MV Viking Sky in distress ...

[towny44]

I suppose Viking cruises still have a reputation to protect, since P&O's is shot to ribbons already that's why you get SFA from them.

[Mervyn and Trish]

As above they did exactly the same when the Aurora maiden was aborted. Don't expect that sort of compo for a missed port.

[towny44]

As above they did exactly the same when the Aurora maiden was aborted. Don't expect that sort of compo for a missed port.

Are you sure it was 2 free cruises and a full refund? Mind you that was 2000 before that wicked Carnival takeover.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I understood from GP post that it was a full refund plus a free cruise.

Still better than I got on my awful cruise on third world Calamity!

[Stephen]

I understood from GP post that it was a full refund plus a free cruise.

Still better than I got on my awful cruise on third world Calamity!

[towny44]

I understood from GP post that it was a full refund plus a free cruise.

Still better than I got on my awful cruise on third world Calamity!

You're just too picky!!!

[Manoverboard]

Viking prefer Fine Food to Formality … just F F F saying

[Mervyn and Trish]

I prefer staying afloat! Like Towny said. Picky!

[Stephen]

Was the Captain on the Viking of Italian origin by chance

[Dancing Queen]

She's now moments from docking in Molde. I would think there are a lot of relieved people ready to disembark.

I understand our old mate Cubie is poised on the deckside ready to hand out his cut and paste compo forms!

Apparently Viking will be refunding all passengers the full cost of the cruise plus another cruise.

That just shows us how much profit the luxury cruise lines make, when they can write off the revenue from 2 full cruises plus all the extra costs this one has cost them.

Regardless of how much profit the 'luxury cruise lines' make - they deliver so it doesn't surprise me in the least Viking very quickly made this gesture, there is a huge difference between those who seek compensation because a port was missed or 'something' just didn't suit to an incident like this where I imagine many would have been totally traumatised, I would also think their insurers will pick up a large proportion of the cost.

[Stephen]

Apparently Viking will be refunding all passengers the full cost of the cruise plus another cruise.

That just shows us how much profit the luxury cruise lines make, when they can write off the revenue from 2 full cruises plus all the extra costs this one has cost them.

Regardless of how much profit the 'luxury cruise lines' make - they deliver so it doesn't surprise me in the least Viking very quickly made this gesture, there is a huge difference between those who seek compensation because a port was missed or 'something' just didn't suit to an incident like this where I imagine many would have been totally traumatised, I would also think their insurers will pick up a large proportion of the cost.

Not so sure DQ if they consider the Captain shouldn't have set sail knowing the weather conditions he was going into.

[Mervyn and Trish]

There was talk of that but I noticed that in David's review of his Aurora jaunt he said they got some bad weather that hadn't been forecast. Maybe Viking had the same issue. Can't knock the crew for their response in turning round a very difficult situation. As GP says yes very traumatic. Quite right they've come up with some compo fast. I think any line would have done so in those circumstances. Not quite in the same league as that QM2 passenger recently demanding £3000 (or was it $?) after a less than one hour power cut in calm waters.

[Dancing Queen]

That just shows us how much profit the luxury cruise lines make, when they can write off the revenue from 2 full cruises plus all the extra costs this one has cost them.

Regardless of how much profit the 'luxury cruise lines' make - they deliver so it doesn't surprise me in the least Viking very quickly made this gesture, there is a huge difference between those who seek compensation because a port was missed or 'something' just didn't suit to an incident like this where I imagine many would have been totally traumatised, I would also think their insurers will pick up a large proportion of the cost.

Not so sure DQ if they consider the Captain shouldn't have set sail knowing the weather conditions he was going into.

I haven't seen anything where the suggestion has been made the Captain shouldn't have set sail ?? as Merv says there was bad weather which hadn't been forecast, no doubt had the engines not failed the ship would have rode the waves as they usually do in bad weather or should we assume it was the Captains fault they failed I guess some will always look for a 'scapegoat'.

[anniec]

I haven't seen anything where the suggestion has been made the Captain shouldn't have set sail ?? as Merv says there was bad weather which hadn't been forecast, no doubt had the engines not failed the ship would have rode the waves as they usually do in bad weather or should we assume it was the Captains fault they failed I guess some will always look for a 'scapegoat'.

Here you are : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... -set-sail/

No idea how accurate the report is, but there have been several along the same lines.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Makes interesting reading, if it's accurate. A lot of the news coverage hasn't been. One of the worst was Sky News last night which reported the remaining passengers were being stretchered off the ship. Yes they had a shot of one passenger on a stretcher. I believe most walked off in the usual way. Another dramatic report suggested the ship was filling up with water. Another that the 1300 people on board were mainly elderly. Well 400 of them were crew so I doubt they were!

[Stephen]

Regardless of how much profit the 'luxury cruise lines' make - they deliver so it doesn't surprise me in the least Viking very quickly made this gesture, there is a huge difference between those who seek compensation because a port was missed or 'something' just didn't suit to an incident like this where I imagine many would have been totally traumatised, I would also think their insurers will pick up a large proportion of the cost.
[/quote
Not so sure DQ if they consider the Captain shouldn't have set sail knowing the weather conditions he was going into.

I haven't seen anything where the suggestion has been made the Captain shouldn't have set sail ?? as Merv says there was bad weather which hadn't been forecast, no doubt had the engines not failed the ship would have rode the waves as they usually do in bad weather or should we assume it was the Captains fault they failed I guess some will always look for a 'scapegoat'.

Why the anger tone DQ. I simply replied to your post.

