Bad call hal

[3rdGenCunarder]

Are you sure that it was on the itinerary when people booked because the route does not show it! Please show us a copy of the exact itinerary where the lava flow is mentioned?

 

It was my understanding, It was never on that itinerary. & that cruise was always scheduled for the Northern route.. Therefore, no explanation was due..!

 

However, if you can prove me wrong then I will acquiesce to you..

 

Unless someone has a brochure, we can't prove what the itinerary was at time of booking because it isn't on the website any longer. But read post 51. OP said the lava flow was mentioned in the "on location" in the cabin. Some passengers actually believed the printed material distributed on board and expected the sail-by.

[Fouremco]

Post 79 by the OP. I seem to be one of the few taking the OP's word and the map posted on the previous page.

As the person who posted the map, let me reiterate that it was simply to show that SOME of HAL's cruises take the Southern route past the lava flow. I also pointed out that "all of the cruises heading south over the equator after leaving Hawaii [such as the OP's] are shown on the website as taking the northern route from Hilo".

[Cruise Junky]

As the person who posted the map, let me reiterate that it was simply to show that SOME of HAL's cruises take the Southern route past the lava flow. I also pointed out that "all of the cruises heading south over the equator after leaving Hawaii [such as the OP's] are shown on the website as taking the northern route from Hilo".

 

I realize that. I wasn't saying that was the promised route just that it's possible how passengers got the idea. Same thing happens all the time on the Alaska route, either east or west of Vancouver island. Cruise lines are getting sloppy on what they publish.

[serendipity1499]

Unless someone has a brochure, we can't prove what the itinerary was at time of booking because it isn't on the website any longer. But read post 51. OP said the lava flow was mentioned in the "on location" in the cabin. Some passengers actually believed the printed material distributed on board and expected the sail-by.

 

May I suggest that you who believe the Capt. was at fault, re-read this entire thread as I have done..This is a recap of my thoughts & have learned..

 

Post No 24 stated not much lava was flowing into the sea

 

Post No. 25 Said they went past the Lava flow but could only see steam

 

Post No. 28-Cruisemom asked the OP if the lava flow was advertised?

But the OP never answered her!

 

Post No 35 Take us Away also asks if this was on the itinerary when the poster booked? Again the Op never answers her..

 

Post No. 39 Fourmco states: "On the issue of communications, many posters have queried whether a viewing of the lava flow was part of the ship's itinerary. Unfortunately, the OP hasn't provided this critical bit of information. You refer to the ship as having "skipped this feature", which suggest that the ship was scheduled to sail by, but do you know this for a fact?"

 

Again for the third time the OP never answer's the question

 

Now Post No 41: Laffinvegas is a respected Travel Agent & long time poster on this board & she states:

I agree, unfortunately this is a case where the OP is wrong in blaming HAL . This was NEVER on the itinerary and on the map that shows where the ship was going it always showed the ship taking the Northern Route from Hilo. Granted while we know rumors often run the ship this is a case of not knowing where the ship was going and it was never planned to go past the lava flow to the south of the Big island"

 

However someone stated is was mentioned in the "on location" brochure which was given to Psgrs..I would really like to see if it was described sin some tours, or did it exactly state the ship will do a cruise by?

 

Finally my conclusion was it was never on the itinerary & the OP was just trying to stir the pot.. if you can prove me wrong I will acquiesce to all of you who still say the Captain & HAL made a bad call..

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by serendipity1499

[KirkNC]

Touché, well done!

[3rdGenCunarder]

I realize that. I wasn't saying that was the promised route just that it's possible how passengers got the idea. Same thing happens all the time on the Alaska route, either east or west of Vancouver island. Cruise lines are getting sloppy on what they publish.

 

(bold is mine) Yes, they are. When we did the last Alaska plus the Coastal back in the days of formal nights, those of us on for 10 days were told there was a formal night between Vancouver and San Francisco. Those who were doing just the 3-day coastal were told all nights were informal or casual. So when the daily program for that day said it was a formal night, lots of people were upset because they hadn't packed the correct clothing. I overheard a few frantic conversations that morning as people were wondering if they would get into the MDR for dinner. So around noon, the CD announced that there had been an error in the information some passengers were given and it would be formal optional. His description of formal optional sounded like "wear whatever you feel like." And then people were showing up in cargo shorts and printed t-shirts and getting turned away.

 

No, not a health or safety issue, nobody was in danger, no fuel was wasted. Just an example of carelessness. I've seen others. Mostly they make HAL look stupid or like they don't know where they're going.

 

 

 

 

 

However someone stated is was mentioned in the "on location" brochure which was given to Psgrs..I would really like to see if it was described sin some tours, or did it exactly state the ship will do a cruise by?

