Captain_Morgan

1 minute ago, mimmy52 said:

I wonder how they decide who gets evacuated first.  Women and children?  Young to old?  And I just hope everyone gets through this with the least amount of injuries.

no children onboard, but i'd think it would be sick/injured first and there is no doubt a triage of sorts set up for the rest

VOC ships have 4 x engines.....2 x large and 2 x small

the structure in the photo is likely a marker and/or buoy of some kind

live update on CNN....only 115 pax air lifted so far....ship holding steady....plans to continue evacuation throughout the night....8 people with 'light' injuries already taken ashore

Main Restaurant is located on Deck 2 Aft, this is also Muster Station 'B' and last i checked the free board to Deck 2 is approx. 8.5m (approx. 25 feet) so its entirely plausible that with the sea state they're in being over 9m in height with a rolling ship....well, its a recipe for disaster

none of the viking ships have 'pods'....they're all fitted with fixed pitch propellers

@Heidi13 i'm certainly not disagreeing with the decision to evacuate as its clearly the best of a set of bad options, which as you say would have included (in favorable conditions) the use of the lifeboats/rafts but in the interim I would rather be sat comfortably onboard waiting for my turn to be hoisted, should it come to that.  I know this would not have been a decision made lightly by the master and i commend him for his actions.

On a side not, it should be mentioned that this is now the third ship in succession to have sustained some kind of catastrophic technical issues, albeit too soon to say whether it was the same issue which befell the Star and Sea which resulted in both of them being laid up alongside for an extended period of time.  Here's hoping they get it sorted on the other ships before more unfortunate coincidences transpire...

The issue of 2 x 7 day cruises being marketed as a 14 day cruise depending on who booked it is nothing new for Viking as if memory serves, this first came about when the Sea spent the winter in the Med sailing on what was originally marketed as 14 day cruises from Barcelona (round trip) with day 7 in Civitavecchia (Rome); however, it soon turned into 2 x 7 day trips due to poor sales of the 14 day trip which i would assume is what is happening now on Jupiter.  This was also done recently onboard Star when it spent the winter in the Med, so once again it seems the ambitious nature of the sales department strikes again at the expense of the paying guests who are being sold one thing or another depending on who they speak to...

I would hazard a guess as well to say the entertainment is going to based on 7 day cruise and not a 14 day so prepare yourself for a copy/paste of the program and no doubt the menu cycle too...

I don't want to be a 'Debbie downer' here but it sounds to me like this whole Cuba itinerary is a wash with more issues than benefits.  As has been said time and again, weather issues are beyond any cruise line's control BUT its how the recovery of the issue is handled that people remember, and unless you're going to make use of a $500 future cruise credit, what are you left with?

If its not cancelled calls due to wind, weather, mechanical issues than its long tender rides, sub standard tours, and of course everyone's favorite Noro outbreaks...

I think there's a big fall from grace happening here, not only with this itinerary but from what I've read of the SE Asia and Aus/NZ runs and the issues being had there.  I don't foresee good things on the horizon for the Alaska season if the current inaugural seasons in other areas are the barometer.  At least in Europe the tour operators are all very good and the geography lends itself well to the port intensive itineraries with enrichment, etc which Viking sold the public on as being their niche; however, that's not the case in North America as they're learning the hard way and i can't help but notice the lack of focus on the entire 'worlds best' tag line they were selling in the beginning 

@Hiking In Heels the reality of cruising in general is that stuff happens to all lines, regardless of itinerary or time spent operating; however, the big difference I've seen is how the unforeseen issues are handled and with what regularity.

If it were a 'one off' situation relating to weather or where something mechanical happened during a cruise but it was sorted and not repeated than you could chalk it up to bad luck, but when there's a seemingly repeating pattern combined with self-deprecating humor as a means to address it followed by a credit for a future cruise it tends to lower expectations and opinions I would think and its a bit of a tough pill to swallow when paying a premium for a supposedly premium product.

