Embarkation port skipped

[Pettifogger]

Has anyone booked a segment of a Grand Voyage beginning in a city abroad and then that port was skipped at the last minute for any of a number of reasons? If you had already travelled to that city, did HAL get you to the next port or were you on your own?

[IRL_Joanie]

Has anyone booked a segment of a Grand Voyage beginning in a city abroad and then that port was skipped at the last minute for any of a number of reasons? If you had already travelled to that city, did HAL get you to the next port or were you on your own?

 

I think this happened during late September 2011. Transition cruise(s) from Alaska to the Caribbean....

 

September 2011 the HAL Ships, I believe it affected all HAL ships in the Region were forced to bypass at least 2 ports where they were supposed to pick up/embark and disembark passengers due to severe weather.

 

The Ports affected were Victoria, BC, Canada and Astoria, Oregon, USA.

 

If I remember correctly, the next stops were San Francisco, Long Beach and San Diego, California, USA.

 

I also seem to remember people being furious because for those who'd not arranged their tratransportation (Air, etc.,) through HAL, they had to make their own arrangements to get to the next port of call or forfeited their cruise completely, with no reimbursement.

 

Hope this answers your question, though these were not portions of a World or Grand Cruise....

 

Joanie

[Pettifogger]

Thanks Joanie! I included the Grand Voyage part only because I knew they have embarkation/disembarkation ports mid-cruise. I assume it would be the same as for non-Grand Voyages.

[catl331]

I also seem to remember people being furious because for those who'd not arranged their tratransportation (Air, etc.,) through HAL, they had to make their own arrangements to get to the next port of call or forfeited their cruise completely, with no reimbursement.

I guess the people who did not have HAL air and were supposed to disembark in the skipped ports were also on their own for transportation home? And those with HAL air - how was that handled? Did HAL get them back to the skipped disembarkation point somehow?

[IRL_Joanie]

I guess the people who did not have HAL air and were supposed to disembark in the skipped ports were also on their own for transportation home? And those with HAL air - how was that handled? Did HAL get them back to the skipped disembarkation point somehow?

I remember a few posts that I read here on CC after we got home from our Alaska R/T Inside Passage Vancouver (which by the way, the last week was INTERESTING as Heck!! 3 Typhoons in one week:eek::eek:), where the Transition to Caribbean started on the same day that we disembarked 24 September 2011.

 

One poster was furious that either their parents or themselves, I really cannot remember exactly, and I think around 18 others, were left standing at the Port in Victoria and told they'd have to get to the next port on their own and at their own expense. They'd flown in to Board in Victoria, but because the ship could not make it into port, because of extreme weather, and they had not booked any transportation through HAL.

 

I believe a couple of the reasons that they were so upset was

 

(A.) Passengers, who'd booked transportation through HAL were taken care of, i.e., put up in a Victoria Hotel until their flight left the next day to either go home or onto the next port (Those that chose to return home instead of meeting up with the ship(s) were refunded the cost of their cruise, plus given OBC towards their next cruise.

 

(B.) Those NOT booked through HAL were told to find their own way, had to pay their own hotel and only given, what to them was a mediocre OBC if they booked another cruise...

 

I think a majority of the passengers, at least those left in Victoria, chose to return home, because this was only a 4 day repositioning cruise from Vancouver, (or was it Victoria) and the next port Astoria Oregon was also missed, so that only left 2 days to cruise....Not worth the time or effort, I believe.

 

I may have mistated a bit, but cannot find the threads from that time frame. Search is still kind of screwed up so.......

 

Hopefully one of the CC members who remembers the repositioning cruises from Alaska to the Caribbean for the Zuiderdam, Westerdam and I believe Oosterdam, Amsterdam and possibly Statendam in September 2011, can chime up with what they remember...

 

Joanie

[celle]

Isn't that sort of thing what travel insurance is for?

 

The fact that a ship cannot make a port is no different from a flight being cancelled due to whatever reason.

 

There are clauses in travel insurance policies that allow for coverage of having to make different travel and accommodation arrangements due to circumstances outside the traveller's control.

[jtl513]

Isn't that sort of thing what travel insurance is for?

Sure, but insurance is no help in changing arrangements at the time you're stuck someplace. If you haven't booked HAL Air, you have to do that yourself, pay out-of-pocket, and submit a claim after you get home. Then wait for reimbursement ... and hope they don't deny your claim because of some obscure clause that you failed to comply with.

