Congratulations to Officers/Crew/Staff of Veendam.....

[iancal]

That's great

 

Now, if they could only fix the HVAC on those few cabins that have had ongoing problems for YEARS, perhaps it would be great.

 

Either that, or stop knowingly selling those few cabins that are impacted.

[startwin]

It starts when someone tries to quote and edit/snip, and they remove one of the brackets. That leaves what they have "quoted" there, but not in a blue box.

 

When the next person tries to quote that, their bracketing is there, as well as the partial bracketing remaining from the first attempt. The system reads the bracketing as it's programmed to do, and attributes to the wrong person.

 

If the first person were to check their post, see that the the blue box is missing, and go back and replace the missing code, all would be well.

If the second person would remove the bad coding, it would also look right from there on out.

 

Thanks Ruth! Looks like I was the culprit this time - sorry guys:o

[iancal]

I think 96 is a good score-but not a great score. At least that is what the bell curve would tell me.

 

If I had to tick the box on that, I would tick 'meets expectations'. It is hardly exceptional as evidenced by the list above. And it is what I would expect.

 

If HAL, like many other companies, measures itself against 'best in class'...and used their own fleet then Veendam, at 10th on the HAL list, could hardly be called exceptional. Just very, very average.

[sail7seas]

I think it pertinent to keep in mind the ship was built in 1996.

 

An older ship likely has a harder time at these inspections than a ship built a year or two ago.

 

That is Not to say she shouldn't meet all sanitation and safety standards as clearly she should..... and does.

 

There seem to be some who resist giving her crew the credit I think they well deserve for bringing that ship back to the expected standard. Whatever happened on that ship to give her a black mark at one inspection is no excuse for not acknowledging the success of their efforts to rectify the deficiencies.

 

I still maintain there is no cruise ship/cruise line I can name that is not 'satisfied' with a score of "96" for a 17 year old ship.

 

 

[chrispb]

I see that both Carnival & Celebrity had a number of ships gaining 100%. I've never sailed with either (Carnival doesn't seem to have interesting itineraries) but I've noticed a number of people criticising Carnival here.

[startwin]

I think 96 is a good score-but not a great score. At least that is what the bell curve would tell me.

 

If I had to tick the box on that, I would tick 'meets expectations'. It is hardly exceptional as evidenced by the list above. And it is what I would expect.

 

If HAL, like many other companies, measures itself against 'best in class'...and used their own fleet then Veendam, at 10th on the HAL list, could hardly be called exceptional. Just very, very average.

 

I agree. And one should be be expected to accept lower standards just because a ship is older.

[peaches from georgia]

I agree. And one should be be expected to accept lower standards just because a ship is older.

:confused: Startwin- Did you mean one should be expected to accept lower standards just because a ship is older or did you mean to say "Should one be expected to accept lower standards just because a ship is older?" It's a little unclear, but my feeling is that pax should expect the same standards no matter the age of the ship, standards related to cleanliness, safety, health, etc. which is what the inspections rate.

[sail7seas]

I agree. And one should be be expected to accept lower standards just because a ship is older.

 

 

You think a score of "96" a Low Score?

If so that is (one of) our basic differences. I do not consider that a low standard. I think "96" MORE than acceptable. A score of 86 is to be worried about...... not "96" but we will never agree, it appears.

 

So........ :)

 

And No, you should never accept a standard you consider too low but you don't need me to tell you that.

Check the inspection scores before you book and only book a ship that scored a number that is acceptable to You.

Choices...... we all have choices.

 

 

 

 

 

[aliaschief]

Captain Albert mentioned in one of his recent blogs that it was almost impossible for the Statendam to get a 100. Why? Main culprit according to him is the tiled flooring. Statendam got a 99!

 

Searched all over for the Veendam this morning in Quebec City. Found our Eurodam but no Veendam. Finally, found Her behind the large grain storage complex.

[iancal]

I do not think 96 is a low score. I think that it is acceptable, average and what I expect. Nothing special. And I expect this score from any HAL ship-regardless of age.

 

It can hardly be called exceptional when so many ships are in the same range. It is almost like congratulating a student driver for stopping at a red light.

 

I think faint praise actually takes away from the reputation of the ship and the cruise line...it indicates that people judge it by a lower standard.

 

 

When Veendam was failing, I think below 85, there were people on this board who were implying that the problem was with the inspectors or the grading. So now that Veendam reaches a very average score 96 what are those folks saying about the inspection or the grading scale??? That it is particularly tough all of a sudden and Veendam/staff are stars? I don't think so.

[chrispb]

I do not think 96 is a low score. I think that it is acceptable, average and what I expect. Nothing special. And I expect this score from any HAL ship-regardless of age.

 

It can hardly be called exceptional when so many ships are in the same range. It is almost like congratulating a student driver for stopping at a red light.

 

I think faint praise actually takes away from the reputation of the ship and the cruise line...it indicates that people judge it by a lower standard.

 

I agree. And at what score do they deem a ship not to be of acceptable standard to sail? Just as a car that isn't roadworthy would not be allowed on the road.

[RJ2002]

In reading the report, it looks like most of the noted issues can be corrected by re-training of personnel. The handling of cooked, ready-to-eat food with bare hands, and soiled food cutting equipment was the most worrisome to me.

