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

[renebfl]

Maybe just some of us want to help the next poor soul who is trying to decide what cruiseline to use !!Some of us do think fellow man.

[magmagee]

My job involves civil law (torts). However, I am not an attorney and thus cannot give legal advise. I am amazed at how often clearly worded contracts are found invalid and how often contracts which do not appear to be "fair" are upheld. In reading some cases it appears the judges came to a conclusion first, then found the facts to support their conclusion. This has resulted in the saying, "Bad facts make bad law." As a result we choose very carefully which cases we are willing to appeal.

 

As an example, in California, back in the 70's there was an earthquake in central California. Earthquakes are excluded in the standard homeowner's policy. Some judges decided it was not an earthquake, but rather "plate techonics" and thus the exclusion was found not to apply. Now the exclusions have been reworded to avoid this.

 

Nonetheless, finding something does not apply because you choose to refer to its definition is hard for me to understand (to put it nicely). It is the same as saying that you did not receive an injury, you broke a bone. Breaking a bone is an injury and plate techonics is an earthquake.

 

So how will this case come out? Who knows? Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses. No matter what, the passengers will not receive a 100% refund. If the passengers win, I don't know what they will receive, but my guess is around $400 each less attorney fees (that is $400 per person, not $400 per cabin) and any prior compensation. I am not saying the passengers will win. All I am saying is, based on what I think a judge would do, if the judge rules in the passenger's favor, I would expect an award around $400 per person.

 

The problem is, while a $200 dollar credit is easy to evaluate, what is a 30% discount worth? To a certain extent a 30% discount's value is dependent on the cost of the cruise, which can vary based on the time of year, where the cruise is going, and what cabin category you are in. A four day Mexican Riviera cruise in an inside cabin in January costs a lot less than the penthouse suite on an Alaskan cruise in July. So, how much is 30%? What conditions, if any, are attached to this discount? What if the person can only cruise once every two years and the discount is only good for 18 months?

 

Let me put it another way. Would you pay $200 for a $200 credit? It seems very fair (to both sides). So, how much would you pay for a 30% discount??? That is a little harder to evaluate.

 

There are many questions. Did Celebrity know the pod would fail before leaving Los Angeles? What would change if Celebrity found out in San Francisco that the pod would fail and told everyone before leaving San Francisco? What could the passengers do? Leave the ship? They are well past the 100% penality time, they would loose the value of their cruise. At least by staying on the ship they gained the value of the cruise (or at least what was left of the cruise). Besides, the passengers could not leave the ship in San Francisco, that would be a violation of the Jones act.

 

We are back to that age old question of, what did Celebrity know and when did it know it? Then suppose there was only a 2 minute delay between the time Celebrity knew something and when Celebrity told the passengers. Suppose that Celebrity told the full truth (I am not saying that they did not, only for this example we will assume that they did). What would change (from the current situation where some people believe Celebrity did not tell the truth). And by change I mean, how would the damages be different? What did the passengers do to mitigate their damages? Could the passengers mitigate their damages?

 

There are all sorts of legal questions here. If you really want to get a legal opinion, contact an attorney in Miami that has experience handling these matters. I don't have that training. I just know what some of the legal issues are, and I can guess what will happen based on my limited knowledge of the facts and the law. I have no idea who will win. I do know that if the passengers win, they will not receive a 100% refund.

