Insignia generator problem

[drldude]

Hi, We are booked on the 6/23/11 cruise and have been informed of a generator problem. Two of the generators need repair. We were e-mailed after the 50% refund date had passed and now we know Oceania knew of this problem before the penalty date. Is anyone else concerned about the port of Stravanger being dropped and the possibility of missing out on the full artic loop?

[LAexNY]

Hi, We are booked on the 6/23/11 cruise and have been informed of a generator problem. Two of the generators need repair. We were e-mailed after the 50% refund date had passed and now we know Oceania knew of this problem before the penalty date. Is anyone else concerned about the port of Stravanger being dropped and the possibility of missing out on the full artic loop?

 

Welcome to C.C.

If you use the search tool, you will see there are several threads on this topic already.

[doubledobles]

Yes, we have friends we travel with all the time and he is very angry that Oceania did not inform him of the problem before the final cutoff date when they knew about it the problem. I myself am not too concerned, but our friends, who travel as much as we do on Oceania. (in the Owner's Suite) feel that they have been misled. :mad:

[LHT28]

You may want to go the the Roll call for your cruise

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1175579

[Mura]

Hi, We are booked on the 6/23/11 cruise and have been informed of a generator problem. Two of the generators need repair. We were e-mailed after the 50% refund date had passed and now we know Oceania knew of this problem before the penalty date. Is anyone else concerned about the port of Stravanger being dropped and the possibility of missing out on the full artic loop?

 

I fully understand your unhappiness about the late notice. And having been to Stavanger last year, I doubly sympathize because that was a charming port of call.

 

But so far I haven't heard that there's a possibility of missing out on the full arctic loop. I CAN say that I wasn't that impressed with viewing the arctic ice ... there wasn't much to see from the ship! The sky kind of blended in with the ice ...

 

The last time I checked your itinerary you were going to miss out on North Cape's midnight sun, however, and we enjoyed that. I think more crew came out to view it than passengers did! We overnighted there so it was easy to book a private tour for a midnight visit. And the next day we did the Bird Island trip. If you are leaving at 11pm, you do miss out on a fair amount of options at North Cape.

 

Someone (not sure which thread) mentioned weather can be bad at North Cape so don't worry ... well, we were there in August 1975 and August 2010 and we had wonderful weather both times!

 

I'm sending healing vibes that they fix the itinerary back to the original in time for your cruise. It's certainly too bad that these itineraries on Oceania never miss Kristiansand, which I consider quite miss-able -- at least after the first visit. (And it's a crime that you have a full day in also miss-able Murmansk but so little time in Hammerfest (as compared to what we had last year.)

 

Mura

[Mura]

I just checked the itinerary on our August 14-24 Alaska cruise and see that several of the ports of call have been reduced by a couple of hours. It's not nearly as extensive a change as the Norway people are upset about -- we aren't losing ports, just an hour or two at a few of them. But it's somewhat significant. I wonder if there isn't more going on ... like cruising at slower speeds to save gas with current prices the way they are?

 

And if that is the case, and gas prices go down, could we return to the original times?

[lmarmors]

I just checked the itinerary on our August 14-24 Alaska cruise and see that several of the ports of call have been reduced by a couple of hours. It's not nearly as extensive a change as the Norway people are upset about -- we aren't losing ports, just an hour or two at a few of them. But it's somewhat significant. I wonder if there isn't more going on ... like cruising at slower speeds to save gas with current prices the way they are?

 

And if that is the case, and gas prices go down, could we return to the original times?

 

If the reason is really gas prices, why would Oceania choose to only slow down the speed on the Insignia ? wouldn't it affect also the other ships of Oceania? .... just curious ....

[findacruise]

If the reason is really gas prices, why would Oceania choose to only slow down the speed on the Insignia ? wouldn't it affect also the other ships of Oceania? .... just curious ....

 

I think that's what's Mura saying. It's the Regatta that's doing Alaska. Hope things work out for everyone.

[Mura]

Right, I'm not so much "saying" as "wondering".

 

I buy the generator argument re Insignia. (I'm sometimes a trusting soul.) And I just wondered if the somewhat slight changes in our itinerary on Regatta might be for another reason. But we haven't heard any announcements about fuel surcharges ... or have we? I didn't notice if we did!

[lmarmors]

I think that's what's Mura saying. It's the Regatta that's doing Alaska. Hope things work out for everyone.

 

I didn't realize it was the Regatta doing Alaska...so what is the reason given to change the schedule on the Regatta?

[Mura]

I don't believe a reason has been given.

 

Our final payment is due next week, and so I thought I'd compare the itinerary to the one we'd originally been given. I found a couple of ports where we were originally to leave at 8pm are now leaving at 6pm. It's not a significant difference! But I was wondering WHY.

 

This is not nearly so crucial for us as it is for those passengers who have had major alterations in the itinerary. I certainly am not going to cancel because of them. (And even though no announcement has been made -- at least I'm not aware of one -- we COULD cancel without penalty at this point.)

