Posted on Another Site...Ruby Princess Hits Dock in SF

[Guest ldtr]

9 minutes ago, jsglow said:

Let me make a suggestion for you to consider. Try the one-way Glaciers cruise from Vancouver and tack on an Alaskan land tour.  You won't regret it.

or do 14 days, 7 up and 7 down. We are currently doing that on the Majestic out of Vancouver.

[ninka26]

22 minutes ago, jsglow said:

Let me make a suggestion for you to consider. Try the one-way Glaciers cruise from Vancouver and tack on an Alaskan land tour.  You won't regret it.

My husband and I are actually considering this! 

[ninka26]

1 hour ago, minabruuke said:

If I had been on this cruise and the Alaskan ports were indeed my priority (rather than the cruise and ship itself), I'd have worked with Princess to be able to immediately use the FCC they were offering to get on one of the several other 7 night Princess cruises that left on Saturday or Sunday from Vancouver or Anchorage (there were several awesome last minute deals and there were cabins available).  ....

Guest services (really the whole crew) was in complete chaos after the initial announcement.  Unfortunately, not being a seasoned cruiser, I would never have thought that this was an option. Thank you for pointing this out. It just might come in handy in the future so I really appreciate the wisdom.

[Tedferg]

28 minutes ago, jsglow said:

Let me make a suggestion for you to consider. Try the one-way Glaciers cruise from Vancouver and tack on an Alaskan land tour.  You won't regret it.

I second that and was going to suggest it. Also, seas can be rough during the first two days out of San Francisco. We did that cruise but did not do the land portion. Loved Vancouver and then the drive from Whittier to Anchorage.

[minabruuke]

2 minutes ago, ninka26 said:

Guest services (really the whole crew) was in complete chaos after the initial announcement.  Unfortunately, not being a seasoned cruiser, I would never have thought that this was an option. Thank you for pointing this out. It just might come in handy in the future so I really appreciate the wisdom.

 

I'm not surprised guest services was chaos, I imagine that it was a very difficult and draining few days for them.  I wouldn't expect new cruisers and/or infrequent travelers to come up with this sort of an alternate option on the fly.  Some Princess staff may have thought of it but they couldn't really announce it as an option to the entire ship since there wouldn't have been enough availability on the other cruises or even flights to switch everyone that may have wished to make the change. The best person onboard to help with something like this would've probably been the onboard future cruise consultant but I'd probably have resorted to just calling my Princess cruise consultant and if I couldn't get through to her I'd have just booked online and used the FCC on a different cruise.

 

I'm so sorry that your trip didn't turn out as planned.  I truly hope that you have the opportunity to visit and experience Alaska in the near future.  I agree with what other posters have recommended; the one-way glacier cruises on Princess are excellent!

[MLBFan24]

50 minutes ago, ldtr said:

or do 14 days, 7 up and 7 down. We are currently doing that on the Majestic out of Vancouver.

 

I did that exact cruise back in May. Even though it was my fourth time cruising to Alaska, the itinerary amazes me each time.

[Guest ldtr]

12 minutes ago, MLBFan24 said:

 

I did that exact cruise back in May. Even though it was my fourth time cruising to Alaska, the itinerary amazes me each time.

These 2 are our 11th and 12th cruises to Alaska on 4 different cruise lines (Celebrity, Royal, Princess HAL)

[Thrak]

I actually wish we had been on this cruise. Getting an "almost" free 7 day cruise with the drink package as well as a big FCC sounds like a win to me but then we've been to Alaska a number of times already.

[brisalta]

7 hours ago, RC Dancers said:

I know that I am late to this thread, but is it normal procedure for cruise ships to use tugs in San Francisco harbor?

 

Yes it is normal for shipping to use tugs in San Francisco area..

