下载App
资质规则
旅行
账户
emilywN1487UG
Horrific and dangerous, hostile crew and no response. Do not book!!!!!!!!
Fun Baja的点评
点评：To Whom It May Concern,
I took part in the liveaboard trip to Socorro and the Revillagigedo islands from March 20th through the 29th, 2026 on the Valentina. The actual dives were excellent but unfortunately within a few days of the trip starting we began to encounter problems with both the ship as well as some staff members.
On the third day of the trip, we were informed by the crew member, Arturo, that one of the vessel’s two engines had failed. As a result, we were told we would not be able to visit Socorro Island, which was the primary highlight and main purpose of the trip for many guests. Although disappointing, this was initially met with understanding.
Once we returned home, many of us re-read reviews for Valentina and found out that Valantina has lost engines several times before and this is not the first time itineraries were shortened due to mechanical reasons.
However, communication from the crew quickly became inconsistent and contradictory. Guests were repeatedly given conflicting information regarding itinerary changes, travel times, and whether reaching Socorro might still be possible.
Instead of proceeding to Socorro, the vessel returned to previously visited dive sites and ultimately arrived back in port a full day earlier than scheduled. This raised concerns among guests, particularly given the lack of clear explanation. Many were left with the strong impression that the decision to avoid Socorro may not have been solely due to mechanical limitations, but potentially influenced by regulatory or inspection concerns related to operating with only one functional engine.
The situation deteriorated further following a minor medical concern involving one guest. Initially, a reasonable protocol was communicated, including oxygen administration and a 48-hour pause from diving for that particular guest. The remainder of the boat continued diving.. However, this approach quickly became inconsistent and escalated without clear justification. The guest was first told they could contact their dive insurance provider, then discouraged from doing so by not sharing Internet immediately. Shortly thereafter, all dives for the remaining guests were abruptly canceled under the claim that it was mandatory to travel to Socorro for medical evaluation.
This decision was made despite the affected guest repeatedly stating they felt well, declining medical evaluation, and offering to sign a waiver. Furthermore, guests were actively prevented from contacting external medical or insurance professionals. We were told that internet access required captain approval, which was unavailable, despite clear indications that access could have been provided. Another guest thankfully offered their phone to assist, WHICH CLEARLY UPSET ARTURO. ! In order to avoid continuing to rely on another guest’s paid data voucher, the crew was asked several times for internet access. However, the requests were repeatedly ignored until access was finally provided, accompanied by the statement that the crew would have to cover the cost. During this time, there was also a lack of consistency in the administration of oxygen. Different crew members instructed significantly different flow rates (1.5 L/min, 8 L/min, and 15 L/min), and no clear written protocol could be identified when requested. This raised serious concerns about onboard medical preparedness and training.
During this period, the lead divemaster, Arturo, repeatedly stated that he was in constant communication with the company’s main office and that decisions were being made in coordination with shore-based management. However, this claim is contradicted by the experience of the affected guest, who made multiple attempts over several days to contact the company directly and received only one initial response following three days without any reply. Notably, despite the situation being presented onboard as urgent and requiring immediate action, the Cruise Director was not able to send the requested information in a timely manner (three days) as he was unavailable due to being out on a dive. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about transparency, the urgency with which the situation was handled, and whether decisions onboard were being appropriately supervised or supported by company management.
Ultimately, the decision to travel to Socorro for medical evaluation was reversed without explanation, further reinforcing concerns regarding inconsistent decision-making and lack of transparency.
Following these events, the onboard atmosphere deteriorated significantly. Certain senior crew members appeared visibly frustrated with guests, contributing to an uncomfortable and, at times, tense environment. No direct apology was offered by those involved. Instead, a junior crew member with no involvement in the situation was tasked with apologizing to guests shortly before gratuities were solicited. There was no attempt to pacify or offer anything to appease the guests. They could have offered a free wifi session, free drinks or some type of giveaway but nothing was done.
