The most frustrating and unnecessary thing about cruising?

[The_Big_M]

Example of a short visit.

In September 2015, the Caribbean Princess calls in at Hellesylt, Norway, it is a tender port and we arrive at 8am and depart again at 10am.

There is no way they would have time to get everybody off in that time, let alone get them back on again.

I suspect the visit is just to allow a few special people off, waste of time for everyone else.

 

That's because it's an exceptional port, a bit like how some lines have 'scenic cruising' and the like. The ship visits Geiranger later in the day for the main port visit that day. It's just it stops at Hellesylt to let people off for an excursion. It's not a destination in its own right, just a very small village.

 

As Princess stop there, they have to note it in the program (otherwise people would wonder why they're stopping!), but it's not intended as a destination port for people to get on and off.

 

Princess explicitly explain this on their port link:

http://www.princess.com/excursion/popupPortPOI.do?voyageCode=7510&tourCode=&travelOrder=A&portid=HE2

 

Note: Hellesylt is a cruise-by port. Only those passengers participating in Hellesylt tours will transfer to shore by ship's tender.

 

So it's definitely not a waste of time.

[OzKiwiJJ]

The Princess cruise booklet shows which ports are tender ports. There is an anchor symbol beside the name of the port in the itinerary for the particular cruise. The legend (under the dates) shows the anchor symbol "Access by ship's tender, weather permitting".

 

A paper booklet? :eek: You mean I have to get off my cosy couch, leave my laptop behind, and go to a physical travel agent to get one? :p

[MicCanberra]

How can they take the booking if they can't handle the ship?

 

I'm sure there'd be irate posts here if a port was advertised and then the ship didn't dock there because it wasn't able to be handled.

 

The cruise line has no concern about private tour companies though. They get you to the port, will try to sell you excursions and make some more money if they can, but it's not their role to co-ordinate or private operators.

 

I didn't say they couldn't handle the ship docking or tendering, I said they couldn't handle the influx of so many passengers.

When there is little or no private businesses operating tours as well, the ship's tours sell out, and people are left with nothing to do but wander around a small village or stay on the ship.

[MicCanberra]

That's because it's an exceptional port, a bit like how some lines have 'scenic cruising' and the like. The ship visits Geiranger later in the day for the main port visit that day. It's just it stops at Hellesylt to let people off for an excursion. It's not a destination in its own right, just a very small village.

 

As Princess stop there, they have to note it in the program (otherwise people would wonder why they're stopping!), but it's not intended as a destination port for people to get on and off.

 

Princess explicitly explain this on their port link:

http://www.princess.com/excursion/popupPortPOI.do?voyageCode=7510&tourCode=&travelOrder=A&portid=HE2

 

Note: Hellesylt is a cruise-by port. Only those passengers participating in Hellesylt tours will transfer to shore by ship's tender.

 

So it's definitely not a waste of time.

 

Exactly my point, it is a port that the ship stops at but unless you are on the ship's tour you cannot get off the ship. I am sure the town is charming, but wouldn't be able to handle the 3000 passengers which is why the tours just take you to Geiranger via some waterfalls and mountains and such. No time in the town itself. They could have just gone to Geiranger for the whole day and people could have seen the same things by working back. Now we have all morning at a place you cannot see and only 6 hours (less tendering times) at a place you can unless you join a tour.

Edited June 16, 2014 by MicCanberra

[The_Big_M]

I didn't say they couldn't handle the ship docking or tendering, I said they couldn't handle the influx of so many passengers.

When there is little or no private businesses operating tours as well, the ship's tours sell out, and people are left with nothing to do but wander around a small village or stay on the ship.

 

But that may be all there is to do in that location. Some places are remote, some are undeveloped. Sometimes people prefer to see something less manufactured. Not everywhere's a place where you have to do a tour. :D

[The_Big_M]

Exactly my point, it is a port that the ship stops at but unless you are on the ship's tour you cannot get off the ship. I am sure the town is charming, but wouldn't be able to handle the 3000 passengers which is why the tours just take you to Geiranger via some waterfalls and mountains and such. No time in the town itself. They could have just gone to Geiranger for the whole day and people could have seen the same things by working back. Now we have all morning at a place you cannot see and only 6 hours (less tendering times) at a place you can unless you join a tour.