 

The problem, as I see it, is Celebrity did not handle this problem very well from a customer service view (I am not referring to a legal view). Celebrity's customer service image is going to take a very big hit, even if it wins all the legal battles. Which leads to the saying, you can win all the battles and still loose the war. One can only hope that Celebrity (and the other cruise lines) will look back at this, analyze the mistakes, and take corrective action. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

 

Thank you for sharing that. It was very interesting. For your info, I was a non complaining passenger on this cruise but I do think that if the unhappy passengers do not win this it will hurt Celebrity's reputation. Even though I did not file the law suit I do have a few questions in the back of my mind about the way all of this was handled but I do not know too much about the legal field and my thought is that Celebrity knows what they can and can not do legally so winning might be a long shot. I had a small incident with Celebrity on my first cruise and I was not happy about the way they handled the pr part of the situation. You can only do that so many times and then you will loose customers. Maybe the unhappy passengers from this cruise won't get what they want without the law suit but over the years this kind of customer dissatisfaction will take a toll on Celebrity or any business who has unhappy customers. I have had 3 great cruises with Celebrity, including this one, but like I said these kinds of problems could catch up with Celebrity and after awhile even the most faithful could switch to another line and that is a very high price to pay.

[magmagee]

Maybe just some of us want to help the next poor soul who is trying to decide what cruiseline to use !!Some of us do think fellow man.

Maybe the next poor soul should not go on a cruise until they do their homework. There is a lot of info on all of the different cruise lines and when you are spending this kind of money a little research goes a long way.:)

[naked]

Maybe just some of us want to help the next poor soul who is trying to decide what cruiseline to use !!Some of us do think fellow man.

Great. Thanks. For starters, please post the dates of each ships pod failures so that the next poor soul knows how often this sort of thing occurs.

[Cuizer2]

I dont think so.

 

As an example, a search just conducted at www.cnn.com on the following keywords:

 

Celebrity, Summit, Alaska returned 0 results

Celebrity, Summit, zero results

Celebrity cruises, turned up a story (at #10 on the results list) regarding the recent tour bus tradgedy.

 

It ain't big news. I don't think they will suffer greatly for it.

 

The place to search is with the TAs. What do the travel agents think about all of this?

[BB5953]

Great. Thanks. For starters, please post the dates of each ships pod failures so that the next poor soul knows how often this sort of thing occurs.

 

It is not any one cruisers responsibility to do this. All any one can do is post their experiences (good, bad or ugly). If everyone does this it will help others make an informed decision.

[Drew B]

The idea of blaming passengers for not knowing about specific potential mechanical problems is completely unfair. In any contract or business transaction, there are expectations of disclosure (the responsibility of the SELLER) and good faith (the responsibility of both parties). If the risk of mechanical failure as occurred in this case is pervasive enough to warrant special concern, then it is UNDOUBTEDLY up to the cruise line to disclose it. My argument, though, is that this is not such a pervasive problem. From what I've been told, less than 2% of sailings are affected. There are other elements (weather being the biggest one) that negatively impact people's vacations FAR MORE FREQUENTLY THAN 2% OF SAILINGS.

[pmymmw]

I don't want to take sides here, but we were on Summit in May 2005 for a 2 week Alaskan cruise. We had a fabulaous time and nothing went wrong.

However, if we had had to miss 2 of our 10 ports on our 'once in a lifetime cruise' due to problems that are entirely the cruise line's responibility I would have been very unhappy. Certainly a $200 compensation would have been taken as a personnel insult on a cruise that had cost us almost $10000 in total. The compensation should be relative to the amount spent on the cruise. This isn't an exact calcualtion but something along the lines of:

$10000 for 10 ports, $5000 per person, $500 per person per port. So the compensation should be $1000 per person for missing 2 ports (perhaps minus a small amount for food and entertainment). Obviously this would be less for people who had spent less on their cruise.

 

This is just my opinion, but for me $200 would have seemed like an insult (and as for the 30% of future cruises, am I really likely to use this if I have had these problems!)

[Cuizer2]

I don't want to take sides here, but we were on Summit in May 2005 for a 2 week Alaskan cruise. We had a fabulaous time and nothing went wrong.

