Cruise West - Money Hungry or Incompetent?

[AlwaysOnTheRoad]

I just returned from Corinthian II trip to the Falklands, South Georgia, etc. I could not believe that a cruise ship company would sell an "expedition" trip to Antarctica to people who required walkers and physical assistance to navigate the ship much less anything more. But Cruise West apparently did just that. The expedition staff from Travel Dynamics International were in shock and were not shy about making their feelings known on the subject.

[dileep]

Travellers have a responsibility too. We had someone on our Minerva cruise who had no intention of getting off the ship on a zodiac but wanted to enjoy the scenery and close view of the wildlife from the ship.

We had to fill out a health questionnaire when we booked our expedition.

The other concern is the lack of medical facilities close by for medical emergencies.

 

Hopefully Cruise West made the nature of the cruise clear in the advertisements and promotional materials.

[minke]

The problem is many people do not appreciate the nature of a trip to Antarctica. In UK I had to get a doctors certificate to say I was fit for the trip on my dec 06 Hurtigruten cruise. I considered myself healthy & active with a few things being kept under watch. My doctor refused to sign without extensive hospital tests & consultants approval. This only came through at last moment & it was a close call as to wether I would lose my money. All worked out well in the end but many Americans on my trip had somehow got a doctor to sign their form who would certainly never have got past my doctor. Antarctica is not a cruise it is an adventure & with all adventures there is a danger.

[dileep]

many Americans on my trip had somehow got a doctor to sign their form who would certainly never have got past my doctor. Antarctica is not a cruise it is an adventure & with all adventures there is a danger.

 

I did not haveto provide a doctor's certificate; just my own answers to their questionnaire. But then that may have been Swan Hellenic's policy.

[AlwaysOnTheRoad]

One of the points a TDI staff member made was that irrespective of whether they can ever get one of these people in a zodiac, much less ashore, the risks of injury in rough seas is very real. The staff member said that in rough seas even very fit and young people suffer injuries. Someone who is 84 and required a walker is at very high risk! In addition, an injury puts all of the passengers at risk of having to turn the boat around and sail to the nearest port. Apparently the only Cruise West limitation was no wheelchairs!

[Louise22]

I don't think this problem is exclusive to just one cruise line. I cruise frequently on small ships and their terms always state that you certify you are not disabled. They reserve the right to decline passengers whose health, condition or actions adversely affect or threaten the welfare or safety of other passengers. The problem is that people will not admit that they might impede a cruise and sometimes downright lie to hide a condition. Once the cruise is underway, the staff most likely tries to make the best of a situation. It has happened several times to cruises I have done and is extremely annoying to other passengers and crew.

[diane.in.ny]

I don't put the blame on Cruise West. I put it on the pax. It is their responsibility to know their limitations.

 

I too sailed on a small ship with a passenger who had no intention of getting off...just wanted to enjoy the scenery. That is fine.

 

This is from the CW website:

 

Note: As with all voyages to this region, the itinerary is subject to change depending on wildlife, weather, sea and ice conditions. Your sense of adventure and flexibility towards changes will help you get the most out of this once-in-a-lifetime experience. For many destinations on this cruise, small motorized excursion craft are the only way to get ashore. Travelers should have confident balance and mobility to participate. Wheelchairs cannot be accommodated for most destinations and excursions ashore present a variety of physical environments. Please contact your Travel Professional or Cruise West to determine if your physical limitations will restrict activities and events for you.

 

If a pax is going to fool themselves into thinking they can handle all this, it is not CW's fault.

[minke]

diane.in.ny,

 

That wording by Cruise west is definately not strong enough IMHO. Passengers with certain dissabilities should always be excluded from an Antarctic cruise, it is just not fair on the other passengers. It beggers belief that anyone with a walker was allowed on a ship to Antarctica, I would have been most upset if one of those was on my ship but I do not think that cruiseline would have allowed them to board. Therefor it is CW's fault for not making things clear & obtaining the correct doctors certificate.

