This blog was set up during Costa’s problem-plagued ‘Jewels of the Indian Ocean’ cruise that set off from Mauritius in Saturday 14th February 2009.
Its primary purpose was to act as a central point of reference for the many English-speaking passengers who were dissatisfied with the huge changes made by Costa to the itinerary during the cruise, thus giving them a means of staying in touch once they had left the ship and returned home.
In the intervening weeks many other complaints were raised about Costa’s management of a large number of aspects of life on board, but without the itinerary changes these would probably have been less contentious and might well have been left unreported.
So, the purpose of this posting is three-fold:
- to summarise the vast discrepancy between Costa’s published ‘Jewels of the Indian Ocean’ itinerary and the one that passengers subsequently experienced
- to explain why Costa’s compensation of €300 per passenger for their failure to provide the promised itinerary was desperately insufficient and why, weeks after the end of the cruise, there is still bad feeling against Costa amongst passengers.
- to demonstrate that it was engine problems and not political instability that denied us the once-in-a-lifetime chance to see Madagascar
The details of the ‘Advertised’ and the ‘Actual’ cruises were published here. Briefly, we lost four advertised ports of call, i.e. all of Madagascar and also Réunion (reduced from ten hours to just one). For those of us who weren’t told in advance there was also a fifth missed port of call; Mayotte. It also meant that instead of around four days at sea and ten ashore we had about ten at sea and only four ashore.
In the explanations provided to individual customers who returned home and wrote letters of complaint Costa has majored on a ‘Force Majeure’ defence, i.e. the political instability in Madagascar, and has played down the engine failure that slowed the Europa to half speed. In other words, on the one hand they have focused on an element of the cruise for which they have no obligation to provide compensation, and on the other haven’t appropriately addressed a key failure that fell entirely within their own control, i.e. the crippling engine failure. However, as will be shown, a far more likely reason for the loss of all the Madagascar stops was the faulty engine.
Shortly before our departure many of us received a letter from Costa that warned us that, ‘we could be forced to modify the cruise itineraries … by cancelling all the scheduled calls in Madagascar in order to protect the safety and tranquility of the Guests.’ The promise was made that, should this be necessary Costa would schedule, ‘an additional overnight in Mahé (Seychelles), in Mombasa (Kenya) and in Réunion St. Denis (Réunion) thus offering to guests the possibility to experience a Holiday discovering these wonderful and fascinating destinations’.
On joining the ship we were delighted to see that two Madagascan ports of call, Nosy Bé and Diego Suarez, remained on the schedule. Indeed, Costa was selling several excursions for those ports, so clearly there were no problems there in the first week of the cruise. There was no warning that Madagascar would be missed out altogether until the afternoon of Monday 23rd February. By this time, it was subsequently apparent, there was barely enough time to limp back to Réunion at little over ten knots to hastily disembark passengers who had joined the cruise there and then to dash for Mauritius to disembark the rest of us.
The fault in the starboard engine became apparent the day after we left Mahé. On the Friday morning the decks and sunbeds were covered with oily ash, and it subsequently became obvious when black smoke started belching from the funnel that there was a major problem with one of the engines. We then arrived in Mombasa a day late, thus demonstrating the reduced speed of the ship on only one engine. Repairs in Mombasa meant staying there for an extra night before we set off for Réunion, missing Madagascar entirely.
And while all this was going on what exactly might have been happening in Madagascar that made Costa decide not to call there? Not a lot, really; nothing that hit the international headlines, anyway. If the situation in Madagascar was so dire from 23rd to 25th February how was it that in the intervening fortnight things returned so completely to normal that the Europa was able to call at all three ports there in perfect safety from 9th to 11th March. What’s more, how was it that on Friday 20th March the Europa visited Nosy Bé with a coup d’état having taken place only three days earlier and with the African Union that day suspending Madagascar and threatening sanctions?
If the northern Madagascan ports were so dangerous to visit then we should have been told this categorically before departure and been given the option of canceling our cruise plus a full refund. Demonstrably, the position in the north of that country remained safe and stable throughout the political crisis, for why else would Costa Europa have repeatedly called there after the disastrous 14th/28th February cruise and throughout the coup d’état?
So, to summarise and make things crystal clear, the loss of the two stops in Madagascar was due to the engine problem, with one day lost at sea on the way to Mombasa and the other in Mombasa itself. Nothing to do with ‘sociopolitical problems’, merely engineering failure. It is for this reason that we continue to hold Costa responsible for our ‘ruined cruise’, to directly quote Comandante Donato Salvatore.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Those engines again
A quiet few days on this blog but a fair amount of behind-the-scenes contact between shipmates.
