Westerdam took the wrong route - is this fair compensation ?

[bennybear]

30 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Yes, I think that we are all aware of the difficult conditions that can challenge ships cruising the inside passage, and that experienced pilots are required. HAL has cruised this route for years and is well aware of the challenges and the requirement for pilots, but failed to secure one for the OP's cruise. This, not the conditions per se, was the cause of the change in route.

But if it wasn’t planned in the first place as per the map,  that’s a different kettle of fish.   A lot of cruise lines promote the inside passage but count the US portion.   Makes things very confusing for all concerned,  I am very curious what was in the original documents as to the route.  
 

But bottom line, the captain put it in writing and passengers were compensated so something most certainly went awry.  Me thinks it was much earlier or the pilots would have been engaged. 

[Suncoastsailors]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:46 AM, peajay said:

We have just returned home from the Westerdam transpacific cruise from Tokyo via Alaska to Seattle. A very nice enjoyable cruise despite some rough seas and mediocre weather. However after  visiting three Alaskan ports and on the way to Victoria, the itinerary was to cruise through the inner passage. This was widely advertised as one of the cruise highlights and the best opportunity to see marine wildlife, we bought two souvenir mugs that were special for the cruise showing the cruise map and ports visited and  quoting the inside passage specifically

Unfortunately the crew  made an error and sailed west of Vancouver island, so no inner passage cruise for us. The captain announced that they made a mistake and tried to get a pilot at the last minute but none were available. He told us we would get a letter delivered to our cabin detailing the compensation. We did not get the letter and after persisting, guest services reluctantly gave us one. The offer is 10 % of the cruise cost given as FCC. Many people were really frustrated and angry and several that we talked to were very unhappy with the offer, for them, like us, they did not receive one of the highlights of the cruise. This is the first HA cruise we have taken, so I am interested to see opinions. For me this isn't compensation, because we get nothing if we don't buy another cruise, so this is basically a marketing inducement to buy another cruise. On other lines where ports have been missed that were no fault of the cruise line (unlike this one) we received OBC as immediate compensation. We travelled from Europe and at our time of life, we are unlikely to ever cruise Alaska again.  People that had done the inner passage previously, sadly told us that we missed the most picturesque part.

 

We were on this cruise. The 10% FCC seems fair to us. 

[KAKcruiser]

I wonder if this was a planned change of itinerary and the passengers were not made aware until the last minute.  It reminds me of all the changes in the Caribbean.  Key West is listed as a port on many sailings and then at the last minute, it is changed to a different port.  This is also true of Bonaire.  I realize that these islands are limiting cruise ships and that's the reason for the cancellations.  But, I'm sure the cruise lines know this well in advance.  They just don't want to lose any business over the changes.

[TheMichael]

2 hours ago, KAKcruiser said:

I wonder if this was a planned change of itinerary and the passengers were not made aware until the last minute.  It reminds me of all the changes in the Caribbean.  Key West is listed as a port on many sailings and then at the last minute, it is changed to a different port.  This is also true of Bonaire.  I realize that these islands are limiting cruise ships and that's the reason for the cancellations.  But, I'm sure the cruise lines know this well in advance.  They just don't want to lose any business over the changes.

 

I've seen where the BC legislature has tried to pass a law banning/limiting cruise ships in the Inside Passage, but so far that's been unsuccessful. 

 

Lots of ports can be somewhat dicey depending on conditions - especially tender ports. Another example is Puntarenas, Costa Rica, where the captain let us know that there's a fixed window where the ship can dock/leave based on the tide (pier runners beware 😀).

 

This is definitely smelling a lot like HAL made a mistake when the sailing was initially planned. I get the feeling the crew were plotting the course according to instructions to take the route they took, only to have it brought to their attention too late that HAL promised the Inside Passage to the passengers. The fact that HAL is not showing future sailings of that cruise with an Inside Passage run also suggests the error may have been in promoting that in the first place.

