Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

photopro2

Members
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About photopro2

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    UK
  • Interests
    Professional photographer with long standing interest in Travel, Aviation and now Cruising
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Viking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agreed, the sail in was good to! The Map is now working properly again, so anyone who wants can review the images at any time by clicking on green line on the map which shows that part of the route.
  2. I appreciate the prompt correction SantaFe, I did think Cozumel looked a bit grander than I expected! I have now worked out what happened. The site is showing the correct almost live camera view but the map has not updated since Cozumel, hence my mistake. Hopefully it will update again when you leave Miami. Thanks again for putting that right and do have a brilliant trip.
  3. Hi SantaFe1, Looking at that map I mentioned I am guessing you are in Cozumel. That seems to be a change from the original itinerary. Are you still going to San Juan and picking up the planned route from there?
  4. Hi Azulann - Hope you are keeping well! In case you weren't aware you can follow along with frequently updated panorama pictures from The Sun and a map of the voyage so far by visiting https://viking.panomax.com/sun Wishing all on board lovely voyage and please take care of the ship for us - we need it in June 😎
  5. Please forgive me for being a little argumentative Peregrina 😘 The section you quoted in post 24 does not say anything about "name changes" it refers to the "substitution of another person for original booked passenger(s)" being deemed cancellation. As Little Monty pointed out this is not the case here as no substitution was required. I had assumed that there would be another section that was appropriate and covered exactly this situation (as the one I quoted from the UK version does) where a "person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place". If there is no similar provision in the US T&C's relating to this scenario then I can see no grounds in the contract by which Viking can ask for further payment if only one person travels. We should keep in mind though that we don't know the exact text of the email from the brother-in law to Viking. It is just possible he may (even inadvertently) have suggested that they were looking to cancel and so his email rather than the T&C's could have triggered the cancellation process.
  6. I am not saying that it is fair or equitable, quite the opposite, but I see nothing in that wording that is conditional and so would exclude an under-occupancy fee being chargeable after the booking has been paid in full. It may be harsh (or even not what was intended) but it seems that the agent in the US read it in that "catch all" way too. In order for it not to be applicable once the cabin had been paid for I feel it would need to be rephrased something like...... "C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels before the booking has been paid for in full and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements." I guess the only way to find out would be to ask Viking if it applies (in those countries where it appears) once the cabin has been paid for. I suspect that the answer might be rather like the comment from Humpty Dumpty in Alice in wonderland “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
  7. You are absolutely correct as usual Peregrina. I don't have access to the US T&C's however I expect that they are referring to something similar to the following from the UK site: "C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements." Fortunately we have overriding UK law which requires that any additional payments required cannot be disproportionate (i.e $4000 on top of the full twin occupancy price!). This is because even if the contract is properly drawn up and executed it is still subject to "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" which gives an indicative example of a term that would be unfair as "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation" I suspect that this is why that UK version only states that a customer "may" have to pay a supplement. I know that all of the above is of no help at all to the poster's sister, unless there is similar legislation in the US. However her story does show how important it is for us all to read and understand the T&C's in our own countries in full (boring as that might be) before committing to such major expenditure. As the cabin was already paid for, Viking were never in danger of suffering any significant direct and immediate loss financially. However, while they may be technically within their rights under the contract, it seems clear that Viking have scored a serious own goal. Sticking firmly to the letter of the contract gives a very negative perception of the company from a PR point of view, which could result in lost sales and revenue further down the line. Apparently Viking are already rethinking their original "snap" response as a recent post says "My sister and her husband have been talking with another Viking supervisor who has been very helpful and much more customer service oriented than the person who called them the night before the cruise." Both from reading these boards and from my own experience my feeling is that, for the most part, senior management at Viking want to do "the right thing" by their customers. Hopefully we will eventually hear that this latest issue had its roots in a poor decision from a junior agent and that all is straightened out to the customers satisfaction in the end.
  8. I apologise for my mistake trinicruisegyal and thanks for setting it straight. Now I know the reason that new luxury cruise ships have been excluded from the page I linked to, my mischievous mind wonders what a more strictly accurate title might be for that "New Cruise Ships on Order" page? "New 2nd Class Cruise Ships on Order" or "New Somewhat Less Luxurious Cruise Ships on Order" maybe? I can't find a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji so this one will have to do 😉 Also I would like to make clear I was not having a dig at the cruise critic staff (I love the community they have created and support) but just wanted to make sure Viking was not being unfairly excluded from the upcoming new ships list. Again thanks to trinicruisegyal for pointing out Cruisecritic have put them in the luxury category, where they belong.
  9. That is really funny I know that FF has a lot going for it so completely understand you sticking with it if you can. Thanks for the warning, I will steer clear of the bugs and glitches thread and stick with nice Viking folk like you 😘 Hope the solution comes quickly anyway!
  10. Sorry to hear that Peregrina, I am no tech expert and you may have already tried but I wonder if a different browser (eg firefox) might help? I did have problems with the boards myself using the Google Chrome browser (which I otherwise use most of the time) but found that Apple's own Safari browser connected perfectly and so I now use that almost exclusively for Cruisecritic. Well done keeping up on that tiny keyboard and hopefully you will find a solution soon, we very much enjoy your sensible and well informed posts.
  11. Sadly there is no mention of any of the new Viking ships on Cruisecritic's own new cruise ship page https://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/articles.cfm?ID=167#2022 Given the extent of Viking's expansion maybe Cruisecritic staff should look at giving that page an update!
  12. Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out but I have found several references on the web to the seventh Viking ship (Yard number 6283, April 2021) being called "The Viking Tellus". This seemed a bit out of line with the planetary names until I discovered that Tellus is Latin for "Earth". If they follow through with this then Tellus@vikingcruises will get a whole new meaning 😉
  13. photopro2

    Orion

    I was surprised too and it is not easy to find, even on their site but they do also have similar coverage for the Star and Sky. Did you notice that "viking-spirit" was part of the URL? I wonder if they got access to the ship before the new name was announced?
  14. I do miss the app on my phone which no longer works and can't seem to stay logged in anywhere other than on this desktop 😡
  15. Agreed, plus cruising will be mainly at night, plus you can always get a nice seat on the other side of the ship if required. So no preference for port or starboard but I might suggest a cabin near the lifts. We found no extra noise there but more convenient!
×
×
  • Create New...