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

[naked]

A quick question for all cruisers effected by this pod failure:

 

How aware were you of the past pod issues?

[bucket_O_beer4john]

I've been lurking in the shadows reading this thread. I have never been on X, and I'm not sure if I will, but not due to any of the issues contained here. Just doesn't seem to be my style.

 

The reason I'm posting is because of some of the statements regarding the pod failures. Many seem to think that just scheduling dry docks will let X avoid any further failures. Unfortunately, that is probably not the case. I am not intimately familiar with the pods, so much of what I am saying here may just be blowing wind. My post is based upon my experience as an aerospace engineer.

 

There are many possible failure modes. Is it wear, fatigue, cracking, corrosion, overload, etc? From what I understand, this case is a bearing failure of some sort.

 

But, what is causing this failure? Is it a poorly manufactured bushing? Higher than expected loads? Leaking seals? Lubrication problems? Improper maintenance? Contamination?

 

For a scheduled dry dock to be effective, the failure mode would pretty much have to be pure wear, and the failures would have to follow closely to engine operating hours. This would allow them to determine how much wear was occuring for each hour of engine operation, determine the wear limits, and ensure that the bearing is replaced before it reaches that point. Maintenance would be simple, and the permanent solution probably wouldn't be too difficult.

 

I seem to remember a post stating that the engine was shut down before total failure. It sounds like there is some sort of condition monitoring going on. Maybe a chip detector looking for particles or metal shavings in the oil. Maybe they go so far as to take oil samples on a routine basis looking for these chips.

 

Chip detectors are pretty standard in helicopter transmissions. I know of one Navy engine that is on a pretty tight oil sampling program because of know bearing failure issues. A solution is not easy, and they have spent many man-years of engineering time trying to figure out why they are failing at all.

 

Bottom line - people with a lot of brains and a whole lot of computer power are looking at this. If it was a simple fix, it'd be done already. If there was a simple way to prevent failure, they'd do it. And if there was a way to accurately predict when they would fail, they would be taken out of service before they did so.

[Host Anne]

Bucket O Beer ~ thanks for checking in on this thread. I've been following you over on the Star Fire thread and you are always providing thought-provoking posts.

 

Unfortunately, as with the Star Fire, emotions run high when problems such as these arise. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to stop by!

[Drew B]

A quick question for all cruisers effected by this pod failure:

 

How aware were you of the past pod issues?

 

 

I guess I was vaguely aware of the issue in the back of my mind. I seem to remember in the official cruise critic review, there is some mention made. I did not know that it had happened numerous times with this ship. I certainly didn't know that this was a hotly-debated design flaw for all M-Class ships.

 

However, even if I had known, It wouldn't have made me second guess booking my trip. Not for a second. Even given the pod problems we experienced on the 5/7/06 Summit trip, I still would have willingly booked the cruise at the same price. There was simply nothing out there that was better for me and my father in terms of MANY criteria (timing, length, cabin availability, itinerary - even just the stops we made, quality of food/service, etc.). I'm allowed to be somewhat disappointed, but still very happy to have done the trip, right?

[griswalds]

Good post "bucket" with a very vaild theory.

 

The bottom line if you are correct, is Celebrity does not know when the pods are going to give way. We do know it is a design flaw but the specifics of the design flaw are not clear to us mortals. Given your theory being a correct assumption, the pods could go at anytime. My theory was that more frequent dry docks would help reduce downtime would be proven worthless.

 

That being the case, I am now even more cautious of ever going back on the M class ships, as I thought I was being clever by following the latest dry dock information and assuming the ship would be good for so many hours of operation. However if they are unable to detect or manage the problem, the risk is even higher. If chips and magnetic oil plugs for metal filings don't work, Houston we have a problem.

 

Griswalds

[sammiedawg]

" 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. "

 

Previous poster California Dreaming summarized my sentiments, wasnt on this cruise but had another unsatisfactory experience with Celebrity. I will not sail them again and if I had been offered a % off discount on a future cruise it would be a nothing offer.