[sambamama]

I was on a 20 day cruise that went from San Diego to Vancouver. We lost 3 ports on the 16 day segment, and our only port on the 4 day segment (Victoria ) in addition to having to spend the first night docked in San Diego. We got NOTHING for losing our only port and a day of sailing. We got refunded port fees and $50, a T shirt and a 2 hour party with free drinks for missing 3 ports. I would have gladly taken 10% of my cruise back. A fishing net got wrapped around a stabilizer, and the captain and HAL kept lying to us about the ship status. Your compensation was more than fair. Its very possible you wouldn't have seen anything had you gone in the right passage. That's how marine life and wildlife is. I missed my port call in Cartagena, Columbia on my last Panama Canal cruise and got nothing. But the wind was 70 mph. It was unsafe. Life happens. 

[Blackduck59]

6 hours ago, TheMichael said:

 

I've seen where the BC legislature has tried to pass a law banning/limiting cruise ships in the Inside Passage, but so far that's been unsuccessful. 

 

Lots of ports can be somewhat dicey depending on conditions - especially tender ports. Another example is Puntarenas, Costa Rica, where the captain let us know that there's a fixed window where the ship can dock/leave based on the tide (pier runners beware 😀).

 

This is definitely smelling a lot like HAL made a mistake when the sailing was initially planned. I get the feeling the crew were plotting the course according to instructions to take the route they took, only to have it brought to their attention too late that HAL promised the Inside Passage to the passengers. The fact that HAL is not showing future sailings of that cruise with an Inside Passage run also suggests the error may have been in promoting that in the first place.

The BC Legislature has no say in the matter. Those waters are in the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. As stated numerous times in this thread, the Canadian "inside passage" is used constantly during cruise season by ships of many cruise lines while sailing out and in from Vancouver. 

Edited May 16 by Blackduck59
Typo

[Heidi13]

20 hours ago, jeh10641 said:

Is it possible that the "outside passage" is more applicable to sailings into Victoria and the "inside" route is more for Vancouver port calls?

Jim

 

Both inside and outside routings are navigationally acceptable options for most ships, with the biggest differences being risk, costs and crew fatigue.

 

For a vessel steaming south down Hecate Strait, bound for Victoria, the outside route is the preferred option, as it will have lower costs (fuel and pilotage), lower risks (significantly less confined navigation) and causes significantly less crew fatigue. The vessel remains in open waters at a constant speed until just prior to arrival Victoria. This provides optimum fuel consumption. The pilotage is short, as the pilot is picked up a couple miles from the breakwater at Brotchie Ledge. When in open waters, the Bridge and Engine Control Room (ECR) manning is at the lowest level (probably identified as green), which only requires the regular watchkeeping officers and ratings.

 

For the same vessel to navigate the inside passage to Victoria, it is compulsory pilotage from about Pine Island (top end Vancouver Island) to alongside the Ogden Point berth. This will take 17 to 24 hrs depending on slack water at Seymour and the ship's speed. Therefore, the ship is paying 2 pilots for up to 24 hrs. Note - pilots are an expensive addition to the Bridge Team. Being confined waters, the navigation risks increase significantly. Therefore, with increased navigation risks, the Bridge and ECR manning is increased. I don't have access to the latest Carnival procedures, but it is probably "Red" zone for most of the route. This requires additional resources, including the Master or Staff Captain on the Bridge and Chief Engineer or Staff Engineer in the ECR.

 

The benefit of the inside passage, especially if it is a daylight sailing is the spectacular scenery. Sadly, cost cutting has eliminated most of the Inside Passage, as back in the early days of Alaska Cruising, ships used the entire BC Inside Passage that starts at Grenville Channel, just south of Prince Rupert.

[Toofarfromthesea]

18 hours ago, TheMichael said:

 

I do see the cutbacks though. One cleaning per day means fewer stewards needed. 

 

Just curious, how many times a day do you clean your house?  Is just one cleaning a day really such a hardship?

[jeh10641]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Both inside and outside routings are navigationally acceptable options for most ships, with the biggest differences being risk, costs and crew fatigue.