However, if we had had to miss 2 of our 10 ports on our 'once in a lifetime cruise' due to problems that are entirely the cruise line's responibility I would have been very unhappy. Certainly a $200 compensation would have been taken as a personnel insult on a cruise that had cost us almost $10000 in total. The compensation should be relative to the amount spent on the cruise. This isn't an exact calcualtion but something along the lines of:

$10000 for 10 ports, $5000 per person, $500 per person per port. So the compensation should be $1000 per person for missing 2 ports (perhaps minus a small amount for food and entertainment). Obviously this would be less for people who had spent less on their cruise.

 

This is just my opinion, but for me $200 would have seemed like an insult (and as for the 30% of future cruises, am I really likely to use this if I have had these problems!)

Your formula allows noting for the room and board. Based on what you are saying, Celebrity could put the people in a fast row boat as long as they got to see all ten ports. Food and a room to sleep at night would be the passenger's responsibility and would cost extra.

 

Since that is not the case, you have to allocate something for the room and board. And, I can make a very good argument as to why, for most poeple, most of the allocation has to go to room and board, and not the value of the ports. And this is a big reason why I don't think this claim has the value that some of the passengers thinks it has.

 

Without regard to liability, do I think the value of the lost ports is more than $200? Yes. The problem is, I don't know how to put a value on the 30% discount. As fate would have it, I (and several other people) toured the Summit on the day it left San Pedro (I have many photos, I just have not had the time to post them yet). I saw the Celebrity Suite and I thought, what a great room for cruising Alaska. So I looked into the price. I believe it was about $6,500 per suite (I just checked and it is $6,600 per suite for the same crusie in May 2007). There are only two suites that are more expensive than the Celebrity Suite. The lowest price cabin (again for the same cruise in May 2007) is $2300 for a cat 12 inside cabin (I thought it was $1600 per person when I posted earlier).

 

Next, looking at the itinerary, I would count 10 external sites (including the inside passage twice, once north bound and once south bound). So, in my opinion, you have to adjust your figures to allocate something to the cabins and food (which the passengers had full use of - perhaps more than they wanted in this case) and you need to lower your figures. Even someone in a Celebrity Suite is "only" paying $3,300 per person (and again, some of that has to be allocated to the value of the room and board).

[pmymmw]

Cuizer2, I take on board some of your points, but for us the biggest factor in how we pick our cruises is itinery. We pick a cruise 18 months in advance, then plan the excursion etc. When this itinery is changed it is very dissapointing. I accept you have to take into account the board etc. but if I wanted a lot of sea days i would do a transatlantic cruise, which is much cheaper. The reason a transatlantic is cheaper is because most cruisers put a lot of value on ports of call.

 

As for the cost, you have to remember that we are coming from the UK and not only do we pay more cruise only than in the US, we also have very expensive flights (which are part of the cost of the holiday). The flights alone for this cruise in 2005 cost more than £1000 per person (about $1800).

[Cuizer2]

Cuizer2, I take on board some of your points, but for us the biggest factor in how we pick our cruises is itinery. We pick a cruise 18 months in advance, then plan the excursion etc. When this itinery is changed it is very dissapointing. I accept you have to take into account the board etc. but if I wanted a lot of sea days i would do a transatlantic cruise, which is much cheaper. The reason a transatlantic is cheaper is because most cruisers put a lot of value on ports of call.

 

As for the cost, you have to remember that we are coming from the UK and not only do we pay more cruise only than in the US, we also have very expensive flights (which are part of the cost of the holiday). The flights alone for this cruise in 2005 cost more than £1000 per person (about $1800).

I hope you did not interpret my post to mean 100% has to be allocated to the ship. What I am trying to say is, you have to allocate something to the ship. I know what I think that should be, but it does not matter what I think it should be. I can however make a very good argument as to why paying more does not result in the ports being worth more.

 

While airfare is a consideration, it is not part of the cruise. You pay airfare to get to the cruise. You received the value you expected from the airfare. You cannot then claim the value of your transportation was less because you missed something on the cruise. If this was true, then the airline would be justified in asking you how you enjoyed your vacation. If you enjoyed it a lot, then the value of your transportation is worth more, and thus you have to pay more. It just does not work that way.

