100% Refund today on the QM2

[jerseygirl3]

I do believe the passengers were entitled to some compensation...but an entirely free cruise...give me a break!

[KruznKel]

We know a couple on this specific cruise.. who were going as far as Chile.. received a call from them today saying they disembarked in Rio.. not wanting to continue on .. the atmosphere on the ship was terrible:( (this was their 1st and probably last cruise) ... I understand missing your ports.. those pax are receiving 100% refund.. but they have since gone and ruined the rest of the cruise for the pax that were going further..:mad: Sorry just my 2 cents.. all about ME ME ME.. who cares about the others aboard.:rolleyes:

[travel-to-go]

Please do advise any upcoming cruises, so that we can avoid booking the same trip, as you are obviously a Jonah!

 

PS: I still remember the TV pictures of the Dupont Plaza on fire!

 

Didn't you see my offer of my travel newsletter? For 10 bucks a year, I tell you where I'm going and when, so you can avoid it!

 

I still remember the helicopters and fire engines. I was in a bar down the street having my first taste of Long Island Iced Tea (about5-6 different liquors.) I was feeling no pain. The fire engines and helicopters weren't quite registering right. then a friend ran in in his bathing suit (he had been at the pool) yelling the hotel's on fire. At first we (drunkenly) laughed, "Yeah, right!" then reality intruded. We went to a New Year's party at someone's home, then flew to St Thomas on a DC-3 the next morning, not realizing how bad it was, until we heard an English Language news broadcast in the airport returning. It still haunts me.

[travel-to-go]

We know a couple on this specific cruise.. who were going as far as Chile.. received a call from them today saying they disembarked in Rio.. not wanting to continue on .. the atmosphere on the ship was terrible:( (this was their 1st and probably last cruise) ... I understand missing your ports.. those pax are receiving 100% refund.. but they have since gone and ruined the rest of the cruise for the pax that were going further..:mad: Sorry just my 2 cents.. all about ME ME ME.. who cares about the others aboard.:rolleyes:

 

Now THAT is a terrible shame. Too bad they didn't stay, it will probaly be better after this. So sorry about your friends, though.

 

Karie

[3Boogity]

I do not intend on spending it bitching and complaining.

[Bramcruiser]

We know a couple on this specific cruise.. who were going as far as Chile.. received a call from them today saying they disembarked in Rio.. not wanting to continue on .. the atmosphere on the ship was terrible:( (this was their 1st and probably last cruise) ...

 

So sad to hear this. I think it would have only improved as the majority of the instigators sounded like they were disembarking in Rio. I think the cruise will now rejuvenate itself and I am sure they would have noticed a complete difference. Let them know that the outside world sympathizes with them and that we encourage them to do another cruise as this was definitely NOT the norm.

 

GO Toronto Maple Leafs! Couldn't resist.:)

[cruisin4eversezme]

You have probably not seen my posts on similar (but different subjects) For instance the cruise where the Captain sold our potable water to the island of Roatan (after hurricane Mitch devasted the area) so we had to stop in MEXICO (for a second time) to take on water, he sold our berth in Key West during Fantasy Fest (with ship-load of gay men from California who had taken this cruise expressly for that port and spent thousands on gowns for a drag parade) so we had to skip that port. A Scuba group was LITERALLY kidnapped by a rogue operator, taken out to the middle of nowhere and told they didn't have enough tanks and half of them were empty, so pay up if they wanted to get back to the ship. Very shortly thereafter the line went into bankruptcy, and that ship was "allegedly" scuttled. I viewed the pics Coast Guard rescue of the remaining crew at sea in fifty foot swells with tears streaming down my face. I was in touch with people on the Fantome as they were being off-loaded in Belize, and the remaining 34 souls on board were refused safety in Belize's Hurricane Hole so they went where they thought the lee of the storm would be on the far side of an island where they were presumably sent to their deaths. (RIP) Those people were friends of a friend of mine. I had almsot planned tobe on that ship. I was also on the 3 Jan cruise where we could not port in at the inaugural port of Puerto Moins, and could not make an alternate port. There were ony four ports scheduled on that 12 day cruise. So 1/4 of our itinerary was scuttled. I realize these are not quite the equivalent. I've had other ports scuttled, non-working toilets, soot in my shower, other things happen on other cruises. I take them in stride. How about the person who has posted here that she sat in FLL for four days last fall, at her own expense, only to find that her cruise was finally scrubbed due to Hurricane Wilma. She received ZERO compensation! and indeed, ate all of the money she had spent, plus the cost of her cruise. I have a lot of friends in the area, and was in a group that was the first group allowed back into the Keys afterward. Do you know how much damage the Fort Lauderdale area sustained? I do. I was there. Do you know how much damage the port sustained? I do not. That is one theory on how this incident happened. The channel may have shifted, and the QM2 may be (I do not know) the first really deep draft ship to use that channel since the storm. I have never EVER receieved any compensation for any of this, save $3.50 back (per person) for missing Costa Rica. It is not the passengers' right (nor would most understand) to know all of the deliberations that go into the decisions on what remedies to offer, and what changes must be made and alternate arrangemetns made. I've done a lot of digging on maritime law in the past week or so. It is by no means comprehensive, but I think I've got the gist of some of the basic tenets. I also have a friend who is licensed ship pilot, and works for Boston's Port Authority in an administrative capacity. He is not shy about propounding his views.