 

For a vessel steaming south down Hecate Strait, bound for Victoria, the outside route is the preferred option, as it will have lower costs (fuel and pilotage), lower risks (significantly less confined navigation) and causes significantly less crew fatigue. The vessel remains in open waters at a constant speed until just prior to arrival Victoria. This provides optimum fuel consumption. The pilotage is short, as the pilot is picked up a couple miles from the breakwater at Brotchie Ledge. When in open waters, the Bridge and Engine Control Room (ECR) manning is at the lowest level (probably identified as green), which only requires the regular watchkeeping officers and ratings.

 

For the same vessel to navigate the inside passage to Victoria, it is compulsory pilotage from about Pine Island (top end Vancouver Island) to alongside the Ogden Point berth. This will take 17 to 24 hrs depending on slack water at Seymour and the ship's speed. Therefore, the ship is paying 2 pilots for up to 24 hrs. Note - pilots are an expensive addition to the Bridge Team. Being confined waters, the navigation risks increase significantly. Therefore, with increased navigation risks, the Bridge and ECR manning is increased. I don't have access to the latest Carnival procedures, but it is probably "Red" zone for most of the route. This requires additional resources, including the Master or Staff Captain on the Bridge and Chief Engineer or Staff Engineer in the ECR.

 

The benefit of the inside passage, especially if it is a daylight sailing is the spectacular scenery. Sadly, cost cutting has eliminated most of the Inside Passage, as back in the early days of Alaska Cruising, ships used the entire BC Inside Passage that starts at Grenville Channel, just south of Prince Rupert.

What great explanation. Thank you for this detailed answer. Gold stars!

Jim

[Woofbite]

On 5/14/2024 at 11:27 AM, Heartgrove said:

Most likely not the Captain's fault as someone in the Corporate office in Seattle actually plotted and made arrangements (pilots, ports, etc.) for the route.

Agree but it seems incredible to me that with two officers, a couple of watch captains, two sailors and who knows how many others were on the bridge, nobody noticed the ship wasn't going where they told us for a week it would be.

 

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Just curious, how many times a day do you clean your house?  Is just one cleaning a day really such a hardship?

Hmm, With that logic why not only have cleaning 3 days a week. serve 2 meals day, etc.  Cut-backs are simply that....CUTBACKS.  As some cruise lines continue to cutback (and this includes HAL) they are not passing along the savings to passengers.

 

Hank

[stevenr597]

I do wonder what “Holland-America” can say about this incident.  Their input could add a great deal to this conversation….as well as their silence. 

[Toofarfromthesea]

26 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Hmm, With that logic why not only have cleaning 3 days a week. serve 2 meals day, etc.  Cut-backs are simply that....CUTBACKS.  As some cruise lines continue to cutback (and this includes HAL) they are not passing along the savings to passengers.

 

Hank

 

They need to have cutbacks to reduce the debt load they assumed due to the pandemic.  The point I was making was that they seem to be making cutbacks that least affect passengers.  No one NEEDS to have their room cleaned twice a day.

 

If they 'passed the savings to passengers' they would be defeating the purpose of using the savings to pay down debt.

[Copper10-8]

39 minutes ago, Woofbite said:

Agree but it seems incredible to me that with two officers, a couple of watch captains, two sailors and who knows how many others were on the bridge, nobody noticed the ship wasn't going where they told us for a week it would be.

 

 

Just a heads up; Normal manning on a HAL ship bridge at sea is two navigation officers (one senior + one junior deck officer) and two quartermasters (now known as helmsmen - Pretty sure you are referring to them a s "watch captains", a term HAL does not use). There are no sailors on the bridge. The helmsman position is a couple of steps up from an ordinary sailor  

 

A course for the voyage we are discussing here would have been designed by the senior director and his staff at HAL's Deployment and Itinerary Planning Dept. in Seattle, WA more than a year ago. After approval, it (the full itinerary) is then published, advertised, and sold. The itinerary as posted below and found on line shows the day after Ketchikan, May 10, as "cruise Inside Passage, Alaska" which is different than the "Canadian Inside Passage" as already has been discussed here. That map shows Westie going around the west side of Vancouver island which is the normal and routine route to Victoria, BC and onward to Seattle the next day. That, it being the routine course to Victoria, might have had something to do with the route error that was made. That is pure speculation on my part, I do not know what happened on May 10.

