Ovation of the Seas back in Sydney today 16 Dec

[cruisine21]

I know people who were on the Ovation. They didn’t have any issues with the captain or crew. They were happy with the way things were handled due to the horrific incident. 

[gbenjo]

7 hours ago, 2Tack said:

Simply they had the time to continue the itinerary and chose not to. They were never going to be back 2 days late and anyone who says that was going to happen is either a liar or plain stupid. Adding the hours at Wellington and then the Picton stop was ridiculous. If anything Wellington could've been missed and the rest of the trip continued.

 

Frankly I'm amazed that all those who weren't on this ship of doom with no personal knowledge of how RC and the captain kept the flea markets going and skipped the major draw of the cruise wish to defend them.

 

Anyone who was there and has knowledge of the Captain and officers lack of interest in the welfare of the rest of the passengers and outright neglect of their duty to keep passengers and crew informed while they wallowed in self pity, especially after RC had been trying to flog the fatal shore excursion, have been disgusted by it and all those supporting RC and captain with no idea of the facts should accept they don't know what they are talking about and be quiet. RC is profit driven and demonstrated this clearly in this instance with the dollars and protection of the brand being put first and foremost. 

So all those  other passengers, and there seems to be a lot of them, who were on the ship and say that the captain did a good job  are all   (according to you ) lying ?  Why is your version of things more valid than others?

[sr4mjc]

9 hours ago, cruisine21 said:

I know people who were on the Ovation. They didn’t have any issues with the captain or crew. They were happy with the way things were handled due to the horrific incident. 

 

Same.  I had friends on this cruise and we were in contact the whole time and I heard not a single complaint about how things were handled.  And we've cruised many times together, one of our cruises involved a crew member who jumped overboard which caused delays (Oasis).  

[Haoie]

Anyone else who had first hand experience want to chime in?

[The_Big_M]

14 hours ago, 2Tack said:

They were never going to be back 2 days late and anyone who says that was going to happen is either a liar or plain stupid. Adding the hours at Wellington and then the Picton stop was ridiculous. If anything Wellington could've been missed and the rest of the trip continued.

 

 

So your attack is because you would prefer the Sounds over Wellington, and skip Wellington to make up time spent at Tauranga.

 

What makes your view right and anyone else who actually preferred Wellington wrong? Since you could no longer have it all.

[2Tack]

49 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

So your attack is because you would prefer the Sounds over Wellington, and skip Wellington to make up time spent at Tauranga.

 

What makes your view right and anyone else who actually preferred Wellington wrong? Since you could no longer have it all.

So first question is were you on the cruise? My guess is no you weren't. So in reality your opinion in null and void but to humour you even guest services who had to deal with the inco.petent and weak captain's decision admitted that the majority of passengers were unhappy with the changed itinerary.  

 

Wellington was only ever a short day and Picton was an absolute waste of time. There was time to do the itinerary as we signed up for and there was no issue with weather as the other RC ship was heading down south the next day. 

 

Really everyone who "Had a friend on the cruise" or "I heard on the news people were happy with the captain" are talking rubbish. The captain hid after his decision, demonstrated zero leadership or concern for the passengers on the ship and RC needs to be held to account for there incompetence. 

[2Tack]

55 minutes ago, Haoie said:

Anyone else who had first hand experience want to chime in?

They don't want first hand experience because that doesn't fit their narrative. 

[2Tack]

7 hours ago, gbenjo said:

So all those  other passengers, and there seems to be a lot of them, who were on the ship and say that the captain did a good job  are all   (according to you ) lying ?  Why is your version of things more valid than others?

Wow you must have been good to get on and speak to everyone to get that info. The captain was incompetent 

[MicCanberra]

49 minutes ago, 2Tack said:

Wow you must have been good to get on and speak to everyone to get that info. The captain was incompetent 

Laughable to criticise them over representing their cruise passengers and yet you claim to represent everyone on your cruise. I think there may be more than one incompetent person aside from your claim of it being the captain.

[2Tack]

15 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Laughable to criticise them over representing their cruise passengers and yet you claim to represent everyone on your cruise. I think there may be more than one incompetent person aside from your claim of it being the captain.

What's laughable is people who weren't there putting their 20 cents worth in. Remember it was the crew members telling passengers initially that the captain wasn't coping and then he went awol. They provided zero support to passengers apart from a generic go see your gp handout. If you think thats acceptable you truly have no idea. 

[strathnaver]

I've refrained from weighing in since I saw (and was frankly shocked and stunned) by the post we are all referring to on Monday night. And no, I was not on the cruise but that doesn't disqualify me from trying to accept or reject differing reports from people who were. Nor having an opinion.

 

Royal Caribbean were damned if they did and damned if they didn't from the moment the accident happened with regard to almost everything - itinerary (? continuing even), onboard activities (? fun), updating frequency , etc. We at home (in fact globally) were exposed to a barrage of information, coming out more quickly than the journalists were able to get right. I haven't see anything, including here, which suggests the captain was incompetent. 

 

As well as for some passengers, being a port still important to them,  continuing to Wellington may have been necessary as a refueling and re-provisioning point. 

 

The White Island tour (which I have done, from a land-based trip) is not an "adrenaline junkie" activity. It is an extraordinary experience. A quarter of a million people have visited it over three decades without incident - until now. While nobody would be under any illusion that volcanoes cannot be dangerous (it's in the waiver that you sign), so are many other activities we do on a daily basis, e.g. driving on the roads. They had full and reasonable expectation to return back to the ship unharmed but 2Tack wants to blame them for their own deaths AND particularly, upsetting his plans.

 

As we all know, you don't have to cruise for too long to miss ports you were keen to visit. It in the contract. And it is disappointing, I would say with some ports for every passenger on a particular cruise. It happens for many reasons - one of mine was a mischievous or malicious rumour from onshore of an Anthrax risk (later disproven).  How much more a reason is that 40+ of your fellow passengers were killed or critically injured?

 

2Tack, I am now honestly concerned about your apparent lack of compassion for those people, who were doing the same as you except for choice of tour, and their families. I do empathise that you feel that you should be better compensated for what you missed out on through no fault of your own. I also think there could be more of an impact of what happened on and to your cruise than you realise - perhaps you should talk to somebody about it, rather that rant anonymously on here. 

 

 

[Cruzbear24]

Well said Strathnaver. I would be interested to know 2Tack's cruising history to try and understand how he has decided the Captain is incompetent.

[2Tack]

6 minutes ago, strathnaver said:

I've refrained from weighing in since I saw (and was frankly shocked and stunned) by the post we are all referring to on Monday night. And no, I was not on the cruise but that doesn't disqualify me from trying to accept or reject differing reports from people who were. Nor having an opinion.

 

Royal Caribbean were damned if they did and damned if they didn't from the moment the accident happened with regard to almost everything - itinerary (? continuing even), onboard activities (? fun), updating frequency , etc. We at home (in fact globally) were exposed to a barrage of information, coming out more quickly than the journalists were able to get right. I haven't see anything, including here, which suggests the captain was incompetent. 

 

As well as for some passengers, being a port still important to them,  continuing to Wellington may have been necessary as a refueling and re-provisioning point. 

 

The White Island tour (which I have done, from a land-based trip) is not an "adrenaline junkie" activity. It is an extraordinary experience. A quarter of a million people have visited it over three decades without incident - until now. While nobody would be under any illusion that volcanoes cannot be dangerous (it's in the waiver that you sign), so are many other activities we do on a daily basis, e.g. driving on the roads. They had full and reasonable expectation to return back to the ship unharmed but 2Tack wants to blame them for their own deaths AND particularly, upsetting his plans.

