Celebrity Xpedition June 2nd Sailing Cancelled

[kitty9]

I don't understand this. What's the big deal about having lobsters on a cruise ship? Do they restrict anything else?

[uktog]

And the lobster was dead anyway

 

Reminds me of the disembarkation farce in Bali where "mypalmsbeengreased minor" eventually agreed immigration was complete so we could disembark only for the first tender to be met by Colonel Palmsnotyetgreased who sent the tender back and 90 min standoff ensued before more money was paid none of which was legally due

 

Some environmental issues are right that GNP are strict but a line has been crossed here if the lobster is the sole reason - pardon the pun

 

Again so sorry to all negatively affected including the crew

[5waldos]

L

3. If they were just regular lobsters, with no connection to Galapagos, then who cares? Are you telling me that this one cruise port can dictate what kind of food a cruise ship is allowed to bring along for their passengers?

 

 

Uh- yes. The Ecuadoran government has apparently stipulated that a significant portion of the food served on board be of Ecuadoran origin. So in essence- yes they can and do dictate what food a cruise ship brings for their passengers.

[Turtles06]

All the other ships are locally owned. And now Silversea has bought into the game. Could this be Xenophobia?

 

Sorry, are you saying the Nat Geo/Lindblad ships are locally owned?

 

My sympathies to those who have been affected by the cancellation. I know it's a really huge deal to have planned a very special trip like this; you can't just flip a switch and do it easily again. I hope you are fairly compensated, and that you do get to go on this adventure in the future.

[2552phxcrzr]

Uh- yes. The Ecuadoran government has apparently stipulated that a significant portion of the food served on board be of Ecuadoran origin. So in essence- yes they can and do dictate what food a cruise ship brings for their passengers.

 

Not saying there's not something fishy going on ... especially since the "new rule" was implemented without apparent notice and Celebrity indicates the lobsters were bought during the legal season, but if I recollect accurately, as part of the conservation efforts, and to eliminate over-fishing of the Galapagos lobsters, there are restrictions in place for when these lobsters can be fished and sold for consumption.

[Merriem]

Sorry, are you saying the Nat Geo/Lindblad ships are locally owned?

 

My sympathies to those who have been affected by the cancellation. I know it's a really huge deal to have planned a very special trip like this; you can't just flip a switch and do it easily again. I hope you are fairly compensated, and that you do get to go on this adventure in the future.

 

I think they are leased, but not sure

[TPKeller]

Uh- yes. The Ecuadoran government has apparently stipulated that a significant portion of the food served on board be of Ecuadoran origin. So in essence- yes they can and do dictate what food a cruise ship brings for their passengers.

Sounds like the Galapagos needs some liberating from such an oppressive government.

 

Theron

[May B]

Not saying there's not something fishy going on ... especially since the "new rule" was implemented without apparent notice and Celebrity indicates the lobsters were bought during the legal season, but if I recollect accurately, as part of the conservation efforts, and to eliminate over-fishing of the Galapagos lobsters, there are restrictions in place for when these lobsters can be fished and sold for consumption.

 

Besides when they can be fished and sold, evidently now there's a third regulation. They can only be kept (or served?) up to five days after the end of the season (as I understand it, but of course I've been wrong before, and I hope to heck I live to be wrong many more times in my lifetime!).

[TPKeller]

Besides when they can be fished and sold, evidently now there's a third regulation. They can only be kept (or served?) up to five days after the end of the season (as I understand it, but of course I've been wrong before, and I hope to heck I live to be wrong many more times in my lifetime!).

AND now apparently people are required to see six weeks into the future, to adhere by any new rules that might be published after you follow the old ones...

 

This place is a Banana Republic.

 

Theron

[5waldos]

Don't jump too fast to determine who is at fault here. I understand that in addition to the lobsters there were octupus or squid. And it is not the first time that Celebrity has run afoul of the Ecuadoran authoritities. Their story may be absolutely on the up and up- or shaded to make it sound just a bit better. I really don't know. What I do know is the the Ecuadorans are very good guardians of the Galapagos.

[FLACRUISER99]

Don't jump too fast to determine who is at fault here. I understand that in addition to the lobsters there were octupus or squid. And it is not the first time that Celebrity has run afoul of the Ecuadoran authoritities. Their story may be absolutely on the up and up- or shaded to make it sound just a bit better. I really don't know. What I do know is the the Ecuadorans are very good guardians of the Galapagos.

And the Ecuadoran Government does not like the USA!:rolleyes:

[ariawoman]

Now I'm reading that they have lost their permit for 45 days.

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/9349-celebrity-loses-galapagos-permit-temporarily.html

 

I feel bad for all the disappointed passengers. :(

[Andy]

Now I'm reading that they have lost their permit for 45 days.

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/9349-celebrity-loses-galapagos-permit-temporarily.html

 

I feel bad for all the disappointed passengers. :(

 

Hi Ariawoman,

 

I agree. I feel very bad for the affected Guests, as they are being severely penalized for what seems an easily resolvable situation. As I've said previosuly... fine Celebrity if need be, but allow the ship to sail. It's absolutely ridiculous and unfair to penalize the Guests - many of whom consider this as a trip of a lifetime.

 

It's important to note that Celebrity is currently appealing the decision. Therefore, as we shouldn't assume Xpedtion will be out of service for 45 days.

 

It's a very difficult (and fluid) situation. I truly hope that all parties come to a quick resolution, and allow Xpedtion to return to service immediately.