One interesting point that has cropped up concerns the engines. Those of us who have had replies to our letters from Costa and their agents will have found that blame for the horribly truncated cruise is being pointed at 'the sociopolitical situation in Madagascar'.
If the situation in Madagascar was so dire from 23rd to 25th February and we're currently witnessing what seems to be a coup d'état in that country how it was that in the intervening fortnight things returned so completely to normal before spiralling out of control again that the Europa was able to call at all three ports there in perfect safety from 9th to 11th March. What's more, at this very moment (midday GMT on Friday 20th March) she is sitting happily in Nosy Be. That's right, in Madagascar. Funny how those pesky 'sociopolitical problems' bounce backward and forwards so very rapidly. One could become so very cynical.
No, the main problem has to have been the Europa's dodgy engine, i.e. the one that seemed to have blown a piston ring one night in our first week leaving the deck and the sunbeds littered with oily smut the next morning. We have been assured that this problem was 'not foreseeable' and was 'beyond Costa's control'.
However, word is now reaching us that the Europa 'encountered severe weather travelling from Savona to Mauritius in November when the damage to the propulsion system had occurred'.
Can this possibly be true? Might the Europa had been 'limping' during our cruise due to a known and unresolved problem?
Maybe the Costa staff who read this blog might like to comment?
One interesting point that has cropped up concerns the engines. Those of us who have had replies to our letters from Costa and their agents will have found that blame for the horribly truncated cruise is being pointed at 'the sociopolitical situation in Madagascar'.
If the situation in Madagascar was so dire from 23rd to 25th February and we're currently witnessing what seems to be a coup d'état in that country how it was that in the intervening fortnight things returned so completely to normal before spiralling out of control again that the Europa was able to call at all three ports there in perfect safety from 9th to 11th March. What's more, at this very moment (midday GMT on Friday 20th March) she is sitting happily in Nosy Be. That's right, in Madagascar. Funny how those pesky 'sociopolitical problems' bounce backward and forwards so very rapidly. One could become so very cynical.
No, the main problem has to have been the Europa's dodgy engine, i.e. the one that seemed to have blown a piston ring one night in our first week leaving the deck and the sunbeds littered with oily smut the next morning. We have been assured that this problem was 'not foreseeable' and was 'beyond Costa's control'.
However, word is now reaching us that the Europa 'encountered severe weather travelling from Savona to Mauritius in November when the damage to the propulsion system had occurred'.
Can this possibly be true? Might the Europa had been 'limping' during our cruise due to a known and unresolved problem?
Maybe the Costa staff who read this blog might like to comment?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Package Travel, Package Holidays & Package Tours Regulations 1992
UK residents might like to take a look at the above legislation.
Quite apart from the failure to call as scheduled at Madagascar let's look at the case of Mayotte. We booked a cruise that featured Mayotte, and it was only when we boarded the Europa that we found that it had vanished from the itinerary.
In other words, our contract included Mayotte and we were not informed of its removal from the itinerary.
Here's what UK law says:
Significant alterations to essential terms
12.In every contract there are implied terms to the effect that—
Quite apart from the failure to call as scheduled at Madagascar let's look at the case of Mayotte. We booked a cruise that featured Mayotte, and it was only when we boarded the Europa that we found that it had vanished from the itinerary.
In other words, our contract included Mayotte and we were not informed of its removal from the itinerary.
Here's what UK law says:
Significant alterations to essential terms
12.
- (a) where the organiser is constrained before the departure to alter significantly an essential term of the contract, such as the price (so far as regulation 11 permits him to do so), he will notify the consumer as quickly as possible in order to enable him to take appropriate decisions and in particular to withdraw from the contract without penalty or to accept a rider to the contract specifying the alterations made and their impact on the price; and
- (b) the consumer will inform the organiser or the retailer of his decision as soon as possible.
The rest of this Statutory Instrument can be referred to at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1992/Uksi_19923288_en_1.htm
Hypothetically speaking
Imagine this hypothetical letter, received ten days before Europa's departure:
Dear Customer X,
We regret to inform you that due to various operating difficulties, the itinerary for the 'Jewels of the Indian Ocean' cruise will be severely truncated. You will not be visiting Mayotte under any circumstances, and given that we've rarely called anywhere in Madagascar on the previous three or four cruises we don't expect to be able to call there either. Additionally, your call at Réunion will be cut from over nine hours to less than two.
