Saga Spirit of Discovery

[Windsurfboy]

Has anyone written to Saga about Carribean cruise, more importantly has anyone heard anything back

[LandC]

The Incident to which you refer occurred on the Canary Island Quintet Cruise on SoD, which returned to Portsmouth on 7th November.  Our friends were on this cruise, where over 100 people were injured, and, sadly a passenger passed away two days after docking.  The MAIB has launched an investigation.  
There are some interesting comments about what may have gone wrong on this thread.
 

[Banjo an]

Have just received an email in response to my letter to Nigel Blanks with regard to the cancelled ports on the recent 30 day cruise to the Caribbean.

I’m told that prior to embarkation in Portsmouth the ship was cleared by maritime authorities.

However, due to challenging weather it became necessary to put into Lisbon. While  in Lisbon Siemens engineers advised Saga that further software updates were required.

Unfortunately, this work took longer than expected and therefore changes were made to the itinerary. 
They go on to say that they are pleased that they were able to protect this section of the itinerary with very few changes having been made.

They conclude by saying that on the route back to the UK further changes were needed due to poor weather and the visit to Funchal was cancelled.

Sadly, I do not agree with much that has been said here and I think that the ship was not fit for purpose and will not be sailing with Saga again.

[Windsurfboy]

2 hours ago, Banjo an said:

Have just received an email in response to my letter to Nigel Blanks with regard to the cancelled ports on the recent 30 day cruise to the Caribbean.

I’m told that prior to embarkation in Portsmouth the ship was cleared by maritime authorities.

However, due to challenging weather it became necessary to put into Lisbon. While  in Lisbon Siemens engineers advised Saga that further software updates were required.

Unfortunately, this work took longer than expected and therefore changes were made to the itinerary. 
They go on to say that they are pleased that they were able to protect this section of the itinerary with very few changes having been made.

They conclude by saying that on the route back to the UK further changes were needed due to poor weather and the visit to Funchal was cancelled.

Sadly, I do not agree with much that has been said here and I think that the ship was not fit for purpose and will not be sailing with Saga again.

 

Banjo  an.

 

I hope you not are going to leave it there, and at least tell Mr Blanks he is losing a customer, 

 

I see Nigel Blanks emphasises the weather not the break down. He tries to say it's unavoidable or extraordinary.  As if Saga aren't responsible for maintenance. 

 

Extract from Saga terms and conditions 

 

"In the interests of safety and the well-being of our customers, 
the Ships’ Masters (and Saga Cruises Limited) shall have absolute 
discretion to alter the routing of the cruises at any time and for 
any reason. The safe navigation of the ship is paramount and 
circumstances where the route may be changed include, but are 
not limited to, Unavoidable and Extraordinary Circumstances."

 

Mr Blanks  may say the extra days in Lisbon were "unavoidable" as the engine needed fixing. The question that he has avoided is,

 

Given the problem encountered with software in the previous cruise, wouldn't it have been PRUDENT to have Seimens engineers look at the system as soon as the ship arrived in Portsmouth and fix it there before ship left port. By doing so the breakdown in Lisbon would have been avoided . Why didn't they do the prudent and obvious thing.

 

Given the time in Lisbon was thus avoidable how can Saga take no responsibility. He has yet to answer this question,  we should keep at him .

 

We have another  cruise booked and I won't be throwing away my £4500 deposit. But I shall make it clear that that will be my last Saga cruise.

 

[Banjo an]

Well said Sir.

Incidentally the reply didn’t come Nigel Blanks. It was signed by Sarah Ward, Guest Experience Executive.

Have you had a reply yourself yet? 

[FannyLiz]

54 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

 

Given the problem encountered with software in the previous cruise, wouldn't it have been PRUDENT to have Seimens engineers look at the system as soon as the ship arrived in Portsmouth and fix it there before ship left port. By doing so the breakdown in Lisbon would have been avoided . Why didn't they do the prudent and obvious thing.

 

Given the time in Lisbon was thus avoidable….l.ll

 

At the time ( ie in Lisbon) I understood that the software etc problems were best sorted in Lisbon rather than Portsmouth. The ship had been given the green light to sail so independent assessors must have thought it was safe to do so.The time taken to get to Lisbon gave the Siemans engineer in the USA time to gather what he needed and, given the almost city centre location of Lisbon airport, it was easier for him to fly there than via Heathrow and Southampton.

