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

[Aubiecruiser]

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

 

On RCI and Celebrity, everyone pays "published" prices since they no longer let TA's discount part of their commission back to the customer.

Aubie

[naked]

Aubie: Several of your last posts haven't been very kind to X.

 

With this in mind, I thought it would be good to note that Celebrity doesn't publish prices.

 

There are several rate codes, including discounts by state and for having a senior in your cabin.

 

The current rate for a 2C cabin on any given sailing should be the same across websites and from different TAs.

 

30% off published prices would mean you get 30% that 'CURRENT' price for that room class on that sailing.

[tbelian]

On RCI and Celebrity, everyone pays "published" prices since they no longer let TA's discount part of their commission back to the customer.

 

Aubie

 

And thus, what 'I' see as a grass roots campaign to discredit an otherwise perfectly fine cruising experience every time there is the chance.

 

Am I a loyalist? You decide. I have been on a number of Celebrity cruises (5 or more), have not sailed any other line, and intend to sail Celebrity again in 1/07. I have not had a 'horrible' experience on any cruise.

 

Have I missed ports? Yes. Was I disappointed? yes. Did I get compensation? Yes, but I never got a discount on a future cruise, a free cruise, or anything coming close to that. Maybe I should be yelling and screaming about that. But I won't.

 

If you decided I am a loyalist, well, good. I'm proud to be one too.

 

Look at it this way. Some people would not be caught dead driving a Ford, others wouldn't be caught dead in a Chevy. Does that make all Fords bad, and all Chevys trash? No it does not. Are people passionate about their brand allegiance? Yes they are. What's wrong with that?

[Aubiecruiser]

Aubie: Several of your last posts haven't been very kind to X.

 

With this in mind, I thought it would be good to note that Celebrity doesn't publish prices.

 

There are several rate codes, including discounts by state and for having a senior in your cabin.

 

The current rate for a 2C cabin on any given sailing should be the same across websites and from different TAs.

 

30% off published prices would mean you get 30% that 'CURRENT' price for that room class on that sailing.

 

So, in effect you're saying these people that were on the cruise in question aren't entitled to squat. According to you, since there are no published rates, 30% of nothing is a big fat 0. Perhaps the correct word should have been advertised rate.

And no, I haven't been "kind" to Celebrity here lately, just as I was very unkind to RCI a couple of years ago. From all the negative posts concerning (X), they are due. RCI has fixed their service problems, it's time for Celebrity to do the same, IMHO.

Aubie

[naked]

Far be it from me to tell you what you can post and what you can't, but it looks like your last cruise was on one of the 'of the seas' ships and your next cruise is on one of the 'of the seas' ships, so just what is your basis for suggesting that your negative posts directed at X are 'due'?

[Andipanda1]

So, in effect you're saying these people that were on the cruise in question aren't entitled to squat. According to you, since there are no published rates, 30% of nothing is a big fat 0. Perhaps the correct word should have been advertised rate.

And no, I haven't been "kind" to Celebrity here lately, just as I was very unkind to RCI a couple of years ago. From all the negative posts concerning (X), they are due. RCI has fixed their service problems, it's time for Celebrity to do the same, IMHO.

Aubie

 

Please.

 

We recently took a 3 day cruise on Empress of the Seas--bound for St. Kitts, and St. Martin. Once we were on the ship, in our cabins we got a letter stating that there were propulsion problems with the ship and that not only were we going to leave San Juan late (departure was moved to midnight rather than 8pm) we would not go to St. Kitts, a port I was dying to visit. They substituted it with St. Thomas, a port the majority of the ship has visited, and the ship left for St. Thomas a 3 a.m. Oh, and did I mention that we flew from the East Coast to San Juan to make this sailing?

 

No one rioted. In fact, we got $100 in stateroom credits, and had a jolly time. Yes, I was on the cruise mainly for St. Kitts. But we made the best of it.