Summitt cruisers deserve a substantial monetary refund, not contingent on a future sailing. I'm rooting for the the passengers.

Celebrity appears to be tone deaf, they certainly were to me when I verbalized concerns about health and sanitation. I did not receive dime one from them

[lafan42]

I used a 50% off Future Cruise Credit on the 5-7-06 (13 days) Crippled Vessel.

 

Here is how it worked for us:

 

It is based on the cruise that issued the FCC (5-7-04 (14 days) sailing on the Summit). We were booked in a Category 2A Balcony and offered a 50% FCC if we would give up our Balcony because they overbooked. It took almost 1 year to receive the FCC, which is why there is 2 years between sailings.

 

On this cruise we booked a Category CC Balcony and only received credit for 50% off the Category 2A price which as most of you are aware were discounted by Celebrity big time prior to sailing. The CC cabins were eventually sold for the group price, which is what we had paid months before the discounting started.

 

So the 2A happy hour price was $1299.00 per person, and the CC price was $1950.00 per person, we received $1299.00 off our cabin. We could have gone with a 2A cabin and got it for 50% off. If you go to a lower category you will only receive 50% the lower category price. Also, we paid much more person on the originally scheduled cruise and were not entitled to that price per person when booking this cruise (understandably).

 

Note: It is for the Cabin only!

 

In addition you cannot use the FCC through any discounted Travel Agency, I would name a few but don't want to break Cruise Critic guidelines. icon13.gif Not good for holiday sailings. You will have 18 months from the date it was received. Celebrity ONLY and not RCI.

 

You can use the FCC through Celebrity, or a regular Travel Agency, even one offering a group cruise at a group discount.

 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? You may be able to book your next cruise cheaper through discounted travel agencies.

 

God Bless Mr. H.K.

[bucket_O_beer4john]

Bucket O Beer ~ thanks for checking in on this thread. I've been following you over on the Star Fire thread and you are always providing thought-provoking posts.

 

Unfortunately, as with the Star Fire, emotions run high when problems such as these arise. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to stop by!

 

Thanks for the kind words. However, if you check my posts on the Carnival site, they are usually not quite so thought provoking!

 

I feel for the people affected. I would like to think that if I were on that cruise, I would behave a certain way. Fact is, until you are there, you really cannot tell how you would react.

 

Curious - has anyone heard anything else from X regarding this? I imagine they've clammed up a bit since they have the suit against the pod companies going.

[Cuizer2]

Thanks for the kind words. However, if you check my posts on the Carnival site, they are usually not quite so thought provoking!

 

There is no need to put yourself down. There are plenty of people on these boards who will do it for you. Just start a thread and state that you think jeans are suitable for dinner wear in the main dining room, or state that you don't tip. Then sit back and watch as the fashion and tip police make you feel like living proof of the link between humans and apes.

 

For the record I found your post to be very interesting and well reasoned.

[griswalds]

Part of the law suit was settled. In early 2006 Alstom Power Conversions paid RCCL $38M and they were released from the law suit. I understand Rolls Royce made an application at that time to get off the case but that was denied. Unless someone has newer information, the law suit between RCCL and Rolls Royce continues.

 

Griswalds

 

 

Curious - has anyone heard anything else from X regarding this? I imagine they've clammed up a bit since they have the suit against the pod companies going.

[nmtraveler]

I guess I was vaguely aware of the issue in the back of my mind. I seem to remember in the official cruise critic review, there is some mention made. I did not know that it had happened numerous times with this ship. I certainly didn't know that this was a hotly-debated design flaw for all M-Class ships.

 

However, even if I had known, It wouldn't have made me second guess booking my trip. Not for a second. Even given the pod problems we experienced on the 5/7/06 Summit trip, I still would have willingly booked the cruise at the same price. There was simply nothing out there that was better for me and my father in terms of MANY criteria (timing, length, cabin availability, itinerary - even just the stops we made, quality of food/service, etc.). I'm allowed to be somewhat disappointed, but still very happy to have done the trip, right?