 

Wow, what a beautiful straw man you have built. I am impressed. So, if I follow the logic correctly, only in instances where your life is threatened, the ship is ready to be scuttled, or something close in severity should the cruise lines even consider compensation, or, is that even really the case? Given that you had the non-working toilets, soot in your showers and other problems of that nature and you did not receive any compensation, there is absolutely no basis for the QM2 passengers to receive compensation as well?

 

 

From my perspective, perspective is lacking. This is supposed to be a vacation, not an odyssey from hell. Everyone has different expectations of what their cruise should be. Some folks never leave their cabins the entire cruise. They just want to be left alone and not experience the outside world for a week or three. Others view a cruise as a more efficient way of visiting various countries and ports of call without having to book hotels and airfares at each of five different stops in a course of a week. For those people, ports of call **matter**. In some cases, specific ports of call are the basis for taking the cruise in the first place (cruises with diving excursions come to mind). When you try to force fit a “one size fits all” approach into how passengers should have their vacation modified or altered, then we disagree on things that follow from that point on. FYI, I do not specifically go on a cruise to take a whirlwind tour of devastated hurricane stricken areas; I go to have a **vacation**.

 

I do concede a point. I do not go on cruises looking for reasons to get compensation back from a cruise line. Sometimes the expectation does not match the reality. In those instances, I go with the flow. With the cruise we took in December, the beds were nothing more than a rack with a 4” foam “mattress”. I could not have cared less. I did not ask for an “egg carton”, nor would I have thought about it even if I knew such a thing existed. I have slept on a side of a rock before, so this was no big deal. Some of the food was not to my liking. Guess what? The things I did not like, I did not eat anymore. Many of the staff were perpetually clueless on basic things like following up on actions. No big deal, I go with the flow.

 

Where I see the difference is in how the cruise line set the tone for the entire cruise (the one we took, not the QM2). This particular cruise had five ports of call. We wanted to go to all five ports of call, but one port in particular was a dealmaker and the basis for selecting that particular cruise line, ship, and itinerary. We also found that other Americans who sailed on that very cruise had the exact same expectation as ours. They specifically went on **that ship, that cruise, that date** because of its last port of call, Libya. If you are unclear why folks wanted to see this country, check out this web site:

 

http://www.alnpete.co.uk/lepcis/about.html

 

In mid November, the cruise line knew that all Americans were going to be denied boarding at Tripoli. They admitted and knew this in writing after the cruise was over. They conveniently made lame excuses as to how and why they could not contact any of the American passengers. They stated they did not have any contact data, which is inherently false; it is required to be provided directly to the cruise line through their web site. Additionally, the letter they forwarded stating they notified the travel agent of this problem was never received by any of the American travel agents. In short, the cruise line decided unilaterally 3 weeks before the ship sailed that all American passengers would have a different cruise and a different vacation than the rest of the passengers. If they didn’t like it, too bad. Where I come from, we cal that a “bait and switch”. 180 American passengers were fuming when they were locked down on the ship at the port of Libya.

