Venture stabilizer issues - now

[G Oliver]

We are in the ship at the moment. We were told of the issue after we sailed- some passengers asked to go back to Ushuaia to disembark once it was clear South Georgia would be missed. Although the ship did return, they were told they would have to make their  arrangements from Buenos Aries home and there would be no refund of cruise fare. Not surprisingly, no one got off- we were held to ransom by Seabourn.

 

We are now returning to Ushuaia a day early to beat a storm in the Drake passage. 
 

The 7 days scheduled to/from/in South Georgia were spent going further in Antarctica- brilliant scenery, but did not come anywhere near compensating for what we missed.

 

Captain was virtually invisible- left Expedition team to explain issues whenever he could

 

Compensation of $1k each plus 15% is inadequate and we and others will be taking further action. 

[Flamin_June]

I personally have no strong desire to cruise Antarctica, but fully understand why folks are drawn to this wilderness. However, I don't understand what the attraction is in South Georgia. I can see that a number of people are very miffed at missing calling there, but what is it that makes it so special ? Is it the penguins?

[Mr Luxury]

6 minutes ago, Flamin_June said:

I personally have no strong desire to cruise Antarctica, but fully understand why folks are drawn to this wilderness. However, I don't understand what the attraction is in South Georgia. I can see that a number of people are very miffed at missing calling there, but what is it that makes it so special ? Is it the penguins?

It's hardly Carambola beach is it.

[buffetgal]

G Oliver, hope you have an easy crossing through the Drake Passage. Are the stabilizers working at all? Has the cruise been uncomfortable since they are not operational? We are booked for Jan. 25 and trying to decide what to do. Thank you for your post.

[G Oliver]

In Antarctica itself, there was no problem. We are now heading back into the Drake Passage and have been told to take sickness medication and put away all loose items. As we understand it, stabilisers are not working at all. 

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, G Oliver said:

We are in the ship at the moment. We were told of the issue after we sailed- some passengers asked to go back to Ushuaia to disembark once it was clear South Georgia would be missed. Although the ship did return, they were told they would have to make their  arrangements from Buenos Aries home and there would be no refund of cruise fare. Not surprisingly, no one got off- we were held to ransom by Seabourn.

 

We are now returning to Ushuaia a day early to beat a storm in the Drake passage. 
 

The 7 days scheduled to/from/in South Georgia were spent going further in Antarctica- brilliant scenery, but did not come anywhere near compensating for what we missed.

 

Captain was virtually invisible- left Expedition team to explain issues whenever he could

 

Compensation of $1k each plus 15% is inadequate and we and others will be taking further action. 

 

This is a potential consequence I predicted in post # 37, only the first cruise and the ship is already cutting short days in Antarctica.

 

I am shocked to read that the Master was virtually invisible, as where Bridge operations permitted, s/he should have been out supporting the crew, dealing with the big issues. Sadly, a very ineffective Master and this is something the crew will pick up on quickly.

 

While I normally post that these situations are addressed in the cruise line terms and conditions, based on the erroneous information provided in the cruise line pax notice and FAQ, I wish you luck having success taking further action against the cruise line.

[highplanesdrifters]

Just now, Flamin_June said:

I personally have no strong desire to cruise Antarctica, but fully understand why folks are drawn to this wilderness. However, I don't understand what the attraction is in South Georgia. I can see that a number of people are very miffed at missing calling there, but what is it that makes it so special ? Is it the penguins?

There are approximately 400,000 King Penguins at Salisbury plain. Throw in some Shackelton history, drop dead scenery, thousands of fur seals and their pups, birds galore, and you've got yourself the trip of a lifetime on top of Antarctica. Most everyone's favorite, but not in a lot of itineraries. 

[sfvoyage]

9 hours ago, G Oliver said:

...some passengers asked to go back to Ushuaia to disembark once it was clear South Georgia would be missed. Although the ship did return, they were told they would have to make their  arrangements from Buenos Aries home and there would be no refund of cruise fare. Not surprisingly, no one got off- we were held to ransom by Seabourn.

 

Can you clarify this?  After the ship returned to Ushuaia, Seabourn provided the inclusive charter flight to fly you back to Buenos Aires, which is also the scheduled termination point of the voyage - is that right?

[G Oliver]

They said anyone who chose to get off would be flown back by them to Buenos Aries from Ushuaia. They would not arrange onward flights from BA, nor would they refund the cruise/give future credit 

[Enrique512]

4 hours ago, G Oliver said:

In Antarctica itself, there was no problem. We are now heading back into the Drake Passage and have been told to take sickness medication and put away all loose items. As we understand it, stabilisers are not working at all. 

Thanks for sharing Oliver. We are scheduled for 1/26 sailing. 
how was the Drake Passage on the way to Antartica?

Please keep us informed the next few days on how the return. Feedback from you guys onboard is helpful!

