Carnival Liberty 11/19. We feel ripped off.

[tweak89]

Well, the excitement continues!! As we ave decided to go after all, this situation didn't affect me but I'm sure it may have affected others. The deadline to cancel (according to CSR's) was midnight of the 15th, eastern time. Well, I wanted to log into my account and check a couple of things before turning in and lo and behold, their system was down so you couldn't access your booking. What time was it? Right about midnight eastern time! :eek:

 

Now, was it a coincidence? Probably so, but can you imagine you are a customer that finally decided you've had enough with the Carnival shenanigans and decides to cancel by the deadline only to find out you couldn't because neither you or customer service could access your booking!!??!!!

[skyeman27]

....and all this time I always thought you were a cheerleader in hiding.

 

Most of my cruises have been on Carnival. I am a cheerleader in hiding, but I hide better than others. I like Fantasy class ships, a cheer...

[asalligo]

I would have absolutely no problem with this itinerary change. Carnival can add more sea days and take ports from my cruise anytime, but how can anyone complain about this compensation? What more could Carnival be expected to do here?

 

Guests sailing on this voyage will receive a $50 per person credit to their shipboard accounts and a 25 percent discount on a future Carnival cruise. Guests also have the option of cancelling and receiving a full refund.

[tweak89]

I would have absolutely no problem with this itinerary change. Carnival can add more sea days and take ports from my cruise anytime, but how can anyone complain about this compensation? What more could Carnival be expected to do here?

 

Guests sailing on this voyage will receive a $50 per person credit to their shipboard accounts and a 25 percent discount on a future Carnival cruise. Guests also have the option of cancelling and receiving a full refund.

 

I think those that aren't actually affected see it a little differently. The ability to cancel is great (we have since decided to go). But, as I stated in a previous post, the one thing I think is out of proportion is the onboard credit. I think it should scale to the length of the cruise. $25, $50 and $75. The 25% off, IF it gets used is nice, we will make 100% sure it gets used. But, many folks are on what will likely be their only cruise ever for whatever reason, imagine this scenario from their point of view.

 

As for my dissatisfaction, it's a matter of this cruise not being what we payed for. Regardless of anyone else's opinions of the original ports, my wife and I wanted to see them and that's why we booked this (original) itinerary. Now, we essentially get Cozumel south in place of Jamiaca and Grand Cayman, haha. Heck, at least do Progresso, Cozumel and Costa Maya so we still have a 3 port itinerary. But, it is what it is. I hope they (Carnival) step up their maintenance game, as they have had more (visible to the general public) mechanical issues then other cruise brands. We've enjoyed our previous Carnival cruises quite a bit and we hope that once onboard, this fiasco will start to fade into memory.

Edited November 16, 2016 by tweak89

[Staceyface1]

My guess is that it's probably difficult to add extra ports seeing how there is a limited amount of ships that are able to dock at one location at a time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sparks1093]

I think those that aren't actually affected see it a little differently. The ability to cancel is great (we have since decided to go). But, as I stated in a previous post, the one thing I think is out of proportion is the onboard credit. I think it should scale to the length of the cruise. $25, $50 and $75. The 25% off, IF it gets used is nice, we will make 100% sure it gets used. But, many folks are on what will likely be their only cruise ever for whatever reason, imagine this scenario from their point of view.

 

As for my dissatisfaction, it's a matter of this cruise not being what we payed for. Regardless of anyone else's opinions of the original ports, my wife and I wanted to see them and that's why we booked this (original) itinerary. Now, we essentially get Cozumel south in place of Jamiaca and Grand Cayman, haha. Heck, at least do Progresso, Cozumel and Costa Maya so we still have a 3 port itinerary. But, it is what it is. I hope they (Carnival) step up their maintenance game, as they have had more (visible to the general public) mechanical issues then other cruise brands. We've enjoyed our previous Carnival cruises quite a bit and we hope that once onboard, this fiasco will start to fade into memory.

 

This is one of the drawbacks to choosing a cruise vacation. There are so many things that can cause the itinerary to change from port workers striking to weather to mechanical issues. Yes, I'd be upset if I were affected by this, no doubt about it, but after I'd had a chance to think about it and look at it realistically I would come to the same conclusion that I and others have expressed- CCL's offer is a fair one. It's not perfect, it doesn't meet every person's needs (such as those who are on a one and done cruise) but it is still fair. Could they have made the offer better? Sure. But they didn't. I have seen nothing to suggest that CCL's maintenance practices have contributed to this problem or others. Sometimes things just break.

