Passenger anger at itinerary change

This complaint I agree with.On the Explorer cruise Nassau to Colon we had our internet jammed for 2 days in Santiago De Cuba.We were paying the daily rate and didn't get a refund either.

On the other hand it is not such a great amount that it was not worth a fuss but SS shouldn't antagonise passengers over those small amounts and would have gained kudos had they refunded the internet charges.

I agree that SS should have made the refund without anyone having to ask, but did you also ask and have the request refused?

Others had and said they were refused.

Hmmm.

I note that Seabourn have forced into an itinerary change also out of Singapore due to unplanned maintenance.

Compare and contrast the way they are handling this with how it was handled by Silversea!

I note that Seabourn have forced into an itinerary change also out of Singapore due to unplanned maintenance.

Compare and contrast the way they are handling this with how it was handled by Silversea!

Very classy of Seabourn. Also interesting that they gave advance notice of an event they foresaw. On at least one sailing, Silversea boutique refurb came as a complete surprise to guests -- though this was clearly foreseeable. The materials and workers did not just suddenly appear.

On at least one sailing, Silversea boutique refurb came as a complete surprise to guests -- though this was clearly foreseeable. The materials and workers did not just suddenly appear.

It came as a complete surprise for any guest who did not read CC prior to their voyage. The dates for the refurb on the Shadow were known 3 months in advance of it happening!

With regard to Seabourn, its very sensible of them to get this out before the guests arrive. Anyone who followed the appalling Viking Star saga earlier this year can see just how easy it is to create a PR disaster.

I did not follow the Viking Star issue terribly closely. But there the company is working with a complex mechanical problem and it was reasonable that they could not predict precisely when it will be resolved. I think the SS issue was more egregious because the work on the boutiques was entirely predictable and Silversea chose not to let passengers know in advance that work would take place during their cruise. I understand that after lots of protests about the surprise boutique work done on other ships, Silversea did notify people on at least one cruise. But the notification on that cruise was apparently withheld until just after the cancellation penalty rose to 50%. Fortunately, I was not on any of the cruises disrupted by the extensive boutique renovations.

And who do you think would cancel a scheduled cruise holiday just because the ship's boutiques would be closed and under renovation, even if a full refund was offered? You? Why do you care so much if you were not even affected? Much ado over a trivial matter.

I was on a cruise once immediately after dry dock. The dry dock work had not been completed and continued during the cruise. Many people were very upset, and while I don't know whether anyone would have cancelled had they known, they certainly believed they deserved compensation for the inconvenience.

Many people consider a cruise to be an expensive purchase. There is an added complexity when buying a cruise that you are handing over much of the cash way in advance off enjoying the purchase. A key consideration therefore when making a major purchase of this kind therefore is about how confident you feel that you are handing over your cash to an organisation that respects you and treats you honourably and fairly and doesn't breach your confidence and trust.

That is why the exchange of this type of information is essential to those not currently directly effected by changes. It helps by informing customers and forewarns them of risks they are potentially taking with where they place their trust and cash.

Hopefully sensible customers speak with their cash and thus in time organisations learn that retaining trust and treating customers fairly makes good business sense.

Jeff

Jeff,

Yes, people should vote with their pocketbooks. The problem comes in when the cruise lines in any particular segment understand that as long as the people voting against them over issues like this are fairly close to the people voting against their competitors, they're just shifting people.

People, overall, will vote on their on board experience. The relatively rare IRROPS, to use an airline term, experience has little effect.

While I agree that the construction must have been awful for those nearby.... I would be quite annoyed to NOT have the shops open and running as they should be. We often have a lot of onboard credit to use up and I find certain things to buy as gifts. This has always worked quite well and I would be really PO'd if it was otherwise.

Jeff,

 

Yes, people should vote with their pocketbooks. The problem comes in when the cruise lines in any particular segment understand that as long as the people voting against them over issues like this are fairly close to the people voting against their competitors, they're just shifting people.

 

People, overall, will vote on their on board experience. The relatively rare IRROPS, to use an airline term, experience has little effect.

Mark,

I can see that you are disagreeing with me but I'm having difficulty focussing on what exactly you disagree with. All I will say is that all of us are guilty - me included - of retro-fitting logic into situations to reassure us taht what we want to do is rational.

