Never again on Holland America

[3rdGenCunarder]

Just now, promisem said:

 

A fair question. We lost 33% of the port value, 16% of the days at sea, but got room and food for the day we stayed in port. You tell me. But the lost value is more than $100.

 

So if it's a fair question, why not answer it? How much more should you be getting?

 

BTW, the cruise contract gives HAL the right to make changes in itinerary. It doesn't say they owe you compensation. 

 

[Hlitner]

Just a generic comment (not specific to HAL) about missing ports.  Most of us who have cruised for many years are well aware that missing ports is just part of the cruise game.  Ports are routinely missed because of inappropriate weather and  other reasons.  All the US based line refund the related fees/port charges (forced on them by a class action settlement in Florida) which is certainly reasonable.  We have never understood why some cruisers think they are entitled to a further refund or OBC because of missed ports, rough seas (we have seen folks screaming for this), rainy days (we watched a lady on HAL argue for this).  Perhaps the best was on a Caribbean cruise (Celebrity) where we witnessed a very angry lady demanding a "big refund."  Her complain was that we docked in Antigua on a Sunday (which was always the itinerary) when most of the stores were closed!  She was further incensed that the shops on the ship were closed when were in port and wanted more of a refund for that "problem."  Go figure.

 

Hank

[Mary229]

Replying regarding port fees - I have always been compensated for port fees on HAL but was dismayed that Oceania did not.  It still bothers me

[promisem]

Just now, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

So if it's a fair question, why not answer it? How much more should you be getting?

 

BTW, the cruise contract gives HAL the right to make changes in itinerary. It doesn't say they owe you compensation. 

 

 

Well, you didn't answer me when I asked you the same thing. If I base my answer only on the lost day at sea, then I should have received $160.

 

Where else in life can a business renege on a service they sell you and then refuse to compensate you?

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 minute ago, promisem said:

 

Well, you didn't answer me when I asked you the same thing. If I base my answer only on the lost day at sea, then I should have received $160.

 

Where else in life can a business renege on a service they sell you and then refuse to compensate you?

 

Airlines. On a recent trip flying home on United, my flight was delayed, cancelled, and then the rebooked flight was delayed. I was stuck in an airport with no information beyond the schedule on the app. A small airport with not a lot to do. No compensation and they lost by suitcase (later found)!

 

[promisem]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just a generic comment (not specific to HAL) about missing ports.  Most of us who have cruised for many years are well aware that missing ports is just part of the cruise game.  Ports are routinely missed because of inappropriate weather and  other reasons.  All the US based line refund the related fees/port charges (forced on them by a class action settlement in Florida) which is certainly reasonable.  We have never understood why some cruisers think they are entitled to a further refund or OBC because of missed ports, rough seas (we have seen folks screaming for this), rainy days (we watched a lady on HAL argue for this).  Perhaps the best was on a Caribbean cruise (Celebrity) where we witnessed a very angry lady demanding a "big refund."  Her complain was that we docked in Antigua on a Sunday (which was always the itinerary) when most of the stores were closed!  She was further incensed that the shops on the ship were closed when were in port and wanted more of a refund for that "problem."  Go figure.

 

Hank

 

I think we are moving away from the intent of the OP about many problems on one specific cruise rather than a single missed port.

 

Yes, it's realistic to expect the possibility of a missed port and missed day at sea. It is not realistic for a cruise line to save money from skipping a day at sea (fuel, labor, heating, food, utilities, etc., from passengers who aren't on ship yet)  and not share that savings with passengers.

 

I also don't think it's fair for passengers to assume all risk and the cruise lines to assume none of it.

[promisem]

1 minute ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Airlines. On a recent trip flying home on United, my flight was delayed, cancelled, and then the rebooked flight was delayed. I was stuck in an airport with no information beyond the schedule on the app. A small airport with not a lot to do. No compensation and they lost by suitcase (later found)!

 

 

You expected compensation for a delayed flight? If you flew, you received the service. If you lose an entire day on a cruise, you don't receive service for that day.

