My wife and I have booked a cruise on the upcoming October sailing of the Dawn Princess.

We found out but weren't notified of a cancelled port only after we paid in full. The port that Princess cancelled is that of Christmas Island which breaks up, which is now, over five straight days at sea. Not necessarily the most marketable idea at the price we paid for most cruise lines.

The reasons were that port damage prevented safe landing. I can buy that. But, read on. Apparently Princess knew about this alleged damage well before we paid our final payment, and initial deposit. This is based on gathered evidence and notes from other passengers. A bit distressing.

Agreeing with others who have posted on other message boards, it looks like Princess is forgoing this port for a completely different reason(s) than that of safety. My wife contacted Princess receiving the same response -- that port damage prevents the cruise line from landing safely on Christmas Island. This, apparently, is an untruth since Radisson Seven Seas is visiting and landing on the island in September and Orient lines is visiting and landing in December (confirmed).

We have also confirmed this information through a secondary source with the Kiritimati (Christmas Island) government. I quote, "The landing from the cruise ships' boats on Kiritimati Island is possible and the maintenance of the landing site has been done and the main channel will be dredged three times every month in advance prior Cruise arrival."

Princess replied they cannot speak for the other cruise lines. Do they mean to say the other cruise line's standards are less than Princess'? I, too, believe there is a cover-up on Princess' end.

On the surface, it appears Princess does not want to hassle with an island that does not generate revenue for them. If the goverment there indicates the port is safe and will continue to maintain that port with regard to safety, why else would Princess avoid such a port if it were not for profit?

Unfortunately, there may be nothing we can do because when the cruise lines say NO, how can you fight them? Their lawyers seem to have it covered. Personal Choice? Do they mean THEIR personal choice?

If you have any thoughts, information, evidence, "inside" information, advice, anything at all, please let us know. Thank you.

Dismayed,

CJTraveller

We have sailed Princess several times, and plan on a November 30th cruise on the Dawn. Whatever Princess is doing, they are doing it for your own good. Their standards are higher, as is Celebrity that we just got home from a couple of hours ago. I've been with other cruise lines that put your safety and security behind their need to make money. Trust Princess' judgement. They won't let you down. Are they substituting another location?I'm sure you'll have a great time regardless.

Yes, Sue, I am sure we will still have a great time. And, I understand your reply regarding safety. The safety of passengers is number one.

However, I have found no evidence whatsoever after contacting the island's government as well as other cruise lines visiting the island that there is any reason why landing on the island would be unsafe. I have to conclude that Princess is telling an untruth.

Also, Princess is not replacing the destination with another. Just five and a half days straight at sea. Too much time cooped up for active people like ourselves.

Yes, I, too, would like to believe that Princess has our best interests in mind. However, there is too much evidence telling me, and others, otherwise. Unless they actually change the itinerary and land on the island, this experience, no matter how grand of a cruise I anticipate it will be, will always skew my thoughts of this cruise line.

Of course, after all is said and done and we do not land on the island, I will pursue this further with the evidence at hand. But, I will give Princess the benefit of the doubt, and will wait until the cruise to find out. No one should tolerate any itinerary change unless it has something to do with safety. In this case, it is not.

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, CJ, I would have to agree with you, and with subscribers to other message boards, that we appear to be the victims of a scam. There could be many commercial reasons for this decision to "sail by" Christmas Island,but:
1. The timing of the cancellation of the stop.
2. The history of cancelled visits on recent cruises.
3 The several attempts to dissuade passengers from going ashore in the tenders on those previous cruises which did stop.
4.The fact that many of us have received information from the Authorities in Kiribati that all is well and that other Cruise ships are continuing to call in.
5.That all of this information was also obtained by passengers on previous cruises and the documentary evidence presented to the Crew, with unusual results.
:-
all add up to the fact that this decision was unlikely to have been taken, at the last minute, for considerations of safety.
Let us hope that Princess continue to monitor the situation, as promised,and keep this major itinerary change under review.
If we do make it ashore, I would be most happy to host the shore party in the "Ace Pub"

I wonder what the problem is as I am sure it is a tendered port? I know that NCL bailed on Christmas Island as they didn't feel they could get in enough times to have it be dependable and they selected Fanning Island instead. It does sound questionable....but then I love days at sea and some of the best cruises I have taken have had 5 plus days at sea.

If you decide to go, make the best of it and have a great cruise.

Tom

Tom
Your administration is indeed even-handed! Our thanks for declaring that the Princess decision to cancel the Christmas Island stop is "questionable".
There is no doubt that experiencing in excess of five days at sea could even be described as blissful-- if that was the selected `Personal choice`, and one had not booked the cruise with the specific intention of visiting Christmas Island.
I join you in querying--
"I wonder what the problem is--it is a tendered port?"
Lets hope that the beautiful Princess is not sleeping.

Tom
Your view of the cancellation of the above Island visit as being questionable is indeed very relevant. Attempts have been made to clarify the matter with Princess and my wife and I are aware of their reply.
Question - What are the further needs of Princess Cruises to land a tender on Christmes Island?
Answer - A statement of their priority with safety with which no one would disagree. BUT no answer to the question.
Another request to answer the question received another statement on safety, and no reply to the question.
If Princess do have a problem with safety during a landing on Christmas Island, you would think that they would co-operate with and assist the authorities to overcome it, just as other Cruise Lines do. Then the Cruise visit to Christmas Island which continues to be advertised and continues to be cancelled would be a better reflection of reality.
My wife and I are very disappointed with the responses of Princess on this matter where a visit to this unique atoll was a prime reason for booking the cruise.
If the beautiful Princess is sleeping we will not be. We will inform you of our location on 9 OCT 2002.

If you are not happy with the fact that any cruise line including the Captain of any cruise ship, has the right to change a cruise itinerary then I suggest that you find another form of vacation travel.
Changing itineraries has been a part of the cruise scene and has been going on for a long time. It is part of the cruise business. I know that it can be a drag at times, but you must remember that there is ALWAYS the chance that you will not follow the planned itinerary.....no matter what cruise you go on.
Cruise lines yes, do want to make a buck, but they are also concerned about your safety. (At least, I like to think so) So if there is a change, go with the flow and enjoy the cruise!
Cruisebloke

Our thanks to cruisebloke for stating the obvious re itinerary changes.
Look beyond the obvious however and you find a different story.
We cruised by Christmas Island on 09 OCT instead of landing and it was confirmed that Dawn Princess will NOT be able to land passengers on this Island for the foreseeable future. The reason being lack of water depth in the channel plus the tides. So it was unsafe, and will remain unsafe.
There can be no argument with safety, BUT Princess continue to advertise and sell this cruise with a visit to the Island, listing the features and Bird Species that are there, and the time you will spend there. Is this honest?

I for one do not really care to stop at any more islands. I just like to sail. Basically after being on one island you have been to all of them. You got to see our water fall, rain forest, beach, rock formation etc. For the most part it is nothing but a revenue maker for the "tourist traps" and the local economy on the islands. I can appreciate anyone being dissappointed by not stopping at an island because you booked your trip according to these stops; but I do believe that the cruise lines would stop if possible because they do generate revenue on these islands by selling tours. Also don't you think that it is cheaper for them to be docked than to sail? I know that I would be really disappointed if the ship did not stop at St Thomas if it was scheduled because of the fantastic duty free items but I guess that is the chance you have to take.

I guess the question is what do you want the cruise line to do because of this so called "deception"? If you look in the terms and condtions they are in their rights.