 

Let us say someone in Los Angeles saved up for 10 years to go on their dream cruise. They board the Summit in San Pedro on May 7. Total transportation cost, $40 for a taxi. In addition they are flying home from Seattle on Southwest. I think that is running about $230. Factor in the cost to get from Vancouver to Seattle and we are talking less than $400 in total transportation costs. Since they are on the same ship as you, they suffer the same problems as you. Are you going to claim they suffered less because they did not pay as much as you to get to the ship and back home again?

 

Lets say that a couple were in the Royal Suite, and thus paid $14,000 for the cruise. Let say that another couple was in an ocean view cabin and thus paid $3,000 for the cruise. The couple in the Royal Suite paid more for their cabin. They do not get to spend more time looking at the inside passage then the couple in the ocean view cabin. They do not get to spend more time in Sitka than the couple in the ocean view cabin. They do not get to spend more time looking at the Hubbard Glacier than the couple in the ocean view room. They do not get served better food than the couple in the ocean view cabin. The only reason they paid more was because they got a better cabin, not because they would get to enjoy more of Alaska. So, by missing Sitka, by missing the inside passage, by missing Hubbard Glacier, they missed the same things in the same amount as the couple in the ocean view cabin. So how can the couple in the Royal Suite claim to have a greater loss that the couple in the ocean view cabin. They cannot. They paid more for their room and they got to enjoy the benefits of the bigger room that they paid for.

 

Now, all of what I am saying only applies to the US. You live in the UK. If you bought your tickets in the UK, and the UK rules / laws apply, then nothing I say applies to you. If you paid more simply because you do live and purchased your cruise in the UK, then the obvious question is, why would the same product cost more in the UK? I don't want to get political here, but if the reason the cruise cost more is because consumer protection laws in the UK are better (I don't know this, I am just saying that if this is the reason) then you should take advantage of those better laws, and request the compensation due you in the UK. If the reason the cruise cost more is becasue of some other reason, then an evaluation of what is fair requires an understanding of why you paid more.

 

The bottom line is, everyone seems polarized by this. What I am trying to say is, both sides have some valid points, and both sides have some weaknesses. As I see it, what is fair lies in the middle somewhere. Nobody received the experience they hoped for. Who is responsible? If Celebrity is responsible, what is fair compensation? What factors should be considered in evaluating what is fair compensation? What is a view of the Hubbard Glacier worth? How much different is that value from five hundred yards (or meters) away vs. five miles (about 8 kilometers) away? How much is a view of the inside passage worth? If you pay for a hamberger and only get 1/2 a hamburger, are you entitled to a 50% refund? More? Less? If you pay for a car, and only get 1/2 the car, are you entitled to a 50% refund? More? Less? Is a cruise made up of a bunch of different experiences, or are they all needed to give the cruise any meaning? How do you evaluate fairly (for everyone, from Celebrity to the Royal Suite passenger to the inside cabin passenger) the value of any missing parts?

[pmymmw]

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I do think if you pay more for a cabin you should get more compensation. Let us take another analogy:

If 2 people rent cars to drive through Death Valley, one rents a bottom of the range 2 door with no air conditioning and the other rents a top of the range Cadalac. They both get the same view of the Scenery and they both get to spend the same amount of time at any stops they make. However, if both cars breakdown they will not get the same amount of compensation, the person in the Cadalac will get compensation in line with what they paid for the car rental.

 

We are probably not going to agree on this point, it is unlikely that any 2 people would, but I do hope we agree that an offer of $200 on board credit is a poor offer of compensation considering what happened.

[Cuizer2]

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I do think if you pay more for a cabin you should get more compensation. Let us take another analogy:

If 2 people rent cars to drive through Death Valley, one rents a bottom of the range 2 door with no air conditioning and the other rents a top of the range Cadalac. They both get the same view of the Scenery and they both get to spend the same amount of time at any stops they make. However, if both cars breakdown they will not get the same amount of compensation, the person in the Cadalac will get compensation in line with what they paid for the car rental.

