option to get this done quickly is to purchase a complete new engine ($2 million for one that the CB uses). Since the price of a complete engine would be far more than paying several times the normal price for any one component, we can figure that this price exceeds the "ransom" cost of quickly producing a little used part. Since the cost of the drydock (if needed to complete the repair) and the lost revenue during the drydocking are going to be paid whether the repair is made now or later, they don't figure into this. So, you're saying that it is cheaper for the cruise line to pay out $5.8 million over 9 months as opposed to paying $2 million for a $200k part now? Now, if the ship was stopped, and not generating revenue for 9 months, then it would be cheaper to "ransom" a part, but in the present situation I just don't see it, but then again, I don't have a business degree, so maybe I'm missing something.

[Corfe Mixture]

..... maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

I did say that I was not a marine engineer and would defer to your knowledge about whether or not twelve months was a reasonable delay, but looking at the contractual aspects, I would point out that, if as I accept, you are correct about lead times, then for some months, they appear to have been continuing to sell cruises in the knowledge that they could not sail the advertised itinerary.

 

On the subject of lead times and ransom prices, I do understand your point but would also add the subject of quality.

 

In my experience, throne thing every project manager learns early in their career is the 'Cheap, Good, Quick' rule.

 

Namely:

You can have it cheap,but it won't be good and it won't be quick.

You can have it good, but it won't be quick and it won't be cheap.

Or you can have it quick and it won't be good and it won't be cheap!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Zooguy]

You fellows obviously know your stuff, and I have throughly enjoyed reading your posts.

It just seems to me that after completing our due diligence and then selecting to sail on the Caribbean Princess, we deserved to get what we paid for. We've long since made our final payment, and purchased our air and hotel reservations. Unfortunately I am no longer excited about this sailing and now think of it as something to endure, looking forward to it's being over so I can focus on future bookings.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[OCruisers]

January 13, 2018 Caribbean Princess

 

Yes, they are moving St Maarten to the 17th, taking away Antigua, adding St Thomas on the 16th, arriving an hour later at Princess Cays on the 14th and giving everyone $50 OBC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The itinerary change prior to the above was cancelling Curacao and adding Grand Turk.

 

None of the changes are of great importance to us. We're still looking forward to having a GREAT cruise. :D

[divingbabe]

No changes to the Jan 3 sailing. Yet.

 

Got mine yesterday. We are going in March 2018 14 day Caribbean. We are missing a port and also cutting times on a few others. When I contacted out TA, she informed me that we'd get the 50.00 OBC each ... Not sure how I feel about this, since we booked over a year ago for this particular itinerary.

[meatloafsfan]

You fellows obviously know your stuff, and I have throughly enjoyed reading your posts.

It just seems to me that after completing our due diligence and then selecting to sail on the Caribbean Princess, we deserved to get what we paid for. We've long since made our final payment, and purchased our air and hotel reservations. Unfortunately I am no longer excited about this sailing and now think of it as something to endure, looking forward to it's being over so I can focus on future bookings.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

You are. All the cruise contract guarantees is that you're on a ship. Basically everything else can be changed. Ports can (and do) change for a variety of reasons; that's part of cruise life.

[sonomaphil]

THIS CANNOT BE SIMPLY DOWN TO LEAD TIME OF THE REPLACEMENT PART.

 

It has nothing to do with manufacturing a part. It has to do with canceling a cruise and losing million of dollars by doing so.

[chengkp75]

It has nothing to do with manufacturing a part. It has to do with canceling a cruise and losing million of dollars by doing so.

 

Not really, since they are going to have to lose a cruise's worth of revenue repairing the issue whether it is now or next summer. I don't believe that class would allow this to remain unrepaired at the next annual survey after the part becomes available, let alone to the next scheduled drydock in 2019.

[spookyfudge]

Spoke with customer relations on this ship and the curise I booked to panama (Feb 26). I understand mechanical issues occur from time to time not expected. But bottom line, if you used a future cruise credit on the Caribiean you can cancel without a forfeiture of your future cruise credit. Unfortunatly for me, the first time I did not use EZAIR and used my airline reward points plus cash I will pay a penalty on rebooking. Also they indicated the credit will be on each of our folios when we board the ship. So I am thinking of if I should eat my airfare and rebook a future cruise.