 

In terms of other arguments you made about “If a person feels a store is ripping them off, so feels justified in shoplifting”, that argument is a red herring. The remedy is in no realistic proportion to the fault.

 

You made a case about individually dealing with gripes versus the mob mentality (my words). Yes, that is the polite manner of doing things. Unfortunately, the cruise line opted to have an entire class of passengers deliberately mistreated. Can you expect anything less than that class of passengers to rise up against maltreatment? Where I come from we recognize early in life that there is strength in numbers. If not, collective bargaining would never have worked.

 

You also make the point about disembarking passengers back in Florida and some folks would have screamed bloody murder. This is entirely possible. There are no certain answers on that one. What is certain is that the ship was damaged; at best it was partially able to fulfill its intended design of getting passengers from various ports of call on time within published schedules. Of course, I could make another analogy on this as well. Would it be okay in your mind to fly with an airline who regularly does transatlantic flights on three engine airplanes with just two engines? Before you answer that, the question posed is not one of “if it happened while you crossed the Atlantic”. I am asking if you would be good with the idea of an airline starting off on a transatlantic flight with only two engines, knowing that the third is inoperative? Luckily for you, thought and an answer are not required. Both the FAA and the ICAO have dictated how that answer will play out. Why should a ship have any less of a safety margin? What if it needed to outrun that hurricane you so nicely mentioned above? Airlines get in big trouble when they place profit above safety; why should cruise lines be any different?

 

Regarding you other comment about sensational TV, I will only make this one rejoinder – do you dispute the essential facts of each of the presented cases? Did the individuals die, go overboard, etc. as depicted. As for how each of the respective cruise lines acted, I can see it playing out two possible ways and acknowledge that it could go either way. Nevertheless, I have personally been a party to having a cruise line deliberately lie to cover their ineptness and deliberate unscrupulous business practices.

 

Regarding your statements on ship’s power and ship design, I will have to take exception with your analysis. Although it is true that ships will have an upper usable limit for nautical speed (best speed), there is an exponential decrease in efficiency of the ship’s power to increase speed for power applied. It is basic fluid mechanics. Having studied that in both my undergraduate and graduate programs in mechanical engineering, ship design has not changed terribly much with regard to the basics. When the ship is designed, the ship’s design engineers know exactly what best speed can be achieved with one, two, three or four powerplants operational. That is part of initial sea trials to measure those characteristics. That is also why it is more economical to build ships as a “class” of ships. For example, Carnival has various ships in its inventory and the first ship within a certain displacement ton class is the moniker for that class, such as the “Destiny class” ship. This allows for future builds of that class to have lower R&D costs because the engineering analysis, performance specifications, and capabilities are already known. The US and other Navies operate and design ships in similar fashion as well. If the ship’s engineer had no clue what best speed was on his ship with three engines operational, he should not have been the ship’s engineer.

 

Finally, you mentioned that you were both geeks, both airline and helicopter pilots and know a little about the related subjects. I also would be considered a geek of sorts, having been a Cisco trainer for five years. I am also rated in the TH-55, Bell Jet Ranger, Bell 212, and Sikorsky UH-60, although I don’t fly as much as I used to in the early days. Based upon my knowledge of aviation, I would hardly say it makes me any kind of expert in nautical operations, not do I espouse to be an expert.

 

Again, here is my take on things. Somebody pranged the screw on the QM2. It doesn’t matter if it was a harbor pilot or the ship’s crew – it happened. Luckily it wasn’t a US Naval warship; generally the outcome is relief for cause of the captain of the ship. They spent a day or so attempting to evaluate the extent and nature of the damage and concluded that one screw and its supplying power plant would have to be taken off line. At that point, if they did not have the ship’s design manual, they could have readily obtained via satellite phone the best speed characteristics of ship in its present state. They knew the nautical miles they had to travel and what the time delta would be. Either every port would have been cut short or some ports of call would have to have been dropped off, it’s just that simple. I don’t have any problem with that basic analysis. Here’s where the hard choices have to be made. What facilities are available to make the repairs? Does it require extended dry dock, or can the repairs be made without dry dock? Depending upon the answer to that question will dictate the available courses of action. If I were king, I would have flown the design engineers of that ship to do an in depth analysis of the extent of the damage and what was need to get it fully operational again. That represents a safety issue.

