Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > Cruise Lines (Mainstream) > Celebrity
Register Forgot Password?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old February 6th, 2008, 04:26 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Default Beware - X Cancels Spring Break 2009 Solstice cruise!

Just found out Celebrity cancelled our 3/2009 spring break cruise on Solstice. Very very frustrating! They are offering a credit on another cruise on that ship, but it only applies to that ship for a short period of time and does no good to those of us who have to go a certain week due to spring break. I know it is aways away timewise, but I have to think they already had quite a few people booked due to the fact it is their new ship and it is a spring break week (for college folks anyway). I am SOOOOOOOO disappointed in Celebrity and their lack of service in not offering any compensation on other ships to people who can't cruise that week.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old February 6th, 2008, 04:27 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Default

make that last sentence 'to people who can only cruise that week'
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old February 6th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 459
Send a message via MSN to gfleo
Default

it's in the air, because HAL also cancelled my Oct 18 sailing on the Eurodam. Most probably the ship has been chartered by a (private) company.
__________________
Enchantment 2007
Serenade
Noordam
Caribbean Princess
C. Destiny
N.Pearl Nov
C.Valor Sept 2008
Ruby Princess
C.Splendor
Indy
Liberty 2009
Carnival Liberty
Eurodam
Radiance
Mariner
C. Freedom
C. Triumph
Navigator (TA)
C.Dream
Solstice '10
Costa Fortuna
Summit
Norwegian Dawn
C.Glory Sept '11
Brilliance '12
Mariner (TA)
Liberty OTS
C.Breeze '13
C.Conquest
Serenade TA
C.Sunshine '14
Indy
Vision
Vision
Eurodam
Regal Princess
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old February 6th, 2008, 08:35 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Palm Coast, Florida
Posts: 21,032
Default

My TA said the ship has been chartered, and that this happens often in all cruise lines.

Manuel
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
Independence 12/29/13
Vision OTS 2-14-2015


Booked Allure of the Seas 2/21/16
- Celebrity Equinox .. 4/4/16
- Freedom of the Seas.. 12/30/16
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old February 6th, 2008, 09:04 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manuel
My TA said the ship has been chartered, and that this happens often in all cruise lines.

Manuel
It is chartered by Atlantis Tours which is a gay group. This is not an unusual situation and is done by all cruise lines. Usually there is no compensation when the cruise is so far out.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old February 7th, 2008, 05:44 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Default

Whether it happens alot or not doesn't really matter when it happens to you. Also, if it does happen alot then I say that is a real customer service problem. As to this specific cruise, a few things make it a bit different than the standard situation.

First and foremost, as a new ship it is very common to have reservations that far out and I have to think they had alot of them for that date. They also specifically had incentives for people to book that early. Then six months later the message is -oh, never mind. That in particular really burns me.

And by the way, forget any interest on the money they've been holding so long. Also, this particular week is a spring break cruise week for many. I would think that most charters would be for other than weeks with major bookings, and that due to the timing they probably are inconveniencing a whole lot of people (many of whom are their frequent cruisers, who got 'first dibs' on the bookings!!!)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old February 7th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default Re: Beware - X Cancels Spring Break 2009 Solstice cruise!

phoenix_dream,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Just found out Celebrity cancelled our 3/2009 spring break cruise on Solstice. Very very frustrating! They are offering a credit on another cruise on that ship, but it only applies to that ship for a short period of time and does no good to those of us who have to go a certain week due to spring break. I know it is aways away timewise, but I have to think they already had quite a few people booked due to the fact it is their new ship and it is a spring break week (for college folks anyway). I am SOOOOOOOO disappointed in Celebrity and their lack of service in not offering any compensation on other ships to people who can't cruise that week.
If the cruise is in "3/2009" per your post, you can cancel your booking and receive a full refund of your deposit.

But why not rebook aboard GTS Summit, which is operating round trip from San Juan during the same week? It's actually a much better itinerary!

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old February 8th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Default

I do agree that the Summit is a nice option - unfortunately the credit they are offering people does not apply to any other ship except Solstice and I think that is pretty cheap of them.

We will look into it but it is much more difficult for us to cruise out of San Juan as we need to coordinate travel with a college student on spring break and San Juan is a much longer trip to coordinate - fewer options and more time lost travellng. That's why we picked an FLL trip specifically. Nevertheless I appreciate the suggestion.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old February 9th, 2008, 06:51 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 459
Send a message via MSN to gfleo
Default

Hal is giving me only a Usd 50 dollar onboard credit, for the inconvenience. But in fact it;s not really an inconvenienco to me, because since I don't live in the states I'll do a back to back cruise. Nov 8-15 Eurodam and Nov15-22 Ruby Princess (maiden voyage)
__________________
Enchantment 2007
Serenade
Noordam
Caribbean Princess
C. Destiny
N.Pearl Nov
C.Valor Sept 2008
Ruby Princess
C.Splendor
Indy
Liberty 2009
Carnival Liberty
Eurodam
Radiance
Mariner
C. Freedom
C. Triumph
Navigator (TA)
C.Dream
Solstice '10
Costa Fortuna
Summit
Norwegian Dawn
C.Glory Sept '11
Brilliance '12
Mariner (TA)
Liberty OTS
C.Breeze '13
C.Conquest
Serenade TA
C.Sunshine '14
Indy
Vision
Vision
Eurodam
Regal Princess
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old February 12th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31
Default

did you give you the option to go with the gays?! you would probably have a great time!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old February 14th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

