Andy Rochells
Age: 68
Occupation:Consultant
Number of Cruises: 4
Cruise Line: Windjammer Barefoot
Ship: Amazing Grace
Sailing Date: March 2005
Itinerary: Southern Caribbean
This reviews provides post cruise
information relating to the Sue Evans and J. Colleman reviews
In March 2005, my wife sailed on Windjammer’s Amazing Grace with the
expectations of transiting from Freeport Bahamas to Port of Spain, Trinidad with
9-12 port calls. Unfortunately, we letter sitting on our stateroom bottom bunk
informed us that an engineering problem would reduce ship speed-of-advance to
six knots. The reduced speed would only allow the ship to travel as far as Sint
Maarten. After returning from the cruise, we sent a mild letter of complaint to
Windjammer, which focused on the last minute itinerary change. Windjammer
Barefoot Cruises' Customer Service Manager finally responded after 2.5 months. A
major portion of that letter follows.
Windjammer Response
Thank you for contacting us in March and sharing your concerns regarding the
unfortunate change to your cruise. On behalf of Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, I
do apologize for any inconveniences you experienced.
We understand that many passengers were upset with the last minute notice in the
change of sailing/itinerary schedule. Unfortunately, Windjammer was given
minimal notice from the ship owners and operators of the changes and we in turn
did not have the luxury of time to advise passengers prior to sailing. Once
onboard, everyone was advised of the changes and given the option to sail or
disembark.
We tried to provide as much assistance as possible in re-arranging flights,
hotels and other miscellaneous changes for passengers who chose to sail. We also
absorbed many of the air cost and change fees incurred as a result of the change
in disembarkation port. I am sorry if you felt our efforts were lacking.
In closing, I would like to refer you to our policy on Sailing/Itinerary
Changes, which is clearly disclosed in our brochures (under "Important
Information') and our website (under "Know Before You Go'). The policy is as
follows.
Advanced or Delayed
Sailings/Itinerary Changes
Windjammer has the right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any
scheduled sailings, itinerary or port-of-call without notice. Windjammer may,
but is not obligated to, substitute another vessel for sailing and cannot be
liable for loss to passengers by reason of such cancellation, advancement,
postponement or substitution. The Captain's judgment on any action or inaction
is considered final. Reservations are subject to change in the event of a full
ship charter.
Customer Service, Manager
Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, Ltd.
From my reading, the letter of response appears to cite factors leading to the
problem
(1) “Windjammer was given minimal notice from the ship owners and operators of the changes and we in turn did not have the luxury of time to advise passengers prior to sailing” and
(2) "Windjammer has the
unfettered right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any scheduled
sailings, itinerary or port-of-call without notice.
The first argument would give one the impression that Windjammer employs the
services of distinctly separated ship owner/operators. In fact, the Burke family
owns the entire operation and all entities share office spaces. For
documentation see Henry v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, 851 So. 2d 731; 2003
Fla. App. LEXIS 7491(Fla. 3rd DCA. 2003). An excerpt from that case follows:
The court found FANTOME, like the vessel in question, is a member of the
Windjammer Fleet, which is operated by several Florida corporations all based at
the same Miami Beach office and run and owned by a single family. Although the
vessel is owned by a Panamanian corporation, the corporation was utilizing funds
in Florida bank accounts, the ship’s employee files were maintained in Miami,
the captains of each vessel reported solely to the family owners in the Miami
office, all decisions regarding the ship’s itineraries, and coordination of
maintenance and repairs were directed by the Miami headquarters, all the
communication equipment was in Miami, the various foreign corporations created
for each vessel were in fact owned by the same family operating out of Florida,
and there were no corporate agents located in any foreign countries.
Additionally, the fleet’s advertising, reservations, and sales were handled by
Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, operating out of Miami. The court noted that the
Supreme Court in Rhoditis stressed the need to look beyond corporate formalities
to examine both the ship’s and the shipowner’s operational contacts with the
United States to effectuate the liberal purposes of the Jones Act. Thus, a court
must look beyond the "facade" of the operation and consider the real nature of
the operation and the contacts with the United States. The court found that
while the facts that the vessel did not sail in American waters nor enter U.S.
ports were significant in the "base of operations" analysis, these factors were
not determinative, and the shipowner’s substantial contacts with the United
States were sufficient to establish that the vessel’s true base of operations
was Miami Beach, Florida. Thus, the court found it would be reasonable to apply
United States law even though the ships never entered a United States port.
Corporate facades
notwithstanding, lack of notification time does not seem reasonable
The second argument has merit if one accepts that Windjammer can drastically
change the itinerary at will and the customer therefore has no recourse. Two
schools to thought seem applicable in this case: (1) let the buyer beware), and
(2) what are the expectation of the reasonable man (man used here in the generic
sense).
Windjammer promised the following.
"Cruise aboard Windjammer’s freighter-passenger ship and visit a huge selection
of Caribbean Islands ─ from the Bahamas all the way down the archipelago
to Trinidad. What a trip! In addition to island hopping, you’ll get to meet up
with all four of Windjammer’s tall ships, as the Grace delivers her monthly
supplies."
Our cruise started in Freeport took us as far as St Maarten and we visited four
islands of interest (Dominican Republic, Virgin Gorda, Tortola, and St Maarten).
The results fit the buyer criteria but fall well short of the expectation of a
reasonable man.
Sea worthiness also has applies
to this matter. Seaworthiness under American law is an "absolute, non-delegable,
and continuing" duty of the ship owner to provide a vessel that is seaworthy to
the passengers and crew. The standard of seaworthiness is not perfection, but
reasonable fitness: not a ship that will weather every conceivable storm or
withstand every imaginable peril of the sea, but a vessel reasonably suitable
for her intended service. This is a duty on the part of the ship owner to
furnish a vessel appurtenances, and crew, which are reasonably fit for use.
Seaworthiness can best be defined by looking to see what Courts have considered
unseaworthy. There is a substantial amount of case law that has defined what has
in fact made the vessel or her crew unseaworthy.
We sailed with the starboard engine belching soot and the port engine marginally
operational owing to a serious shaft-bearing problem. Both engineering issues
were of longstanding.
According to reports, a month long yard period has corrected the engineering
problems. Consequently, I cannot, in all honestly, recommend against booking
passage on Amazing Grace if one exercises due diligence and metaphorically puts
the Windjammer’s sales staff through the wringer. Amazing Grace is a grand old
ship with none of the amenities or pretense of large cruise ships. The crew
provides great service, and the ship has the “potential” to provide a great
adventure.
I only wish we had benefited fully from that capability and Windjammer had made
Amazing Grace reasonably suitable for the intended purpose.