Question: Water Level Effected Cruises Data

[VistaRio]

Maybe I should put this in one of the water level threads, but it really is a broader question, and also academic since we all know we are at the whims of water level when on a river.

 

But the question is:

 

Is there a collection somewhere of historical data for the number (and consequently percentage) of sailings effected by low or high water broken down by month?  I would assume, but may be wrong, that the data would be consistent among cruise lines.

 

Example Data might look something like, drilling down from river to CL to time period:

Lower Danube>

Viking RC>

2010-2018>

 

March:  125 / 12500,  1%

April:  150 /  30000    .5%

May:   600  / 30000   2%

June:     etc ...

 

 

I am curious if this data is stored by anyone, anywhere. Would be interesting and valuable to see the number of effected sailings, and the number of total sailings by month and region (and CL).

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by VistaRio
error in title

[notamermaid]

A similar question was raised a few weeks ago. Apparently there are such public records for airlines of affected trips for varying incidents.

 

Nobody that answered then knew of such records or lists for river cruise ships concerning high or low water levels.

I am sure that lines will keep their own records.

 

As regards being consistent among the lines: that is not possible for two reasons. Firstly, different lines have different ships that vary in size. This determines how well they do in drought or how well they fit under bridges in high water. For very high water levels the data will look the same as the authorities close the rivers.

Secondly, depending on which river they sail at what time on which itinerary disruptions will differ greatly.

There are many variables. Looking at details, let us take the month of November 2018. Do not take this at face value, it is just an example that gets close to the facts.

At Kaub on the Rhine most river cruise ships of 135m could not sail. Just looking at Viking they might say that the Rhine itineraries where affected 100 percent, i.e. all of them. Avalon has a mix of 110m and 135m ships. They might say that 80 percent of their cruises where affected. Another company called NickoCruises has fewer ships and almost all smaller than 135m. Depending on which ship they used on the Rhine and which itinerary they put into the data they might say that 20 percent of their cruises where affected.

 

This kind of data you cannot carry over to apply the logic to the Danube for example. The Danube can be closed by the Hungarian authorities in drought. The Rhine is never closed. For the Elbe a different approach to look at the data is needed, again, as European cruise lines do mostly different itineraries from the North American ones.

 

For other rivers data that is meaningful beyond skewed statistics will probably also be difficult to obtain. A river that has a consistent type of itinerary for all lines with the same size of ships could provide better data. However, when thrown into the mix for the overall track record of a company it would result in skewed data again.

 

notamermaid

 

 

 

[VistaRio]

Thanks for your thoughts.  I think your response perfectly illustrates my point.  I wish we had access to the data.

 

Of course different lines will have different results based on different itineraries and vessels - that's part of the fun of the data mining!  Consistency is not expected, and it would be fun to see who gets impacted more (and the inferences that could be made, e.g. ships, ports, policy).  I contend it is not "skewed", it just reflects the reality for each operator or river or whatever master criteria you are using for the query. 

 

You can compare an apple to an orange, as long as you know that is what you are doing.    😀

[notamermaid]

I admit as much, when you compile it yourself and you know what you are doing, then such data would be great to look at.

 

I fear that river cruise lines would not be happy with too much data being out in the open as a few could look rather bad in the ratings. Crystal, the most luxurious line - or whatever their slogan is - would have an appalling record with one accident and complete rerouting during last year's drought throwing them completely off schedule. The North American market leader that is Viking would look quite good overall. Unless you throw in the Elbe river into the overall data...

 

With more and more people travelling on rivers and wondering about their line's performance, I think pressure is increasing to be a bit more forthcoming with info. I remember an article on the internet about river cruising (was it CC or another similar website?) in which the interviewer published the answers to the question of sailings being affected. He had directly asked the lines. I am afraid to say that the answers where part conclusive at best, evasive at worst.

 

We will probably have to continue to rely on reviews and direct feedback from past cruisers for some time.

 

notamermaid

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by notamermaid
Grammar

[VistaRio]

Agreed!

 

The problem with anecdotal data ("rely on reviews and direct feedback from past cruisers") is the squeaky  wheel syndrome.  Selective responses aren't great data.  But it is what it is I guess.