Liberty problems

[lacruisinfan]

:mad: Just got off the Liberty in Galveston a few minutes ago. If you are leaving on her today, be aware that the bow thrusters aren't working and we weren't"t able to dock in Cozumel. We were told before we left late from Galveston on Monday that there was a propulsion issue. I don't know if Carnival was honest about that issue having been corrected and the bow thruster issue happening in Progresso or not. In any case, this is a heads up for you guys. You might want to ask about the bow thruster issue before you get onboard or you may just find yourselves floating around for a few days.

[Bookbug53]

http://www.cruisehive.com/thrusters-issue-forces-carnival-liberty-cancel-port-of-call/11396

 

There were no tugs available to help her dock or they would have done so. It is a mechanical beast and things happen. What would be their reason to deceive you of the issue?

[Je Souhaite]

There's a whole thread here discussing this topic.

 

What compensation are they offering the passengers due to this malfunction? I know they offered 50% off all passengers last year for missing one port during the Ebola scare.

[WLHyatt]

They've said they have lined up tugs to assist the next sailings to Cozumel and they can work on most of the thruster components while docked.

If it failed prior to Progreso then they may have had a tug available in Progreso to assist, I think I saw one there when I was there in November.

[RuthlessBoss]

There's a whole thread here discussing this topic.

 

What compensation are they offering the passengers due to this malfunction? I know they offered 50% off all passengers last year for missing one port during the Ebola scare.

 

Your answer is in the thread you recommended we read:D

[silverdome]

Waiting to get get off the hot mess of cruise ship right now. The problem from the start has been the jacked up communications from Carnival. First the delay in and out of Galveston, than four itinerary changes in a week and than not being able to dock in Cozumel. Leads people to think Carnival has not been completely honest with us. We were initially suppose to be be in Progesso on day 3, than it was changed to Cozumel, than back to Progresso all in a week. Once we made it to Cozumel we couldn't dock. The term "Minor technical difficulty" keeps being given for everything as the reason. What this turned into was five day cruise that was four sea days in the Gulf with a stop in Progresso hardly an itinerary most people would have chosen. People on this ship were beyond angry. When we pushed for answers were told to check our cruise contract, you know that little document that allows cruise lines to hide behind any issue. So now you have people questioning Carnivals integrity and rightly so. Thanks for the $100 Carnival and the afternoon bean bag and ping pong tournaments you added on the day you didn't deliver in Cozumel. There are those of you that will defend this no matter what so knock yourself out.

[lacruisinfan]

The reason would be money. I understand missing ports if something happens after you leave the home port or for weather, etc. If they knew prior, I don't how many people would have gone on a 5 day cruise to Progresso. We've been on 36 Carnival cruises and I know things happen and Carnival isn't always upfront or helpful with explanations.

[Je Souhaite]

Waiting to get get off the hot mess of cruise ship right now. The problem from the start has been the jacked up communications from Carnival. First the delay in and out of Galveston, than four itinerary changes in a week and than not being able to dock in Cozumel. Leads people to think Carnival has not been completely honest with us. We were initially suppose to be be in Progesso on day 3, than it was changed to Cozumel, than back to Progresso all in a week. Once we made it to Cozumel we couldn't dock. The term "Minor technical difficulty" keeps being given for everything as the reason. What this turned into was five day cruise that was four sea days in the Gulf with a stop in Progresso hardly an itinerary most people would have chosen. People on this ship were beyond angry. When we pushed for answers were told to check our cruise contract, you know that little document that allows cruise lines to hide behind any issue. So now you have people questioning Carnivals integrity and rightly so. Thanks for the $100 Carnival and the afternoon bean bag and ping pong tournaments you added on the day you didn't deliver in Cozumel. There are those of you that will defend this no matter what so knock yourself out.

 

That verbiage hardly holds up in a court of law. People just throw it around like it means something. And you never even come close to a court of law just to get a bit more out of them, especially when it's a mechanical problem.

 

Check out you options. Check out everyone's favorite as well, cruiselawnews.

[Thorncroft]

That verbiage hardly holds up in a court of law. People just throw it around like it means something. And you never even come close to a court of law just to get a bit more out of them, especially when it's a mechanical problem.