There are strong currents and the wind can gust rapidly and with changing direction just in a matter of minutes. In addition as a vessel moves in the bay it can come in and out of wind shadows. (I know of places where there can be no wind but you move a few feet in the water and you suddenly hit a very high wind). The high sides of the large vessels thus act like sails, they need assistance navigating into position to dock.

I looked at the nearest to pier 27 NOAA weather station reports for the time of the incident and the wind was definitely pulsating in a weird pattern,

Edited July 10, 2023 by brisalta

[jsglow]

1 hour ago, ninka26 said:

My husband and I are actually considering this! 

We did the 1 way northbound last year coupled with the 6 night 'Off the Beaten Path'. Loved it.

Edited July 10, 2023 by jsglow

[SCX22]

Princess wasn't exactly forthright from the beginning.  The day of the accident, they led embarking passengers to believe that they would be departing at 16:00.  16:00 came and went and Princess advised of a 19:00 departure.  19:00 came and went and Princess changed their advise to the following day.  The following day came and finally Princess announced a 16:00 Sunday departure.

 

This wasn't like an airline delay where the weather and crew staffing remain fluid up to the last second.  It was between the Coast Guard and Princess.  Was Princess really naïve enough to think that the Coast Guard was going to let them sail the vessel with a gaping hole so close to the water line?  It takes a while to get bids on a contractor and it was great that Princess was able to find a contractor that could stipulate a hastened timeframe for completion of the work.  But they could have handled the situation better rather than keeping the guests captive during the first day and promising false start departures.

[ninka26]

Just now, SCX22 said:

Princess wasn't exactly forthright from the beginning.  The day of the accident, they led embarking passengers to believe that they would be departing at 16:00.  16:00 came and went and Princess advised of a 19:00 departure.  19:00 came and went and Princess changed their advise to the following day.  The following day came and finally Princess announced a 16:00 Sunday departure.

 

This wasn't like an airline delay where the weather and crew staffing remain fluid up to the last second.  It was between the Coast Guard and Princess.  Was Princess really naïve enough to think that the Coast Guard was going to let them sail the vessel with a gaping hole so close to the water line?  It takes a while to get bids on a contractor and it was great that Princess was able to find a contractor that could stipulate a hastened timeframe for completion of the work.  But they could have handled the situation better rather than keeping the guests captive during the first day and promising false start departures.

100% agree! That is exactly why I'm not "Team Princess" at the moment. 

[DCThunder]

6 minutes ago, SCX22 said:

Princess wasn't exactly forthright from the beginning.  The day of the accident, they led embarking passengers to believe that they would be departing at 16:00.  16:00 came and went and Princess advised of a 19:00 departure.  19:00 came and went and Princess changed their advise to the following day.  The following day came and finally Princess announced a 16:00 Sunday departure.

 

This wasn't like an airline delay where the weather and crew staffing remain fluid up to the last second.  It was between the Coast Guard and Princess.  Was Princess really naïve enough to think that the Coast Guard was going to let them sail the vessel with a gaping hole so close to the water line?  It takes a while to get bids on a contractor and it was great that Princess was able to find a contractor that could stipulate a hastened timeframe for completion of the work.  But they could have handled the situation better rather than keeping the guests captive during the first day and promising false start departures.

I'm not trying to carry water for Princess, but don't you think they were giving passengers the best information they had at the time they provided those initial estimates.  I doubt there is a crystal ball up in Guest Services to allow them to predict the exact moment when passengers could disembark.  Would you have preferred they provide no information until they were sure it was correct?  Somehow I seriously doubt that.

 

It sounds to me like some unrealistic expectations for information in a very fluid situation.  🌊

This is not to say that I probably would also have unrealistic expectations.  It's easy to be sanguine about something like this from 2500 miles away and four days after the fact.

[SCX22]

Just now, DCThunder said:

I'm not trying to carry water for Princess, but don't you think they were giving passengers the best information they had at the time they provided those initial estimates.  I doubt there is a crystal ball up in Guest Services to allow them to predict the exact moment when passengers could disembark.  Would you have preferred they provide no information until they were sure it was correct?  Somehow I seriously doubt that.