 

As we all know, you don't have to cruise for too long to miss ports you were keen to visit. It in the contract. And it is disappointing, I would say with some ports for every passenger on a particular cruise. It happens for many reasons - one of mine was a mischievous or malicious rumour from onshore of an Anthrax risk (later disproven).  How much more a reason is that 40+ of your fellow passengers were killed or critically injured?

 

2Tack, I am now honestly concerned about your apparent lack of compassion for those people, who were doing the same as you except for choice of tour, and their families. I do empathise that you feel that you should be better compensated for what you missed out on through no fault of your own. I also think there could be more of an impact of what happened on and to your cruise than you realise - perhaps you should talk to somebody about it, rather that rant anonymously on here. 

 

 

People make decisions and the consequences of those regions cannot be ignored. Your misrepresentation of numbers doesn't do you any favours and there was no need to refuel or add provisions at Wellington which initially was a very quick stop. 

 

There is no defense for the captain actions which included a very poor level of communication originally which turned to zero communication once he made his decision was made to change the itinerary.  

 

He had the means to broadcast an explanation via the internal tv channel and a decent and competent leader would've had one or more presentations with an open floor to answer questions regarding his decision.  RC could have easily provided on board counsellors, especially for the kids, but that was too hard

 They could of also assisted any passenger who wanted to go home immediately via plane. 

 

I have decades of experience in managing and dealing with critical incidents and emergencies, hands on experience with the dead and the dying and frankly have no time for some weak impostor who found it so confronting that he could not perform his duties appropriately or even have the stomach to attend the Maori ceremony. I suppose that's the difference between me and you, I was there, I have experience and knowledge in these things and you and the others here have led a sheltered existence and lead the arm chair experts brigade.

[2Tack]

4 minutes ago, Cruzbear24 said:

Well said Strathnaver. I would be interested to know 2Tack's cruising history to try and understand how he has decided the Captain is incompetent.

Easy, failed as a leader and ran away from his responsibilities and consequences of his decisions. Leaving the guest services staff to field the questions of the large lines of disgruntled passengers is a disgrace.

[strathnaver]

19 minutes ago, 2Tack said:

• broadcast an explanation via the internal tv channel
• one or more presentations with an open floor to answer questions regarding his decision 
• RC could have easily provided on board counsellors
• could of also assisted any passenger who wanted to go home immediately via plane. 
• attend the Maori ceremony

Look, I agree with all the above around how things could have been done better. Hopefully lessons learnt (but even more that there'll not ever be a next time).

Unfortunately, I feel you've buried those constructive criticisms under the question of fair compensation for yourself and a whirlwind of angst against the captain, officers, cruise line, posters here (but hey, that is fair game - this is a forum 😉) and even it seemed to me, the victims. The latter was the reason for my last paragraph - which looks like what RC's sheet also suggested. 

 

I have decades of experience in managing and dealing with critical incidents and emergencies, hands on experience with the dead and the dying

Interesting that you said this. As you know, this sort of experience does have impact on people in many sorts of ways - I'll just leave my suggestion out there.

[Brisbane41]

On 12/16/2019 at 5:55 PM, 2Tack said:

I just got home from this cruise. The facts are that the captain was pathetic and lacked any leadership.  He gave 2 updates a day initially but when he decided to cut our cruise in half without reason or explanation  he then went missing. 

 

As sad as it is for those that chose to visit an active volcano, they made that decision and must bear responsibility of that decision. It is unreasonable to remove the second half of the cruise without cause disadvantaging the bulk of passengers. If anyone on the cruise wanted to go home they could avail themselves of the airport and head off.  

 

There was no issues with weather, there was plenty of time and it was straight out a disgraceful action robbing the majority of passengers of the experiences that they paid for. A paltry $112 refund per person does not make up for this decision by the Captain and Royal Caribbean. 