 

Once all the facts were clear, I would get with the home office via satellite phone and discuss courses of action. In my mind they might be as follows:

 

• Cancel the voyage now and proceed at best speed to dry dock facilities. Refund all passenger’s expenses and apologize for the inconvenience. Sell it as a **safety issue**. Most folks would likely be good with that idea, save for the cruise line. It would heavily impact their bottom line. Do this in a public forum on the ship and have it presented from the ship’s captain.
  
• Explain the damage to the passengers. Offer them two options. Option one will be to sail to the next port of call whereby the cruise line will meet them and arrange to have them flown home and they will receive a full refund. For those who want to continue the voyage, they can sail the voyage and receive either a 50% refund on their existing cruise (due to the loss of contracted services), or possibly receive a coupon rebate of 65-75% discount on a future cruise sailing. The intent there would be to minimize the financial loss for the cruise line, minimize the PR problems, get the people off the ship who don’t want to be there and treat those who do want to be there as compensated and satisfied customers.
  
• FORCE all passengers to do what the cruise line wants. DICTATE to them the terms of their compensation (if any). D o not give them any CHOICE in compensation. FORCE a PR fiasco.

Maybe there are other permutations, but those are some possibilities that come to mind. Given that option 3 was the only course of action the cruise line considered, is it any wonder 1,500 passengers rebelled? By the way, course of action 3 appears to be a common theme among many of the cruise lines. Nobody likes to have others dictate the terms of their loss. Nobody likes to be kept in the dark or misled. This is basic human relations 101 stuff.

 

Okay, off my soap box now…

[carlmm]

odyssey from hell.

 

That's exactly the one important point why I (and I guess many more people) regard the behaviour and opinion of many people on board as just totally inappropriate.

Sorry, what exactly of their living conditions on board was "from hell"?

They missed something they liked to see, thus some compensation might be in order (Yet I did not demand any when Costa Rica was cancelled on our cruise.), and a few passengers might have individual circumstances that make it especially hard.

But it is very sad, that so many people act as if they had to suffer under unhuman, terrible conditions for twelve long days.

All the staffs and crews effort not worth a penny? All the ship totally different from what advertised? All the food below standard? All the facilities destroyed? .... Nothing worth even 50% of the cruise fare?

 

I'am sad that once again unicivilized behaviour and mob attutide won.

[Bramcruiser]

I'am sad that once again unicivilized behaviour and mob attutide won.

 

Exactly. With people starving in Africa and wars going on in parts of the world, being forced to stay onboard a ship with fine dining and booze is not such a bad thing especially since you're ending up where you were supposed to be going in the first place. It was the inexcuseable behaviour of a few who were disappointed that really made the whole issue sickening. Reality got lost back where the azipod first got hit and the people and not the situation itself gone from bad to ugly.

 

Just hoping that its all a bad memory by the time December rolls around and I can get on with my QM2 vacation without anyone mentioning this episode. If I get service I will definitely be tipping the hard working staff that got the brunt of the brutality for no reasons other than being there.

[travel-to-go]

if I follow the logic correctly, only in instances where your life is threatened, the ship is ready to be scuttled, or something close in severity should the cruise lines even consider compensation,

 

Wow!

C4ESM (much easier than typing out your screenmane<G>)

First. let me say that I hope you and I find ourselves on the same cruise some day. I should very much like to meet you. Although we are on semi-opposite ends of this issue (but not really) I think I would very much like you.

 

That said- I never said they should receive no compensation. I have maintained two things, throughout my "arguments." 1) SOME of the passengers behaved like spoiled brats 2) They have frequently twisted facts, made them up to suit their arguments, and vociferously and positively accused Cunard of patently and deliberately lying. I have merely offered allternative explanations for the angry passengers' presentations of the "facts" which they are so sure of, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I do not like it when people are dead certain in their accusatory modes, allowing only black and white, no room for grey. In their minds, Cunard can only be lily white or pure evil. I think Cunard may have been overly optimistic, and may have had to take into account things that we (and the passengers) could not possibly be cognizant of. Nor are we entitled to know every detail of how they run their business and their ship. The third concept I have "preached" in the last few days is that in no way do I believe that every passenger (maybe even ANY passenger) should have received a full "cruise" of (however many days, depending on their point of embarkation, NYC or FLL) AND 100% reimbursement for that cruise, and any air they may have boooked on their own.