[nancynurse67]

Lol sparks1093--good point, and I do understand. :-) We've always taken out cruise insurance, because a person just never knows, and that would be a lot of money to lose.. We've luckily never had to use it, and of course I knew t.h.a.t was non-refundable...but I guess because under normal circumstances (before we got the Carnival email) we WOULDN'T have cancelled, and those that are also canceling this cruise are getting a full refund even if they didn't have insurance....I was just hoping it might be either refunded or carry over to another cruise. Never hurts to ask lol!!

[rjrpar]

They are dropping Falmouth as well. Going to Cozumel and Costa Maya. We are now paying a premium to travel during Thanksgiving and are stuck with an unsafe ship and unexciting ports.

 

 

Agree the itinerary is bad but why do you think the ship is unsafe?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[stevenr597]

For the individuals who will be sailing on the Valor in place of the Liberty, you should not notice any difference.

 

However, I do take objection to the fact that Carnival feels that there is no problem to sale a ship (Liberty) with 1/2 of its propulsion system malfunctioning. Apparently they feel that it will be cheaper (for Carnival) to move the ship and sail it out of Port Canaveral, rather than getting it repaired ASAP.

 

This reminds me when Carnival decided to sail the Splendor back to the U.S. with limited power, because it was cheaper, despite the fact that passengers were stuck on a ship for several days with limited power, no A.C, limited food, and no hygiene.

 

Many individuals will say it makes no difference. But would you fly on a plane with only one engine. Afterall, most commercial air-lineers can get by with 1/2 of their power, assuming that nothing else goes wrong.

 

Another example of Carnival having little respect for the people who sail on it. The race to the bottom continues.

[sparks1093]

Here's what I posted on the "Liberty update" thread:

 

I'm going to bet that they had a problem with a propulsion motor, not an alternator as previously stated. On another thread regarding this problem on the Liberty, I explained how each of the two propulsion motors had two separate windings, each winding providing half power to the motor. If one winding in the motor fails, the motor can only produce half power. I believe the Dream or the Breeze is sailing currently with this problem as well. I guess they were hoping for a failure that could be repaired quickly, but have found that it will require renewing the winding. This requires cutting a hole in the side of the ship and moving the motor out. Think along the lines of Liberty's recent bow thruster repair, but magnify the size and weight of the motor by 10. Since Liberty is scheduled for drydock in January, they will make the repair then.

 

As for safety, the ship still has 75% of its propulsion power, in 3 separate systems that would all have to fail to stop the ship, and 100% of its power generating capacity. As stated before, the flag state, the classification society (insurance underwriter), and the port state (USCG) have determined that the ship is seaworthy, and presents no undue risk (other than the normal risk of going to sea) to the passengers, crew, or environment.

 

I rechecked and saw that Liberty's drydock is in December, and I also posted that:

 

Now that I look at the drydock schedule, I think that the repair won't be made during this drydock, most likely there is a lead time problem, as most of this kind of equipment isn't off the shelf. I do know that there is still some disruption at Grand Bahamas Shipyard, causing either schedules to shift or work to be curtailed, so an unscheduled addition to Liberty's yard plan of repairing/replacing a propulsion motor may not be viable.

 

For the individuals who will be sailing on the Valor in place of the Liberty, you should not notice any difference.

 

However, I do take objection to the fact that Carnival feels that there is no problem to sale a ship (Liberty) with 1/2 of its propulsion system malfunctioning. Apparently they feel that it will be cheaper (for Carnival) to move the ship and sail it out of Port Canaveral, rather than getting it repaired ASAP.

 

This reminds me when Carnival decided to sail the Splendor back to the U.S. with limited power, because it was cheaper, despite the fact that passengers were stuck on a ship for several days with limited power, no A.C, limited food, and no hygiene.

 

Many individuals will say it makes no difference. But would you fly on a plane with only one engine. Afterall, most commercial air-lineers can get by with 1/2 of their power, assuming that nothing else goes wrong.

 

Another example of Carnival having little respect for the people who sail on it. The race to the bottom continues.

 

Given the information Cheng has imparted about how things work what CCL is doing makes sense.

[ILCruzr]

For the individuals who will be sailing on the Valor in place of the Liberty, you should not notice any difference.

 

However, I do take objection to the fact that Carnival feels that there is no problem to sale a ship (Liberty) with 1/2 of its propulsion system malfunctioning. Apparently they feel that it will be cheaper (for Carnival) to move the ship and sail it out of Port Canaveral, rather than getting it repaired ASAP.

 

This reminds me when Carnival decided to sail the Splendor back to the U.S. with limited power, because it was cheaper, despite the fact that passengers were stuck on a ship for several days with limited power, no A.C, limited food, and no hygiene.

 

Many individuals will say it makes no difference. But would you fly on a plane with only one engine. Afterall, most commercial air-lineers can get by with 1/2 of their power, assuming that nothing else goes wrong.