 

We're planning to go to Alaska on Mercury. And whatever happens, we'll make the best of it--we will get to eat, sleep, and enjoy whatever happens. If we end up missing ports, yes, I'll be angry, but I'm not going to let it turn into what poster here has termed "a nightmare." That word, in my vocabulary, is reserved for such things as catastrophes. Missing a port is not a catastrophe. I will not be part of a "mutiny," nor will I join a class-action suit (the last time I was part of one, I won a grand total of $1.50 years after it was filed). I will not make my fellow passengers miserable--I will enjoy the ship, the food, and the fact that I'm away from home because that's time I'm not going to get back. I refuse to spend it griping, meeting, and protesting. I will enjoy the rest of my cruise, and then write a letter or do whatever it takes to get a remedy--if the situation deems it.

[Keith1010]

Please.

 

We recently took a 3 day cruise on Empress of the Seas--bound for St. Kitts, and St. Martin. Once we were on the ship, in our cabins we got a letter stating that there were propulsion problems with the ship and that not only were we going to leave San Juan late (departure was moved to midnight rather than 8pm) we would not go to St. Kitts, a port I was dying to visit. They substituted it with St. Thomas, a port the majority of the ship has visited, and the ship left for St. Thomas a 3 a.m. Oh, and did I mention that we flew from the East Coast to San Juan to make this sailing?

 

No one rioted. In fact, we got $100 in stateroom credits, and had a jolly time. Yes, I was on the cruise mainly for St. Kitts. But we made the best of it.

 

We're planning to go to Alaska on Mercury. And whatever happens, we'll make the best of it--we will get to eat, sleep, and enjoy whatever happens. If we end up missing ports, yes, I'll be angry, but I'm not going to let it turn into what poster here has termed "a nightmare." That word, in my vocabulary, is reserved for such things as catastrophes. Missing a port is not a catastrophe. I will not be part of a "mutiny," nor will I join a class-action suit (the last time I was part of one, I won a grand total of $1.50 years after it was filed). I will not make my fellow passengers miserable--I will enjoy the ship, the food, and the fact that I'm away from home because that's time I'm not going to get back. I refuse to spend it griping, meeting, and protesting. I will enjoy the rest of my cruise, and then write a letter or do whatever it takes to get a remedy--if the situation deems it.

 

All of your points are very well stated and I agree with you 100%.

 

Keith

[aarrcc2]

My husband and I were on the 5/7/06, 13 day Summit cruise that has received such adverse publicity. After spending the last 12 days listening to the continual complaints of the other passengers, I am really sick of the topic, however, I feel compelled to at least offer our viewpoint of the cruise.

 

I had chosen this particular itinerary because we had not been to Sitka during our previous 3 Alaska cruises. My disappointment at missing 2 ports (Seattle and Sitka) lasted a very short time, compared to the thought of the wonders awaiting us in Alaska. I could never have imagined on day 3 of our cruise that 1200 of our surrounding passengers would be whipped into a frenzy that had to prevent them from enjoying the beauty of an Alaskan cruise. We had to confine ourselves to talking to folks who like us, wished to enjoy Alaska because the other folks held their daily "meetings", complained about everything, ie. ports, short time at glacier, 5 PM start at Inside Passage.

 

Our weather was excellent with sunny days in Ketchikan and Skagway; cloudy but no rain in Juneau. Our short day at the glacier was beautiful--no fog or clouds covering our view. We were not as close as the Zaandam (smaller ship) but we did have a good view of the glacier--how else did I get such wonderful pictures? Last year on the Regal Princess, we did not get down Tracy Fjord and never saw the glacier but our temporary disappointment was overcome by Alaska's overall beauty. I have also been closer to a glacier that I couldn't see because of fog!

 

We received a $200 onboard credit and a certificate for 30% off of a future cruise. I was surprised we got any compensation since we have missed ports before, not seen a glacier at all, and done the Inside Passage at night and never got any compensation. We talked to the Celebrity customer reps and told them our only complaint on the cruise were our fellow passengers.

