8 passengers missed the ship in Sao Tome and Principe

[buchhalm]

I just heard on some radio station that 8 passengers were "left stranded" by NCL on the island nation of Sao Tomé, after missing the last tender following a private tour. Various version of the story with more or less in-depth reporting or sides of the story on news websites. 6 Americans and 2 Australians. 

I am feeling very mildly sorry for these people...

[lyndarra]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/twist-in-plight-of-stranded-cruise-ship-passengers/news-story/0d541cce172ab00d0758c8aaf5555e75

[ceeceeDee]

Yes, apparently they opted for a private tour which was late getting back.

That's the risk you take with a private tour. If it's late, the ship won't wait.

 

Frankly I wouldn't risk a private tour overseas. At least if you book through the cruise line, they have to wait for you. You might save a few bucks with a private tour, but that backfired in this case as the pax affected spent thousands chasing the ship through 6 African countries allegedly.

 

I might risk a private tour on a domestic cruise. An overnight in Cairns you are safe as houses if you take a private tour on the first day and spend the next day doing a shank's pony around the town maybe. Having said that, six people missed the ship on our last Barrier Reef cruise.

 

In the case of the Norwegian Dawn there are conflicting stories on what actually happened and we really only know what the media tells us which is probably not the full story. The pax involved had a torrid time of it and I do feel for them, but at the end of the day they were very late getting back (one report said an hour) regardless of the cause and a ship's deadline is a ship's deadline.

[MicCanberra]

It is a warning to all cruise passengers that the ship may not wait but if they do, they will only wait for so long.

 

[Essiesmom]

There’s an endless thread about this on the NCL board.  EM

[Aus Traveller]

I feel that the passenger who blamed the cruiseline for not following their duty of care, was 'red hot'. The passengers (and the local tour company) are to blame. The passengers said they told the local tour company that they had to be back by 3pm. Big mistake! If the last tender is at 3pm they should have told the tour company it was at 2pm.

 

Although I feel they have a valid complaint that the ship wouldn't allow them to board when the local authorities took them to the ship in their boat. To refuse at that point appears that the ship's authorities were trying to make a point.

[MicCanberra]

Agreed, for the first part.

However, for the second, their luggage and passports would already have been off loaded as well, we don't know all the facts and or rules with either the port or ship. As for coast guard boat to reload them, I am sure there are protocols that needed to be breached for that to happen.

I do feel sad for their situation but not sorry for them.

[colourbird]

13 hours ago, ceeceeDee said:

Frankly I wouldn't risk a private tour overseas. At least if you book through the cruise line, they have to wait for you.

 

 

Actually, if the ship has to leave they will, even if their tours haven't returned. Weather or tides may require a ship to leave before all the passengers return.

 

If you are on a ship tour, they will assist you to get back to the ship. If you are on a private tour, you are on your own.

[OzKiwiJJ]

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

Although I feel they have a valid complaint that the ship wouldn't allow them to board when the local authorities took them to the ship in their boat. To refuse at that point appears that the ship's authorities were trying to make a point.

There could have been safety issues at play there. Boarding a ship from a coastguard boat might be quite different than from a tender and some of those passengers may not have been very agile. 

[cruiser3775]

14 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

some of those passengers may not have been very agile. 

One of them was said to be a paraplegic.  That may explain why they took a private tour, which presumably catered for his/her needs.

[frantic36]

17 minutes ago, cruiser3775 said:

One of them was said to be a paraplegic.  That may explain why they took a private tour, which presumably catered for his/her needs.

 

I do mainly private tours and this group having someone who is paraplegic it makes sense to cater for them. However blaming the cruise line is wrong. I always make sure that we tell the guide we need to be back 1.5 to 2 hours before all aboard time. This is especially important if it is a tender port. 

[MicCanberra]

The other thread is over 30 pages and still going.

The pax that missed the ship are back on board, and still complaining and still doing interviews with media.

