Port of call cancellation by Holland American Cruise

[WeiMin]

I am fairly new to cruising having travelled on about 4 cruises in Asia and USA, and like most do not read the terms and conditions offered by the cruise liner.

 

One of the terms states that the cruise liner has the complete right to cancell any port of call, offering the weakest of reasons. To compensate for the incovenience of cancelling the port of call, all they need to do is to inform you a reason (read below), and then refund you the port charges which you paid up front. They do not even need to offer you telephone calls, wifi, not to mention other monetary compensation for this cancellation. The cruise liner does not lose any money, even saving port charges and fuel in by passing the port.

 

It happened to me in January 2016 room 3314, when we cruised with Holland American (HAL), Volendam. This cruise had left the Komodo islands and was scheduled to stop at Surabaya, the second largest city in Inodnesia after a sea-day. A bomb blast happened at Jakarta, the capital which is about 750km away and the captain explained that the company took the decision to cancell the port of call because of "safety" reasons due to terrorism threats. This is like saying a bomb threat in New York will have an impact on Bangor Maine in the North East. I had made appointments with family and friends to meet in Surabaya and had to change plans.

 

It is also interesting to note that I asked fellow cruisers if they had booked a local tour at Surabaya and many said that they did not, comparing this to the ports of call at Semarang, Probolinggo and Bali. Could it be that the cancellation of this port of call was for commercial (not enough shore excursion money to make the call worth while?) reasons and not for safety issues?

 

Their recovery was also minimalistic. A printed circular said that they would refund port charges. Nothing else. I had to approach the front desk who said that I could make a phone call, no free wifi minutes. After negotitating a bit, I managed to get 10min...... 10 lousy minutes free wifi to access my email, send out messages, retrieve telephone numbers and then make the phone call. Although the service at HAL was good, this recovery is lousy !

 

Overall poor and weak decision to cancell the port of call, and awful recovery measures taken to assist cruise passengers. HAL needs to be more reliable.

[Daisyloo]

The cruise-line's first and foremost concern is to keep their ship and passengers safe. They may have access to info that you don't, and have made their decision based on that. I am pretty sure they just didn't cancel the port because they didn't sell enough tickets for excursions. :confused:

[Tampa Girl]

Hardly. You were not privvy to possible information that HAL had re terrorist threats. I strongly doubt that HAL or any other cruise line cancels a port stop due to the number of excursions sold. There are several reasons why a port must be cancelled. Your suspicions are unwarranted. Further, if there had been a terrorist incident, would you not have been screaming that HAL was irresponsible to have stopped there? As did the passengers in the Athem of the Seas against their captain.

[WeiMin]

What about their poor recovery measures to help passengers who have made commitments at the cancelled port-of-call ?

[kazu]

The cruise-line's first and foremost concern is to keep their ship and passengers safe. They may have access to info that you don't, and have made their decision based on that. I am pretty sure they just didn't cancel the port because they didn't sell enough tickets for excursions. :confused:

 

completely agree with Daisyloo

[DeeniEncinitas]

I agree! The captain made the right call!

Better safe than sorry!!

Denise:)

[jtl513]

Nearly everyone who has cruised a lot has missed a port here or there. On one 7-day cruise we missed 2 out of 4. These decisions are not done lightly, and the cruise line does lose money from excursions not taken and fuel burned for an extra 8 to 10 hours of sailing. It's unfortunate, but that's the chance we all agree to take.

 

What about their poor recovery measures to help passengers who have made commitments at the cancelled port-of-call ?

Didn't you save some money that you would have spent on shore?

.

Edited February 9, 2016 by jtl513

[Krazy Kruizers]

We have also missed ports -- quite a few on one cruise alone.

Your captain had information that will not be passed on to you.

If there is even a small chance that the passengers may be harmed, decisions are made to cancel ports.

[cruisemom42]

Let me make four points in response:

 

First, in the bluntest terms, cruise lines do not cancel ports of call because they have not sold excursions there. They in all likelihood have already paid a significant sum to dock there, which is likely nonrefundable when cancelled on such short notice. Depending on the port, they may also have planned to refuel, receive supplies, etc. at the port -- which they will now be unable to do.

 

Second, cruise lines tend to be risk averse and reactive. Port stops will be canceled in what they often term "an abundance of caution", even when it seems very unlikely that whatever act led to the cancellation would affect the port involved. This is probably attributable to insurance issues. There are numerous recent examples of this here on Cruise Critic, from ALL ports in Turkey being cancelled by some lines, to the recent Celebrity Constellation Eastern Med debacle where numerous ports were cancelled or changed at the very last minute, completely changing the character of the cruise. Last I heard, Celebrity was NOT offering any compensation, despite bitter passenger complaints.

 

Third, whether we like it or not, when we cruise we agree to the terms of the cruise contract. It is an old truism that if one particular port is of extreme importance, one is better off planning a land vacation. Ships miss ports for any number of reasons, including weather, strikes (by dock workers or affecting an entire city or region), political unrest, terrorism, mechanical issues, and more.