Please also be advised that, instead of ten days ashore and four days at sea, as advertised, due to the above-mentioned operating difficulties you'll be spending ten days at sea and only four ashore.
Naturally, we regret these changes enormously but have no wish to be anything other than completely frank with our valued customers. Recognising that the cruise that you booked can now in no way be delivered we are making you an offer of a reduction of €300 per person on this cruise plus a further €600 against the cost of a future cruise.
However, we also recognise that you might instead prefer to cancel your cruise altogether and receive a full refund, including air fares, no matter whether you booked it through Costa or through any of our affiliates. If you choose this option we undertake to fully refund you within fourteen days.
Yours etc etc.
Costa
This is of course a hypothetical letter.
My wife and I spent several thousand Euros booking this cruise and for us the highlight was to be to see lemurs in Madagascar. If the cruise hadn't featured Madagascar we wouldn't have booked it in the first place, and if on being told we wouldn't get there at all we'd then been given the opportunity to cancel we'd have taken it immediately. Visiting Madagascar was the central purpose of this cruise, as far as we were concerned.
Could we book another holiday that'd get us to Madagascar for €300? I don't think so. Would we re-book with Costa in the hope of perhaps getting there next time? Hardly. For these reasons alone Costa's interim compensation in no way makes up for what we lost.
Dear Customer X,
We regret to inform you that due to various operating difficulties, the itinerary for the 'Jewels of the Indian Ocean' cruise will be severely truncated. You will not be visiting Mayotte under any circumstances, and given that we've rarely called anywhere in Madagascar on the previous three or four cruises we don't expect to be able to call there either. Additionally, your call at Réunion will be cut from over nine hours to less than two.
Please also be advised that, instead of ten days ashore and four days at sea, as advertised, due to the above-mentioned operating difficulties you'll be spending ten days at sea and only four ashore.
Naturally, we regret these changes enormously but have no wish to be anything other than completely frank with our valued customers. Recognising that the cruise that you booked can now in no way be delivered we are making you an offer of a reduction of €300 per person on this cruise plus a further €600 against the cost of a future cruise.
However, we also recognise that you might instead prefer to cancel your cruise altogether and receive a full refund, including air fares, no matter whether you booked it through Costa or through any of our affiliates. If you choose this option we undertake to fully refund you within fourteen days.
Yours etc etc.
Costa
This is of course a hypothetical letter.
My wife and I spent several thousand Euros booking this cruise and for us the highlight was to be to see lemurs in Madagascar. If the cruise hadn't featured Madagascar we wouldn't have booked it in the first place, and if on being told we wouldn't get there at all we'd then been given the opportunity to cancel we'd have taken it immediately. Visiting Madagascar was the central purpose of this cruise, as far as we were concerned.
Could we book another holiday that'd get us to Madagascar for €300? I don't think so. Would we re-book with Costa in the hope of perhaps getting there next time? Hardly. For these reasons alone Costa's interim compensation in no way makes up for what we lost.
What's this blog for?
There's been a little avalanche of comments in the past day or so from a couple of people who seemingly disagree with the general direction of this blog. They apparently have been offended about our policy of deleting insulting and/or childish comments, and I think that we need to be clear about why we do this.
This blog was set up during the cruise to bring together the comments of all those passengers who were angered by Costa's alterations to the itinerary and their attitude to compensation. As it subsequently transpired there were also quite a few subsidiary issues over the quality of the ship, its management and the cruise, and many of them have been covered here.
As you will gather, this blog is not for those few passengers who were perfectly satisfied with everything, or even those who were upset but preferred to let things be. My justification for saying that the number of passengers falling into these camps was small is to direct everyone's attention to the irritable crowd of passengers of all nations who packed the theatre on at least two separate occasions.
If you are a passenger who was entirely or even broadly happy with the cruise then I am happy for you. However, I must say that this blog is therefore not for you. If you wish to protest that Costa's people don't deserve the waves of criticism that they are fending off, not only here but in individual complaints made directly to them or indirectly via agents such as Virgin, then you should start up your own site and explain your own position just as we are doing here. Don't expect us to visit it or comment on it, though.
This, apart from the simple issue of good manners, is the reason why we remove comments that obstruct our objective, i.e. to keep the dissatisfaction of very many passengers in the public eye whilst Costa decides what to do to meet our legitimate complaints. In the next posting I'll describe in the clearest English that I can manage why Costa's initial offer of compensation was inadequate.
But let me first say this; Terry, I and the other commenters on this site do not claim to represent anyone who doesn't want to be represented. If you were happy with the cruise as a whole then we do not speak for you. If you feel that we speak only for the British (or English-speaking contingent) and are unhappy with that then we do not speak for you. If you are angry with Costa but still want to proceed against them alone then of course we do not speak for you.
If you think that by continuing to speak out against Costa then we intend in some way to insult Italy then you are quite wrong. My wife and I are very fond indeed of Italy and its way of life and visit often. It's precisely because we see Costa's inhospitable treatment of its passengers on our cruise as entirely untypical that we feel impelled to carry on.
This blog was set up during the cruise to bring together the comments of all those passengers who were angered by Costa's alterations to the itinerary and their attitude to compensation. As it subsequently transpired there were also quite a few subsidiary issues over the quality of the ship, its management and the cruise, and many of them have been covered here.
As you will gather, this blog is not for those few passengers who were perfectly satisfied with everything, or even those who were upset but preferred to let things be. My justification for saying that the number of passengers falling into these camps was small is to direct everyone's attention to the irritable crowd of passengers of all nations who packed the theatre on at least two separate occasions.
If you are a passenger who was entirely or even broadly happy with the cruise then I am happy for you. However, I must say that this blog is therefore not for you. If you wish to protest that Costa's people don't deserve the waves of criticism that they are fending off, not only here but in individual complaints made directly to them or indirectly via agents such as Virgin, then you should start up your own site and explain your own position just as we are doing here. Don't expect us to visit it or comment on it, though.
This, apart from the simple issue of good manners, is the reason why we remove comments that obstruct our objective, i.e. to keep the dissatisfaction of very many passengers in the public eye whilst Costa decides what to do to meet our legitimate complaints. In the next posting I'll describe in the clearest English that I can manage why Costa's initial offer of compensation was inadequate.
But let me first say this; Terry, I and the other commenters on this site do not claim to represent anyone who doesn't want to be represented. If you were happy with the cruise as a whole then we do not speak for you. If you feel that we speak only for the British (or English-speaking contingent) and are unhappy with that then we do not speak for you. If you are angry with Costa but still want to proceed against them alone then of course we do not speak for you.
If you think that by continuing to speak out against Costa then we intend in some way to insult Italy then you are quite wrong. My wife and I are very fond indeed of Italy and its way of life and visit often. It's precisely because we see Costa's inhospitable treatment of its passengers on our cruise as entirely untypical that we feel impelled to carry on.
Reply to Gerard Leblanc re;.. Management input etc..
Thank you Gerard for your welcome input to the discussions on our blog...
I have removed my answer to you. If you wish to take up your comments further, then I am more than happy to hear from you via my email address terry_croarkin@hotmail.com
I think this would be better than to exchange opinions so loosely on this blog. This is a blog for comments and opinions on the fail;ings of Costa not a forum or discussion board for commenting on the good people that have spent good money on a disastrous cruise
Kindest regards
Terry
I have removed my answer to you. If you wish to take up your comments further, then I am more than happy to hear from you via my email address terry_croarkin@hotmail.com
I think this would be better than to exchange opinions so loosely on this blog. This is a blog for comments and opinions on the fail;ings of Costa not a forum or discussion board for commenting on the good people that have spent good money on a disastrous cruise
Kindest regards
Terry
Europa Position Reply to comment by Dieter Herk
Thanks for your comments Dieter posted March 17, 2009 on "Eoropa position"
I have removed my reply to you from this Blog.
If you wish to continue your discussion, I am happy for you to contact me via my email address terry_croarkin@hotmail.com
This blog is for the purpose of all the unhappy passengers who endured a disastrous cruise of Costa.
It was not intended to be a discussion board, purely a blog for all the unhappy passenger, of which they are many.
Kindest Regards
Terry
I have removed my reply to you from this Blog.
If you wish to continue your discussion, I am happy for you to contact me via my email address terry_croarkin@hotmail.com
This blog is for the purpose of all the unhappy passengers who endured a disastrous cruise of Costa.
It was not intended to be a discussion board, purely a blog for all the unhappy passenger, of which they are many.
Kindest Regards
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)