The handling of gratuities was also unprofessional. Envelopes provided to guests appeared to be marked in a way that allowed tracking of individual contributions. When some guests submitted tips without envelopes, the amounts were immediately opened and counted publicly. Guests were also given guidance suggesting expected tip amounts, which felt inappropriate.
By the end of the trip, the onboard environment had deteriorated to such an extent that 10 out of 20 guests chose to leave the vessel a full day early, despite having paid for the final night. Several incurred additional personal expenses for hotels and airline change fees simply to avoid remaining onboard. This reflects the level of discomfort experienced. We also tought again, that if we could get to port a full day early how is it that we could not have reached Socorro for the planned dives there?
Finally, there were discrepancies regarding transportation arrangements. Official materials indicated that airport transfers were included, or alternatively priced at $90 USD per vehicle (for up to 8 passengers). Despite this, guests were charged $45 USD per person. When documentation was presented to support the previously stated pricing, it was disregarded, and payments were collected in cash without transparency. It sure gave the impression that the person collecting the transportation fees was simply pocketing the money.
In summary, the primary concerns include:
· Failure to deliver the primary advertised destination (Socorro Island) without adequate explanation or compensation
· Inconsistent and misleading communication from crew members
· Questionable operational decision-making and lack of transparency
· Inadequate and inconsistent medical response procedures
· Restriction of guest communication with external medical and insurance providers
· Lack of professionalism and accountability from senior crew members
· Improper handling and solicitation of gratuities
· Discrepancies and lack of transparency in transportation charges
I respectfully request a formal response addressing these concerns, including clarification of operational decisions, a review of onboard protocols, and consideration of appropriate compensation.
Given the seriousness of these issues—particularly those related to safety, transparency, and guest treatment—I am also sharing this letter with relevant tourism authorities in Mexico, including those overseeing Baja California Sur, and on public platforms to ensure that future guests are able to make informed decisions.
I took part in the liveaboard trip to Socorro and the Revillagigedo islands from March 20th through the 29th, 2026 on the Valentina. The actual dives were excellent but unfortunately within a few days of the trip starting we began to encounter problems with both the ship as well as some staff members.
On the third day of the trip, we were informed by the crew member, Arturo, that one of the vessel’s two engines had failed. As a result, we were told we would not be able to visit Socorro Island, which was the primary highlight and main purpose of the trip for many guests. Although disappointing, this was initially met with understanding.
Once we returned home, many of us re-read reviews for Valentina and found out that Valantina has lost engines several times before and this is not the first time itineraries were shortened due to mechanical reasons.
However, communication from the crew quickly became inconsistent and contradictory. Guests were repeatedly given conflicting information regarding itinerary changes, travel times, and whether reaching Socorro might still be possible.
Instead of proceeding to Socorro, the vessel returned to previously visited dive sites and ultimately arrived back in port a full day earlier than scheduled. This raised concerns among guests, particularly given the lack of clear explanation. Many were left with the strong impression that the decision to avoid Socorro may not have been solely due to mechanical limitations, but potentially influenced by regulatory or inspection concerns related to operating with only one functional engine.
The situation deteriorated further following a minor medical concern involving one guest. Initially, a reasonable protocol was communicated, including oxygen administration and a 48-hour pause from diving for that particular guest. The remainder of the boat continued diving.. However, this approach quickly became inconsistent and escalated without clear justification. The guest was first told they could contact their dive insurance provider, then discouraged from doing so by not sharing Internet immediately. Shortly thereafter, all dives for the remaining guests were abruptly canceled under the claim that it was mandatory to travel to Socorro for medical evaluation.