[IRL_Joanie]

Isn't that sort of thing what travel insurance is for?

 

The fact that a ship cannot make a port is no different from a flight being cancelled due to whatever reason.

 

There are clauses in travel insurance policies that allow for coverage of having to make different travel and accommodation arrangements due to circumstances outside the traveller's control.

 

........others do not think THEY will need it. Then when they do.....they are screwed:(

 

Always buy Insurance that covers everything including Acts of God (at least I hope it does)

 

Joanie

[world~citizen]

The fact that a ship cannot make a port is no different from a flight being cancelled due to whatever reason.

 

Oh I think not. With an airline there will always be another plane or they will work to put you on one. With a ship, thou art truly beat.

[celle]

Sure, but insurance is no help in changing arrangements at the time you're stuck someplace. If you haven't booked HAL Air, you have to do that yourself, pay out-of-pocket, and submit a claim after you get home. Then wait for reimbursement ... and hope they don't deny your claim because of some obscure clause that you failed to comply with.

 

Ah, you mean acting like an adult instead of having your hand held all the way? IMHO it is foolish to travel anywhere without making sure you do have that reserve to cover up-front payment of unexpected contingencies.

 

No matter how careful you are, travel plans are going to get disrupted sooner or later, or someone will have their plans sabotaged by illness or accident. That's life, and part of the "joy" of travel.

[celle]

........others do not think THEY will need it. Then when they do.....they are screwed:(

 

And they will scream and shout and blame everything except their own lack of preparation.

Always buy Insurance that covers everything including Acts of God (at least I hope it does)

 

Joanie

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

We have once been deported from Viet Nam back to Thailand; not our fault - entirely due to a mistake made by the Vietnamese embassy that issued us with the incorrect visa. They admitted the mistake and later reimbursed us for all our additional costs (including the excess) not covered by our travel insurance. We even got a very apologetic Christmas card from the Vietnamese ambassador to NZ. The insurance paid up their share, no problems.

 

We ended up not out of pocket at all, although somewhat emotionally bruised - it is quite humiliating to be escorted back onto a plane by armed Vietnamese guards. It makes a good dinner-time story now!

 

On another occasion, I had to seek emergency treatment in a hospital in Quebec, Canada. We informed the travel insurance company before going to the hospital and got a claim number. Although we initially had to pay for the treatment, insurance reimbursed us with no problems.

[limace]

I think the airline, missed flight, comparison doesn't work here. This seems similar to an airline deciding to suddenly change their routing, leaving you stranded at an airport, and tell you you're outa luck, and you still owe the full fare. Not arguing against trip insurance here, but just think it's a different kettle of fish. For folks who've cruised before, is this a contingency that's made clear-if your cruiseline can't make it to the embarkation point, that you're financially liable to get to wherever the ship is or lose your entire fare?

[celle]

I think the airline, missed flight, comparison doesn't work here. This seems similar to an airline deciding to suddenly change their routing, leaving you stranded at an airport, and tell you you're outa luck, and you still owe the full fare.

Not arguing against trip insurance here, but just think it's a different kettle of fish. For folks who've cruised before, is this a contingency that's made clear-if your cruiseline can't make it to the embarkation point, that you're financially liable to get to wherever the ship is or lose your entire fare?

 

I think it's an apt comparison. A ship can't get into a port because of bad weather, an airline cannot fly into an airport because of bad weather - seems pretty similar to me.

[limace]

I think it's an apt comparison. A ship can't get into a port because of bad weather, an airline cannot fly into an airport because of bad weather - seems pretty similar to me.

 

Yes, the situation (travel rerouted by weather) is the same, but typically you will be able to either rebook on a later flight or get a refund of your fare if an airline changes your flight due to weather. They aren't obligated to put you up in a hotel or get you to an alternate airport, but you generally won't lose everything you paid.

[celle]

Yes, the situation (travel rerouted by weather) is the same, but typically you will be able to either rebook on a later flight or get a refund of your fare if an airline changes your flight due to weather. They aren't obligated to put you up in a hotel or get you to an alternate airport, but you generally won't lose everything you paid.

 

Sure. But the airline has more than one plane on that route (often several on the same day), while the cruise line does not. The airline has more options. And you won't lose everything you paid, if you get yourself to the alternative port.

 

The flight is a one-day journey, from A to B, whereas the cruise has an itinerary it has to stick to, as much as the weather conditions permit.