 

I am sure they will strive for a score of 100 next time!

[sail7seas]

 

<snip>

 

When Veendam was failing, I think below 85, there were people on this board who were implying that the problem was with the inspectors or the grading. So now that Veendam reaches a very average score 96 what are those folks saying about the inspection or the grading scale??? That it is particularly tough all of a sudden and Veendam/staff are stars? I don't think so.

 

 

 

I personally do not recall people blaming the Inspectors but I'll take your word for it and if that was the case, I was not one of those people.

 

I do wonder though that while you are so vigourously knocking Veendam's achievement you don't commend Eurodam, Zaandam and Volendam for scoring "100" .... just in the interest of appearing to be fair and reasonable. :)

 

I believe below 86 is failing for the poster who asked. :)

 

[iancal]

I am not knocking the achievement because I do not think that it is such an achievement. It is only what is expected. I could care less how old the ship is, I expect a reasonable score and this is what Veendam had. To imply that it is a good score for an old ship could lead one down the path that says older ships are not as good as newer ones and have lower standards. I do not think this is the case with HAL, or with Veendam. I am certain that their older ships are top notch.

 

The score, to me, is nothing special, it is just what it should be. Apparently it rates 10th of all HAL ships in that regard.

 

If my favourite four star restaurant has a vermin infestation I do not think any better of them for dealing with that issue. It is a minimum expectation for my custom and I would see no reason to congratulate them. It is a basic standard for remaining in business.

 

That is how I feel about a 96 score...for Veendam, for HAL, or for any other ship/cruise line.

[startwin]

You think a score of "96" a Low Score?

If so that is (one of) our basic differences. I do not consider that a low standard. I think "96" MORE than acceptable. A score of 86 is to be worried about...... not "96" but we will never agree, it appears.

 

So........ :)

 

And No, you should never accept a standard you consider too low but you don't need me to tell you that.

Check the inspection scores before you book and only book a ship that scored a number that is acceptable to You.

Choices...... we all have choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I say it was a low score? I believe my words were "passing grade". Which it is. I just don't understand this great hurrah because of a a "96". If it scored 100, or even 99, I could understand it.

[sail7seas]

deleted

[carolmacey]

so in your math, the allure came in 22nd, even though there was only one possible point higher. :rolleyes:

most people would say there were 21 ships tied for first, and allure (et al) at 99 came in 2nd. Under that accounting, the veendam (et al) came in 5th.

 

ditto!

[trixiee]

Personally, as a person who has run operations in Long Term Care facilities (much like a ship ;)) A score of less than 99 is worrisome. Lots of dust, debris, improper food handling can spell disaster in terms of food safety. Staff need to be retrained. Yes, equipment can wear out, grout in tile floors can get dirty, and near impossible to get clean, but improper cleaning and food handling are reason for worry, for sure!

[TiogaCruiser]

Personally, as a person who has run operations in Long Term Care facilities (much like a ship ;)) A score of less than 99 is worrisome. Lots of dust, debris, improper food handling can spell disaster in terms of food safety. Staff need to be retrained. Yes, equipment can wear out, grout in tile floors can get dirty, and near impossible to get clean, but improper cleaning and food handling are reason for worry, for sure!

 

I think it depends on what points were lost on and how good the Review Tool is. At a point in my career I did office reviews "inspections" for a govt. program (not too different than LTCFs). Some of the Tools we used (especially the early ones) were such that an on the ball office could loose many points for a minor single item ( because it kept coming up so points had to keep coming off) and another office could be very off mark but pass.

It would be interesting to see what was counted down.

[iancal]

I just don't think that it is a big deal that the crew did their job and passed the test.

 

People who think that this a big deal or a major accomplishment must have a low opinion of the ship's crew or the cruise line

[trixiee]

I think it depends on what points were lost on and how good the Review Tool is. At a point in my career I did office reviews "inspections" for a govt. program (not too different than LTCFs). Some of the Tools we used (especially the early ones) were such that an on the ball office could loose many points for a minor single item ( because it kept coming up so points had to keep coming off) and another office could be very off mark but pass.

It would be interesting to see what was counted down.

 

Absolutely true! I've seen some terrible systems too!

 

I just checked the Noordam's last inspection. I believe it was Feb 2013, and my conclusion after reading that is that management were not doing their job. Staff training and ensuring passenger well- being are top-down issues, IMO. I'm worried that I will be boarding a dirty ship. Not a nice feeling for this self- proclaimed germaphobe. Passengers rely on a certain level of cleanliness in order to stay healthy.

[sail7seas]

I just don't think that it is a big deal that the crew did their job and passed the test.

 

People who think that this a big deal or a major accomplishment must have a low opinion of the ship's crew or the cruise line

 

 

Wow....... just wow!!!! :eek:

Oh well.

 

[sky61]

You can read full reports of Inspections at this link.

It sometimes takes upwards of a month until they are posted.... with the Government circumstance at the moment, who know how long it will take.

 

http://wwwn.cdc.gov/InspectionQueryTool/InspectionSearch.aspx

 

 

Thanks for the link. Very interesting to read some of those reports.

[sail7seas]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting to read some of those reports.

 

 

You're welcome. :)

I sometimes read the reports there and also find them very interesting.