Rotterdam Tender service not functional?

[Homosassa]

2 hours ago, MAVIP said:

Tender #8 back on ms Rotterdam (after reparation) on July 1st.

 

2 hours ago, MAVIP said:

 

Sorry, double posted quote.

 

There is more than enough lifeboats and rafts to evacuate a ship to allow for some boats and rafts being inoperable in an emergency (can't be launched because of the condition of the ship).  I do not have the exact numbers at hand, but this has been explained by some of our more knowledgeable members (ship engineers and ship officers in other posts throughout the years on cruise critic).

 

I was on a cruise on another line in the western caribbean when on our two day sail back to home port (Tampa), the ship's captain announced that we were stopping in Grand Cayman to pick up a tender that had been left for repairs at our port call earlier in the cruise.

 

The tender was repaired faster than expected and the captain decided to pick it up on the way back to home port instead of the following week.

[TiogaCruiser]

19 hours ago, Homosassa said:

The first reviewer has jumped to the conclusion, without any supporting facts, that the problem was due to inadequate preventive maintenance or poor maintenance. He is also on a crusade to have his cruise fare refunded to him due to the itinerary change as he feels the two substituted ports were inferior to the original. He is also incensed that when he demanded compensation on behalf of the twenty five cruise critic members on board, his behavior resulted in the captain's warning that he would be put off at the next port if he continued to forment passenger unrest.

 

Again, this is not an action that would have been done by the captain without provocation.

 

 

Italics mine. That really gives us all a black eye. I’m so glad I wasn’t on that sailing. 

[kazu]

2 hours ago, TiogaCruiser said:

Italics mine. That really gives us all a black eye. I’m so glad I wasn’t on that sailing. 

 

I agree.

 

We want to be welcomed on board - not dreaded 😉 
 

From their roll call, it’s obvious there is an expectation of compensation which makes no sense to me at all.

[Homosassa]

I agree about Cruise Critic being given a black eye.

 

In any case, I decided to delve into this a little more. Just a bit of background: During my working life, I was often handed a report or a complaint and it was my job to gather all the information beyond what was the paper handed to me. 

 

Sometimes the complaint or report was accurate and , eventually, I did make a "Federal" case (Title 18) out of it .

 

Sometimes the limited information was misleading or an attempt to cause problems for others.

 

In this case, the first complainer is a brand new member who joined just before the cruise in question., The review is the only content on Cruise Critic. Apparently this new member (new to cruising?) must have somehow felt that Cruise Critic membership is a weapon to use on board ship.

 

It isn't. The personnel on board ship were responsive enough to meet with the Cruise Critic members (a second meeting after the original Meet and Mingle where those present decided press for compensation) and explain to them the terms of the cruise contract, port changes, and compensation.

 

This still wasn't good enough and the writer of the first review demanded a private meeting with the Captain (somehow being anointed the spokesperson for the group)  to further press for compensation. It was at this point that the Captain warned of being put ashore if further passerger unrest was fomented.

 

While the writer of the first complaint states the demand was for a partial repayment of the cruise fare, it appears in the Roll Call that many of the members wanted to be compensated for the cost of private tours that they had arranged.

 

The second complaint (review) was written by a member that booked a guaranteed cabin and was upset to receive exactly what they paid for. The cabin was in  a location over a bar and they could hear music at night . 

 

Obviously a case of not understanding the idea of a guaranteed cabin rate and a lesson that could have been learned about cabin categories and guarantee bookings .

 

She also wants compensation for the cabin location, the itinerary change, and the cost of private tours.

 

Nowhere is the tender "issues" further explained and, again, it is unclear if the issues were anything under HAL's control.

 

Now, I will be labeled a "Loyalist" by some, but my take on the situation is that it is an attempt by two passengers to embarrass and cause harm to HAL with slanted  reviews. 

 

At least the first review was not picked up by those writers of news that sensationalize incidences on board ship and, when the stories are printed or broadcasted , show the complainants as the fools that they are.

 

 

[kazu]

1 hour ago, Homosassa said:

I agree about Cruise Critic being given a black eye.