 

Fourth, while I am in agreement that it would be a "nice gesture" for management to allow for some recovery when a port is missed, such as internet time or a free phone call or two, they are not obliged to do so. You chose not to use the ship's excursions but to arrange activities on your own in port. In doing so, you take the responsibility onto yourself for any changes or cancellations that occur. Why are your private plans the ship's responsibility? (And keep in mind I say this as one who almost NEVER books ship tours and has had to rearrange or cancel a good number of tours at the last minute due to changes in cruise schedules...)

[teamflames]

Let me make four points in response:

 

 

 

First, in the bluntest terms, cruise lines do not cancel ports of call because they have not sold excursions there. They in all likelihood have already paid a significant sum to dock there, which is likely nonrefundable when cancelled on such short notice. Depending on the port, they may also have planned to refuel, receive supplies, etc. at the port -- which they will now be unable to do.

 

 

 

Second, cruise lines tend to be risk averse and reactive. Port stops will be canceled in what they often term "an abundance of caution", even when it seems very unlikely that whatever act led to the cancellation would affect the port involved. This is probably attributable to insurance issues. There are numerous recent examples of this here on Cruise Critic, from ALL ports in Turkey being cancelled by some lines, to the recent Celebrity Constellation Eastern Med debacle where numerous ports were cancelled or changed at the very last minute, completely changing the character of the cruise. Last I heard, Celebrity was NOT offering any compensation, despite bitter passenger complaints.

 

 

 

Third, whether we like it or not, when we cruise we agree to the terms of the cruise contract. It is an old truism that if one particular port is of extreme importance, one is better off planning a land vacation. Ships miss ports for any number of reasons, including weather, strikes (by dock workers or affecting an entire city or region), political unrest, terrorism, mechanical issues, and more.

 

 

 

Fourth, while I am in agreement that it would be a "nice gesture" for management to allow for some recovery when a port is missed, such as internet time or a free phone call or two, they are not obliged to do so. You chose not to use the ship's excursions but to arrange activities on your own in port. In doing so, you take the responsibility onto yourself for any changes or cancellations that occur. Why are your private plans the ship's responsibility? (And keep in mind I say this as one who almost NEVER books ship tours and has had to rearrange or cancel a good number of tours at the last minute due to changes in cruise schedules...)

 

 

Interesting points, I enjoy reading as someone who is about to undertake a cruise. When I considered my cruise I was mostly focusing on the itinerary as such I am viewing a part of this cruise as "transport" from one location to another. Clearly the op was doing the same (using the cruise to visit a location). As with any other transport it could be delayed or cancelled (as was my recent internal flight in India). As in those circumstances it is not the obligation of the airline to consider my plans but I would be disappointed if they didn't aide me in contacting accommodation, transfers etc

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Forums mobile app

[IRL_Joanie]

What about their poor recovery measures to help passengers who have made commitments at the cancelled port-of-call ?

 

IF the commitments are made through HAL, you'd be recompensed that cost. Personal Commitments are not recompenseable.

 

Sorry you feel the way you do, I know I'd also be upset, but Safety is first and foremost the concern of the Cruise Line.

 

And, for what it's worth, I do remember hearing and reading on the news outlets here in the US that Threats had been made to other locations in and around Indonesia that were deemed to be legitimate.

 

EDITED TO ADD: If you feel so strongly about your missed commitments, stop and think about the Crew Members and their faamilies who had made commitments to see them, some after nearly 10 months or longer apart. They are the ones I feel sorry for.

 

Joanie

Edited February 9, 2016 by IRL_Joanie

[RocketMan275]

 

Their recovery was also minimalistic. A printed circular said that they would refund port charges. Nothing else. I had to approach the front desk who said that I could make a phone call, no free wifi minutes. After negotitating a bit, I managed to get 10min...... 10 lousy minutes free wifi to access my email, send out messages, retrieve telephone numbers and then make the phone call. Although the service at HAL was good, this recovery is lousy !

 

Overall poor and weak decision to cancell the port of call, and awful recovery measures taken to assist cruise passengers. HAL needs to be more reliable.

 

Two points:

 

First, HAL did allow you to make "recovery". As you say "after negotiating a bit", you were afforded sufficient resources to notify those you were meeting. Sure, you had to go to guest services but did you expect HAL to give every passenger a couple of hours of free phone calls? Even those who had no need to rearrange things?

 

Second, governments often share information with airlines and cruises that is too sensitive to share with the general public. You really have no idea what information was made available to HAL for consideration in making this decision.

[catl331]

Also, sometimes their liability insurance companies step in and will not cover certain occurrences

if chances are taken. Most decisions are made with information from the home office. The Captain may make some decisions but most have been decided higher up.

[RuthC]

Could it be that the cancellation of this port of call was for commercial (not enough shore excursion money to make the call worth while?) reasons and not for safety issues?

