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

[cruiser2004]

This is a problem that has been known about for years and historically happens once a year. Celebrity had to have known it was imminent and from what I have read about the cruise from Hawaii to LA on this thread there were apparently indications the last few days that the situation was about to occur once again or was actually occuring.

 

Irregardless of any prior knowledge on the previous cruise, with this being a known problem Celebrity has a duty to inform potentional passengers of the chances that their cruise may be disrupted due to mechanical failure of the pod system. A class action suit will be successful as Celebrity has been deceitful in that they are not giving any notice to their customers that they are sailing on a defective product. Would you put up with this sort of deceit if you were purchasing any other major consumer product.

 

Please don't anybody respond with its common knowledge on these boards with respect to the problem and you sail at your own risk as 90% of the passengers don't have a clue what cruise critic is or that these ships have any sort of problem. Normally if you were to sail at your own risk you would have signed a waiver acknowleging you are aware of the problems and you are willing to go anyways.

 

For all those people on these boards who seem to think it is not a big deal to miss ports or have the itinerary altered because the contract states Celebrity is not responsible lets look at these items:

 

1. Not all passengers are able to cruise several times a year let alone do an Alaskan cruise multiple times. For those of you who can - great. Many of us cannot.

 

2. Many passengers were from Europe and as such in addition to the cruise fare incurred additional costs for trans-atlantic airfare etc.. For them this may have been the only time they were ever going to get there.

 

3. For those of you who cruise in inside cabins where the financial outlay is not as substantial as a suite you may have used that as a basis that it did not cost them so much so no big deal. It could have cost them 5 times or more from what you paid so it is a big deal.

 

4. If the shoe was on the other foot and you had flown say from the US to New Zealand for a cruise to Australia only to find out on your first day on the ship that it had mechanical problems, could only go half speed and would cruise non-stop to Australia with no stops along the way. Would you be angry? Would you want your money back including airfare? Please don't say this hypothetical is too far fetched - because it could happen so your response should be as if it did happen.

 

Would your response be the same - its not about the ports - its the cruise experience? Would you chalk it up to just your bad luck? I sincerely doubt it!!! Does the video of the captain raising his hand in agreement that they should be entitled to a refund mean anything to you? Please give these people their due and let them know you too believe they are being ripped off by Celebrity. They simply did not get what they bargained for.

 

Well said Florida Cruiser. As I have said before the question for me was can any cruise line sail with a known problem, lie about why all of a sudden there is an extra eight hours to drop anchor in open waters while cutting time from almost all of our ports and for all intensive purposes skipping Hubbard Glacier and forcing passengers to choose between the formal night dinner or seeing what was left of the Inside Passage.

The passenger meetings were a result of Celebrity's total mis-management of the situation. The passengers did request a meeting area, such as the Celebrity Theater during down times. This request was turned down by Celebrity. After a few days Celebrity printed in their Celebrity Today schedule of events that the home office had reviewed the passenger complaints and the $200 offer per cabin was fair and there would be no further compensation. As the passengers continued to meet and voice their displeasure on the second to last night of the 13 night cruise Celebrity changed their mind and offered the so-called 30% off coupon.

[Drew B]

After a few days Celebrity printed in their Celebrity Today schedule of events that the home office had reviewed the passenger complaints and the $200 offer per cabin was fair and there would be no further compensation. As the passengers continued to meet and voice their displeasure on the second to last night of the 13 night cruise Celebrity changed their mind and offered the so-called 30% off coupon.

 

Well, in all fairness, they were pretty clear that the 30% off coupon had more to do with the Hubbard Glacier/Inside Passage issues that HAD NOT YET HAPPENED when that message was printed in Celebrity Today...

[cruiser2004]

Well, in all fairness, they were pretty clear that the 30% off coupon had more to do with the Hubbard Glacier/Inside Passage issues that HAD NOT YET HAPPENED when that message was printed in Celebrity Today...