 

Finally my conclusion was it was never on the itinerary & the OP was just trying to stir the pot.. if you can prove me wrong I will acquiesce to all of you who still say the Captain & HAL made a bad call..

 

 

I deleted issues I'm not answering, but I do want to address this comment above.I am the somebody who mentioned the "on location." You said read the whole thread, so you must have read my post, just a few above this one. In post 51, it was the OP who mentioned the "on location" brochure. You haven't seen it and neither have I. I have chosen to believe the OP. But the only way we'll know exactly what it said is if she posts a picture. Frankly, from the way she has been accused of lying and causing trouble, she will probably give up. I certainly would, and I will after this post.

 

I do not care if the itinerary was wrong all along, right all along, changed a few days before sailing or not changed since the dawn of time. I don't care if the lava was worth looking at or not. For some reason, there was an EXPECTATION among a number of passengers and that expectation was not met. All the captain or CD had to do was address the issue by saying SORRY and giving a simple explanation--time, fuel, admit that Seattle was wrong in some of their info. The point I have been trying to make is that there were unhappy passengers and their disappointment was ignored by the captain and staff. Bad customer service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fouremco]

The point I have been trying to make is that there were unhappy passengers and their disappointment was ignored by the captain and staff. Bad customer service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's keep this in perspective. A sole passenger has complained on CC and has provided a rather one-sided recounting of events, including her conversation with the Captain, while ignoring several questions posed by posters. You can put whatever spin you choose on this story, but I suspect that most readers aren't quite as ready as you to blame Seattle or the Captain for her unhappiness.

[Lizzie68]

(bold is mine) Yes, they are. When we did the last Alaska plus the Coastal back in the days of formal nights, those of us on for 10 days were told there was a formal night between Vancouver and San Francisco. Those who were doing just the 3-day coastal were told all nights were informal or casual. So when the daily program for that day said it was a formal night, lots of people were upset because they hadn't packed the correct clothing. I overheard a few frantic conversations that morning as people were wondering if they would get into the MDR for dinner. So around noon, the CD announced that there had been an error in the information some passengers were given and it would be formal optional. His description of formal optional sounded like "wear whatever you feel like." And then people were showing up in cargo shorts and printed t-shirts and getting turned away.

 

No, not a health or safety issue, nobody was in danger, no fuel was wasted. Just an example of carelessness. I've seen others. Mostly they make HAL look stupid or like they don't know where they're going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I deleted issues I'm not answering, but I do want to address this comment above.I am the somebody who mentioned the "on location." You said read the whole thread, so you must have read my post, just a few above this one. In post 51, it was the OP who mentioned the "on location" brochure. You haven't seen it and neither have I. I have chosen to believe the OP. But the only way we'll know exactly what it said is if she posts a picture. Frankly, from the way she has been accused of lying and causing trouble, she will probably give up. I certainly would, and I will after this post.

 

I do not care if the itinerary was wrong all along, right all along, changed a few days before sailing or not changed since the dawn of time. I don't care if the lava was worth looking at or not. For some reason, there was an EXPECTATION among a number of passengers and that expectation was not met. All the captain or CD had to do was address the issue by saying SORRY and giving a simple explanation--time, fuel, admit that Seattle was wrong in some of their info. The point I have been trying to make is that there were unhappy passengers and their disappointment was ignored by the captain and staff. Bad customer service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Very well said. It is unfortunate that the mob mentality took hold in this thread, which often happens with any criticism of HAL, whether deserved or not.

[kazu]

Just a personal experience on "expectations". Expectations can be created by guests all by themselves.

 

Example - on a Prinsendam cruise, we could not go to St. Tropez as the dock had been destroyed in a storm the day we were scheduled to arrive. The captain announced it promptly and said he had made arrangements for us to go to Barcelona a day early and we would overnight. I thought that was very good as opposed to a sea day.

 

When I was walking on the ship I saw a group of passengers with one instigator saying "why are we going to Barcelona, we should be going to the Azores - much nicer". The crowd was growing listening to this person. (It doesn't take rocket science to know why the ship wouldn't go in that direction with the itinerary we had). And by the time this person was done, he had a substantial group of passengers upset that we were not going to the Azores and were "stuck" with an overnight in Barcelona.

 

As a result, at the Q & A, a group demanded to know why we didn't go to the Azores and were stuck with Barcelona. And, they were disappointed.

 

They were disappointed when their expectations were not met, but their expectations were not based on fact or even, reality.

 

I'm not saying that the expectation wasn't on the OP's cruise, but, it just takes one to convince people sometimes that something is/should be happening.

