Heidi13

Jim - Haven't seen anything definitive as to the location or extent of the fouling. As you know, fouling is nearly always present on hulls and we are increasingly restricted on the products permitted, as in many cases the A/F coatings were more damaging than the fouling on the hull. Back in the 70's & 80's we used TBT and/or arsenic coatings, which were banned by IMO Convention about 15 yrs ago. On my ships, due to the age of our hulls, we drydocked twice every 5 yrs, which was a 2 yr interval followed by a 3 yrs interval. Even with the latest self-polishing/ablative coatings, we always had some fouling on the hull, especially iwo the sea chests and boot topping. Newer cruise ships drydock every 5 yrs, so some type of fouling is expected. Just before I retired, International had introduced Intersleek 900, which was still a biocide foul release coating, but had a higher hull smoothness, so produced better fuel economy. I tried developing the business case for the higher cost coating that was more than offset by fuel savings. Unfortunately, I retired before the first drydocking, so can't compare the fouling to older products. I believe I read some time ago that International had developed a new generation of non-biocide foul release A/F coating, which I recall noted something about "Slime'. Might check into it to see if I can refresh my memory. All other suppliers had similar products, but we were contracted to International, so I knew their products. With respect to the scope, without having any definitive information, my best guess was normal fouling iwo the sea chests, with possibly some weeds/tubeworms/barnacles in various places. If the divers were working over the entire hull, then it would be wide spread and would take many days. If, after surveying the entire hull, they worked in a few specific areas, then that would favour the sea chests. I'll suggest the almost 18 month COVID shutdown didn't help, as the self-polishing/ablative coatings work better when the ship is steaming. If they did required extensive hull cleaning they will get some fuel savings until the 1st Special Survey drydocking, which should be sometime this year, as I recall she was a 2018 build. Wouldn't be surprised to see her drydock in Singapore before heading to Alaska next summer.

Totally agree with you Rob, I fully expected a totally fresh itinerary for 24/25.

Affirmative, a quality Admiralty Lawyer and multiple SME's are not cheap, so if they are limited to individual claims, you probably would have no return on investment. However, I don't suggest current and future pax disregard this option, as based on how Seabourn market their "Luxury" cruises, coupled with the potentially erroneous information provided, a competent lawyer with a marine background may be able to work around the T&C. All shipping lines are required to ensure the vessel is seaworthy at all times. This includes the crew being well rested. If prolonged heavy weather was experienced, the potential for crew fatigue increases significantly. Therefore, the potential for crew fatigue is another option for the lawyers to explore, as it then becomes an operational safety issue. Had Seabourn stated the stabilisers were non-statutory equipment, I'll suggest they would be in a better position, than stating they are "non-essential". Non-Statutory is factual, whereas non-essential is wide open for interpretation. As these are marketed as "Luxury" cruises, this potentially contradictory statement could also be another avenue for the lawyers to explore. As a mariner, I am clearly not a lawyer, so I look forward to your husband's opinion

Yes, the cruise lines are well protected by their Terms & Conditions. However, Seabourn have provided some information in their notice to future pax and FAQ, that in my opinion, as a mariner with almost 30 yrs in command at sea, can be proven to be erroneous, as they endeavour to justify not removing the ship from service. I have no doubt an experienced Admiralty Lawyer, supported by some Master Mariner subject matter experts, can most likely find fault. The SME's can drive holes through the statement that stabilisers are non-essential. Yes, the vessel can sail without them, since they aren't fitted to most ships. However, most ships are not making multiple crossings of one of the most dangerous waters in the World. Case in point being a "Rogue Wave" breaking windows on a ship in these waters only a few weeks before.

Thanks Michelle - they are operating the same way as in 2020, when shore-ex were promulgated by segment. Since you have no segments this year, hopefully you will see every port fro L/A.

While I don't have any definitive answers, having worked in the industry and also a shipyard, I have a reasonable idea. Is the entire hull affected - very unlikely, as that would indicate an anti-fouling coating failure. Not that uncommon many years ago, but I haven't seen a complete or partial failure since the 1980's, when they mixed the coating incorrectly.

All available shore-ex are also available to review and book on the cabin's telly. On past cruises, when new shore-ex are available, they send a notice to the cabins.

