Top 10 Cruise Lines

[akterrye]

Hello everyone! I just finished reading my Travel + Leisure magazine and they had their annual "Reader's Poll - the World's Best Awards." Under the cruise lines:

Large-ship Cruise Lines
1. Crystal Cruises
2. Holland America Line
3. Orient Lines
4. Celebrity Cruises
5. Princess Cruises
6. Disney Cruise Line
7. Royal Caribbean
8. Cunard Line
9. P&O Cruises
10. Delta Queen Steamboat Co.

Small-ship Cruise Lines
1. Silversea Cruises
2. Radisson Seven Seas Cruises
3. Linblad Expeditions
4. Windstar Cruises

 

[ducklite]

Interesting, but with HAL's bout of bad luck (recurring Norwalk virus problems that have actually caused them to have to cancel at least one sailing, and this weeks problem with the ship that lost all navigation and had to be towed back to port) I wonder if they'll be able to hold that spot next year.

Has anyone heard what they've done (or not done) to compensate travelers inconvenienced by the problems, and how it comparred to what DCL has offered passengers on sailings with problems (ie the "Fire cruise", etc.)?

Anne

 

[Dave_from_Marietta]

Disney's one notch higher than Royal Caribbean... and Carnival's not even in the Top 10. So they outrank the two other cruise lines currently serving Port Canaveral.

 

[Señor Ferrari]

HAL is a very good cruise line, and their recent misfortune should not impact their overall perception. Celebrity is still #4, and they had to cancel at least two cruises on their new Infinity last year due to a problem with the propulsion system. Their Galaxy also had problems last summer, and I think missed a sailing. The recent problem with Statendam could happen to any ship. The fire cause the main circuit-breakers to trip due to the heat, and they were running on one generator, as opposed to 4 or 5. They cancelled that cruise and the following cruise. The following cruise probably could have sailed if it was scheduled to sail from Vancouver, but they had to get the ship up to Seward for the following week's trip, and they might not have been able to do that on time. Concerning the Norwalk virus problem on Ryndam, they're not the only line to have that problem in Alaska this summer. Ocean Princess had similar problems, but chose not to cancel any sailings. HAL probably could have done the same, but chose to cancel a sailing and thoroughly disinfect the ship.

As to compensation, the passengers on the cancelled Statendam trips got either a full refund and 25% off of a future cruise, or a future cruise credit equal to 150% of what they paid for that cruise. They're also assisting with travel arrangements from Vancouver. Since it was to be a one-way trip, passengers would not have already been holding return tickets from Vancouver. I'm not sure if this means that they're footing the bill, but probably not.

The Ryndam passengers get full refund plus 20-25% off a future cruise.

 

[ducklite]

Thanks for the response. While I can understand that both are problems beyond their control, I do'nt think taht I would have been happy with what they were offering, as both basically meant that you had to choose to cruise with them again to get any benefit.

Personally I feel that when a cruise is cancelled on short notice, the line should reimburse 100%, plus pay all additional out of pocket expenses incurred by the passengers (return tickets, hotel rooms, meals while trying to get a seat on a flight home, etc.), plus offer something else that doesn't force the pasenger to have to cruise with that line again in order to gain any benefit.

I know that if I had been on that ship, I would have spent three days of vacation just getting there and back.

I'm not sure what fair compensation would be, but I don't think it's what was offered. Anyone else? (I'm NOT trying to start a war, nor am I biased against HAL, I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has been on any line that has had problems and what was done for you. I just think this is an interesting topic.)

Anne

 

[taswira]

ducklite - It would be nice if cruise lines could afford to do that, but if they had to sail making that sort of offer in the event of an incident, you can bet that cruise prices would be even higher and I really don't want to see that. Bad luck hits all lines at <I>some</I> time in their operation - even DCL. Their compensation is better if you sail with them again, because otherwise too many people would probably "jump ship" to another line because a single incident beyond their control ruined one vacation. It makes sense to me that they want to do everything possible to get the disgruntled people sailing with them again - to prove to them that things <I>can</I> go well and regain their loyalty. You're right that it makes for unhappy customers at the time, but in the long run I think it's good business sense.

 

[ducklite]

Taswira,

I can see your point, however if I feel burned by a company, I'm not going back until the pot has been REALLY sweetened. 25% off another cruise isn't such a good deal, you can get that by booking early or going through a consolidator.

If you are on a ship that breaks down and are towed back to port, or you arrive at the port to find out you aren't going anywhere, and it's not the port you were to be going home from, then you've got some potentially tremendous airfare just to purchase a ticket to get home. Best case scenario is you have to pay a change fee, which if there are four in your party is $400 right there. It's very likely taht you will asked to pay the difference between the tickets you are currently holding and the new airfare, which could be in the thousands. Now what if you can't get seats on a flight for two days because it's peak season and they are booked? You need to pay for two days lodging in a hotel. Plus meals during that time. So now you are probably out another $600 anyhow. Add to that lost vacation time, and it's really adding up.

Somehow looking at it this way isn't justifying a 25% voucher on a future cruise. It's probably not even covering your out of pocket losses on the current one.