 

Check out you options. Check out everyone's favorite as well, cruiselawnews.

 

LOL. I love Jim Walker. Most cruisers hate him, but he doesn't lie and sweep things under the already cluttered rug.

[Je Souhaite]

LOL. I love Jim Walker. Most cruisers hate him, but he doesn't lie and sweep things under the already cluttered rug.

 

It's quite odd that it's backwards. It should be the cruise companies that hate him, not the passenger he is trying to protect.

[Thorncroft]

It's quite odd that it's backwards. It should be the cruise companies that hate him, not the passenger he is trying to protect.

 

 

Right?

[Bookbug53]

There's a whole thread here discussing this topic.

 

What compensation are they offering the passengers due to this malfunction? I know they offered 50% off all passengers last year for missing one port during the Ebola scare.

 

 

Passengers on the Magic were offered 50% because the ship missed MULTIPLE ports because the countries involved, Mexico and Belize, refused to allow them to dock because of the passenger that had been exposed. They also did it because of the anxiety and worry all passengers experienced due to the same factor.

 

Your contract states they can miss ports due to various reasons. The fact that they give you any compensation is entirely at their discretion. To immediately assume you will get it can lead to disappointment. :rolleyes:

[nwo4life]

It's quite odd that it's backwards. It should be the cruise companies that hate him, not the passenger he is trying to protect.

 

 

Frivolous lawsuits are ultimately paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices. That is why cruisers dislike him.

[BallFour4]

Frivolous lawsuits are ultimately paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices. That is why cruisers dislike him.

 

 

All of them are paid by the consumer when a publicly held company is sued.

 

.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[Thorncroft]

Frivolous lawsuits are ultimately paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices. That is why cruisers dislike him.

 

Cruise fares should rightly be much higher than they are, but cruise lines, like airlines, TV and cell phone providers have adopted a model of a low access point and then onerous, piled on fees where they really make their profits.

 

Without the likes of Jim Walker, the cruise lines would run roughshod over their passengers with a contract unconscionably stacked in their favor.

[Raxter54]

Cruise fares should rightly be much higher than they are, but cruise lines, like airlines, TV and cell phone providers have adopted a model of a low access point and then onerous, piled on fees where they really make their profits.

 

Without the likes of Jim Walker, the cruise lines would run roughshod over their passengers with a contract unconscionably stacked in their favor.

 

Ambulance chasers, cruise ship chasers, same low lifes....

[Raxter54]

Watching the Galveston port cam. The Liberty is pulling away from the dock, and there looks to be a tug boat standing close by it...

 

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by Raxter54

[LMaxwell]

LOL. I love Jim Walker. Most cruisers hate him, but he doesn't lie and sweep things under the already cluttered rug.

Always found it odd that people say such nasty things about him and act as if he is a liar but if you read his site, and recognize he has an agenda, you will find a lot of factual information that is either never shared here or is quickly removed if it is.

It's quite odd that it's backwards. It should be the cruise companies that hate him, not the passenger he is trying to protect.

I think he has been a very good advocate for guests, much more so than he gets credit for. Even those that dislike him could do themselves a favor and read come of the facts on his site and put his opinions aside.n.

 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk

[chengkp75]

Always found it odd that people say such nasty things about him and act as if he is a liar but if you read his site, and recognize he has an agenda, you will find a lot of factual information that is either never shared here or is quickly removed if it is.

 

I think he has been a very good advocate for guests, much more so than he gets credit for. Even those that dislike him could do themselves a favor and read come of the facts on his site and put his opinions aside.n.

 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk

 

I'm afraid that Mr. Walker's interpretation of what is a "fact" is pretty loose and one sided. I have found many instances where he has presented SOME of the data (that which supports his agenda), but conveniently leaves out the rest of the data that is not convenient to him. If you are looking for balanced factual reporting, a legal website is not the place to do so, since our legal system is based on each side only presenting enough facts to support their case.

