, I must inform you that Holland America's standards and practices are discriminating

[1cruiselvr]

You may not have witnessed it but it does take place. It's especially a problem in a port like Cabo San Lucas which is usually 1/2 day. By the time the HAL excursion folks are acommodated, it leaves about 1 hr for the rest to get off and see the port. I don't know why HAL can't do both - get the HAL excursion folks off on time as a group and allow nonexcursion folks off as well. The way it is organized now, none excursion pax have to wait and sometimes they only run 2 tenders which means a long wait. It isn't easy sitting in the holding area waiting for hrs for the tenders to be released for nonexcursion pax, when you know time is slipping away to enjoy the port and there are 2 more tenders that could be used to speed the process. Happy Sailing!

[dakrewser]

In any event, this thread has helped me make up my mind about a future cruise. I will remove from consideration a potential cruise from Brazil (Manaus) to the US.

 

We've already eliminated HAL from consideration of So. American cruises because they go to Rio. Santiago-Buenos Aries (or reverse) seems so much nicer....

[dakrewser]

Remember that the ship has no control over docking privileges. That's up to the port authorities. So be sure you know who to blame for those situation.

[JS6CQ9]

Once agian, as many of the folks who responded have recognized. It is not the fact that we were delayed, putting it bluntly H.A.L. lied to 1/2 of it's passengers. We fully realize that when you travel abroad, you must be prepared for possible issues that are out of your control.

 

This is an ethical issue with H.A.L. statements, not immigrations.

[JS6CQ9]

PS Woodofpine has professionally stated how H.A.L. should have positioned their statements. As of toady, I have not heard from any board or senior staff members of H.A.L.

 

Hopefully, someone from H.A.L. will read Woodofpine reflections and apply them to future on board official statements.

[shaver]

how stupid.

you think that they would want us spending our money for 6 1/2 hours in their country.

[RuthC]

Once agian, as many of the folks who responded have recognized. It is not the fact that we were delayed, putting it bluntly H.A.L. lied to 1/2 of it's passengers. We fully realize that when you travel abroad, you must be prepared for possible issues that are out of your control.

 

This is an ethical issue with H.A.L. statements, not immigrations.

So, basicly what you are saying is either:

If HAL had said their shore ex passengers could go ashore, but non-shore ex passengers had to remain onboard until cleared by the local authorities it would have been all right, at least as far as HAL goes.

or

If nobody could go ashore until everybody could then that would have been all right.

In neither case would your position have improved. Right? :confused:

So this is all about the wording? :confused:

[wander]

To me it seems like it is actually a change in emphasis. The thread title and the OP, quite clearly concerned alleged discrimination against folks on private tours.

[JS6CQ9]

First, I would like to state that my comments are not sour grapes. My friends and I have been loyal mariner H.A.L. cruisers for many years. Our journeys have included at least 5 of their 16 day or greater cruises.

 

It is my feeling that my statements and opinions are factual and precise!

 

Prior to disembarkation of the Amsterdam, I made a personal commitment to many of the passengers who were affected by this H.A.L. on board senior management decision. The commitment was to write this letter to Charlie Christ (Attorney General Sate of Florida), all H.A.L. board members and senior management in Seattle.

 

As I mentioned in my above statements, this is not an isolated opinion. Many of my fellow passengers have written their comments to H.A.L. back in November & December.

 

To summarize the issue is simple,

 

A) At least 500 Passengers were lied to and misdirected by on board senior management.

 

B) Half of the Amsterdam's passengers were detained for over six 1/2 hours longer than all of H.A.L.'s land tour passengers.

 

C) Standards and practices of Holland America are biased towards certain passengers.

 

After reviewing some of the comments on this site, I feel Holland America is responding to our complaint.

 

There have been statements that other cruise companies tender their land tour passengers prior to self coordinated land tour passengers. My issue is not with other cruise companies, it is with H.A.L. By the way, this was not a tendered port!

 

Companies must set themselves apart from their competitors, especially if the fares are relatively higher then the others. In all of H.A.L. marketing comments on their web site, it is stated that they are "The world's highest-rated premium cruise line". They also have won an award for "Most Accommodating to Passengers Before, During and After the Cruise"

-National Association of Cruise Oriented Agencies (NACOA).

 

In my humble opinion, a premium cruise line who has won awards for being the most accommodating to its passengers should not be segmenting guest when it comes to public standards and practices. A premium cruise line also should not directly make false statements to its passengers.

 

 

Based upon what happened to us and the other 500 frustrated passengers, they are not living up to their marketing statements. Once again, because another company might be implementing this type of unprofessional behavior, it does not mean that a premium cruise line like H.A.L. should be doing the same.

 

If you are a third party cruise organizer and feel that you might need additional validation of what transpired on this South America cruise. I would strongly suggest that you contact the AAA office in Seattle Washington and ask for the representative who coordinated this cruise for their clients. I am confident they would be happy to let you know what happened to their 70 passengers as it relates to this issue.

 

My fellow traveler & I are only a party of two, however we paid our full fare just like everyone else.

[rkacruiser]

Spongerob's decision is sad. To decide against such a wonderful itinerary because of such potential hassles prevents one from experiencing some unique opportunities. And who suffers? We, the tourists: deprived of experiences that could change, positively, our views of that part of the world. And, also, the native folks of the area: our visit is of economic importance to them

[xpcdoojk]

We've already eliminated HAL from consideration of So. American cruises because they go to Rio. Santiago-Buenos Aries (or reverse) seems so much nicer....

 

Funny I booked HAL because they go to Rio.... Why wouldn't you want to go to Rio?:confused: We are starting in Rio, and yes we will need a visa, but it is one of the great cities of the world....

 

jc

[JS6CQ9]

It is with great regret to announce, as of today 2-4-05 no one from H.A.L. has contacted me regarding this situation.

[dakrewser]

Funny I booked HAL because they go to Rio.... Why wouldn't you want to go to Rio?:confused: We are starting in Rio, and yes we will need a visa, but it is one of the great cities of the world....

 

jc

 

It is, but if the Brazilians want to show their pique by holding up US tourists at the entry points then I see no reason to spend my money there. Buenos Aires is also a lovely city...

 

-dave