 

We are not Celebrity loyalists. We are retired and have taken 14 cruises in the last 4 years on Princess, Celebrity, RCCL, Holland America, NCL. We choose our cruises by itinerary and price, not cruiseline.

 

I was sorry for the folks who planned special events in Seattle but I plan a cruise with the knowledge that anything could happen to prevent us from visiting one or more ports. If you weren't on the cruise, you can't possibly imagine the negative attitude that permeated the ship. We were very thankful for seeing Alaska in all it's beauty and did our best to ignore the complainers!

[naked]

After spending the last 12 days listening to the continual complaints of the other passengers, I am really sick of the topic, however, I feel compelled to at least offer our viewpoint of the cruise.

 

If you weren't on the cruise, you can't possibly imagine the negative attitude that permeated the ship.

 

Great post.;)

[Andipanda1]

My husband and I were on the 5/7/06, 13 day Summit cruise that has received such adverse publicity. After spending the last 12 days listening to the continual complaints of the other passengers, I am really sick of the topic, however, I feel compelled to at least offer our viewpoint of the cruise.

 

I had chosen this particular itinerary because we had not been to Sitka during our previous 3 Alaska cruises. My disappointment at missing 2 ports (Seattle and Sitka) lasted a very short time, compared to the thought of the wonders awaiting us in Alaska. I could never have imagined on day 3 of our cruise that 1200 of our surrounding passengers would be whipped into a frenzy that had to prevent them from enjoying the beauty of an Alaskan cruise. We had to confine ourselves to talking to folks who like us, wished to enjoy Alaska because the other folks held their daily "meetings", complained about everything, ie. ports, short time at glacier, 5 PM start at Inside Passage.

 

Our weather was excellent with sunny days in Ketchikan and Skagway; cloudy but no rain in Juneau. Our short day at the glacier was beautiful--no fog or clouds covering our view. We were not as close as the Zaandam (smaller ship) but we did have a good view of the glacier--how else did I get such wonderful pictures? Last year on the Regal Princess, we did not get down Tracy Fjord and never saw the glacier but our temporary disappointment was overcome by Alaska's overall beauty. I have also been closer to a glacier that I couldn't see because of fog!

 

We received a $200 onboard credit and a certificate for 30% off of a future cruise. I was surprised we got any compensation since we have missed ports before, not seen a glacier at all, and done the Inside Passage at night and never got any compensation. We talked to the Celebrity customer reps and told them our only complaint on the cruise were our fellow passengers.

 

We are not Celebrity loyalists. We are retired and have taken 14 cruises in the last 4 years on Princess, Celebrity, RCCL, Holland America, NCL. We choose our cruises by itinerary and price, not cruiseline.

 

I was sorry for the folks who planned special events in Seattle but I plan a cruise with the knowledge that anything could happen to prevent us from visiting one or more ports. If you weren't on the cruise, you can't possibly imagine the negative attitude that permeated the ship. We were very thankful for seeing Alaska in all it's beauty and did our best to ignore the complainers!

 

Thank you for your post. It's helpful to see BOTH sides of the story.

[Drew B]

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?

 

The key word there is "finally". I heartily believe that if the 30% discount had been mentioned as part of the original "compensation", the people would not have gotten so inflamed. Instead, we got the $200 PER STATEROOM offered very quickly (and I felt flippantly), a meeting in which the Cruise Director acted like a completely insincere and patronizing buffoon (although the Captain was very impressive), a terse mention in the daily newsletter that the $200 per stateroom was fair and reasonable and in line with past practices, and then a lot of additional problems. It was, I believe, NINE DAYS LATER that they gave the 30% discount. I think a better solution would have been for them to take their time, really figure out what was the best they could do to "compensate" us, and then given that best solution in the first place. And a discount on a future cruise really doesn't cost them much, as they still receive 70% of our fare plus 100% of all of the additional revenue from drinks, excursions, spa, casino, etc...

