Alaska Pilots concern about Royal

[dobiemom]

Following. (Friends on board next week and Sept.)

[Haboob]

On 4/30/2019 at 11:42 AM, chengkp75 said:

Well, semantics, but important ones.  The Captain relinquishes "control" to a pilot in every situation, just as he does to his bridge officers while he is not on the bridge.  The Captain retains "authority" at all times except in the Panama Canal, and when entering a drydock.  The reason for this is that either the Canal Authority, or the shipyard assumes full financial responsibility for the ship and any damages it may cause.

 

Yep.  A master delegates "con" to his bridge officer or to the pilot, but never "charge" except to a Panama pilot

(didn't know about graving docks, is that perhaps case-by-case?).

 

I wonder about the original article, which (mis?)quotes a USCG Commander not knowing the difference between

"con" and "charge"?!?  I do wonder what else got garbled.

[lstone19]

Perhaps related or perhaps not but Royal is on its first trip north and unlike most other ships going out of Vancouver, went south around Vancouver Island on to open ocean rather than the Inside Passage route north up the Georgia Strait, through Seymour Narrows, and up the Johnstone Strait.

OTOH, despite what some people thought, it did make it under the Lion's Gate Bridge (some people thought it was too tall but I think that's because the Internet has stats about it that mis-report its height above keel as height above waterline making its air draft about 28 feet more than it really is).

 

Anyway, if it's always going around Vancouver Island, that's yet another reason why Royal and it's twins will be my last choice for an Alaska cruise. Far less scenic. 

[kennicott]

1 hour ago, lstone19 said:

Anyway, if it's always going around Vancouver Island, that's yet another reason why Royal and it's twins will be my last choice for an Alaska cruise. Far less scenic. 

I agree, if they don't voyage on the east side of Vancouver Island then don't book. We were on the Seven Seas Navigator and everybody thought we were going east of the island but instead the skipper took us out into the mundane North Pacific. Here is a shot of the Royal's sister, the "Regal", in St. John's, Newfoundland. Largest ship ever to visit that port at the time, they said, 2015.  

[dobiemom]

11 hours ago, lstone19 said:

Perhaps related or perhaps not but Royal is on its first trip north and unlike most other ships going out of Vancouver, went south around Vancouver Island on to open ocean rather than the Inside Passage route north up the Georgia Strait, through Seymour Narrows, and up the Johnstone Strait.

 

9 hours ago, kennicott said:

I agree, if they don't voyage on the east side of Vancouver Island then don't book. We were on the Seven Seas Navigator and everybody thought we were going east of the island but instead the skipper took us out into the mundane North Pacific. 

I know they can always change routes/ports, but according to the Princess website, they are supposed to go east of Vancouver Island. I would also be disappointed to go south and the West of the island. 

Although, looking at the 12-day RT LA the itinerary IS going west of Vancouver Island. 😕

[idahospud]

1 hour ago, dobiemom said:

 

I know they can always change routes/ports, but according to the Princess website, they are supposed to go east of Vancouver Island. I would also be disappointed to go south and the West of the island. 😕

When I woke up this morning on the ship and didn't see the beautiful scenery I expected I had to check the position on the TV to figure out what happened. I was disappointed to see we were here:

And not heading this way:

 

According to the Patter we are supposed to arrive in Ketchikan tomorrow morning at 6:30 am. I guess that'll be the real test. I'm doing a "live from" but am not allowed to post the link, so I'll check back here tomorrow.

[lstone19]

6 minutes ago, idahospud said:

According to the Patter we are supposed to arrive in Ketchikan tomorrow morning at 6:30 am. I guess that'll be the real test. I'm doing a "live from" but am not allowed to post the link, so I'll check back here tomorrow.

 

There's plenty of time to make it to Ketchikan as scheduled. You're no worse off than a ship from Seattle that has to make it to Ketchikan the second morning (it's pretty close to equi-distant from Vancouver or Seattle to Ketchikan when going that way). They vary the speed to arrive when they need to. MarineTraffic has you doing a shade over 20 knots right now so you still have a couple of knots in reserve. When they go east of Vancouver Island, they need to go through Seymour Narrows at slack tide which leaving Vancouver at 5pm will mean going through sometime between around 11pm and 6am (whenever slack tide occurs) so there is a lot of slack in the schedule due to the variation in tide times.