 

In any case, I decided to delve into this a little more. Just a bit of background: During my working life, I was often handed a report or a complaint and it was my job to gather all the information beyond what was the paper handed to me. 

 

Sometimes the complaint or report was accurate and , eventually, I did make a "Federal" case (Title 18) out of it .

 

Sometimes the limited information was misleading or an attempt to cause problems for others.

 

In this case, the first complainer is a brand new member who joined just before the cruise in question., The review is the only content on Cruise Critic. Apparently this new member (new to cruising?) must have somehow felt that Cruise Critic membership is a weapon to use on board ship.

 

It isn't. The personnel on board ship were responsive enough to meet with the Cruise Critic members (a second meeting after the original Meet and Mingle where those present decided press for compensation) and explain to them the terms of the cruise contract, port changes, and compensation.

 

This still wasn't good enough and the writer of the first review demanded a private meeting with the Captain (somehow being anointed the spokesperson for the group)  to further press for compensation. It was at this point that the Captain warned of being put ashore if further passerger unrest was fomented.

 

While the writer of the first complaint states the demand was for a partial repayment of the cruise fare, it appears in the Roll Call that many of the members wanted to be compensated for the cost of private tours that they had arranged.

 

The second complaint (review) was written by a member that booked a guaranteed cabin and was upset to receive exactly what they paid for. The cabin was in  a location over a bar and they could hear music at night . 

 

Obviously a case of not understanding the idea of a guaranteed cabin rate and a lesson that could have been learned about cabin categories and guarantee bookings .

 

She also wants compensation for the cabin location, the itinerary change, and the cost of private tours.

 

Nowhere is the tender "issues" further explained and, again, it is unclear if the issues were anything under HAL's control.

 

Now, I will be labeled a "Loyalist" by some, but my take on the situation is that it is an attempt by two passengers to embarrass and cause harm to HAL with slanted  reviews. 

 

At least the first review was not picked up by those writers of news that sensationalize incidences on board ship and, when the stories are printed or broadcasted , show the complainants as the fools that they are.

 

 

 

A good synopsis of the facts that we know and how I interpreted them too.

 

The request for reimbursement of private tours shows either naïveté, inexperience or carelessness on their part.  Any private tour arranged either reimburses, doesn’t charge or doesn’t reimburse if you can’t dock/tender or the itinerary is changed.  It’s up to the person booking to make sure they understand the terms and conditions.  There is never a guarantee you will be at every port on any itinerary and tender ports carry the highest risk IME.  Their failure to address this and realize the risk is not HAL’s fault - it’s theirs. 

[herbshopgirl]

Wow, Homosassa and Kazu. I am the 2nd reviewer you keep roasting. You have no idea what went on that cruise yet you assume the worst of the reviewers. SHAME ON YOU!!!

 

 You are the reason people stop posting and give cruise critic a black eye. 

 

[kazu]

On 5/26/2019 at 10:13 AM, herbshopgirl said:

Hi everyone,

Our first cruise critic meeting was successful. We have all expressed our frustration with our substitute ports and Holland America's response....or lack of response. We are requesting a meeting with the Captain at our next meeting on May 31. Please feel free to join us at 11:00 at Crows Nest on May 31. Hopefully HA has talked to Seattle by then and has some answers on compensation.

 

On 6/4/2019 at 3:48 AM, GermanCruiseGuy said:

Sorry, we missed the meeting with the captain due to a medical incident.

Are there any news regarding reimbursements for our bookings at Flam?

In my point of view is was a clear mistake by HAL:

They did not inform us on time about their technical issues with the tender boat although they abviously knew about this in advance.

 

 

The above are YOUR posts from YOUR roll call.  They are very telling IMO.

 

10 minutes ago, herbshopgirl said:

Wow, Homosassa and Kazu. I am the 2nd reviewer you keep roasting. You have no idea what went on that cruise yet you assume the worst of the reviewers. SHAME ON YOU!!!

 

 You are the reason people stop posting and give cruise critic a black eye. 

 

 

Nope, sorry.

 

I don’t lambast people but I do make objective comments on what I perceive to be unrealistic expectations.  I’ve had a lot of experience with tender ports and missed a few in my time.  (But, I cover my bases with my guides before I book - if it’s non refundable I choose whether to accept the risk or not.  it rarely is).  I’ve never asked for compensation but interestingly enough, on our Hawaii, Tahiti Marquesas tour it was given to us.  But no one from Cruise Critic went and asked for it.  Nor did we do a meeting with the Captain who was doing his best to make the cruise pleasurable for us despite the issues.

 

Sorry if you don’t like the facts but your posts above show your expectations.  

 

Your words speak for themselves IMO.

[Homosassa]

1 hour ago, herbshopgirl said:

Wow, Homosassa and Kazu. I am the 2nd reviewer you keep roasting. You have no idea what went on that cruise yet you assume the worst of the reviewers. SHAME ON YOU!!!

 

 You are the reason people stop posting and give cruise critic a black eye. 

 

Then why don't you explain to us what happened on the cruise. Why was the fact that there were port changes any different from port changes that have happened on many other cruises on many cruise lines for many different reasons? If one cruises, one knows that "ship" can happen. Cruise enough and it will happen at some point.

 

Leave out the complaint above your cabin. Those of us who are experienced with booking a cabin know what the possibilities are when booking a guaranteed cabin (the worst cabin in the category in an undesirable location is always a possibility).

 

Of course, you can help others by explaining what you have learned from your experience and what you will do differently in the future.

 

You can explain exactly what the unspecified tender issues were. Were the statements about poor maintenance and unsafe operations based on fact or just speculation?

 

You can tell us what excursions were offered by HAL in the new ports. As noted in one of my posts. Geiranger and Hellesylt are considered tandem ports under the same port authority and offer the same opportunities to visit the local sights. 

 

For those that had booked private excursions, there seemed to be enough advanced notice of the port changes to cancel or make new arrangements. Did you?

 

Did HAL offer any on board credit as a gesture of good will? Did they offer any help for those with booked ship's excursions to change to excursions in the substituted port?

 

You can explain why some members of the Cruise Critic group felt that they could demand compensation beyond that is customary in such situations and pushed it to such an extent that the captain had to warn a member that he (she?) would be put ashore at the next port for formenting passenger unrest. (By the way, this was done to at least one passenger in the past who was unhappy about missing ports and organized a passenger protest, videoed it and posted the clip on You Tube. I can't remember all the details or the cruise line - Carnival, perhaps?)

 

Is there still an ongoing attempt to gain compensation in some form?

 

As noted, there are posters on this thread who are upset that the activities of your group gave us all a black eye. Is an apology in order?

 

Please, give us the facts. I will certainly apologize if the facts support an apology.

 

 

[chengkp75]

I for one would like to hear the exact wording of the notification regarding tenders.  I look at things from a technical standpoint, and could care less about customer service issues, so don't bother with those.

[Homosassa]

Exactly, chengggkp75. There appears to be so much more to the "tender issues" that is not being told.

[VMax1700]

16 hours ago, herbshopgirl said:

Wow, Homosassa and Kazu. I am the 2nd reviewer you keep roasting. You have no idea what went on that cruise yet you assume the worst of the reviewers. SHAME ON YOU!!!

 

 You are the reason people stop posting and give cruise critic a black eye. 

 

 

Please also remember that Cruise Critic is a public forum and not a union or a platform for class actions.

[syesmar]

I saw on the Reviews page where 3 (or 4?) Ports were cancelled on the Transatlantic sailing in April.  Was that a weather issue or mechanical?

[RichardQ]

The facts:

 

At least 3 tenders were non functional. One was left behind in the Netherlands. This was done one week before this sailing. So HAL did know in advance.

In ålesund 2  non operational tenders has been tested by Lloyds register.  In Rotterdam one tender meet again . So I suppose next cruise the tenders were operational again.

For the non believers:

Edited July 8, 2019 by RichardQ

[Copper10-8]

Thanks/bedankt for your facts and input, Meneer Richard Q 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, RichardQ said:

The facts:

 

At least 3 tenders were non functional. One was left behind in the Netherlands. This was done one week before this sailing. So HAL did know in advance.