phoenix_dream,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I do agree that the Summit is a nice option - unfortunately the credit they are offering people does not apply to any other ship except Solstice and I think that is pretty cheap of them.
If your travel agent calls Celebrity, gets through to somebody senior enough, and politely explains that you are only able to take a cruise that week and that you probably will go with another line otherwise but that you are willing to transfer the booking to GTS Summit if the line will extend the same offer, it's likely that they will do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
We will look into it but it is much more difficult for us to cruise out of San Juan as we need to coordinate travel with a college student on spring break and San Juan is a much longer trip to coordinate - fewer options and more time lost travellng. That's why we picked an FLL trip specifically. Nevertheless I appreciate the suggestion.
It really sounds like you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. All of the major airlines offer plenty of flights between their major hubs and San Juan. Yes, the flying time may be a couple hours more if it involves a connection rather than a nonstop, but the ship's sailing time is about five hours later so it typically will be less restrictive on your time of departure even with the additional hour of time change. Coming back, the fact that San Juan is on Atlantic Time rather than Eastern Time gives you an additional hour of time change that will help to offset the additional travel time.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old February 15th, 2008, 03:20 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_dream
Whether it happens alot or not doesn't really matter when it happens to you. Also, if it does happen alot then I say that is a real customer service problem. As to this specific cruise, a few things make it a bit different than the standard situation.

First and foremost, as a new ship it is very common to have reservations that far out and I have to think they had alot of them for that date. They also specifically had incentives for people to book that early. Then six months later the message is -oh, never mind. That in particular really burns me.

And by the way, forget any interest on the money they've been holding so long. Also, this particular week is a spring break cruise week for many. I would think that most charters would be for other than weeks with major bookings, and that due to the timing they probably are inconveniencing a whole lot of people (many of whom are their frequent cruisers, who got 'first dibs' on the bookings!!!)
Hi phoenix_dream:

I agree with you and the operative word is "when it happens to you"! Whether or not it happens a lot, does not make it fair or right.

As far as the suggestion of substituting the Summit, which may very well have a similar itinerary but the recurring mechanical problems with the propulsion system, would make me think twice about that particular ship. The Summit has had one of these same mechanical failures five of the six, full sailing years, since its introduction and is now way over due for another problem. This is not to mention that you would be switching from a brand new ship, that I am sure will not have this same inherent problem as the Summit, Infinity and Millennium, to an older ship that does suffer from periodic mechanical problems.
__________________
With integrity nothing else matters; without it nothing else matters.

Winston Churchill

email: debra2106@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old February 15th, 2008, 05:22 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Nurse Debra,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I agree with you and the operative word is "when it happens to you"! Whether or not it happens a lot, does not make it fair or right.
By that line of reasoning, a cruise line could never change an itinerary after initial announcement of a ship's schedule.

The reality is that the announced schedules always are tentative, and subject to change at any time. There are many good reasons why cruise lines need to change schedules occasionally. With over a year of notice, the OP clearly has plenty of time to make other plans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
As far as the suggestion of substituting the Summit, which may very well have a similar itinerary but the recurring mechanical problems with the propulsion system, would make me think twice about that particular ship. The Summit has had one of these same mechanical failures five of the six, full sailing years, since its introduction and is now way over due for another problem. This is not to mention that you would be switching from a brand new ship, that I am sure will not have this same inherent problem as the Summit, Infinity and Millennium, to an older ship that does suffer from periodic mechanical problems.
Your poitns about pod issues seem totally irrelevant in this thread.

>> First, the OP is planning a cruise for March of 2009 -- over a year away. Whether she is "overdue" for another problem now or not, the situation probably will be completely different a year from now.

>> And second, GTS [i]Summit will have gone into drydock where she will receive new pods that the manufacturer has redesigned to eliminate the problem before the dates for which the OP is planning a cruise.

Note that the drydocking/overhaul also will refurbish most of the passenger spaces, so the fact that the vessel has been in service for a few years also should not be of real consequence.

Now, I'll grant you that the newer ship offers some features and amenities that the older ship might not offer, but it's likely that the older ship also will offer somewhat lower fares. And as to itineriaries, the older ship actually offers better ports of call.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old February 15th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Nurse Debra,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
As far as the suggestion of substituting the Summit, which may very well have a similar itinerary but the recurring mechanical problems with the propulsion system, would make me think twice about that particular ship. The Summit has had one of these same mechanical failures five of the six, full sailing years, since its introduction and is now way over due for another problem. This is not to mention that you would be switching from a brand new ship, that I am sure will not have this same inherent problem as the Summit, Infinity and Millennium, to an older ship that does suffer from periodic mechanical problems.
Your poitns about pod issues seem totally irrelevant in this thread.

And second, GTS [i]Summit will have gone into drydock where she will receive new pods that the manufacturer has redesigned to eliminate the problem before the dates for which the OP is planning a cruise.
Norm.
Norm, Norm, Norm, once again you have posted something that is not completely accurate.

First, you were the one who was pushing the Summit, in two different posts on this thread, and that does indeed; make my comment relevant to the discussion.

And Second, when you said "Summit will have gone into drydock where she will receive new pods that the manufacturer has redesigned to eliminate the problem", that is NOT at all, what the dry dock is for!

The main purpose of the dry dock, for the Summit, is to add an auxiliary diesel electrical generator. The primary duty of this auxiliary engine is to provide electrical power for the ships when they are in port. The reason for these new auxiliary engines is that they are more efficient.