 

As for persective, I like cruises with a medium number of ports, like to learn about the culture, people, ecology, history, architecture, etc of the places I visit, but also love the relaxation of days at sea. I do, however, try to roll with the punches when things go disappointingly wrong. I was on a ship during Hurricane Isabel. We simply altered our path, which our friends who got hit (in the Chesapeake Bay area) could not. No harm. no foul. Likewise, we were among the first ships allowed into Grand Cayman when she opened her port after the devastation of Ivan. I have friends there. I followed the hurricane and its aftermath extensively The government of GC was not forthcoming about the true nature of the damage there. They refused some help, and kept other help from being offered (not everyone on GC is fabulously wealthy from offshore banking, you know.) because they did not want the tourism and investment worlds to know how extensive the damage was. BTW, Royal Caribbean immediately sent a ship full of food and potable water to the Island. They were the only cruiseline to do so, with no expectation of anything in return. They did it because it was the right thing to do. Although I have grave misgivings about some of the philosophies of the government of GC, I wanted to go because I wanted to help in some small way to support their economy and to spread the word. And yes, I have participated in fundraisers to help those who are helping the poor and the workers of GC, feeding them and housing them while they rebuild. The musician in the movie "The Firm" is a friend of mine. He has run several fund raisers from the states where he now lives.

 

I think your experience with the cruise that knowingly did not allow you to disembark in Tripoli is deplorable. Although I might have approached that with skepticism in the first place, they did essentially advertise a product which they seemingly knew they could not provide. Did you receive any compensation at all? B/C me, if you'd like the name of a law firm that takes on a lot of these maritime and cruiseline cases (That I have found in researching the legalities of this mess- I am not one to sue, but if you wish to pursue it, I will give you that information.) parrothead-av8r AT mindspring DOT com, BTW, my dream is to visit Cuba before it is re-opened to Americans and we ruin it like every other Caribbean Island we have set foot on- How long before there will be a McDonalds, Diamond International and Columbian Emeralds on the Malecon. And I have a number of friends who have gotten around the US laws. I almost got to go a few years ago, legally, with an educational license. Another friend ran the last Cuban Regatta. Treasury threatened to take his sailboat and fine him, despite the fact the brought their own food and slept on their boats. So yes, I understand the draw of Tripoli.

 

As for mob mentality and collective bargainng, I have been in a union for 27 years. In some respects, I don't like the directions some Unions have taken, and don't like mine, particularly, since it was taken over by a larger union, but I do recognize the value. It gives me a modicum of job security, though not much. But there are right ways and wrong ways to do collective bargaining. For instance, sabotage while on strike is patently wrong. One can bargain without compromising yourself and others. Some of what some of those passengers did was, in my opinion, wrong. Period.

 

I am impressed with your grasp of fluid mechanics. What do you do for a living, if I may ask? You're better than I am! I am going by some of the posts on here by those knowledgeable on the subject!

As for your ratings, I am duly impressed. I am not rotary wing rated, only have a limited number of hours. Marc was a CFI in Robbies (Robinson R-22, before the R-44 came out) I own a 1956 C-172. (Airplane, not airline!) I'm assuming you have military training? Not cheap to get checked out in those craft! Cisco- we both have experience in related areas. I think we would get along fine! Do b/c me. I'd love to chat~!

 

Your suggestions for possible courses of action are well thought out. I don't know what went into making the choice Cunard did. Obviously, they screwed up. It ended up costing them much more than if they had been more circumspect to begin with. On the other hand, it's much easier to see what you would have done if you were thinking more clearly in retrospect, and with the knowledge of the reaction of the passengers. Perhaps they thought, in light of the stated disclaimers on the tickets and past experience, (after all, we got no recompense on the cruise just prior for our missed port!) that offering what they did would fly. Why give away the house, if you can just get away with a couple of rooms? Obviously, in hindsight, they were wrong. Now they have gotten themselves into a bind. If they now give in to "bulllying" they set a precedent for the future on how passengers should react to such a situation to get what they want.

