Celebrity vs. Princess Management Styles

[dkjretired]

I agree with you that Celebrity has obviously added that to the contract to deal with the backlash from the pod problem.

I am not justifying this at all.

Seaworthiness is important but I don't think that the pod problem has resulted in injuries like those that occured on the Crown. I am not really that worried about missing ports-since I rarely get off the ship anyway. I do think Celebrity gives onboard credit in these instances.

 

Rebecca:

 

This was discussed a couple of weeks ago and this clause is not limited to Celebrity. It is in other cruise company contracts, just using other words. Also, I checked my 2002 cruise documents and it is in that contract so it is not something new which would have been put in because of the M class ships.

[rebeccalouise]

Thanks for clarification on that. To all those whose trips are adversely impacted by foul weather- there isn't much one can do about this.

As much as I love Celebrity- I don't think any vessels should sail with known defects. Things that arise unexpectedly that interfere with the customers cruise experience should be remedied and I do think that on board cruise credits help to soften the blow and are just good customer relations.

[Desertbelle]

Thanks for clarification on that. To all those whose trips are adversely impacted by foul weather- there isn't much one can do about this.

As much as I love Celebrity- I don't think any vessels should sail with known defects. Things that arise unexpectedly that interfere with the customers cruise experience should be remedied and I do think that on board cruise credits help to soften the blow and are just good customer relations.

 

Here's the problems with onboard credit.

 

1. It's not uniformly fair to everyone onboard. For instance, on our troubled cruise people got $100 pp ship board credit. For my daughter and her husband, who had an inside cabin that was about $1000 pp, this was about a 10% credit. For their son, who was the 3rd person in the cabin, at around $700, it was about 14%.

 

For us, in a balcony that cost $1600 pp, that became a credit of only 6%. For those people in suites, the value of $100 pp goes way down compared to what they spent on the cruise. Probably for someone in a Sky Suite, their shipboard credit was in the 4% range of their fare.

 

So why should someone who pays the least get a "bigger" credit then everyone else on board? Is their hardship worse by missing ports?

 

2. Shipboard credit is NOT like getting a refund or money off a cruise. Things onboard have a mark up price in order for the cruise line to make money selling them. So if their normal markup on items is 30%, that $100 is really more like $70. Plus, sometimes onboard things make you spend more that the $100 credit. For instance, say you decide to spend your $100 onboard credit to get a massage on one of the sea days you have been forced to have. There aren't any $100 massages, the one you want is actually $120, so you now have to spend $20 plus a 10% tip ($12) to get your credit.

 

On our trip, having the extra sea days probably made Princess a great deal of money. Sure, they gave everyone $100 ship board credit, but we had approximately 3 extra sea days than was planned. $100 doesn't really go that far. To occupy those extra sea days people were probably spending a great deal of money.....more drinks, more gambling, more bingo, more shopping, etc.

 

It doesn't hardly seem fair that they should actually gain more profit because of us not getting the cruise we had bought because THEY had an engine problem.

 

Some people might say that we "saved" money by not having to pay for excursions or things while in port. Perhaps that is true, but I felt it was up to me to decide where to spend my money. Paying for an excursion in a country I had never been before would have been something I would have been happy to spend my money on. Sending my money on things to occupy additional sea days (not everyone likes to just lounge around the pool for hours everyday) is NOT how I wanted to spend my vacation dollars.

 

Though I never turn down onboard credits, because I know that I will always use them, to me it was not adequate compensation for Princess lying to us and providing us with a ship that couldn't fulfill it's planned itinerary. Compounded by the fact that they knew about the engine when they sold us the tickets. They did not give full disclosure of the problems and even did the opposite, told us there was NO problem...repeatedly.

 

Now, if they had told us the problem upfront, offered the credit and maybe thrown in a credit on a future cruise, AND if they gave us the option to cancel with a full refund, move to another cruise at the same time, or allow us to switch to another cruise in the future, we might still be Princess customers. They didn't, so we won't be.

[cruiser2004]

Rebecca:

 

This was discussed a couple of weeks ago and this clause is not limited to Celebrity. It is in other cruise company contracts, just using other words. Also, I checked my 2002 cruise documents and it is in that contract so it is not something new which would have been put in because of the M class ships.

 

Dkjretired, You are correct that the clause about "No warranty about the Seaworthness" in not something new for the Celebrity cruise contract. It should be pointed out that the first M-Class ship (Mellennium) was launched in 2000 and had its first pod failures in January 2001 and 2003. The next M-Class ship was launched in late 2000 (Infinity) and had its first pod failures in 2001, 2002 and 2003. This was followed by the Summit launched in 2002 , with its first pod failures in 2002 and again in 2003.

This thread was comparing Celebrity to Princess and I could not find any such references, in the Princess cruise contract, as to the "seaworthiness" of their vessels. Since I was one of the many passengers unaware of these pod problems and lost over half of my planned vacation because of it, in my opinion passengers should at least have a right to be made aware of the increased risks for possible pod problems before they sail. Between the pod issues and the lack of customer service that has been reported on many threads on these boards, in my opinion, I feel there is a big difference.

[dkjretired]

I agree with you that passengers should be notified of the possible problems and have said that on a number of occasions. This should be done at time of booking.

[poetic license]

The Princess CROWN listing incident came soon after a widely publicized fire on STAR, and was due to an accident caused by an officer. Both of these incidents were also widely publicized on all media outlets. Princess had to cover their keister: two incidents close together would have been a major PR disaster had they not done so. It was a business decision, pure and simple, strictly for damage control, not altruism.