 

BTW, NCL is reimbursing them for the travel between Gambia and Senegal, as the ship couldn't get into that port due to tides.

[ceeceeDee]

2 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Agreed, for the first part.

However, for the second, their luggage and passports would already have been off loaded as well, we don't know all the facts and or rules with either the port or ship. As for coast guard boat to reload them, I am sure there are protocols that needed to be breached for that to happen.

I do feel sad for their situation but not sorry for them.

It could well come down to a safety issue as well. Whilst I'm sure the coastguard personnel are excellent seamen, they are probably not experienced in transferring passengers to a cruise ship. Also the media reported that one pax is a paraplegic and another was 80 years old which would have raised the degree of difficulty in the proposed transfer. Imagine if one of pax fell between the coastguard vessel and the ship! The consequences would be catastrophic. There are numerous factors contributing to the captain's decision which have probably not been considered by the media or the pax involved.

[ceeceeDee]

1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

The other thread is over 30 pages and still going.

The pax that missed the ship are back on board, and still complaining and still doing interviews with media.

 

BTW, NCL is reimbursing them for the travel between Gambia and Senegal, as the ship couldn't get into that port due to tides.

Of COURSE they are still complaining and still doing interviews with the media!! Unfortunately there is a section of society who refuse to accept that they are responsible for their own actions and will blame anyone but themselves. Whatever happened to shouldering responsibility and admitting 'Mia Culpa'? The situation as a whole was extremely unfortunate but it is not entirely the ship's fault as the passengers involved appear to be alleging.

[cruiser3775]

6 minutes ago, ceeceeDee said:

There are numerous factors contributing to the captain's decision which have probably not been considered by the media or the pax involved.

Yes, it is very easy to blame the ship, and the interviewing has leapt onto a group of confused and disappointed passengers, so it is quite one sided reporting.   The captain has to be aware of the rights of the thousands of passengers who returned to the ship on time, or never got off, and who are entitled to expect that the ship will keep to its itinerary as much as is possible.

[ceeceeDee]

1 minute ago, cruiser3775 said:

Yes, it is very easy to blame the ship, and the interviewing has leapt onto a group of confused and disappointed passengers, so it is quite one sided reporting.   The captain has to be aware of the rights of the thousands of passengers who returned to the ship on time, or never got off, and who are entitled to expect that the ship will keep to its itinerary as much as is possible.

Absolutely! As for one-sided reporting................ 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'.

[cruiser3775]

The Australian news outlets have now got onto the story, because two of the passengers were Australian. I was bracing myself for a round of cruise ship bashing, but there is actually one balanced report:

www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/why-cruise-line-norwegian-dawn-did-the-right-thing-by-ditching-passengers/news-story/150781d3b07887043947a2766243019b

 

The group were mostly with special needs. I can't see any way it would have been safe to transfer them from the coast guard boat onto the ship.

Edited April 4 by cruiser3775

[Yaya_in_Oz]

I saw it on the Channel 7 news which was surprisingly balanced. It was a short segment basically saying the passengers were late and the ship sailed without them and went onto say that tides, weather, schedule all affect the ships ability to wait. A report I'd expect on the ABC,

I just thought that maybe they are not cruise ship bashing so much because they don't want all the ships to sail away and never to return to Australia.

[MicCanberra]

Perhaps the news story didn't cross the desk of the usual editors.

[Ondine]

Early Feb on Pacific Explorer in Auckland, our last port of call before returning to Melb.  We were minus 7 passengers at 3.30pm final boarding time.  After 15 minutes 3 sauntered aboard.  Another 15 minutes and 2 people had phoned ahead to say their taxi had trouble and was late and eventually they arrived. So still missing two.

By now we had lost our place in the departure line, the pilot who was onboard had gone elsewhere to another job and the tugs also departed leaving us to sort out the mess.

After another hour the call went out to get security to open their cabin and ascertain that these people had their passports with them and pack up their belongings.  Their suitcases were duly deposited onshore with information for the ships agent.  We were now about 2 hours late with a full speed trip back to Melbourne ahead of us.

The captain announced that they had contacted police and hospitals trying to find them and also contacted their family back in Melbourne to tell them what had happened and we were leaving them behind.

On arrival in Melbourne Border Force came aboard and wanted a report on why we had left these people behind (now illegal immigrants to NZ) and this delayed our disembarkation by well over an hour which affected other peoples ongoing travel plans.

The consequences to the ship are immense with all the extra paperwork, extra costs for the pilot and tugs.  The ship is responsible for leaving with the number of passengers it brings in.

I have no sympathy for them.  We all know the rules.  You contact the agents if you are delayed.

Try getting an aircraft to wait for you if you are late.  I don't think so.  It is the same thing.

[Yaya_in_Oz]

47 minutes ago, Ondine said:

Early Feb on Pacific Explorer in Auckland, our last port of call before returning to Melb.  We were minus 7 passengers at 3.30pm final boarding time.  After 15 minutes 3 sauntered aboard.  Another 15 minutes and 2 people had phoned ahead to say their taxi had trouble and was late and eventually they arrived. So still missing two.

By now we had lost our place in the departure line, the pilot who was onboard had gone elsewhere to another job and the tugs also departed leaving us to sort out the mess.

After another hour the call went out to get security to open their cabin and ascertain that these people had their passports with them and pack up their belongings.  Their suitcases were duly deposited onshore with information for the ships agent.  We were now about 2 hours late with a full speed trip back to Melbourne ahead of us.

The captain announced that they had contacted police and hospitals trying to find them and also contacted their family back in Melbourne to tell them what had happened and we were leaving them behind.

On arrival in Melbourne Border Force came aboard and wanted a report on why we had left these people behind (now illegal immigrants to NZ) and this delayed our disembarkation by well over an hour which affected other peoples ongoing travel plans.

The consequences to the ship are immense with all the extra paperwork, extra costs for the pilot and tugs.  The ship is responsible for leaving with the number of passengers it brings in.

I have no sympathy for them.  We all know the rules.  You contact the agents if you are delayed.

Try getting an aircraft to wait for you if you are late.  I don't think so.  It is the same thing.

I like that all the passengers were kept in the loop as to what was happening on the Explorer. Those on NCL, well it is there own fault and also their tour guide but they don’t want to take any responsibility.

[Blackduck59]

This subject went on for 30 pages on the NCL boards. The thread was still there a while ago but locked for further comment. There were a few comments from members who are on that ship. They don't have a lot of information either. The general tone of that thread was that there is very little sympathy for the "Late eight"

Apparently to further muddy the waters, there was a separate "medical evacuation" that happened at the same time and that person's situation has been lumped in to the wider story.

All I can say is the group seemed woefully unprepared to leave the ship, and when things went south there was one couple who took it upon themselves speak for the "Group" and paint themselves as saints while they were at it. Hopefully someone will be able to find some semblance of the truth, because right now everything I've seen paints the folks without a watch or a clue as the victims and NCL as the cruel corporate villain who left them behind.

[LittleFish1976]

I read this morning that the cruise line involved was reimbursing the tardy passengers for all their expenses. I suppose this is a goodwill gesture as the fault is with the passengers.

[MicCanberra]

12 minutes ago, LittleFish1976 said:

I read this morning that the cruise line involved was reimbursing the tardy passengers for all their expenses. I suppose this is a goodwill gesture as the fault is with the passengers.

Perhaps, I had read that it was only some of the expenses incurred as the ship failed to get to Gambia, and they boarded in Senegal instead.

[MicCanberra]

34 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

This subject went on for 30 pages on the NCL boards. The thread was still there a while ago but locked for further comment. 

It actually got to the 32nd page but the last 24 comments were deleted.one bright spark was insisting the Captain had refused orders from the Coast Guard and that it was motivated by racism.