This decision was made despite the affected guest repeatedly stating they felt well, declining medical evaluation, and offering to sign a waiver. Furthermore, guests were actively prevented from contacting external medical or insurance professionals. We were told that internet access required captain approval, which was unavailable, despite clear indications that access could have been provided. Another guest thankfully offered their phone to assist, WHICH CLEARLY UPSET ARTURO. ! In order to avoid continuing to rely on another guest’s paid data voucher, the crew was asked several times for internet access. However, the requests were repeatedly ignored until access was finally provided, accompanied by the statement that the crew would have to cover the cost. During this time, there was also a lack of consistency in the administration of oxygen. Different crew members instructed significantly different flow rates (1.5 L/min, 8 L/min, and 15 L/min), and no clear written protocol could be identified when requested. This raised serious concerns about onboard medical preparedness and training.
During this period, the lead divemaster, Arturo, repeatedly stated that he was in constant communication with the company’s main office and that decisions were being made in coordination with shore-based management. However, this claim is contradicted by the experience of the affected guest, who made multiple attempts over several days to contact the company directly and received only one initial response following three days without any reply. Notably, despite the situation being presented onboard as urgent and requiring immediate action, the Cruise Director was not able to send the requested information in a timely manner (three days) as he was unavailable due to being out on a dive. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about transparency, the urgency with which the situation was handled, and whether decisions onboard were being appropriately supervised or supported by company management.
Ultimately, the decision to travel to Socorro for medical evaluation was reversed without explanation, further reinforcing concerns regarding inconsistent decision-making and lack of transparency.
Following these events, the onboard atmosphere deteriorated significantly. Certain senior crew members appeared visibly frustrated with guests, contributing to an uncomfortable and, at times, tense environment. No direct apology was offered by those involved. Instead, a junior crew member with no involvement in the situation was tasked with apologizing to guests shortly before gratuities were solicited. There was no attempt to pacify or offer anything to appease the guests. They could have offered a free wifi session, free drinks or some type of giveaway but nothing was done.
The handling of gratuities was also unprofessional. Envelopes provided to guests appeared to be marked in a way that allowed tracking of individual contributions. When some guests submitted tips without envelopes, the amounts were immediately opened and counted publicly. Guests were also given guidance suggesting expected tip amounts, which felt inappropriate.
By the end of the trip, the onboard environment had deteriorated to such an extent that 10 out of 20 guests chose to leave the vessel a full day early, despite having paid for the final night. Several incurred additional personal expenses for hotels and airline change fees simply to avoid remaining onboard. This reflects the level of discomfort experienced. We also tought again, that if we could get to port a full day early how is it that we could not have reached Socorro for the planned dives there?
Finally, there were discrepancies regarding transportation arrangements. Official materials indicated that airport transfers were included, or alternatively priced at $90 USD per vehicle (for up to 8 passengers). Despite this, guests were charged $45 USD per person. When documentation was presented to support the previously stated pricing, it was disregarded, and payments were collected in cash without transparency. It sure gave the impression that the person collecting the transportation fees was simply pocketing the money.
In summary, the primary concerns include:
· Failure to deliver the primary advertised destination (Socorro Island) without adequate explanation or compensation
· Inconsistent and misleading communication from crew members
· Questionable operational decision-making and lack of transparency
· Inadequate and inconsistent medical response procedures
· Restriction of guest communication with external medical and insurance providers
· Lack of professionalism and accountability from senior crew members
· Improper handling and solicitation of gratuities
· Discrepancies and lack of transparency in transportation charges
I respectfully request a formal response addressing these concerns, including clarification of operational decisions, a review of onboard protocols, and consideration of appropriate compensation.
Given the seriousness of these issues—particularly those related to safety, transparency, and guest treatment—I am also sharing this letter with relevant tourism authorities in Mexico, including those overseeing Baja California Sur, and on public platforms to ensure that future guests are able to make informed decisions.