 

We are probably not going to agree on this point, it is unlikely that any 2 people would, but I do hope we agree that an offer of $200 on board credit is a poor offer of compensation considering what happened.

I've stated it before, I think it is worth more than $200. How much more??? However, I have never taken a position on liability. In some examples I am assuming Celebrity is liable, because if they are not, we never get to damages. However, that does not mean that I think Celebrity is liable. Fact is, I don't have enough information to determine liability, and I will not get that information from this or any other public forum. Then of course there are the contracts issues. So I am not taking a position on liability.

 

As to the cars, what compensation are you talking about? The cost to tow each car is the same. If you are talking about a refund for the unused time with the car, then yes, the refund for the higher priced car is greater, because the higher price was paid for the car, not because a higher price was paid for the scenery.

 

Going back to the ship issue, if the problem had been that the ship could move at full speed, but no one could sleep in or use their cabins (I know that would end the cruise, but work with me on this one) then everyone would get to see all the sights, visit all the ports, but not get the use of their rooms. Since some paid more for the room, then they deserve greater compensation for not being able to use that room. However, I don't think you can say one person paid a greater amount to visit Sitka than anyone else did.

 

Lets look at it this way. The ship is not sold out. There are four balcony cabins left unsold. One couple is booked in the owner's suite, another in a balcony cabin. The balcony cabin has an unstoppable water leak just above the bed and the toilet does not work. So they are moved to another balcony cabin. Is that couple owed anything? No, they are getting a like kind and quality room in exchange. Now lets pretend that unexpectedly the owners show up and demand (and gets) the owner's suite (since as the owners, it is their suite - okay, bad joke, just work with me again on this). So the only cabin this couple can be put into is a balcony cabin. Then they are entitled to a refund of the difference in the cost of the balcony cabin vs. the owner's suite, not because they will get to see less of Alaska, but because they are getting less of a cabin than they paid for.

 

And the same applies to you. You got less of Alaska than you paid for. If Celebrity is responsible for this, then Celebrity should compensate you for your loss. What if it turns out that the cause of the problem was that the last mechanic to service the ship put the wrong oil in it, and that caused the bearing to wear faster. Should the mechanic have to pay any more or any less than Celebrity would have to if Celebrity was at fault? On one hand you could say no. On the other hand you could say Celebrity's liability is limited by the contract, while the mechanic's is not, so yes, the mechanic does owe more than Celebrity would.

 

The compensation should be based on what was lost, and what would not have been lost if the problem did not happen. What if it turned out that Sitka sank the day before the Summit was due to arrive? Lets assume in this case Celebrity is responsible for the pod problem (directly or indirectly). Would Celebrity still owe for missing Sitka? No, because pod problem or not, the passengers would not get to see Sitka because the island sank the day before they were scheduled to arrive.

 

These issues are not as simple as some of the passengers might think.

[pmymmw]

I can not compartmentalise costs like you do. I did not pay a certain amount for flights, a certain amount for the cabin, a certain amount for food, a certain amount for entertainment, a certain amount for the view etc. I paid one amount for my holiday.

 

I can not think 'well we missed 2 ports of call this cruise but at least I got to spend ALL day in my suite so i got 99% of what I paid for'. Like I said before if I wanted to stay in my cabin or on the ship all cruise I would go on transatlantic cruises.

 

As for who is at fault, it is certainly Celebrity, whatever the circumstances of the problem. They own the ships and they are responsible for maintenabce and up keep of them, even if they do tender out the maintenance to third party. In my opinion they are even more culpable in this case as this is a known issue that they have not done enough to prevent or avoid. As this is a known and proven issue they should drydock the ships more often in order to prevent this kind of fiasco. Unfortunately it makes more financial sense for them just to wait until the ship breaks (again) and then pay all the onboard passengers $200, at least this way they get 95% of full revenue for the week.