 

During the Carnival Triumph fire, I was quoted, inaccurately, from here on Walker's site, so I tend to dismiss most of what he posts as "truth". Does he bring things to the public's attention? Yes. Does he present a balanced and accurate statement of facts? Not hardly.

[Je Souhaite]

I'm afraid that Mr. Walker's interpretation of what is a "fact" is pretty loose and one sided. I have found many instances where he has presented SOME of the data (that which supports his agenda), but conveniently leaves out the rest of the data that is not convenient to him. If you are looking for balanced factual reporting, a legal website is not the place to do so, since our legal system is based on each side only presenting enough facts to support their case.

 

During the Carnival Triumph fire, I was quoted, inaccurately, from here on Walker's site, so I tend to dismiss most of what he posts as "truth". Does he bring things to the public's attention? Yes. Does he present a balanced and accurate statement of facts? Not hardly.

 

Although you have a specific issue, not unlike a Carnival business page that takes stories from here all the time and twists them into something else to scorn posters, as well as this site, I still don't understand why this would "upset" a consumer.

 

The company? Yes.

 

Where there's smoke, there's usually an issue.

[Je Souhaite]

I'm afraid that Mr. Walker's interpretation of what is a "fact" is pretty loose and one sided. I have found many instances where he has presented SOME of the data (that which supports his agenda), but conveniently leaves out the rest of the data that is not convenient to him. If you are looking for balanced factual reporting, a legal website is not the place to do so, since our legal system is based on each side only presenting enough facts to support their case.

 

During the Carnival Triumph fire, I was quoted, inaccurately, from here on Walker's site, so I tend to dismiss most of what he posts as "truth". Does he bring things to the public's attention? Yes. Does he present a balanced and accurate statement of facts? Not hardly.

 

Although you have a specific issue, not unlike a Carnival business page that takes stories from here all the time and twists them into something else to scorn posters, as well as this site, I still don't understand why this would "upset" a consumer.

 

The company? Yes.

 

Where there's smoke, there's usually an issue.

[chengkp75]

Although you have a specific issue, not unlike a Carnival business page that takes stories from here all the time and twists them into something else to scorn posters, as well as this site, I still don't understand why this would "upset" a consumer.

 

The company? Yes.

 

Where there's smoke, there's usually an issue.

 

I don't know about the Carnival page you mention, but if it does not present a fair and accurate statement of facts, then it is no better than Walker's site. Why should this "upset" a consumer? Because as a consumer I want to have facts at hand, not distortions. Does Walker's site "upset" me, not really, as I have made myself enough of an informed consumer to distrust most of what he says, as corroborated by other information.

 

Just look at one statement he makes on the topic of the "leaked" tip removal lists:

 

"Carnival incorporated in Panama and registered its cruise ships in Panama and the Bahamas to avoid virtually all taxes and then requires U.S. taxpaying public to pay the bulk of the crew member compensation"

 

First off, whether the crew are paid by salary from the ticket price, or by the DSC or "auto-gratuity", the public is still paying the crew's compensation.

 

Second, what on earth does the tax structure of Carnival have to do with whether the crew are paid by salary or DSC? And why is it the "taxpaying" public that is required to pay this?

 

One sided or distorted reporting of "facts" by either party does disservice to the consumer.

[Pops, Esq.]

That verbiage hardly holds up in a court of law. People just throw it around like it means something. And you never even come close to a court of law just to get a bit more out of them, especially when it's a mechanical problem.

 

 

 

Check out you options. Check out everyone's favorite as well, cruiselawnews.

 

 

So, you are saying there are cases where a court found this language unenforceable? Please, do you have a cite to the case? A name of the plaintiff? Anything where we could verify? It would be an interesting read.

[oldvato]

That verbiage hardly holds up in a court of law. People just throw it around like it means something. And you never even come close to a court of law just to get a bit more out of them, especially when it's a mechanical problem.

 

Check out you options. Check out everyone's favorite as well, cruiselawnews.

I think the verbage does hold water. It's there in the contract well before you cruise. If you go on the cruise after reading the contract, you have accepted their terms. They do have a satisfaction clause too. If you don't like the cruise, you can get off at the first port and they will send you home.

[Naomi John]

People on the following cruises please keep us updated.