 

And, BTW, Thank you for taking SOME of the pressure off of me for being the most prolific writer on the boards! <G>

 

Karie, Who is impressed, and thinks she'd like you in person!

[lk4xits]

Hi Andreas, Please send our love to Danielle. Hi Karie and Marc. Its really time to move on. Love you all and would love to cruise with you again.

 

We are on RCCL Jewel of the Seas June 7th out of Harwich for Scandanavia and St Petersburg. As I said yesterday, its over for us let the QM2 do its thing and lets see how the next leg of the QM2 voyage goes. QE2 is in my future.

 

Karie you will probably need James Frey and Oprah to help you with your memoirs. You have a huge book of exciting,unusual and often not too pleasant memories. BTW I have pictures of you and Marc from the masked and Pirate Balls which I will give you when we see you next.

 

Andreas, I never did mention that Danielle told me how the two of you met, great story.

 

Have a great day and keep me informed re travel plans. We are looking at South America, Chile and Argentina for Late December. Could be Celebrity or HAL or by land not sure.

 

Hugs from Greta,

 

Marty:)

[travel-to-go]

Its really time to move on.

We are on RCCL Jewel of the Seas June 7th out of Harwich for Scandanavia and St Petersburg. QE2 is in my future.

 

You have a huge book of exciting,unusual and often not too pleasant memories. BTW I have pictures of you and Marc from the masked and Pirate Balls which I will give you when we see you next.

 

Have a great day and keep me informed re travel plans. We are looking at South America, Chile and Argentina for Late December. Could be Celebrity or HAL or by land not sure.

 

Hugs from Greta,

 

Marty:)

 

Yes, Marty- I keep telling myself that- But you know me! Shy and reticent- A regular wallflower! <LOL>

June doesn't seem do-able. Too soon for us, and we have a big long weekend coming up end of March. I have always longed to do the South America route at some point, but it just hasn't seemed viable, between cost and time- It is so difficult for us to take a large chunk of time all at once. I have the books for QM2/QE2 world 2007, in addition to a few other lines plans. We haven't done Celebrity yet, but I always wanted to check them out. Of course we have several HAL trips. Our next is a medal cruise.

 

I'm still following Jack's blog- Seems he won the Trivia last night!

As for my experiences and memories- No, I don't consider them unpleasant. Although some were upsetting at the time, they make great tales, great memories. Each bout of adversity creates growth, IMHO. I don't regret any of it. All contributed to making me what I am today! (Some might not necessarily see that as a good thing! <G>)

We look forward to seeing yoou and Greta this summer and hope to see some of our other cruise friends, too! Maybe on a crossing, who knows! But we definitely will make plans to get together this summer.

 

Love to you both, and Nat and Marion

 

Karie,

Who, more than anything, values the friendships made, the experiences shared.

[mufi]

Many of the passengers who are continuing on from Rio will be glad to be rid of the whingers who are leaving there, right? I wonder if they will be glad to receive the double compensation obtained for them by the complainers?

 

Or maybe they will refuse it and ask Cunard to put it towards the repair bill.

 

David.

[cruisin4eversezme]

Wow!

C4ESM (much easier than typing out your screenmane<G>)

First. let me say that I hope you and I find ourselves on the same cruise some day. I should very much like to meet you. Although we are on semi-opposite ends of this issue (but not really) I think I would very much like you.

 

That said- I never said they should receive no compensation. I have maintained two things, throughout my "arguments." 1) SOME of the passengers behaved like spoiled brats 2) They have frequently twisted facts, made them up to suit their arguments, and vociferously and positively accused Cunard of patently and deliberately lying. I have merely offered allternative explanations for the angry passengers' presentations of the "facts" which they are so sure of, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I do not like it when people are dead certain in their accusatory modes, allowing only black and white, no room for grey. In their minds, Cunard can only be lily white or pure evil. I think Cunard may have been overly optimistic, and may have had to take into account things that we (and the passengers) could not possibly be cognizant of. Nor are we entitled to know every detail of how they run their business and their ship. The third concept I have "preached" in the last few days is that in no way do I believe that every passenger (maybe even ANY passenger) should have received a full "cruise" of (however many days, depending on their point of embarkation, NYC or FLL) AND 100% reimbursement for that cruise, and any air they may have boooked on their own.

