Suspicious Cruise Itinerary Change

[finstotheleft]

In the last 48 hours, we were informed by Celebrity Cruises of an itinerary change on the 6 May 2023 sailing of Celebrity Millennium from Los Angeles to Vancouver.   Specifically, an overnight stay in San Francisco was cancelled, citing the company's need to be sensitive to the migration pattern of whales, a phenomenon of which mariners have been aware for centuries.  It is implausible that a company with the resources, technology, and sailing prowess of Celebrity failed to consider this annual rite of passage in their planning.  Worse, Celebrity waited until inside 90 days to make the disclosure.  Many of us on this sailing had made arrangements with substantial financial commitments for the evening we were scheduled to be in San Francisco and Celebrity, as expected, has disavowed any responsibility.  In an age of rampant cost-cutting, my cynical mind is pointing in the direction of docking fees and a quick way to avoid them.  Either that or the whales are doing a poor job of giving advance notice of their travel plans.    

[d9704011]

2 minutes ago, finstotheleft said:

Either that or the whales are doing a poor job of giving advance notice of their travel plans.    

There you go.... Explained!

[goldsmip115]

We did a 10 night cruise on Celebrity last May from San Diego to Vancouver.  There were no issues with our overnight stop in SFO.  I recall that we left May 4th of 2022

[jagoffee]

Must be more to the story.  Perhaps a new SF regulation?  But then no ships should be stopping in SF.  I say B.S. in Celebrity.

The change really stinks and I would also be upset.

Edited February 10, 2023 by jagoffee

[blackshirt]

19 minutes ago, finstotheleft said:

my cynical mind is pointing in the direction of docking fees and a quick way to avoid them.

You do realize you pay port fees and if a port is skipped or in your case shortened, you should get a corresponding refund. Shortening the port stay won’t save Celebrity anything. Whatever fees they are avoiding will be returned to the passengers.

[jwlane]

48 minutes ago, finstotheleft said:

 a phenomenon of which mariners have been aware for centuries.

Fill us in on your source that substantiates west coast whale migration 200 years ago.

 

By the way, MINIMAL research show new recommended procedures were adopted last September.  MINIMAL!  https://whalesafe.com/announcing-the-expansion-of-whale-safe-to-san-francisco/

Edited February 10, 2023 by jwlane

[Charles4515]

It is only suspicious because you don't like the change. Yep. they are out to get you. Itinerary changes are unfortunate but none should book a cruise with the itinerary is set in stone. I don't know what kind of plans you made in San Francisco that would have financial commitments but that is on you. Don't make commitments you can't cancel. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Charles4515

[jwlane]

37 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

I say B.S. in Celebrity.

Without ANY research on your own part?  Fascinating!

[RTShaker]

2 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

It is only suspicious because you don't like the change. Yep. they are out to get you. Itinerary changes are unfortunate but none should book a cruise with the itinerary is set in stone. I don't know what kind of plans you made in San Francisco that would have financial commitments but that is on you. 

I also am not happy with the timing of the notice. The overnight was the main reason for choosing to extend my Panama sailing to Vancouver. The way the email reads is that it is an issue for the Pacific Northwest and cruising speeds need to be restricted. The modified itinerary extends the cruising time from SF to Victoria (PNW area) by a whopping 15 minutes. That will sure make for a noticeable reduction in cruising speed🤣.

[mayleeman]

Mariners have been aware of migrating whales for centuries and have used that knowledge to come close to wiping them out. 

 

Now they are using that knowledge to protect them. You can read about the efforts affecting the gray whale in the eastern north Pacific here:  https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/gray-whales-eastern-north-pacific

 

Among other things, there has been an unusual mortality event affecting gray whales in their breeding areas off the northern Pacific coast since 2019. I suspect the early departure is due to taking a longer route to avoid the whales in their spring breeding season, much as ships are being diverted from certain parts of the humpback breeding areas off Hawaii. Just speculating, of course.

 

But it must be more fun to accuse X of a nefarious reason instead.

[jwlane]

6 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I suspect the early departure is due to taking a longer route to avoid the whales in their spring breeding season, much as ships are being diverted from certain parts of the humpback breeding areas off Hawaii. 

OMG!!!  A thoughful and calculated assessment of the situation rather than a me-me-me reaction.

[finstotheleft]

I appreciate all the observations, supportive and critical, as different perspectives can be educational and enlightening, even if they are sometimes irritating and condescending.  My beef is less about the itinerary change per se than the way it was presented and the fact that the conditions cited are not new as Celebrity's carefully worded disclosure infers.  I can forgive someone dropping the ball.  I am less charitable when the whales and their welfare serve as a convenient excuse.  I'm not buying it.

[Charles4515]

19 minutes ago, RTShaker said:

I also am not happy with the timing of the notice. The overnight was the main reason for choosing to extend my Panama sailing to Vancouver. The way the email reads is that it is an issue for the Pacific Northwest and cruising speeds need to be restricted. The modified itinerary extends the cruising time from SF to Victoria (PNW area) by a whopping 15 minutes. That will sure make for a noticeable reduction in cruising speed🤣.