 

Celebrity's ongoing pod problems haven't caused anyone to be hospitalized, but they sure have inconvenienced a lot of folks. A little more generosity ought to be in order, for goodwill. ALL cruise contracts, no matter which line you sail, are very lopsidedly favorable to the cruise company. It's a wonder any of us takes the leap of faith and spends the money we do on cruising based on that alone. While the contract may allow Celebrity to avoid compensating customers for their inconveniences, it would still be good business practice to be a bit less stingey and even a trifle more magnanimous. And it would also be nice if passengers read a company's cruise contract before they made final payment and weighed their options a tad more carefully at that time. Bottom line: we don't live in a perfect world.

 

As for not sailing with known defects, if that were to happen there would be no cruise industry at all! There isn't a ship out there that doesn't have a quirk or three ... they are in constant use, 24/7, year in and year out except for the occasional maintenance or refurbishment drydock. This is also something we all must consider when we sign the dotted line to sail.

 

I have had ports cancelled for a variety of reasons, including having to sail elsewhere to get a seriously ill passenger to a hospital. I don't mind, even though I have paid good money to sail a certain itinerary, and know full well they can pretty much do what they want, wihout warranting a thing to me. I still sail. I think most others do too, even when they have a bad experience. That in itself speaks volumes.

 

Thanks for allowing my opinion here. :)

 

Nicki

[Longboysfan]

Five years ago I was on Princess when I had my personal incident. While eating an all grain roll on our first day I bit down on something that split a molar from top to bottom. All our tablemates heard the snap. I filled out all the forms, had my tooth pulled when I got home, had a bridge made while waiting for correspondence. The letter I received from Princess: "What do you want, someone to pick all the seeds off your roll?" Yeh right, Princess is a real class act.:rolleyes: .

 

Something similar with Princess. Wife was quite ill before cruise.

We had to push it off.

Princess customer service was less than helpful and dam rude when I tried many times to push off cruise and they hold all the $$$.

They could have cared less.

 

This is one of the cases where after the way they treated me - I would never Cruise with them again.

[caviargal]

The Princess CROWN listing incident came soon after a widely publicized fire on STAR, and was due to an accident caused by an officer. Both of these incidents were also widely publicized on all media outlets. Princess had to cover their keister: two incidents close together would have been a major PR disaster had they not done so. It was a business decision, pure and simple, strictly for damage control, not altruism.

 

 

 

 

Nicki, I agree that Princess acted as they did for PR purposes only. In addition to the Star fire, there was a similar - though less devastating - listing incident on Grand not too long ago as well, again attributed to human error on the bridge.

 

Re the pod issues, I do not consider these a "quirk". These are a known problem and apparently one that cannot be corrected. I, too, have missed ports due to a wide range of reasons and take it in stride. However, I would not book a cruise on M class ships if the ports were the reason for my cruise. When I finally do my Baltic cruise, I will definitely look elsewhere.

[cruiser2004]

I agree with you that passengers should be notified of the possible problems and have said that on a number of occasions. This should be done at time of booking.

 

You are right and that is my whole point. Most of the passengers on the May 7 Summit, including myself, were unaware of on-going pod problems on Celebrity M-Class ships. If the day should ever come that Celebrity is forced to acknowledge the pod problem at the time of booking, I think you would see an all out effort to fix the problem for good. For myself reliability is a very important issue. Changes need to be made to give passengers some rights and put an end to cruiselines who feel that they can do anything that they want. Blind acceptance of these unfair practices are the reason that things have come to this point.

[caviargal]

Hi Caviargal - I'm not familiar with the Crown so I was curious about the balconies - they're not private? No Dividers or ???

 

The design of the ship causes the balconies to be tiered so that those above can see down into the ones on deck(s) below. Some of the mini suite on some of the decks and also some particular balconies do not have this issue but most do, same on Caribbean Princess.

 

I want my privacy so this is an issue for me. There are also quite a few posts talking about debris (butts, etc), being tossed onto balconies from the ones above.

[Charles4515]

You are right and that is my whole point. Most of the passengers on the May 7 Summit, including myself, were unaware of on-going pod problems on Celebrity M-Class ships. If the day should ever come that Celebrity is forced to acknowledge the pod problem at the time of booking, I think you would see an all out effort to fix the problem for good. For myself reliability is a very important issue. Changes need to be made to give passengers some rights and put an end to cruiselines who feel that they can do anything that they want. Blind acceptance of these unfair practices are the reason that things have come to this point.

 

I agree there should not be blind acceptance of many of the cruiseline practices. It amazes me when that folks have the attitude

"its in the contract" too bad.

 

As far as Celebrity versus Princess management styles, I don't think there is much difference. People might come up with instances where Princess was great and Celebrity terrible. Other will find instances where Celebrity was great and Princess was terrible. Having been on eight Celebrity and seven Princess cruises I don't find any significant difference in their management styles.

[C 2 C]

I don't find any significant difference in their management styles.

 

I agree. They're both trying their best to make money for their stockholders. Their decisions are based on the fact that they will lose some and gain some by similar corporate mandates.

[cruiser2004]

I agree. They're both trying their best to make money for their stockholders. Their decisions are based on the fact that they will lose some and gain some by similar corporate mandates.

Could not agree more about they are both trying to make money for their stockholders. The big question is if this "making money" is at the expense of their passengers enjoyment of some cruises, then some will loose a lot and some will gain a lot!

[cruiser2004]

Sorry double post