Captain_Morgan

14 minutes ago, Marykatesmom said:

 

I have my air booked already.  I paid for the air, Air Plus, a deviation fee AND an upgrade out of economy (all of that was still cheaper than just buying the seats directly) plus independent travel insurance.  A full refund of my cruise fare alone and we'd still take a loss. 

I can definitely see your concerns and if I were in the same position i'd be putting the screws to whomever I can in order to either get a definitive solution which works for me by way of a suitable change, or a full refund for all outward costs including insurance.  The fact that itineraries are subject to change is usually meant that the order of the ports may change or alternative ports in an itinerary might change for 'operational reasons' but to change an entire cruise from start to finish....i hope they don't try that route as a means of getting out of this

28 minutes ago, Marykatesmom said:

Both RCI and NCL are reaching out to their customers and making offers.  Has anyone heard from Viking?

I think this is what separates the mass market brands from Viking in that the likes of RCI and NCL will no doubt absorb and redistribute those affected into other itineraries/ships of a similar nature due to their presence in the Caribbean.  Because Viking is swinging a double-edged sword in that they often sail completely full but have a much smaller presence in the area it means their options are limited in comparison.  I can see them simply offering a full refund or a transferable credit perhaps, but if recent communications are to be used as an example I wouldn't expect a prompt answer

8 hours ago, watchdiva said:

Which Cuba cruise are you booked on Captain Morgan?  We are booked in 2020 and already see that our itinerary is TBD.  We have been advised by Viking rep that we should see the changes in the coming weeks.

Sorry, I completely missed your question...apologies....we were discussing booking a trip in 2020 as well but it seems the decision has been made for us....time to watch how this unfolds and how Viking scrambles to accommodate those who've booked who I hope aren't inconvenienced for too long while they figure it all out

If recent events relating to the debacle that was informing guests about the embarkation in Vancouver on Orion is any indication, I wouldn't think Viking isnt going to say very much if anything about these recent changes.

For the likes of Carnival Corp, RCCI and NCLH they will no doubt be working behind the scenes to quickly put alternatives in place and then cascade the information down accordingly to those affected.  Because Viking has such a small presence in the area (Cuba), and as has been stated in different threads, their apparent corporate approach to their customers will no doubt mean they're not too concerned because they're still sitting on their lofty perch with their obvious dedicated base. 

That said, if they continue with this attitude of keeping people in the dark while they fumble along trying to figure things out instead of making timely decisions and informing of the same, they could find themselves slipping as nice ships and nice crew only go so far for so long...

Of course this is still early in the process so I don't think anyone should be hitting the panic button just yet, but it would be nice to know one way or the other if your investment is going to be handled properly, or maybe that's just me?!?

10 hours ago, zonahiker said:

Great information - thank you all for taking the time to post. I will check in with Guest Services and the daily and try to be proactive. Love the herding cats analogy. Any clue of on an estimate number of how many can fit on a tender? Or are they port specific?

During a 'normal' tender service we've seen the average tender loading approx. 110-120 people when it comes to the bulk tour dispatch, not because they're not capable of carrying more (in an emergency they hold 235) but because more than 120 and it can be quite uncomfortable, especially when people 'spread' themselves across the seats.

As has been said, those booked on Viking excursions get priority albeit that is an entirely separate kettle of fish when it comes to being organized....the idea of herding cats comes to mind at times.

Depending on the size of each group going on tour, i've seen and experienced having 'independent' passengers being squeezed onto the tenders among the tour groups to 'fill in the gaps' lets say if there's any space left.

One strategy we've employed in the past is to check the daily for the included tour times as these are guaranteed to be the busiest and depending on your own schedule/desire to get ashore we've found that if you're near the embarkation point before the madness ensues you can get ashore without issue.  Of course this is dependent on local officials and the time it takes to 'clear' the ship but we've had more success than not.

As for the reports of things being chaotic, we've also experienced this as well on a recent trip on Sea where we saw literally half a dozen senior hotel managers stood about the tender embarkation point, all trying to talk over one another and to try and take charge of the tender loading which was both uncomfortable to watch and left us thinking that it was a very unprofessional approach to a seemingly easy process.  

just hover over the name and click 'ignore'

you're welcome 😎

6 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

They also use Icelandic Airlines but be aware that Icelandic charges $95 for the first checked bag--and that is not included in the airfare. Even though other flight plans will be longer, I am hoping not to have to use Icelandic on our Bergen to Iceland cruise.

 

Before they allowed custom air on flights to Bergen (2016), we were booked on British Air to London, sailed to Norway and then flew BA Bergen to London to home.

 

 

Couldn't agree more. re. Icelandic Air....I had the misfortune of flying with them from Bergen back to NA and it was a less than desirable experience, least of all the experience of transiting Reykjavik airport which looked more like a squatters village than an airport at the time.