The PODS are a completely separate part of the propulsion system and operate using electricity. The engines are not the culprit; it has always been the PODS themselves. The Millie and Connie had this auxiliary unit installed last spring. I don't think, if what you said was even true, that, Celebrity would be silly enough to elect to start with the Connie which has never had a POD failure since its launch - do you? In fact after they are finished with the Celebrity m-class ships RCL is going to install the same auxiliary generators on the Radiance class ships, which as you know do not have the same defective POD system as the Celebrity m-class ships have.

Celebrity may or may not elect to perform preventative maintenance on the PODS and replace the bearings, but this dry dock will not eliminate the problem in the future. Just wanted to keep the record straight on this.
__________________
With integrity nothing else matters; without it nothing else matters.

Winston Churchill

email: debra2106@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old February 17th, 2008, 07:58 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nurse Debra
First, you were the one who was pushing the Summit, in two different posts on this thread, and that does indeed; make my comment relevant to the discussion.
Wrong. I did not "push" GTS Summit. Rather, I merely mentioned GTS Summit as a possible alternative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
And Second, when you said "Summit will have gone into drydock where she will receive new pods that the manufacturer has redesigned to eliminate the problem", that is NOT at all, what the dry dock is for!

The main purpose of the dry dock, for the Summit, is to add an auxiliary diesel electrical generator. The primary duty of this auxiliary engine is to provide electrical power for the ships when they are in port. The reason for these new auxiliary engines is that they are more efficient.

The PODS are a completely separate part of the propulsion system and operate using electricity. The engines are not the culprit; it has always been the PODS themselves. The Millie and Connie had this auxiliary unit installed last spring. I don't think, if what you said was even true, that, Celebrity would be silly enough to elect to start with the Connie which has never had a POD failure since its launch - do you? In fact after they are finished with the Celebrity m-class ships RCL is going to install the same auxiliary generators on the Radiance class ships, which as you know do not have the same defective POD system as the Celebrity m-class ships have.

Celebrity may or may not elect to perform preventative maintenance on the PODS and replace the bearings, but this dry dock will not eliminate the problem in the future. Just wanted to keep the record straight on this.
And again, you are missing a piece of the puzzle. Some time ago, Celebrity Cruises announced that all ships of the Millennium class will receive pods of the new design when they go into drydock.

You're forgetting that, some time ago, the company announced an agreement with the pod manufacturer that includes installation of redesigned replacement pods when the four ships of the Millennium class next go into drydock. GTS Infinity got the first of these pods after her last incident.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old February 18th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nurse Debra
First, you were the one who was pushing the Summit, in two different posts on this thread, and that does indeed; make my comment relevant to the discussion.
Wrong. I did not "push" GTS Summit. Rather, I merely mentioned GTS Summit as a possible alternative.

Sorry Norm, but you did manage to mention the Summit twice in two separate posts on this thread and that was just the impression that came through.
Debra


Quote:
Originally Posted by You
And Second, when you said "Summit will have gone into drydock where she will receive new pods that the manufacturer has redesigned to eliminate the problem", that is NOT at all, what the dry dock is for!

The main purpose of the dry dock, for the Summit, is to add an auxiliary diesel electrical generator. The primary duty of this auxiliary engine is to provide electrical power for the ships when they are in port. The reason for these new auxiliary engines is that they are more efficient.

The PODS are a completely separate part of the propulsion system and operate using electricity. The engines are not the culprit; it has always been the PODS themselves. The Millie and Connie had this auxiliary unit installed last spring. I don't think, if what you said was even true, that, Celebrity would be silly enough to elect to start with the Connie which has never had a POD failure since its launch - do you? In fact after they are finished with the Celebrity m-class ships RCL is going to install the same auxiliary generators on the Radiance class ships, which as you know do not have the same defective POD system as the Celebrity m-class ships have.

Celebrity may or may not elect to perform preventative maintenance on the PODS and replace the bearings, but this dry dock will not eliminate the problem in the future. Just wanted to keep the record straight on this.
And again, you are missing a piece of the puzzle. Some time ago, Celebrity Cruises announced that all ships of the Millennium class will receive pods of the new design when they go into drydock.

You're forgetting that, some time ago, the company announced an agreement with the pod manufacturer that includes installation of redesigned replacement pods when the four ships of the Millennium class next go into drydock. GTS Infinity got the first of these pods after her last incident.

Norm.
I am not forgetting anything and in trying to get past the stonewalling by Celebrity and at least offer information to other cruisers of what happened to me and what could happen to others. There are still some pieces missing, but I have found more than enough to get a good idea of what the picture looks like. I would like to point out that somewhere around 2003, the then CEO of Celebrity Jack Williams, said in a press conference that a solution had been found for the POD problems and that they would all be fixed in a year or so. I think we all know that that turned out to be not true.

Given the reluctance of Celebrity to give any truthful facts about this issue, I get my facts from places that are not biased about this problem and have no interest in any particular cruise line such as Events at Sea, Marinelog and ebearing News. I would be interested in exactly where you were able to obtain the information about this alleged fixing of the problem.

You never did answer my question as to the reasoning as to why Celebrity would roll out this magical fix starting with the Constellation, which has not had a failure since it began carrying passengers in 2002.

You also forgot to mention that Celebrity still has a more than 300 million dollar lawsuit pending against this very same manufacturer for as Celebrity put it; "fraudulently marketing this system".