 

Do you think the cruise line should pay to fly you to the alternate port, when you have not booked air travel with them? I don't. That's the sort of contingency you buy travel insurance for.

 

If the cruise lines did pay to fly people to the alternate port, that would have an impact on the cost of cruises. I don't want my cruises to cost more, to cover people who fail to buy travel insurance.

[English_in_Spain]

Joanie, is this the thread you were thinking of?

 

Statendam strands 78 passengers

 

[kazu]

Joanie, is this the thread you were thinking of?

 

Statendam strands 78 passengers

 

 

Thanks for finding the thread Carol - I didn't want to post until I had checked. HAL covered all of the passengers expenses except food according to the report on the thread.:D

 

Here is the thread where it was reported : " - Guests were ferried to Seattle and they spent the night at the SEATAC Airport Hilton. They will fly via Alaska Airlines nonstop to San Diego throughout the day tomorrow. The Sheraton Harbor and Marina will put them up until Thursday, where they will board at the new Broadway Pier for their cruise. All of this was covered by HAL. Their only out-of-pocket expenses would be for food. They were offered a cash payment if they chose to divert on their own. At least 58 will join the ship in San Diego. There is no problem with boarding or disembarking in Victoria instead of Vancouver nor with sailing from San Diego to Florida. The Panama Canal cruises stop at a distant foreign port along the way."

 

[IRL_Joanie]

Joanie, is this the thread you were thinking of?

 

Statendam strands 78 passengers

 

 

Yes, Carol it is the one of the threads that I meant!!! It also happened to Westerdam and I think Zuiderdam Passengers, all around the same dates.

 

Thank You!!

 

Joanie

[world~citizen]

Sure. But the airline has more than one plane on that route (often several on the same day), while the cruise line does not. The airline has more options. And you won't lose everything you paid, if you get yourself to the alternative port.

 

The flight is a one-day journey, from A to B, whereas the cruise has an itinerary it has to stick to, as much as the weather conditions permit.

 

 

You help make the case that airline and cruise company comparisons are apples and oranges ... which is limace's position not yours.

 

As to the liability of a cruise company when a ship fails to meet you at a contracted port, well, I'll leave that up to lawyers.

 

Smooth sailing...

[celle]

You help make the case that airline and cruise company comparisons are apples and oranges ... which is limace's position not yours.

 

As to the liability of a cruise company when a ship fails to meet you at a contracted port, well, I'll leave that up to lawyers.

 

Smooth sailing...

 

I do see your point, and limace's.

 

What I was trying to say was that the similarity is in the circumstances that caused the missed flight/cruise port - namely the weather or acts of God/nature.

 

Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the airline (call them the apples, if you like) to get their passengers to their destination point by alternative flights. They have other planes, multiple fall-back positions, and it will not cost them too much more to put their passengers on another flight when the airport re-opens.

 

Unlike the airline (apples) the cruise line (oranges) does not have other ships on that route. The ship cannot hang around, waiting for a particular port to open again. It must continue on its itinerary, or else impact passengers and schedules at other ports.

 

I think it's reasonable to expect the cruise line (oranges, if you like) to pay a third party (the apples?) to transport its stranded passengers to an alternative port, if those passengers have booked transport to the cruise through the cruise line. It will cost the cruise line more, but they have some obligation to those passengers who booked transport with them.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the cruise line to pay to transport passengers who have not booked transport to the cruise with them. This would incur considerable cost to the cruise line, which could impact the cost of future cruises.

 

What I think should happen is for the cruise line to arrange a port agent to be available to help stranded passengers make their own alternative travel arrangements (the cost of which should be recoverable later, from travel insurance), so that they could join the cruise at the next port. With this sort of help, there would be no need for passengers to have to forgo the entire cruise and they would only be out of pocket temporarily.

 

 

I was on a South American cruise on Celebrity Infinity when that large earthquake hit Chile, in the region near Santiago. Many passengers had been planning to disembark and fly home through Santiago airport, which was initially closed due to earthquake damage.

 

The ship allowed passengers free use of the ship's phones, so that they could make alternative travel arrangements, and offered suggestions about possible replacement routes. I did not hear that anyone was offered transport paid for by the cruise line. (See where I'm coming from?)

 

By the time Infinity reached Santiago, the airport had re-opened, with a temporary terminal building set up under canvas.