[idahospud]

1 minute ago, lstone19 said:

 

There's plenty of time to make it to Ketchikan as scheduled. You're no worse off than a ship from Seattle that has to make it to Ketchikan the second morning (it's pretty close to equi-distant from Vancouver or Seattle to Ketchikan when going that way). They vary the speed to arrive when they need to. MarineTraffic has you doing a shade over 20 knots right now so you still have a couple of knots in reserve. When they go east of Vancouver Island, they need to go through Seymour Narrows at slack tide which leaving Vancouver at 5pm will mean going through sometime between around 11pm and 6am (whenever slack tide occurs) so there is a lot of slack in the schedule due to the variation in tide times.

I'm not worried a bit about making it to Ketchikan on time. (I meant the whole docking or not pilot concern would be the real test.) Thanks for keeping an eye on us!

[lstone19]

1 minute ago, idahospud said:

I'm not worried a bit about making it to Ketchikan on time. (I meant the whole docking or not pilot concern would be the real test.) Thanks for keeping an eye on us!

 

Oops, misunderstood. Thought you were concerned about schedule given the longer route.

[PandaBear62]

2 hours ago, idahospud said:

When I woke up this morning on the ship and didn't see the beautiful scenery I expected I had to check the position on the TV to figure out what happened. I was disappointed to see we were here:

And not heading this way:

 

According to the Patter we are supposed to arrive in Ketchikan tomorrow morning at 6:30 am. I guess that'll be the real test. I'm doing a "live from" but am not allowed to post the link, so I'll check back here tomorrow.

 

We're sailing on the Royal on June 8. This is on the Itinerary: "Select Royal Princess voyages may sail on the West side of Vancouver Island.. Motorcoach may be substituted for rail on some departures.". I don't remember it being there when we booked. But maybe it was?  Either way, I'm getting more and more worried while waiting for my cruise. I'm hoping to read postings from others that everything has been great on their cruises on the Royal this year!

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by PandaBear62

[lstone19]

6 hours ago, PandaBear62 said:

 

We're sailing on the Royal on June 8. This is on the Itinerary: "Select Royal Princess voyages may sail on the West side of Vancouver Island.. Motorcoach may be substituted for rail on some departures.".

 

Motorcoach for rail where? Interior Alaska on cruise tours? That would be a deal breaker for me. They'd better be giving significant refunds if they do as I do not consider them equivalent and you pay a premium for rail vs. bus on the cruise tours. I book trips specifically for rail segments - they are much more than just transportation - sometimes transportation is not even a factor in the rail trips I book the same as when we book one-way cruises for the cruise experience. For example, having just done Ruby's one-night Vancouver to Seattle, it would not have been acceptable for them to sub a bus for the ship to get me to Seattle. And just as I would not accept bus in place of ship, I would not accept bus for rail on a cruise tour and argue that they had in fact cancelled my cruise tour by doing so.

[idahospud]

I may be wrong but I think our approach to Ketchikan was different this morning, too. Even though we're northbound it seems like we took the route a ship going southbound usually takes?

Edited May 13, 2019 by idahospud

[lstone19]

39 minutes ago, idahospud said:

I may be wrong but I think our approach to Ketchikan was different this morning, too. Even though we're northbound it seems like we took the route a ship going southbound usually takes?

 

 

You are not wrong. Royal Princess in Alaska is looking uglier and uglier. Clearly they are making route changes to accommodate it and I wonder where else you will be off the traditional route (for some definition of "traditional" - our 2001 (Dawn Princess) and 2018 (Coral Princess) were already much less of the real Inside Passage than our first Alaska cruise in 1993 (Sky Princess)). I guess the good thing is from here on, there is only one way in and out of Juneau, Skagway, and Glacier Bay.

[Nosleepatall]

Was there any sort of announcement?  Sounds as if not...but this is a major departure for a Vancouver to Whittier ship, correct?  I'm wondering if there was any "reason" given for such a major change.  I'm sure you weren't the only disappointed passenger.  We are also scheduled to take the northbound trip on the Royal and were very much looking forward to that first sea day - I guess we will have to manage our expectations accordingly.  At least you had no issue docking in Ketchikan!  Enjoy and thanks for reporting.

[idahospud]

15 minutes ago, Nosleepatall said:

Was there any sort of announcement?  Sounds as if not...but this is a major departure for a Vancouver to Whittier ship, correct?  I'm wondering if there was any "reason" given for such a major change.  I'm sure you weren't the only disappointed passenger.  We are also scheduled to take the northbound trip on the Royal and were very much looking forward to that first sea day - I guess we will have to manage our expectations accordingly.  At least you had no issue docking in Ketchikan!  Enjoy and thanks for reporting.