[cruiser2004]

In reply to the sinking Sitka riddle. What if there was already another ship close to Sitka and the Summit turned back five to seven miles away then you would not be able to determine that Sitka had sunk.

The bottom line is that the passengers lost over one half of the advertised Itinerary. The loss of ports and time was caused by a known problem to Celebrity. Celebrity continues to apply temporary fixes and send these ships back out. For as long as passengers will stand for it they will keep doing it. I just hope they never get caught in a big storm while trying to run on one pod.

[Cuizer2]

I can not compartmentalise costs like you do. I did not pay a certain amount for flights, a certain amount for the cabin, a certain amount for food, a certain amount for entertainment, a certain amount for the view etc. I paid one amount for my holiday.

 

I can not think 'well we missed 2 ports of call this cruise but at least I got to spend ALL day in my suite so i got 99% of what I paid for'. Like I said before if I wanted to stay in my cabin or on the ship all cruise I would go on transatlantic cruises.

 

As for who is at fault, it is certainly Celebrity, whatever the circumstances of the problem. They own the ships and they are responsible for maintenabce and up keep of them, even if they do tender out the maintenance to third party. In my opinion they are even more culpable in this case as this is a known issue that they have not done enough to prevent or avoid. As this is a known and proven issue they should drydock the ships more often in order to prevent this kind of fiasco. Unfortunately it makes more financial sense for them just to wait until the ship breaks (again) and then pay all the onboard passengers $200, at least this way they get 95% of full revenue for the week.

I am not assigning a value to each item. I am saying that in fairness, that is what has to happen. No one is claiming you should get less because you spent more time in your cabin than you wanted to. What I am trying to say is, some portion of your fare went to the "rental value" of your cabin. That was not reduced by the problems, so for that portion you received full value. I also have not stated what I believe is a fair allocation. It is not 100% and it is not 99% (nor is it zero or one). While the total experience is not what you expected, some of the parts did live up to expectations. I don't believe you are owed compensation for that portion of your cruise that did perform as expected.

 

Still there is the issue of whether or not a cruise is made up of several different experiences, or is it a combination of everything. To put it another way, is the whole equal to the sum of the parts, or is the whole more than the sum of the parts? Again, if I give you 1/2 a hamburger, you get the value of 1/2 of the hamburger. If I give you half a car, you get a lot less than 1/2 the value of the car.

 

However, what is missing can make a big difference. A car missing the hub caps still works fine and has no safety issues. A car missing a steering wheel not only does not work well, it is a safety hazard. A cabin with no ice looses less value than a cabin with no cold running water. If the cruise is made up of several different experiences, then Celebrity is due credit for those experiences that performed as was reasonably anticipated. If a cruise is the combination of all the experiences, then the allocation gets more difficult. As in the example with the car, some parts offer more value than other parts, even if they cost the same. Both ice and running cold water are free. However, I believe the cold water is more important and thus adds more value than the ice. If you disagree, try taking a shower with ice and hot water only. Then try taking a shower with hot and cold water, but no ice.

 

As to liability, that is a different issue. First you have to get past the contract issues. Then you have to show that Celebrity was negligent. Just because something bad happens does not mean someone is responsible. By claiming Celebrity owned the ship and thus is responsible you are basiclly claiming strict liability applies in this case. Legally I don't know if that is true or not. That is a legal question and requires an attorney with experience in maritime law. If strict liability does not apply, then you have to show negligence. That can be a lot harder than you might think. Even if you get past proving negligence, you have to prove a connection between the negligence and the damages. And before you get there, you have to show damages.