I agree that the very distant view of Hubbard Glacier and Celebrity failing to secure a pilot for the Inside Passage and then the Captain trying to fool passengers by saying we were waiting for eight hours for a "better view" of the Inside Passage was a factor in the coupon offer, but I do beleive the passengers voicing their displeasure with their treatment from Celebrity was much larger factor in the coupon offer.

[magmagee]

I read that some passengers would have gotten off in San Francisco if they could have. Of course they not only wouldn't have been reimbursed by Celebrity but probably would have been docked $200/per person due to the Jones Act.

 

Curious. What is the Jones act if you would be so kind to share that info. Thanks

[Sky Sweet]

Curious. What is the Jones act if you would be so kind to share that info. Thanks

 

The Jones Act is a law that makes it mandatory for every ship that is not registered in the United States to include at least one foreign port for every itinerary that uses American ports.

[ChriSusan]

As the passengers continued to meet and voice their displeasure on the second to last night of the 13 night cruise Celebrity changed their mind and offered the so-called 30% off coupon.

 

Be careful what you think 30% off means. We sailed last year on the RCCL Grandeur of the Seas that had an engine problem (sounds very similar) that made the in-bound cruise arrive late into Baltimore and cut our two days in Bermuda down to one short evening and morning. We were offered either a full refund before boarding or 50% off that cruise and 50% off our next. They were specific that the next cruise could only be out of US ports and had to be for 7 days or less. Sounded like a reasonable deal so we boarded. Who wouldn't when you are there at the port.

 

Everyone was buzzing about the 50% off on the next cruise and there was always a line to get to the vacation planner (Loyalty Ambassador) onboard and we too booked our next cruise while onboard the ship. The onboard agent encouraged us to take advantage of the 50% off and upgrade our room to an owner's suite and marked a specific 50% off dollar amont on our receipt (travel planner).

 

Six weeks later after the cruise the 50% off certificates arrived and I would say they had significantly more small print than what we had been told. One in particular was that you would not receive more that 50% of the value of your cruise that had caused the certificate to be issued. We submitted a copy of our onboard receipt along with the certificate and of course only got 50% of the last cruise value. Phone calls, complaints, going through the Platinum Customer Service desk, faxing in copies of the travel planner, etc. made no difference whatsoever. Their only offer was to move us to a smaller cabin, but in doing so a warning that we would lose the $100 shipboard credit we had received for booking on board.

 

The thing that continues to bother me is that they not once apologized for their error or those of their Loyalty Ambassador/Cruise Agent onboard the ship. All they would do was quote policy. We continue to love RCCL, but what they call customer service is substandard. We are seriously looking at getting a cruise agent just so we can distance ourselves from having to deal with the cruise companies directly.

 

Best of luck with your battle. Unfortunately it does not feel that us customers have much influence at times.

[magmagee]

The Jones Act is a law that makes it mandatory for every ship that is not registered in the United States to include at least one foreign port for every itinerary that uses American ports.

 

Thanks

[notsonewbie]

I am a retired attorney who practiced law for 38 years, tried 45 jury trials ... Again, I would request that those four or five fervent pax on Summit who have posted here to post the video on cruise critic, in which they have alleged that the captain raised his hand and voted for the pax to receive a full refund. I should mention that your failure to do so raises a severe inference that your claim is bogus.

 

The video claim is most definitely not bogus, but is not the main point of contention for me.

 

I simply wanted to have the choice to get off at the beginning of the cruise in SF, take my chances with compensation and reschedule the holiday for a later date.

 

They knew there was a problem before we got to SF. Failing to let us know before it left was bad enough, but also cutting Seattle from the schedule meant that the only two places where we could have gotten home on an international flight were already gone. As far as we knew, the rest of the ports were tiny Alaskan towns. You also have to remember that this was only 2 days into a 13 day cruise.

 

Quote all the fine print you want, but if the situation was purposely manipulated by Celebrity to keep all on board for the entire trip, and it seems so, then I am not happy at all.