As I say, new products are expected to have growing pains; however when you're also producing a virtual 'copy/paste' of the same product over and over again it would be reasonable to expect the 'bugs' to have been figured out and addressed, not repeated.  Sadly when it comes to Viking i can almost guarantee their largest shore side department is the sales department followed by customer relations (read. future cruise credits) and somewhere further down the line, closer to the end would be marine (read planning and maintenance).  Of course this is speculation based mostly on what's been observed by way of their inability to properly deal with unforeseen changes to the itinerary and how they try to pacify a passenger base with future cruise credits that may or may not be used...

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Having actually been integral in developing and attaining a Ship Security Plan (SSP), in accordance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, I could not disagree more that the Ship Security Officer (SSO) should be from a military or law enforcement background. In my experience, this statement shows limited, if any, knowledge of the statutory training requirements and the role performed by the SSO.

 

Having reviewing the pre-existing knowledge/training requirements in the ISPS Code, for a SSO, it lists 25 items. Being generous, a non-mariner with an armed forces/law enforcement background may come to the table with knowledge of 8 topics, relating to security in the marine industry, while a Senior Deck Officer (with Master FG Certificate of Competency), should have knowledge of 13-15 topics.

 

In my experience, as Master of 2,000 + pax Ro/Pax vessels, my SSO was a Senior Deck Officer and this was the best position to fill this role. While the SSO was a Deck Officer, he/she had significant specialised security contractors available, both on ship and ashore. Personally, my preference and that of other Masters, was to identify and eliminate any threat ashore, before even reaching the ship, which is where most ex-law enforcement/armed service contractors were deployed.

 

From experience, the SSO role is not a position which requires an entire FTE, so other tasks, roles, responsibilities are included to make the SSO an FTE position. On some cruise lines, these additional roles include supervising rigging gangways, supervising the shore tender base, conducting post incident investigations/reports relating to pax, providing law-enforcement services, etc. The first 2 roles are traditional Deck Officer roles, the 3rd is also a common deck officer responsibility, which we learned from day 1 as a cadet. The provision of law-enforcement, is best performed by those specially trained in law-enforcement, but where not available defaults to Deck Officers.

 

Therefore, my best guess is that after completing 3-years of "Blue Water" operations, Viking have reviewed the allocation of the Ship Security Officer role and determined they can provide the Captain with improved personnel resources by providing an additional Deck Officer to manage the Ship Security Plan and also be available to enhance the Bridge Team. Unlike the mega ships of mainstream lines, I suspect there is significantly less need for law-enforcement services with Viking's normal clientele.

 

Since the Masters are ultimately responsible for both the safety & security of the ship, I suspect this change could even have originated from the operational Masters.

 

As further proof that Viking are not compromising ship security, while transiting "Pirate Alley" last year the Viking Sun, hired some specialised contractors to assist protecting the ship and passengers, in the event of a pirate attack. These contractors were well trained and carried equipment to assist protecting the ship, and was in addition to measures prevalent on other pax vessels. On our last WC through "Pirate Alley" we had the usual passive defenses rigged and ran as much of a  black ship as possible, but we did not have any specialised contractors available.

 

Therefore, when security is a real issue, my hat is off to Viking, as they take real action in ensuring the safety and security of their vessel, crew and passengers.

 

I respectfully disagree with much of what you've said, not because it lacks factual substance as it relates to a very ambiguous document (ISPS Code) but because it involves a lot of speculation and assumption.  Although i don't feel the need to put my relative knowledge on display, suffice it to say I am familiar with the terms in question, including but not limited to the difference between an SSO and SO of which the latter was being referenced to having been replaced, not the former which is simply a designation which can be held by anyone onboard holding a recognized certificate.

That said, your assertion that an officer who has completed a 3-5 day course and holds a piece of paper with minimal relevance to his/her primary function onboard (i.e. navigation) is equal to an individual with 20-30 years experience in the military or law enforcement is very short sighted IMO, especially in today's world climate where threats exist everywhere and can come from anyone, including the demographic sailing onboard Viking.

