E
Ellen Grace Butland
Guest
From The Shipping Times:
Queen Victoria celebrates first year at seaMore at http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item_10178.html
Queen Victoria celebrates first year at sea
E
Ellen Grace Butland
Guest
Many thanks, Mike for your postings again. I see Cunard (read Carnivorous) are booming the Vicky up big. She might find herself a clientele separate from that of Mary2, time will tell. Meantime, I have just got my hands on a Berlitz 2008 cruise guide, only to find bloody Carnivorous have swallowed up P&O Cruises and there are No single cabins on Pacific Sun, which is ex Jubilee (and Berlitz' drawing of her show her still with the winged funnel) I plan a trip downtown with my camera tomorrow, hope this old hag does not break the lens 
From Boston.com:
Maine town to welcome cruise ship Queen Victoria
Brief story at http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/01/24/maine_town_to_welcome_cruise_ship_queen_victoria/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
Maine town to welcome cruise ship Queen Victoria
Brief story at http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/01/24/maine_town_to_welcome_cruise_ship_queen_victoria/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
E
Ellen Grace Butland
Guest
Just a short post. Pacific Sun no longer has her Carnival funnel, the wings have been hacked off and the uptakes poke out at the top. I DO HOPE P&O have at least some single cabins, or at least not with horrendous surcharge.
From Cruise Critic:
Airlifted Cunard Cruise Passenger Recovering from Successful SurgeryMore at http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=3187
Airlifted Cunard Cruise Passenger Recovering from Successful Surgery
Here is more on the story which has interesting video of the airlift and a flyby of the ship.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/8012040.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/8012040.stm
K
Kyle Johnstone
Guest
From The Times Live, South Africa:
A stately cruise on Cunard's Queen VictoriaMore at http://www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyle/travel/article200763.ece
A stately cruise on Cunard's Queen Victoria
From The Daily Mail:
Appeal launched over £22,000 damages awarded to couple who had 'highly stressful experience' aboard cruise shipMore at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232995/Appeal-launched-22-000-damages-awarded-couple-highly-stressful-experience-aboard-cruise-ship.html
Appeal launched over £22,000 damages awarded to couple who had 'highly stressful experience' aboard cruise ship
That is so ridiculous!!! I wish I had their problems.
"So perturbed was Mrs Milner that she is still unable wear any of the 21 evening gowns she purchased for the trip, at a cost of £4,300, because they are an 'unwelcome reminder' of the horror."
oh mon dieu! What would Imelda Marcos do?
"So perturbed was Mrs Milner that she is still unable wear any of the 21 evening gowns she purchased for the trip, at a cost of £4,300, because they are an 'unwelcome reminder' of the horror."
oh mon dieu! What would Imelda Marcos do?
Stripping away that quote, one must then ask the initial question "Who fed this story to the media? The couple, or Cunard?" Since the only quote in the article makes the couple look ridiculous, and there is VIRTUALLY no evidence offered from their side one can form suspicions on that point....
Then, one must ask the question that someone obviously did NOT care to address in that article: do the floors in the upper deck Victoria cabins audibly flex in rough weather? Upon what evidence was based the initial award? Did the couple provide video and audio? Let's face it... people who can spend $65,000 at this point in time on a vacation are NOT a beloved class backed up by a welling of affectionate public sentiment. If this settlement was twenty two thousand pounds on a three hundred pound cabin, one could say that prejudice in favor of 'the underdog' might have played a part, but these people were NOT the underdog. You'll note that the article fails to specify
~If audio/visual evidence exists to back up the judgement
~If there have been other complaints
~If evidence of the other complaints was aired in court
~How many other suits pertaining to this have been filed, or how many other suite occupants have accepted travel vouchers to shut up
~I've never been in a upper deck cabin with floors that flex with a "disturbing" noise in bad weather. The article NEVER addresses why the floor groans. Would not a quote from the designer saying "It's supposed to do that" fit nicely into the piece? Or long term Victoria crew members saying "Yes, the floors creak, but within normal limits?" The omission of those points leaves hanging the possibility that the noise ISNT intentional... was any evidence regarding either side of the issue presented in court?
If it is NOT intentional then, yes, I would want a refund, too. There are the usual heavy seas creaks and rattles that you expect. And, there are unacceptable levels of noise. If, thru some design flaw, the floors DO make awful noises in storms and nothing has been done to rectify the problem in... what...three seasons, then the settlement is just. If you bought a $60,000 car, and the transmission roared like that of a Yugo, would you philosophically think "Well, sometimes cars do that?" I wouldn't either. So, lets hope that the facts as presented in court are made public.
There are not enough facts in this article to allow the reader to decide "hysterical and/or scheming couple" or "Oh, that's weird; WTF with the cabin floors."
Regarding the other detail: if I paid $65,000 for a cabin and discovered that the floor groaned in rough seas, and was then moved into another cabin ONLY UNTIL ITS ACTUAL OCCUPANTS JOINED THE SHIP, yeah, I'd be pissed off, too.