 

The repairs in Lisbon clearly took longer than anticipated as we were prepared for sailing on several occasions. I’d rather have been in a warm and dry Lisbon with interesting things to do within walking distance than a cold wet quayside in Portsmouth dependant on shuttle buses to leave the port. We would still have had to miss ports whichever alternative was taken.
 

Surely a biggest part of the problem is the very short turn around period in home ports. Understandable obviously but it leaves no leeway for this sort of occurrence .

[JMMKUK]

2 minutes ago, FannyLiz said:

At the time ( ie in Lisbon) I understood that the software etc problems were best sorted in Lisbon rather than Portsmouth. The ship had been given the green light to sail so independent assessors must have thought it was safe to do so.The time taken to get to Lisbon gave the Siemans engineer in the USA time to gather what he needed and, given the almost city centre location of Lisbon airport, it was easier for him to fly there than via Heathrow and Southampton.

 

The repairs in Lisbon clearly took longer than anticipated as we were prepared for sailing on several occasions. I’d rather have been in a warm and dry Lisbon with interesting things to do within walking distance than a cold wet quayside in Portsmouth dependant on shuttle buses to leave the port. We would still have had to miss ports whichever alternative was taken.
 

Surely a biggest part of the problem is the very short turn around period in home ports. Understandable obviously but it leaves no leeway for this sort of occurrence .

As per my previous post. They had to code the fix before they could install it. They had to work out where the problem in the software before they could code the fix.

I believe them about that part of it & I would have preferred Lisbon to Portsmouth.

What I don't like is the mention of bad weather causing more problems & that if SoD needed a software update the presumably so does SoA.

[Windsurfboy]

Why was it safe to leave port with known problems.  Saga, in the form of the Captain, denied that they knew about any problems before they left Portsmouth.  That is, they didn't look

Edited December 19, 2023 by Windsurfboy

[Windsurfboy]

1 hour ago, Banjo an said:

Well said Sir.

Incidentally the reply didn’t come Nigel Blanks. It was signed by Sarah Ward, Guest Experience Executive.

Have you had a reply yourself yet? 

 

Nothing yet 

[Windsurfboy]

I take the airlines ruling by courts and CAA , weather is exempt from any responsibility.  Technical problems, are 100% airlines responsibility,  no let out clauses.

 

See no reason for any difference for cruises. But I'm sure Mr Blanks does

[mrsbubs]

18 hours ago, Banjo an said:

Have just received an email in response to my letter to Nigel Blanks with regard to the cancelled ports on the recent 30 day cruise to the Caribbean.

I’m told that prior to embarkation in Portsmouth the ship was cleared by maritime authorities.

However, due to challenging weather it became necessary to put into Lisbon. While  in Lisbon Siemens engineers advised Saga that further software updates were required.

Unfortunately, this work took longer than expected and therefore changes were made to the itinerary. 
They go on to say that they are pleased that they were able to protect this section of the itinerary with very few changes having been made.

They conclude by saying that on the route back to the UK further changes were needed due to poor weather and the visit to Funchal was cancelled.

Sadly, I do not agree with much that has been said here and I think that the ship was not fit for purpose and will not be sailing with Saga again.

Just had a similar letter from a different customer services executive.  

[nosapphire]

Have you tried writing to Mr Blanks (or one of the other directors) via the registered office address?

Link below is for the company set up for the Spirit of Discovery.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09839927

Sometimes (not always) that route bypasses the secretarial staff and gets directly to to intended recipient.

 

[LondonLad60]

18 minutes ago, nosapphire said:

Have you tried writing to Mr Blanks (or one of the other directors) via the registered office address?

Link below is for the company set up for the Spirit of Discovery.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09839927

Sometimes (not always) that route bypasses the secretarial staff and gets directly to to intended recipient.

 

It's worth a try, but don't hold your breath. I have written directly to Paul Ludlow at P&O, and also to the CEO of Sainsbury's. On both occasions, I was replied to by customer services executives.