One thing I can also offer is for those connecting in Amsterdam, Paris, etc. on the inbound make sure you have sufficient time to connect for not only you but also your luggage as when we did one of our first trips out of Bergen a couple years ago we heard so many people had missing luggage with the common denominator seeming to be the connection where the bags didn't make it.  Suffice it to say, I can't imagine waiting days for luggage to arrive at the start of a cruise to be a good way to set the tone for a holiday!

so speculation is now unfounded conspiracy theory?  that's hilarious!  for the sake of argument i will concede that context is often lost in forum posts so i will chalk this up to that as if an in person conversation/debate was occurring i'm sure objective opinions would be heard more clearly.

my initial comment was on the peculiarity of the inclusion of a survey by an investigative body and the fact that, as was quoted up thread that “Viking are helping to facilitate the voluntary survey” which may very well be that they are forwarding the link on behalf of, but it can't be ignored that they also have a vested interest in what is said.

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I find nothing odd about it.  Just as the NTSB is charged with not only accident investigation, but also with conducting safety studies and investigative hearings, these may be accident specific, or pertain to general industry issues.  Since the accident investigation by the NAIB is complete, this would appear to be a safety study of the maritime industry, or to use the NTSB's terminology, if sworn testimony is requested, then it would be an investigative hearing.  For all we know, it could center around the helicopter evacuation process, or be a study into further redundancies to be requested of the IMO in their Safe Return to Port requirements.

 

And what would the Concordia have to do with this, since one was investigated by the Italian Maritime Authority, and this incident by the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board, and each country is allowed to have their own laws as to how incidents and accidents are investigated, just like the US has their own laws concerning these issues.

which is why i said it will be interesting to see/hear more about what is being asked by way of the survey as to the specifics of the questions, etc.

and my reference to Concordia has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the investigative body as much as it has to do with whether or not Carnival Corp. sent out a survey on behalf of, as lets be honest (thankfully) there have been so few maritime incidences involving cruise ships in comparison to aviation or rail that there's little to compare to.

17 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

As to tendering.  The problem is being brand new to Alaska.  If you want all dockage in ports take HAL or Princess.  They are by far the most established in the Alaska cruise industry.  We took 15 day Alaska southbound with Seabourn last year and had mostly tendering as well, even though Seabourn is part of the Carnival empire.  I do not get only one tender in use unless there are local ordinances to comply with.  In 120 days on the Inaugural WC we tendered often but they used a minimum of two tenders and waiting was never an issue for us.  Not sure what to say about that but if you want primo dockage in AK take the above mentioned HAL or Princess.  😳

You've hit the nail on the head here!  If you want as close to 'seamless' when it comes to cruising Alaska, then book with those who've been there for a million years (Princess, HAL) but keep in mind in most cases you get what you pay for there.

When i saw Seabourn cruising in Alaska for the first time I was speculative as to how they would fare given the size of the ships and figured they would tender more often than not, due in large part to the port congestion but also the extreme tidal ranges in virtually all ports and their small size/height of operative decks on the fixed piers.

I believe i said long ago in one of the threads that Orion was sure to struggle (much to the chagrin of the die hards who think Viking is perfect in every way) due to the fact that they're comparatively late to the party when it comes to planning itineraries in Alaska, which from what i've seen has been this year inundated with monster ships from NCL and RCCL which i guarantee will get preference everywhere over Viking.  

Can't say for certain however why there's so many issues with the tender operations in general though as it should be basic and straightforward (like riding a bike) with the sole exception of Ketchikan having a speed limit for tenders, and I recall Juneau being a relatively short run in sheltered waters.  As has been mentioned, it sounds like management onboard are dropping the ball and its no doubt a case of too many cooks in the kitchen as i've witnessed on numerous occasions when making it to the tender area only to see multiple managers, all trying to manage despite seemingly having no sense of organization or clue as to what's happening in the lounges, etc.

10 hours ago, Pushka said:

One thing that surprised me and not sure if it’s a general Viking thing. When we’ve arrived back to the place where you board again or get to the tender to take you back to the ship, there are always Flags and Guest services who will hand out a cool drink if hot or a warm drink if cold, as well as a towel, on the dock before you entered the ship or tender. But this hasn’t happened in any port here.  In Juneau we missed where we had to go down a hidden ramp to tender as there were no Viking signs up top, and only a Port official who was just leaning on the rail and she told us where to go. The only time we have been offered a drink is right after security and onboard the ship. Where we just want to get to the room and unload. Today there was a port official again but no Viking crew except when the tender returned. 

I remember tendering in Juneau several years ago on a Princess cruise and at the time there was a very big labor dispute with the longshoremen's union which at times got a bit heated to say the least.  In a nutshell i know their union holds enormous power up there with respect to the cruise ships, including tender operations up to and including touching/moving any items from the ship to/from the pier.  For example, if someone was disembarking in Juneau it was the local longshoremen who took the baggage on a trolley from the gangway, not a member of the ship's staff and this was something strictly enforced.