 

However, I would like to point out that the insanity of a handful of the irate passengers did MUCH more to impact my enjoyment of the cruise than any mechanical problems or changes to the itinerary. I agree pretty wholeheartedly with post #50.

[naked]

However, I would like to point out that the insanity of a handful of the irate passengers did MUCH more to impact my enjoyment of the cruise than any mechanical problems or changes to the itinerary. I agree pretty wholeheartedly with post #50.

 

As noted before:

 

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.

[Artemis]

Thank you for taking the time to share your cruise review, aarrcc2. Your viewpoint is valuable. You have a true traveler's spirit! I hope you get to Sitka someday.

[agabbymama]

While I don't agree with this, this is the statement from the Celebrity website:

 

"In the event of strikes, lockouts, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or for any other reason whatsoever, we may, at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing or port of call and may, but is not obliged to, substitute another vessel or port of call, and shall not be liable for any loss whatsoever to guests by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, deviation or substitution. We shall not be responsible for any failure to adhere to the arrival and departure times published in this website for any of its ports of call."

 

I have a cruise booked on Celebrity in Sept to do Canada/New England on the Constellation. I pray she stays healthy.

 

But I can tell you, I won't be cruising anywhere after that. I have paid for the itinerary of a certain ships in the past (4 cruises). I certainly didn't realize there was this paragraph.:mad:

[FinelyCruising]

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.

 

When they are good, they are very very good....when they are bad....;)

[carolmacey]

We were also on the Summit, May 7th cruise. We tried to stay out of the commotion for a few days, but when we barely got inside the glacial bay and turned around, then were dead in the water the next morning, and again on the Inside Passage day, we felt things were going from bad to worse. We were even expecting that the next PA announcement would say we were missing Victoria. Fortunately, that did not happen.

 

We were most upset by the false and/or misleading information handed out to us. Tell us the truth and let us deal with it, but lying to us when we later find out the truth is just insulting.

[FinelyCruising]

My husband and I were on the 5/7/06, 13 day Summit cruise that has received such adverse publicity. After spending the last 12 days listening to the continual complaints of the other passengers, I am really sick of the topic, however, I feel compelled to at least offer our viewpoint of the cruise.

 

I had chosen this particular itinerary because we had not been to Sitka during our previous 3 Alaska cruises. My disappointment at missing 2 ports (Seattle and Sitka) lasted a very short time, compared to the thought of the wonders awaiting us in Alaska. I could never have imagined on day 3 of our cruise that 1200 of our surrounding passengers would be whipped into a frenzy that had to prevent them from enjoying the beauty of an Alaskan cruise. We had to confine ourselves to talking to folks who like us, wished to enjoy Alaska because the other folks held their daily "meetings", complained about everything, ie. ports, short time at glacier, 5 PM start at Inside Passage.

 

Our weather was excellent with sunny days in Ketchikan and Skagway; cloudy but no rain in Juneau. Our short day at the glacier was beautiful--no fog or clouds covering our view. We were not as close as the Zaandam (smaller ship) but we did have a good view of the glacier--how else did I get such wonderful pictures? Last year on the Regal Princess, we did not get down Tracy Fjord and never saw the glacier but our temporary disappointment was overcome by Alaska's overall beauty. I have also been closer to a glacier that I couldn't see because of fog!

 

We received a $200 onboard credit and a certificate for 30% off of a future cruise. I was surprised we got any compensation since we have missed ports before, not seen a glacier at all, and done the Inside Passage at night and never got any compensation. We talked to the Celebrity customer reps and told them our only complaint on the cruise were our fellow passengers.

 

We are not Celebrity loyalists. We are retired and have taken 14 cruises in the last 4 years on Princess, Celebrity, RCCL, Holland America, NCL. We choose our cruises by itinerary and price, not cruiseline.