 

I sure would have liked to meet all of the CC'ers on this cruise but we had to cancel at the last minute. I'm with you about the price, it was very good. We are rebooked in September for the 14 day reverse trip on the Summit. Hopefully, this time we can go!

[cruiser2004]

Just heard that the Sea Princess returned one day early to South Hampton because of 200 people becoming ill. All passengers were given an immiediate 30% cash refund, a future cruise credit and individual expenses for hotel, food, etc. This is called dealing with a problem quickly and fairly.

Celebrity could learn a lot about how to treat their customers from this example.

When I sailed on the May 7 Summit cruise I assumed that Celebrity would treat their customers with respect and fairly if there were any pod problems.

Granted I made a huge mistake on that one!

[magmagee]

A quick question for all cruisers effected by this pod failure:

 

How aware were you of the past pod issues?

 

I did know that some of the ships had had problems with this in the past. When I boarded I really never thought much of it. When the ports were cancelled I was disappointed but also I was hoping that the decision they made to continue the cruise was a smart and safe one. I was one who did have a good time. I am sure you have read some of my messages.

[magmagee]

Just heard that the Sea Princess returned one day early to South Hampton because of 200 people becoming ill. All passengers were given an immiediate 30% cash refund, a future cruise credit and individual expenses for hotel, food, etc. This is called dealing with a problem quickly and fairly.

Celebrity could learn a lot about how to treat their customers from this example.

When I sailed on the May 7 Summit cruise I assumed that Celebrity would treat their customers with respect and fairly if there were any pod problems.

Granted I made a huge mistake on that one!

 

But this is where it is going to hurt Celebrity. Maybe we did not get our money cash in hand on the spot and the problem was not dealt with but negative treatment towards the passengers is going to make for less bookings if they continue to make passengers unhappy. The word will get out that another cruise lines treats passengers better and they will get more business. This is why I am not filing the law suit. I did have a good time and yes the ports were cancelled but this company has had a good reputation and in order to keep themselves in that good standing they will have to live up to doing the right thing.

[Lotsacruising]

well said Cruiser2004!

I totally agree!!

Janet

[fleckle]

[quote name='Drew B'] 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.[/quote]
The Celebrity cruise contract is the standard "we are not responsible and can do whatever we want" disclaimer you get for most types of tours or excursions or even for participating in some sports events. The principle is the same as the release you sign when you are admitted to the hospital. Those contracts are intended to discourage people from filing frivolous lawsuits. Their greatest weakness is that most people do not sign them voluntarily, but do so only because they are forced to accept them under duress. It is pretty much a case of sign this or you can't go (or can't participate, or can't have the operation).

We went on an excursion a few years ago that included some boat trips and hikes, where we were required to sign a similar contract. A couple of lawyers along on the trip, who had successfully litigated challenges to many such contracts, stated that they are essentially meaningless and just a formality because they will not hold up in case of serious challenge. They cannot be used as an excuse to cover up deception, fraud or negligence if a company fails to provide a product it advertised and sold, or substitutes a shoddy, inferior product for the one the consumer purchased.

They also remarked that the reason the public usually doesn't hear about the settlements in such cases is that a clause is routinely included as part of the settlement to prevent people from talking about it or revealing what they received.

In any case, let's hope that Celebrity voluntarily decides to take the high road here, and that no legal challenge is necessary.

[ZlistCelebrity]

Thanks for the wise words, the cruise company rely on this tactic also, yes we are dignified and acted with respect, what makes you think we didn't, no body was excessive, if you get chance to view the meeting with the captain, everyone waited their turn and spoke respectfully at all times, BUT, what the passengers arn't doing is accepting the cruise company action in a calm, respectful and dignified way.