Could be that Viking have been told not to take anything ashore (i.e. flags, tents, etc) as it would somehow upset the balance?

Just speculation of course  but as i say i recall there being issues specifically with Juneau in the past as it related to taking anything ashore, and having it moved by ship's staff.  Sounds ridiculous but this is what we witnessed before the nay-sayers get on their perch and start squawking.

6 minutes ago, DGHOC said:

 

I do find it rather bizarre that some members here seem to have an extraordinary bias against Viking, yet hang around the Viking threads, constantly trying to disparage and jab at Viking and upset others who are happy with Viking and CHOOSE to travel with Viking. I also find it rather strange that comments can be made about Viking correspondence sent out to the passengers of the 14th March cruise, when that individual hasn't read them or clearly understood them.

 

Is this a vendetta? Has this person had personal experience of Viking and wants to tarnish their reputation because of some previous upset? I really am rather puzzled about this.

 

To further clarify: Viking have emailed us with a link to the Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN), who will be conducting a voluntary survey of passengers of the 14th March cruise to allow them to finalise the incident report. This information is confidential and Viking will not be party to the responses.

Why beat around the bush and not name names?  Or better yet, click the 'ignore' button like so many others who only want to wear rose tinted glasses when they read anything about their beloved Viking?  

To suggest that any critical comments (in line with the name of the website/forum) are based on having a vendetta is laughable at the least, and to think that someone offering a differing opinion amid the myriad of gushing responses is somehow going to tarnish a company's reputation is hilarious as well.

There is a lot that I enjoy about Viking, but why pile on with the kudos when its well known the food is great, the crew are friendly, and the ship's are beautiful?  I suppose most people prefer the easy route when it comes to lauding praise on a company which then makes it easy to swallow the garbage that follows, but I for one am not that person.  If and when I pay a substantial fee for a product I have high expectations on the return, as I would expect many others should too therefore i don't blindly follow them down the rabbit hole as they, like every other company in the industry are profit driven and do everything they can do maximize that profit while trying desperately to minimize the 'bad press'.

9 hours ago, CCWineLover said:

 

 

I certainly hope, again, that people don't bring their previous bias to this situation.  There has been so much news and fake news out there that it is hard to tell from an outsider what is real.  Let's let what happens, happen and until then, not speculate.

so when someone offers a perspective which is outside the 'i love Viking, and Viking is perfect in every way' category its considered 'fake news'?  what happened to objectivity?  all i'm saying is that i find it a bit strange for a cruise line to suddenly want to facilitate a survey of all things, (which those of us who've cruised know this is the industry's litmus test on everything...) post accident on behalf of an investigative branch.  until those who've done the survey can offer more insight as to what is being asked all anyone can do is speculate but i for one don't approach any of these incidents with my head in the sand

46 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Viking is sending out the query because while the NAIB has the passenger manifest, they do not have the contact information for all the passengers, which Viking does.  Viking has not been found at any fault for the incident by the NAIB, so why would they not wish to cooperate?

i agree that the NAIB has limited contact information for guests involved; however, it still doesn't change the fact that its seemingly odd for an investigative body to conduct a survey post incident.  albeit more extreme, does anyone know if those involved in the Concordia disaster were surveyed??

5 hours ago, Haworth said:

Viking are “helping to facilitate the voluntary survey”

I still can't help but think there's something dubious about this type of language and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if its really just Viking taking the survey to try and gauge from a PR perspective how much (or little) effect the incident has had on future bookings.

This to me would be like AMTRAK sending out surveys on behalf of the NTSB after a train derailment 🙄

It would be interesting to hear/see what this survey is all about...

Is Viking doing the survey or is the Accident Investigation Bureau?  Seems like a strange thing to be doing from the perspective of an investigative body to be asking people's opinions on what they experienced as opposed to getting official statements?

Or is Viking asking permission to forward your contact information to the investigators?

re. the noise it could very likely be the crew getting the boats ready in the form of either removing lashings and making them ready for a 'faster' launching or they could be loading them with all the bits and pieces required to be taken ashore (i.e tents, water, chairs, etc) as those decorations are typically taken ashore on the very first boat with the tour crew and others needing to be shore side before the first passengers land.

as for the lack of organization, i'd like to think by now the idea of tendering would be 'old hat' for Viking but it seems like its a case of the blind leading the blind as with the exception of Ketchikan where there's 'speed limits' for the boats, all of the other landing areas are not especially far from the anchor positions.  you'd also think as well with this being the second call to these ports they would have figured it out by now as its not exactly rocket science...

so sad to see this again....seems a very tragic semi-regular occurrence up there with these flight seeing tours.  although the majority come and go without incident, there does seem to be an all too often repeat of these tragedies.

my heart goes out to those affected but it will be interesting to see what the NTSB has to say....