[JimandStan]

I don't believe a reason has been given.

 

Our final payment is due next week, and so I thought I'd compare the itinerary to the one we'd originally been given. I found a couple of ports where we were originally to leave at 8pm are now leaving at 6pm. It's not a significant difference! But I was wondering WHY.

 

This is not nearly so crucial for us as it is for those passengers who have had major alterations in the itinerary. I certainly am not going to cancel because of them. (And even though no announcement has been made -- at least I'm not aware of one -- we COULD cancel without penalty at this point.)

 

This is Oceania's first season in Alaska. The changes to the schedule are probably the result of fine tuning based on experience, now that the ship is sailing those waters.

They are always making little changes like that.

[Mura]

Thanks J&S. I should have thought of that!

 

P.S. Subsequent to posting the above, my TA wrote that she asked Bob Binder about this and here is his answer:

 

This was news to FDR and I so I checked with Marine Operations. It has nothing to do with fuel.

 

The changes were necessary because of the tides and how they impact the positioning of our gangways. For some reason this year there will be

extreme tides and in some cases we would not be able to dock after a certain time and still use our gangways because the way they are positioned on

the Regatta.

 

 

So I guess I was making a tempest out of a teapot!

 

Mura

[j4w]

Having just joined Cruise Critic, we hope that we have found the correct forum to participate in the discussion re: the Insignia generator issue... We were booked (and fully paid) to sail on Oceania’s June 2011 “Land of the Midnight Sun” cruise to the Norwegian Fjords and the Polar Ice Cap when we received the email notification from Oceania stating that two of the ship’s four generators would be undergoing refurbishment during our cruise. At has been discussed in this forum, this meant that the ship would be sailing under reduced propulsion and consequently shore time would be reduced by approximately 25%. Although we were very disappointed by the significant changes in the itinerary, we were far more distressed that Oceania would even consider sailing a ship into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans that was operating on half of its designed generator capacity. Although Oceania stated that the presence of factory technicians onboard performing the repairs during our cruise would “not hamper guest safety, ship’s operation, seaworthiness or the safety of Insignia”, we felt that the mere possibility of a reduction in safety and seaworthiness was unacceptable and we refused to subject ourselves to any increased safety risk or worry whatsoever. Having excitedly anticipated this trip for over eight months, it was with great disappointment that we canceled our cruise and requested a refund of all monies paid. We were shocked when Oceania imposed a penalty of 50% of our cruise fee. Through our travel agent, we made several attempts to negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement including credit towards the next sailing of “Land of the Midnight Sun”, but Oceania refused. Being enthusiastic and experienced international travelers, we have grown accustomed to being treated with a high degree of consideration by hotel chains, tour companies and cruise lines. We expected no less from Oceania Cruises, to whom we had entrusted significant vacation dollars. We are extremely dissatisfied with this outcome and would like to make it crystal clear to other travelers that Oceania Cruises care more about avoiding loss in revenue, such as would have been the case if the repairs to the Insignia had been performed during a short-term dry docking, than it does about its passengers. In our case, instead of accepting a loss in revenue, Oceania elected to pass the “costs” of the required reconditioning of the ship’s generators on to paid-in-full passengers in the form of what would have been a less secure overall cruise experience.

[JimandStan]

Having just joined Cruise Critic, we hope that we have found the correct forum to participate in the discussion re: the Insignia generator issue... We were booked (and fully paid) to sail on Oceania’s June 2011 “Land of the Midnight Sun” cruise to the Norwegian Fjords and the Polar Ice Cap when we received the email notification from Oceania stating that two of the ship’s four generators would be undergoing refurbishment during our cruise. At has been discussed in this forum, this meant that the ship would be sailing under reduced propulsion and consequently shore time would be reduced by approximately 25%. Although we were very disappointed by the significant changes in the itinerary, we were far more distressed that Oceania would even consider sailing a ship into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans that was operating on half of its designed generator capacity. Although Oceania stated that the presence of factory technicians onboard performing the repairs during our cruise would “not hamper guest safety, ship’s operation, seaworthiness or the safety of Insignia”, we felt that the mere possibility of a reduction in safety and seaworthiness was unacceptable and we refused to subject ourselves to any increased safety risk or worry whatsoever. Having excitedly anticipated this trip for over eight months, it was with great disappointment that we canceled our cruise and requested a refund of all monies paid. We were shocked when Oceania imposed a penalty of 50% of our cruise fee. Through our travel agent, we made several attempts to negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement including credit towards the next sailing of “Land of the Midnight Sun”, but Oceania refused. Being enthusiastic and experienced international travelers, we have grown accustomed to being treated with a high degree of consideration by hotel chains, tour companies and cruise lines. We expected no less from Oceania Cruises, to whom we had entrusted significant vacation dollars. We are extremely dissatisfied with this outcome and would like to make it crystal clear to other travelers that Oceania Cruises care more about avoiding loss in revenue, such as would have been the case if the repairs to the Insignia had been performed during a short-term dry docking, than it does about its passengers. In our case, instead of accepting a loss in revenue, Oceania elected to pass the “costs” of the required reconditioning of the ship’s generators on to paid-in-full passengers in the form of what would have been a less secure overall cruise experience.

