Jump to content

Summit Alaskan cruise disappointment (MERGER OF 5 THREADS ON THIS TOPIC)


Hondu

Recommended Posts

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - Page updated at 12:28 PM

 

Some Celebrity Cruises passengers claim they are being held "captive" aboard a ship that didn't make a scheduled port stop in Seattle this week and are planning demonstrations, such as a casino "sit-in," to show their displeasure.

 

Passenger Patrick Regan of Vancouver, B.C., said several hundred of the vessel's approximately 2,000 passengers feel as if they are being held hostage on the ship that is traveling slowly because of mechanical problems.

 

There is huge group of passengers trying to get Celebrity to refund our fare and we are protesting as a group. Tomorrow if there is no progress we may hold a sit-in the casino and keep people from gambling."

 

"There's a lot of very unhappy people here from Australia and Germany and other places who wanted to see Seattle," Regan said.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002991110_cruise13m.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

:mad: Hi,

 

That's been fed off a similar article in a local paper yesterday, and fuelled by the same passenger, who views himself as an amateur cruise reviewer.

It's almost 100% non factual, massively irresponsible and accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to sprinkle a mechanical failure episode with a lot of garbage-like sensationnalism.

 

Foks ought to check ALL the facts before printing stuff like that, like verify with the cruise line,( it is, after all, THEIR ship involved in this ) and interview ALL or MOST of the approx 1,925 guests on board ( after all, THEY are the people involved ) to obtain an accurate and responsible picture of the dilemna and how it is being handled by Celebrity and guests alike.

I can assure you the very vast majority will laugh off any inuendos they are '' kept captive''.

 

Things mechanical WILL fail at some point and it is near impossible to accurately predict when. The current handling of this one by Celebrity is standard process; happens a fair bit to all lines, is handled generally along the current methods....ambulance chasers and headlines seekers need not apply.

 

Let's all relax and have a life, and indeed sympathize with all the folks on the cruise who are being inconvenienced by the amended itinerary, although they are still on a 13 day sailing and have been offered a pretty standard compensation package. Yes, they certainly are dissapointed...but '' held hostage'' ??? Pleeeeease...give us a break here....

 

Cheers

CG

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saturday, May 13, 2006 - Page updated at 12:28 PM

 

Some Celebrity Cruises passengers claim they are being held "captive" aboard a ship that didn't make a scheduled port stop in Seattle this week and are planning demonstrations, such as a casino "sit-in," to show their displeasure.

 

Passenger Patrick Regan of Vancouver, B.C., said several hundred of the vessel's approximately 2,000 passengers feel as if they are being held hostage on the ship that is traveling slowly because of mechanical problems.

 

There is huge group of passengers trying to get Celebrity to refund our fare and we are protesting as a group. Tomorrow if there is no progress we may hold a sit-in the casino and keep people from gambling."

 

"There's a lot of pissed-off people here from Australia and Germany and other places who wanted to see Seattle," Regan said.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002991110_cruise13m.html

 

There is an old saying that if you put a beggar on horseback, he will ride straight to hell. This, unfortunately, is one of the consequences of having a cruise that is cheap enough to attract passengers who behave in this manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like there hasn't been much rest for Celebrity's PR department during the last couple of months.....

 

Texed, I believe that the appropriate punishment for mutiny is "walking the plank"? Ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, all the "sit-in" types can sit in the next port, off the ship and get home as best they can. If they cannot understand mechanical failure, then maybe they can understand "Get off and stay off".

Link to post
Share on other sites

:Originally Posted by Hondu

"Tomorrow if there is no progress we may hold a sit-in the casino and keep people from gambling."

 

 

 

How fair is this to the passengers who are trying to enjoy the rest of their cruise. They're still on a boat enjoying the amenities. :) They're still on vacation!:) As wowzu said...dealt with it in an adult manner!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"to attract passengers who behave in this manner."

 

What on Earth does the price paid for this cruise have to do with boorish behavior?

Sky Sweet, please do not confuse the issue. You can find ignorant and rude people on any cruise-line in any level cabin or suite.

I have friends on this cruise celebrating an anniversary and a cancer free 6 years! I'm sure the last thing they are thinking of doing is sitting on the casino floor! I'm sure they have been planning and saving for this "trip of a lifetime", and I for one hope they got a BARGAIN!!!

