Never again on Holland America

[Mary229]

@Promisem I think you should read a good article on effective complaining and send that letter to HAL.  I did so on the before-mentioned cruise and was offered better compensation.  Money will never compensate you for your lost vacation time but that truly is a travel risk we all take.   Using the same kind of effective complaining techniques I was also able to get complete compensation for a lackluster shore excursion.  It is a learned skill.   

[npcl]

2 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

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.

the point is that the number of attempts does not matter. you could have pressed it once walked away and it would have flushed at the exact same time if you had stood there and just kept repeatedly pushing it.  Did any of the crew explain this aspect when you repeatedly complained about it, or did they accept the complaint and treat it like a malfunction. Or did they try and explain and you take it as poor customer service. Like your comment about the person fixing it.

 

Yes it is a minor issue, but one featured in your initial post.

 

To be honest your post reads like one from somewhat upset about compensation so they assemble a laundry list about everything they can think of that was wrong, thinking that it strengthens their case. Which it really doesn't. Though the toilet complaint might draw a few chuckles behind the scenes.

 

 

[Shmoo here]

20 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

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.

Yes, there was a bus.  As we were the last plane diverted to San Jose, we had to wait for the last bus.  The plan to go directly from the airport (in SF) to work that morning never happened, meaning we lost a day's work.  Plus the extra day parking in the garage at the airport.

[npcl]

15 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

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. 

to you maybe. To the cruise line, the travel industry, even the toughest of the compensation regulators (the EU).  Not so much.  The 100 is fairly consistent across the industry for this kind of impact where a port was exchange for an overnight in the departure port, and the ship was provided with all services allowed in port.

[awhcruiser]

 

[promisem]

3 hours ago, npcl said:

the point is that the number of attempts does not matter. you could have pressed it once walked away and it would have flushed at the exact same time if you had stood there and just kept repeatedly pushing it.  Did any of the crew explain this aspect when you repeatedly complained about it, or did they accept the complaint and treat it like a malfunction. Or did they try and explain and you take it as poor customer service. Like your comment about the person fixing it.

 

Yes it is a minor issue, but one featured in your initial post.

 

To be honest your post reads like one from somewhat upset about compensation so they assemble a laundry list about everything they can think of that was wrong, thinking that it strengthens their case. Which it really doesn't. Though the toilet complaint might draw a few chuckles behind the scenes.

 

 

 

If that's what you think, you seriously misunderstand my post.

[iancal]

I do not understand the issue.

 

If you do not want to deal with a vendor, any cruise line again, and for whatever reason  then simply do not.  Why all the fuss about it?  It takes no effort on your part.  Unless of course your goal is to get compensation.  In which case it will most likely be a future cruise credit.  This credit would be of no use to you if you never plan to sail on HAL again.

 

There are a number of ships, on various cruise lines (including HAL), that we prefer not to cruise on.  Does not mean that we are going to boycott the whole fleet.

 

Just make up your mind and do it.  Why keep flogging a dead horse so to speak.

[promisem]

3 hours ago, npcl said:

to you maybe. To the cruise line, the travel industry, even the toughest of the compensation regulators (the EU).  Not so much.  The 100 is fairly consistent across the industry for this kind of impact where a port was exchange for an overnight in the departure port, and the ship was provided with all services allowed in port.

 

A port has zero value?

 

I am not alone. Many other passengers who believe the obvious logic that a cruise line with a malfunctioning ship is responsible for a malfunctioning ship.

 

You are arguing that someone can buy a new car, drive it out of the car lot, have it immediately break down and be responsible for the breakdown.

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem

[promisem]

4 minutes ago, iancal said:

I do not understand the issue.

 

If you do not want to deal with a vendor, any cruise line again, and for whatever reason  then simply do not.  Why all the fuss about it?  It takes no effort on your part.  Unless of course your goal is to get compensation.  In which case it will most likely be a future cruise credit.  This credit would be of no use to you if you never plan to sail on HAL again.