 

I was sorry for the folks who planned special events in Seattle but I plan a cruise with the knowledge that anything could happen to prevent us from visiting one or more ports. If you weren't on the cruise, you can't possibly imagine the negative attitude that permeated the ship. We were very thankful for seeing Alaska in all it's beauty and did our best to ignore the complainers!

 

Oh my...what a sensible post. You remind me....well....of me.:D

[Hoopyfrood]

The key word there is "finally". I heartily believe that if the 30% discount had been mentioned as part of the original "compensation", the people would not have gotten so inflamed. Instead, we got the $200 PER STATEROOM offered very quickly (and I felt flippantly), a meeting in which the Cruise Director acted like a completely insincere and patronizing buffoon (although the Captain was very impressive), a terse mention in the daily newsletter that the $200 per stateroom was fair and reasonable and in line with past practices, and then a lot of additional problems. It was, I believe, NINE DAYS LATER that they gave the 30% discount. I think a better solution would have been for them to take their time, really figure out what was the best they could do to "compensate" us, and then given that best solution in the first place. And a discount on a future cruise really doesn't cost them much, as they still receive 70% of our fare plus 100% of all of the additional revenue from drinks, excursions, spa, casino, etc...

 

A fair guess is that the shipboard credit was something they could offer NOW, just to give people something, *anything*, on the spot; while the 30% off had to be approved by corporate through one or more meetings. It probably took a couple of days for the execs to get around to deciding what to offer the cruisers on the ship, as a ship malfunction wouldn't be enough for them to interrupt their schedules (whether they should or not I'll leave up to debate). Without saying whether what they offered was sufficient for the frustrations or not, the shipboard credit was a nice something up front at least while the main office thought about what to offer in total. That's likely why it was done in two parts a few days apart.

[FinelyCruising]

A fair guess is that the shipboard credit was something they could offer NOW, just to give people something, *anything*, on the spot; while the 30% off had to be approved by corporate through one or more meetings. It probably took a couple of days for the execs to get around to deciding what to offer the cruisers on the ship, as a ship malfunction wouldn't be enough for them to interrupt their schedules (whether they should or not I'll leave up to debate). Without saying whether what they offered was sufficient for the frustrations or not, the shipboard credit was a nice something up front at least while the main office thought about what to offer in total. That's likely why it was done in two parts a few days apart.

 

Probably a good idea to negotiate an internal solution. If they gave a free cruise to eveyone early on, then they'd be left with passengers complaining about why the cruiseline didn't pick up their on board charges too....

 

Or complaining that the other guy had more on board charges and they should have the same amount too...

 

Or complaining that they paid more than the other guy so they should have the credit plus the difference too for the amount the other guy paid instead of just a free cruise too...

 

You know....the list could be endless...

[OuiOnboard]

We are gonna enjoy our 7th Celebrity cruise on Connie next month....but will probably wait until X has a better handle on the propulsion problems before booking other M-class ships again.

Smooth sailing all....Oui

[bepsf]

Actually, what the Summit passengers were told about Hubbard Glacier was correct: Only one ship is allowed near the glacier at a time as ships have specific timeslots for glacier viewing that are reserved years in advance so that if a ship misses their spot near the glacier for whatever reason, they're simply out of luck. To expect the captain of Summit to call the captain of Zaandam to ask them to leave early is simply ludicrous! HAL managed to get their ship there on time for their passengers - why on earth should they give up their timeslot to a competing company? Perhaps if another RCCL/X ship were there instead, that might have been a reasonable request...

While I certainly agree that one shouldn't get too bent out of shape for missing a port here or there due to weather or unforseen mechanical difficulties - I think the whole Summit thing is simply a symptom of a greater issue that RCCL/X have handled poorly for a long, long time. They knowingly operate unreliable equipment and they compound the issue by keeping their clients in the dark about these issues until its convenient for them to come clean. Keeping passengers from leaving the ship at all costs is the goal: they're a captive audience which will keep spending money and tipping their stewards so that RCCL/X will still make money on the deal.