 

If that was your point, it wasn't relevant to my point.

 

I wrote that short visits weren't a waste of time. You then responded with an example - which wasn't even a visit!

 

It is not a port that you visit. It is just a place where a tour needs to pick up from. They put it in the guide so people know why you stop, and how the stop works. If they didn't, there would be a mass of questions about what's going on and how the tour works, and complaints that they should put down the place as the ship stops there.

 

They even explicitly state that people don't get off, so all the information is given.

 

As for the statement that they don't need to stop there, clearly they do for the tour to work. They wouldn't spend extra time stopping if it wasn't necessary.

 

You see more in a certain amount of time going double the distance one way, instead of doing a return visit. Going to geiranger wouldn't give them as much time to maximise the sights for those doing the tour. And as a side benefit, people get to see the workings and location of another port.

 

And two hours - likely less as they don't need to hang around more than to drop everyone off - is not "all morning."

 

BTW, another similar example is the Queenstown tour between Dunedin and Milford Sound. We also have to drop off/pick up a tender in Milford Sound for that to work. One recent traveller who did that option rated it the best tour on the whole voyage in Au and NZ!

 

And if they didn't drop off/pick up in Milford the whole tour wouldn't work. As some often say here, a cruise is what you make it, and you can choose to look at the positives, or the negatives.

[bronte2]

It is frustrating when you can't be sure of the port but sometimes it is out of control of the ship.

In March, we were meant to be boarding at the OPT but the ship arrived a day early due to avoiding cyclone activity around NZ. As the berth at the OPT was occupied our ship had to go to White Bay. We were hoping that the next day she would move to the OPT but it wasn't to be. So those people who were disembarking or continuing on the next segment of the cruise would have had to reorganise arrangements as did those of us who were boarding.

 

Another time we were meant to dock at the Cruise terminal in Singapore but ended up waaaay out in the boondocks :eek: somewhere in the maze of industrial docks. Buses had to take us to the cruise terminal to collect luggage etc We were not sure of the reason for the change.

There have been other instances too, but I won't bore you with those :D

[MicCanberra]

If that was your point, it wasn't relevant to my point.

 

I wrote that short visits weren't a waste of time. You then responded with an example - which wasn't even a visit!

 

It is not a port that you visit. It is just a place where a tour needs to pick up from. They put it in the guide so people know why you stop, and how the stop works. If they didn't, there would be a mass of questions about what's going on and how the tour works, and complaints that they should put down the place as the ship stops there.

 

They even explicitly state that people don't get off, so all the information is given.

 

As for the statement that they don't need to stop there, clearly they do for the tour to work. They wouldn't spend extra time stopping if it wasn't necessary.

 

You see more in a certain amount of time going double the distance one way, instead of doing a return visit. Going to geiranger wouldn't give them as much time to maximise the sights for those doing the tour. And as a side benefit, people get to see the workings and location of another port.

 

And two hours - likely less as they don't need to hang around more than to drop everyone off - is not "all morning."

 

BTW, another similar example is the Queenstown tour between Dunedin and Milford Sound. We also have to drop off/pick up a tender in Milford Sound for that to work. One recent traveller who did that option rated it the best tour on the whole voyage in Au and NZ!

 

And if they didn't drop off/pick up in Milford the whole tour wouldn't work. As some often say here, a cruise is what you make it, and you can choose to look at the positives, or the negatives.

 

You had responded to me saying that I considered the short visit a waste of time.

There is also a big difference between your NZ example and the Norway example.

In Norway, it is a two and a half hour drive between Hellyslt and Geiranger. So instead of being at Hellyslt from 8 am til 10 am and then Geiranger from 12 noon til 6 pm, they could have spent the whole time at either one or the other and visited the same places from either port.

The NZ example is going from a port on one side of the country, visiting a very prominent location in the middle of the country for an overnight stay and then getting picked up at the port on the other side of the country (approx 8 hour drive).

 

You like the short visit, I don't. We will have to disagree on this point.:D

[The_Big_M]

You had responded to me saying that I considered the short visit a waste of time.

 

Yes... except the sample you gave wasn't a visit for all passengers to get off at all. It's just a place the ship needs to stop for those on the excursion to get off.

 

There is also a big difference between your NZ example and the Norway example.

