Summit Alaskan cruise disappointment (MERGER OF 5 THREADS ON THIS TOPIC)

[Casshew]

Sorry I just couldn't resist.

 

You never can :D

[wrp96]

Wasn't it the NCL Dream last year where NCL completely changed its entire Alaska itinerary, dropping Sitka, due to engine problems and for the first couple of cruises people found out about it after they boarded the ship?

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Did the Summit cruisers receive $200 + a future cruise credit of 30%?

 

$200 per stateroom + $15.68 pp taxes credited to shipboard account. 30% off a future cruise taken within 18 months. Not sure how the 30% will be figured. They are mailing the certificate later.

[catmand]

[size=3 I am sorry for those that couldn't enjoy what cruise they had. I guess I am a

"half-full" guy. I would have spent my time enjoying what I HAD, not dweling about what I DIDN't have. Then after my cruise I would see what could be done. [/size]

[AzureLaRoux]

I will be taking my first cruise on the Zenith May 27 and am confused as to some of the facts in the op's post.

The ship announced that 2 ports would be skipped due to pod trouble which resulted in "several hundred" pax gathering in the Grand Foyer and refusing to leave until they saw "someone in authority". This meeting was demanded prior to the announcement of shortend stays in other ports and the glacier/indside passage events. What were you expecting to happen at the meeting? Why was the media called at this point? The news stories called the pax "hostages" before the pax even knew about the glaicier/other ports being shortened or the inside pax.

 

How many of the upset pax left the ship at the next port and returned home? If it was the "vacation from..." why did some, if not all, of the pax stay on board and not fly out from the next port? I would think that it would carry more weight if the pax were truly "out" a vacation because of the problems rather than staying and enjoying the other amenities if it came to a lawsuit.

 

The pax group wanted the ship to provide meeting space, meeting announcements and paper for petitions. Why did you expect Celebrity to support your actitivies and meetings? Obviously you, as a group, were upset with the way things were happening. From what I understand there is very little "open space" on the boats on sea days. Did you expect them to cancel a class or show so that your group would have a meeting area?

 

You continually mention that the meetings were peaceful and democratic. From experince I know that emtional meetings are never peaceful. There may not be any open fighting but they are rarely quiet. You have even stated that you blocked the grand foyer until you got a meeting with the Captain. There are several reports of a planned sit in at the casino. One of your groups ranks punched an officer on the ship.

 

Other pax have stated that they were offered $200 on board credit and 30% off their next cruise. Why were you only offered a $200 credit? We're you offered the 30% and then turned it down or did you just forget to mention it in your post? I understand that the 30% was offered later in the cruise but it's not mentioned anywhere in your post.

 

Celebrity sent only 2 reps and insisted on talking to pax individually rather than as a group. Maybe they should have sent more than 2 reps. The changing times may have been to accomidate those pax who were participating in activities in the rooms that they were in. Did you expect them to shut down the entire at on board intinerary to deal with your group as a single body? This was no picnic for them either. Has there ever been a time when they had to send reps to the ship to quell threats of mutiny before? Did they arrive before or after the officer was punched? Could it be that they feared a riot and wanted to split up the group so that the mob mentality would be be reduced?

 

The ship did not get as close as you would have liked to the glacier and the Inside Passage trip was late. I don't know the rules about traversing the Glaicer however there seem to be conflicting stories. Many have posted that only one ship at a time can see the glaicier. I am surprised, though, that you were upset that the captain wasn't trying to get the Zaandam to shorten it's stay at the glaicier so that the Summit could get closer. Why would the Zaandam want to risk upsetting it's own pax? Most likely the Capt. knew when the Zaandam was leaving because of the way the scheduled entries into the Glaicier were done.

 

A passenger had the forethought to pring VHF scanning equipment onboard a ship. Is it common for passengers to monitor the communique from the Captian? Why did this pax bring equipment to monitor a VHF radio on his vacation?

 

I guess alot of how this plays out will depend on what perspective you have.

[Longboysfan]

The Real Story....sounds like the focus was on meeting and complaining.

 

I suspect that "protests" on ships and "democratic" meetings are not welcomed on ships at sea........the Captain is in COMMAND........and they do not like that usurped by committees......:) .

 

If the passengers were unhappy with their cruise.......they should vote with their pocketbooks and avoid Celebrity's product. The problem I have with this entire episode is that some ringleaders thought that by organizing a mob........they could get Celebrity to change minds.

 

Well said.

[spearmint]

$200 per stateroom + $15.68 pp taxes credited to shipboard account. 30% off a future cruise taken within 18 months. Not sure how the 30% will be figured. They are mailing the certificate later.