 

Sorry, that price comment just rubbed me the wrong way!!:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, bepsf, I have had that happen to me, on more than a few cruises, and it didn't bother me one bit. How's this one for you? How would you like to have spent thousands of dollars for part of Crystal's world cruise and then be told out in the middle of the ocean that the cruise was skipping ports for various reasons? No compensation was given, not one dime. No one complained one tiny bit. We all understood that things happen beyond our control, and many passengers, myself included were not overly thrilled that we weren't going to see places that we had paid to see, like Indonesia and the Great Barrier Reef, along with some other places, but we all understood. I can't count the number of times Grand Cayman has been skipped, or the private islands that are owned by RCCI and Princess, but stuff happens and you have to be prepared for it and roll with it. Yes, the passengers on the QM2 complained until they got their money back, and hooray for them, but they really weren't "entitled" to anything, if you read any cruise contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saturday, May 13, 2006 - Page updated at 12:28 PM

 

Some Celebrity Cruises passengers claim they are being held "captive" aboard a ship that didn't make a scheduled port stop in Seattle this week and are planning demonstrations, such as a casino "sit-in," to show their displeasure.

 

Passenger Patrick Regan of Vancouver, B.C., said several hundred of the vessel's approximately 2,000 passengers feel as if they are being held hostage on the ship that is traveling slowly because of mechanical problems.

 

There is huge group of passengers trying to get Celebrity to refund our fare and we are protesting as a group. Tomorrow if there is no progress we may hold a sit-in the casino and keep people from gambling."

 

"There's a lot of very unhappy people here from Australia and Germany and other places who wanted to see Seattle," Regan said.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002991110_cruise13m.html

It seems to me that a "sit in" is......... obstruction with the operations of a cruise ship......... and if I was the Captain.....all those sit ins would be put ashore at the next available port........;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Passenger Patrick Regan of Vancouver, B.C., said several hundred of the vessel's approximately 2,000 passengers feel as if they are being held hostage on the ship that is traveling slowly because of mechanical problems.

 

I'm embarrassed that a Canadian is the ringleader of this nonsense.

 

Cruiselines reserve the right to change the itinerary, a childish 'sit in' in the Casino to keep people from gambling? reminds me of a toddler having a tantrum to get what they want.

 

The Captain should have put them all on a tender into Seattle and left them there IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just curious and somewhat confused, so anyone with the facts please clarify --was this:

a) a propulsion issue that happened during the time this cruise was happening? or b) a past state that occassionally rears it's head and is not fixed? or c) a problem that occurred right before this cruise ensued thus allowing the possibility for the cruise to be cancelled in order to properly fix it?

If it happened during the cruise, :( it's one of those unfortunate things that couldn't be avoided and would definitely disappoint me. But things do happen and I would probably be satisfied with the $200 credit etc.

If it's an ongoing problem --it might encourage me to look at another line--because even though I do love sea days--itinerary is very important to me and I would not want to risk not seeing ports due to a realistic potential problem.

If this was a problem that occurred right before this cruise happened and was not addressed--I would be real unhappy. Not that I would have a sit in or whatever happened. But I would probably be angry enough never to return to this cruiseline. And a $ 200 credit would not ease my pain:rolleyes: knowing that X had knowledge of this occurence but didn't offer me the choice of cancelling.

For most of us, we save to enjoy a vacation. We look forward to it with great anticipation. Alaska is a dream for many.

I'm not sure what the facts really are here, but they would alter my response to the situation greatly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and it had nothing to do with mechanical problems. Has anyone ever been on a cruise with an ill passenger that needed to be airlifted??? If you have cruised before you definitely have because I have lost count over how many times this has happened to me. We have changed course and met with emergency personal and yes even missed ports. While all the cranky people complained about the itinerary change I was hopeful that the person would recover and I spent the day enjoying my family and was thankful that we were not the ones faced with a tradgedy.

 

I will sit on a cruise ship going nowhere with my family and being glad for the things I have and not the complaining about the inconveniences of the day. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Cunard has set precedence with the QM2 propulsion issues and now Celebrity needs to cough up or face rather nasty write ups in the media. Cunard has shown that all you need to do is complain loud enough and long enough and contact as much media as possible and the cruiselines will pay. Pity the poor cruiseline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Cunard has set precedence with the QM2 propulsion issues and now Celebrity needs to cough up or face rather nasty write ups in the media. Cunard has shown that all you need to do is complain loud enough and long enough and contact as much media as possible and the cruiselines will pay. Pity the poor cruiseline.

 

I think Celebrity already stepped up to the plate on the loss of life on the tour in Chile.

Will they learn and keep the lesson learned is a good question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing ports due to weather/safety/political instability or a rescue/life-saving mission is one thing - nobody in their right mind would EVER complain about such things.