Okay, I can understand your position and arguments.

 

As for persective, I like cruises with a medium number of ports, like to learn about the culture, people, ecology, history, architecture, etc of the places I visit, but also love the relaxation of days at sea. I do, however, try to roll with the punches when things go disappointingly wrong. I was on a ship during Hurricane Isabel. We simply altered our path, which our friends who got hit (in the Chesapeake Bay area) could not. No harm. no foul.

Likewise, when we sailed on the Holiday in 1987, we reversed our itinerary and sailed on the back side of a hurricane. No biggie, save for the night the ship was tossing so bad, I had to sit flat on the floor to put my pants on :-)

 

 

Likewise, we were among the first ships allowed into Grand Cayman when she opened her port after the devastation of Ivan. I have friends there. I followed the hurricane and its aftermath extensively The government of GC was not forthcoming about the true nature of the damage there. They refused some help, and kept other help from being offered (not everyone on GC is fabulously wealthy from offshore banking, you know.) because they did not want the tourism and investment worlds to know how extensive the damage was. BTW, Royal Caribbean immediately sent a ship full of food and potable water to the Island. They were the only cruiseline to do so, with no expectation of anything in return. They did it because it was the right thing to do. Although I have grave misgivings about some of the philosophies of the government of GC, I wanted to go because I wanted to help in some small way to support their economy and to spread the word. And yes, I have participated in fundraisers to help those who are helping the poor and the workers of GC, feeding them and housing them while they rebuild. The musician in the movie "The Firm" is a friend of mine. He has run several fund raisers from the states where he now lives.

My charitable causes tend to be a little bit more direct and personal. Still, I applaud your efforts.

 

I think your experience with the cruise that knowingly did not allow you to disembark in Tripoli is deplorable. Although I might have approached that with skepticism in the first place, they did essentially advertise a product which they seemingly knew they could not provide. Did you receive any compensation at all?

Sure, they gave up a whopping $50. Most of the 180 Americans considered it more of an insult.

 

 

B/C me, if you'd like the name of a law firm that takes on a lot of these maritime and cruiseline cases (That I have found in researching the legalities of this mess- I am not one to sue, but if you wish to pursue it, I will give you that information.) parrothead-av8r AT mindspring DOT com,

Nah, when you sue, the only ones that win are the lawyers. If anything in these types of torts, coupon settlements are the norm. It's not worth the hassle.

 

BTW, my dream is to visit Cuba before it is re-opened to Americans and we ruin it like every other Caribbean Island we have set foot on- How long before there will be a McDonalds, Diamond International and Columbian Emeralds on the Malecon. And I have a number of friends who have gotten around the US laws. I almost got to go a few years ago, legally, with an educational license. Another friend ran the last Cuban Regatta. Treasury threatened to take his sailboat and fine him, despite the fact the brought their own food and slept on their boats. So yes, I understand the draw of Tripoli.

Well, technically, the country of Tripoli is now officially our bestest goodest buddies (to use the Forrest Gump vernacular) ever since they renounced terrorism in April 2004. Only time will tell.

 

As for mob mentality and collective bargainng, I have been in a union for 27 years. In some respects, I don't like the directions some Unions have taken, and don't like mine, particularly, since it was taken over by a larger union, but I do recognize the value. It gives me a modicum of job security, though not much. But there are right ways and wrong ways to do collective bargaining. For instance, sabotage while on strike is patently wrong. One can bargain without compromising yourself and others. Some of what some of those passengers did was, in my opinion, wrong. Period.

Well, I don't have all of the details on what they did. That is the crux of the matter. We will likely never know the complete story. Even on our voyage, there was a lot of information that was withheld. We have already found out that one of the principals that many of the 180 Americans had dealt with is no longer with the cruise line...hmm...