[3rdGenCunarder]

Just now, promisem said:

 

You expected compensation for a delayed flight? If you flew, you received the service. If you lose an entire day on a cruise, you don't receive service for that day.

 

I flew, so I received the service I paid for, just not on the schedule I booked. You got your cruise,  just not on the schedule you booked. 

 

[promisem]

2 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

I flew, so I received the service I paid for, just not on the schedule I booked. You got your cruise,  just not on the schedule you booked. 

 

 

No, I did not get what I booked. I did not get one full day at sea and I did not get to visit Mazatlan. 

 

What you saying is the equivalent of flying out of New York to Cleveland, but the airline drops you off in Pittsburgh.

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem

[Ken the cruiser]

16 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just a generic comment (not specific to HAL) about missing ports.  Most of us who have cruised for many years are well aware that missing ports is just part of the cruise game.  Ports are routinely missed because of inappropriate weather and  other reasons.  All the US based line refund the related fees/port charges (forced on them by a class action settlement in Florida) which is certainly reasonable.  We have never understood why some cruisers think they are entitled to a further refund or OBC because of missed ports, rough seas (we have seen folks screaming for this), rainy days (we watched a lady on HAL argue for this).  Perhaps the best was on a Caribbean cruise (Celebrity) where we witnessed a very angry lady demanding a "big refund."  Her complain was that we docked in Antigua on a Sunday (which was always the itinerary) when most of the stores were closed!  She was further incensed that the shops on the ship were closed when were in port and wanted more of a refund for that "problem."  Go figure.

 

Hank

Well, except for maybe Oceania who includes all of the estimated port fees and taxes in their base cruise fare. On a recent 26 day Oceania cruise we missed 4 ports and didn't get any refund or compensation for those missed ports. We were also on a 14 day Oceania cruise where the last 12 days were in a Code Red lock down mode because of a norovirus outbreak on the ship (up to 9% of the passengers were infected) and we missed a port and a bunch of onboard activities because of it.  But, as you mentioned, that's all part of the cruising adventure. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Ken the cruiser

[promisem]

1 minute ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Well, except for maybe Oceania who includes all the estimated port fees and taxes in their base cruise fare. On a recent 26 day Oceania cruise we missed 4 ports and didn't get any refund or compensation for those missed ports. We were also on a 14 day Oceania cruise where the last 12 days were in a Code Red lock down mode because of a norovirus outbreak on the ship (up to 9% of the passengers were infected) and we missed a port and a bunch of onboard activities because of it.  But, as you mentioned, that's all part of the cruising adventure. 

 

If you paid for a 26-day cruise and got a 22-day cruise instead, would you expect any compensation? 

[npcl]

22 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

A fair question. We lost 33% of the port value, 16% of the days at sea, but got room and food for the day we stayed in port. You tell me. But the lost value is more than $100.

A couple of comments:

 

In most cases missing a port does not result in any compensation. So the $100 while being on board is not bad, and due to the delay being a mechanical issue.

 

As far as the toilet. Pushing the button more then once really does no good. Does not matter if you push it once or a hundred. The vacuum toilets on board ship require sufficient vacuum to operate  Once the button is pushed it triggers a switch and as soon as there is sufficient vacuum in the line it will flush. Depending on what else other toilets are doing it might be immediately, it might be a couple of minutes.

[awhcruiser]

12 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

No, I did not get what I booked. I did not get one full day at sea and I did not get to visit Mazatlan. 

 

What you saying is the equivalent of flying out of New York to Cleveland, but the airline drops you off in Pittsburgh.

Why is this HALs fault?  What would you expect them to do instead?