 

But when a ship has had these exact same propulsion issues twice before (launched in 2001, Summit was put into unscheduled drydock for these same propulsion issues in both 2002 and 2004) and all of her sisters have had the same issues, and the line keeps running 'em till they break - this has gone beyond "Oops" to irresponsible business practices. Either they need to pull the ships outta the water every 18 months to do preventative maintainance on them, or they need to replace the systems completely with ones that are proven to work long-term and send the bill to the manufacturer of the original machinery.

 

Either way, its RCCL/X's responsibility - they bought the "lemons", not the passengers. "Ooops - Sorry (again)" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twice before is nothing with 52 weeks cruising a year and how many thousands of passengers and nautical miles behind her. Staging a sit in and requesting full refunds for 1 missed port? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Missing ports due to weather/safety/political instability or a rescue/life-saving mission is one thing - nobody in their right mind would EVER complain about such things.

 

 

 

Oh but they do ! I've heard them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh but they do ! I've heard them.

 

I remember first time we lost time in a port due to a medical emergency. A 12 year old kid needed emergency surgery and we had to go out of our way to be in range of a helicopter. We lost significent time in port and people were screaming at customer service that they wanted refunds and other types of compensation. This was not one person but many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks we realize this is a highly emotional topic and we want you to feel free to discuss it here on the boards. But we have to ask that you do so without using derrogatory remarks and name calling to other community members or passengers.

 

Thanks for your cooperation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Missing ports due to weather/safety/political instability or a rescue/life-saving mission is one thing - nobody in their right mind would EVER complain about such things.

 

But when a ship has had these exact same propulsion issues twice before (launched in 2001, Summit was put into unscheduled drydock for these same propulsion issues in both 2002 and 2004) and all of her sisters have had the same issues, and the line keeps running 'em till they break - this has gone beyond "Oops" to irresponsible business practices. Either they need to pull the ships outta the water every 18 months to do preventative maintainance on them, or they need to replace the systems completely with ones that are proven to work long-term and send the bill to the manufacturer of the original machinery.

 

Either way, its RCCL/X's responsibility - they bought the "lemons", not the passengers. "Ooops - Sorry (again)" just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

 

Brian, if things were that easy, Celebrity would do it in a minute, but you don't seem to have many of the facts.

 

First, the problem itself is in the manufacture of the bearings used in two bearing rings in each of the two pods. For some unknown reason, the metal begins to break down and disintegrate long before it's supposed to. Rolls Royce, the manufacturer, designed it to last longer than the average time between drydocks, which is 2.5 years. For some reason it's not lasting, and Rolls Royce hasn't yet figured it out. Each time the rings are replaced, they are replaced with ones with bearings that were manufactured with a different process formula that Rolls Royce thinks/hopes will solve the problem, but they don't. These aren't parts that you go get off the shelf somewhere. These bearings are about 2.5 feet in diameter and manufactured specifically to go into this system. This is why Rolls Royce and Alstom were sued by RCCL to both recover what it's costing them and to pay for some permanent yet-to-be-determined solution.

 

Preventive maintenance, as you suggest, would be great if they knew when to expect the bearings to disintegrate, but they don't. This is the fifth time this ship has had them changed, and the fourth in an unscheduled situation. It was delivered in August 01. In March 02 all four rings (both thrust and radial) were changed. Those lasted until September 04 when the thrust bearings needed to be replaced. Then in January 05 all four were again replaced during a regular drydock. Then already in June 05 it was back in for another unscheduled replacement of the two thrust bearing rings, and now May 06. Contrast that with Constellation at the other end of the spectrum on which they have lasted up to three years between regular drydocks. The other two ships have had spotty records, with short and long periods between unscheduled replacements. The bottom line is that if they want to do preventive maintenance to be certain to avoid the problem based on the historical data, they would have to be replacing them every two or three months, and that just wouldn't be feasible.

 

As far as replacing the propulsion system, that's not a speedy option. It's not like changing a light bulb to a different brand. It's more like becoming dissatisfied with Windows on your Intel-based computer and deciding you want to run Apple software. The reengineering that would be necessary to replace the Mermaid pods with ABB's Azipods would probably take a couple of years plus manufacturing and installation time. Then you have no assurance that ABB wouldn't run into some other problem just as unexplainable, since an operation like that has never been done before.

 

The people in charge at RCCL aren't stupid people. They've considered all of this and rejected it because the simple solutions aren't as simple as they sound. At this point, in the short term unfortunately, they aren't in a position to do anything but live with the problem.

 

Alan Wilson

Cruise News Daily

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...