View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old May 17th, 2012, 02:58 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Paul Motter Paul Motter is offline
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,600
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Okay ---

Just so you know I talked to the travel agent for this couple, he is a very nice guy, completely professional, and he has been working with this couple and with Seabourn for "20 years".

I am not going to quote him, or even characterize what he said except to say he is more shocked than mad. He needs to continue to work with Seabourn, but he certainly didn't say anything bad about the clients, either.

He told me what the husband told him, and he told me what the cruise line told him.

Having reviewed all of that - it is MY personal opinion that the cruise line over-reacted. And here is my main point...

We keep saying "Concordia this" and "Concordia that..." - but in a year will we still be referring to Corcordia as the "standard" for everything that should be done on a cruise?

Concordia showed us there is still some fallibility in the training an selection of captains, and that we needed an uphgrade in the lifeboat drill procedure from 24-hours to same day.

Why did they change that? To make sure everyone got a lifeboat drill, right?

Well - this lady HAD a drill already, for the same stateroom, just two weeks earlier. If this had been a three week cruise she would have qualified as "fully prepared." This was to be her second drill - and she was ill.

She had a pacemaker that had been installed less than a month before.

So, people say "well, maybe she shouldn't have been on the cruise" or "she should have insurance".

I don't know if they had insurance, but it is a moot point now anyway. I am sure that when they paid the $30,000 for the three cruises that they didn't know she was going to need a pacemaker, and I am pretty sure they probably thought long & hard about canceling the cruise, but decided to go anyway, realizing she may have some rough times.

And that is my point about making examples.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this over-reaction as a result of the Concordia incident should NOT be taken out on the customers? Did these people cause Concordia? Were they the reason 700 people on Concordia did not get a lifeboat drill? No.

The cruise lines have changed their policies to "no tolerance" when it comes to life-boat drills. Fair enough, but, this is Seabourn where YES, they DO specialize in personalized service and knowing about individual special circumstances. That is their calling card.

Don't take Concordia out on a couple like this - I just don't agree with that. If this were a more mass-market cruise line, if this was a first-cruise (not a back to back) I would back the cruise line's decision. But in this case I do not.

As for the travel agent - he was nice enough to say "I'm not mad, but if this rs really how strict the new policy is going to be, then the word really needs to get out."

So - the word is getting out, but I don't have much admiration for the case they selected to get it out.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote