1st: Our travel agent, wether she knew or not, did not offer the possiblity that the cruise would not go to 60% of the original ports.
2nd: The cruise line was not forthcoming in explaining that cruises were being impacted to the level that you read in the postings of this website and others. In fact, they acted like the threat of low water was something that was just happening, when in actually, there cruise boats have been having problems all summer long.
3rd: Are cruise company's and travel agents suffering? Considering that the cruise boat that I was on last week was sold-out with individuals who were either uninformed or unaware of the impact of the drought on the water levels, NO the cruise lines and travel agents are not being impacted one bit.
4th: Solution: Don't decieve your customers by stating that "as far as you know the cruise will be unimpacted" when in realltiy , the last three cruises have been impacted. Establish alternative itinararys that are equal in quality. If you heard of the ridiculious events that were planned for our cruise in lieu of stopping in ports, you would laugh yourself silly.
5th: Provide due compensation to the passengers based upon what impact that the cruise has had on the original itinanary. If the crusie boat stays in a port days longer than that originally scheduled or 60% of the original ports are not visited, than the cruise line should refund an agreeable portion of the cost of the cruise. I'm implying 15% to 20%.
Heres a better way of understanding my crusie experience:
Imagine going to a 2 hour movie where the theater decides to skip the first half of the movie and only show the last hour of the movie. But to fill up the time of the full 2 hours, it shows the movie at a slower speed.
Do you not think there is a problem with marketing a full cruise and only providing a partial cruise at full price?
Jeff Dash, President of Viking Cruise Lines, will hopefully respond to my letters to the previously mentioned concerns of both my wife and myself.