 

Okay, the cruise was not what you expected, damages should be easy right? Well, that is what we have been discussing. How do you measure damages? How do you plan to show what value Sitka, the Hubbard Glacier and the Inside Passage have? Your take the cruise price and divide by ten has a problem, it assumes the ship and the food had no value. If you want to claim that by paying more you lost more, how are you going to show that Sitka, the Hubbard Glacier and the Inside Passage have more value to you than to your neighbor in the cabin next door. How do you think your neighbor in the cabin next door is going to react when (s)he finds out you are claiming you deserve more than (s)he does?

 

It is very easy to sit there and claim you were damaged and that Celebrity is at fault. I am willing to say that perhaps you are correct (or perhaps not, but we will assume for the moment that you are correct). How are you going to prove it? If strict liability does not apply, then you have to prove negligence. And before you even get a chance to do that, you have to get past the contract. Maybe you will. But I guarantee you will not get what you want by simply stating I received less than I am entitled to and Celebrity is responsibility. If you are making that claim, the court will require you to prove it. How do you plan to do this (if in fact you do plan to sue Celebrity, don't answer this question in a public forum)?

 

And it is possible that a judge will say, "No one forced you to cruise. You signed the contract. The contract allows Celebrity to change the itinerary for any reason without any compensation. If you don't like that, you should not have agreed to the contract and you should not have taken the cruise. Thus, you have no case." Like it or not, this could happen. This is the reason you need to consult an attorney experienced in maritime law. Most of the attorneys with experience in cruise ship related legal issues can be found in Miami and London. If you plan to pursue your case in the UK, then speak to an attorney in London. If you plan to pursue your case in the US, contact an attorney in Miami.

 

Both sides have strenghts and weaknesses. I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I believe a win by the passengers might improve things. But given what I know, I have no idea who will win, and if the passengers do win, how much, if anything they will receive.

[Cuizer2]

In reply to the sinking Sitka riddle. It is not a riddle. Just an example to illustrate a point.

 

What if there was already another ship close to Sitka and the Summit turned back five to seven miles away then you would not be able to determine that Sitka had sunk. Why did the Summit turn back? Is it because the other ship warned the Summit. I cannot answer this without knowing why the Summit turned back. If this is related to the Hubbard Glacier issue, the leading theory is that only one ship is allowed at the Glacier at any one time. If true, then the Summit had no choice.

 

The bottom line is that the passengers lost over one half of the advertised Itinerary. The loss of ports and time was caused by a known problem to Celebrity. Celebrity continues to apply temporary fixes and send these ships back out. For as long as passengers will stand for it they will keep doing it. I just hope they never get caught in a big storm while trying to run on one pod. Actually, this is not the bottom line, this is the ISSUE. Though Celebrity does not post on these boards and will not respond directly, we can assume, based on its actions, that Celebrity does not agree with you. You claim Celebrity is responsible. Okay, prove it. I am not saying you are right or wrong, only that there are two side to this issue, and both sides have points in their favor and points against them.

For example, lets assume everything you say is true. How do you plan to get past the wording in the contract? If the contract is upheld by the court, your case is over. You never get to discuss liability or damages. This issue is not as simple as many of the passengers believe it to be. I suggest consulting an attorney experienced in martime law.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

If, as I suspect, the 30% off a future cruise is calculated by taking 30% of what was paid for this cruise. Then higher priced cabins will benefit more. Which is fine with me even though I am not in the highest paying group.

 

That said, I realize some (many) will say 30% of nothing (can't, won't cruise X again in 18 months or ever) is still nothing. That is the dilemma. If the 30% was a cash back deal it would solve some of this dilemma.

[JLC@SD]

Anyone know if the Summit Class Action Lawsuit has or will be filed.....:confused:

[Andy&Mary]

 

Just because something bad happens does not mean someone is responsible.

 

In our frequently litigious world, this is worth repeating.

 

 

I enjoyed reading your explanations, Cuizer2.

m

[Lotsacruising]

yes my signature does say "just get me on a cruise and I am happy"

 

but that assumes that the ship is actually a working ship, we are told the truth and given value for value purchased.