No, it couldn't be.

 

The cruise line is in the business of giving people a cruise to various ports, with an enjoyable shipboard life when not in port. If the line were to cancel ports for such reasons as you suggest, they would not have happy customers, and wouldn't be in business very long.

 

Of all places they would not cancel a port for frivolous reasons it would be in Indonesia, where crew was looking forward to reunions with family. I have seen the set-ups, and the joy the stewards have when those special days were in their home areas.

[dakrewser]

If a terrorist bomb goes off in New York City you can be sure that a number of events in Bangor, ME will be cancelled. That's life in the 21st century.

[wander]

As mention in a recent post, some (many??) times the decision to skip a port is NOT simply a cruise line decision, but rather an insurance provider determination. For example, we were scheduled for a cruise 2 months after 9/11 which included a Suez Canal passage. The whole cruise had to be rearranged and instead of going though the Canal, it went around Africa as they needed to get the ship to Asia for the next season. (The logistics involved with less than a 2 month lead time are mind boggling.)

 

Anyhow, in a q&A session on board the Captain stated that After 9/11 the ship's insurance provider stated that they would NOT insure the ship for a Suez Canal transit at that time. That resolved any dilemma, rerouting was necessary.

 

Once that decision was made, we were given a choice to take the new itinerary (added over a week to the cruise, NO additional cost to the cruiser). This was fine with us, but for those without the flexibility to cruise longer or who did not like the new itinerary, or those who wanted to just stay home, they could get a full refund, get off at a specific intermediary port.

[Caribbean Chris]

If a terrorist bomb goes off in New York City you can be sure that a number of events in Bangor, ME will be cancelled. That's life in the 21st century.

 

As was the case on 9/11/2001 when every flight inside and en route to the U.S. was grounded for days. I don't recall any passengers being miffed at American Airlines, though some may have been.

 

Most were just glad to be alive (like my brother-in-law who avoided certain death only because he changed his flight departure plans that day from Washington Dulles to Baltimore to save his employer money).

[Viesczy]

It completely STINKS when you don't get the product you hope for and you do have some valid points, but to say a bombing in NYC and skipping Bangor are the same is misleading and in no way close to the truth.

 

If you'd've said a bombing in NYC caused the line to skip Boston, MA would be more apt.

 

Think about it from the cruise line for a second, the capital gets bombed and you have a huge asset (the ship that costs millions of dollars w/o even thinking on the future earnings) going to the second largest city in a country that just had a terrorist event. Will you risk that asset, the passengers (the security for whom you are responsible and liable if anything happens), and the future earnings?

 

Now you realize the ease that a few driven people can act up? Smart and driven with a few dollars behind them can blow a hole in the world. We have all the materials readily available, things to which everyone is blind to as they are about us all the time but to the truly devious they are opportunities to advance their cause.

[Hlitner]

So, being pretty experienced world wide cruisers (for about forty years) we would comment on the OP's post as follows. The language used by HAL (in their passenger contract) is similar to language used by nearly every cruise line in the world. Not only does the company (in this case HAL) have the right to change or eliminate a port, but the Captain has total authority to make whatever decision he/she feels is in the best interests of all involved. In fact, the Captain does not even have to explain his/her decision...although most do provide an explanation. Standard compensation for a missed port is to simply refund (to the onboard accounts) and related port charges and the cost of cruise line provided excursions.

 

This is the way it is, and if you cannot accept this norm of cruising then perhaps the OP needs to consider land trips. For what its worth, we are friendly with one recently retired long time HAL Captain and do know the personal difficulty (almost agony) he would go through when deciding to skip a port (sometimes at the last minute). While Captains want all his/her passengers to have a great time, his/her priority is the safety and well-being of everyone aboard (including the crew).

 

Hank

Edited February 10, 2016 by Hlitner

[POA1]

... but to say a bombing in NYC and skipping Bangor are the same is misleading and in no way close to the truth.

 

 

It also belies a bit of geographical ignorance. Unless you have a cruise up the Penobscot river, (You don't.) Bangor is not going to be on your list of port stops.

[Hlitner]

DW just had an interesting thought that the OP might want to consider. The Anthem of the Seas, recently cruised into hurricane winds (and 30 foot+ seas) in an attempt to keep to their schedule and not miss any ports. This turned out to be a near disaster with injured passengers, damage to the ship (inside and out), and now a called-for Senate Investigation. Some of the passengers on that cruise (that just returned to port) are already planning to sue the cruise line for taking them into some very rough weather. But we suspect if the OP were on a similar cruise, and the Captain decided to cruise in an entirely different direction (to avoid the bad weather) and miss many/most ports....he/she would be critical of that decision. So in the mind of the OP, the cruise line can never win. If they avoid ports in the interest of safety that is no good....and we can assume that if they took him into hurricane winds and high seas he would also be unhappy (and want some type of compensation).

 

Hank

Edited February 11, 2016 by Hlitner