Most unscrutible companies use, safety, respect, dignity and all the other platitudes used to bully people into submission in the name of acting in an adult fashion!.

the simple fact is, DO THE RIGHT THING ON THIS OCCASION. EACH OCCASION HAS IT'S OWN MERITS AND THIS OCCASION WAS DEPLORABLE.

keep cool, calm and collected....

pauline and rob, manchester, uk




[quote name='WooKeef'][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4][COLOR=red]I suppose we all see this a bit differently and I can sortof see both sides. But the whole point is that yes we don't want to be to passive but we must act with dignity and respect for ourselves and each other.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4][COLOR=#ff0000]I know that I would have been disheartened over the whole thing but you make the most of it. I am a southern girl and as my momma would say: "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade"[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4][COLOR=#ff0000]I have found that the harder I kick and squirm the more people will ignore me over things, dignity goes a long way in respect. Just one of those hard learned lessons in my life.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4][COLOR=#ff0000]I sincerely hope everyone comes out of this happy and satisfied with the outcome. This has been an interesting conversation and reasonable for the most part and I thank you all for that.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4][COLOR=#ff0000]WooKeef:p [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

[cruiser2004]

[quote name='sammiedawg']" 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. "

Previous poster California Dreaming summarized my sentiments, wasnt on this cruise but had another unsatisfactory experience with Celebrity. I will not sail them again and if I had been offered a % off discount on a future cruise it would be a nothing offer.
Summitt cruisers deserve a substantial monetary refund, not contingent on a future sailing. I'm rooting for the the passengers.
Celebrity appears to be tone deaf, they certainly were to me when I verbalized concerns about health and sanitation. I did not receive dime one from them[/QUOTE]
For missing over one half of a 13 day planned itinerary Celebrity has offered
each of us $100 to "make up" for any inconvenience. As mentioned above, the "won't cruise X again" applies to myself. For those who think that the 30% off coupoun has some value, watch out for the restrictions on usage.
As I understand it the 30% off coupon is actually off the price that you paid less taxes. If that is true then it is kind of fitting that the letter we received from the Captain, on May 18, stating that "some of you were unhappy with the itinerary" also states quite clearly "we will be providing you with a certificate for 30% off a future Celebrity cruise". Maybe it should have read [30% - (taxes) + (lots of restrictions for use) off what you paid for this cruise]. To me that is hardly the same as 30% off your next cruise, but this is just one more example of a misleading statement from Celebrity.

[Lotsacruising]

For anyone that is interested... On the advice of someone in the know, I have just formally disputed all the charges for the cruise. I sent an itemized letter showing all that happened and my reason for the dispute. We will see what happens.
Janet

[Drew B]

[quote name='fleckle']The Celebrity cruise contract is the standard "we are not responsible and can do whatever we want" disclaimer you get for most types of tours or excursions or even for participating in some sports events. The principle is the same as the release you sign when you are admitted to the hospital. Those contracts are intended to discourage people from filing frivolous lawsuits. Their greatest weakness is that most people do not sign them voluntarily, but do so only because they are forced to accept them under duress. It is pretty much a case of sign this or you can't go (or can't participate, or can't have the operation).

We went on an excursion a few years ago that included some boat trips and hikes, where we were required to sign a similar contract. A couple of lawyers along on the trip, who had successfully litigated challenges to many such contracts, stated that they are essentially meaningless and just a formality because they will not hold up in case of serious challenge. They cannot be used as an excuse to cover up deception, fraud or negligence if a company fails to provide a product it advertised and sold, or substitutes a shoddy, inferior product for the one the consumer purchased.

They also remarked that the reason the public usually doesn't hear about the settlements in such cases is that a clause is routinely included as part of the settlement to prevent people from talking about it or revealing what they received.