I don't think you or OP should be happy about it. I would be disappointed too. I just don't think they are lying about the reason or doing it to cut costs. Poor planning for sure. 

[jwlane]

14 minutes ago, finstotheleft said:

 I'm not buying it.

Of course you're not---considering they "failed to consider this annual rite of passage in their planning" when the new procedures were only announced barely 5 months ago.  5 months is not "annual".  You have every right to be disappointed.  But elevate it to a conspiracy theory?

Edited February 10, 2023 by jwlane

[1025cruise]

Just a reminder, per your contract, ports are not guaranteed.

[wrk2cruise]

1 hour ago, blackshirt said:

You do realize you pay port fees and if a port is skipped or in your case shortened, you should get a corresponding refund.

 

I don't believe they have refunded anything for missed ports since the restart.   Not on sailings I've been on and have heard others with the same experience.

[D C]

1 hour ago, blackshirt said:

You do realize you pay port fees and if a port is skipped or in your case shortened, you should get a corresponding refund. Shortening the port stay won’t save Celebrity anything. Whatever fees they are avoiding will be returned to the passengers.

I have yet to read a thread where port fees were voluntarily returned to customers.

[BlerkOne]

12 minutes ago, wrk2cruise said:

 

I don't believe they have refunded anything for missed ports since the restart.   Not on sailings I've been on and have heard others with the same experience.

If they replace the port they don't. Did you check your final bill for suspicious credits?

[blackshirt]

30 minutes ago, wrk2cruise said:

I don't believe they have refunded anything for missed ports since the restart.

Well, they should. I saw a video the other day from one of the cruise youtubers saying NCL now required passengers to request port fees back for missed ports, they aren’t automatic. Perhaps Celebrity has followed suit. I haven’t had a missed port since the restart but I always got port fees refunded for missed ports prior to the restart.

[Jim_Iain]

2 hours ago, jagoffee said:

Must be more to the story.  Perhaps a new SF regulation?  But then no ships should be stopping in SF.  I say B.S. in Celebrity.

The change really stinks and I would also be upset.

 

 I don't believe it is San Francisco.  

 

I watched a program the other day and apparently the protocol is for ships on the Coastal Route during migration period to substantially increase the distance between ships and thus having to reduce ships speeds ..    Thus they probably have to skip a port to meet their schedule.    I'm surprised they chose San Francisco to eliminate but may have to do with scheduling of the port and revise time or date of arrival.

 

These regulation by NOAA were just approved on January 5

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/new-protections-for-endangered-whales-along-california-coast-adopted

 

[sunviking90]

1 hour ago, RTShaker said:

I also am not happy with the timing of the notice. The overnight was the main reason for choosing to extend my Panama sailing to Vancouver. The way the email reads is that it is an issue for the Pacific Northwest and cruising speeds need to be restricted. The modified itinerary extends the cruising time from SF to Victoria (PNW area) by a whopping 15 minutes. That will sure make for a noticeable reduction in cruising speed🤣.

It looks like the slow down is between Catalina and SFO where a sea day has been added. I have no doubt it is a legitimate reason, but possibly Celebrity’s email to you may have had sloppy (incorrect) information as to where they need to decrease their speed.

Edited February 11, 2023 by sunviking90

[Charles4515]

20 minutes ago, Jim_Iain said:

Thus they probably have to skip a port to meet their schedule.    I'm surprised they chose San Francisco to eliminate but may have to do with scheduling of the port and revise time or date of arrival.

I was wondering if they are totally skipping San Francisco or only not staying overnight.

[RD64]

3 hours ago, finstotheleft said:

In the last 48 hours, we were informed by Celebrity Cruises of an itinerary change on the 6 May 2023 sailing of Celebrity Millennium from Los Angeles to Vancouver.   Specifically, an overnight stay in San Francisco was cancelled, citing the company's need to be sensitive to the migration pattern of whales, a phenomenon of which mariners have been aware for centuries.  It is implausible that a company with the resources, technology, and sailing prowess of Celebrity failed to consider this annual rite of passage in their planning.  Worse, Celebrity waited until inside 90 days to make the disclosure.  Many of us on this sailing had made arrangements with substantial financial commitments for the evening we were scheduled to be in San Francisco and Celebrity, as expected, has disavowed any responsibility.  In an age of rampant cost-cutting, my cynical mind is pointing in the direction of docking fees and a quick way to avoid them.  Either that or the whales are doing a poor job of giving advance notice of their travel plans.    

Truly not my business but “serious financial commitments”? Unless you have rented a banquet hall or hotel room - or prepaid for theatre tickets - I can’t imagine what things have to be paid for three months in advance.

[Charles4515]

1 minute ago, RD64 said:

Truly not my business but “serious financial commitments”? Unless you have rented a banquet hall or hotel room - or prepaid for theatre tickets - I can’t imagine what things have to be paid for three months in advance.

I have read about people who planned weddings at port. For example Bermuda. Then whoops the ship could not dock. Really was not a good idea.

[jwlane]

2 hours ago, Jim_Iain said:

regulation by NOAA were just approved on January 5

Thanks @Jim_Iain for providing additional facts vs. unsubstantiated suspicions that this adjustment is not an arbitrary decision by X.