Then, one must ask the question that someone obviously did NOT care to address in that article: do the floors in the upper deck Victoria cabins audibly flex in rough weather? Upon what evidence was based the initial award? Did the couple provide video and audio? Let's face it... people who can spend $65,000 at this point in time on a vacation are NOT a beloved class backed up by a welling of affectionate public sentiment. If this settlement was twenty two thousand pounds on a three hundred pound cabin, one could say that prejudice in favor of 'the underdog' might have played a part, but these people were NOT the underdog. You'll note that the article fails to specify
~If audio/visual evidence exists to back up the judgement
~If there have been other complaints
~If evidence of the other complaints was aired in court
~How many other suits pertaining to this have been filed, or how many other suite occupants have accepted travel vouchers to shut up
~I've never been in a upper deck cabin with floors that flex with a "disturbing" noise in bad weather. The article NEVER addresses why the floor groans. Would not a quote from the designer saying "It's supposed to do that" fit nicely into the piece? Or long term Victoria crew members saying "Yes, the floors creak, but within normal limits?" The omission of those points leaves hanging the possibility that the noise ISNT intentional... was any evidence regarding either side of the issue presented in court?
If it is NOT intentional then, yes, I would want a refund, too. There are the usual heavy seas creaks and rattles that you expect. And, there are unacceptable levels of noise. If, thru some design flaw, the floors DO make awful noises in storms and nothing has been done to rectify the problem in... what...three seasons, then the settlement is just. If you bought a $60,000 car, and the transmission roared like that of a Yugo, would you philosophically think "Well, sometimes cars do that?" I wouldn't either. So, lets hope that the facts as presented in court are made public.
There are not enough facts in this article to allow the reader to decide "hysterical and/or scheming couple" or "Oh, that's weird; WTF with the cabin floors."
Regarding the other detail: if I paid $65,000 for a cabin and discovered that the floor groaned in rough seas, and was then moved into another cabin ONLY UNTIL ITS ACTUAL OCCUPANTS JOINED THE SHIP, yeah, I'd be pissed off, too.
Yes. Although she seemed to favor MuuMuu style blouses and early pants suits.
She and Thurston's presense on that tour was never explained. Mary Ann was a contest winner; the Professor was aboard to 'study flora and fauna' (from a boat?); Ginger was fleeing from a mob of aroused men after a USO performance...the Howells ne'er said a word about how they ended up aboard.
Personally, I think they all had grounds for a fairly good negligence suit.
She and Thurston's presense on that tour was never explained. Mary Ann was a contest winner; the Professor was aboard to 'study flora and fauna' (from a boat?); Ginger was fleeing from a mob of aroused men after a USO performance...the Howells ne'er said a word about how they ended up aboard.
Personally, I think they all had grounds for a fairly good negligence suit.
From The Times OnLine:
Payout for world-cruise 'nightmare'More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article6953438.ece
Comment: Hmmmmmmmmm.
Payout for world-cruise 'nightmare'
Comment: Hmmmmmmmmm.
Noted: CUNARD has filed an appeal, so we'll see how far this goes.
BTW, what happened to all the expensive outfits bought by the wife?? If she benefited in any way by donating them, that should figure in to any settlement/judgements.
BTW, what happened to all the expensive outfits bought by the wife?? If she benefited in any way by donating them, that should figure in to any settlement/judgements.
>>BTW, what happened to all the expensive outfits bought by the wife?? <<
Nothing mentioned in either story that I noticed though I may have missed something. While they may have a legitimate complaint, some of this looks like a story which improved a bit in the telling, helped along no doubt by a very good lawyer. Hard to tell with the press however, and I wasn't there. Seems a bit odd to me that there haven't been similar complaints.
Nothing mentioned in either story that I noticed though I may have missed something. While they may have a legitimate complaint, some of this looks like a story which improved a bit in the telling, helped along no doubt by a very good lawyer. Hard to tell with the press however, and I wasn't there. Seems a bit odd to me that there haven't been similar complaints.
>Seems a bit odd to me that there haven't been similar complaints.
There may well have been. These people may be the first to press the point beyond the offered settlement.
UK and US rules regarding fare refunds and restitution are like night and day, with UK being FAR more stringent. Read the small print page at the back of the brochures you can pick up at the ships' travel desks.
Witness the QM2 maiden voyage post sailing settlement. Mike and I got the equivalent of a 50% refund, in the form of 7 days in a suite "on the house." Friends of ours from the UK, who made similar claims, got a flat rate settlement of something like $250.
Some time later, a friend of mine, from London, was assessed a full-deposit penalty for cancelling a cruise well in advance of final payment deadline; a situation which would have warranted a full refund had the claim been made in the US.
So, my initial thought was "That seems like a VERY generous settlement, all things considered." Since the line was not legally obligated to refund the unused portion of the fare, it surprised me that they did. It surprised me even more that the refund was not given in travel vouchers which, increasingly, seems to be the norm.
There may well have been. These people may be the first to press the point beyond the offered settlement.
UK and US rules regarding fare refunds and restitution are like night and day, with UK being FAR more stringent. Read the small print page at the back of the brochures you can pick up at the ships' travel desks.
Witness the QM2 maiden voyage post sailing settlement. Mike and I got the equivalent of a 50% refund, in the form of 7 days in a suite "on the house." Friends of ours from the UK, who made similar claims, got a flat rate settlement of something like $250.
Some time later, a friend of mine, from London, was assessed a full-deposit penalty for cancelling a cruise well in advance of final payment deadline; a situation which would have warranted a full refund had the claim been made in the US.
So, my initial thought was "That seems like a VERY generous settlement, all things considered." Since the line was not legally obligated to refund the unused portion of the fare, it surprised me that they did. It surprised me even more that the refund was not given in travel vouchers which, increasingly, seems to be the norm.