 

There are a number of ships, on various cruise lines (including HAL), that we prefer not to cruise on.  Does not mean that we are going to boycott the whole fleet.

 

Just make up your mind and do it.  Why keep flogging a dead horse so to speak.

 

It seems from some posts that other people are doing all of the flogging. I just did a post to express my frustration with a terrible cruise. Should I not reply to anyone ever? Or should we not post our cruise experiences on these forums?

 

As someone new to Cruise Critic, I can see there are two types of people here. One group consists of nice, civil people who are willing to have a rational conversation about a bad cruise experience. The other group -- a much smaller group -- seems outraged that I would post my experience.

[npcl]

2 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

That doesn't make it right.

in cruising and with most other travel the best one can hope for is to be made whole for out of pocket expenses. in this case you were able to board the ship as scheduled so no additional expense out of pocket. For the inconvenience you also got 100, even though the cruise line owed nothing. The deal is as good as it gets from any of the mainstream lines for a similar situation. 

 

it is industry norm. If it was weather related you would not even have gotten the 100.

[promisem]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

in cruising and with most other travel the best one can hope for is to be made whole for out of pocket expenses. in this case you were able to board the ship as scheduled so no additional expense out of pocket. For the inconvenience you also got 100, even though the cruise line owed nothing. The deal is as good as it gets from any of the mainstream lines for a similar situation. 

 

it is industry norm. If it was weather related you would not even have gotten the 100.

 

 Sorry, you still are evading the fact that the cruise line was responsible for the ship breakdown -- not the weather. You are also evading the fact that we paid for 3 ports and seven days, not 2 ports and six days.

 

You seem to be equating a ship that misses a port because of bad weather with a ship that doesn't sail at all for 24 hours because of poor ship maintenance. They are apples and oranges.

 

The fact that I was able to "board the ship as scheduled" and sit at a dock for 24 hours doesn't mean a thing. 

[Hlitner]

5 hours ago, promisem said:

 

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.

Why?  Think about it this way.  You book a week trip to a sea resort.  During your week it rains and is nasty for most of the days.  Do you get money refunded?  Yes, but only if you buy special insurance.   Or you book air reservations from point A to point B and your flight is cancelled due to bad weather.  It takes 2 days for the airline to get you on another flight home.  Who do you think pays your expenses for that two day delay (hint:  it is not the airline if booked in the USA)?  And you do not get a refund for that airfare.  To make matters worse, if you had booked business class (for big bucks) and the only available seats on your rebooked flight is in Coach, most US Airlines will not give you a refund (sometimes you can get some money back after a lot of hassles).

 

Hank

[Shmoo here]

47 minutes ago, promisem said:

You are also evading the fact that we paid for 3 ports and seven days, not 2 ports and six days.

And you are evading the fact that cruise lines can (and do) change itineraries at any time with no compensation.  Read your contract YOU agreed to when you booked the cruise.  It's there.

[HappyInVan]

13 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 To make matters worse, if you had booked business class (for big bucks) and the only available seats on your rebooked flight is in Coach, most US Airlines will not give you a refund (sometimes you can get some money back after a lot of hassles).

 

Hank

 

Point of fact. Doesn't the regulatory legislation require the airline to pay a penalty to the passenger if the airline overbooked?

 

 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, promisem said:

 

 Sorry, you still are evading the fact that the cruise line was responsible for the ship breakdown -- not the weather. You are also evading the fact that we paid for 3 ports and seven days, not 2 ports and six days.

 

You seem to be equating a ship that misses a port because of bad weather with a ship that doesn't sail at all for 24 hours because of poor ship maintenance. They are apples and oranges.

 

The fact that I was able to "board the ship as scheduled" and sit at a dock for 24 hours doesn't mean a thing. 

nope the fact that there was a mechanical issue is why you even got the 100. if it had been weather and delayed in port overnight it would have been zero.

 

not missing a thing, just telling you industry practice. Not just HAL but all of the main stream lines. Celebrity, HAL, Princess, RCCL, NCL. Have sailed all of them.  Had missed ports on all them. Have had mechanical issues impacting schedule on three (not HAL).

