Maasdam --- Too tired or not?

[joekerstef]

"Ship" can happen on the very newest of ships so don't think you're guaranteeing yourself a blissful experience just because you choose a newer build. It takes only one idiot to flush an unflushable down the drain to clog a bunch of toilets. I'm getting real sick of the implications that folks who report clogged toilets, water leaks, and whatever else on the older ships are somehow the sole purveyors of truth while those of us who have reported fabulous experiences and overall good conditions on these same dam ships (sometimes same voyage even) are merely HAL cheerleaders who will defend the company and its rustbucket older ships at any cost. I've sailed 34 days on Maasdam (20 of those this year) and have seen or experienced nothing particularly awful on the ship, which is not to say that i have not been critical in reporting my experiences both to HAL and here on Cruise Critic when warranted (which has been largely service issues rather than condition of ship stuff). Maasdam does not have the latest bells and whistles in terms of cabin or shipboard amenities so if that's important to you then by all means, sail a newer ship. Maasdam's a great size, very comfortable, and does some excellent itineries which is why we'll be spending three more weeks on her next year. I've done seven days on Veendam and our toilet did not work for a couple hours on that trip. I'd still sail her again if the itinerary is what we're looking for. And i'll sail one of the newer, "nicer" ships too if they're going where i want to go. Making an argument to disregard glowing posts because they're somehow untruthful while saying in the next breath that posts that say bad things are "just as valid" is just dumb. If it's a "fair comment" to discuss one's truthful negative experiences, how is it unfair or untrue or invalid to share one's truthful positive experiences? People actually do like these older ships and when someone makes a post seeking info because they've read all these negative things, those of us who enjoy said ships want people to know that too. It's not a HAL conspiracy y'all....

[beaniele]

I am so looking for our 21 day cruise to Alaska on the Maasdam.  I had a few doubts because of some of the negative reviews.  But as was said, why take those reviews over the many positive ones.  I have sailed Crystal, Regent, Silver Seas and sometimes there were problems on those ships, like getting into the jacuzzi on Silver Seas and black water came out of the jets.  YUCK.  But, with anything you say something to someone in the know and problems get solved.  Problems are not on just one cruise line or ship.  Well, now I can not wait to board the Maasdam  on May 28th.   We live in the San Francisco Bay Area and sailing out of San Francisco is always special.  Counting the days when I can start packing!!!!!

 

[Sea girl 23]

Like I said:disssonance.

 

Sooo..everyone who has trouble with their toilets must have put something they shouldn’t have in them? Not. Likely.

[DocJohnB]

24 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Like I said:disssonance.

 

Sooo..everyone who has trouble with their toilets must have put something they shouldn’t have in them? Not. Likely.

 

And that, Sea girl 23 is the definition of sophism.  You seem to make it a habit of twisting people's words to fit your arguments/ideas.  The highlighted sentence/question is neither what Joekerstef said, nor IMO meant.  (However, I think that your suggestion happens more often than you can imagine).  

 

I think that this discussion has run its course and would ask the moderator to perhaps shut it down.

[beaniele]

38 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Like I said:disssonance.

 

Sooo..everyone who has trouble with their toilets must have put something they shouldn’t have in them? Not. Likely.

Every cruise ship I have been on when there was a toilet problem, it was from someone putting stuff in toilet they should not put in. That has just been my experience. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by beaniele

[Sea girl 23]

II’ve been pretty reasonable.What I’m seeing in this thread is a lot of “we should accept that “ship happens” and if it did, it was your own fault.”

 

That is simply NOT the case. Toilets not working?Needing several fixes?That goes way beyond “just go with the flow”(pun intended). Maybe someone who has worked for HAL can speak on this,because I’m pretty sure the amount of user-caused toilet issues is actually quite small.

[RuthC]

55 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Like I said:disssonance.

 

Sooo..everyone who has trouble with their toilets must have put something they shouldn’t have in them? Not. Likely.

Sooo..everyone who has trouble with their toilets must be sailing on an older ship?
Not. Likely.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Sea girl 23 said:

II’ve been pretty reasonable.What I’m seeing in this thread is a lot of “we should accept that “ship happens” and if it did, it was your own fault.”

 

That is simply NOT the case. Toilets not working?Needing several fixes?That goes way beyond “just go with the flow”(pun intended). Maybe someone who has worked for HAL can speak on this,because I’m pretty sure the amount of user-caused toilet issues is actually quite small.

While I haven't worked on HAL, I have worked on ships that use vacuum toilet systems for 30+ years.  I can categorically state that the vast majority (about 95%) of toilet problems on ships are caused by "operator error" (putting something down the hopper that shouldn't have been).

 

I don't believe that my 43 years at sea have given me "cognitive dissonance" about maintenance on ships.  Toilet failures, AC problems, and propulsion problems have happened on brand new ships, as well as older ships.  Does HAL have some failures of equipment?  Sure.  Do other lines have these problems?  Sure.  Is there some reason that an older ship is more "tired" than a new ship?  Nope.  It just means the maintenance is more important, and tends to be more costly.

 

Part of a ship's ability to sail, and in the case of a cruise ship to carry passengers, is the ship's Certificate of Class, which is granted by a third party inspection service, and this "class society" applies the international requirements of SOLAS, and ISM (International Safety Management) conventions to ensure that maintenance plans and procedures meet both the international requirements as well as the requirements of each system or piece of equipment (like the toilet systems that you focus on).

 

I have no dog in the fight for any cruise line.  If I find, from my professional opinion, rather than from a layman's opinion, that a cruise line has fallen down on maintaining equipment, I have exposed this here and am not shy about doing it in somewhat vociferous fashion, but at the same time, if a cruise line is being, again in my professional opinion, unfairly accused of something for which there is no evidence, I will defend them.  This applies to any and all lines.

[rubinstein2r]

I am the original poster.  I thank everyone who gave me their opinions but regret that this thread has devolved into a flame war.  I would ask the moderator to end the war for us.

[obriendan]

On 10/27/2018 at 4:34 PM, OlsSalt said:

 

 

Willing buyer met willing seller. Nothing wrong with that.  They got what they paid for. 

 

Meanwhile to flesh out your arguments for credibility's sake please provide more details and fewer anonymous slurs:

1. who was this ... someone who was VERY much in the know

2. what were the... such things

 

It seems that the negative comments often come ill-defined and heresay from secondary sources.  Well here is another "glowing report" from direct, recent experience.  We have recently cruised:

 

Statendam-Alaska and final cruise-44 days-9/2015

Maasdam-Circumnavigation of Australia-29 days-10/2016

Maasdam-FLL to Papeete-34 days-9/2018

 

IMO neither of the ships looked tired and we had no "ship happens" problems.  On the recent Maasdam cruise a more apt description would be elegant after its recent dry dock refurbishments.  The crises were wonderful and as usual the crews are outstanding.  We hope to cruise on the Maasdam as long as she is still around.

 

Dan

[Sea girl 23]

Pretty sure there are issues on the mega ships..but that’s probably more because of the amount of people on there than someone putting something they shouldn’t  down the toilet.

 

With HAL ships it’s probably *some* user error and “ship issues” unrelated to that.

 

Not  really going to comment on the 95% user error. You’re not a shill,I know,but that sounds incredibly high.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Pretty sure there are issues on the mega ships..but that’s probably more because of the amount of people on there than someone putting something they shouldn’t  down the toilet.

 

With HAL ships it’s probably *some* user error and “ship issues” unrelated to that.

 

Not  really going to comment on the 95% user error. You’re not a shill,I know,but that sounds incredibly high.

I will stand by my 95% figure, and actually feel that it is likely higher.  Why?  Because a vacuum toilet system is a very simple system, and has large amounts of redundancy (multiple systems servicing different areas of the ship, and multiple pumps servicing each system).  On a merchant ship, where everyone is crew, and everyone is trained about putting things down the toilet (and can be fired for improper use of the toilets), there are almost no toilet problems.  We can go years without a problem.  What is the difference?  The untrained passengers putting things down the toilet.

[Sea girl 23]

That implies stupidity on the part of passengers on the ship. By your reckoning 95% of the people on HAL ships are stupid.

 

Or were you trying to say something else? 🤐

[bcummin]

On 10/27/2018 at 1:39 PM, bcummin said:

Why must you insist on arguing?

Barbara

 

Different people appreciate different things.  

Almost everyone here has agreed that ms Maasdam and other smaller, older HAL ships are well worth enjoying.

Only one person insists on arguing and insulting people.

Barbara

Edited October 29, 2018 by bcummin

[Sea girl 23]

Keeping it friendly,IMO.

 

Just pointing out what I think are errors among posters here.Not in an unkind way at all.

 

There are quite a few people here who *don’t* like the idea of spending x amount of time on a ship without certain amenities.They state their opinion in a concise way.And it’s cool. Hm.

[puli]

54 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Keeping it friendly,IMO.

 

Just pointing out what I think are errors among posters here.Not in an unkind way at all.

 

There are quite a few people here who *don’t* like the idea of spending x amount of time on a ship without certain amenities.They state their opinion in a concise way.And it’s cool. Hm.

why do you say "not in an unkind way at all"? It certainly sounds that way continually. As another southern lady (which I assume you consider yourself to be vis-a-vis  your  "y'all" comment) my response is "Why bless your heart"!

[Sea girl 23]

Well gee..implying that the majority of passengers are basically too stupid  to not flush the wrong things down the toilet is pretty harsh, no? Especially when there are signs above every bathroom on the ships telling you not to flush anything but toilet paper.

 

It makes me wonder about some of the so-called “experts” who post here.