 

Another example of Carnival having little respect for the people who sail on it. The race to the bottom continues.

 

I feel the same way......why is carnival sailing a less than functioning cruise??? doesnt make sense. They need to get their act together....I have started to branch to other lines and we switched from the 11/26 Liberty sailing to a princess ship.....and my feb cruise on the Victory might be my last on CCL. There are so many other options rather than CCL....and I am enjoying exploring them!

[Anjanu]

I remember when we were switched from the Liberty to the Valor which at the time didn't have 2.0 upgrades. We paid more money and switched to the Sunshine. I have since sailed on the Valor 3 times and love it!

Edited November 16, 2016 by Anjanu

[sfaaa]

The deadline to cancel (according to CSR's) was midnight of the 15th, eastern time. Well, I wanted to log into my account and check a couple of things before turning in and lo and behold, their system was down so you couldn't access your booking. What time was it? Right about midnight eastern time! :eek:

 

Now, was it a coincidence? Probably so, but can you imagine you are a customer that finally decided you've had enough with the Carnival shenanigans and decides to cancel by the deadline only to find out you couldn't because neither you or customer service could access your booking!!??!!!

 

It is not uncommon for a company website to temporary go down or slow right up at around midnight to perform their daily computer system maintenance. Happens quite often. Besides, leaving things until the last minute is never a good idea and always come with additional risk.

[A&Jfamily]

I feel the same way......why is carnival sailing a less than functioning cruise??? doesnt make sense. They need to get their act together....I have started to branch to other lines and we switched from the 11/26 Liberty sailing to a princess ship.....and my feb cruise on the Victory might be my last on CCL. There are so many other options rather than CCL....and I am enjoying exploring them!

 

Princess is fantastic, and our favorite line. But we primarily cruise Carnival because it is more cost effective and a much wider array of itineraries that fit our limited schedule.

 

To answer your question, if you read up about cruise ships, and all the lines, they ALL have mechanical issues that pop up from time to time. And the ships, including the Liberty are fully functional, just not at higher speeds which is needed for longer runs across the Gulf. So don't think that because you try another line that you can't run into the exact same circumstances.

[ILCruzr]

Princess is fantastic, and our favorite line. But we primarily cruise Carnival because it is more cost effective and a much wider array of itineraries that fit our limited schedule.

 

To answer your question, if you read up about cruise ships, and all the lines, they ALL have mechanical issues that pop up from time to time. And the ships, including the Liberty are fully functional, just not at higher speeds which is needed for longer runs across the Gulf. So don't think that because you try another line that you can't run into the exact same circumstances.

 

carnival ships seem to be problematic as of late. Some RCL ships have been too. I am aware it can happen on any line. But my point is, why doesn't carnival want to fully fix their ship? I mean what if the other generators go out, The liberty can be Triumph 2.0. Thats dangerous and unsettling for consumers. Did not want to take the risk....

[sparks1093]

carnival ships seem to be problematic as of late. Some RCL ships have been too. I am aware it can happen on any line. But my point is, why doesn't carnival want to fully fix their ship? I mean what if the other generators go out, The liberty can be Triumph 2.0. Thats dangerous and unsettling for consumers. Did not want to take the risk....

 

As Cheng explained up thread there is a lengthy lead time to get the necessary parts so the plans to fix the problem during the December dry dock fell through. I am 100% sure that if CCL could fix the problem they would. This is a huge headache for them in many different ways.

[Computer Nerd]

For the individuals who will be sailing on the Valor in place of the Liberty, you should not notice any difference.

 

However, I do take objection to the fact that Carnival feels that there is no problem to sale a ship (Liberty) with 1/2 of its propulsion system malfunctioning. Apparently they feel that it will be cheaper (for Carnival) to move the ship and sail it out of Port Canaveral, rather than getting it repaired ASAP.

 

This reminds me when Carnival decided to sail the Splendor back to the U.S. with limited power, because it was cheaper, despite the fact that passengers were stuck on a ship for several days with limited power, no A.C, limited food, and no hygiene.

 

Many individuals will say it makes no difference. But would you fly on a plane with only one engine. Afterall, most commercial air-lineers can get by with 1/2 of their power, assuming that nothing else goes wrong.

 

Another example of Carnival having little respect for the people who sail on it. The race to the bottom continues.

 

If a plane would still stay in the air if it lost that one engine, sure, I'd go. But we all know the difference between planes and ships. :rolleyes:

[tweak89]

If a plane would still stay in the air if it lost that one engine, sure, I'd go. But we all know the difference between planes and ships. :rolleyes:

 

What if the ship was disabled, but not sinking, and Celine Dion was onboard doing 24 hours of My Heart Will Go On? :eek:

 

I would take the one engined, and likely crashing, plane! :p

[chengkp75]

For the individuals who will be sailing on the Valor in place of the Liberty, you should not notice any difference.