In any case, let's hope that Celebrity voluntarily decides to take the high road here, and that no legal challenge is necessary.[/quote]


Well, all contract law is based on good faith. Contracts are only overturned if there is something illegal about them (e.g. fraud) or if one or both of the parties entered into it in bad faith. Now, I DON'T think that there was fraud, at least at the time the contracts went into effect (before we ever boarded the ship). Moreover, I think that if people sign the contract with an attitude of "This will never hold up anyway", then THAT is much more an examble of bad faith then anything Celebrity did. Morally, I think that every one of us entered into this agreement KNOWING that the cruise line can change the itinerary. Just because we were unlucky doesn't make us right or legally entitled to anything. And if people are not willing to actually agree to the conditions of cruising, then they shouldn't cruise. If enough people stop cruising because of the ramifications of the contracts, then the lines will be forced to adapt their contracts.

I still think that if the customer service and the attitude of key personnel (CD John Howell) had been better, this whole situation would not reflect so badly on Celebrity...

[naked]

[quote name='cruiser2004']Just heard that the Sea Princess returned one day early to South Hampton because of 200 people becoming ill. All passengers were given an immiediate 30% cash refund, a future cruise credit and individual expenses for hotel, food, etc. This is called dealing with a problem quickly and fairly.
Celebrity could learn a lot about how to treat their customers from this example.
When I sailed on the May 7 Summit cruise I assumed that Celebrity would treat their customers with respect and fairly if there were any pod problems.
Granted I made a huge mistake on that one![/quote]

Cruiser2004 & Lotsacruising: It should be known that the 20%-30% refund and future cruise credit is frequently seen when a cruise is cut short. In the case of this cruise, you did get all the lodging and meals you contracted for---just not the stops.

[B]Fairly[/B] is a very subjective comment. I do think you should note that this is NOT and apples to apples example.

In 2004, 14+ cruises from all lines had to deal with problems that lead to missed ports, early terminations and complete cancellations.

Of the 10 cruises that missed ports but sail the full number of days, 6 times the pax got nothing, once they got $50/pp, once they got $100/pp, once they got $150/pp (was to be a NYC-Caribbean-NYC, but ended up just NY to Bermuda and back), and once they got $250/pp after the ship crashed into a pier and 2 future ports were missed.

4 times cruises were canceled. Twice the pax got a refund plus a 25% future credit. twice (both Celebrity ships) the pax got a full refund plus a 100% future credit.

Based on 2004 data, [B]Summit pax were treated in a manner consistant to what others have experienced from other cruise lines.[/B]

[Lotsacruising]

Naked actually you are totally incorrect! The response from Celebrity is not consistent with other cruiselines. It is way off base and totally under the value of what were were denied.
This is based on my experience and on my 53 cruises.
:)

[naked]

Lots of cruising: I am sorry that you feel that way but my post is 100% based on documented past cruising problems and the compensation the cruise lines offered.

I am not sure why you believe the facts are incorrected. I can give you the sailing dates and cruise lines. [U]My facts are 100% correct[/U]. I am not wrong.

Can you point to a pattern of cruises that sailed all days and offered the passengers 30% off a furture cruise?

What lines? What dates?

[Ma Bell]

Naked

All one has to do is read the other boards and they will see you are absolutely correct. Besides the facts don't lie. :) We've sailed more than the previous poster, but what does that have to do with anything?

[cruiser2004]

[quote name='Lotsacruising']Naked actually you are totally incorrect! The response from Celebrity is not consistent with other cruiselines. It is way off base and totally under the value of what were were denied.
This is based on my experience and on my 53 cruises.
:)[/QUOTE]
The passengers on the May 7 Summit cruise were insulted, treated with disrespect and lied to. This is what started the downward spiral for most of the passengers attitude and was the cause of the passenger meetings. The contract was broken when Celebrity sailed with a ship that they knew could not complete the Itinerary. This was the cause for missing over half of the planned Itenerary!
Celebrity will continue to put band aids on these major problems on the
M-class ships and in a few more months we will be talking about another pod problem and its effect on the passengers. The offer of $200 per cabin and a worthless 30% off coupon was woefully inadequate, and is totally unacceptable.