In ålesund 2  non operational tenders has been tested by Lloyds register.  In Rotterdam one tender meet again . So I suppose next cruise the tenders were operational again.

For the non believers:

 

Not a non-believer, just wanted to get some info.  Those boats are likely the original boats, so 22 years old, and I'll bet that Lloyds was requiring ultrasonic testing for cracks in the fiberglass in way of the davit hooks.

[RichardQ]

Nope. Not the tenderboat  was  tested. After maintenance was done The tender was taken out by a crane and weight put on the davit system. (White hook) 

Edited July 8, 2019 by RichardQ

[RichardQ]

The same was done in Rotterdam tenderstation #8. As You can see on this webcam. So 3 tenders were out of order during this trip.

Edited July 8, 2019 by RichardQ

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, RichardQ said:

Nope. Not the tenderboat  was  tested. After maintenance was done The tender was taken out by a crane and weight put on the davit system. (White hook) 

 

Not sure why this required leaving the boats behind.  This is a pretty standard "weight test" done any time there is a repair to a boat davit or the wire is replaced.  Also, done every 5 years in drydock.  The weight equals 125% of the weight of a fully loaded boat.  Typically, with preparation, can be done during a port call.  Wonder why just the tenders, and wonder why out of schedule?  Did you see what kind of maintenance they did on the davit?

[RichardQ]

Welding was done. Only one tender was left behind and reunited in Rotterdam

[sammiedawg]

Richard Q, thanks for posting the written letter.  I never doubted your story but I notice some loyalists have gone radio silent.  

Faulty welding on multiple tenders is nothing to minimize.  

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, sammiedawg said:

Richard Q, thanks for posting the written letter.  I never doubted your story but I notice some loyalists have gone radio silent.  

Faulty welding on multiple tenders is nothing to minimize.  

And who said it was faulty?  At most, it was corroded to the minimum allowable thickness (which is still safe, since these class minimums allow a safety factor), and needed to be renewed. At a minimum, it could have been a part that needed to be replaced, that required parts of the davit to be cut away to access it, and rewelded back.  Love it when conclusions are jumped at.

[sammiedawg]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

And who said it was faulty?  At most, it was corroded to the minimum allowable thickness (which is still safe, since these class minimums allow a safety factor), and needed to be renewed. At a minimum, it could have been a part that needed to be replaced, that required parts of the davit to be cut away to access it, and rewelded back.  Love it when conclusions are jumped at.

 

As a lay person I draw the conclusion the welding was faulty.  But i defer to your nautical expertise. 

Ever read about the welding on thrill rides  breaking down after passing all government inspections?   

 

[bEwAbG]

I still don't understand why the passengers were expecting refunds for private excursions & itinerary changes, though. If you book non-refundable anything, that's on you.  The cruise line is always clear that ports can change, so why should one set of cruisers be treated any differently than the thousands of others that are affected in any given year?

[kazu]

2 minutes ago, bEwAbG said:

I still don't understand why the passengers were expecting refunds for private excursions & itinerary changes, though. If you book non-refundable anything, that's on you.  The cruise line is always clear that ports can change, so why should one set of cruisers be treated any differently than the thousands of others that are affected in any given year?

 

And that was my point.

 

the reviewers that feel they are entitled to compensation may wish to read this thread and this lady really  felt she was entitled.

 

https://www.elliott.org/blog/cruise-itinerary-changes-ruined-trip/

[kazu]

45 minutes ago, sammiedawg said:

some loyalists have gone radio silent.

 

Please don’t jump to assumptions or categorize people as loyalists when you don’t know if they are or not.

 

I will certainly object when things aren’t right but to expect compensation when the itinerary changes is not going to happen nor should be expected.

 

Oceania cancelled our overnight in Bermuda and we were stuck in Nassau.  I was VERY disappointed and din’t like it but I didn’t expect the ship to reimburse me for it.  

 

How long has it been since you sailed HAL now?  6 years?