 

pretty much all are similar I use NPCL for no particular cruise line. to me they are interchangable.

Edited January 1, 2020 by npcl

[Hlitner]

16 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Point of fact. Doesn't the regulatory legislation require the airline to pay a penalty to the passenger if the airline overbooked?

 

 

I was not talking about overbooking, but cancellations (or even major delays) due to weather.    Overbooking and bumping is an entirely different subject (often discussed on various airline blogs) with it's own set of complex rules.  If your flight is cancelled and all the other flights (for the next few days are fully booked) you will simply have to wait until there is a flight with seats or spend long days hanging out at the airport hoping to get on a flight "standby."  The current US airline regulations pretty much allow the airlines to do as they please as long as a flight is cancelled or delayed "due to weather."  And what makes this so bad for the consumer is the weather problem does not even need to be anywhere near your own airports.  

 

The reality about overbooking in the USA is that the airlines now do just about anything to avoid involuntary bumps.  They ask for volunteers and will gradually increase their offers (to volunteers) until they alleviate the overbooked situation.  There have actually been some posts about overbooking on cruise ships where the cruise lines will also seek out volunteers by quietly offering some decent compensation.

 

Hank

[promisem]

31 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

And you are evading the fact that cruise lines can (and do) change itineraries at any time with no compensation.  Read your contract YOU agreed to when you booked the cruise.  It's there.

 

No, I am not evading the fact that a cruise line can skip a port because of bad weather or other reasons outside of its control.

 

Nor do I expect compensation when it happens, as I have already said. Nor did you address my point.

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem

[promisem]

19 minutes ago, npcl said:

nope the fact that there was a mechanical issue is why you even got the 100. if it had been weather and delayed in port overnight it would have been zero.

 

not missing a thing, just telling you industry practice. Not just HAL but all of the main stream lines. Celebrity, HAL, Princess, RCCL, NCL. Have sailed all of them.  Had missed ports on all them. Have had mechanical issues impacting schedule on three (not HAL).

 

pretty much all are similar I use NPCL for no particular cruise line. to me they are interchangable.

 

You have yet to admit that a cruise line is responsible for problems under their control. You are still equating mechanical problems with bad weather. Your reference to impacted schedules is quite vague. A missed port is NOT the same as a missed port AND a full day without sailing.

 

BTW, I see from your posts elsewhere that have quite a bit of industry insider information that goes way beyond someone who cruises for pleasure. Can you please explain why?

[Shmoo here]

10 minutes ago, promisem said:

 

No, I am not evading the fact that a cruise line can skip a port because of bad weather or other reasons outside of its control.

The cruise contract says:

 

Except as otherwise provided, Carrier may, for any reason, without prior notice, cancel the Cruise, Land + Sea Journey, and/or Land Trip(s); deviate from the scheduled ports of call, route and timetable

 

Not just for "bad weather or other reasons out of its control".

Edited January 1, 2020 by Shmoo here

[promisem]

45 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Why?  Think about it this way.  You book a week trip to a sea resort.  During your week it rains and is nasty for most of the days.  Do you get money refunded?  Yes, but only if you buy special insurance.   Or you book air reservations from point A to point B and your flight is cancelled due to bad weather.  It takes 2 days for the airline to get you on another flight home.  Who do you think pays your expenses for that two day delay (hint:  it is not the airline if booked in the USA)?  And you do not get a refund for that airfare.  To make matters worse, if you had booked business class (for big bucks) and the only available seats on your rebooked flight is in Coach, most US Airlines will not give you a refund (sometimes you can get some money back after a lot of hassles).

 

Hank

 

Your examples all have to do with weather outside of the control of the resort and airlines. As I keep saying, the issue is a mechanical failure for which the cruise line is responsible and which cost us a port of call and full day at sea.

 

It has nothing to do with weather. I wouldn't expect compensation for that reason.

[promisem]

6 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

The cruise contract says:

 

Except as otherwise provided, Carrier may, for any reason, without prior notice, cancel the Cruise, Land + Sea Journey, and/or Land Trip(s); deviate from the scheduled ports of call, route and timetable

 

Not just for "bad weather or other reasons out of its control".

 

So what? My contract also said I was getting a 7-day cruise. You don't seem to understand that I paid for 7 days and got 6 days. If I got 6 days, I should have been compensated for one day.

Edited January 1, 2020 by promisem

[Shmoo here]

Just now, promisem said:

 

So what? Bad contracts burn people all of the time. You don't seem to understand that I paid for 7 days and got 6 days. If I got 6 days, I should have been compensated for one day. 

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you still boarded the ship on your original embarkation day.  Is that incorrect?

[twodjs]

I was on the same cruise - and I need to add my two cents. First, did you not sleep on the ship for seven nights? And have use of all guest services for seven nights? We certainly did. So please stop saying it was a 6 night cruise. HAL did the right thing by informing you prior to the cruise that the ship would be in port for an additional day to make necessary repairs on the azipod. And they made the responsible decision to repair it there with a specialized team of divers and half a pier full of equipment to complete the job properly. We could see the work from our balcony, quite impressed. They provided free shuttle service to the gaslight district both days. We were aware of the timing every half hour, and never had to go to guest services. Don't know how you missed it. This was not in little vans but in full-sized, very nice buses. As others have correctly pointed out, the security guards who yelled at you were port hires and not under HAL's control. I do agree that HAL's website is not user friendly - but I haven't seen one in the industry that really is. As for the Purell dispensers - again same ship, no problems. I have never run into three empty dispensers. Sometimes, they might not react depending on how fast you insert your hands. Did you report it?  You wrote that they responded to your sluggish toilet issue. Did you continue to have that problem? Did they fix your freezing cabin issue? You obviously had issues with guest services. Perhaps I missed why you requested they reduce your daily cabin service charge. I believe you said the cabin steward was fine. We have never had less than acceptable MDR service. That would be disappointing if it wasn't up to your standards. 

[promisem]

11 minutes ago, twodjs said:

I was on the same cruise - and I need to add my two cents. First, did you not sleep on the ship for seven nights? And have use of all guest services for seven nights? We certainly did. So please stop saying it was a 6 night cruise. HAL did the right thing by informing you prior to the cruise that the ship would be in port for an additional day to make necessary repairs on the azipod. And they made the responsible decision to repair it there with a specialized team of divers and half a pier full of equipment to complete the job properly. We could see the work from our balcony, quite impressed. They provided free shuttle service to the gaslight district both days. We were aware of the timing every half hour, and never had to go to guest services. Don't know how you missed it. This was not in little vans but in full-sized, very nice buses. As others have correctly pointed out, the security guards who yelled at you were port hires and not under HAL's control. I do agree that HAL's website is not user friendly - but I haven't seen one in the industry that really is. As for the Purell dispensers - again same ship, no problems. I have never run into three empty dispensers. Sometimes, they might not react depending on how fast you insert your hands. Did you report it?  You wrote that they responded to your sluggish toilet issue. Did you continue to have that problem? Did they fix your freezing cabin issue? You obviously had issues with guest services. Perhaps I missed why you requested they reduce your daily cabin service charge. I believe you said the cabin steward was fine. We have never had less than acceptable MDR service. That would be disappointing if it wasn't up to your standards. 

 

And you were at sea for 7 days or did you sit in the San Diego port for a full day? Six days at sea means it was a six-day cruise. Please don't say it was a 7-day cruise when it was not.

 

So they fixed the propeller. Great. Good for them. I'm glad you were impressed. But it doesn't change the fact that we spent 6 days at sea on a 7 day cruise.

 

Yes, we reported everything. No, the staff tips go to many more people than just the cabin stewards.

 

Otherwise, you aren't reading my previous posts carefully and are jumping to many false conclusions.

Edited January 2, 2020 by promisem

[promisem]

5 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you still boarded the ship on your original embarkation day.  Is that incorrect?

 

I'm now under the impression that you aren't reading my posts.