The Captain may have announced our path when leaving Vancouver, but I didn't hear it. Only way I knew we had veered from what I expected was when I woke up in the morning. Same thing with Ketchikan - didn't realize we were taking a different course in until I looked outside.

[idahospud]

Despite the change in paths to get to Alaska, the Royal is still a great ship. Friendly crew, amazing cruise director, and it has a great itinerary. I had breakfast overlooking Ketchikan this morning while sitting in the sun. Can't get better than that. 

 

 

[Nosleepatall]

Good to hear!  Thanks!

[kennicott]

4 hours ago, lstone19 said:

 

You are not wrong. Royal Princess in Alaska is looking uglier and uglier. Clearly they are making route changes to accommodate it and I wonder where else you will be off the traditional route (for some definition of "traditional" - our 2001 (Dawn Princess) and 2018 (Coral Princess) were already much less of the real Inside Passage than our first Alaska cruise in 1993 (Sky Princess)). I guess the good thing is from here on, there is only one way in and out of Juneau, Skagway, and Glacier Bay.

This news is not good. We are hard core Princess cruisers, 350 days sailing with them, but here they are going too far with itinerary changes as far as I'm concerned. I have recommended Princess Alaska cruises to a lot of friends and acquaintances, mostly due to them doing both the Canadian and Alaska inside passages. I have always advised to beware of the TA or agent that says you will travel in the "inside passage" without getting their definition of "inside passage".  Could it be they have lost the navigation battle for their Royal Class vessels to not only the Southeast Alaska pilots but the B.C. Canadian pilots as well? 

 

Since we are Alaskans we have taken only one cruise up here, that was a two weeker on Regent"s Seven Seas Navigator from San Fran ending in Vancouver. When we booked I didn't pay any attention to the routing, I just assumed it would all be inside passage, since when I was a kid the only way to get to Seattle, from our Prince William Sound town, was via Alaska Steamship Company and they always used the inside passage, all the way. Many Canadians and Europeans on board Regent though, had been promised east of Vancouver Island. When we headed out into the Pacific they were very displeased.        

[kennicott]

I could well be that the Canadian Pilots and Seymour Narrows in B.C.'s Discovery Passage had little to do with the Princess decision to take the Royal Princess to the west of Vancouver Island. Princess may have capitulated to the Southeast Pilots and approached Ketchikan from the north instead of the south thereby avoiding the "Y" in the Tongass Narrows, where it splits into the east and west channels, which are south of Ketchikan and appear to be of grave concern to the Southeast Pilots and the safety of the Royal Class vessel. By undertaking this route, they didn't have time to cope with Seymour Narrows as well, so went west instead. Be interesting to get Heidi 13's perspective on this new development.  

[Maria2Madea]

Quite possibly also in New Orleans due to the Mississippi River.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Maria2Madea said:

Quite possibly also in New Orleans due to the Mississippi River.

Quite possibly "what" also in New Orleans?  Not clear what you are referencing.

[Maria2Madea]

I'm sorry, I thought I included the quote. It was about pilots maintaining control and the Panama Canal was mentioned. I thought Port of New Orleans as well.

 

So sorry for the confusion. That's why I seldom post. 

[Maria2Madea]

On 4/30/2019 at 1:33 PM, tonyweir said:

 

I believe the only port where the captain relinquishes control is the Panama canal. 

I thought perhaps the port of New Orleans due to the Mississippi River.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Maria2Madea said:

I'm sorry, I thought I included the quote. It was about pilots maintaining control and the Panama Canal was mentioned. I thought Port of New Orleans as well.

 

So sorry for the confusion. That's why I seldom post. 

No problem, just wondering what you meant.  No, New Orleans is no different than any other port, and Baton Rouge is farther up the river than NOLA, and Manaus in Brazil is 700 miles (about 7 times as far as NOLA) up the Amazon River.  As I've said, the only reason the Captain relinquishes "responsibility" for his ship in the Panama Canal, is that the Canal Authority takes financial responsibility for any damages to the ship, or caused by the ship.  Other pilots, even Mississippi River pilots do not accept this responsibility, so the Captain has the right to relieve them at any time.

[Maria2Madea]

Thank you!