[Merriem]

At this point I doubt it

[chamima]

And the lobster was dead anyway

 

Reminds me of the disembarkation farce in Bali where "mypalmsbeengreased minor" eventually agreed immigration was complete so we could disembark only for the first tender to be met by Colonel Palmsnotyetgreased who sent the tender back and 90 min standoff ensued before more money was paid none of which was legally due

 

Some environmental issues are right that GNP are strict but a line has been crossed here if the lobster is the sole reason - pardon the pun

 

Again so sorry to all negatively affected including the crew

 

 

We were on the Solstice with you in February and when I read this, Bali was the first thing I thought of, also! :(

[MicCanberra]

It is sad when something so trivial can have this effect on so many. I think there will be more than one twist in this lobster tale. (pardon the pun).:D

[miXterOB]

I have absolutely no doubt that every single time a ship pulls into any port, they deal with God only knows what kind of local idiocy and this appears to be insultingly obvious...Silverseas is trying to replace X as the Galapagos main cruiseline and they've greased the right palms.

Time to reposition the ship to a new location of interest and let Silverseas deal with the local palms...if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you

[Jade13]

...Silverseas is trying to replace X as the Galapagos main cruiseline and they've greased the right palms.

Time to reposition the ship to a new location of interest and let Silverseas deal with the local palms...if they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you

 

Why do you say that or think that Silversea paid someone to ban X for 45 days? I wouldn't even say that Celebrity is the "main" cruise line in the Galapagos. It may be the main one that Americans (or those from the UK) use, but not everyone that travels there is from the US.

 

I do agree that I don't think this has anything to do with lobsters. It is obvious that Celebrity does not have a good relationship with the park officials. Otherwise they would have spoke to them, apologized, paid the fine if that is what they were required to do, and all these cruises would not be canceled.

 

But that is a big statement to blame this on Silversea who is not locally owned.

[miXterOB]

If it seemed I was blaming Silverseas it was NOT intentional.

It appears to me that the locals have decided their new girlfriend is prettier and have kicked the (e)X to the curb.

Ingratiating a business to the local politicos is standard operating procedure everywhere and it's simply how things are.

X was bested on this one it seems...

We shall see

[Jade13]

.Silverseas is trying to replace X as the Galapagos main cruiseline and they've greased the right palms.

T

 

Well, I have to say one thing. In my opinion Silversea has a better itinerary for the 7 nights. Has anyone looked at it? It is the itinerary that we did years ago that goes all around the park/Islands.

 

The park dictates/approves the itineraries, and I thought the ships could only go to the same Islands once every 14 days which was the reason that Xpedition doesn't have one 7 night cruise that goes all around but concentrates 7 nights in one area (on most days spends a full day on one Island although at different landing points) and than 7 nights on other Islands. We moved around a lot more when we were there last on an Ecuadorian owned ship. Since the wildlife is different on all Islands (with some exception such as species of marine Iguanas that move around), you don't see as much on the X itinerary but have to do the A & B itineraries (14 nights) to see what you could on another ship that moves to more Islands.

 

I know most people do not care since they want to go with Xpedition no matter what the itinerary (or figure it is all new so they don't care), but I am just pointing that out.

[Jade13]

If it seemed I was blaming Silverseas it was NOT intentional.

It appears to me that the locals have decided their new girlfriend is prettier and have kicked the (e)X to the curb.

Ingratiating a business to the local politicos is standard operating procedure everywhere and it's simply how things are.

X was bested on this one it seems...

We shall see

 

But why does this have to do with Silversea? It could be any ship that is not Ecuadorian owned.

 

I think the Celebrity personnel have a bad relationship with local officials. Maybe you are saying the some thing, but if that is the case they need to put other people in these positions.

 

We loved our cruise on Santa Cruz in Galapagos. It was our favorite cruise ever and the only reason we booked on Celebrity next year (besides the fact we have really liked our Celebrity cruises) is because the Xpedition is significantly less money (with 10 night package), at least if booked in advance.

[Merriem]

But why does this have to do with Silversea? It could be any ship that is not Ecuadorian owned.

 

I think the Celebrity personnel have a bad relationship with local officials. Maybe you are saying the some thing, but if that is the case they need to put other people in these positions.

 

We loved our cruise on Santa Cruz in Galapagos. It was our favorite cruise ever and the only reason we booked on Celebrity next year (besides the fact we have really liked our Celebrity cruises) is because the Xpedition is significantly less money (with 10 night package), at least if booked in advance.

 

I have speculated all kinds of things, non of which may be correct. I just hope this issue is resolved shortly as we are scheduled to leave here July 4 th. Celebrity does pay a lot of money to be in the Galapagos, so you would think the park would want them there as well as Silversea. Two nice ships are better than one. For everyone's sake, hoping for some resolution this week.

[MicCanberra]

I have speculated all kinds of things, non of which may be correct. I just hope this issue is resolved shortly as we are scheduled to leave here July 4 th. Celebrity does pay a lot of money to be in the Galapagos, so you would think the park would want them there as well as Silversea. Two nice ships are better than one. For everyone's sake, hoping for some resolution this week.

Yes, I do to for everyone's sake. :D

[MicCanberra]

Some great news about the ban with a stay put in place until further notice. This means that the negotiations are still taking place and the cruises can continue until it is resolved further, the 9 June cruise will go ahead. See http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1855935&page=2 for info.:D

[drarill]

I have speculated all kinds of things, non of which may be correct. I just hope this issue is resolved shortly as we are scheduled to leave here July 4 th. Celebrity does pay a lot of money to be in the Galapagos, so you would think the park would want them there as well as Silversea. Two nice ships are better than one. For everyone's sake, hoping for some resolution this week.

Hope it works out for everyone's sake!!