 

I could live with that!

 

It seems that lack of information and misinformation is a great part of the problem, though. Why Celebrity, or the captain, perhaps, thinks that keeping people "in the dark" is the way to deal with difficulties, in this day and age is beond comprehension. It was bad enough to have engine difficulties and to miss 2 ports, but to reduce the viewing of the inside passage and the glacier seems strange as no ports were involved. People will understand problems, but they have to be told the truth about them. Surely there was a reason for the reduced viewings, but why not say why?

 

I must say that this thread sheds better light on the 'mutiny' on this cruise than was previously noted on another thread. It no longer sounds like a small group of disgruntled passengers trying to hold up the company for lots of cash. I am a huge Celebrity fan, but it seems that they might have "dropped the ball" on this one to some degree.

 

As I noted at the start: I could live with the offer, as I love the ship experience as much or more than ports.

[catmand]

I could live with that!

 

It seems that lack of information and misinformation is a great part of the problem, though. Why Celebrity, or the captain, perhaps, thinks that keeping people "in the dark" is the way to deal with difficulties, in this day and age is beond comprehension. It was bad enough to have engine difficulties and to miss 2 ports, but to reduce the viewing of the inside passage and the glacier seems strange as no ports were involved. People will understand problems, but they have to be told the truth about them. Surely there was a reason for the reduced viewings, but why not say why?

 

This is assuming the complaining passengers are correct in their assertions that Celebrity , knew the ship was unable to make the full voyage when in SF port. Also that for whatever reason, Celebrity choose NOT to have a pilot board for the inside passage sailing, hence the delay. Also, for whatever reason the Captain "decided" not to sail close to the glacier and "made up" the story of "one at a time" Really, we are only getting one side of the s story here.

[Keith1010]

These problems do happen on every cruise line and from what I read Celebrity handled the situation as best they could.

 

I was on a luxury cruise line last September for a back to back cruise. A day before our second segment was to begin those of us on this segment received a letter indicating that there was a problem with one of the PODs, as such while everything was safe our maximum speed would have to be reduced, and, as such, they were eliminating one of the ports (Malta), they also had to flip flop a couple of ports, and we would also have one extra sea day and one less port day. They also gave each passenger a shipboard credit (actually less than what Celebrity gave) to make up for the port charges for the port that we were no longer visiting and also to say they were sorry about the change.

 

Now, like me some people who were on that cruise were looking forward to Malta and that was one of the reasons we booked the cruise. But, we understand that the cruise line didn't purposely cause the POD to fail and we think they were reasonable in the approach they took. We know that the cruise contract says that there might be times where the cruise line has to make changes to the published itinerary and we just know that these things can happen.

 

So, after reading the letter we said, OK, could be worse and we were fortunate that it was one port. And, if it was two or three we would have had the same reaction. And, yes, we too had some added vibration here and there given the pod situation.

 

The one difference is that the passenger's while somewhat disappointed had the same approach that we did. They focused on making this cruise the best it could be and didn't let this damper their spirits or ruin their cruise. Oh, I'm sure that a few of them were mad because if you have xxx people on a ship some will complain. And, I'm sure a few of them went to the reception desk to complain, and a few of them complained to their TA's and a few of them wrote letter to the President of the cruise company. Thank goodness that a group of them didn't start to complain, do sign up petitions etc because people tend to follow the leader so that if this starts to get momentum before you know it everyone starts to jump in. I for one would never jump in but I am glad that it did not get out of hand.

 

When we go away we make the best we can of any situation. We have never been on a cruise that has been perfect. We experienced the POD problem and the change of itinerary, we were on another cruise where one port was canceled and another one we could only stay for part of the day and we had to dock at the less attractive side of the Island due to weather problems and yet another cruise where we lost power twice for several hours. And all of this happened on three different cruise lines.

 

What was most important to us was that in each situation no one was hurt, the ship was safe and people did not overeact and start demanding things of the crew. Things happen in life that don't always go the way we wanted it to but you know you can make the best of any situation.

 

And, what I do recognize is that those of us who can cruise are very fortunate that we can. There are people around the world who do not know where there next meal is going to come from or where they will sleep tonight.

 

Again, these things happen and if you read the many cruise boards I do you will see that similar problems have occured on most lines.

 

Keith

[Moeve]

I would just like to point out what seems to be a small misunderstanding the quote "hostage ship..." this was a private email from a father onboard to his daughter ashore and not a comment made directly to the press. The daughter apparently passed the private mail on to the press. I guess that if the father had been aware of this he might have worded it a bit differently.

[bfallen1]

The Real Story....sounds like the focus was on meeting and complaining.