 

Add to this the Captain not attending the ceremony by local Maori people conducted as a healing activity and his straight out avoidance of taking of responsibility for his decision, leaving guest  services to explain to disgruntled passengers his decision, demonstrates his lack of leadership and lack of fitness for the role of captain of a ship that size. 

I would dare say the Captain would have been tied up dealing with corporate headquarters and people higher up the chain of command and was probably pushed to the limit. You cannot blame him for what he does and does not do until you live a day in his life and experience the workload. That is a totally unfair assessment.

 

The truth is in my opinion that Ovation of the Seas carries around 4,180 passengers. If for argument sake 80 people did that excursion then that is 1.9% of the entire passenger complement. As I see it the vast majority of passengers would not have been effected by the incident at all. The vast majority would have been else where. Even at best estimates not even 5% of the total passengers would have been effected.

 

Sad as it is the remaining passengers did have a holiday they paid to enjoy. It may have been out of Royal Caribbean's hands as to how long they stayed in port and it might have been New Zealand authorities dictating this or a combination of discussions between Royal Caribbean and New Zealand authorities.

 

In my opinion with people on holidays and at least 95% of passengers who were not personally involved in the incident, there would be no reason to ruin their holidays with announcements of grief and tragedy.

 

Compensation wise if Royal Caribbean was operating authorised ships excursions to that island then they should probably come up with some scheme to compensate those who missed out ports advertised to some extent. If not then it is just bad luck. Seeing the media here is seems that New Zealand may have some obscure laws making their government responsible for compensation so I dare say the best bet is chasing them up.

 

Yeah I agree that the cruise was ruined for the rest of the passengers. Probably not Royal Caribbeans fault so just check up on who was responsible for making sure the ship stayed in port.

 

Also the ceremony is a thing that the Captain should not have been obligated to attend. He was probably busy with other formalities taking up precious time. With less than 5% of the passengers actually effected why should the Captain be obligated to attend religious ceremonies.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

Having been on Ovation nearly a year ago to the day...and traveling to New Zealand on a 10 day itinerary...we can strongly relate and empathize with those who experienced this tragedy from any perspective onboard.

 

Given these same circumstances...and no one here except passengers onboard can rightfully criticize anything on this sad cruise from afar without direct knowledge...there is no doubt that upon the event occurring...Royal Caribbean headquarters was leading all decisions. Second-guessing their choices on standing by onsite during the event to assist any affected passengers and later cutting the cruise short is fruitless and ridiculous.

 

It was a terrible tragedy that clearly had risks like any volcano-based excursion. Those who perished or were injured deserve condolences and empathy. It's embarrassing to read posts by any cruisers who choose to seek blame, criticize others, and second-guess everything.

 

All the Monday-morning quarterbacking in posts here is exceptionally disappointing and foolish.

[Brisbane41]

8 minutes ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

Having been on Ovation nearly a year ago to the day...and traveling to New Zealand on a 10 day itinerary...we can strongly relate and empathize with those who experienced this tragedy from any perspective onboard.

 

Given these same circumstances...and no one here except passengers onboard can rightfully criticize anything on this sad cruise from afar without direct knowledge...there is no doubt that upon the event occurring...Royal Caribbean headquarters was leading all decisions. Second-guessing their choices on standing by onsite during the event to assist any affected passengers and later cutting the cruise short is fruitless and ridiculous.

 

It was a terrible tragedy that clearly had risks like any volcano-based excursion. Those who perished or were injured deserve condolences and empathy. It's embarrassing to read posts by any cruisers who choose to seek blame, criticize others, and second-guess everything.

 

All the Monday-morning quarterbacking in posts here is exceptionally disappointing and foolish.

Not only that and much like my earlier post above, I dare say the companies lawyers would have been onto the Captain straight away about what he can say and cannot say, what he can do and cannot do and he would have been advised to stick to his job of navigating the ship. Although he is the Captain his expertise is in seamanship and navigation and managing the crew of which he has a team of officers delegated to exercise authority.