I posted that this isn't a difficult issue to resolve, not that it quick and easy. The time required depends on location, extent of the fouling and number of divers available. Based on what was posted previously, Viking did inspect the hull 4 times prior to arrival, endeavouring to identify any issue early. Why didn't they do it last week, well my first guess is that none of the ports had the specialised vendors required to completed this work. Divers that work on marine hulls are not available in all ports. Even when they are available in a specific port, it can be a number of days from calling them until they have the resource available to accept a contract.

Wow, that's a new one on me. How the technology changes in 10 yrs of retirement. BTW - which ship?

Although it was alluded that the hull had been inspected multiple times prior to arrival NZ and found to be clean, just prior to arrival NZ they found sea snails, which makes the ship ineligible to enter Milford Sound. The ship is currently anchored, outside Australian territorial waters, as to employ divers all propulsion gear must be locked out. This is not a difficult problem, as divers are routinely used for hull cleaning and underwater repairs. I have used divers multiple times for cleaning, changing bow thrusters, changing controllable pitch propellor blades, repairing a rudder and even welding a hull crack. Hull cleaning and inspections are the diver's easiest underwater tasks. While the media has stated the fouling was at discharge points, I would expect the sea chest intakes to be more likely.

What a great thought provoking post. With respect to ownership, this is definitely one of the criteria we use in picking a cruise line. However, rather than being concerned with financial risks, which we mitigate with travel insurance, my concern is the Corporate culture. Since you mentioned Seabourn, I can provide some information on them. They are owned by Carnival and are part of the Holland America Group, which comprises - HAL, Princess, P&O Australia and Seabourn. All 4 separate brands share management staff. In addition to considering the quality of onboard service, which varies significantly with these 4 brands, I research how they respond to issues. HAL - similar to Viking, the 2020 World Cruise was terminated early, upon arrival Freemantle. All pax using HAL Air were provided flights home, while a number of pax, not using HAL Air, posted they were disembarked having to make their own flight arrangements, which was no easy feat at that time. I believe they were also responsible for any hotel costs while waiting for flights. Compare that to our experience, when Viking terminated the cruise in Dubai. They provided flights for all pax and for 8 of us that couldn't get flights, kept us aboard for free and flew us home at the earliest opportunity. Seabourn - This "Luxury" line has a current issue with their newest ship, which is based in Ushuaia. On the current cruise, shortly after departure, the Master advised the stabalisers weren't fully operational and they would be missing South Georgia. Many pax demanded to disembark, so they returned to port. Pax were advised they would get zero refund and had to make their own arrangements home from BA. Seabourn have advised pax that stabalisers are non-essential and that most of the time they aren't used. That isn't my experience with 7 yrs on cruise ships. They have stated they will time crossings across Drake Passage to minimise movement. In addition to missing South Georgia, they are returning from Antarctica a day early, to miss a storm. I believe they are offering $1K compensation and a 15% FCV. Prior to crossing Drake Passage, pax were advised to stow all loose items and take seasickness medications. Hardly what I consider a "Luxury" experience. Princess - After our 2015 WC, Princess refused to address any of the issues and offer any meaningful compensation. P&O Australia - don't follow them closely, but our son sailed with them on his last Princess contract. He couldn't get off the ship fast enough, requesting he not return to P&O Australia. They would not follow his wishes, so he found another job from onboard, tendering his resignation to the Captain. How the 3 brands dealt with issues, in my opinion, was not effective. Hence the reason I research the Corporate culture and will never sail with a Carnival brand again.

This is a potential consequence I predicted in post # 37, only the first cruise and the ship is already cutting short days in Antarctica. I am shocked to read that the Master was virtually invisible, as where Bridge operations permitted, s/he should have been out supporting the crew, dealing with the big issues. Sadly, a very ineffective Master and this is something the crew will pick up on quickly. While I normally post that these situations are addressed in the cruise line terms and conditions, based on the erroneous information provided in the cruise line pax notice and FAQ, I wish you luck having success taking further action against the cruise line.

Thanks Rob - I knew the additional cost restaurants were only on the 2 newer, larger ships, but wasn't aware that they were that small. Sounds like they are comparable to the 2 private rooms available at Manfredi's and Chefs Table. Although each of the Viking private rooms is assigned to one of the 2 alternative restaurants, you can actually order from either of them, or even the MDR. We attended a birthday function one night and they wanted Manfredi's, but only the Chef's Table private room was available. No problem, the hosts booked the Chef's Table room and we all received Manfredi's menus. Viking also don't charge to rent these rooms, which we booked at least once or twice a month.