 

However, I do take objection to the fact that Carnival feels that there is no problem to sale a ship (Liberty) with 1/2 of its propulsion system malfunctioning. Apparently they feel that it will be cheaper (for Carnival) to move the ship and sail it out of Port Canaveral, rather than getting it repaired ASAP.

 

This reminds me when Carnival decided to sail the Splendor back to the U.S. with limited power, because it was cheaper, despite the fact that passengers were stuck on a ship for several days with limited power, no A.C, limited food, and no hygiene.

 

Many individuals will say it makes no difference. But would you fly on a plane with only one engine. Afterall, most commercial air-lineers can get by with 1/2 of their power, assuming that nothing else goes wrong.

 

Another example of Carnival having little respect for the people who sail on it. The race to the bottom continues.

 

Well, couple of problems with statements here. First off, I believe that the Liberty has 3/4 of its propulsion available, not half.

 

Then there is the Splendor. "Carnival decided to sail the ship back to the US with limited power". First off, the closest port was Ensenada, which is only 50 miles from its eventual destination of San Diego. This is a difference of only 12 hours between these two ports at the towing speed. I believe that since the operation was under the supervision of the USCG, that they and not Carnival made the decision to go to San Diego.

 

And what about Allure and Liberty of the Seas, both of which sailed for several months with 1/3 of their propulsion out, when one azipod on each ship failed. Norwegian Star sailed for 3-4 months around Hawaii with one of two azipods out of service. Just a couple of examples I can think of without doing any research, and I know there are many more. When Carnival, or any cruise line is in line for castigation, I will be the first to cast stones, but I just love it when folks dump on a line without looking at all the facts.

 

99% of all ships in the world cross the oceans with only one propeller, powered by one engine, let alone two propellers powered by a combination of six engines, providing redundancy.

Edited November 16, 2016 by chengkp75

[shackpacker]

Well, couple of problems with statements here. First off, I believe that the Liberty has 3/4 of its propulsion available, not half.

 

Then there is the Splendor. "Carnival decided to sail the ship back to the US with limited power". First off, the closest port was Ensenada, which is only 50 miles from its eventual destination of San Diego. This is a difference of only 12 hours between these two ports at the towing speed. I believe that since the operation was under the supervision of the USCG, that they and not Carnival made the decision to go to San Diego.

 

And what about Allure and Liberty of the Seas, both of which sailed for several months with 1/3 of their propulsion out, when one azipod on each ship failed. Norwegian Star sailed for 3-4 months around Hawaii with one of two azipods out of service. Just a couple of examples I can think of without doing any research, and I know there are many more. When Carnival, or any cruise line is in line for castigation, I will be the first to cast stones, but I just love it when folks dump on a line without looking at all the facts.

 

99% of all ships in the world cross the oceans with only one propeller, powered by one engine, let alone two propellers powered by a combination of six engines, providing redundancy.

 

We did a transatlantic on Celebrity without full power. Never bothered us a bit.

[sparks1093]

What if the ship was disabled, but not sinking, and Celine Dion was onboard doing 24 hours of My Heart Will Go On? :eek:

 

I would take the one engined, and likely crashing, plane! :p

 

I've been dead in the water on a nuclear aircraft carrier. Fortunately it's a big ocean.

[chengkp75]

I've been dead in the water on a nuclear aircraft carrier. Fortunately it's a big ocean.

 

Everyone should read about the SS Badger State. No power, 1000 lb bombs loose and rolling around in the holds, listing in a typhoon, and with a large hole in the side where a bomb rolled through, no crew (they abandoned ship and the bomb that came out the side dropped on one lifeboat, killing half the crew), and yet the ship was found days later still upright and afloat, and had to be sunk by gunfire as a hazard to navigation.

[sparks1093]

Everyone should read about the SS Badger State. No power, 1000 lb bombs loose and rolling around in the holds, listing in a typhoon, and with a large hole in the side where a bomb rolled through, no crew (they abandoned ship and the bomb that came out the side dropped on one lifeboat, killing half the crew), and yet the ship was found days later still upright and afloat, and had to be sunk by gunfire as a hazard to navigation.

 

Yikes!:eek:

[Computer Nerd]

What if the ship was disabled, but not sinking, and Celine Dion was onboard doing 24 hours of My Heart Will Go On? :eek:

 

I would take the one engined, and likely crashing, plane! :p

 

Maybe, but I could just throw Celine Dion overboard. :D

 

Or worse, start singing as a duet with her. :eek::eek:

Edited November 17, 2016 by Computer Nerd