[AV8rix]

Just a personal experience on "expectations". Expectations can be created by guests all by themselves.

 

Example - on a Prinsendam cruise, we could not go to St. Tropez as the dock had been destroyed in a storm the day we were scheduled to arrive. The captain announced it promptly and said he had made arrangements for us to go to Barcelona a day early and we would overnight. I thought that was very good as opposed to a sea day.

 

When I was walking on the ship I saw a group of passengers with one instigator saying "why are we going to Barcelona, we should be going to the Azores - much nicer". The crowd was growing listening to this person. (It doesn't take rocket science to know why the ship wouldn't go in that direction with the itinerary we had). And by the time this person was done, he had a substantial group of passengers upset that we were not going to the Azores and were "stuck" with an overnight in Barcelona.

 

As a result, at the Q & A, a group demanded to know why we didn't go to the Azores and were stuck with Barcelona. And, they were disappointed.

 

They were disappointed when their expectations were not met, but their expectations were not based on fact or even, reality.

 

I'm not saying that the expectation wasn't on the OP's cruise, but, it just takes one to convince people sometimes that something is/should be happening.

 

:):):):):):)

[KirkNC]

To me, the most compelling evidence was the post of the itinerary map, it clearly shows a northern, non lava route. If some did not know or understand it, that is not HAL's fault. No cheerleading, just the way I see it. If the map had shown the southern route, I would support the OP's position.

[DaveOKC]

To me, the most compelling evidence was the post of the itinerary map, it clearly shows a northern, non lava route. If some did not know or understand it, that is not HAL's fault. No cheerleading, just the way I see it. If the map had shown the southern route, I would support the OP's position.

 

HAL's maps are not always correct. I questioned mine on an upcoming Hawaii trip and HAL finally admitted it was wrong and changed it on the website.

[NotTomHanks]

:d:d:d

Edited November 10, 2016 by NotTomHanks

[Umbarger]

I am not ignoring questions. I am on a cruise enjoying myself. Internet is .75 a minute so please forgive me.

 

A friend of mine on this cruise wrote a letter to the corporate office in Seattle about missing the Lava flow. The corporate office replied that the lava flow was missed because of fuel consumption.

 

The lava flow was on the itinerary apparently but the ship was going from Hilo to Kona at that time but then the intinerary changed for some reason from Kona to Hilo the Lava flow was then cancelled.

 

I finally have a straight and truthful answer which is all I wanted. Now why couldn't the captain have simply said fuel consumption instead of leading us down the garden path?

[OlsSalt]

We are on the 48 day Tales of the south pacific cruise. We are currently in Kona, Hawaii our last stop in Hawaii. HAL did not take us past the Lava flow last night. They decided, unfortunately for us passengers, to take the northerly route from Hilo to Kona rather than go past the lava flow. I can think of no reason the ship should take the northerly route and avoid the lava flow. The Noordam, which is on the way to Australia, went past the lava flow just a couple days ago.

 

We just got off the Celebrity Solstice cruise of the Hawaiian islands two weeks ago. Not only did the Solstice go by the Lava flow. The captain stopped the ship and turned the ship 360 so everyone was able to see. We stayed an hour at the lava flow. It was awesome and what a thoughtful thing to do for the crew and passengers.

 

I, and all other passengers I have spoken with, wonder why did HAL skipped a Hawaiian must see? The Lava was flowing; the weather was fine.

I must say people on board are not happy about this. I have seen the lava flow, thanks to Celebrity, so I really don't feel robbed by HAL , however, I feel bad for people who have not seen it before. This makes passengers wonder if HAL cares much about their passengers' enjoyment. It seems like a bad call on HAL's part.

The consensus onboard is that HAL has lost many of us to Celebrity's thoughtfulness. We have a choice when it comes to cruising and we know what line caters to it's passengers. HAL has another chance to be competitive with Celebrity as we leave Kona tonight. I hope HAL treats its passengers to a view of the lava flow.

 

If you operate from the presumption HAL wants to abuse its passengers, you made the right decision not to sail HAL again. Bye.

Edited November 10, 2016 by OlsSalt

[3rdGenCunarder]

I am not ignoring questions. I am on a cruise enjoying myself. Internet is .75 a minute so please forgive me.

 

A friend of mine on this cruise wrote a letter to the corporate office in Seattle about missing the Lava flow. The corporate office replied that the lava flow was missed because of fuel consumption.

 

The lava flow was on the itinerary apparently but the ship was going from Hilo to Kona at that time but then the intinerary changed for some reason from Kona to Hilo the Lava flow was then cancelled.

 

I finally have a straight and truthful answer which is all I wanted. Now why couldn't the captain have simply said fuel consumption instead of leading us down the garden path?