I find it hard to believe that sort of weather would not be forecast or available to check with all the technology at the Captains disposal. As for the ship riding out the storm, with engines, yes, it may well of done, but does it make it right to put passengers through such severe threatening conditions.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Apologies earlier. I got my DQ's and GP's mixed up. I get flustered in the presence of royalty!

[towny44]

This mornings paper says that Norway's accident investigation board is to open an inquiry into why the ship put passengers into to such a high risk situation.

[Dancing Queen]

I haven't seen anything where the suggestion has been made the Captain shouldn't have set sail ?? as Merv says there was bad weather which hadn't been forecast, no doubt had the engines not failed the ship would have rode the waves as they usually do in bad weather or should we assume it was the Captains fault they failed I guess some will always look for a 'scapegoat'.

Why the anger tone DQ. I simply replied to your post.

I find it hard to believe that sort of weather would not be forecast or available to check with all the technology at the Captains disposal. As for the ship riding out the storm, with engines, yes, it may well of done, but does it make it right to put passengers through such severe threatening conditions.

No anger tone from me, if I'd wanted to express an anger tone I would have said 'your comment re was the Captain Italian' was in very poor taste !!

At the moment everything is 'speculation' and tbh isn't helped by wild accusations being made - as someone who was actually on the ship has said on another forum if the Captain had been in any doubt he wouldn't have left Tromso ( it would have been a much cheaper option ) Viking are a luxury cruise line not some 'two bit' company who put profit before customer safety.

If every time bad weather was forecast sailings were cancelled we wouldn't get very far would we !!

[Dancing Queen]

Apologies earlier. I got my DQ's and GP's mixed up. I get flustered in the presence of royalty!

Pleased you recognise 'royalty' Merv

[Stephen]

Why the anger tone DQ. I simply replied to your post.

I find it hard to believe that sort of weather would not be forecast or available to check with all the technology at the Captains disposal. As for the ship riding out the storm, with engines, yes, it may well of done, but does it make it right to put passengers through such severe threatening conditions.

No anger tone from me, if I'd wanted to express an anger tone I would have said 'your comment re was the Captain Italian' was in very poor taste !!

At the moment everything is 'speculation' and tbh isn't helped by wild accusations being made - as someone who was actually on the ship has said on another forum if the Captain had been in any doubt he wouldn't have left Tromso ( it would have been a much cheaper option ) Viking are a luxury cruise line not some 'two bit' company who put profit before customer safety.

If every time bad weather was forecast sailings were cancelled we wouldn't get very far would we !!

Not poor taste at all. I just have a sense of humour. But there you go, have it your way. I'm not going to get into any further silly back and forth comments.

[Dancing Queen]

This mornings paper says that Norway's accident investigation board is to open an inquiry into why the ship put passengers into to such a high risk situation.

I don't think there was ever any doubt there would be an enquiry and quite rightly.

Whether or not it was the ship which put passengers into such a high risk situation we shall have to wait and see what the conclusion is, I prefer to
think innocent until proven guilty, there are hundreds of posts on cruise critic and everyone has an opinion, here are a few that seem to have been posted by people who actually know what they are talking about.

I would add ... I am just the messenger !!!


On 3/23/2019 at 11:04 PM, Hlitner said:
And the "obvious" answer is that the worst place for a large cruise ship to be in a major storm is docked (or anchored) in a port! The norm is to get the ship out to sea (where it is actually safer) and try to avoid the storm or the worst part of the storm. In fact, most harbor masters will close ports in severe weather and request that ships depart....generally before the storm reaches the port.
*****

On 3/24/2019 at 8:24 AM, SeaDog-46 said:
Krydstosser - you are totally wrong & do not know what you are talking about.

Viking Sky left Tromso a few days ago when the weather was not bad.

The cannot be sued for bad weather.

If you choose to cruise you sometimes have to put up with bad weather & ships having blackouts occasionally.

I was in the merchant navy for over 40 years.
Update: 397 is evacuated.
Regarding the weather, the “losoldermann” (master ship pilot) says to the Norwegian newsletter vg.no that such a big ship would usually have no problems handling a storm like this and/or the demanding area (Hustadvika). The sole problem was the motors shuting down.
*****

On 3/24/2019 at 11:42 AM, nellydean said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 37371.html

This a report by Simon Calder, a very well respected British travel correspondent.

I think questions need to be asked why the ship continued her journey, considering the forecast was so bad, and especially as I read elsewhere that another ship stayed in port.


If I understand it correctly, it was the COMBINATION of bad weather AND no engine power, that caused the dramatic situation. Rough seas along the Norwegian coast (especially during the winter) is a very common thing, and usually does NOT cause any serious situations like this.
I see that several here on CC are «pointing fingers» regarding the situation and the decisions made on board by the captain – but the majority of reports from passengers who were on board are actually the opposite, they are praising both the captain and the crew that handled everything in an excellent manner when in a very bad situation.

[towny44]

DQ, I was only reporting what was printed in the paper, I also am quite happy to await the investigation findings, and agree that had the engines not failed there would probably have been no need for the mayday call.
However it will be very interesting to see if the report finds any connection between the bad weather and the engines failing, like for instance the rough seas stirring up sediment in the fuel tanks and the filters getting blocked, which might lead to proposed changes industry wide.

[Dancing Queen]

Oh I knew you were John, sorry I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

[towny44]

The initial report from the investigators is that the engine failure was caused by low fuel levels in the tanks. They were within limits but the rough seas probably caused a low level fuel alarm, which then resulted in the engines shutting down.