[postman999]

From Princess on earlier post:

"Hello, Sherry. We understand your concern and can assure you that our operation of Caribbean Princess in no way compromises the safety of our guests or crew. The motor issue happened after the ship left its recent dry dock, and the repair requires the ship to be taken out of service. We are working to determine the next possible time for Caribbean Princess to be taken out of service to complete the repair."

 

 

A repost from Princess's Facebook page

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[postman999]

A further update

 

As noted in multiple posts throughout various cruise forums and such, there's an issue with one engine/propeller that is reducing it's top speed. So, they have to slow the other engine to account for it, not cause vibration oe sail in circles. They can max out at around 17-18 rather than 20-22... And that can affect travel times between ports..

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[boca7]

Not really, since they are going to have to lose a cruise's worth of revenue repairing the issue whether it is now or next summer. I don't believe that class would allow this to remain unrepaired at the next annual survey after the part becomes available, let alone to the next scheduled drydock in 2019.

Obviously they are waiting till 2019, I`ll be on the 10/07/17 cruise & not bothered about the changes, just want a good safe cruise without hardships.

[jovisoul]

Obviously they are waiting till 2019, I`ll be on the 10/07/17 cruise & not bothered about the changes, just want a good safe cruise without hardships.

 

We are on the 10/7 cruise also. The changes are not a problem for us either. Actually, we prefer St Thomas over St Maarten anyway! A few less hours in Aruba is okay too. Just can't wait to be sailing!!

[pshaze]

No the point is not the credit, the point is that Princess knew it was not able to complete the cruise as advertized. Consumers (us) in good faith booked this cruise with a non-refundable deposit. They (princess) knew probably in June/July of 2017 they could not get the repairs done until probably October of 2018. We (the consumer) booked what was advertized after Princess knew they could not complete the cruise as advertized on the specfic date. I for one, dont book last minute but plan ahead. Low and behold, they offer $50 cruise credit and point to a contract statement they have the right to do this EVEN THOUGH they knew they could not fulfil the contract as advertized for quite some time and now offer this credit! Sure we all understand when the ship is underway due to weather, issues at a specfic port, etc, you need to make a change and I am ok with this, but come on, they knew of a major issue and did not make the change and continued to advertize the cruise and the specfic ports that this ship was going to stop at. When I buy a car, order a meal, I dont expect, sorry the item you ordered for the car, dinner is not available, they should know that in advance and not let us order the item. To me, this sounds like a class action lawsuite on a contract dispute with false advertizing to the consumers.

 

Oh I so agree with you!

 

The fact that Princess knowingly and willingly sold itineraries they couldn't deliver is nothing more than a bait and switch hidden behind the passenger contract. Is it legal...yes, but not very eithical and really poor customer service.

 

They also waited till after many made final payment before notifying passengers of the changes to the itineraries. When they knew months in advance it would happen. That tells you there was intent to mislead their customers.

 

Did you notice they are now notifying everyone well into next year? I guess all the complaints on this board did some good.

 

We book itineraries and dates first, then the ships. Minor last minute unforeseen changes happen. This is another kettle of fish.

[Zooguy]

Oh I so agree with you!

 

The fact that Princess knowingly and willingly sold itineraries they couldn't deliver is nothing more than a bait and switch hidden behind the passenger contract. Is it legal...yes, but not very eithical and really poor customer service.

 

They also waited till after many made final payment before notifying passengers of the changes to the itineraries. When they knew months in advance it would happen. That tells you there was intent to mislead their customers.

 

Did you notice they are now notifying everyone well into next year? I guess all the complaints on this board did some good.

 

We book itineraries and dates first, then the ships. Minor last minute unforeseen changes happen. This is another kettle of fish.

 

 

 

Right on Pshaze. You've hit the nail right on the head and captured the essence of this issue. Where Princess has sold us a cruise on a broken ship, they owe us the option to cancel without penalty and to pay for related expenses including air and hotel. This is the resolution chosen by an ethical cruise line.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums