Poor scores for Volendam

[lindleyjulie]

Bellebaby, no need to worry about The Volendam I did read a while back that CDC scores are not rally relevent to us and either something drastic has happened to her since we sailed her in october, or there is a fuss about nothing, she is a beautifull ship and her cleanliness is visable everywhere you look it would be impossibe for her to be dirty or have changed so much in eight weeks. :)

[tommy]

90,Not bad but I hope its not a continued trend in lowered standards Holland seems to be going with.It seems like less help,less service,and now less clean,is becoming acceptable. TOM

[bellebaby]

After a score of 90 earlier in the year, I thought the next score would show a marked improvement. Maybe in the mid-to upper 90's? However, the score declined to 87. A score of 85 is described as unacceptable/failing. It does seem as though "less clean" is now acceptable on HAL.

[RevNeal]

First of all, one must remember that the CDC inspections are exceedingly strict. My Mother -- who is a neat freak -- says that if the CDC were to inspect her kitchen (which is immaculate) she would receiving a failing grade. I HATE to think about how they would score MY kitchen.

 

Secondly, one should always check to see WHY the ship was marked off 13 points (out of a possible 100). You can do that at this webpage:

 

http://www2.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/VSP_InspRpt1.asp?txtShip=VOLENDAM&txtDate=11%2F19%2F2004&show_part=dtl

 

The largest deduction was item 16:

 

Site:*MAIN GALLEY-HOT GALLEY

 

Deduction*Status:* Y

 

Violation:*

TOFU IN THE WALK-IN REFRIGERATOR WAS TESTED AT 53°F. THE THERMOMETER IN THIS UNIT NOTED 42°F. THE TOFU WAS DISCARDED.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.5.3.1.1 Potentially hazardous food shall be maintained: (1) At 60°C (140°F) [roasts 54°C (130°F)] or above,; or (2) At 5°C (41°F) or less.

 

Site:* PROVISIONS-ROOM II

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

FOODS PLACED IN THIS UNIT THE NIGHT BEFORE FOR ISSUE WERE NOT AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURE. COOKED MEATBALLS WERE TESTED AT 50.7°F. CHEESE, MILK, AND YOGURT WERE TESTED AT 49°F. THE THERMOMETER IN THIS UNIT NOTED 50°F. THESE ITEMS WERE DISCARDED.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.5.3.1.1 Potentially hazardous food shall be maintained: (1) At 60°C (140°F) [roasts 54°C (130°F)] or above,; or (2) At 5°C (41°F) or less.

 

For this they were marked off 5 points.

Thinking about what can be found in my fridge, right now, and at what temperatures, causes me to shudder.

 

The Volendam also received a 3 point deduction for the following item:

 

Site:* WHIRLPOOLS

 

Deduction*Status:* Y

 

Violation:*

FOR 52 DAYS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION, THE FREE BROMINE LEVELS IN THE PORTSIDE WHIRLPOOL WERE BELOW 4.0 PPM. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THIS WHIRLPOOL WAS CLOSED DURING THOSE TIMES. FOR 14 DAYS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION, THE FREE BROMINE LEVELS IN THE STARBOARD SIDE WHIRLPOOL WERE BELOW 4.0 PPM. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THIS WHIRLPOOL WAS CLOSED DURING THOSE TIMES.

 

Recommendation:*

6.3.2.1.1 Whirlpool spas shall maintain a free residual chlorine of >3.0 mg/L (ppm) and <10 mg/L (ppm), or a free residual bromine of >4.0 mg/L (ppm) and <10 mg/L (ppm).

 

Ever maintain a swimming pool? :D

 

A total of 2 points were counted off for all of the following:

 

Site:*LIDO BUFFET

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

A SERVING UTENSIL WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR EACH FOOD ITEM.

 

Recommendation:*

7.4.3.3.1 A food-dispensing utensil shall be available for each container displayed at a consumer self-service unit such as a buffet or salad bar.

 

Ooops ... sounds like some passenger walked off with a utensil or two just before the inspection!

 

 

Site:*LIDO ICE CREAM BAR

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THE TUBE WAS NOT IN PLACE AT THE IN USE DIPPER WELL. THE DIPPER WELL COULD ADEQUATELY FLUSH THE FOOD PARTICLES FROM THE SCOOPS.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.3.4.2.4 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (4) In running water of sufficient velocity to flush particulates to the drain, if used with moist food such as ice cream or mashed potatoes.

 

So ... the dipper well didn't have water flowing! My goodness! That means I'll get some peach with my vanilla!

 

 

Site:*LIDO WOK STATION

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

SHORT HANDLED UTENILS WERE USED FOR DISPENSING THE INGREDIENTS. THE HANDLE OF THE SPOON IN THE GARLIC PAN WAS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE GARLIC.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.3.4.2.1 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (1) In the food with their handles above the top of the food and the container. 7.3.3.4.2.2 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (2) In food that is not potentially hazardous with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon.

 

Garlic Alert ... Count Dracula, take note.

 

Site:*MAIN GALLEY

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

CONDENSATE WAS NOTED IN THE PROOFERS ABOVE AN UNPROTECTED TRAY OF DOUGH.

 

Recommendation:*

Provide adequate protection in this unit so that condensate does not drip on to foods. Ensure that adequate humidity levels are maintained so that excessive amounts of condensate are not allowed to accumulate.

 

Water could condense above some dough and fall on it ... giving you wet dough. Ever been in the Galley? You could EAT off the floor, walls, and ceiling. I would, without hesitation, drink water condensed on the ceiling over a tray of dough. The water was condensed, there, is probably cleaner than the water coming out of my tap right now.

 

Site:*MAIN GALLEY-DRY STORES ROOM

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

A RIP WAS NOTED ON A BAG OF RICE.

 

Recommendation:*

Ensure that food packaging is intact.

 

Dang it, Tri, you ripped that bag of rice against the perfectly clean metal edge of this preparation table just 10 seconds before the inspector saw it!

 

Site:*DININING ROOM STORES

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THE BOTTOM SHELF WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE DECK CAUSING FOOD ITEMS TO BE STORED LESS THAN 6 INCHES FROM THE DECK. THIS WAS CORRECTED DURING THE INSPECTION.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.3.5.1 Food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; and (3) At least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the deck.

 

6 inches!!!!?? Yikes! I didn't know the ship had bugs that big that you had to keep stuff more than half a foot above the floor. What about "the 30 second rule!?"

 

 

Site:*CREW MESS

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*SERVING UTENSILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE APPLES.

 

Recommendation:*

7.4.3.3.1 A food-dispensing utensil shall be available for each container displayed at a consumer self-service unit such as a buffet or salad bar.

 

"Now, now, Maude, don't take that spoon out of the apple container!"

"But it's easier than getting a new spoon ... besides, the passengers do it all the time!"

 

Site:*LIDO BUFFET-GENERAL

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THERE WERE GAPS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS STATIONS AT THE BUFFET. FOODS WERE PLACE ALONG THESE GAPS EXPOSING THEM TO CONTAMINATION. SEVERAL CONDIMENTS AND FOOD ITEMS WERE PLACED OUT FOR SERVICE BUT WERE NOT PLACED UNDER THE SNEEZE GUARD. THESE ITEMS WERE COTTAGE CHEESE, HORSERADISH, MINT JELLY, TARTAR SAUCE, FRUIT JELLY, MAYONAISE, KETCHUP, AND MUSTARD.

 

Recommendation:*

7.3.3.6.1 Food on display shall be protected from contamination by the use of packaging; counter, service line, or salad bar food guards; display cases; or other effective means.

 

YIKES! :eek:

those packets of mustard were left exposed, without a sneeze guard!

ABANDON SHIP!

[RevNeal]

The CDC took off a whole point for all of the following:

 

Site:*MAIN GALLEY PORT LOCKER

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

EQUIPMENT WAS STORED ON SHELVES THAT WERE TOO CLOSE TO THE DECK, MAKING CLEANING OF THE DECK DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

Store items off the deck to facilitate cleaning of the deck.

 

Don't let the CDC near my house ... I got LOTS of stuff stored on the floor in my closet!

 

Site:*LIDO PREPARATION

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

GAPS WERE NOTED AROUND THE WATER SUPPLY LINES UNDER THE 3-COMPARTMENT SINK, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

 

Note ... they don't see it was dirty there, just that it was difficult to clean. Clearly, if it were dirty they would note that. Hence, this is simply the CDC being picky about something being difficult to clean leading to the possibility that someone might not clean the area.

 

Again, I'd hate the CDC to see how difficult it is to clean MY house! That's why I have a cleaning service come in and do it!

 

Site:*DOPHIN BAR

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THE DECK DRAIN WAS SOILED UNDER THE ICE BIN.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.2.1 Decks, bulkheads, deckheads, and attached equipment in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas, shall be cleaned as often as necessary.

 

Heaven forbid that the melted water off the ice might get a little dirty as it goes through the drain on the way to the recycle deck.

 

Site:*CREW MESS

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

A HOLE WAS NOTED WHERE A FASTENER WAS MISSING ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SOILED PASS-THROUGH, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

 

A fastener was missing. One lousy stinking fastener! Who took the fastener!

 

Site:*CREW MESS-LOCKER AD.11

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

ITEMS WERE STORED ON THE DECK, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

Store items off the deck to facilitate cleaning.

 

See note above about not letting the CDC look in my closets.

 

Site:*FOOD SERVICE GENERAL

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THE DECK THROUGHT THE GALLEY AREAS HAD ROUGH AND PITTED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT. THE EDGES OF THE DECK NEAR THE BULKHEAD HAD SEAMS AND CHIPPED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT. THE SCUPPERS THROUGHOUT THE GALLEY SPACES HAD ROUGH AND PITTED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

 

That's interesting ... last time I took the galley tour the metal surfaces in the galley looked ULTRA clean and smooth. I wonder where they're talking about. I hope the CDC doesn't see the counter top in my house.

 

Site:*LIDO DISHWASH

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

THE DECK HAD ROUGH SURFACES, AND PITTED AREA, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

 

Note, they didn't say it was dirty, just that it would be difficult to keep clean. Since they don't note it as being dirty, that means that any wear they noticed isn't actually keeping it from being cleaned.

 

Site:*LIDO BUFFET GENERAL

 

Deduction*Status:*Y

 

Violation:*

OPEN AREAS AROUND THE SPRINKLER HEADS WERE NOTED IN THE DECKHEADS ABOVE THE BUFFET LINES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

 

Recommendation:*

7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

 

"Sprinkler heads"?? As in the fire suppression equipment!!! Just turn 'em on and they'll clean themselves!!!!! :D

 

I think my point is made ... the CDC is overly picky on many of these issues, and the few things that really matter were either corrected on site, or easy to fix (and probably already have been). Which, perchance, is why they didn't file an Action-Correction statement with the CDC.

[tommy]

Still with all that said I have never been on a cruise ship with that low of a rating,on any line. TOM

[bellebaby]

I agree that most of the deductions seem to be "picky". If this is the norm, then why did most of the other comparable ships (including HAL ships) not get deductions for the same type of violations?

 

And with all of that being said, I haven't sailed on a ship with a very low score, either. I hope corrections are in place.

[peaches from georgia]

With all due respect, Greg, I think your making light of these violations, in particular those concerning refrigeration, food and whirlpool temps, to be an entirely misplaced 'defense' of the Volendam's operations.

 

It matters not a whit to us what conditions are in your kitchen or your Mother's (other than we wouldn't want you getting sick), but it matters a whole lot to everyone who might cruise on the Volendam that disease is not spread because of unclean conditions or incorrect food preparations.

 

If these were violations of a ship from another cruiseline comments here would do a 180. Can't have it both ways, can we? ;)

[RevNeal]

Peaches ... my point is that most of these violations are (1) minor, and (2) not about to spread disease. I'm, mostly, making fun of those. I'm sure you don't care about the cleanliness of my house, or my mother's house ... the point in my remark was that MOST PEOPLE'S OWN HOMES WOULD FAIL. So ... to get all worked up over a low (but passing) score on a ship is a little bit uncalled for.

 

Taking a look at the deductions ... the one that they counted off 5 for is serious, I agree ... and it says that they discarded the tofu and, I would imagine, the fridge was properly adjusted by maintenance. Without that single deduction the ship would have scored a 92. Without the 3 point discount on the whirlpool having a slightly less than 4 parts per million bromine count ... a fault that would make nobody sick ... the ship would have scored a 95.

 

The other items vary from silly to inconsequential to easily correctable. The utensils issue, for instance. More than once I've seen passengers take the utensils with them from the self-serve part of the line. Or, worse, take the same pair and select from a bunch of different things, then set the utensil down at the end and move on, leaving the first one lacking. That's my guess as to what happened on that issue.