[diane.in.ny]

diane.in.ny,

 

That wording by Cruise west is definately not strong enough IMHO. Passengers with certain dissabilities should always be excluded from an Antarctic cruise, it is just not fair on the other passengers. It beggers belief that anyone with a walker was allowed on a ship to Antarctica, I would have been most upset if one of those was on my ship but I do not think that cruiseline would have allowed them to board. Therefor it is CW's fault for not making things clear & obtaining the correct doctors certificate.

 

I understand your point of view but

 

1) suppose they just wanted to sail on a smaller ship into Antarctica and had no plans to disembark? Would it have been right to exclude them?

 

and 2) I know, for a fact, where someone got a doctor to sign the required certificate and the person really was NOT as capable as implied. That is not the cruise line's fault

 

Pax need to have reasonable expectations for themselves and what they can and cannot due. I have no problem with the person with a walker being allowed on board. I would have a problem, though, with the crew allowing that person to board a zodiac.

[beth555]

I understand your point of view but

 

1) suppose they just wanted to sail on a smaller ship into Antarctica and had no plans to disembark? Would it have been right to exclude them?

 

and 2) I know, for a fact, where someone got a doctor to sign the required certificate and the person really was NOT as capable as implied. That is not the cruise line's fault

 

Pax need to have reasonable expectations for themselves and what they can and cannot due. I have no problem with the person with a walker being allowed on board. I would have a problem, though, with the crew allowing that person to board a zodiac.

 

I understand that the Drake can be pretty rough. Even those in fairly good condition can get hurt. How do you think people in walkers would handle such rough seas?

[diane.in.ny]

I understand that the Drake can be pretty rough. Even those in fairly good condition can get hurt. How do you think people in walkers would handle such rough seas?

 

I'd like to think they'd be smart enough to stay seated.

 

I can walk just fine and if the Drake was as bad as it can be when I crossed it, I'd be in my bed

[floridatravelersforlife]

I understand your point of view but

 

1) suppose they just wanted to sail on a smaller ship into Antarctica and had no plans to disembark? Would it have been right to exclude them?

 

and 2) I know, for a fact, where someone got a doctor to sign the required certificate and the person really was NOT as capable as implied. That is not the cruise line's fault

 

Pax need to have reasonable expectations for themselves and what they can and cannot due. I have no problem with the person with a walker being allowed on board. I would have a problem, though, with the crew allowing that person to board a zodiac.

 

No one , not even a honest doctor and all the tests can predict a persons's ability to successfully make such a voyage. This is all just legalling up for lawsuit jockeying and legal protection.

 

Overtly healthy people drop dead instantaneously and others need serious medical intervention after unforseen events. Unless they or their unhealthy counterparts are total fools, people on these voyages take a calculated risk of something happening whether the odds are large or small. Take a person, like the late Tim Russert who was in his prime, but he died instantly at his desk, yet I had the exact same coronary event and I walked out of the Hospital without after effects. I am sure many others have heard of such extraordinary events.

 

No person is immortal. Let pax do what they want as long as they are not a danger to others or the ship. For heavens sake , this is 2010 and one is not sailing with Magellan these days!

[Louise22]

I think your response is correct in only one respect. The point which should be considered is that some handicapped passengers knowingly realize they might have an adverse affect on a cruise. I was on an Alaskan small ship cruise and the person's one last desire was to see Alaska. He had to be carried everywhere. In the Galapagos, a severely handicapped woman fell the first excursion and badly injured herself. From then on she had to be escorted by her husband on one side and the doctor on the other side. In Peru, they were warned of particularly strenuous walks but they still got off the bus and held everyone back. In Antarctica, there was a single elderly woman aboard who could barely walk and had to be brought to meals because she would forget. These people are not a danger to other people but they might cause the ship to have to return to a port and disrupt everyone's cruise. They have to realize they might be a problem and I think this is the main reason for the cruise lines' wording. These ships relied on the person to be honest and did not require medical approval.