[doublebzz]

21 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just a generic comment (not specific to HAL) about missing ports.  Most of us who have cruised for many years are well aware that missing ports is just part of the cruise game.  Ports are routinely missed because of inappropriate weather and  other reasons.  All the US based line refund the related fees/port charges (forced on them by a class action settlement in Florida) which is certainly reasonable.  We have never understood why some cruisers think they are entitled to a further refund or OBC because of missed ports, rough seas (we have seen folks screaming for this), rainy days (we watched a lady on HAL argue for this).  Perhaps the best was on a Caribbean cruise (Celebrity) where we witnessed a very angry lady demanding a "big refund."  Her complain was that we docked in Antigua on a Sunday (which was always the itinerary) when most of the stores were closed!  She was further incensed that the shops on the ship were closed when were in port and wanted more of a refund for that "problem."  Go figure.

 

Hank

I hardly think this is applicable to OP's case.  I agree with you in cases where a port is missed because of forces outside of the cruise line's control.  However, in this case a 7 day cruise turned into a 6 day cruise because of a mechanical failure.  I don't see where it is unreasonable for OP to be compensated for the shortened cruise quite different than your "Antigua lady".

[Storylady]

2 hours ago, steve4031 said:

It’s definitely not rude or obnoxious to expect a working toilet in a stateroom. A toilet that isn’t flushing properly would cause most people to be concerned about a clog and the resulting over flow.  I definitely would report repeatedly until it’s resolved to my satisfaction. Otherwise I would constantly be worried and feel that I have to use a different toilet to avoid the possibility to Of it flooding.

Shipboard toilets aren’t like hotel toilets. My understanding is that they work on a vacuum system. Anybody onboard can put something down the toilet and mess up the line going to your room. I always panic when the toilet doesn’t flush. My DH tells me to wait and sure enough minutes later it flushes. I found this any interesting posting on CC. Toilet problems can happen on any cruise line.

 

[whogo]

34 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just a generic comment (not specific to HAL) about missing ports.  Most of us who have cruised for many years are well aware that missing ports is just part of the cruise game.  Ports are routinely missed because of inappropriate weather and  other reasons.  All the US based line refund the related fees/port charges (forced on them by a class action settlement in Florida) which is certainly reasonable.  We have never understood why some cruisers think they are entitled to a further refund or OBC because of missed ports, rough seas (we have seen folks screaming for this), rainy days (we watched a lady on HAL argue for this)...

The OP missed a port because of mechanical problems, a valid reason for compensation in my book. Calculating a fair amount for compensation is beyond my abilities, but I think that $100 is pretty chintzy.

[Hlitner]

3 minutes ago, doublebzz said:

I hardly think this is applicable to OP's case.  I agree with you in cases where a port is missed because of forces outside of the cruise line's control.  However, in this case a 7 day cruise turned into a 6 day cruise because of a mechanical failure.  I don't see where it is unreasonable for OP to be compensated for the shortened cruise quite different than your "Antigua lady".

Perhaps you are right, but consider that they still got their 7 days on the ship and what turned out to be an overnight in San Diego (not exactly a bad place to be stuck).  A new trend in cruises is actually to offer overnights in ports (popular with both passengers and crew).   They did get some compensation and one could certainly debate whether it was adequate.  

 

What is somewhat alarming (to me) is that HAL currently has two ships operating with prop/motor related issues.  Is this just bad luck or could it possibly be related to improper preventive maintenance (i.e. is HAL assigning too many items to what they call "deferred maintenance").  Passengers only see the maintenance (or lack thereof) of items in passenger/public issues.  What goes on below decks is not normally shared with us.  

 

Hank

[promisem]

8 minutes ago, doublebzz said:

I hardly think this is applicable to OP's case.  I agree with you in cases where a port is missed because of forces outside of the cruise line's control.  However, in this case a 7 day cruise turned into a 6 day cruise because of a mechanical failure.  I don't see where it is unreasonable for OP to be compensated for the shortened cruise quite different than your "Antigua lady".

 

I was thinking the same thing when I went away for lunch. It's about responsibility. If we miss a port because the ship is avoiding a hurricane, it obviously isn't the fault of the cruise line. Compensation is unreasonable.

 

But if we miss a port because of mechanical failures or because the ship ran aground, like a couple of Carnival ships did, then it is their responsibility.