[Windsurfboy]

I have recieved my response which is very similiar to Banjo an recieved.

 

However they also said that terms and conditions allow for insignificant changes   

 

"Examples of insignificant changes include, but are not limited to, closure of ship facilities for maintenance; change from a berth to a tender port, change to advertised amenities; change to port times, change to itineraries; change to included and optional excursions and entertainment. Please note we will not pay compensation or offer alternative options if we make an insignificant change."

 

I wrote back rejecting their arguement,  on the grounds that individually you might regard these changes as insignificant,  however given the number of changes cumulatively  they become significant. It is widely recognised principle that a large number of insignificant changes adds up to a significant change in the overall delivery. 

 

I don't think we will get anywhere, once they have rejected my rejection, I will seriously consider involving the media, who have consumer protection columns.  It's either that or small claims court, but I'm more interested in being taken seriously than the money. , 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Windsurfboy

[Banjo an]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:44 PM, Windsurfboy said:

I have recieved my response which is very similiar to Banjo an recieved.

 

However they also said that terms and conditions allow for insignificant changes   

 

"Examples of insignificant changes include, but are not limited to, closure of ship facilities for maintenance; change from a berth to a tender port, change to advertised amenities; change to port times, change to itineraries; change to included and optional excursions and entertainment. Please note we will not pay compensation or offer alternative options if we make an insignificant change."

 

I wrote back rejecting their arguement,  on the grounds that individually you might regard these changes as insignificant,  however given the number of changes cumulatively  they become significant. It is widely recognised principle that a large number of insignificant changes adds up to a significant change in the overall delivery. 

 

I don't think we will get anywhere, once they have rejected my rejection, I will seriously consider involving the media, who have consumer protection columns.  It's either that or small claims court, but I'm more interested in being taken seriously than the money. , 

 

On 12/20/2023 at 2:44 PM, Windsurfboy said:

I have recieved my response which is very similiar to Banjo an recieved.

 

However they also said that terms and conditions allow for insignificant changes   

 

"Examples of insignificant changes include, but are not limited to, closure of ship facilities for maintenance; change from a berth to a tender port, change to advertised amenities; change to port times, change to itineraries; change to included and optional excursions and entertainment. Please note we will not pay compensation or offer alternative options if we make an insignificant change."

 

I wrote back rejecting their arguement,  on the grounds that individually you might regard these changes as insignificant,  however given the number of changes cumulatively  they become significant. It is widely recognised principle that a large number of insignificant changes adds up to a significant change in the overall delivery. 

 

I don't think we will get anywhere, once they have rejected my rejection, I will seriously consider involving the media, who have consumer protection columns.  It's either that or small claims court, but I'm more interested in being taken seriously than the money. , 

I have also sent a further email to Nigel Blanks saying I contest the Guest Experience Executive’s reply to which he replied with more inaccuracies which I have since challenged.

[Windsurfboy]

The guest experience Executive came back to me and said that , she couldn't reconsider her answer as the decisions had been made by their board and senior management,  and that was that basically that. Suggested I take it up with ABTA.

 

I don't know if it is worth questioning Blanks again,

 

Clearly we will get nowhere without involving 3rd party,  Just have to decide which one.

 

 

[Banjo an]

4 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

The guest experience Executive came back to me and said that , she couldn't reconsider her answer as the decisions had been made by their board and senior management,  and that was that basically that. Suggested I take it up with ABTA.

 

I don't know if it is worth questioning Blanks again,

 

Clearly we will get nowhere without involving 3rd party,  Just have to decide which one.

 

 

I’ve heard back from Nigel Blanks and we are just being fobbed off. 
I’m now consulting my legal team!

[Windsurfboy]

15 hours ago, Banjo an said:

I’ve heard back from Nigel Blanks and we are just being fobbed off. 
I’m now consulting my legal team!

 

The advice in getting is the technical issues with the engine and hence the consequences of that , cannot be fobbed off as extraordinary circumstances outside the control of Saga. 

[Banjo an]

On 12/22/2023 at 11:40 AM, Windsurfboy said:

 

The advice in getting is the technical issues with the engine and hence the consequences of that , cannot be fobbed off as extraordinary circumstances outside the control of Saga. 

 

On 12/22/2023 at 11:40 AM, Windsurfboy said:

 

The advice in getting is the technical issues with the engine and hence the consequences of that , cannot be fobbed off as extraordinary circumstances outside the control of Saga. 

After our recent Caribbean cruise where Saga cancelled four ports and then sailed back to the UK for nine days across the Atlantic without a stop, only to blame the weather or mechanical breakdowns we have decided not to travel with Saga again.

[Glenndale]

1 hour ago, Banjo an said:

 

After our recent Caribbean cruise where Saga cancelled four ports and then sailed back to the UK for nine days across the Atlantic without a stop, only to blame the weather or mechanical breakdowns we have decided not to travel with Saga again.

Fair enough 🙂 

Were you offered any compensation?

Friends that I recommended Saga to were caught in the BOB on the previous cruise to you.

It was their first cruise and whilst they enjoyed the first half they have decided to fly out in future rather than sail thru the bay. Next cruise is with Silversea

[Banjo an]

No there wasn’t any compensation offered, just excuses.

[Windsurfboy]

On 12/25/2023 at 7:04 PM, Banjo an said:

No there wasn’t any compensation offered, just excuses.

 

Are you going to take it any further. 

 

I'm still awaiting response from Mr  Blanks,  expect excuses. I questioned the validity of the paragraph quoted by customer relations. The one saying they could change intinerary as they wish for any reason at their sole discretion , not just for extraordinary circumstances.  Any such changes would be deemed insignificant.  This carte blanche reads very much like an unfair contract.  Weather is classed as Extraordinary circumstances,  technical problems are always responsibility of carrier, not extraordinary. 

 

Hence they cannot deny liability for the extra 2 days in Lisbon and the consequential curtailment of the Carribean sector. 

 

My next step is definitely a formal complaint to  ABTA, and perhaps parallel letter to media consumer column , I don't know if you can do both in parallel. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Windsurfboy

[Banjo an]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Are you going to take it any further. 

 

I'm still awaiting response from Mr  Blanks,  expect excuses. I questioned the validity of the paragraph quoted by customer relations. The one saying they could change intinerary as they wish for any reason at their sole discretion , not just for extraordinary circumstances.  Any such changes would be deemed insignificant.  This carte blanche reads very much like an unfair contract.  Weather is classed as Extraordinary circumstances,  technical problems are always responsibility of carrier, not extraordinary. 

 

Hence they cannot deny liability for the extra 2 days in Lisbon and the consequential curtailment of the Carribean sector. 

 

My next step is definitely a formal complaint to  ABTA, and perhaps parallel letter to media consumer column , I don't know if you can do both in parallel. 

No I’m not bothering taking it any further. I was quite disgusted with Nigel Blanks complete refusal to accept responsibility on behalf of Saga.

It’s more than likely a boardroom decision because otherwise it would open the floodgates and with Saga’s dire financial situation they couldn’t take the risk.

I suspect they will lose a lot more customers than just us following this matter.

We have a cruise booked with a different company in May but will definitely not be using Saga again.

[Windsurfboy]

2 hours ago, Banjo an said:

No I’m not bothering taking it any further. I was quite disgusted with Nigel Blanks complete refusal to accept responsibility on behalf of Saga.

It’s more than likely a boardroom decision because otherwise it would open the floodgates and with Saga’s dire financial situation they couldn’t take the risk.

I suspect they will lose a lot more customers than just us following this matter.

We have a cruise booked with a different company in May but will definitely not be using Saga again.

 

I completely understand how you feel.

 

Now that I have all the arguments "down on paper", in my emails to Saga,  and sorted out succinctly in my mind. A formal complaint to ABTA looks quite easy, and I  will make Saga work for it for as long as I can. ABTA looks the easiest step as it can all be done online, as I will be out of country for 3 months.  

[Banjo an]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

I completely understand how you feel.

 

Now that I have all the arguments "down on paper", in my emails to Saga,  and sorted out succinctly in my mind. A formal complaint to ABTA looks quite easy, and I  will make Saga work for it for as long as I can. ABTA looks the easiest step as it can all be done online, as I will be out of country for 3 months.  

Wherever you are off to Windsurfboy,  keep safe and enjoy.