The May 9th departure is from Greenwich on the Neptune, with the BIE being the 1st cruise after the World Cruise.

With respect to booking the alternative restaurants, I'm having difficulty understanding how you can be "Very Annoyed". The pre-booking entitlements by cabin class are readily available online. If booking an alternative restaurant was important to you, why did you continue with the booking, knowing this benefit wasn't available. Surely, by booking the only available cabin category, you accepted what Viking provides. If not acceptable, you should have looked for an alternative cruise with Viking, or another cruise line. OBC provided by the TA appears in MVJ at the discretion of the TA, not Viking. This has been discussed on a previous thread, and some pax advised their TA provided the funds upon full payment. It then appears in MVJ and can be used for booking shore-ex, etc. However, if I recall correctly probably the majority of OBC from TA's only appears once onboard, which is when the TA provides the funds to Viking. You should also be aware that Viking policy limits the value of gifts a TA can provide. On a cruise of 15 or more days, this is limited to $500 pp. This is also widely discussed and is common knowledge. With respect to alternative restaurants. On all Viking ships, all alternative restaurants are included in the base fare, but with Oceania, 2 of the ships now charge extra. I have no doubt it will be similar on their newest tonnage, which sails in May 23. Personally, we prefer to have them all included, since we don't book online. I'm not aware that Oceania limits the number of alternative restaurant reservations you can make online. Assuming you booked this cruise fairly late, as only GTY were remaining, had you booked late with Oceania you could potentially also have no availability, as earlier bookings filled the seats. Therefore, if booking alternative restaurants online is a key factor, regardless of whether you select Viking or Oceania, you should book early - Oceania for greater availability and Viking to get a more expensive cabin for the online booking benefits. Having both worked for and sailed as a pax on Princess for about 40 years, I can assure you that no pax on Viking is considered as 2nd class. Once aboard, everyone gets the same great service, regardless of cabin cost, or number of previous sailings. It is certainly not that way on Princess, Holland America or Celebrity. As has been discussed many times on the Viking Board, many online reservations are cancelled once aboard. In addition, Viking only pre-book about 50% of available seats. Therefore, bookings are readily available on most cruises once you board the vessel, with the possible exception of the short 7 or 8 night cruises. Personally, we never pre-book and have never had any issue getting seated, even turning up at the host/hostess desk and asking if they have space. With respect to early payments, Viking are a private company that do not belong to the mega ship owner's club - CLIA. Therefore, Viking does not follow the trends of the mega ship owners. I also don't like paying money early, but if we want to sail with Viking, we have no option but to accept their terms. Once I book a cruise, I have accepted the terms and conditions and it is time to move on. Don't see any benefit of complaining, as if it was an issue, I would take my money elsewhere.

As a pax, I concur that our tolerance for the motion of the ocean is a key factor is deciding whether to sail under these conditions. Personally, I have never had an issue in 40 years at sea, but DW, not so much. Another factor to consider is the crew and how they handle the movement. Seasickness is not something that many people grow out of with more seatime, as I have seen many "Old Salts" afflicted as soon as the ship starts moving. Pax are only aboard for a short period, but the crew can be 6+ months. With respect to the hotel ratings providing pax service, the short term impact of seasickness is that a number of them are unable to report for duty and others that do report for duty are working below optimum levels, which can potentially impact pax service. When the ship operates in these conditions for a prolonged period, the impacts are cumulative, with crew being exhausted from sickness and lack of sleep. With the hotel ratings, this is another potential for impacting customer service, and if any of the Bridge or Engineering officers are afflicted by seasickness, fatigue is a potential even when getting the required hours of rest.

Those divers would be professional marine service divers that work on ship's hulls. I have used divers for numerous underwater repairs, saving many trips to drydock, Since the Neptune is so new, it isn't time for a hull survey, so I had the same first thought, in that they were checking the hull for invasive species.

If considering a Viking World Cruise, you should also be aware that Viking's prices often increase between release and departure. The 2023 WC prices increased about $12,000 pp about 6 months after being released in December 2020. Rather than looking for a last minute deal, I suggest booking early for the best deals on a World Cruise. The 2024 may not increase, as they were released at the same price point as the increased prices on the 23 WC and they have 2 ships to fill in 2024.

Shouldn't have happened on Viking either, but as with all cruise lines, the staff at the Purser's Desk are the most junior new hires in the Hotel Dept. A quick stop at the GM's office, and that employee would most likely be looking for alternative employment that was more suited to their skill sets.