[steve4031]

I understand that the toilets on cruise ships are different than hotels. If it is not operating as expected, I think it’s reasonable for the cruise line to fix it or explain why it’s ok to appear to do nothing(flush twice, declare it fixed, and leave.). 
 

The issue isn’t the existence of an issue, it’s his for how the issue is addressed. 

[Shmoo here]

33 minutes ago, promisem said:

What you saying is the equivalent of flying out of New York to Cleveland, but the airline drops you off in Pittsburgh.

Which also happens.  We flew from Las Vegas to San Francisco one year.  Well, we were supposed to.  We actually landed in San Jose.  We got no compensation for that.  In fact, we lost money on the deal.  

Edited January 1, 2020 by Shmoo here

[npcl]

4 minutes ago, whogo said:

The OP missed a port because of mechanical problems, a valid reason for compensation in my book. Calculating a fair amount for compensation is beyond my abilities, but I think that $100 is pretty chintzy.

One port on a cruise really has no value. Even the EU compensation laws consider it to not require compensation.

 

If one looks at it from a technical perspective. It remained a 7 day cruise, with the first being an overnight in the departure port.  Even EU laws would not have triggered. The compensation was fairly reasonable. if on the other hand the passengers had not been able to board, and the cruise had truly been reduced to 6 days then their would have been more compensation along the lines of 1 day prorated fare plus obc, with the obc being a larger amount due to expected passenger out of pocket expense for the fully missed day (lodging, dining, etc).

[promisem]

3 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Which also happens.  We flew from Las Vegas to San Francisco one year.  Well, we were supposed to.  We actually landed in San Jose.  We got no compensation for that.  In fact, we lost money on the deal.  

 

Did they then help get to you San Francisco? Because the same thing happened to me. They flew me into Columbus instead of Dayton because of bad weather and then drove me on a shuttle bus to the Dayton airport.

 

The bad weather wasn't the fault of the airline. I didn't see the need to expect compensation in that case.

[npcl]

6 minutes ago, steve4031 said:

I understand that the toilets on cruise ships are different than hotels. If it is not operating as expected, I think it’s reasonable for the cruise line to fix it or explain why it’s ok to appear to do nothing(flush twice, declare it fixed, and leave.). 
 

The issue isn’t the existence of an issue, it’s his for how the issue is addressed. 

as has been pointed out. A delay from the time the button is pushed, until it flushes does not necessarily represent an incorrectly operating vacuum toilet system, since the vacuum is impacted by the operation of other toilets along the line. it is not like a land bases system where pressing means immediate flush.  A couple of minute delay is not unusual.

[promisem]

10 minutes ago, npcl said:

One port on a cruise really has no value. Even the EU compensation laws consider it to not require compensation.

 

If one looks at it from a technical perspective. It remained a 7 day cruise, with the first being an overnight in the departure port.  Even EU laws would not have triggered. The compensation was fairly reasonable. if on the other hand the passengers had not been able to board, and the cruise had truly been reduced to 6 days then their would have been more compensation along the lines of 1 day prorated fare plus obc, with the obc being a larger amount due to expected passenger out of pocket expense for the fully missed day (lodging, dining, etc).

 

Sorry, I don't agree that one port has no value. I paid $1,000 to visit 3 cruise ports on a 7-day cruise. I got 2 ports on a six-day cruise. That extra port and day had great value to me.

 

The cruise line was responsible for the mechanical failure of the ship. Sitting at a dock for a day is not what I paid HAL to do. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem

[promisem]

6 minutes ago, npcl said:

as has been pointed out. A delay from the time the button is pushed, until it flushes does not necessarily represent an incorrectly operating vacuum toilet system, since the vacuum is impacted by the operation of other toilets along the line. it is not like a land bases system where pressing means immediate flush.  A couple of minute delay is not unusual.

 

I think we're missing the broader point about the number of problems. The toilet is a rather minor issue compared to everything else.

 

That said, I have never been on a cruise with a toilet that needed so many attempts at flushing. As someone said earlier, it's part of the "death by a thousand cuts".

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem