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

[trbarton]

4 minutes ago, Bronston said:

 

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.

I’m curious from your stateroom would you have violated the Jones Act?  If you were the captain what would have been your decision for a 7 day cruise?

 

Tom🤔

[SCX22]

My friend and his family were on this sailing.  He texted me asking me if I could come pick them up from the the pier so we could go to dinner after all of the hiccups that day.  Come to find out that passengers weren’t being let off the first day in case the coast guard cleared the ship to sail.  There was some false hope being let off by the announcements that the ship would be leaving Thursday night.

[Guest Bronston]

Tom,

 

just saying most passengers prefer Alaska ports over Canada. Captain followed Coast Guard and the law. Not sure if anything could have been done differently. 
 

But what people want and what you get is different. 
 

was compensation just? Eye of the beholder. Everyone is different. That is why I keep saying Princess needs to be flexible.

[Outerdog]

5 minutes ago, SCX22 said:

My friend and his family were on this sailing.  He texted me asking me if I could come pick them up from the the pier so we could go to dinner after all of the hiccups that day.  Come to find out that passengers weren’t being let off the first day in case the coast guard cleared the ship to sail.  There was some false hope being let off by the announcements that the ship would be leaving Thursday night.

 

Got it. So you did not, in fact, hear them say the things you claim they said in your earlier post.

 

[JLC@SD]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:41 AM, Crystabel said:

I think this video shows the culprit.  When the ship hits the pier, the stern tug is clearly out of position and is in no position to assist in preventing the hit.  My opinion,

 

[Guest Bronston]

New question to fit in …….

 

So the Future Cruise Credit is combinable to other princess promotions down the road. Based on past promotions/sales…..which one(s) were outstanding? Seasonal sales? Suggestions?

[CalLuvsCrusingToo]

What happened to the first vid?  It was video'd  by a passenger onboard, and seemed to show impact.

Was it removed for some reason?

 

[SCX22]

20 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

Got it. So you did not, in fact, hear them say the things you claim they said in your earlier post.

 

Wasn’t a passenger, so couldn’t have heard anything on the ship.

 

I can say with confidence that the passengers weren’t being let off the ship and the reason they were being given is that the ship might get Coast Guard clearance to set sail that night.  How they were going to get clearance that night without repairing a gaping hole, I have no idea.

Edited July 11, 2023 by SCX22

[Thrak]

3 hours ago, ninka26 said:

I do plan on visiting again just not a cruise.

 

Our first cruise ever was the 10 day SF/Alaska round trip on the old Sea Princess. It got me hooked. Since then we've done 13 day and 15 day Connoisseur Cruise Tours and a 7 week camping trip from Northern California up through Montana, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, to Fairbanks (and back of course). It was awesome. We did it in our little teardrop trailer. 😁

[brisalta]

1 hour ago, Bronston said:

 

Regardless of the Jones Act

 

Are you freight? The Jones Act applies to freight transport.

[brisalta]

1 hour ago, Bronston said:

Biggest disappointment is Prince Rupert. Most don’t understand or care about Canada

 

Prince Rupert was already on the itinerary. It is a charming town with an interesting history. It is the farthest west rail head that connects to the east coast.  It has a few museums of note. It has good fishing and scenery and is not a tourist trap.

I understand that some people are just afraid of expanding their horizons.

Princess is providing more than adequate compensation for the delay and missed ports.

[2 cruises a year]

31 minutes ago, brisalta said:

 

Are you freight? The Jones Act applies to freight transport.

Okay then, Passengers Vessel Services Act.

[Guest Bronston]

You are missing my point.

 

passengers don’t care if the Jones act, magna carta or bingo rules apply. Passengers would have preferred Alaska ports, not the one in Canada regardless of reasoning. And when the port decision was released there was no statement as to why…..only speculation.

[Guest Bronston]

You are missing my point.

 

passengers don’t care if the Jones act, magna carta or bingo rules apply. Passengers would have preferred Alaska ports, not the one in Canada regardless of reasoning. And when the port decision was released there was no statement as to why…..only speculation.

[SCX22]

2 minutes ago, Bronston said:

You are missing my point.

 

passengers don’t care if the Jones act, magna carta or bingo rules apply. Passengers would have preferred Alaska ports, not the one in Canada regardless of reasoning. And when the port decision was released there was no statement as to why…..only speculation.

 

Princess wanted to continue on the itinerary that was set out originally, even if it meant scrapping all but one port in Alaska.  Part of it is to make is the distances to make it back to San Francisco by 07/16.  Princess has another set of passengers coming on board.  It might have also been to there not being enough berths available in the other Alaska ports.  If the ship did make it to another Alaskan port, the ship might not have shore excursions to offer.  The tour operators in Alaska aren't infinite and it would have been a logistical nightmare to try and organize these on a whim.

[Guest Bronston]

Agreed, and princess should have explained more about the….whys.

[quack2]

12 hours ago, ninka26 said:

No Sitka, No Juneau, No Glacier Bay. 😔 Just Ketchikan and Prince Rupert.

Alaska, at least for me, is about the destination, not the cruise ship.  Therefore, this would have been a thoroughly disappointing cruise.

[memoak]

11 minutes ago, Bronston said:

You are missing my point.

 

passengers don’t care if the Jones act, magna carta or bingo rules apply. Passengers would have preferred Alaska ports, not the one in Canada regardless of reasoning. And when the port decision was released there was no statement as to why…..only speculation.

Passengers do not control the port schedule. I would be thrilled with a free 7 day cruise. When we were in a hurricane in 2001 for 32 hours we received zero compensation 

[caribill]

1 hour ago, quack2 said:

Alaska, at least for me, is about the destination, not the cruise ship.  Therefore, this would have been a thoroughly disappointing cruise.

 

Of course. Thoroughly understandable. A giant disappointment if it was one's first scheduled visit to Alaska of if one had been there before.

 

But when life hands you lemons, you need to make the best lemonade you can.

 

Obviously when the incident occurred everyone booked on the cruise was either already in the San Francisco area or on the way there. It is not like it happened enough before the cruise that passengers could have made other plans.

 

Nobody who stayed on the ship received the cruise they had wanted, but they did get the best cruise alternative possible including a rebate of 3/4 of the cruise fare along with the FCC for a future cruise.

 

When the Sky Princess recently had to cancel 4 of the 4 scheduled ports and had a new port added on a cruise to Iceland due to weather and a medical evacuation, they did not receive any cash back for the disappointment of not getting the cruise they paid for. (They did get an FCC for 20% of the cruise fare, something Princess did not have to do.) To quote deltaqueenie: "We are missing Reykjavik, Grundarfjordur, and Aukureyri…and the captain continues to change our itinerary…I do understand that weather can affect a cruise, but this has been a HUGE disappointment."

[broberts]

8 hours ago, Bronston said:

Agreed, and princess should have explained more about the….whys.

 

Why? Offering an explanation for scheduling decisions would be a non trivial undertaking requiring a massive amount of background. More importantly, it would not silence the questioning. Nor would it end the second guessing. 

 

[Guest Bronston]

One would think Princess made logical port decisions. Sharing that would only provide more clarity and transparency. 
 

never a good idea to make decisions in a vacuum and then expect “understanding”.

 

common sense goes a long way.

 

biggest problem Princess has/had is that they have no Crisis Management staff. 

[Crystabel]

8 hours ago, caribill said:

 

Of course. Thoroughly understandable. A giant disappointment if it was one's first scheduled visit to Alaska of if one had been there before.

 

But when life hands you lemons, you need to make the best lemonade you can.

 

Obviously when the incident occurred everyone booked on the cruise was either already in the San Francisco area or on the way there. It is not like it happened enough before the cruise that passengers could have made other plans.

 

Nobody who stayed on the ship received the cruise they had wanted, but they did get the best cruise alternative possible including a rebate of 3/4 of the cruise fare along with the FCC for a future cruise.

 

When the Sky Princess recently had to cancel 4 of the 4 scheduled ports and had a new port added on a cruise to Iceland due to weather and a medical evacuation, they did not receive any cash back for the disappointment of not getting the cruise they paid for. (They did get an FCC for 20% of the cruise fare, something Princess did not have to do.) To quote deltaqueenie: "We are missing Reykjavik, Grundarfjordur, and Aukureyri…and the captain continues to change our itinerary…I do understand that weather can affect a cruise, but this has been a HUGE disappointment."

We were on this cruise, and missing those ports was a huge disappointment, but we did blame the cruise line or the ship. Receiving the FCC was a welcomed surprise and not expected. Our captain went into great detail more than once on why certain ports were missed, which we appreciated, but that didn’t stop some passengers from continuing to complain. 

[coo359a2]

2 minutes ago, Crystabel said:

We were on this cruise, and missing those ports was a huge disappointment, but we did blame the cruise line or the ship. Receiving the FCC was a welcomed surprise and not expected. Our captain went into great detail more than once on why certain ports were missed, which we appreciated, but that didn’t stop some passengers from continuing to complain. 

We boarded the Sky on 3 June to 8 July.  Had beautiful/good weather in all the ports but 2 that had rain or was just yucky. What a difference weather made in a few weeks between your cruise and ours. 

[Crystabel]

3 minutes ago, coo359a2 said:

We boarded the Sky on 3 June to 8 July.  Had beautiful/good weather in all the ports but 2 that had rain or was just yucky. What a difference weather made in a few weeks between your cruise and ours. 

That’s like rubbing salt into a wound. 😢

[lstone19]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

Why? Offering an explanation for scheduling decisions would be a non trivial undertaking requiring a massive amount of background. More importantly, it would not silence the questioning. Nor would it end the second guessing. 

 

 

I largely agree. There are plenty of posts by people who just seem to be unable to grasp that ships actually need time to travel from one port to another and think that if you can't go to one port, it should be trivial to substitute another port - sometimes, there is no other port that can be reached the same day (and if there is, is there room for another ship). For Ruby Princess sailing out of SF, the two sea days on both the front and back end of the cruise are needed for the distance to be covered. SF to Ketchikan takes about 55 hours while SF to Juneau takes about 70 hours. But no doubt there are some on-board questioning why Princess didn't eliminate the sea days rather than port days and magically transport the ship from SF to Alaskan waters overnight so it could have been in Glacier Bay yesterday and Juneau today.

Edited July 11, 2023 by lstone19