In Norway, it is a two and a half hour drive between Hellyslt and Geiranger. So instead of being at Hellyslt from 8 am til 10 am and then Geiranger from 12 noon til 6 pm, they could have spent the whole time at either one or the other and visited the same places from either port.

The NZ example is going from a port on one side of the country, visiting a very prominent location in the middle of the country for an overnight stay and then getting picked up at the port on the other side of the country (approx 8 hour drive).

 

There's no big difference. Both are stops that are made to let excursions on/off. They happen. They can't skip the stop as they're necessary to make an enjoyable excursion. One way excursions let you see and do more, and as noted, some posters consider them the highlight of the trip.

 

You like the short visit, I don't. We will have to disagree on this point.:D

 

It's not a matter of liking it. It just is what it is. The location for the excursion people to get off.

 

You can choose to let the cruise be what you make it. I don't hold a grudge against the line, or passengers because the ship spends time stopping to drop them off.

 

Like any cruise, find an itinerary you like, and if you don't like it, don't take the cruise. :D

[MicCanberra]

Yes... except the sample you gave wasn't a visit for all passengers to get off at all. It's just a place the ship needs to stop for those on the excursion to get off.

 

 

 

There's no big difference. Both are stops that are made to let excursions on/off. They happen. They can't skip the stop as they're necessary to make an enjoyable excursion. One way excursions let you see and do more, and as noted, some posters consider them the highlight of the trip.

 

 

 

It's not a matter of liking it. It just is what it is. The location for the excursion people to get off.

 

You can choose to let the cruise be what you make it. I don't hold a grudge against the line, or passengers because the ship spends time stopping to drop them off.

 

Like any cruise, find an itinerary you like, and if you don't like it, don't take the cruise. :D

 

I like the itinerary or at least the majority of it, which is why we booked in the first place. I will have a great time and it will not effect my cruise greatly, it is just those two ports that do not make sense to me. :D

[silverwillow]

You may wish to consider visiting Khao Kheow Open Zoo from Laem Chabang.

 

My daughter and I had a car and driver pick us up from the wharf, take us to the zoo for the day, then return us to the wharf. That day was a highlight of our cruise.

 

http://www.journeytothejungle.com

__________________

 

Thanks Marion I will check this out. :)

 

Happysnapper and Tara

 

I usually love the research as well but this time around I am very busy so I wanted a few basic details which I feel the ship could easily provide.

 

I understand the cruise companies are a business and want to sell their tours but in this case I have found their tours sadly lacking in activities and time spent in the port.

[Thedesertrat]

We agree at present we are trying to get info from NCL on their flight schedule to Rome. We are sure they have done this for years and must have some idea how they get people from LAX to Rome in dead of winter.

[Cruise_me_Crazy]

According to the Princess website there are only two formal nights on a 13 night cruise. Since the cruise is over Christmas I'm hoping one of the formal nights will be Christmas Day, or maybe Christmas Eve.

 

We cruised over Chrissy last year. Formal night was Christmas night.

Carols on Chrissy Eve. Santa arrived via dingy on Christmas Day!! :) great trip!

[Cruise_me_Crazy]

Just I am clear. Some cruises stop for a port for SOME pax for 2x hrs, that then reduces the time spent at another port that the MAJORITY of pax are visiting & impacted by the reduced time??:confused: that would really annoy me I think.

 

Best I check itineraries a little closer! I book on price of the balcony 1st and then worry about ports and research etc :D.

[The_Big_M]

Just I am clear. Some cruises stop for a port for SOME pax for 2x hrs, that then reduces the time spent at another port that the MAJORITY of pax are visiting & impacted by the reduced time??:confused: that would really annoy me I think.

 

Best I check itineraries a little closer! I book on price of the balcony 1st and then worry about ports and research etc :D.

 

Definitely good to check the port timings.

 

Port timings vary for a number of reasons, and even ships with only one visit in a day still may not spend the full day at the port. That can be affected by travel times elsewhere, but also tide and port details.

[MicCanberra]

Just I am clear. Some cruises stop for a port for SOME pax for 2x hrs, that then reduces the time spent at another port that the MAJORITY of pax are visiting & impacted by the reduced time??:confused: that would really annoy me I think.

 

Best I check itineraries a little closer! I book on price of the balcony 1st and then worry about ports and research etc :D.

I book on itineraries so the port timings are important to me.:D