2 minutes ago, ropomo said:

 

This makes absolutely no sense.  Demand for bandwidth will be confined to one ship.  As others in this thread have stated, we have not experienced issues.  Any issues are more likely related to pax demand for bandwidth at any given time.

As stated,  i was only repeating what was said at the time by crew onboard, and i clearly stated I was not an IT expert.  At the end of the day any time a 'free' service is offered its likely to be used to excess thus diluting the end product

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And US courts have been hesitant to disallow the terms of the ticket contract in most cases, the largest of which in this instance is that all claims must be made in Switzerland.    You need look no further than the cruise industry ambulance chaser's website cruiselawnews, to see that even he acknowledges that the US courts will rule that since the contract specifies a court or country where claims are to be made, that that is a binding clause.  This from the US class action suits for the Costa Concordia.  Another similarity is that the court found that filing the suit in Miami was "forum non conveniens" or a non-convenient forum since it took place in Italy (or Norway), and investigations were undertaken there, and witnesses would be from there, or plaintiffs would be from other countries.

Sad as it is to see/hear that a US citizen (or any non-European) has limited to no recourse against a company who may have acted negligently just highlights the many issues with the industry as a whole.  Add to the fact i'm sure that the vast majority never read the passage contract and simply assume they're 'safe' or 'secure' when travelling onboard only to then discover any attempts to file suit in their homeland (if outside of Europe or Switzerland) is likely to be ignored?!?

Question now is how does this work in cases of voyages departing Miami or any US port as covered under the CVSSA (Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act)?  I know Florida has a very special mandate which gives them jurisdiction on incidences which occur onboard ships departing from their ports, so it would be interesting to see how those examples were to be handled and whether the same claim would be made about the Swiss angle?

at the risk of being 'ignored' by the sensitive contributors for being 'negative' (not like i care) i will say that in speaking with crew on previous cruises, they all said that even their WiFi signal is inconsistent at best and far from reliable.  in fact many apparently even log into the passenger network in an effort to get a more reliable signal as its their only means of communicating with family, which sadly then gets them blocked by onboard IT.

according to those who've been around since the start, the signal was great with 1 ship but has steadily declined with the addition of others which leads to the belief that the source bandwidth is being divided across the expanding fleet which results in a degraded signal.  i'm no IT expert but it seems plausible, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who's experienced the dreaded buffering when trying to watch the in room TV...

Got to love the inability of some to accept objective opinions, and instead choose to click the 'ignore' button for those voices which contrast theirs.   Must be nice to see the world through rose tinted glasses, but i for one insist on holding companies accountable for their shortfalls, especially when I've paid several thousands of dollars for the supposed privilege of sailing with them. 

2 hours ago, Homosassa said:

It won't go far under the cruise contract:

 

 "All disputes arising under the Passenger Ticket Contract Terms and Conditions or related directly or indirectly to the cruise itself, including without limitation claims involving personal injury, illness or death arising during or from the cruise, are governed by the laws of Switzerland, exclusive of conflicts of law provisions and all such disputes must be litigated if at all in and before a court located in Basel, Switzerland to the exclusion of the courts of any other jurisdiction. You agree to be bound by and submit to the governing law, venue and jurisdiction for such claims stated in the Carrier’s Passenger Ticket Contract Terms and Conditions."

 

And why is it if there can be any statements that can be made to stir the pot, certain posters who have no interest in Viking except to forecast doom, gloom, and cast aspersions show up  on the thread.

 

"Frick" is already here. Can "Frack" be far behind?

 

At least their posts in the original thread on this incident are gone as they added nothing to the thread.

So are you saying that anyone who is critical of Viking or has something contentious to say is 'Frick' is a pot stirrer who's posts should be removed by mods?  Seems counter-intuitive to the construct of a public forum where differing views and opinions are shared on a particular topic.....or did i mistake CC for the [insert cruise line name] fan club where only sycophantic praise is permitted?

22 minutes ago, Frenchberet said:

Not surprised to see a lawsuit but based on what I’ve read here, it seems that Viking has already tried to fairly compensate the passengers.  I understand that they paid for the March 23 cruise plus two future cruises.  I’m sure they would pay any medical expenses incurred too.  

and i'm sure some people will feel the same way that they've been fairly compensated; however, the beauty of the world we live in is that not only are people entitled to their differing opinions but they're also entitled to due process if they choose that route...

just when Viking thought their quiet handling of the situation by way of free cruises was the end of this.....i'm fairly certain the end is far from near

and rest assured of those involved (i.e. publicly discussing their experience on the morning shows) they will be demanding a several more zeroes than just 3....