A simple google search will show numerous examples of situations onboard cruise ships which have involved criminal acts best suited to be dealt with by a trained professional, not a mariner.  Furthermore, there have been an unfortunate number of issues which were completely botched by untrained individuals which could have been handled in a more concise fashion by a properly trained professional (i.e. case of Dianne Brimble, where the crime scene was cleaned up by housekeeping and critical evidence destroyed).  The fact that the Cruise Vessel Safety & Security Act (CVSSA) exists in the first place is largely due to the poor response to crimes onboard (specifically as it relates to Americans sailing in/out of the US), which apart from having specific requirements for the physical aspects of the ship also very clearly states that there must be at least one person onboard trained in the detection of crime, and preservation of evidence, etc.   Not to sound cheeky but that sounds a lot like what a trained law enforcement officer would be able to deal with in relative comfort as opposed to someone who's just finished watching a season of NCIS or CSI MIami

Furthermore, the example of having transited through the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea with armed security onboard or hardening of the vessel is actually a common practice for ALL cruise ships, not just Viking where the use of armed guards is subject to the approval of the Flag State mainly for insurance purposes.  I have to say that using this as an example does not illustrate how Viking are somehow leading the way when it comes to security measures as it should also be noted that no passenger ship in recent record has been successfully boarded by pirates, which is due in large part to the fact the area is heavily monitored, the ships travel at a high rate of speed, they typically transit during a time of year which is not favorable to small crafts operating in the open ocean, etc, etc, etc.  The case of the Seabourn Spirit having been attacked in 2005 is not a good comparison either as it was off the coast of Somalia heading towards Kenya, and is literally a quarter of the size of any Viking ship with as few personnel onboard.

As i said in my original post, I for one will be looking elsewhere to book my cruises so long as there is not a properly trained/qualified chief of security onboard Viking ships, much the same as how i wouldn't buy a car without a seat belt or a house without a smoke detector, but that's just me I suppose!

Weather aside, which we all know is something which can't be controlled by even the most seasoned companies, it seems the issue at large is a combination of poor planning, poor design and perhaps even a little arrogance on behalf of an upstart bunch in the sector of ocean cruising.  Let me explain...

We were on the Canada/New England cruise last year where we had our original itinerary changed which we later found out was due to the fact that there is a speed restriction in the Gulf of St Lawrence in order to avoid collisions with whales, etc. which i completely accept; however, it seems this was never factored in to the itinerary planning as the speed required to get from Montreal to Charlottetown (original schedule) was too high and as a result we went to Gaspe instead, which was alright but it's not what was advertised or planned for!  Of course in this case we also had the currents of the St Lawrence working against us, which cannot be helped but these are things which i would expect someone responsible for planning itineraries to consider??

I always make a point as well of speaking with the senior marine and technical officers during the meet & greets as well as asking a lot of questions on occasions when I've managed to visit the Bridge as its amazing what kind of detail you can find out, which is not otherwise known or considered.  Case in point is the fact that as nice as the ships are, they are vastly under-powered in the stern and although they have a stern thruster, one officer said it was the equivalent in power to a ceiling fan.  Sure that's an exaggeration but it was used to illustrate the point that even with all engines working (which it seems they seldom are) they still have issues when the wind is blowing more than 20kts...

As for the arrogance, its not meant to be taken as an insult but more of an astute criticism in that it seems on more than one occasion, Viking have seemed to think they can show up late to the party and still get a seat at the table.  In the case of Cuba, i think we can all agree that the likes of NCL, Royal, HAL etc. have had their finger on the button just waiting for Cuba to open up for ships long before VOC was even thinking about putting a ship in the ocean, so when the time came they of course were ready to go and got first dibs on preferred berth allocation.  The fact that the original Viking itineraries from what i understand said the ships would dock in Havana only to then be left at anchor for nearly 3 days is a testament to this poor planning and over estimation of their place in the system, which of course sounds as well like its not been disseminated well to the passengers.

After the first 2 years you can call these 'growing pains' but i would think if a company has such an ambitious plan to flood the market with its product they would be better served working to perfect what they have instead of repeating the same mistakes only separated by 12-18 short months before they do it all again with a new ship

Slightly off topic, but if there's concern about whether or not people are washing/sanitizing their hands and whether or not its being enforced, I would say that's simply not a concern of Viking on the whole as how can they be concerned over basic hygiene if they've decided its a good idea to sail without a properly trained/qualified Chief Security?

I was on Star earlier this year and got to chatting with the now former holder of that role who was very candid in explaining how the decision had been made to remove he and his colleagues holding the role (former military/law enforcement professionals) responsible for the security of the ship and to replace them with a safety officer (read. mariner with no relevant background) 

So if they're content to go down the road of drastically reducing security measures onboard, i doubt they'll lose much sleep over a few upset stomachs and dirty hands, which is why I will be cruising elsewhere in future as I for one consider my own personal safety/security to be a pretty high priority when travelling

I think its safe to say that Noro does not discriminate between the higher or lower priced cruise lines and it effects everyone if basic hygiene practices are not followed.  

There's a reason why there is a trend which follows certain itineraries as opposed to others (i.e. Caribbean, SE Asia, etc) and that is mainly due to the sub-standard conditions in many of the ports of call in comparison to others.  Lets not forget as well that Cuba is not on par with the likes of NA or Europe when it comes to infrastructure regardless of the all inclusive resorts in places not visited by cruise ships.

This of course is not a blanket statement or generalization, just an observation based on experience.  Add to the fact people  not washing their hands after using the toilet, etc. and you're increasing the probability of illness.  It should also be noted that very few if any crew seem to be effected which is an indication of where the issue is coming from...

1 hour ago, Rawmac said:

Lesson One for Viking is that the efforts of their shore side/head-office staff responsible for provision of these tours require critical review, appraisal and significant improvement, and when working in new areas,  much more in-depth assessment of their contractors, their offerings and the quality of the guides (eg language, local knowledge) is required.

 

I think this is the most poignant thing to keep in mind here in that its people in an office, thousands of miles away making plans and decisions without fully realizing the impact when it goes sideways, or fails to meet the high expectations of the paying clientele.  I know with other companies, they send their staff on 'familiarization trips' before the tours are even launched as how can they 'sell' the virtues of what they're offering if they've never done it themselves?

I have heard numerous comments from friends and friends of friends who recently sailed on the Amazon cruise which, when it came to the tours being offered were far below expectation and certainly a case of being over-promised and under-delivered and this is not the first time Viking have sailed there!   Sadly as well, i'm told by many people on board that they're not able to make even the slightest change to the scheduled tours (i.e. adjust the departure/arrival times by a couple of minutes to improve the experience and/or reduce congestion/confusion) as everything is dictated from the office (their exact choice of words) which i would imagine is quite limiting for an experienced manager onboard trying to put on a brave face while apologizing non stop!

13 minutes ago, Missymssy said:

I had not heard this before. I am booked for an Alaska cruise in July. After reading quite a few negative reviews on how Viking has been with excursions for new itineraries, and now this, I'm beginning to worry! The Viking ships really appealed to me (decor, no crowds, no casino, no kids, beverage PKG, etc), however this is probably a once in a lifetime bucket list trip. Perhaps I should have just sucked it up and gone with Princess. Lol

In fairness, the ships themselves are very well appointed and as you say there are numerous positives in comparison to others, least of all being the size and lack of distractions; however, there is still a big learning curve it seems especially when it comes to new itineraries.  That said, there are no shortage of optional tour providers in each of the ports which you could make arrangements through on your own, likely at a savings in comparison to the optional tours onboard!  Also keeping in mind the majority of people sign up for the included tours with Viking because they're free, but they also for the most part consist of a 'panoramic' bus tour and little else.

44 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

I completed 2 Alaska seasons with Princess back in the days of the original Island/Pacific/Sun Princess, which were all smaller than the Viking ships. Other than managing mooring lines with the tidal range, we had few issues.

 

A number of other premium/luxury lines also have ships in Alaska, which are smaller than Viking and I'm not aware of any insurmountable issues.

 

One of the biggest challenges for the Bridge Teams will be the amount of time they work with/babysitting pilots, as with the exception of Dixon Entrance, everything from Vancouver to clearing Icy Strait is pilotage waters.

The issues i'm referring to are the dynamics of the ship design in such that the gangways will more than likely need to be on Deck 2 in ports where there are not floating pontoons which have not been taken by the 'regular' visitors, which on Viking is an outside deck with minimal space to maneuver for traffic, made especially worse during inclement weather.

I'm sure the pilotage will be fine as its similar in many respects to the extended time spent going through the Norwegian fjords where pilots are onboard for extended periods of time without issue.

Keeping in mind the topic of the thread I've also heard through the rumour mill that on Orion the Shore Excursions staff in comparison to the other ships is now comprised of mostly guest services personnel who are 'part time' shore excursions staff?  One would think that if ships are calling into new and previously unknown ports they would want experienced people in these roles, but then again what do we know?!?  

Comparing Viking to Princess/HAL is like apples to oranges; albeit both are fruit but they're enjoyed or disliked by different people for various reasons.

As it relates to Alaska, Princess/HAL have got it nailed and down to a very fine art given they've been sailing there for countless years, whereas Viking is flying by the seat of their pants with these new itineraries with ships which perhaps are not best equipped for the environment (i.e. tidal conditions in port, etc) which they will find out the hard way if they're not relegated to anchor in the busier ports of Ketchikan & Juneau.  Having been to Alaska countless times I know the gangways provided by the ports are typically larger/wider than what the ships use which means they might be in for a surprise when trying to make use of what's on offer, not to mention the physical dimensions of the ships being 'smaller' than the conventional Princess/HAL ships calling into these ports will result in some interesting situations for sure!!

Captain Morgan, I can not agree with you more.....we have not been on Seaborne, but have enjoyed several of the balcony & suite options on other lines. We truly enjoy Viking......Oceans and Rivers.

Great food, great ships, open comfortable spaces, employees that are top of the line......it's a good package without doubt......with the exception of their wine....and that is not at all pedantic.....it is someone (actually a whole lot of us) who like to enjoy nice wine.....☺:-)

Don't get me wrong, to each their own...i'm just saying that there's so much more to the cruise experience than what's in a glass at meal time :D

Compared to Seabourn or some other luxury ocean lines, the Viking Ocean ships may seem large -- but compared to any mass market or premium ocean ship they are quite small. Even compared to Oceania's new ships they are small! And the space-per-passenger and crew-per-passenger ratios position them very well in the super--premium category with Oceania and Azamara.

 

Hopefully those Viking River cruisers appreciated the dramatically more upscale food you described. River ships, because of their small size, are not able to offer much in the way of customized food -- and Viking River ships have more passengers than the other brands, packed in the same space. The food on Viking Oceans sounds quite wonderful and again marks a welcome elevation of the brand.

 

Viking is used to organizing included shore excursions on their river ships -- but they only have 200 passengers to deal with. I would imagine it has been something of a shock to them to have to scale up by several times (even assuming many people DIY or book the optionals). I have observed their river cruise excursions and they always seemed more crowded and regimented than other river cruise lines' tours -- I hope they can bring the level of the included ocean tours up the same way they have with the food. If they do that, they will be knocking on Regent's door and offering killer value!

They seem to have gotten a better handle on things from what I've seen and heard from others who've been more recently as instead of dropping 500 people off at once and wondering why they're stood outside in the rain (as it were) they seem to have reduced the group sizes to a more manageable number which means the transition between included tour times is less hectic!!

LesSails80435,

 

Thanks for the review.

 

I am new to Viking, so I am still doing my pre-cruise homework.

 

I like to read both positive and critical reviews.

I find the critical ones to be more helpful.

 

About "mid-level cruisers" remark.

My perception of high-end experience is different though. It's not limited to the "hotel part" (accommodation and service).

A cruise ship means much more to me. That said, I don't consider some so-called "high-end" ships as an option for my cruise vacation. They provide excellent hotel service but leave much to be desired as cruise ships.

 

Viking ocean ships (from the first glance) seem to be refreshingly different from that category.

 

Again, thank you for the review.

Of course its always good to do homework and cover 'due diligence' when it comes to planning a holiday, especially one which carries a hefty price tag as cruising with Viking Ocean will in comparison to other options.

IME, I began cruising with Princess in the early 2000's and found them to be a nice balance of affordability and 'class' with the options for formal nights, etc; however, that quickly changed when Carnival took over and began the process of gutting the 'Love Boat' image and turning it into another one of their 'fun ship' type brands where they peddle drinks at every turn, nickel and dime you for everything, and of course lure you in the relatively cheap fare only to come away having spent so much more on absolute nonsense!