[notsonewbie]

Thank you for sharing that. That is how I felt. I went to listen to violin players and instead had to walk around passengers who did not want to move to let us walk by. I keep saying the speeches were very loud and comanding and disturbing. I was in the shopping area and there were five men talking loudly and making sure that everyone could hear that they were very unhappy. I did leave the area and went to my room.

 

Apparently they requested to use the theatre on many occasions but were turned down. The only public space big enough was the main atrium.

 

You can't get around the fact that the majority of passengers were not happy and Celebrity did a terrible job of handling the situation. If they had handled it properly, the meetings would not have taken place and you would not have been inconvenienced.

[Sky Sweet]

Even if some people really thought the problems were so bad that they were entitled to compensation, I can't understand why they didn't make the most of the situation during their cruise, to maximize their enjoyment, and deal with the problem after they got home.

[magmagee]

Apparently they requested to use the theatre on many occasions but were turned down. The only public space big enough was the main atrium.

 

You can't get around the fact that the majority of passengers were not happy and Celebrity did a terrible job of handling the situation. If they had handled it properly, the meetings would not have taken place and you would not have been inconvenienced.

 

This whole situation took on a life of it own and I do feel that those who were that unhappy had the right to complain. Maybe if the anger of the passengers was toned down a bit the meetings would not have had such a negative impact on those who chose not to voice their opions could have gone on to enjoy their trip and maybe, just maybe, if the meetings were not so hostile maybe Celebrity would not have had such a problem with them using the facilities. I really wish everyone could have come off of that ship feeling like they had gotten a fair deal but the high demands of free cruise and all money back set a negative tone for the company and maybe Celebrity was backed up into the wall and just came out fighting (not in the literal sense). Just my take on it. :o

[magmagee]

Even if some people really thought the problems were so bad that they were entitled to compensation, I can't understand why they didn't make the most of the situation during their cruise, to maximize their enjoyment, and deal with the problem after they got home.

 

That is what we could not figure out. I think they could have been able to get more passengers to sign if it was organized in a calmer matter. Everywhere you went either someone would ask you about how we felt or we saw people writing letters and even when we came back from a great excursion in Victoria there was a couple outside of the ship reminding us of a 5pm meeting. Meeting? I was on vacation and meetings were something that was not on my agenda.

[Drew B]

I simply wanted to have the choice to get off at the beginning of the cruise in SF, take my chances with compensation and reschedule the holiday for a later date.

 

I simply cannot wrap my head around that concept. In my eyes, 80% (or 50% or even 20%) of a holiday is still better than no holiday at all... ESPECIALLY if you may have had to pay 100% for absolutely nothing! However, if that's how you felt, I guess I have to respect it.

 

And I do wish that the company had allowed the disgruntled guests to use certain facilities. It would have shown good faith AND it would have kept the drama away from those who didn't wish to take part...

[naked]

In my humble opinion, it's better to get to take your tip, with some bumps and shortfalls, then to have taken the week off from work and find out that you have no vacation to go on.

[aarrcc2]

Cancelling the cruise would have been the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME for me, personally. This was the first time in over ten years that I have had the opportunity to take two weeks off of work, and it may very well be the last time for many years to come. It wouldn't matter if they gave me TEN free cruises if I wasn't able to take them! I committed to spending the money because I wanted a vacation. If I just wanted the money, I never would have spent it in the first place! I have to say that with the announcement of the bearing problem, my BIGGEST FEAR was that it was going to get worse and they would have to end the cruise earlier than May 20th...

 

As for the captain raising his hand in the meeting, it was a hardly a clear-cut message. A person asked him if he supported a refund, and he made it very clear that it was not his decision to make. He was harangued to give an answer, and after some equivocation, he gave a lukewarm yes... Is that damning evidence? I don't think so.