 

If these were violations of a ship from another cruiseline comments here would do a 180. Can't have it both ways, can we?

 

I don't know ... I doubt it. Last time I saw some people go ape over a low score on a Celebrity ship I read the report and started laughing at what it contained ... much like this one, mostly little stuff. Likewise, when the Noordam was reported as having crusty food bits on knives and forks in the main dining room I was horrified ... and the 15 point (automatic fail) deduction they received for that made perfect sense. So, no ... I'm not issuing a "defense" so much as I'm pointing out that most of what is being noted has very little to do with actual cleanliness and more to do with picky details. Every once-in-a-while a ship gets caught with details like this. I've seen other ships get cause similarly.

[RevNeal]

I want to pull Host Doug's July 1, 2004 remark forward to today so that we can be reminded of what he said then about this matter:

 

In real life, any passing score is much more than enough, and even if a ship fails an inspection here or there, it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. (Most ships do fail once in a while. No major cruise line has never had a ship fail a VSP inspection.) A VSP inspector who had previously worked as a health inspector on land once stated that he had never seen a restaurant on land that would not have vailed a VSP inspection miserably and looking at some of the inspection results I'm not at all surprised.

 

And, from tomc on June 25:

 

Actually, any score above an 80 is probably close to immaculate. I forget the URL, but if you check the CDC ship reports and see what the inspectors are looking for, you will see that the checklist is so remarkably severe that the best restaurant in your town would probably fail miserably. Don't worry about a 90. Don't even worry about the occasional 85. The inspectors take points off for a missing tile in the galley, for a drain hose that might not be easy to clean, etc.

 

I'm sorry if some people misunderstood my sarcastic levity on this matter, but having gone around on this subject many times I just couldn't help but find some of these point-deducting issues funny. And, frankly, I think both Host Doug and tomc's remarks are highly apropos.

[RevNeal]

All of this being said ... I'm not happy about the Volendam having an 87. This is the lowest score she's ever had.

 

By the way, I looked at some of the noted issues that didn't receive deductions, and some of those bother me more than those that they got deducted points on.

[bellebaby]

I chose the Volendam for our cruise to Alaska this year due to my previous positive experiences(2 times) on the Zuiderdam. And we all know there are many opinions regarding that ship!! I have cruised the Inside Passage twice before, but both times on Celebrity. I am taking my Mother both on her first cruise and her first time to Alaska. I want it to be perfect for her, so I thought a traditional cruise experience on a HAL ship that includes Glacier Bay was a great decision. I hope I made the right choice.

[Philip217]

Having been through dozens of these VSP Inspections; having taught VSP seminars for Cruise Ship Employees for the CDC for many years; and having attended many, many "refresher" courses on CDC Practices and Regulations, please let me add my observations.

 

1. Not a single restaurant (I`m not kidding, NOT ONE) in America could even come close to passing the CDC`s VSP inspection. Yet most of us who eat in those restaurants seem to be pretty healthy most of the time.

 

2. The CDC is understandably precise and detailed about cleanliness practices. As a "closed environment", it is easier to get sick on a ship than nearly any other place on earth. It is wonderful to have them watching the industry and keeping us honest. (Although I wonder why they do not also inspect land-based operations as well. Are land-based restaurants, and the people eating there, less important to the US Government?) And what about airplanes? Why do they let the USDA, with very obvious lower standards, inspect airplanes - where it is also very easy to get sick?

 

3. We are dealing with the US Government here, which means that a lot of nonsense gets mixed in with common sense. Until a few years ago, the CDC proclaimed that there was no proper way to store a wine glass on a ship. No matter how the glass was stored, hung, boxed, or shelved, the ship lost 5 points. The CDC also really likes a single manufacturer of juice dispensers for ships. They are very easy to inspect. If the cruise line chooses another brand, they will most likely lose 5 points - with no basis on cleanliness. There are many more examples.

 

4. High VSP scores do not necessarily coincide with healthy passengers. In most cases, ships with high CDC scores report the same number of sick passengers as ships with low CDC scores. The QE2 has a miserable history of Inspection scores, but I haven`t heard about any health problems there. The Sea Goddess ships also have had many rather serious problems (and failures) with VSP Inspections, but not with cleanliness or health. Low VSP scores do not necessarily coincide with unhealthy passengers. The Japanese Cruise ships always have problems with USPH inspections, but never any reports of any illness.

 

5. There are a lot of politics involved in ship inspections: Which country built the vessel, which flag is on the stern, nationality of officers, nationality of passengers, how often the ship visits a US Port, whether or not the cruise line paid to fly the inspectors over to the shipyard in Europe during construction. The list is very long.

 

6. There are many (myself included) who suspect that the CDC Inspectors sometimes (NOT ALWAYS) know - before the inspection - what the final inspection score will be.

[josee]

I have just returned from the Volendam on a 10 day cruise and found her to be well maintained. Everyday, you would see crew hard at work under the sun doing various kind of work such as on the rails of the sliding roof, painting, varnishing. It's unbeleivable how messy the outside Lido deck can become at 6pm after most passengers have retreived inside, leaving paper napkins (from drinks as all regular napkins are cloth), food, spurts of sunscreen on chairs.... Yet every morning, it would look great and clean.

Regarding the food buffet and the use of ustensils, we had no problem. My husband is deathly allergic to various food (seafood, fish, poultry, eggs, nuts and some legumes) We rarely go out as we fear another trip to a hospital. Staff were aware of this and not once did he have a reaction which can happen when someone uses the same fork to pick up tomatoe that was used for shrimps. One evening however, we noted that beef was grilled beside fish at the Lido and I think he ordered a separate steak.

I found that my rooms were always clean and well done and the public area also well maintained and clean.

The pools and whirpool were also regularly checked. They did close the whirlpool once to make adjustment, for an hour or so.

I know this is just one opinion and a very limited one as well. FYI

Josée

[mhshapiro]

It important to understand that CDC inspections are very thorough and complete for a reason. Cruise ships are "closed" environments. Disease can spread very rapidly in such environments, thus sanitation is more critical on a ship that it would be in a ordinary "open" environment.

[ekerr19]

I am not happy about that score either. We sail 3/20/05 and I hope conditions are much improved.

 

I don't think I've ever sailed on a ship with a score that low - not even on the old Noordam.

[RevNeal]

I don't think I've ever sailed on a ship with a score that low - not even on the old Noordam.

 

Looking at your cruise history, I note you were on the Noordam twice during the 2001 - 2002 period. I don't know when you were aboard her during this period, but during her inspection on January 20, 2002 she received a failing score of 82. She re-inspected at 97 on March 7, 2002, but there must be a window of time in there between December 18, 2000 (when she scored 95) and January 20, 2002, when the ship slipped down to the low 80s.

 

I'm not sure a passenger can ever tell what the ship would score while we're aboard unless they actually run the inspection just prior to, during, or soon after our cruises. I was aboard the Zaandam for her Fall 04 Panama Canal Cruise. When we got into Port Canaveral the Coast Guard and CDC inspectors came aboard and put the ship's crew through her paces while we were waiting to clear customs (we were delayed hours because two cabins failed to report and, for the longest time, couldn't be found). The Zaandam scored a 97, which made me feel good when I read it. Likewise, I was aboard the Volendam between the inspections of October 6, 2001 (when she scored a 99) and March 13, 2002 (when she also scored a 99), and I suppose it's safe to assume that the ship was doing well when I was aboard between those inspections. However, I was aboard the Maasdam just prior to her scoring an 87 in 1999 and, quite frankly, I couldn't have told you the difference between her condition then and when I was aboard her in 2000 and she was sporting a freshly inspected 96.

[bellebaby]

I understand inspection standards are much more stringent than we would expect at a restaurant in our hometown or our own home. My concern focuses on the fact that other ships with the same standards seem to be complying more successfully and the fact that the Volendam has now had two marginal scores. It appears that HAL needs to address the situation or we can assume it is acceptable.

 

I like HAL and want to continue sailing with the line. However, this makes me nervous.

[RevNeal]

I like HAL and want to continue sailing with the line. However, this makes me nervous.

 

I don't think that an 87 on a single ship constitutes grounds for one being nervous about sailing on a cruise line. Firstly, while an 87 would be "marginal" -- it's just one point above the minimum pass -- given the strict standards involved, I'm not so sure her prior score of 90 qualifies as "marginal."

 

Secondly, perhaps it would be a worthwhile exercise for us to take a look at the recent scores for the rest of the HAL fleet. Perhaps we can tell from that what the Cruise-line considers "acceptable."