 

Thanks for coming back to give us the update. Glad you're enjoying the cruise!

[Fouremco]

I finally have a straight and truthful answer which is all I wanted. Now why couldn't the captain have simply said fuel consumption instead of leading us down the garden path?

Several of us pointed out early in the thread that the northern route would be the preferred choice because it saves distance and fuel. You were never lied to, but apparently couldn't or wouldn't draw the same conclusion from the information that was accurately relayed to you by the captain.

 

I hope that you get to enjoy the rest of the cruise.

[Umbarger]

Several of us pointed out early in the thread that the northern route would be the preferred choice because it saves distance and fuel. You were never lied to, but apparently couldn't or wouldn't draw the same conclusion from the information that was accurately relayed to you by the captain.

 

I hope that you get to enjoy the rest of the cruise.

 

 

The captain never relayed the correct information. He just kept saying "not on intinerary". How is "Not on intinerary" the same as "fuel consumption"? The corporate office told my friend that the lava flow was on the itinerary at one time.

 

I have and am enjoying my cruise.

[Bill B]

Much ado about very little...

[serendipity1499]

The captain never relayed the correct information. He just kept saying "not on intinerary". How is "Not on intinerary" the same as "fuel consumption"? The corporate office told my friend that the lava flow was on the itinerary at one time. I have and am enjoying my cruise.

 

IMO The Captain gave you the straight scoop & his answer was correct! If it was on the itinerary "AT ONE TIME" (your words,) but it was not on the itinerary for this cruise, where was the Captain giving you the wrong info? It was not on the itinerary!

 

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between "At one time" & the "present time", there really is nothing more than we can say..

 

And as you have stated that you & others will not cruise on HAL again due to you did not like the Captain's answer, we are beating a dead horse!

 

For those of us who own stock, we are delighted that the Captain & HAL pays attention to fuel consumption & there is no logical reason to have to explain why this is done!

Edited November 12, 2016 by serendipity1499

[Bill B]

How is "Not on intinerary" the same as "fuel consumption"?

 

It was not on the itinerary because it would consume more fuel.

[cruisemom42]

I finally got to talk directly to the captain. Our itinerary was supposed to be Hilo to Kona going the Southern route past the lava flow according to the itinerary map. However a few days before leaving the itinerary changed to Kona to Hilo for some reason.

 

Anyway I asked the Captain why he skipped the Lava flow. He said " It was not on the itinerary" I said fine but it was only 50 miles more to go by the lava flow and have happy HAL cruisers. He replied. "Yes, only 50 miles."

 

That was it. He would not say anything more to me. I was very kind. I just wanted to know. He was not nice to me. It sounded like he was fed up with the question.

 

 

The captain never relayed the correct information. He just kept saying "not on intinerary". How is "Not on intinerary" the same as "fuel consumption"? The corporate office told my friend that the lava flow was on the itinerary at one time.

 

I have and am enjoying my cruise.

 

Reading what you've posted, it seems to be that the captain did relay the correct information. You said the itinerary was changed a few days before leaving. The captain said the same -- that it was not on the itinerary (at the time you asked).

 

If it is in fact the case that the itinerary was changed before the cruise started, it's unlikely that the captain made that decision. I can think of any number of reasons that he might not want to say more.

 

I can also think of any number of times that Seattle has given out incorrect information. All of this speculation seems kind of silly.

Edited November 13, 2016 by cruisemom42

[RuthC]

All of this speculation seems kind of silly.

I would change the word to "petty", but otherwise agree.

Mountains out of molehills.

[ithaca gal]

If there wasn't a picture posted, I would swear this "problem" was brought up by a millenial. LOL

 

Glad it seems to be sorted out.

[AV8rix]

I'm going on the 18-day Circle Hawaii on Zaandam in April. The itinerary map shows the southern route from Kona to Hilo. If the captain or Seattle or whomever chooses to change it I'll feel blessed if that's the worst thing that ever happens to me for the rest of my life. And if it does happen, CC won't hear a peep out of me.

 

BTW I've recently returned from the Great Land Explorer, the longer Alaska cruise with the really cool ports. However, due to storms in the Gulf, we had to miss three of the ports that make this route unique -- Homer, Kodiak, and Sitka, essentially changing the route to just a lengthier version of the regular inside passage route. But I never posted a complaint here, nor did I express disappointment while aboard. I just felt blessed to be on a HAL ship making port calls anywhere in beautiful Alaska.

 

The overwhelming majority of the population of this planet will NEVER have the opportunity to sail anywhere on a HAL ship....much less turn on a faucet for potable water, or meet their daily nutritional needs.

 

<end of rant>