In that case I'd cut my losses and cruise with a competitor next time anyhow.

If the cruise line put me up and made arrangements for me to get back home (of course I would hand over my return trip tickets) at no additional expense, I would be at least somewhat happier, thinking they were at least trying. Then I would be far more likely to book them again.

Comments anyone?

Anne

 

[prymsu]

I think you should cruise free, and be reimbursed for any out of pocket expenses, but that is just my two cents.

 

[taswira]

You've got some good points, ducklite. I just look at things differently, I guess. My view is that if an incident happens on one cruise line, odds are it might happen on a <I>different</I> line before it recurs on the same one. You never know. I'd be more likely to stick with the same line if it was one I really wanted in the first place, like with DCL. If I didn't trust and respect a particular cruise line, I'd never book with them at all. As for out-of-pocket expenses, well, that's why I <I>always</I> travel with <I>very good</I> trip insurance ;-). Travel is a <I>big</I> part of my life as a wildlife photographer. Things have happened on occasion (not cruises), but I've always been reimbursed by my insurance for every penny.

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by taswira
Things have happened on occasion (not cruises), but I've always been reimbursed by my insurance for every penny.

I would of course purchase travel insurance. And of course that should pay first. But the cruise line IMHO should pay for ay difference and offer more than 25% (which is easy to get anyhow as I mentioned earlier) for future sailings. 25% plus a guaranteed double upgrade, or 50% plus a guaranteed upgrade might make me happy, as long as I had absolutely no out of pocket expenses and my refund came VERY promptly (like via Fed Ex before I made it home...)

Anne

 

[fireplug]

We sailed on RCL in 1993 and we booked the whole trip through them including r/t airfare. When we were scheduled to leave San Juan for the return trip there was an issue with the plane and we were trapped in p.r. The cruise line put us all up in hotels and gave us meal vouchers. The problem was not theirs but they took care of the problem.I did not feel they owed us anything more. If they had overbooked or done something else that was more their fault I would have been less pleased. But the problem was no one fault and I do not feel they should be expected to compensate me for an "act of God" .

Steve

 

[doombuggy]

Back to the topic of the top 10 cruise lines...........

The two lines that I have sailed on are in the top ten - Cunard & Celebrity. I have been on 3 Cunard ships (Vistafjord, Cunard Countess, and the QE2 - twice) and one of Celebrity's (Meridian) and would sail on either line again. The only bad thing that happened to me on the Meridian was my room was over the show lounge and would get loud at night. Of course my favorite was the Queen Elizabeth 2, and it's my dream to sail her transatlantic. She will always be my favorite, although looking forward to the "Disney Adventure on the High Seas" next May!

 

[Dave_from_Marietta]

Originally posted by doombuggy

My favorite was the Queen Elizabeth 2, and it's my dream to sail her transatlantic.

Better hurry. Once Cunard introduced the Queen Mary 2 (currently under construction), the QE2 will be retired from transatlantic service.

 

[Señor Ferrari]

Dave's right. The summer of 2003 will be the last transatlantic season for the QE2.

Getting back to the topic of HAL's Statendam problem, the report I read yesterday said that they did cover the cost of travel for its passengers. All in all, they estimate the two missed voyages will cost them over $11 million dollars.

I'd have to say that I believe that their reimbursement is pretty generous. If you can get a 25% discount by booking early, you could ostensibly add to that with the voucher you get from this cruise. In addition, you lose nothing but your time for the first attempt at cruising. Or, you could book another cruise at a higher category with the 125% credit. As someone pointed out before, if you're already sold on the cruise line, I think most people would be willing to give them another chance. As always, there's no way that they'll make everyone happy, but they are going above and beyond what they're legally required to do. In the end, they may lose some passengers to other lines, but there's really no way to avoid that.

 

[lpursell]

Regarding HAL compensation: in 1994 we booked a land/sea Alaska pkg with HAL including air. While we were traveling from Fairbanks to Anchorage on the land portion of the trip (b/4 the cruise) the ship had a problem and we were unable to board. They sent us home with no cruise at their expense. When they issued the refund, they pro-rated the amount by day. It was a 13 day trip so they refunded 7/13 of the money (7 day cruise) plus a $200 shipboard credit. 7/13 of the money was not enough to pay for another cruise because the cruise was the most expensive part of the trip! We had purchased the trip insurance but it didn't do any good. I asked an independent insurance company how they would have handled it and they said they would do the same thing.

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by Señor Ferrari
Getting back to the topic of HAL's Statendam problem, the report I read yesterday said that they did cover the cost of travel for its passengers. All in all, they estimate the two missed voyages will cost them over $11 million dollars.

That's good to hear. In all honesty, I can GUARANTEE that they have business interuption insurance that will compensate them for the lost sailing revenue, right down to lost gambling and alcohol revenue. So they really will have minimal losses when all is said and done. The biggest losers are the crew that depends on tips.

If they would issue a 25% off discount and allow you to use that in addition to an early booking discount, plus cover out of pocket expenses not covered by the travel insurance, than that would be a good start. But if it's one or the other, fagedaboudit.

Anne