翻译：致相关人士：
我于2026年3月20日至29日参加了瓦伦蒂娜号（Valentina）的索科罗岛（Socorro）和雷维利亚希赫多群岛（Revillagigedo Islands）的船宿潜水之旅。潜水体验非常棒，但不幸的是，行程开始几天后，我们就遇到了船只和部分船员方面的问题。
行程的第三天，船员阿图罗（Arturo）告知我们，船上的两台发动机中有一台发生故障。因此，我们被告知无法前往索科罗岛，而索科罗岛正是此次行程的主要亮点和许多客人的主要目的。虽然令人失望，但起初我们表示理解。
回家后，我们中的许多人重新阅读了瓦伦蒂娜号的评价，发现该船此前曾多次发生发动机故障，这也不是第一次因机械故障而缩短行程。
然而，船员的沟通很快变得前后矛盾，前后不一致。关于行程变更、航行时间以及是否仍能抵达索科罗，乘客们反复收到相互矛盾的信息。
船只并未前往索科罗，而是返回了之前去过的潜点，最终比原计划提前整整一天返回港口。这引起了乘客们的担忧，尤其是在缺乏明确解释的情况下。许多人强烈地感觉到，放弃前往索科罗的决定可能并非完全出于机械故障，而是可能受到监管或检查方面的限制，因为船上只有一台发动机可以正常运转。
一位乘客出现轻微的健康问题后，情况进一步恶化。起初，船上采取了合理的处理方案，包括为该乘客提供氧气，并暂停潜水48小时。船上的其他乘客则继续潜水。然而，这种处理方式很快变得前后矛盾，并在没有明确理由的情况下升级。该乘客先是被告知可以联系他们的潜水保险公司，然后又因为没有立即提供网络而劝阻他们这样做。此后不久，所有剩余客人的潜水活动都被突然取消，理由是必须前往索科罗岛进行医疗评估。
尽管受影响的客人多次表示自己感觉良好，拒绝接受医疗评估，并愿意签署免责声明，但这一决定仍然被做出。此外，客人还被阻止联系外部医疗或保险专业人士。我们被告知，上网需要船长批准，但船长却无法批准，尽管有明确的迹象表明本来可以提供网络接入。幸好另一位客人主动提供了自己的手机帮忙，这显然激怒了阿图罗！为了避免继续使用另一位客人的付费流量券，我们多次向船员请求提供网络接入。然而，这些请求都被一再忽略，直到最终才提供网络接入，但同时声明费用需要船员承担。在此期间，氧气供应也缺乏一致性。不同船员指示的流量差异显著（分别为 1.5 升/分钟、8 升/分钟和 15 升/分钟），且在被要求提供时，并未找到明确的书面操作规程。这引发了人们对船上医疗准备和培训的严重担忧。
在此期间，首席潜水长阿图罗反复声称他与公司总部保持着密切联系，并且所有决策均与岸上管理层协调制定。然而，受影响乘客的经历却与此说法相悖。该乘客在数日内多次尝试直接联系公司，却在三天后才收到一次回复，且之后一直杳无音信。值得注意的是，尽管船上已将情况描述为紧急且需要立即采取行动，但邮轮总监却未能及时（三天后）提供所需信息，因为他当时正在潜水。这种矛盾之处令人严重质疑公司的透明度、处理情况的紧迫性，以及船上决策是否得到了公司管理层的适当监督或支持。
最终，前往索科罗进行医疗评估的决定被无故取消，这进一步加剧了人们对决策前后不一致和缺乏透明度的担忧。
事件发生后，船上的气氛急剧恶化。一些资深船员明显对乘客感到不满，导致船上环境变得尴尬，有时甚至紧张。相关人员没有直接道歉。相反，一位与此事无关的初级船员被安排在向乘客索要小费前不久向他们道歉。船上没有采取任何安抚或提供任何补偿措施来平息乘客的不满。他们本可以提供免费Wi-Fi、免费饮料或一些赠品，但却什么都没做。
小费的处理方式也很不专业。提供给客人的信封似乎做了标记，可以追踪每笔小费的数额。有些客人没有使用信封就给了小费，信封里的金额会被立即打开并公开清点。此外，他们还向客人提供了小费金额的建议，这让人感觉很不妥。
行程结束时，船上的环境已经恶化到20位客人中有10位选择提前一天离开，尽管他们已经支付了最后一晚的费用。一些客人甚至额外支付了酒店住宿费和机票改签费，仅仅是为了避免继续留在船上。这反映了他们所感受到的不适程度。我们再次想到，既然我们能够提前一天到达港口，为什么却无法按计划前往索科罗岛进行潜水呢？
最后，交通安排方面也存在一些问题。官方资料显示，机场接送服务包含在内，或者定价为每辆车90美元（最多可容纳8名乘客）。然而，客人实际被收取了每人45美元的费用。当客人出示文件证明之前的价格时，对方却置之不理，并以现金方式收取费用，整个过程毫无透明度。这让人不禁怀疑，收取交通费的人是不是把钱装进了自己的腰包。
综上所述，主要问题包括：
· 未按原计划前往主要目的地（索科罗岛），且未提供充分解释或补偿
· 船员沟通前后矛盾且具有误导性
· 运营决策存在疑问且缺乏透明度
· 医疗应对程序不完善且前后不一致
· 限制客人与外部医疗和保险公司沟通
· 高级船员缺乏职业素养和责任感
· 不当处理和索要小费
· 交通费用存在差异且缺乏透明度
我恳请贵方就上述问题作出正式回复，包括澄清运营决策、审查船上规章制度以及考虑适当的补偿方案。
鉴于这些问题的严重性——特别是与安全、透明度和客人待遇相关的问题——我已将此信函转发给墨西哥相关旅游部门，包括负责南下加利福尼亚州的部门，并在公共平台上发布，以确保未来的客人能够做出明智的决定。
我于2026年3月20日至29日参加了瓦伦蒂娜号（Valentina）的索科罗岛（Socorro）和雷维利亚希赫多群岛（Revillagigedo Islands）的船宿潜水之旅。潜水体验非常棒，但不幸的是，行程开始几天后，我们就遇到了船只和部分船员方面的问题。
行程的第三天，船员阿图罗（Arturo）告知我们，船上的两台发动机中有一台发生故障。因此，我们被告知无法前往索科罗岛，而索科罗岛正是此次行程的主要亮点和许多客人的主要目的。虽然令人失望，但起初我们表示理解。
回家后，我们中的许多人重新阅读了瓦伦蒂娜号的评价，发现该船此前曾多次发生发动机故障，这也不是第一次因机械故障而缩短行程。
然而，船员的沟通很快变得前后矛盾，前后不一致。关于行程变更、航行时间以及是否仍能抵达索科罗，乘客们反复收到相互矛盾的信息。
船只并未前往索科罗，而是返回了之前去过的潜点，最终比原计划提前整整一天返回港口。这引起了乘客们的担忧，尤其是在缺乏明确解释的情况下。许多人强烈地感觉到，放弃前往索科罗的决定可能并非完全出于机械故障，而是可能受到监管或检查方面的限制，因为船上只有一台发动机可以正常运转。
一位乘客出现轻微的健康问题后，情况进一步恶化。起初，船上采取了合理的处理方案，包括为该乘客提供氧气，并暂停潜水48小时。船上的其他乘客则继续潜水。然而，这种处理方式很快变得前后矛盾，并在没有明确理由的情况下升级。该乘客先是被告知可以联系他们的潜水保险公司，然后又因为没有立即提供网络而劝阻他们这样做。此后不久，所有剩余客人的潜水活动都被突然取消，理由是必须前往索科罗岛进行医疗评估。