FYI, I just talked to Celebrity customer service last Friday and was told by the Celebrity customer service agent that there had only ever been one POD problem on any Celebrity ship. In disbelief in Celebrity's lack of candor, I called back and from a different customer service rep, I at least got a new twist on the old "Celebrity story"; here is what I was told, "when the PODS do fail the problem can now be fixed while you are having a port day and there will be no need for dry dock or missing any ports when the PODS fail". When considering that the POD system is completely sealed with no access from inside the ship and the PODS are completely submerged, I would certainly like to see how Celebrity does do that! I am no engineer but I seriously doubt that that is anywhere even close to the truth!

Given the track record of Celebrity with these ships and lack of honesty in talking about it, I would want to wait for at least two years of trouble free sailing for all four of the m-class ships before believing that the problem has been permanently fixed. I think the food, service and entertainment are as good as any other mass market cruise line but this problem is unique to Celebrity and at least, in my opinion, does not reflect very well on how this company treats and values its customers.

Debra
__________________
With integrity nothing else matters; without it nothing else matters.

Winston Churchill

email: debra2106@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old February 19th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Debra,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I am not forgetting anything and in trying to get past the stonewalling by Celebrity and at least offer information to other cruisers of what happened to me and what could happen to others.
First, you are far from the only person on this board who has fallen victim to a pod problem. I was booked on a cruise to Alaska aboard GTS Summit that got cancelled due to a pod problem in June of 2005. And when that happened, Celebrity was more than fair. I received a certificate for a free cruise, which I used for another sailing on the same itinerary later in the season, and a full refund.

But on this board, you have gone far beyond "offer[ing] information to other cruisers by disparaging Celebrity at every turn. It's manifest not only in your repeated posts about the pod problems in this and other threads, but also in your posts about the condition of MV Galaxy that were far from current. More than a few of us think that enough is enough, so you can count on contradiction at every turn if it continues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
There are still some pieces missing, but I have found more than enough to get a good idea of what the picture looks like. I would like to point out that somewhere around 2003, the then CEO of Celebrity Jack Williams, said in a press conference that a solution had been found for the POD problems and that they would all be fixed in a year or so. I think we all know that that turned out to be not true.
I don't think it was in 2003. I think it was after the last round of pod problems aboard GTS Infinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Given the reluctance of Celebrity to give any truthful facts about this issue, I get my facts from places that are not biased about this problem and have no interest in any particular cruise line such as Events at Sea, Marinelog and ebearing News. I would be interested in exactly where you were able to obtain the information about this alleged fixing of the problem.
Case in point, this is pure disparagement that contributes nothing whatsoever to the present discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
You never did answer my question as to the reasoning as to why Celebrity would roll out this magical fix starting with the Constellation, which has not had a failure since it began carrying passengers in 2002.
I don't believe that to be the case. Rather, the information announced after the last problem surfaced was that GTS Infinity was going to receive the new pods first to test them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
You also forgot to mention that Celebrity still has a more than 300 million dollar lawsuit pending against this very same manufacturer for as Celebrity put it; "fraudulently marketing this system".
I did not "forget" to mention anything. The lawsuit in question is far from new and far from news to anybody who has been reading this board with any regularity. The latest development in the suit is that the manufacturer of the pods finally conceded that there's a problem and agreed to provide replacement pods with anew design following the most recent incident aboard GTS Infinity. There's still dispute as to damages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
FYI, I just talked to Celebrity customer service last Friday and was told by the Celebrity customer service agent that there had only ever been one POD problem on any Celebrity ship. In disbelief in Celebrity's lack of candor, I called back and from a different customer service rep, I at least got a new twist on the old "Celebrity story"; here is what I was told, "when the PODS do fail the problem can now be fixed while you are having a port day and there will be no need for dry dock or missing any ports when the PODS fail". When considering that the POD system is completely sealed with no access from inside the ship and the PODS are completely submerged, I would certainly like to see how Celebrity does do that! I am no engineer but I seriously doubt that that is anywhere even close to the truth!
Celebrity's customer service desk is notoriously awful, but the problem does not seem to stem from a desire of management to be dishonest. Rather, it seems to be a consistent problem with failure to provide peripheral information to the telephone representatives so they don't have the information to give out.

Of course, an "I don't have that information, but let me take your number and have somebody call you back" would be a lot better than wrong answers....

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Given the track record of Celebrity with these ships and lack of honesty in talking about it, I would want to wait for at least two years of trouble free sailing for all four of the m-class ships before believing that the problem has been permanently fixed. I think the food, service and entertainment are as good as any other mass market cruise line but this problem is unique to Celebrity and at least, in my opinion, does not reflect very well on how this company treats and values its customers.
In fairness, Celebrity was in a whopping legal bind. From an operational perspective, the preferred approach would have been to take all four ships of the Millennium class out of service until the manufacturer of the pods solved the problems that were causing the bearings to fail, but that approach would have given the pod manufacturer the legal argument that the failures were just an unfortuante coincidence and that the decision to take the ships out of service precluded additional experience that would have demonstrated that fact. There's also the fact that Celebrity had to pay the bills for these ships and needed the revenue that they generated to do so, with the companion legal argument that operating these ships in so far as possible would have generated revenue that would have partially mitigated the loss. The plaintiff in a civil lawsuit does bear a very strict obligation to minimize the loss, and thus is not legally entitled to damages for losses that were preventable. So practically speaking, Celebrity had no alternative course of action that would not have compromised its case in the lawsuit.

Having said that, I think that Celebrity has treated customers affected by pod problems very well. You can't complain about a full refund plus a certificate for a free cruise whenever the line cancelled a cruise due to a pod problem. On cruises in which ports of call were disrupted, the line has given generous shipboard credit that it was under no legal obligation to provide. And your lack of gratitude for Celebrity's generosity speaks far more powerfully about you than it does about Celebrity.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old February 19th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 529
Default

Norm:

Some of your posts are very helpful about ports and activities on board Celebrity ships. A few points, however, need to be cleared up:

First I have no problem with many aspects of cruising Celebrity ships, such as food, entertainment and on board service.
I don't own stock in any cruise line and you have stated in one of your posts the following: "Personally, I hold considerably more than the minimum 100 shares of RCL stock". Norm (Note: RCL is the parent company of Celebrity.)

I feel this fact could well be affect your giving an objective opinion about Celebrity and your desire to not want other posters to post of any problems encountered on any Celebrity ship. I even saw a post from you where you tacitly recommended that people buy RCL stock!!!! That comment requires no comment from me.

You have stated several things that just were not true in trying to minimize what I feel is a very important problem for all cruisers to be aware of before booking a Celebrity m-class ship. You stated that on your Galaxy cruise, last November that the "fogged windows in the Stratosphere Lounge on the Galaxy have been corrected before my most recent cruise, last October". This has been proven not to be true. (when confronted with the facts, to your credit, you did admit that "maybe you were mistaken).

You also stated the following "Indeed the pod failures were happening more or less annually on these ships before 2006. Norm -
This would seem to be distorting the true picture of the failures on the Millennium in Dec 06, Infinity July 06, Infinity September 06, Infinity November 06 and Summit May 06. This would also gloss over the POD failures in 2007 for the Millennium that went on from January until mid April (15 weeks) and the Infinity which also had a POD failure from January - May 20, 2007 (20 weeks). I post about these POD problems, to correct these “oversights� in far too many of your posts

(You said) “Having said that, I think that Celebrity has treated customers affected by pod problems very well. You can’t complain about a full refund plus a certificate for a free cruise whenever the line cancelled a cruise due to a pod problem. On the other cruises in which ports of call were disrupted, the line has given generous shipboard credit that it was under no legal obligation to provide. And your lack of gratitude for Celebrity's generosity speaks far more powerfully about you than it does about Celebrity�.


I agree that if you are booked on a cruise that is cancelled that Celebrity is fair. I do resent the reference to me when you said “your lack of gratitude for Celebrity’s generosity speaks more powerfully about you than it does about Celebrity�. That is the all-time spin, if you think that because Celebrity is sailing ships that are not always mechanically sound and missing more than half of what should have been a cruise of a lifetime is now somehow my fault! Your comment about my lack of gratitude for Celebrity's generosity is simply just ludicrous. I paid a total of more than $7,000 for my cruise. Because of Celebrity's choice to continue sailing a ship that they knew was not mechanically sound was the cause of me, along with more than 1,900 other passengers to miss over half of a cruise. Then for Celebrity to spread mis-information to passengers, who were on board, and have the nerve to offer $100 each for the inconvenience and you call it "generosity"!!! Yes, after most of the passengers complained about this outrageous treatment, Celebrity did, in the end, offer a future cruise 30% discount – strung with limitations.

(You) "so you can count on contradiction at every turn if it continues".

When you make statements like the "condition of the Galaxy is magnificent", or “POD failures were happening more or less annually before 2006� to people who think they are getting valid information, then I feel as I have said before, does a great dis-service to this board and to those who believe they are getting un-biased information. These kinds of comments deserve to have contradiction, for this board to continue to be a valuable tool for all that use it.

The Pod problems are not insignificant issues, as you would like to have people believe, but rather are an important consideration for all cruisers to consider before booking the Celebrity Infinity, Summit or Millennium cruise ships.

I have tried very hard to post the whole truth on this board and I would encourage anyone who is thinking about one of these ships to read my review on what can and did happen when the PODS failed while you are on board, such as on the May 7, 2006 Summit cruise to Alaska. While I can understand the perspective of someone who owns a considerable amount of RCKL stock and receives his money back and a free cruise, for one of the many a cancelled cruises". I would ask that the readers put themselves in my place and then decide for themselves if they would feel that Celebrity was fair and "generous"?

This board is a place for all potential cruisers to get valid information and not half truths and mis-representations. At the end of the day each individual should make up there own mind about the risks involved. Maybe I am all wet here, but, I am think a lot of people just want information, both the good and the bad and they should be able to get the whole story and not just part of the story.

Debra
__________________
With integrity nothing else matters; without it nothing else matters.

Winston Churchill

email: debra2106@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old February 20th, 2008, 02:43 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Debra,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Some of your posts are very helpful about ports and activities on board Celebrity ships. A few points, however, need to be cleared up:

First I have no problem with many aspects of cruising Celebrity ships, such as food, entertainment and on board service.
I don't own stock in any cruise line and you have stated in one of your posts the following: "Personally, I hold considerably more than the minimum 100 shares of RCL stock". Norm (Note: RCL is the parent company of Celebrity.)