[sfvoyage]

OK, thanks for clarifying.  Buenos Aires is the termination point, so Seabourn's responsibility is to get you back there.  I wouldn't expect Seabourn to arrange onward flights from Buenos Aires,  if I voluntarily cancel my cruise. 

 

If Seabourn had cancelled the cruise, they should assist with your return flight home.  In this case, the cruise was not cancelled.  Granted, the itinerary has been modified which causes some guests to prefer to cancel and disembark early, and I understand that (as South Georgia is the highlight of this cruise).

[PACruiser5]

BaBack to the South Georgia appeal. It is, as was said earlier, jaw droppingly beautiful, and teaming with wildlife not seen anywhere else. Photos do not do it justice. At our first stop we landed on a beach covered with penguins, fur, seals, elephant seals... much more crowded than these photos. Curious penguns and seals will come right up to you like the pup in the photo. It is overwhelming. I asked fellow passengers why they had selected this trip in the first place and at the end what was the highlight. South Georgia Island was both the reason people chose the trip and afterwards the near unanimous highlight. Antarctica is amazing, do not get me wrong, and I would have enjoyed the chance to see more of it than we did, but if given a choice (and of course those on the venture were not) not at the expense of S Georgia.

[Flamin_June]

Thankyou all for  educating me. When I was younger, 40 -50 years ago I spent some time in Northern and Western Scotland, the Orkneys, Outer Hebridies and a few remote islands in the Irish Sea and Northern Atlantic, so I totally get the appeal of majestic landscapes, rock and lichens,  seemingly barren, yet teeming with seabirds. That was then, now my interests lie elsewhere and my perceptoion of South Georgia was of a rather bleak place, tainted by memories of the Falkland's War. It is always good to get a new perspective on a place, especially from people who are passionate about it.

I still won't be visiting, though. Like Fletcher, who has recently posted here, I have a hankering for Polynesia, Melanasia , Indonesia and SE Asia.

 

 

[SLSD]

1 hour ago, Flamin_June said:

Thankyou all for  educating me. When I was younger, 40 -50 years ago I spent some time in Northern and Western Scotland, the Orkneys, Outer Hebridies and a few remote islands in the Irish Sea and Northern Atlantic, so I totally get the appeal of majestic landscapes, rock and lichens,  seemingly barren, yet teeming with seabirds. That was then, now my interests lie elsewhere and my perceptoion of South Georgia was of a rather bleak place, tainted by memories of the Falkland's War. It is always good to get a new perspective on a place, especially from people who are passionate about it.

I still won't be visiting, though. Like Fletcher, who has recently posted here, I have a hankering for Polynesia, Melanasia , Indonesia and SE Asia.

 

 

It is interesting how our interests change over time. 

[Scottsilverman]

I think lawsuits are forthcoming if Seabourn does not handle this issue.  What happened to transparency and accountability.   I would hate to be forced to take my cruise and worse held like a hostage in rough seas.  This is not the product I signed up for either.  Supposed to leave in three weeks and have heard nothing from Seabourn I can accept.  

Edited January 1, 2023 by Scottsilverman

[rallydave]

54 minutes ago, Scottsilverman said:

I think lawsuits are forthcoming if Seabourn does not handle this issue.  What happened to transparency and accountability.   I would hate to be forced to take my cruise and worse held like a hostage in rough seas.  This is not the product I signed up for either.  Supposed to leave in three weeks and have heard nothing from Seabourn I can accept.  

Seabourn like probably all cruise lines protect themselves from issues like this stabilizer issue. Wonder if you have read the ticket contract and Ts&Cs

 

an old adage is that contracts are written to protect the writer 

 

Not saying we would be happy with the way this was handled but when booking a cruise one has to be aware of what can occur and the limitations in the contract one agrees to when booking. 
 

sorry you can’t accept what has been provided but don’t believe you have a choice. 
 

good luck

[Scottsilverman]

It’s a matter of customer service and reputation. Stabilizers are a big deal, especially when you’re going through an area known for the roughest seas.  I have spent a small fortune on clothing , non refundable air fare and private tours in Buenos Aires for this journey.   If I thought it was in our interest to go,  believe me I would.  I chose Seabourn for its “state of the art technology, comfort and brand newness of the ship.  Even the oldest ship that travels to Antarctica has stabilizers for the comfort of their clients.  The least they can do is offer a full refund or keep my money and offer a future cruise whenever I’m able to go and the highest discount they offer.   

[SLSD]

1 hour ago, Scottsilverman said:

It’s a matter of customer service and reputation. Stabilizers are a big deal, especially when you’re going through an area known for the roughest seas.  I have spent a small fortune on clothing , non refundable air fare and private tours in Buenos Aires for this journey.   If I thought it was in our interest to go,  believe me I would.  I chose Seabourn for its “state of the art technology, comfort and brand newness of the ship.  Even the oldest ship that travels to Antarctica has stabilizers for the comfort of their clients.  The least they can do is offer a full refund or keep my money and offer a future cruise whenever I’m able to go and the highest discount they offer.   