[bcummin]

45 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Well gee..implying that the majority of passengers are basically too stupid  to not flush the wrong things down the toilet is pretty harsh, no? Especially when there are signs above every bathroom on the ships telling you not to flush anything but toilet paper.

 

It makes me wonder about some of the so-called “experts” who post here.

 

Your math is wrong.  If 95% of the problems are caused by passengers, that does not say how  many passengers made stupid choices.  It could be that only 2 or 3 % of the passengers caused the problems.

Barbara

[Sea girl 23]

95% was what an expert said. No way is the vast majority of that “operator error” or even “bad choices”.

[OlsSalt]

22 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

95% was what an expert said. No way is the vast majority of that “operator error” or even “bad choices”.

 

Here is what CHENKKP said: "While I haven't worked on HAL, I have worked on ships that use vacuum toilet systems for 30+ years.  I can categorically state that the vast majority (about 95%) of toilet problems on ships are caused by "operator error" (putting something down the hopper that shouldn't have been)."

 

 

Here is what YOU said, SEAGIRL: "Well gee..implying that the majority of passengers are basically too stupid  to not flush the wrong things down the toilet is pretty harsh, no? "

 

(Emphasis added)

Edited October 29, 2018 by OlsSalt

[Sea girl 23]

Still though..

 

The blame (with toilet issues) tends to fall to the person in that cabin.Never(potentially)someone else....or even the crew themselves. As much as some don’t want to hear that.

[joekerstef]

9 hours ago, beaniele said:

I am so looking for our 21 day cruise to Alaska on the Maasdam.  I had a few doubts because of some of the negative reviews.  But as was said, why take those reviews over the many positive ones.  I have sailed Crystal, Regent, Silver Seas and sometimes there were problems on those ships, like getting into the jacuzzi on Silver Seas and black water came out of the jets.  YUCK.  But, with anything you say something to someone in the know and problems get solved.  Problems are not on just one cruise line or ship.  Well, now I can not wait to board the Maasdam  on May 28th.   We live in the San Francisco Bay Area and sailing out of San Francisco is always special.  Counting the days when I can start packing!!!!!

 

We will be on the same sailing, beaniele. I am really looking forward to it!

[joekerstef]

56 minutes ago, Sea girl 23 said:

Still though..

 

The blame (with toilet issues) tends to fall to the person in that cabin.Never(potentially)someone else....or even the crew themselves. As much as some don’t want to hear that.

And you clearly have no idea how the toilet system works. ONE person flushes a tampon, a diaper, a wipe, non-marine TP, a t-shirt, etc. down the drain. If that action causes a clog in the system, that affects the toilets in MULTIPLE bathrooms, not just that one toilet. Which is what i said in different words in my post ("It takes only one idiot to flush an unflushable down the drain to clog a bunch of toilets.") You then leaped to "so everyone who has trouble with their toilets must have put something they shouldn't have in them? Not. Likely." No, it's not because that's not what i or anyone else said. So yeah, the blame for toilet problems in any one cabin actually is almost always going to be because someone else somewhere in the system flushed an inappropriate item, which happens all too often on ships of any vintage. Which does not logically equate to what you're saying that the rest of us are implying that "95% of the people on HAL ships are stupid," your complete misreading of chenkkp's experience that 95% of vacuum toilet issues are caused by user error. You're twisting other people's words to fit your own narrative. If you have recent personal experience, good or bad, to share about the condition of an S or R class ship, then tell us about that. Otherwise why are you even posting here? 

Actually i'm inclined to agree with the folks including OP who are of the mind that this thread has run its course.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Sea girl 23 said:

That implies stupidity on the part of passengers on the ship. By your reckoning 95% of the people on HAL ships are stupid.

 

Or were you trying to say something else? 🤐

Not in the slightest.  It is very easy for one half of one percent of the people to cause 95% of the problems, particularly with a "shared" system like vacuum toilets.  As an example, one passenger flushed a bikini down the toilet.  This caused a blockage at a point where 6 cabin's toilets were affected for 3 days while we worked to roto-root the bikini out of the pipe.  So, 12 people were affected for 3 days by one person's stupidity.  Were the other 11 people stupid?  Of course not, but they still had a problem.

[kazu]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I will stand by my 95% figure, and actually feel that it is likely higher.  Why?  Because a vacuum toilet system is a very simple system, and has large amounts of redundancy (multiple systems servicing different areas of the ship, and multiple pumps servicing each system).  On a merchant ship, where everyone is crew, and everyone is trained about putting things down the toilet (and can be fired for improper use of the toilets), there are almost no toilet problems.  We can go years without a problem.  What is the difference?  The untrained passengers putting things down the toilet.

 

Well said.  On one cruise I was on there was a problem with the line and I happened to be walking by when the workers had the area open to clear out the line.  I could not believe what I was seeing - things you would never put down a toilet at home including a slew of bottle caps!

 

It was definitely a user problem. 😉