 

 

27	MAY 9, 2024 Thursday	Ketchikan, Alaska	10:00 AM	6:00 PM
28	MAY 10, 2024 Friday	Cruise Inside Passage, Alaska	4:00 AM	TBD
29	MAY 11, 2024 Saturday	Victoria, British Columbia	8:00 AM	9:00 PM
30	MAY 12, 2024 Sunday	Seattle, Washington	7:00 AM

 

The course, based on the published itinerary, is plotted by a navigation officer and entered into the ship's bridge computer, also in advance of the actual day of that route. On May 9, while in Ketchikan, so the day prior, a "BRM" (Bridge Resource Meeting) would have been held where the entire bridge team, led by the captain on down, would have been present to discuss the following day's route, weather, sea state, and any particulars. 

 

I don't know what happened that next day, I wasn't on the bridge and neither was anyone here. I will let the captain's "compensation letter" to his guests speak for itself.  

[Tennessee Titan]

Great! Agree 100%. BTW: We were on this cruse. Sounds like a good point to let this trhis thread die a natural death....

Edited May 16 by Tennessee Titan

[Copper10-8]

1 hour ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

On May 9, while in Ketchikan, so the day prior, a "BRM" (Bridge Resource Meeting).............

 

Sorry, my error! 😔 BRM stands for Bridge Resources Management meeting

[Boatdrill]

On 5/13/2024 at 11:36 AM, ski ww said:

That is a pretty big mistake for the navigator to mistake going around the west side instead of the east side of Vancouver Island, wonder if he still has a job.

It's not as if the bridge officers suddenly became confused at the fork in the road.   I believe the letter said they had plotted their usual course, which is the west side. 

Edited May 16 by Boatdrill

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, Boatdrill said:

It's not as if the bridge officers suddenly became confused at the fork in the road.   I believe the letter said they had plotted their usual course, which is the west side. 

Exactly, the letter indicated the problem originated in Seattle. The problem is it should have been caught , it was after all a 50+ day cruise.  There should have been abundant time to contact Seattle and discuss the options and let the passengers know. 

Edited May 17 by Mary229

[Heidi13]

18 hours ago, TheMichael said:

 

I've seen where the BC legislature has tried to pass a law banning/limiting cruise ships in the Inside Passage, but so far that's been unsuccessful. 

 

 

The definitive word is "Tried". Since navigable waters are under Federal jurisdiction, the Provincial Govt can try, but they do not have jurisdiction. 

[stevenr597]

6 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

They need to have cutbacks to reduce the debt load they assumed due to the pandemic.  The point I was making was that they seem to be making cutbacks that least affect passengers.  No one NEEDS to have their room cleaned twice a day.

 

If they 'passed the savings to passengers' they would be defeating the purpose of using the savings to pay down debt.

Many of us have seen a decline in service that started well prior to Covid, but unfortunately accelerated because of the Pandemic.  We do understand that it will take time for the cruise industry to get back to “Normal”.

However, I would rather see an increase in prices then sacrifice levels of service, food quality and servicing of rooms. 

If individuals want to trade service for price, I would suggest Carnival which offers a great cruise for the price. 

[Blackduck59]

Why are members continuing to comment about "service" cutbacks on this thread. The topic has nothing to do with "service" levels. This is about a perceived slight that "compensation" was perhaps not adequate for missing a certain route for a sea day. There have been those who seem to think the bridge crew should lose their jobs. There are some who were on the cruise that felt the compensation offered was quite generous. There have also been some seasoned Mariners (actual trained ship's officers) who have tried to explain the circumstances that resulted in using the more traditional route for a ship scheduled for a port stop in Victoria and ending in Seattle.

As others have mentioned perhaps the topic is ready to fade away, or at least stay on subject.

[asebastian]

7 hours ago, Copper10-8 said:

I don't know what happened that next day

John, you're always the voice of reason here...well said!