 

It sounds to me like some unrealistic expectations for information in a very fluid situation.  🌊

This is not to say that I probably would also have unrealistic expectations.  It's easy to be sanguine about something like this from 2500 miles away and four days after the fact.

 

Guest Services shouldn't have been the one making the judgement calls here.  It should have been Princess corporate.

 

I don't really think they were giving the passengers the best information at the time.  The Ruby had a gaping hole on the side near the water line and had to sail in notoriously rough waters for the first day.  Did Princess really think that the Coast Guard was going to let them sail at 16:00 the day of the accident?  If Princess really thought this, I call into question their credo to safety.

 

Princess' announcements the first day were to save face.

[minabruuke]

33 minutes ago, SCX22 said:

Princess wasn't exactly forthright from the beginning.  The day of the accident, they led embarking passengers to believe that they would be departing at 16:00.  16:00 came and went and Princess advised of a 19:00 departure.  19:00 came and went and Princess changed their advise to the following day.  The following day came and finally Princess announced a 16:00 Sunday departure.

 

 

Did Princess actually say that they were going to sail at those times? That they hoped to sail at those times? Or did they state that they would provide an update?  I'm just genuinely curious what was actually being conveyed to passengers since I've seen/heard different reports from different people.

 

[trbarton]

9 hours ago, RC Dancers said:

I know that I am late to this thread, but is it normal procedure for cruise ships to use tugs in San Francisco harbor?

I’ve cruised out of San Francisco many times & yes tugs are used here & the day of the accident it was extremely windy. 
 

Tom😀

[trbarton]

6 hours ago, ninka26 said:

In all likelihood, I will probably give it another go but I think I'll avoid the San Francisco port. Seems those waters are very dangerous in general.  

That was a freak accident. I’ve been in San Francisco since 1967 this is the first time we have ever had an accident with a cruise ship like that. Please don’t let this one incident to stop you from coming here again. 
 

Tom😀

Edited July 10, 2023 by trbarton

[KLM3164]

1 hour ago, Thrak said:

I actually wish we had been on this cruise. Getting an "almost" free 7 day cruise with the drink package as well as a big FCC sounds like a win to me but then we've been to Alaska a number of times already.

I have been thinking the exact same thing…..I wish we would have been on this cruise. We would have enjoyed the 10 days on the ship and the 7days of sailing (never been to Prince Rupert). Plus the extra compensation would have bought another very nice cruise for the future.

 

@ninka26We’ve only been to Alaska twice, once from SF and once from Seattle. Both times we missed a port due to weather. Both times sailing through Glacier Bay the weather was crappy. We didn’t receive any compensation for any missed ports, other than a refund of our port fees. If you are going to cruise on Princess, or any other line for that matter you have to be able to be comfortable with the “F” word…..FLEXIBILITY. If you aren’t able to accept that things happen then cruising may not be for you. I’d encourage you to use the generous compensation you have been given and give Princess another shot but remember that things happen and your cruise may not always go exactly according to the plan. I hope for your sake if you do cruise again that your cruise will be perfect.

 

I also can relate to your feeling about not being Team Princess at the moment. I too wasn’t Team Princess after my first cruise with them in 1990. Before getting on the ship we talked with passengers getting off the ship (Fair Princess) who said the A/C system on the ship wasn’t working. Well it turns out it wasn’t fixed when we sailed for 7 days and we were sailing around a hurricane and missed some ports. I can’t tell you how uncomfortable it was to be on a ship with no A/C that was hot/humid. In addition to getting sick from the motion of the ship from sailing around a hurricane. To say the seas were rough would be an understatement. I remember Princess offered us $500 to book another cruise with them and I remember saying I will “never” cruise on Princess again. There was no refund offered for what I had paid for the cruise and I wasn’t interested in giving them any additional business. I let my $500 go and continued sailing on other cruise lines for many years (I really do love cruising). However never say never, as I did indeed get on another Princess ship but it took me 17 years before I cruised Princess again. The only reason I tried again was because my entire family was going on a Princess cruise and I wanted to go too. So I didn’t have high expectations but I had a great time. I’m getting ready to sail on my 15th and 16th cruises with Princess in November and they haven’t all been perfect but I’m really glad I gave them another chance. For me they have redeemed themselves but I can certainly understand if you choose to forgo sailing with them in the future. 

 

All the best in your future travels,

Kim

[ninka26]

19 minutes ago, trbarton said:

That was a freak accident. I’ve been in San Francisco since 1967 this is the first time we have ever had an accident with a cruise ship like that. Please don’t let this one incident to stop you from coming here again. 
 

Tom😀

I do plan on visiting again just not a cruise.

[2 cruises a year]

28 minutes ago, trbarton said:

I’ve cruised out of San Francisco many times & yes tugs are used here & the day of the accident it was extremely windy. 
 

Tom😀

And also during an unusually high tide to low tide period.  Strong current caused by a lot of water in a big bay trying to get out to sea.

[brisalta]

6 hours ago, ninka26 said:

In all likelihood, I will probably give it another go but I think I'll avoid the San Francisco port. Seems those waters are very dangerous in general.  

 

It seems from recent reports that the waters in the Hudson Valley, New York are far more dangerous. It is all relative.

Edited July 10, 2023 by brisalta

[Outerdog]

2 hours ago, SCX22 said:

The day of the accident, they led embarking passengers to believe that they would be departing at 16:00.  16:00 came and went and Princess advised of a 19:00 departure.  19:00 came and went and Princess changed their advise to the following day.  The following day came and finally Princess announced a 16:00 Sunday departure.

 

Can anyone else confirm this? I've been following this closely and this is the first I've heard that Princess advised any departure times, only update times.

 

"Led embarking passengers to believe" are weasel words. Did they *say* 1600 departure throughout the Morning of the incident? Then, did they *say* 1900 departure?

 

I don't think you need to be a maritime expert to know that the likelihood of that ship sailing at 1600 in that condition after an event of that magnitude is near zero.

 

[EDVM96]

49 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

Did they *say* 1600 departure throughout the Morning of the incident?

 

Maybee that's what the guys said at Tradewinds Bar.
 

 

50 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

Then, did they *say* 1900 departure?

 

Maybee that's what the guy said at Wheelhouse Bar.
 

54 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

I don't think you need to be a maritime expert to know that the likelihood of that ship sailing at 1600 in that condition after an event of that magnitude is near zero.

We need more sofa experts.
 

[ninka26]

1 hour ago, Outerdog said:

 

Can anyone else confirm this? I've been following this closely and this is the first I've heard that Princess advised any departure times, only update times.

 

"Led embarking passengers to believe" are weasel words. Did they *say* 1600 departure throughout the Morning of the incident? Then, did they *say* 1900 departure?

 

I don't think you need to be a maritime expert to know that the likelihood of that ship sailing at 1600 in that condition after an event of that magnitude is near zero.

 

I was on the ship. Captain was very careful with his choice of words. It was plainly stated as anticipated or estimated departure times PENDING clearance by the USCG.

[Guest Bronston]

 

A positive spin was put on all announcements however they were honest with qualifiers ie, must have coast guard approval, anticipating sail away for tomorrow, repairs on a timely schedule, etc

 

not direct quotes but guests were all hopeful, as were staff.

 

NEVER a definitive departure time until the day we sailed. 

 

the issue to me was the unknown of the coast guard. The captains voice was disappointed each time he could not announce an approval and sail time until Sunday.

 

Biggest disappointment is Prince Rupert. Most don’t understand or care about Canada….when on an ALASKA cruise. Regardless of the Jones Act or anything else.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Bronston