Windsurfboy

This way it was on SOD in November

No general compensation when Sod stuck in Lisbon for 3 days , interesting to see if this is different

Interested to see what happens , Saga said our two days stuck in Lisbon with broken engine was insignificant.

Rough or very rough in northwest Fitzroy, but they would not go there.

Could be bad by tommorow lunch in north Biscay, but would have missed it if kept to orginal track. Like our cruise dodging imaginary storms. SoD disaster leading to excessive caution

Have you asked interesting to see what they say

At Airports you can get priority for both process, just fly first or business or have a gold card. It's the same with P&O pay for a suite or have high status.. It's like someone said earlier, buy a basic economy ticket, BA allocate you group 6 , so why think you should board with group 1. However lots do and it causes chaos. Yes there's many "almost" valid excuses why anyone thinks they should be allowed to board earlier , at their leisure. But in the end things run more smoothly if everyone sticks to allocated time

Not a huge sum.

No from Saga

Success

I had a similiar problem on Cunard whose WiFi is notoriously bad. By going on very very early before everyone else awake, it was surprisingly good.

The included sparkling is better in speciality restaurants than MDR, don't know why. Get a glass from supper club bar. To significantly improve on the included wines need to go to top end of pay for. Wines at £30 to 40 . Good news Saga charge same as wine merchants, so would be £100 in most restaurants. Except for the occasional treat of top pay for wine, on other days avoided house wine may be a odd glass of sparkling. As a nice cocktail before dinner, and a malt or armagnac or two after dinner was plenty. Included spirits far better than included wine.

Saga just like to do things their way , even if it makes no sense. For example in 2022 when black sea cruise was cancelled, I learnt all the detail about it on this forum , including new Intinerary, 10 days before they rang me. When I said to good old Nigel Blanks that it was annoying to hear about it first on social media, and why Saga couldn't email out the details. He was surprised and said , Saga customers like to be phoned up, that is the Saga way. I think that only applies to a small %. Saga surprisingly out of touch.

Windsurfing in South Africa 😁

I completely understand how you feel. Now that I have all the arguments "down on paper", in my emails to Saga, and sorted out succinctly in my mind. A formal complaint to ABTA looks quite easy, and I will make Saga work for it for as long as I can. ABTA looks the easiest step as it can all be done online, as I will be out of country for 3 months.

Are you going to take it any further. I'm still awaiting response from Mr Blanks, expect excuses. I questioned the validity of the paragraph quoted by customer relations. The one saying they could change intinerary as they wish for any reason at their sole discretion , not just for extraordinary circumstances. Any such changes would be deemed insignificant. This carte blanche reads very much like an unfair contract. Weather is classed as Extraordinary circumstances, technical problems are always responsibility of carrier, not extraordinary. Hence they cannot deny liability for the extra 2 days in Lisbon and the consequential curtailment of the Carribean sector. My next step is definitely a formal complaint to ABTA, and perhaps parallel letter to media consumer column , I don't know if you can do both in parallel.

I've always found QG to be same price as Saga suite not deluxe, assuming you get the 35% or 30% discount by buying early on Saga. For the full no discount price would never go Saga. Competition at that price is Silver sea, Seabourn or Regent. Which do have better food.

The advice in getting is the technical issues with the engine and hence the consequences of that , cannot be fobbed off as extraordinary circumstances outside the control of Saga.

The guest experience Executive came back to me and said that , she couldn't reconsider her answer as the decisions had been made by their board and senior management, and that was that basically that. Suggested I take it up with ABTA. I don't know if it is worth questioning Blanks again, Clearly we will get nowhere without involving 3rd party, Just have to decide which one.

I have recieved my response which is very similiar to Banjo an recieved. However they also said that terms and conditions allow for insignificant changes "Examples of insignificant changes include, but are not limited to, closure of ship facilities for maintenance; change from a berth to a tender port, change to advertised amenities; change to port times, change to itineraries; change to included and optional excursions and entertainment. Please note we will not pay compensation or offer alternative options if we make an insignificant change." I wrote back rejecting their arguement, on the grounds that individually you might regard these changes as insignificant, however given the number of changes cumulatively they become significant. It is widely recognised principle that a large number of insignificant changes adds up to a significant change in the overall delivery. I don't think we will get anywhere, once they have rejected my rejection, I will seriously consider involving the media, who have consumer protection columns. It's either that or small claims court, but I'm more interested in being taken seriously than the money. ,

I take the airlines ruling by courts and CAA , weather is exempt from any responsibility. Technical problems, are 100% airlines responsibility, no let out clauses. See no reason for any difference for cruises. But I'm sure Mr Blanks does

Nothing yet

Why was it safe to leave port with known problems. Saga, in the form of the Captain, denied that they knew about any problems before they left Portsmouth. That is, they didn't look

Banjo an. I hope you not are going to leave it there, and at least tell Mr Blanks he is losing a customer, I see Nigel Blanks emphasises the weather not the break down. He tries to say it's unavoidable or extraordinary. As if Saga aren't responsible for maintenance. Extract from Saga terms and conditions "In the interests of safety and the well-being of our customers, the Ships’ Masters (and Saga Cruises Limited) shall have absolute discretion to alter the routing of the cruises at any time and for any reason. The safe navigation of the ship is paramount and circumstances where the route may be changed include, but are not limited to, Unavoidable and Extraordinary Circumstances." Mr Blanks may say the extra days in Lisbon were "unavoidable" as the engine needed fixing. The question that he has avoided is, Given the problem encountered with software in the previous cruise, wouldn't it have been PRUDENT to have Seimens engineers look at the system as soon as the ship arrived in Portsmouth and fix it there before ship left port. By doing so the breakdown in Lisbon would have been avoided . Why didn't they do the prudent and obvious thing. Given the time in Lisbon was thus avoidable how can Saga take no responsibility. He has yet to answer this question, we should keep at him . We have another cruise booked and I won't be throwing away my £4500 deposit. But I shall make it clear that that will be my last Saga cruise.

I haven't heard back, can you post this on Discovery thread