None of the above is true

Janet

[cruiser2004]

The question of why the Summit turned back at the entrance to Hubbard Glacier is an interesting one. What we saw of the glacier from the Summit would be like driving to the Grand Canyon, paying the entry fee and then make a U turn and leave. Yes you could tell everyone that you were at the Grand Canyon but in my view you misssed the experience. I find it a little hard to believe that there is not a schedule that the cruise ships follow at Hubbard Glacier.

[naked]

yes my signature does say "just get me on a cruise and I am happy"

 

but that assumes that the ship is actually a working ship, we are told the truth and given value for value purchased.

None of the above is true

Janet

 

Really? You assume?

 

What did you contract for with Celebrity? Did they deliver what was contracted for?

[griswalds]

The math does not quite work out that way. What you have to look at is the cruise industry average and you will know that M class ships have a very predicatable rate of breakdown. It is no secret and Celebrity manages those breakdowns by making a simple business decision. They could increase the frequency of scheduled dry dock or they can take the chance of a failure during a cruise and they have chosen the latter. Then the next issue is also a business decision, Celebrity should also treat passengers on cruises like this with a better settlement, for those who want it.

 

As they say with statistics, lies and more lies. For example I could say Celebrity has 100% of the unscheduled routine mechanical breakdowns in the cruise industry. While there are other ships that have occasional random mechanical problems, I am not aware of other ships that have an obvious design flaw similar to the M class ships such as the Summit. Do we know of any cruisline presently operating that has a similar claim to fame as Clebrity and the M class ships? There might be and if there are I am sure we will see a response.

 

By the way, in this particluar case, the Summit has had one 13 day cruise with problems (aka the ill fated cruise) and they had to cancel a 7 day cruise right after the 13 day cruise for "unscheduled" repairs. They are now at a 5.47945% failure rate for 2006 and we are not half over the year. Dang those stats are fun. I could go on.

 

Weather we cannot control, the number of scheduled dry docks is something Celebrity can control. It is just that easy.

 

Griswalds

 

 

The idea of blaming passengers for not knowing about specific potential mechanical problems is completely unfair. In any contract or business transaction, there are expectations of disclosure (the responsibility of the SELLER) and good faith (the responsibility of both parties). If the risk of mechanical failure as occurred in this case is pervasive enough to warrant special concern, then it is UNDOUBTEDLY up to the cruise line to disclose it. My argument, though, is that this is not such a pervasive problem. From what I've been told, less than 2% of sailings are affected. There are other elements (weather being the biggest one) that negatively impact people's vacations FAR MORE FREQUENTLY THAN 2% OF SAILINGS.

[Drew B]

By the way, in this particluar case, the Summit has had one 13 day cruise with problems (aka the ill fated cruise) and they had to cancel a 7 day cruise right after the 13 day cruise for "unscheduled" repairs. They are now at a 5.47945% failure rate for 2006 and we are not half over the year. Dang those stats are fun. I could go on.

 

Is that number based on the Summit alone, or on the M-Class ships taken as a whole?

 

In any case, the predictability/likelihood of problems I was discussing is simply in line with a (moral) duty to disclose. Once people have made the choice to take the cruise, Celebrity has met ALL of their contractual obligations. They are not required to sail at any particular speed, nor are they required to stop at any or all of their scheduled ports. They are certainly not contractually obligated to "compensate" for missed ports. In the case of the cancelled 5/20/06 cruise, they were certainly required to refund the price of the cruise (failure to deliver the product), but they weren't obligated to also grant a future free cruise.

 

Anything given by Celebrity beyond the bare-bones contractual minimum is a gesture of good-faith meant to garner good publicity and customer loyalty... I would say that they did a GOOD job of that with the passengers from the 5/20/06 cruise and a mediocre/poor job of that with the passengers from the 5/7/06 cruise.