 

I am impressed with your grasp of fluid mechanics. What do you do for a living, if I may ask?

If I said I fliiped burgers, would you think less of me ;-) I work for Uncle Sugar's Army. In my capacity, I have on occasion flown the aforementioned aircraft, including as a test pilot.

 

You're better than I am! I am going by some of the posts on here by those knowledgeable on the subject!

As for your ratings, I am duly impressed. I am not rotary wing rated, only have a limited number of hours. Marc was a CFI in Robbies (Robinson R-22, before the R-44 came out) I own a 1956 C-172. (Airplane, not airline!) I'm assuming you have military training?

From FT Rucker, circa 1984. Now I show my age...

 

Not cheap to get checked out in those craft! Cisco- we both have experience in related areas. I think we would get along fine! Do b/c me. I'd love to chat~!

Teaching Cisco was good and I enjoyed it a lot. Unfortunately, travel was an occuptaional hazard. The pay was not too shabby either. Unfortunately, I put that on hold once this little development surfaced at the World Trade Center in September 2001...

 

Your suggestions for possible courses of action are well thought out. I don't know what went into making the choice Cunard did. Obviously, they screwed up. It ended up costing them much more than if they had been more circumspect to begin with. On the other hand, it's much easier to see what you would have done if you were thinking more clearly in retrospect, and with the knowledge of the reaction of the passengers. Perhaps they thought, in light of the stated disclaimers on the tickets and past experience, (after all, we got no recompense on the cruise just prior for our missed port!) that offering what they did would fly. Why give away the house, if you can just get away with a couple of rooms? Obviously, in hindsight, they were wrong. Now they have gotten themselves into a bind. If they now give in to "bulllying" they set a precedent for the future on how passengers should react to such a situation to get what they want.

Luckily, one of the nice advantages in my current line of work is thinking under pressure and lots of it :-) I am expected to make sound decisions with little information available and not risk people's lives.

 

In my line of work we also have a saying, "bad news does not get better over time"... Cunard should have thought all this out and covered all of the bases. The ship wasn't sinking, they had the time to think this through. That's why they get paid the bigs bucks.

 

And, BTW, Thank you for taking SOME of the pressure off of me for being the most prolific writer on the boards! <G>

 

Karie, Who is impressed, and thinks she'd like you in person!

You're welcome.

[travel-to-go]

the ship was tossing so bad, I had to sit flat on the floor to put my pants on :-)

Sounds like a personal problem <G>

My charitable causes tend to be a little bit more direct and personal. Still, I applaud your efforts.

Oh, I do plenty up close and personal- Done a couple of days on Habitat for Humanity- Did some things in Key West to help out, Xmas in April, Lots of stuff. Parrotheads "party with a purpose!" We do lots of volunteer and charitable stuff. It's part of what we do!

Nah, when you sue, the only ones that win are the lawyers. If anything in these types of torts, coupon settlements are the norm. It's not worth the hassle.

My sentiments per-zactly!

If I said I fliiped burgers, would you think less of me ;-) I work for Uncle Sugar's Army. In my capacity, I have on occasion flown the aforementioned aircraft, including as a test pilot.

Nope. It's honest work! I live near Pratt and Whitney (Connecticut) One of our jump pilots in our skydiving club was a test pilot for them (he died a couple of years back... fortunately of old age- But he had a few close ones! Still has a few standing records!

From FT Rucker, circa 1984. Now I show my age...

I started flying in 1969. I was 2 (just kidding!) I'm older than you!

Luckily, one of the nice advantages in my current line of work is thinking under pressure and lots of it :-) I am expected to make sound decisions with little information available and not risk people's lives.

Yep- I rarely risk people's lives, but it's the constant thinking on my feet, learning, pressure that keeps me alive. And makes me appreciate my cruises even more (Okay, I did spend some time on the cell phone in St Thomas and Panama trying to "take care o' bidness")

 

We definitely have to meet one of these days. And I think you and Marc would like each other too. Keep us informed of your cruising plans. No promises- but who knows! (Of course I'm also trying to coordinate with a couple of other cruisers!

 

Karie