I feel this fact could well be affect your giving an objective opinion about Celebrity and your desire to not want other posters to post of any problems encountered on any Celebrity ship. I even saw a post from you where you tacitly recommended that people buy RCL stock!!!! That comment requires no comment from me.
Factually, I have never taken issue with any posts criticizing Celebrity Cruises that have appeared to be objective and fair. In fact, I have posted such criticisms personally from time to time. OTOH, I do take issue with criticisms that are either inaccurate or over the top, and I am of the opinion several of your posts on this board have fallen into both of these categories.

Also, as a stockholder, I am probably one of the most hypercritical passengers on board most of the time -- though I do try to temper myself with a dose of rigorous objectivity. I generally notice things that most passengers would not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
You have stated several things that just were not true in trying to minimize what I feel is a very important problem for all cruisers to be aware of before booking a Celebrity m-class ship. You stated that on your Galaxy cruise, last November that the "fogged windows in the Stratosphere Lounge on the Galaxy have been corrected before my most recent cruise, last October". This has been proven not to be true. (when confronted with the facts, to your credit, you did admit that "maybe you were mistaken).
Okay, I messed up on the issue of fogged windows in the Stratosphere Lounge aboard MV Galaxy. I apparently looked out of a window that was NOT fogged up (there are some in the photograph), and did not recall the problem. And yes, I acknowledged the error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
You also stated the following "Indeed the pod failures were happening more or less annually on these ships before 2006. Norm -
This would seem to be distorting the true picture of the failures on the Millennium in Dec 06, Infinity July 06, Infinity September 06, Infinity November 06 and Summit May 06. This would also gloss over the POD failures in 2007 for the Millennium that went on from January until mid April (15 weeks) and the Infinity which also had a POD failure from January - May 20, 2007 (20 weeks). I post about these POD problems, to correct these “oversights� in far too many of your posts
I'll stand by my original statement. The pod failures were occurring more or less annually aboard each ship of the Millennium class before 2006, and all of them were documented on this message board.

That said, I'm not persuaded that the last of the dates in your list for GTS Infinity was an actual problem. Rather, IIRC, she operated at a reduced speed temporarily as part of the trials of the new pod design, which was working properly. Once the trials at reduced speed proved satisfactory, she resumed normal operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
(You said) “Having said that, I think that Celebrity has treated customers affected by pod problems very well. You can’t complain about a full refund plus a certificate for a free cruise whenever the line cancelled a cruise due to a pod problem. On the other cruises in which ports of call were disrupted, the line has given generous shipboard credit that it was under no legal obligation to provide. And your lack of gratitude for Celebrity's generosity speaks far more powerfully about you than it does about Celebrity�.


I agree that if you are booked on a cruise that is cancelled that Celebrity is fair. I do resent the reference to me when you said “your lack of gratitude for Celebrity’s generosity speaks more powerfully about you than it does about Celebrity�. That is the all-time spin, if you think that because Celebrity is sailing ships that are not always mechanically sound and missing more than half of what should have been a cruise of a lifetime is now somehow my fault! Your comment about my lack of gratitude for Celebrity's generosity is simply just ludicrous. I paid a total of more than $7,000 for my cruise. Because of Celebrity's choice to continue sailing a ship that they knew was not mechanically sound was the cause of me, along with more than 1,900 other passengers to miss over half of a cruise. Then for Celebrity to spread mis-information to passengers, who were on board, and have the nerve to offer $100 each for the inconvenience and you call it "generosity"!!! Yes, after most of the passengers complained about this outrageous treatment, Celebrity did, in the end, offer a future cruise 30% discount – strung with limitations.
Ships are very complex systems, and they experience minor mechanical problems quite often. In most cases, the crew repairs the broken pump or valve or whatever while the ship is underway and passengers are completely unaware of the problem.

The failure of a bearing is, in this context, a relatively minor problem in that it does not endanger either the ship or anybody onboard, nor does it affect the operation of any other equipment. The only consequence is to limit the ship's maximum speed to about eighteen (18) knots rather than the usual twenty-five (25) knots. And on a ship with conventional propulsion, the affected bearings would have been inside the hull where the crew could have replaced them while the ship was underway with perhaps a late arrival in one (1) port of call. Alas, one of the problems of the pod concept is that the bearings are outside the hull where it's necessary to put the ship into drydock to gain access to them. While this artifact of questionable design magnified the impact of the casualty on your cruise, it did not alter the fundamental severity of the problem. Your use of the term "mechanically unsound" in this context is both completely wrong and over the top.

And BTW, this is not just my opinion. If the pod problem had made the ship "mechanically unsound" as you suggest, the U. S. Coast Guard would not have allowed her to leave port with passengers.

So, let's turn to the question of what constitutes fair compensation. When you booked the cruise, did you read the Contract of Passage? This is the legal contract that governs your booking, and that defines the compensation to which you are legally entitled by reason of the deviation. Whether you realize it or not, you legally ratified this contract by placing a deposit for your booking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celebrity's Contract of Passage
6. Carrier may for any reason, at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing or port of call, or substitute another vessel or port of call, and shall not be liable for any loss whatsoever to Passenger by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.... By way of example, and not limitation, Carrier may deviate from any scheduled sailing and may otherwise land Passenger and his property at any port if Carrier believes that the voyage or any Passenger or property may be adversely affected as a result of hostilities, blockages, prevailing weather conditions, labor conflicts, strikes onboard or ashore, breakdown of Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties or any other cause whatsoever. Similarly, by way of example, and not limitation, Carrier may at its discretion elect not to visit a location shown on your itinerary....
(boldface added)

So, factually, you are not legally entitled to any compensation whatsoever for the deviation from your published itinerary. Celebrity gave you a shipboard credit purely as a gesture of good will, for which you SHOULD be grateful because you have NO LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER to it.

And if your posts in this thread and other threads on this board are the way in which you express your gratitude for the line's generosity in giving you a benefit to which you had no entitlement whatsoever, many of Celebrity's satisfied customers will be very grateful if you decide to cruise on another line forevermore.

And FWIW, this policy is not unique to Celebrity. Rather, similar language appears in the Contract of Passage of every cruise line. And very few other cruise lines have given any compensation whatsoever when mechanical failures have disrupted their cruises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
The Pod problems are not insignificant issues, as you would like to have people believe, but rather are an important consideration for all cruisers to consider before booking the Celebrity Infinity, Summit or Millennium cruise ships.
I'm not saying that they are insignificant, but I am saying that your posts are blowing them out of proportion. Other lines have had rashes of incidents that were much more serious and that proper maintenance would have prevented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I have tried very hard to post the whole truth on this board and I would encourage anyone who is thinking about one of these ships to read my review on what can and did happen when the PODS failed while you are on board, such as on the May 7, 2006 Summit cruise to Alaska. While I can understand the perspective of someone who owns a considerable amount of RCKL stock and receives his money back and a free cruise, for one of the many a cancelled cruises". I would ask that the readers put themselves in my place and then decide for themselves if they would feel that Celebrity was fair and "generous"?
As a stockholder, I am more than a little concerned about the fact that the pod problems do generate dissatisfaction and that the company's hands have been tied by the legal issues in the pending lawsuit. And I'm more than a little dismayed that the pod manufacturer preferred denial to acknowledging and solving the problem.

And note that I have often criticized Celebrity's decision to use the pod system in the first place. Speaking as an engineer with shipboard experience, I do not like the pod design because it puts likely points of failure where they are inaccessible during normal operations. Factually, the same problem could arise on any ship that uses external propulsion pods. Unfortunately, the original pods on the ships of the Millennium class seem to be the units in which the problems happened to arise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
This board is a place for all potential cruisers to get valid information and not half truths and mis-representations. At the end of the day each individual should make up there own mind about the risks involved. Maybe I am all wet here, but, I am think a lot of people just want information, both the good and the bad and they should be able to get the whole story and not just part of the story.
With that, I agree. And exaggeration of the risk is not especially helpful.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old February 21st, 2008, 03:46 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 461
Send a message via MSN to NY Cruisin Mama
Default

GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old February 21st, 2008, 03:20 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrie Platt
GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!!!!
Sherrie:

Your point is well taken. Please accept my apologies. I just hate to see incorrect or incomplete information posted. I will make no more comments about this issue on this thread.

Debra
__________________
With integrity nothing else matters; without it nothing else matters.

Winston Churchill

email: debra2106@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old March 7th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Junior Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: washington dc
Posts: 15
Default

I would just go with the gay atlantis cruise - you will probably have more fun. Djs from all over the usa, joan rivers, margaret cho, debbie gibson, and wanda sikes ...... sounds like fun...lol
__________________
1/2008 Carnival Triumph
1/2007 RCL Freedom of the Seas( Private Charter Group)
4/2006 RCL Explorer of the Seas
1/2006 RCL Navigator of the Seas(Private Charter group)
3/2005 Celebrity Constellation (Private Charter Group)
11/2003 Carnival Glory
3/2003 Carnival Paradise
1/2002 Carnival Triumph
9/2000 Carnival Destiny
2/2000 Carnival Fascination
2/1999 Carnival Destiny
4/1995 Dolphin Panama Canal
6/1989 Commodore (old line for sure)
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old March 16th, 2008, 11:58 AM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 147
Default Me thinks the Atlantis Charter is almost sold out

So if your gonna book, do it!

Then rent the movie with Cuba Gooding Jr. to see how its gonna be


Dave
__________________
Most recent cruises:
Celebrity Century - CocoCay 01/12/06
Celebrity Mercury - Mexican Riviera 03/17/06
Celebrity Mercury - Alaska 09/08/06
Celebrity Century - Freeport 01/04/07
RCL Monarch OTS - Ensenada 01/11/07
Celebrity Zenith - W. Caribbean 03/23/07
Upcoming cruises:
Azamara Quest - CocoCay 10/24/07
Celebrity Century - W. Caribbean 01/03/08
Celebrity Galaxy - Mediterannean 06/09/08
Celebrity Millenium - PNW 09/19/08
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old August 17th, 2008, 06:24 PM
Dannyboy's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A Southern Gentleman (Southern California)
Posts: 624
Send a message via Yahoo to Dannyboy
Default Ruby Princess

Try Cruising on the NEW RUBY Princess, she sails on Sat. out of Port Everglades doing the Western Caribbean.

You will find that the 7-day cruises should be less in cost and the Ruby Princess has self serve laundry rooms with irons, mini refigerators in the cabins and a 24 hour buffett


Princess will allow you to bring two bottles of wine onboard during deperture only, you can have them served in the main dinning room for $15 corkage charge each per stateroom, note, no size limit. Try the double magnums. there the size of four bottles each.
You can buy them at Total Wine 1906 Cordova Rd. Fort Lauderdale FL, 33316 (954) 828-9463 www.totalwine.com
Total Wine is about 6-blocks from Port Everglades. The Sun Trolley stops in the shopping center and also stops at Port Ever Glades (North entry) about 1-block from the Princess Pier, $3.25 for all day pass.
Celebrity charges $25 per bottle.