 

There would have been very little the Captain could have done. I think some criticisms of Captains are completely unnecessary. They are simply the highest ranking navigator on the ship qualified to lead. It seems to me that many people think Captains are qualified to do thinks or deal with things that are beyond their scope of professional expertise.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

1 minute ago, Brisbane41 said:

Not only that and much like my earlier post above, I dare say the companies lawyers would have been onto the Captain straight away about what he can say and cannot say, what he can do and cannot do and he would have been advised to stick to his job of navigating the ship. Although he is the Captain his expertise is in seamanship and navigation and managing the crew of which he has a team of officers delegated to exercise authority.

 

There would have been very little the Captain could have done. I think some criticisms of Captains are completely unnecessary. They are simply the highest ranking navigator on the ship qualified to lead. It seems to me that many people think Captains are qualified to do thinks or deal with things that are beyond their scope of professional expertise.

Indeed.  Well said.

[sr4mjc]

Apparently there was supposed to be a time where the Captain was going to talk to the guests and address complaints, in the theater I believe, but it was cancelled at the last minute with no explanation.  That smells very lawyer/Miami to me. 

 

From what I am hearing second hand from my friends, they could have handled the communications a lot better on the ship.  Especially why the route was chosen, no believes weather had any issue.  But again was it crew incompetence or were their hands tied by corporate.  And they also received no survey.

Edited December 18, 2019 by sr4mjc

[cruisine21]

3 hours ago, sr4mjc said:

 

 

From what I am hearing second hand from my friends, they could have handled the communications a lot better on the ship.  Especially why the route was chosen, no believes weather had any issue.  But again was it crew incompetence or were their hands tied by corporate.  And they also received no survey.

 

I’m fairly sure RCI were under instruction from the NZ government. I’ve been on the Ovation twice in the past 18 months including a relocation from Singapore with a delay ariving into Fremantle due to a medivac off the coast. 

We couldn’t get the train into Perth due to the late arrival in port. It didn’t worry me that we were delayed even though it was my first trip to Perth as a passengers life is more important. I’m just happy to be on a cruise with no housework or cooking.

[ELep]

I am inclined to think that on a ship this size, other staff having to deal with complaining passengers is part of the gig for those staff.  😞 I can't see how one person with 6000 ish people under his/her care (Captain in this case) could be reasonably expected to be personally available at all times to hear  all complaints and answer individual questions around why can't the amended itinerary be option A, B, C or D. 

 

As to why not the Sounds, I am thinking that if I start counting the days remaining on the trip (given the additional 2??? nights in Tauranga) and the need to return to Sydney on the scheduled day, it may not have been possible to get to the Sounds in the days remaining, particularly if there was another hold up along the way. eg. weather, tides in another port, medical emergency etc. Certainly not the Sounds and a day in another port. 

 

It would be disappointing to miss the Sounds, they are the big ticket item for many people on NZ cruises, but a scan of forums and reviews leads me to believe that it's a 50/50 change that you will get into the Sounds on any given cruise. 

 

This was a very traumatic incident, which fortunately does not happen too often and all involved in dealing with it were no doubt doing the best they could with what they had. I would say that RC corporate would have been driving a lot of the decision making. The Captain is just solely responsible for the safety of all on the ship. The increased work load and stress on the crew would have been very, very significant. 

 

The ultra negative feedback on here by one poster is starting to look like trolling IMO.

[possum52]

10 hours ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

All the Monday-morning quarterbacking in posts here is exceptionally disappointing and foolish.

What is quarterbacking? It's not a word used here in Australia and NZ except we will know what a quarterback is in the football sense.

 

Leigh

Edited December 18, 2019 by possum52

[MicCanberra]

Quarterbacking is to - Analyzing the mistakes made, the day after they've been made.

[possum52]

3 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Quarterbacking is to - Analyzing the mistakes made, the day after they've been made.

Thanks Mic!

 

Leigh