What has me thinking is that on our trip on SB from Kamchatka to Kodiak Alaska, we had very rough seas---even with stabilizers.  

[saminina]

I do not understand the Haha responses to a person that put big expense into this adventure.   It's pretty elementary to know there is risk in booking these trips.  It's a reason you book Seabourn versus Atlas, or a better established line in this part of the world.    Their (past) reputation gives some comfort of protection in this type situation.   Despite their current financial straits, one would expect better from SB.    Sure, legally the customer is screwed.  But, it does not have to be this way.

[Fletcher]

It does seem incredibly embarrassing and almost laughable that Seabourn's brand-new, state-of-the-art ship cannot get to South Georgia when old 100 pax ships like Hebridean Sky and Island Sky which were originally built in 1989 as  inshore and Med cruisers without stabilisers are currently running shuttles between the Falklands, South Georgia and the Peninsula.  

Edited January 2, 2023 by Fletcher

[toseaornottosea]

Passengers who were on the 12/15 to 1/4 cruise please share your experiences on the cruise for those of us who are booked on one of the remaining Antarctica cruises on Venture.

[Heidi13]

17 hours ago, Scottsilverman said:

It’s a matter of customer service and reputation. Stabilizers are a big deal, especially when you’re going through an area known for the roughest seas.  I have spent a small fortune on clothing , non refundable air fare and private tours in Buenos Aires for this journey.   If I thought it was in our interest to go,  believe me I would.  I chose Seabourn for its “state of the art technology, comfort and brand newness of the ship.  Even the oldest ship that travels to Antarctica has stabilizers for the comfort of their clients.  The least they can do is offer a full refund or keep my money and offer a future cruise whenever I’m able to go and the highest discount they offer.   

 

Yes, the cruise lines are well protected by their Terms & Conditions.

 

However, Seabourn have provided some information in their notice to future pax and FAQ, that in my opinion, as a mariner with almost 30 yrs in command at sea, can be proven to be erroneous, as they endeavour to justify not removing the ship from service. I have no doubt an experienced Admiralty Lawyer, supported by some Master Mariner subject matter experts, can most likely find fault. 

 

The SME's can drive holes through the statement that stabilisers are non-essential. Yes, the vessel can sail without them, since they aren't fitted to most ships. However, most ships are not making multiple crossings of one of the most dangerous waters in the World. Case in point being a "Rogue Wave" breaking windows on a ship in these waters only a few weeks before.

[rallydave]

15 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Yes, the cruise lines are well protected by their Terms & Conditions.

 

However, Seabourn have provided some information in their notice to future pax and FAQ, that in my opinion, as a mariner with almost 30 yrs in command at sea, can be proven to be erroneous, as they endeavour to justify not removing the ship from service. I have no doubt an experienced Admiralty Lawyer, supported by some Master Mariner subject matter experts, can most likely find fault. 

 

The SME's can drive holes through the statement that stabilisers are non-essential. Yes, the vessel can sail without them, since they aren't fitted to most ships. However, most ships are not making multiple crossings of one of the most dangerous waters in the World. Case in point being a "Rogue Wave" breaking windows on a ship in these waters only a few weeks before.

While you might be correct if this went to court believe I read in the Ts &Cs require that if filed it goes to arbitration. They have to be served in king county Washington. So no trial. 
 

Time will tell 

Edited January 2, 2023 by rallydave

[SLSD]

36 minutes ago, rallydave said:

While you might be correct if this went to court believe I read in the Ts &Cs require that if filed it goes to arbitration. They have to be served in king county Washington. So no trial. 
 

Time will tell 

  Heidi's suggestion of obtaining the services of a good Admiralty lawyer with exemplary expert witnesses is good advice.  Of course that costs money unless a lawyer will take the case of contingency--which is not likely.  The amount of damages becomes an issue.  In other words, pursuing this legally will be uneconomic.  Seabourn probably has a cause of action against the providers/manufacturers. 

 

My  attorney husband says that the arbitration clause will not be broken.  

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by SLSD

[rallydave]

31 minutes ago, SLSD said:

  Heidi's suggestion of obtaining the services of a good Admiralty lawyer with exemplary expert witnesses is good advice.  Of course that costs money unless a lawyer will take the case of contingency--which is not likely.  The amount of damages becomes an issue.  In other words, pursuing this legally will be uneconomic.  Seabourn probably has a cause of action against the providers/manufacturers. 

 

My  attorney husband says that the arbitration clause will not be broken.  

 

All good points. Forgot another clause in the Ts&Cs. And that is about saying no class action law suits. This could mean each agreuved customer might need to file their own lawsuit and each go to separate arbitration. 
 

Not a lawyer but was a Contracts Manager writing negotiating etc many contracts in nine digits. 
 

perhaps your lawyer husband could look at the Ts&Cs and provide a professional legal opinion before some people spend large sums on cases with little chance of recovery??