尽管受影响的客人多次表示自己感觉良好，拒绝接受医疗评估，并愿意签署免责声明，但这一决定仍然被做出。此外，客人还被阻止联系外部医疗或保险专业人士。我们被告知，上网需要船长批准，但船长却无法批准，尽管有明确的迹象表明本来可以提供网络接入。幸好另一位客人主动提供了自己的手机帮忙，这显然激怒了阿图罗！为了避免继续使用另一位客人的付费流量券，我们多次向船员请求提供网络接入。然而，这些请求都被一再忽略，直到最终才提供网络接入，但同时声明费用需要船员承担。在此期间，氧气供应也缺乏一致性。不同船员指示的流量差异显著（分别为 1.5 升/分钟、8 升/分钟和 15 升/分钟），且在被要求提供时，并未找到明确的书面操作规程。这引发了人们对船上医疗准备和培训的严重担忧。
在此期间，首席潜水长阿图罗反复声称他与公司总部保持着密切联系，并且所有决策均与岸上管理层协调制定。然而，受影响乘客的经历却与此说法相悖。该乘客在数日内多次尝试直接联系公司，却在三天后才收到一次回复，且之后一直杳无音信。值得注意的是，尽管船上已将情况描述为紧急且需要立即采取行动，但邮轮总监却未能及时（三天后）提供所需信息，因为他当时正在潜水。这种矛盾之处令人严重质疑公司的透明度、处理情况的紧迫性，以及船上决策是否得到了公司管理层的适当监督或支持。
最终，前往索科罗进行医疗评估的决定被无故取消，这进一步加剧了人们对决策前后不一致和缺乏透明度的担忧。
事件发生后，船上的气氛急剧恶化。一些资深船员明显对乘客感到不满，导致船上环境变得尴尬，有时甚至紧张。相关人员没有直接道歉。相反，一位与此事无关的初级船员被安排在向乘客索要小费前不久向他们道歉。船上没有采取任何安抚或提供任何补偿措施来平息乘客的不满。他们本可以提供免费Wi-Fi、免费饮料或一些赠品，但却什么都没做。
小费的处理方式也很不专业。提供给客人的信封似乎做了标记，可以追踪每笔小费的数额。有些客人没有使用信封就给了小费，信封里的金额会被立即打开并公开清点。此外，他们还向客人提供了小费金额的建议，这让人感觉很不妥。
行程结束时，船上的环境已经恶化到20位客人中有10位选择提前一天离开，尽管他们已经支付了最后一晚的费用。一些客人甚至额外支付了酒店住宿费和机票改签费，仅仅是为了避免继续留在船上。这反映了他们所感受到的不适程度。我们再次想到，既然我们能够提前一天到达港口，为什么却无法按计划前往索科罗岛进行潜水呢？
最后，交通安排方面也存在一些问题。官方资料显示，机场接送服务包含在内，或者定价为每辆车90美元（最多可容纳8名乘客）。然而，客人实际被收取了每人45美元的费用。当客人出示文件证明之前的价格时，对方却置之不理，并以现金方式收取费用，整个过程毫无透明度。这让人不禁怀疑，收取交通费的人是不是把钱装进了自己的腰包。
综上所述，主要问题包括：
· 未按原计划前往主要目的地（索科罗岛），且未提供充分解释或补偿
· 船员沟通前后矛盾且具有误导性
· 运营决策存在疑问且缺乏透明度
· 医疗应对程序不完善且前后不一致
· 限制客人与外部医疗和保险公司沟通
· 高级船员缺乏职业素养和责任感
· 不当处理和索要小费
· 交通费用存在差异且缺乏透明度
我恳请贵方就上述问题作出正式回复，包括澄清运营决策、审查船上规章制度以及考虑适当的补偿方案。
鉴于这些问题的严重性——特别是与安全、透明度和客人待遇相关的问题——我已将此信函转发给墨西哥相关旅游部门，包括负责南下加利福尼亚州的部门，并在公共平台上发布，以确保未来的客人能够做出明智的决定。
© 2026 Tripadvisor 版权所有。
部分照片由 VFM Leonardo 提供。
TripAdvisor公司对外部网站的内容一概不负责。优惠价格中不含税和其他费用。
ICP证：沪B2-20200433
沪ICP备20013175号
沪公网安备31010502005427号鹰程信息技术（上海）有限公司