I didn't realise you were referring to the actual shore-ex for the cruise, my mistake. Might be worth sending a note to the people at "Tellus" to question the port times with respect to the tours. As I noted, in our experience, the Master will generally sail at, or close to the posted time, if they don't have much leeway for making the next port. Our tour in Christchurch was minimal, as we had to be back at the ship for departure. We received a refund, but did miss most of Christchurch.

Another consideration is ownership. Azamara was started by RCCL about 12 yrs ago. Earlier this year they sold the brand and ships to a private equity firm - Sycamore Partners, who have no prior cruise ship experience. While only time will tell if this is a positive or negative move for the brand, history dictates that quality doesn't increase when equity/investment firms own a cruise line.

The estimated arrival and departure times are determined by the initial cruise planners and established based on having sufficient time ashore and also to manage fuel consumption. Therefore, provided the ship is fully operational and no other issues are experienced, the ship is capable of arriving at the estimated arrival time. Once completed, the shore-ex department should plan tours in each port, based on the time in port. This is the reason that some tours listed on the website are not available, as the time in port is shorter than the duration of some tours. When schedule changes occur, sometimes things are missed. For example - on the 2020 WC, Viking Sun was changed from Lyttelton to Akaroa. Lyttelton is a short drive to Christchurch, while Akaroa is about 90 mins. They didn't address this on the Christchurch tours, so our 5 hr tour had only 2 hrs in Christchurch, as the ship couldn't delay departure to reach the next port. As usual, Viking's great customer service, automatically refunded the entire tour cost. In your situation, I would be very surprised if Safaga was less than 12-13 hrs, as that is the time required to reach Luxor and spend more than a couple of hours. As previously noted, the shore-ex included on the website for any cruise are generic tours available for that port. Only once the actual shore-ex are released, will you know which tours are available for your port calls. Therefore, if the posted arrival/departure times are accurate, they will only be able to offer more local tours. As another option, you may wish to consider Memphis Tours, who can develop a custom tour from Port Said/Alexandria, taking you to Cairo, Luxor, Valley of the Kings/Queens and Petra, rejoining the ship in Aqaba. Downside is you miss the Suez Canal transit.

When alongside, the gangways must remain in place, but whether they are open is at the discretion of the local authorities. Previous overnight visits to Piraeus we have been able to walk on/off at any time. In Piraeus at 07:00, the traffic can be rather busy heading into Athens, while only 7 or 8 miles it can take considerable time. Another option is the metro, which has a station about 1 mile from where Viking normally docks.

Jim - great attitude. Had we not cancelled the Barcelona to Port Everglades T/Atlantic, we would have been stuck in Montreal on Dec 23rd, as the flight from FLL arrived, but all YVR flights were cancelled. With the thousands of cancelled flight and very high load factors, we could have been stuck for many days. The weather certainly wasn't the fault of the airlines and we could have booked a more southerly connection, but opted for proper business class in a wide-body over convenience and faster flights. Since we considered the weather potential at Montreal, we had insurance to mitigate the financial risk, so only cost was time. Hoping the rest of the trip home is uneventful.

If stabalisers were non-essential, why does almost every passenger vessel have them. Yes, they are not required for safety, but if the cruise line really does value the comfort of their pax and crews, they are essential, especially in these waters. The marketing types that wrote this letter are trying to convince you that the stabalisers are rarely deployed - from experience, I call BS. Using the stabalisers does reduce the vessel's speed and use more fuel, but in these waters, I'll suggest they are normally deployed when in open waters. They can justify their statement by considering the length of the entire voyage, as in sheltered waters they should rarely be required. However, when crossing Drake Passage, I'll suggest they are used > 90% of the time. I recall the days when running late, we brought the stabalisers in to get additional speed, only to put them out before making a big turn. When making open ocean passages, there were few days we didn't have the stabalisers out. Sorry, but from experience, stabalisers are used more than they are stowed. Although this isn't a safety issue, it is most definitely a comfort issue. Yes, they can time transits across Drake Passage and adjust courses, but in all probability that will impact the time in Antarctica. Personally, even with a fully operational vessel, I expect weather issues and reduced time in Antarctica. With stabaliser issues, when you pay this much for a cruise, I don't think it is reasonable for pax to have the potential for significantly increasing the loss of additional landings, as they time the crossing. Rather than only offering to rebook a cruise, with a damaged ship, as a good faith gesture a quality cruise line should also offer full refunds.