 

While I completely sympathize with your situation, I'm sensing that you might have painted everybody into a corner by the way that you phrased this.

 

Your argument is extremely well put (are you a litigator?), but I think that you may have shot yourself in the foot by questioning the safety of operating the ship.

 

Whatever your suspicions may be, you probably don't have the qualifications to speak to that subject, and Oceania would be ill advised to make ANY business decisions based on that theory.

 

I'd also bet my life that Oceania has written statements from umpteen experts stating that the reduced generator capacity falls within acceptable limits for operation in that part of the World.

 

The fine print on the passage contract is against you too.

 

Therefore, I'd suggest that you, or your TA, or both, approach this again from a "Customer whose goodwill Oceania would not like to lose" position.

 

As the saying goes "you catch more flies with honey".

 

**note** This is a situation where using an agent who does a lot of business with Oceania, would have been invaluable.

[Paulchili]

Having excitedly anticipated this trip for over eight months, it was with great disappointment that we canceled our cruise and requested a refund of all monies paid. We were shocked when Oceania imposed a penalty of 50% of our cruise fee. Through our travel agent, we made several attempts to negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement including credit towards the next sailing of “Land of the Midnight Sun”, but Oceania refused.

 

I assume that you cancelled after the final payment (or within a certain cancelation penalty phase) as you did not receive 100% of your money back.

When were you notified by Oceania of these changes?

[LHT28]

I guess we will hear soon how the cruise went & if there were any major problems with the cruise... except for the missing of some time in ports

 

Sorry to J4W that he did not read the cancellation penalties before he reacted.

 

 

Lyn

[doubledobles]

We just returned from the Insignia's Land of the Midnight Sun cruise. The cruise was wonderful, if there was a problem with generators, no one could tell. Our stop in Stavanger was the same as the last time we were there.

 

The only problem on this cruise is that someone came down with a 24 hour virus and it spread among SOME of the passengers. This was NOT nuro virus, but some other type of 24 hour bug. To prevent the spread, the ship's crew immediately pulled all possible food handling by passengers from the counters. Pats of butter or margarine, cookies, syrups, etc. were taken behind the counters and handed out by the food staff. Personal hand sprays were given out to each room/passenger. They did a great pro-active job and, as far as I know, contained the virus to a few people.

[LHT28]

We just returned from the Insignia's Land of the Midnight Sun cruise. The cruise was wonderful, if there was a problem with generators, no one could tell. Our stop in Stavanger was the same as the last time we were there.

 

Thanks for the update

Glad you enjoyed the cruise

 

 

Lyn

[j4w]

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions. I do not plan to become a regular on this forum, having only recently joined to address this specific issue, but I do want to respond to a few remarks. To JimandStan… No, I am not a litigator; just an everyday ordinary Speech Therapist who loves to travel. To be honest with you, I am not too worried about “shooting myself in the foot” by questioning the safety of the ship. I don’t believe there are any criteria which qualify a person to speak openly about safety or worry. And I would hope that a cruise line, even after collecting statements from umpteen safety experts, would fully respect any customer’s continued safety concerns. Our highly experienced travel agent, who had recently returned from a cruise on Insignia, reviewed the fine print with us and then worked tirelessly to negotiate a reasonable settlement. The “flies” did not take the “honey”. Although we would sincerely appreciate Oceania’s reconsideration of our case, we are communicating on this forum for the purpose of informing future customers of the lack of consideration and reasonableness demonstrated by Oceania Cruises. To Paulchili… We were informed of the generator reconditioning after the 50% penalty phase began. To lht28… We were well aware of the cancellation penalties but refused to compromise on the issue of safety. To doubledobles… Glad to hear that the ship returned without incident.

[spindrift]

This was an excellent trip, and those who might have missed it missed a wonderful and beautiful time. Doubledobles, you mentioned the stop at Stavanger was as good as before. Unless you were dreaming, we did not go to Stavanger, or maybe I was the one sleeping.

[martinandmaddy]

wrong site...delete

[LHT28]

To lht28… We were well aware of the cancellation penalties but refused to compromise on the issue of safety.

 

I am confident that Oceania would not sail if they thought there was an safety issue

It would be their reputation that would be on the line.

 

Sorry you missed the cruise

 

Lyn

[Paulchili]

I would not have worried about the safety either.

However, I would have been concerned that I might not receive the cruise I had paid for - a more legitimate and realistic concern, IMO.

That is a different situation than the changes that have to made during the cruise due to unforeseen circumstances. On that basis you might have been entitled (maybe?) to a full refund as the cruise "changed" after you made your final payment but before you sailed. Thus it potentially became a "different item" than what you had purchased and paid for.

JMO - not a legal opinion.