 

Amsterdam: 95 9/12/04

Maasdam: 95 10/23/04

Oosterdam: 100 6/14/04

Prinsendam: 90 1/20/04

Rotterdam: 99 10/22/04

Ryndam: 95 on 10/30/04

Statendam: 99 on 7/25/04

Veendam: 94 on 11/13/04

Volendam: 87 11/19/04

Westerdam: 100 on 12/2/04

Zaandam: 97 on 10/16/04

Zuiderdam: 98 on 5/1/04 (after having scored 88 in 11/22/03)

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in my opinion a fleet-wide average of 96 is not indicative of a Cruise-line policy which finds low-but-passing scores "acceptable."

 

What about the Volendam's History? Amazingly for a ship her age (she's 4 years old), she has never failed inspection. Her average for the past 4 years is 95, and of her 11 inspections only 4 have been below the HAL fleet average; the rest have been average or better -- one 96, two 97s, two 98s, two 99s.

 

In short, I wouldn't be nervous. Fleet-wide, the latest inspections demonstrate that HAL is not experiencing a "filthy fleet syndrome," nor that low-passing scores are "acceptable." Likewise, the Volendam's history doesn't indicate that low scores are "acceptable" for her, either.

[Sage]

I agree with Josee. I was on the 12/6/04 sailing, and everything was immaculate. The inspections are very strick, and the ship passed. I would be much more concerned if the ship had failed the inspection. Of course that is only my humble opinion. We can't wait to sail on the Volendam again, and we are booked for 5/25/05 to Alaska.

[ekerr19]

Looking at your cruise history, I note you were on the Noordam twice during the 2001 - 2002 period. I don't know when you were aboard her during this period, but during her inspection on January 20, 2002 she received a failing score of 82. She re-inspected at 97 on March 7, 2002, but there must be a window of time in there between December 18, 2000 (when she scored 95) and January 20, 2002, when the ship slipped down to the low 80s.

Oh revneal! I should have known I couldn't get this past you! :D

 

We were on her (Noordam) December 18, 2002 to January 3, 2003 - after the failing score but we did hear about it from several crew members.

 

I'm not really that worried about the Volendam score, we'll let you know how we like the ship when we get back - I'm pretty excited!

 

Also, I think I have some of my dates wrong... I thought we were also on her in July 2000... :confused: I'll have to ask DH, my memory is going.

[bellebaby]

Hi, everyone

 

I am excited about the cruise. I researched various iteneraries,ships and cruise lines. The Volendam seems to have it all. I want my Mom to experience being pampered in a Category S w/access to the Neptune Lounge. She should really enjoy the experience.

 

I am also looking forward to experiencing Holland America's Alaska. From all I've heard it's the best.

 

Everyone who is sailing on the Volendam before May, would you let us know if everything is "ship shape"?

 

Thanks, revneal, for all of your observations.

[Peggy Sue]

We were on the same sailing as MrsWynn (the original poster) I was a bit concerned when I saw the score, but our cabin was clean and they were constantly cleaing rugs, rails, furniture. In fact we got several notices throughout the cruise that they would be coming into our cabin to clean rugs and wash down the deck.

 

the dining room was very clean and we had no problems with any food service.

 

The Lido..Now this depended upon what time of the day you hit the buffet lines. If you go at peak times the staff just can't keep up with the slobs! I'm always amazed how people don't pick up after themselves. But...during these peak times we saw staff members constantly wiping down surfaces, cleaning up dropped food etc. HAL doesn't have too many "self serve" areas..most are give you plate to the person behind the counter and they fill it.

 

Of course, we never saw the kitchen, so can't comment on how things looked back there.

 

I for one am glad these inspections take place. It is amazing to think a couple thousand people live on a floating hotel for several days and, for the most part, we all reamain healthy.

 

I liked that HAL had staff at the gang plank waiting to spray you with a hand cleaner when returning from port and appreciated that they had hand cleaner as you entered the dining room and lido.

 

You're traveling during the tail end of the cold and flu season (at least hear in the north east) I'd be more concerned about fellow passengers coming on board sneezing and coughing ... I'd avoid them and head for the hand cleaner!! :o I know at work I turn and walk the other way when I hear someone sneeze!!;)

 

Have a wonderful cruie!!!!

 

Peggy sue

 

Peggy Sue

[The Talented Mr Limpit]

Thank-You all for your imput and replies.

We board the Volendam in just 10 days and can't wait!

Your insight has been very helpful.