Princess also has anytime dinning, Celebrity does not.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old August 30th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 11,004
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

If a person wants to express their displeasure with having their cruise cancelled they have every right to do it. I apologize for the Rev diminishing your feelings about the inconvenience of this.

As far as taking the Atlantis cruise goes - even if you are a straight person who would enjoy an all-gay cruise (I find that a bit of a stretch personally, since they will take over everything including the entertainment) you would still have to pay a premium to go on that cruise if it is a full-ship charter. You couldn't book it at Celebrity rates, you would have to go through Atlantis.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old September 3rd, 2008, 03:32 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_dream
Whether it happens alot or not doesn't really matter when it happens to you. Also, if it does happen alot then I say that is a real customer service problem. As to this specific cruise, a few things make it a bit different than the standard situation.
Unfortunately, all cruise lines will take a full ship charter over regular bookings any day. It sucks, but it routinely happens. The only thing you can do if you really need that week is to try and rebook with the charter company. The only problem with that is first off, you will pay more ... in some cases a lot more ... since the charter company will have special events going on onboard the ship and lots of special guests and whatnot. Those people and events cost money, and the charter company usually surcharges its passengers to cover those expenses. For example, I once did a writer's conference cruise (not a full ship charter, but a large group onboard a regular sailing). We all paid something like $600 ABOVE our cruise fare to cover the cost of the conference. I'm also doing a Battlestar Galactica fan's convention cruise on the Carnival Paradise later on this month. We paid about $200 beyond our cruise fare for that.

The second problem with booking with the charter company is that the entire theme of the cruise for that week will be whatever the chartering company represents. So, in this case it's a gay cruise. Everything will be catered towards the gay community, obviously not something you would enjoy if you are straight.

I say try to "negotiate" with the cruise line for another date that works for you. Sometimes to keep a happy customer they will give some leeway on an alternative date/ship.

The only way to truly avoid charters is to book longer cruises, unfortunately. Seven to ten dayers will always be at risk for this sort of thing.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old September 3rd, 2008, 09:51 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 461
Send a message via MSN to NY Cruisin Mama
Default

If I read one more comment from either Debra or Norm about this "PODS"
issue - I will SCREAM !!! Enough already !! - this subject has been talked to DEATH - and in additiion, your "back and forth banter" has nothing to do
with the orginal poster's message. Secondly, if you still want to "trade punches" about this subject - make some type of private thread so the rest of us
can get a break!!!!! PLEASE !!!!!!!!!
__________________
Costa Atlantica, Jan. 2002 Caribbean
Dawn Princess, Jan. 2003 Caribbean,
Celebrity Summit - Jan. 2007 Panama Canal - Full Transit

Mariner of the Seas - Jan. 2009 Around the Horn B2B - 30 days

Future Floats: Jan. 2011 - Rotterdam - Hawaii/Tahiti - 30 days



The breaths you take are nothing compared to the moments that take your breath away !!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old September 11th, 2008, 12:30 AM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Default

Then why click on the thread ... & read it?

The great thing about these boards is to get all perspectives. I appreciate both their candor -- good points made on both sides

Nice to know all the angles -- less "shock" when something out-of-the-ordinary does happen , especially to a newer cruiser. I can't stand boards that gloss everything because it's blasphemous to point out any weaknesses with their line of choice. Future cruisers will expect flawlessness -- and be utterly shocked if it's not as flawless as folks claim it is.

I LOVE Celebrity, but appreciate any heads-ups regarding ANY potential surprises or changes even more when it regards any line/ship I may consider sailing. That's what makes this board great. To help people and be realistic for all possibilities.

Great board!
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old September 11th, 2008, 12:54 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 461
Send a message via MSN to NY Cruisin Mama
Default

My Dear FS121215: Yes, your points are well taken - that is what these boards are for - to offer helpful information especially to "first time cruisers". However, if you would check other headings especially about "Celebrity" you will find Norm and Debra's very, very lengthly comments about the "Pods" issue. Not everyone has unlimited time to
sit at their computer and read numerous comments about the same
issue, over and over, again. My reaction to their "banter" is well founded and I am simply expressing my personal opinion.
__________________
Costa Atlantica, Jan. 2002 Caribbean
Dawn Princess, Jan. 2003 Caribbean,
Celebrity Summit - Jan. 2007 Panama Canal - Full Transit

Mariner of the Seas - Jan. 2009 Around the Horn B2B - 30 days

Future Floats: Jan. 2011 - Rotterdam - Hawaii/Tahiti - 30 days



The breaths you take are nothing compared to the moments that take your breath away !!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old September 11th, 2008, 02:11 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 336
Default

Hal.....Hal....Open the Pod, Hal
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roll Call: Solstice March 28th, "Spring Break" 2guys Gay / Lesbian Cruising 0 January 18th, 2010 12:17 PM
Don't Want to Cruise during Spring Break 2009- When is it??? Emma'sNana Ask CruiseMates Staff 7 July 22nd, 2008 08:33 PM
Spring Break Cruise..anyone going? soccergirl3661 Teen Cruisers 0 February 2nd, 2007 10:25 PM
NCL Star cancels Spring Break jammiecat Norwegian Cruise Lines 4 December 28th, 2005 08:30 PM
Spring Break- what cruise?? Jess Singles 6 March 4th, 2003 11:39 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 PM.
design by: Themes by Design



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1