 

And as for prior knowledge of the mechanical problem, at what point does it become enough of a problem that people need to be notified? Somebody calculated that less than 2% of M-Class sailings are impacted by pod problems. I think that if 20% of sailings were affected, it would be clear-cut that people need to be notified, but with only less than 2% of sailings affected, the odds are OVERWHELMINGLY in our favor that we will have an unaffected cruise. Certain cruise ships have sunk, too. Look at the Titanic. So if a cruise ship were to sink, should we say that the cruise lines had advance knowledge that ships can sink (no matter how miniscule the statistical probability may be), and they had an obligation to specifically warn us? In effect, they DO specifically warn us. The cruise contract not only warns about the possibility of itinerary changes, but also makes clear that the company DOESN'T WARRANT THAT THE VESSEL IS SEAWORTHY! Now, that claim is ludicrous, and if they knew the ship were to have serious issues affecting the safety of the passengers, I'm sure the waiver of the contract wouldn't hold up. However, in light of the litigiousness of certain customers, I don't blame them for putting it in there.

 

Couldn't agree more with the above, especially about the fear that our cruise WOULD be cancelled. Also this is by far the most complete and accurate description of the captain raising his hand. I was in the second row of the theater and agree wholeheartedly with Drew's assessment of the situation.

 

As far as the 30% discount on a future cruise, I considered it my reward for trying to enjoy my vacation, despite the constant negative atmosphere caused by the complaining passengers.

[naked]

..........despite the constant negative atmosphere caused by the complaining passengers.

Pax have the right to complain but not to create a negative atmosphere that effect my enjoyment of my trip.

[griswalds]

I can easily understand why some people wish they had the opportunity to bail on this cruise. I have a feeling that after missing the Hubbard Glacier many more regretted not having the opportunity to bail. You would think that would have been one place they would have made absolute plans to get to. The ship was still moving at a reasonable speed unless it was a steering issue?

 

I say a bad holiday is truly worse than no holiday. There are times when one should cut their losses and bail. If only I had a crystal ball or a "flux capacitor" so I could time travel.

 

I keep thinking 13 days on this ship and the mood just got worse day by day, OMG. That's a lot of lemons to suck on.

 

Just think if Celebrity had sat down with the passengers and made a reasonable offer to each person while on the cruise. Celebrity would look like compassionate hero's and we would be praising the company for a quick resolution. They know they have a problem and they know this will happen again so why the game?

 

Griswalds

[troyandamy]

Huh? What kind of a statement is that for any lawyer (even a former lawyer) to make?

 

Cechase, what makes you think that an Internet message board is the appropriate venue for releasing such a video? Are you one of the lawyers who attended the meeting?

 

What is your involvement in this case to make you think that people who don't know you and have never met you should post a video at the location you specify upon your request?

 

I was quite amused to see you state that their failure to do exactly what you want raises a severe inference that their claim is bogus. Are you familiar with the term chutzpah? It does not appear that you are acting as a lawyer at all, but rather as judge and jury.

 

When you were a lawyer, was it your practice to post your evidence in advance on a public bulletin board? Correct me if I am wrong, but somehow I think not.

 

If I had such a video, I would turn it over to the attorneys for the side I favor. I would certainly never post it here.

 

By the way, for the information of the other readers, the claim is hardly bogus because there were hundreds of witnesses in the audience who could be subpoenaed if necessary, so a video would not even be necessary.

 

I'm confused, I thought the video was playing on the televisions during the cruise as it was filmed by Celebrity. If that is so, then how would Celebrity not know about the tape, i.e. evidence.

 

Additionally, as working as a paralegal for many years, I do observe that the attorney's comments fall into line as to what may be expected if this matter proceeds to litigation. Unfortunately many people see legal themed shows on television and develop innacurate ideas of the judicial system which ultimately results in dissapointed litigants. I do wish you luck with your lawsuit, however, I do not think it is going to be as easy a battle as you would hope for.