I also agree that a $200 shipbard credit/30% future cruise credit is a slap in the face. Anyone who has ever run a business can tell you that a $5 cocktail only costs the line $1 (the 15% auto-tip pays for the server) and that a $40 sweatshirt is only @ $10 cost, and that 30% off a future ticket is probably less than what the line might have to discount an unsold stateroom just before a cruise - a very small price for corporate to pay for some "guaranteed" pax loyalty and more guaranteed onboard spending.

I feel for the folks who were put off by others who were more vocal in their displeasure - obviously not everyone is happy-go-lucky - but to disparage folks who feel that they haven't been dealt with fairly isn't right either.

[Drew B]

A fair guess is that the shipboard credit was something they could offer NOW, just to give people something, *anything*, on the spot; while the 30% off had to be approved by corporate through one or more meetings. It probably took a couple of days for the execs to get around to deciding what to offer the cruisers on the ship, as a ship malfunction wouldn't be enough for them to interrupt their schedules (whether they should or not I'll leave up to debate). Without saying whether what they offered was sufficient for the frustrations or not, the shipboard credit was a nice something up front at least while the main office thought about what to offer in total. That's likely why it was done in two parts a few days apart.

 

 

That may have been their intent, and it might have been done with the best of intentions, but I think it backfired on them. I think more of the passengers found the $200 insulting than found it a "nice something". I think Celebrity would have had better results had they given nothing specific up front, but said that they were working on their best solution. (And I'm fairly sure that the $200 per stateroom credit also had to be approved by Corporate. It was VERY clear that corporate had told the Captain and the Cruise Director exactly what they could and could not say.)

[Drew B]

While I don't agree with this, this is the statement from the Celebrity website:

 

"In the event of strikes, lockouts, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or for any other reason whatsoever, we may, at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing or port of call and may, but is not obliged to, substitute another vessel or port of call, and shall not be liable for any loss whatsoever to guests by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, deviation or substitution. We shall not be responsible for any failure to adhere to the arrival and departure times published in this website for any of its ports of call."

 

I have a cruise booked on Celebrity in Sept to do Canada/New England on the Constellation. I pray she stays healthy.

 

But I can tell you, I won't be cruising anywhere after that. I have paid for the itinerary of a certain ships in the past (4 cruises). I certainly didn't realize there was this paragraph.:mad:

 

 

You're not kidding! After all of this, I went back and read my contract very carefully. Did you know that they don't even guarantee the seaworthiness of the vessels? Therefore, if the ship doesn't remain afloat, Celebrity is not to blame - we are because we signed our contract! LOL!

[Lotsacruising]

We were on this sailing and were very disappointed. To add insult to injury my husband had a cold and cough so we decided to have the doctor check him out. well he had a touch of bronchitis and the bill without a chest xray or antiobiotic ( we had brought the one recommended with us) came to $579!!!

 

We could not believe it. We spoke to another man with the same symptoms and his bill was over $700!

I think this is just another area that needs to be reigned in at Celebrity

Janet

[turtlemichael]

Anyone who has ever run a business can tell you that a $5 cocktail only costs the line $1 (the 15% auto-tip pays for the server) and that a $40 sweatshirt is only @ $10 cost, and that 30% off a future ticket is probably less than what the line might have to discount an unsold stateroom just before a cruise - a very small price for corporate to pay for some "guaranteed" pax loyalty and more guaranteed onboard spending.

 

Leaving aside the question of how reasonable or not the offer was, your logic is a touch funny to me. First, even though those items may only cost what you say, Celebrity has most likely foregone $200 to give them to you. To illustrate, unless after receiving the offer you suddenly run out on a spending spree it does cost Celebrity $200 because it's $200 that they did not get from you for providing those items. And in any case, why is it an issue what it costs Celebrity? The benefit to you is $200 you otherwise would have had to pay and I'd rather look at what its worth to me than what it costs the donor.