 

I suspect that "protests" on ships and "democratic" meetings are not welcomed on ships at sea........the Captain is in COMMAND........and they do not like that usurped by committees......:) .

 

If the passengers were unhappy with their cruise.......they should vote with their pocketbooks and avoid Celebrity's product. The problem I have with this entire episode is that some ringleaders thought that by organizing a mob........they could get Celebrity to change minds.

 

Good point…

A ship at sea is not a democracy….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny

[Drew B]

In our case, Seattle and the Hubbard Glacier were our main points of interest. If we had been told they would not eventuate, we'd have certainly chosen to get off the ship and come back when it was fixed. I can picture it now, it would have been just great

 

I may not have been clear, but I guess what I was asking was if you would expect that by disembarking in San Francisco, Celebrity would have to give you a full refund. If so, why? If not and you would just have to pay again, why not try to enjoy the remainder of THIS cruise and then cruise again to pick up the itinerary points you had missed?

[Keith1010]

If this is supposed to be the real story why don't you just let the people from this cruise tell their story.

 

Apparently you guys who were not on the cruise seem to feel that the people who were on it are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from how you think you would react to the same cruise experience. You were not there and you don't know what the conditions were really like and you really do not know how you would react unless you were there.

 

No wonder Celebrity is in such bad shape these days - it seems to have a loyal bunch of people who will put up with anything Celebrity is dishing out that day. However, it appears from this Board that huge numbers of people are now speaking up and all they get is a flaming response from you rather than any support. So they will go elsewhere for a better cruise experience and you will be left with your backside sticking up in the air asking Celebrity to stick it to you once again keeping things just as they are.

 

If you look at the most common threads for any other Board you will not see the complaints that you are seeing on Celebrity these days. Something is obviously broke and if you don't let these people speak up it will never get fixed.

 

I have absolutely no problem with people telling their side of the story and it is not for me to differ with anything they've said as I wasn't on the cruise. For me based on what I read from those on the cruise the problems that were experienced were not much different than ones that I've experienced on other cruises and I was just saying how I reacted to them and how others around me did.

 

And for me, while I cruises Celebrity several times in the 1990's, I only cruised them recently and actually cruise a few other cruise lines more often so I am not in the loyal bunch.

 

Keith

[renebfl]

To answer the above question....because there are some of us that can only afford to cruise to Alaska once,and some of us are not lucky enough to have good health that a cruise next year is possible. If the cryuise had been cancelled, maybe we could have gotten aboard another one if there were empty rooms.

[notsonewbie]

I may not have been clear, but I guess what I was asking was if you would expect that by disembarking in San Francisco, Celebrity would have to give you a full refund. If so, why? If not and you would just have to pay again, why not try to enjoy the remainder of THIS cruise and then cruise again to pick up the itinerary points you had missed?

 

First reason is in the hope that we could get some sort of compensation. Second is go back to work so we can afford to have another try at it.

[BEAV]

Isn't it ironic these M-class ships continue to be some of the highest rated in the industry in terms of overall passenger satisfaction, despite their on-going mechanical problems.

[naked]

Some key facts from a guy who have been on cruises with mechanical issues and had cruises canceled too.

 

1. The worst cruise line is the one that you were on when there were unforeseeable problems.
   
2. 7 days at sea are better than 7 days on land, anytime.
   
3. It's better to cruise with a less than perfect itinerary then to have your vacation completely canceled.
   
4. The worst part about unforeseeable changes is having to listen to those around you complain--as if the cruise line wanted the ship to break down just to ruin their vacation.

[renebfl]

I can understand their high rating. Except for the missed ports,we had a great cruise. I rate the crew a "10", food "8",entertainment "4",persian gardens "10" and management "0". The planned itinerary could not have been beaten. Since the itinerary portion of the cruise was THE only reason I was on that ship, I would have to rate this cruise a "2",that being generous.

[Drew B]

To answer the above question....because there are some of us that can only afford to cruise to Alaska once,and some of us are not lucky enough to have good health that a cruise next year is possible. If the cryuise had been cancelled, maybe we could have gotten aboard another one if there were empty rooms.

 

But informing us prior to leaving San Francisco would not equate to the cruise being cancelled. I'm afraid that if a passenger CHOSE to disembark the ship, they may not get any kind of refund at all. The point about going back to work in order to make money makes some sense, though...

[Aubiecruiser]

If this is supposed to be the real story why don't you just let the people from this cruise tell their story.

 

Apparently you guys who were not on the cruise seem to feel that the people who were on it are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from how you think you would react to the same cruise experience. You were not there and you don't know what the conditions were really like and you really do not know how you would react unless you were there.

