drcpa

I think the space per passenger IS a good first order metric. But you need to look deeper; the "extra" space on some upscale river lines gets used for stuff like a massage room and a gym. I don't use these facilities on a river cruise and they subtract from the square foot per passenger space leaving less space for the common areas.

Well put and I couldn't agree more. And you've touched on another one of those comparisons that I don't think is relevant, specifically such things as massage rooms and gyms. These features often come up to defend/explain "why I love XXX over Viking". To this day, I have never seen a single person using a river cruise gym or salon.

Again......cats and dogs.

Shouldn't a "luxury" cruise brand be determined with something more than the number of passengers on board?

Many thanks to those who point out the fallacy of using passenger count as a way of ranking, rating, and defining cruise lines. A common theme in this forum is the definition of Viking River as a middle-of the road line because of these self-serving metrics. (That, and as people have pointed out, the ongoing insistence by some that although they've never been on Viking they are comfortable criticizing the experience.)

Using the headcount model, I'd insist my Times Square Olive Garden is better than your Brooklyn based Peter Luger Steak House because Luger's has 32 extra people in it at the time.

Either that, or my sedan with 2 people is twice as good as your Rolls Royce with 4 people.

My last river cruise was on AMA and the last thing anyone thought of was how spacious and luxurious it was, particularly compared to Viking. In fact, I would suggest no one goes from Viking to AMA with the feeling "finally, a unique, upgraded experience with more room and service".

If anything, by adding ill conceived and ill designed booths at the front of the dining room the AMA room seemed noticeably cramped with narrow walkways for the staff and guests.

You're welcome to like or not like Viking (although many of us remain troubled by the "never travelled with them, but let me give you my opinion"), but please stop using the space per passenger trope as a way of expressing your opinions.

This year I booked my first ever cruise, Viking’s “Waterways of the Tsars” from Moscow to St. Petersburg. It was a terrible experience, or perhaps I should say non-experience, because of which I may forever hold a grudge against Viking. Perhaps that’s unfair of me. You judge.

I placed the requested $1,000 deposit for the trip this year on February 14 and spontaneously paid the entire trip cost and purchased travel insurance just 17 days later on March 3. Viking booked our airfare, and my wife and I selected our daily trip excursions. From that point our anticipation built until the day of departure on August 19, when we were turned away from our departure airport for lack of a Russian visitation visa.

As verified by Viking's review of reservation transcripts for tour and air arrangements, I was never informed of the need for a visa, but on review of all documents emailed by Viking, there is a short, inconspicuous notification of the visa requirement on my Guest Statement at the bottom of page 3, which I didn’t see. Failure to provide necessary travel documents is not a circumstance covered by travel insurance, and since I had to cancel at the last moment, Viking gets to keep ALL of the money. Viking Customer Relations has not made a meaningful conciliatory offer, except to refund their overcharge for the trip insurance to me.

 

Since Viking arranged our trip door-to-door, I had considered myself to be in the care of a travel agency. I have since discovered Viking's web site statement that Viking is not responsible for informing cruise guests of visa requirements. Clearly, I must not be the first client without a visa to have been turned away at the airport.

That is one hellacious story, perfectly explained, and I am so sorry you are in this predicament.

You raise an interesting question I had not thought of, that is whether Viking was acting in the role of a travel agency.

I imagine (and I am not defending them, just thinking out loud) they see themselves as a cruise line and travel provider/middle man, but not an agency.

My travel agent sent me a document headed IMPORTANT INFORMATION in upper case, red, bold faced, underlined type which begins, "You are scheduled to travel outside the United States which will the require the use of either a Passport and/or Visa. You are solely responsible to make certain your travel documents meet the following criteria".

Not to beat this death, but it lists 4 criteria; reservation name matches Passport, Passport expiration date at least 6 months following return date, VISA requirements/instructions, and requirements to provide agency with the above information.

It closes with **Failure to follow any of the above criteria is the sole responsibility of the client** And the agency accepts no responsibility...on behalf of the client. And no refunds can be given for unused travel which result from delays or disruptions due to missing or incomplete travel documents.

If Viking was acting on your behalf as your travel agent then they let you down by not providing what I was provided.

I’m not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to better understand the trajectory and history of this thread. Did someone comment on a 5+ year old anti-Viking post thus bumping it back to current status?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Take a hint - Winchester might just be a better option than Salisbury. Winchester has a lot of history to offer, whereas Salisbury is still suffering from the spy poison attack using Novichok deadly poison. You may decide that it's perfectly safe, but I am a bona fide coward.

Perfect idea. Much thanks for the tip. Winchester it is!

Portsmouth not Plymouth

 

 

 

 

let me say at the outset that i realize this is a minor, first world issue and i write this good naturedly knowing that preliminary cruise information can change at any time up to (and even after) a cruise begins.

i am booked on viking's october 6 amsterdam to catalonia cruise.

the ship docks at Portsmouth, England on day 4.

over the last year i've been looking at the viking cruise site that includes shore excursions. The Portsmouth itinerary shows the included portsmouth tour as well as 12 other tours;

salisbury and stonehenge

exbury gardens and lyndhurst

beaulieu, national motor museum & new forest

bombay sapphire & laverstoke mill

historic winchester and its glorious cathedral

mystic stonehenge

panoramic london

kayaking in the bealieu river

journey along the watercress line

fly in a vintage warbird

somerley estate

hovercraft ride and osborne estate

https://www.vikingcruises.com/oceans/cruise-destinations/multi-region/amsterdam-to-catalonia/index.html#itineraryday/4

i've spent all year considering my options, comparing salisbury to winchester, considering a trip into london, wondering if i had the guts to strap into a spitfire, and generally contemplating each excursion (i mean who doesn't like bombay sapphire?).

to my surprise, after all this (fun) planning i go into my actual viking account to find there are only 2 shore excursions that day, portsmouth and winchester. No london, no spitfires, no bombay gin, no salisbury, and no stonehenge.

the reason?

we are only in portsmouth half a day and the rest of the activities take too long.

is my life ruined, is my cruise ruined? Of course not, but i sure do wish viking had done a better job in their cruise excursion descriptions and in setting expectations.

 

My bad. I promised myself I wouldn’t make that mistake and made it anyway. I’m hoping now the cruise leaves out of Amsterdam, Netherlands and not Amsterdam, New York.

Don’t mean to pile on here, but the Anne Frank House is so popular (and is undergoing renovation) they no longer even have same day sales. You actually cannot get in a line (no matter how long) to purchase tickets. All tickets must be pre-purchased online prior to arrival. This policy is through July, 2018 and will probably become permanent.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I’m reminded of the Yogi Berra quote, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

Forgive me for missing the forest from the trees (something I'm very good at), but the implication of this thread is that Viking shore excursion famously sell out and you'd better be awake at (in my case) 3am the first day of availability to snag a spot.

After a slew of river and ocean cruises, other than the few times I tried to register at the last moment (to accompany new friends, for example), I have never been told an excursion was unavailable or sold out.

Does that happen a lot on Viking?

Thanks to all who responded. This has been very helpful and enlightening.

Like many people on this forum I use a travel agent to help plan flights and cruises.

I see where more and more people are discussing that the TA receives a commission from the travel companies and in turn the traveler receives part of those commissions in the form of discounts and rebates, often discounts off the price of the cruise or in the form of cruise credits.

Is this a thing?

My TA will always supply something in the room, normally a bottle of wine, and will also offer occasional onboard credits.

But, I have never thought of this (or expected it or asked for it) as a formal transaction.

Do people actually have that form of relationship with their TAs? My cruise costs X, I know you receive Y% of that, and I expect a share of what you receive.

notamermaid and steamboats, thank you for your quick, helpful replies. I have read many of your posts over the years and always find them informative and valuable.

I've been reading the posts after a search on "Elbe" and most of them are about cruises that have turned into bus tours due to low or high water levels.

Is it worth even scheduling a cruise on that river? Do the attractions on the Elbe make it even worth the risk? Is there a cruise line that seems to be more successful in making the trip? And finally, is there an optimum time to go to minimize river issues?

Much thanks

Most of us on this board are savvy and experienced travelers (in varying degrees, of course). We visit this and that travel sites, subscribe to travel magazines, go to the library, belong to Global Entry and TSA Pre Check (and in some cases are even members of Clear). We use the right credit cards, join the right Frequent flyer/hotel/cruise/car rental programs. We know all about Uber and Airbnb. Our phones are full of travel apps. We know when to book a flight, what airports to avoid, how to snag an upgrade, what seat to pick. We know how and what to pack and what to carry on. Where to get WiFi and what ATMs to use.

Unfortunately not everyone travels like we do (which doesn’t make them bad people).

This became clear to me when we reached Amsterdam on AMA . Those passengers who didn’t pre-purchase tickets for the Anne Frank House, Van Gogh Museum and Rijksmuseum didn’t get in.

I’ll say it again, I totally support the concept of research and passenger responsibility. Caveat Emptor and let the buyer beware. And even with all that I can’t totally blame disappointing trips on the traveler.

If you’ve only taken ocean cruises the concept of river water levels is pretty arcane. If you take a Christmas Markets Cruise you expect to see Christmas Markets. Who would know that you can only buy Anne Frank tickets online. We know all these things because that’s who we are and that’s how we travel.

But not everyone travels like we do. While we might not agree with everyone’s complaint, the “Hey fool, do your research next time” strikes me as unsympathetic and too easily let’s the travel industry off the hook.

The OP raises the legitimate concerns of falling, hurting oneself, and accidents. I assume he takes common sense precautions to avoid such unfortunate events and lessen their severity.

His actions don't ruin his trip, interfere with the enjoyment of the vacation or become the cornerstone of his day.

Many of us take the same approach to pickpockets, overall crime, and in these times, violence.

I'm not sure it serves much purpose in ranking one travel cautionary tale over another.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

The OP has taught us an important, inspirational lesson that I will not soon forget.

Viking is a 20 year old company with 60 ships who employs over 4,000 people. Each year thousands of people sail on Viking and over the years tens of thousands have sailed with her.

It is possible that not everyone will like the food.

I will be forever guided by this sage advice.

Thanks for posting.

Actually, I have in many instances stated specific reasons I am not interested in Viking:

 

- Ships are generic and ugly IMO, inside and out

- Cabins are small, as compared to others

- Longboats have too many passengers aboard for the size, as compared to others

- Design of ships has historically not done well in low and high water conditions

- No gyms

- No active excursions as their stated target demographic is seniors

 

Those reasons may not apply to anyone else, but those are specific IMO, and only the comment on appearance and decor is subjective.

 

Also, IMO, this thread was posted for the sole purpose of inciting such a discussion and was, again IMO, confrontational from the outset. Did not serve any other purpose IMO.

I suggested people be open minded about considering Viking and I seem to have offended those people who have never sailed on Viking and will never sail on Viking and have said so 10,000+ times. Thanks again for proving my point, IMO.

I have not cruised Viking, nor do I plan to, ever. Their payment business practice is unacceptable when there are other options out there. The size of their ships seems to guarantee that when their are water level problems that they are going to be the most affected.

 

As far as attacking the Host... the Host in this forum is the best I have ever encountered at CC...

 

So, straw man arguements aside, you are way off base, and seem to be looking for a fight that you have already lost.

:eek:

 

:rolleyes:

 

JC

I suggest people should not reject Viking out of hand based on comments by those who have never sailed on Viking and would never sail on Viking due to such things as final payment policy (I think my example was 2 for 1 promotions, but payment policy falls into the same category) and ship size and you say "I have not cruised Viking, nor do I plan to, ever. Their payment business practice is unacceptable when there are other options out there. The size of their ships seems to guarantee that when their are water level problems that they are going to be the most affected" and I'm the one way off base looking for a fight that I have already lost?

As I said to the moderator, "Thanks for proving my point" and in your case agreeing 100% to everything I originally posted.

I'm very glad that you have found a river cruise line that fits your needs, but your defense of Viking is undercut by the "straw man" arguments. I have read every post on this forum for the last three years and just did a search to confirm my memory, and I could not find a single post that compared Viking to Yugo or to Walmart. Nor do I recall posts sneering at Viking customers as tourists in comparison to sophisticated travelers – nor anyone saying that Viking provides an "impersonal, boilerplate cruise." There has been criticism of Viking's constant "2 for 1" sales, but only as a misleading business practice -- it is not "unheard of in the industry" because Oceania does it too, but it is unusual in the River Cruising industry. The claims about Viking's rapid expansion and its effect on their ability to hire and train crew may be a matter of dispute, but hardly an "insulting, scandalous notion" as if true it would imperil the safety of the passengers. So we come down to your final point dismissing the reasons others have given for not wanting to sail on Viking -- and the answer, which you acknowledge, is that those posters are as much entitled to their opinions as you are to yours. If you want to convince people to try Viking, give us more detail about what you liked on your Viking cruises.

-------------------

Well so much for a fair minded and impartial Forum Host. Defensive much? And apologies if my comments hit too close to home, but thanks for proving my point.

My wife and I took our first river cruise with AMA, Rhine Christmas Markets,a few years back. We had a wonderful time and I'll never forget New Years in Amsterdam, martini in hand, watching the fireworks over the city.

Our next river cruise was on Viking, Danube Christmas Markets. While I know some of you would not agree, we pronounced the lines a virtual tie.

Last year was another Viking Christmas Markets cruise (catch a pattern here?) on a different part of the Rhine.

Although we have no idea how we'll exist without Christmas Markets :), we're off to a Viking Provence Cruise in early November.

For those considering Viking I'd like to call out as rubbish what I sometimes see on this Forum. Specifically;

** Viking is the Yugo of river cruises while the other lines are Rolls-Royce and Bentley.

** Viking is the Walmart of river cruises while the other lines are Rodeo Drive, or for my Florida friends, Worth Avenue.

** Tourists book Viking, while travelers sail something else. No sophisticated person would ever be caught dead on a Viking ship.

** Viking provides an impersonal, boilerplate cruise while the other lines are hip, niche, boutique experiences.

** The insulting, scandalous notion that in order to expand Viking is hiring unqualified, inexperienced staff and crew.

** 2 for 1 promotions are some demonic, "never heard of in the industry", Viking only scams.

** Finally, "We've never sailed on Viking and will never sail on Viking" and base that on passenger capacity, cabin size and how low the boat sits in the water. I have found in life that with a few notable exceptions an inch here or there really doesn't make that much difference.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. That's why this Forum is here. And I am not saying that Viking is the hands down winner. But please don't be frightened away from Viking by a vocal minority.