After Princess I moved along to other brands and even sampled the likes of 'high end' options such as Seabourn which for the money spent IMO was not worth the overall experience. Albeit their 'big' ships are newer than the original 'sisters' but both options i found were very dark and dreary on the interior, the clientele were stuffy and demanding and the brand was trying very hard to hang on to a long passed image which was once synonymous with luxury and class. I honestly saw none of those things and only observed patrons who spent on average an absolute ton of money and then proceeded to moan and complain about how awful the brand had become since being taken over by HAL, yet they continued to sail with them perhaps for their own reasons but i honestly believe it was due to the fact they knew it was the only place they could get away with their entitled behaviour and still be called by their first name!!

Now since Viking has entered the mix on the ocean front I've sampled their product and will agree that there are plenty of 'kinks' which need to be worked out and i honestly think this is due to the fact that the mentality of those making decisions is still firmly rooted in the river ship market. I too was on the cruise from Harwich to Bergen in June 2016 and for whatever reason it seemed that particular sailing was very full of passengers who were Viking River cruisers and were on the ocean ships for the first time so they were indeed in for a major shock when it came to the size of the vessel and of course the amount of people on board.

The main observance i had of that trip was that the tours were in fact poorly organized, which may come down to the fact they offer included and optional tours where the included tours seem to run multiple times during the day meaning once the bus has unloaded one group, the next group is waiting to board which caused a bit of chaos and when the weather turns as it did on some days it just exacerbates the situation.

Apart from that, the food IMO is far and away the best I've had on board with respect to quality and sure you can complain about the choice of 'free' wines at meal times but if that's a complaint than I think its a bit pedantic as there's plenty of other things to focus energy on. When you can go to the 'buffet' and order a lovely 9 oz NY strip steak made to order every single night for dinner and eat fresh sushi, and crab legs until you're ready for the gelato on offer every day....what's not to like? And that doesn't even include the amazing food in Manfredi's or the wonderful waffles at Mamsen's in the Explorer's Lounge!!

I'm not saying Viking is the best thing since sliced bread, but they're a refreshingly different product whilst still offering much of the same if not more than the rest of the industry. I consider Viking to be a nice mix of understated luxury without the pomp and circumstance!

Thanks again for all of your insights. I think you hit the nail on the head....I couldn't quite articulate it. But, when we started with Princess, it was elegant and the service was outstanding without being "snooty". I feel the whole product has changed and after 50+ cruises, we are going to try Viking with the expectation that we will think, "gosh, this is what it used to be like"!

As a long time lurker and first time poster, I wanted to offer some insight from both sides of the coin.

Having worked in the industry for 14+ years and formerly with Princess for nearly 10 yrs; having sailed on the majority of their ships including the new Royal Class I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the product there has changed drastically over the years. I call it the 'Carnivalization' of the brand which is evident on many of the other brands under the umbrella and i first noticed it when the Caribbean Princess was launched and the focus was on filling it no matter the price which attracted any number of colorful characters for 7 day parties in the sun!! Add to the fact of the constant nickel and dime mentality where everything is an extra charge and they now find themselves going down the road of 3 and 4 day cruises to Ensenada or Bahamas :rolleyes:

I digress however, and can say on Viking you will not only see much newer ships, but also a much friendlier atmosphere as with only 930 guests at max capacity it never truly feels crowded and even when there's a group of people somewhere they seem to dissipate quickly. The general atmosphere on board is also much brighter and relaxing at the same time; no drab, dark tones around the ship or dated furnishings; nor is there a member of staff trying to hawk the latest 'drink of the day' with some tacky glowing accessory floating inside of it or a photographer hiding around a faux plant waiting to ambush you!

Viking is 18+ so no kids running around, up and down hallways and generally being disruptive and perhaps the demographic is older than some prefer but the aim from my understanding was that they wanted to target a 50+ age group, educated, with an interest in enrichment and culture and not just people wanting 'fun in the sun' on a 'milk run' around the same old tired ports...

Is Viking perfect?? Of course not, but i honestly think that value for money they are an excellent option and they've got a lot to learn as it relates to the different niche aspects of the industry but they're headed in the right direction IMO. The atmosphere is relaxed, friendly, elegant and informed so if that's what interests you than i'm sure you will have a great trip!