 

No wonder Celebrity is in such bad shape these days - it seems to have a loyal bunch of people who will put up with anything Celebrity is dishing out that day. However, it appears from this Board that huge numbers of people are now speaking up and all they get is a flaming response from you rather than any support. So they will go elsewhere for a better cruise experience and you will be left with your backside sticking up in the air asking Celebrity to stick it to you once again keeping things just as they are.

 

If you look at the most common threads for any other Board you will not see the complaints that you are seeing on Celebrity these days. Something is obviously broke and if you don't let these people speak up it will never get fixed.

 

Very well stated!

Bottom line, Celebrity has ship(s) in service that are not the best of sailing condition. This problem with the pods, from what I have read has been ongoing for quite awhile now. Celebrity needs to get the problem fixed, stop sc**wing its customers out of what they are paying for and get itself back on target.

For those of you on this cruise that have stated the problems you had, you have every right to complain and request further compensation. I would be as upset as you are and probably been thrown in the brig it this had happened to me.

As does every cruise line, they have their diehard loyalists on this board that think the sun rises and falls on their respective cruiseline. It's just a fact of life, don't pay attention to what they have to say. I hope you get every thing you deserve in the way of compensation from Celebrity. I can tell you that I won't be cruising on them anytime soon.

Aubie

[seagulls]

I understand that the passengers were given $200 onboard credit. But were they or were they not also finally offered 30% discount on a future cruise?

[tbelian]

if you don't let these people speak up it will never get fixed.

 

This isn't the place where it will be fixed.

 

There is not enough statistical impact here on a cruise message board to sway things one way or the other. This is just basic statistics.

 

And as it being 'the real story', whatever someone posts here cannot be taken at other than face value, ie; 'their' perception, and description of events as they saw them and or experienced them. It is not the 'final' word on what was really happening. Heck the people who post the negatives may not have even been really on the cruise for all we know (now I'm not saying that those that are posting were not on the cruise, i'm only pointing out that 'I' could say I was on the cruise, and who could really question it? I wasn't there, but how do YOU know I wasn't?).

 

I'm all for fairness and even handed treatment. But, what I've seen time and time again is that people who feel they were 'wronged' have a tendency to cry out very loudly to get people to notice. Your impact here is not as significant as it would be if you were spending all your time complaining to Miami.

[kcb]

If this is supposed to be the real story why don't you just let the people from this cruise tell their story.

 

Apparently you guys who were not on the cruise seem to feel that the people who were on it are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from how you think you would react to the same cruise experience. You were not there and you don't know what the conditions were really like and you really do not know how you would react unless you were there.

 

No wonder Celebrity is in such bad shape these days - it seems to have a loyal bunch of people who will put up with anything Celebrity is dishing out that day.

...it seems that maybe you have something you would like to share?

 

With all due respect, if you were on this cruise, we would, of course, appreciate hearing what you have to say.

 

Otherwise, in the absence of further information or input, the posters on these boards are merely having a very spirited and very civilized discussion regarding their thoughts on how they would handle the situation. Yes, they were not there, but that does not mean that people don't have very passionate feelings and opinions. Many, myself included, have been through "similar" instances, and therefore we have the right to state how we feel with some authority.

 

Loyalty or not, ALL the information and opinions expressed on this board are valuable for others to make future cruising choices.

[Kate Roselund]

My understanding is they were given 30% off the "Published" price of another cruise. Who on Earth pays "Published" prices for a cruise??:rolleyes:

[Hondu]

If this is supposed to be the real story why don't you just let the people from this cruise tell their story.

 

Apparently you guys who were not on the cruise seem to feel that the people who were on it are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from how you think you would react to the same cruise experience. You were not there and you don't know what the conditions were really like and you really do not know how you would react unless you were there.

 

No wonder Celebrity is in such bad shape these days - it seems to have a loyal bunch of people who will put up with anything Celebrity is dishing out that day. However, it appears from this Board that huge numbers of people are now speaking up and all they get is a flaming response from you rather than any support. So they will go elsewhere for a better cruise experience and you will be left with your backside sticking up in the air asking Celebrity to stick it to you once again keeping things just as they are.

 

If you look at the most common threads for any other Board you will not see the complaints that you are seeing on Celebrity these days. Something is obviously broke and if you don't let these people speak up it will never get fixed.

 

Very well said.

The Celebrity loyalists put up with whatever is dished out by the company. But luckily, they are a an extreme minority on any cruise.

It is sad that people who experience events on a cruise are told that they are flat out wrong by the loyalists back on land. I hope the victims will pursue a proper resolution so that Celebrity and other lines will not continue to lie and cheat its customers.