[Drew B]

I say a bad holiday is truly worse than no holiday. There are times when one should cut their losses and bail. If only I had a crystal ball or a "flux capacitor" so I could time travel.

 

I keep thinking 13 days on this ship and the mood just got worse day by day, OMG. That's a lot of lemons to suck on.

 

 

Well, I still managed to have a great time. Obviously it COULD have been better, but not going would have been much, MUCH worse... I'm not nearly as "cruise-experienced" as most people here, though, so I just might not have enough of a basis for comparison.

[magmagee]

I can easily understand why some people wish they had the opportunity to bail on this cruise. I have a feeling that after missing the Hubbard Glacier many more regretted not having the opportunity to bail. You would think that would have been one place they would have made absolute plans to get to. The ship was still moving at a reasonable speed unless it was a steering issue?

 

I say a bad holiday is truly worse than no holiday. There are times when one should cut their losses and bail. If only I had a crystal ball or a "flux capacitor" so I could time travel.

 

I keep thinking 13 days on this ship and the mood just got worse day by day, OMG. That's a lot of lemons to suck on.

 

Just think if Celebrity had sat down with the passengers and made a reasonable offer to each person while on the cruise. Celebrity would look like compassionate hero's and we would be praising the company for a quick resolution. They know they have a problem and they know this will happen again so why the game?

 

Griswalds

 

I am not trying to sound like a saint that never complains but we did get to the glacier. I know it was not up close and personal but for whatever reason they decided not to go in closer is a good question. I have no reason to stick up for Celebrity but maybe it was because there was another ship in front of the glacier and there was a tremendous amont of ice and I was wondering if the ship that was in there already was going to get out safely. In my mind I am just wondering if they just did not want to take the chance that maybe they might do some damage. The two times I have been to the glacier when I was up close there was not that much ice. If we would have broken down while we were trying to get close I could only imagine what kind of reaction there might have been from the already angry group. I also feel that maybe the way the angry passengers were so agressinve might have had something to do with it. This is just my opinion and I am not trying to get anybody mad but what is that saying about getting more bees with honey I don't know something like that. For us proceeding with the cruise was great for us. Everyone has their own reason why it worked or did not work for them. Why it all got so out of hand is beyond me

[Cuizer2]

Even if some people really thought the problems were so bad that they were entitled to compensation, I can't understand why they didn't make the most of the situation during their cruise, to maximize their enjoyment, and deal with the problem after they got home.

 

That would require that the people act like reasonable adults. Reasonable adults are very rare these days.

[Drew B]

That would require that the people act like reasonable adults. Reasonable adults are very rare these days.

 

And beyond that, the lead rabblerousers were CONSTANTLY going on and on about how important it was to maintain a united front. They said that if people waited till after the cruise was over to deal with it, they would lose whatever leverage they had as a group, and that Celebrity would have effectively divided and conquered them...

[Sky Sweet]

And beyond that, the lead rabblerousers were CONSTANTLY going on and on about how important it was to maintain a united front. They said that if people waited till after the cruise was over to deal with it, they would lose whatever leverage they had as a group, and that Celebrity would have effectively divided and conquered them...

 

This reminds me of being in college during the sixties :)

 

On a more serious note, if everyone who felt this way complained to their travel agent after they got home, and these travel agents in turn related this feedback to Celebrity, it would have probably been just as effective.

[naked]

I don't like rabblerousers on my cruise.

[Ma Bell]

I think the truth is they would have received more if they had been reasonable. Celebrity is usually more than fair with their compensation when compared to other cruiselines. It's really a shame they thought so little of the fact that their shenanigans were ruining everyone's cruise.

 

I feel very sorry that there were problems with the cruise and would like to see a partial refund rather than a 30% off coupon. If they had acted more responsibly, I wouldn't have been surpised to see that happen. At this point I think Celebrity should stand their ground and not give in to them. If they are all really foolish enough to pursue a lawsuit, I doubt they will come out ahead. They also managed to cheat themselves out of enjoying the cruise they did have.