Personally I use to think that customers of so called 6 star lines probably got good value when compared to those in different market segments but now I think those down market get a better bang for each of their bucks.

If I understand you correctly you are implying there is no competition at the top end and that makes them complacent. You know more about this than me. My presumption is that different lines are different and provide different quality and different degrees of customer care and integrity. You as you have said in a different posts have to have a forward booking before you disembark. So you are hooked and need your fix. That means you are a prisoner of cruises and of the market segment you have chosen. An then of course there is the route that I have taken for the moment because I am not so imprisoned. I do not care for all the current variables, poor food, recycled drink from the suites to the bars ;) taking cash and changing the product etc etc .... I could go on. So I choose independant travel long haul first class with five star hotels and large suites and spend my cash where it is respected. And if any part is wrong I change and /or get a refund. I have the cash for cruises and want them but I'm in no rush to buy a substandard product where the line is taking the p**s.

Intended nicely and as purely a personal opinion.

:):)

Jeff

Jeff,

I'm not really sure whether I'm disagreeing or not.

I'm just more or less suggesting that if you're voting with your pocketbook due to a cruise line's poor handling of some unusual situation rather than the overall cruise experience, and if you're doing it with the expectation of it really effecting change by the cruise line you're leaving, you should probably not bother.

Mark

Thanks Mark,

It's always been somewhat of a suprise to me that the American public haven't been much more demanding and vocal with respect to beefing up their consumer rights. In the EU for example it is not considered to be "outside of and airlines control" if they cancel a flight due to unforeseen mechanical failure or repairs. And so it is probvably for a ship.

We also do not allow onerous cancellation penalty clauses for holidays that bring with it anything other than direct cost. In the US everything is bound by what it says in the contract irrespective of whether it is fair or not. In the EU you can effectively ignore consumer contract clauses that are unfair.

As the largest cruise market is still the US it's a shame for all consumers that American's don't have the protection they need which in a way governs the whole market.

Jeff

Jeff,

 

I'm not really sure whether I'm disagreeing or not.

 

I'm just more or less suggesting that if you're voting with your pocketbook due to a cruise line's poor handling of some unusual situation rather than the overall cruise experience, and if you're doing it with the expectation of it really effecting change by the cruise line you're leaving, you should probably not bother.

 

Mark

That is a very good question Mark_K, and one that a number of CC posters have been trying to understand for some time now.

That is a very good question Mark_K, and one that a number of CC posters have been trying to understand for some time now.

:rolleyes:

Thanks Mark,

 

It's always been somewhat of a suprise to me that the American public haven't been much more demanding and vocal with respect to beefing up their consumer rights. In the EU for example it is not considered to be "outside of and airlines control" if they cancel a flight due to unforeseen mechanical failure or repairs. And so it is probvably for a ship.

 

We also do not allow onerous cancellation penalty clauses for holidays that bring with it anything other than direct cost. In the US everything is bound by what it says in the contract irrespective of whether it is fair or not. In the EU you can effectively ignore consumer contract clauses that are unfair.

 

As the largest cruise market is still the US it's a shame for all consumers that American's don't have the protection they need which in a way governs the whole market.

 

Jeff

Whenever I see a UK/EU poster complaining about a cruise line discount that's for US residents only, I think to myself, maybe if they didn't have to pay to cover your consumer rights laws ...

Whenever I see a UK/EU poster complaining about a cruise line discount that's for US residents only, I think to myself, maybe if they didn't have to pay to cover your consumer rights laws ...

That would be a very clever line but sadly isn't because we had the differentials way before the EU laws. I'd be interested to hear though your theory as to why you think consumer protection puts prices up.

Jeff

That would be a very clever line but sadly isn't because we had the differentials way before the EU laws. I'd be interested to hear though your theory as to why you think consumer protection puts prices up.

 

 

 

Jeff

Unless it's an item that increases sales, every additional cost either adds to price or detracts from profits. I doubt they take it from profits.

Unless it's an item that increases sales, every additional cost either adds to price or detracts from profits. I doubt they take it from profits.

Mark,

with respect you have a rather extraordinarily over simplistic view of how these things work.

Virtually none of the transaction costs are associated with consumer protection. I would be extremely surprised it it amounted to 0.01% of cost of sales. Essentially we always had an ethos of customer service in the UK whilst the US had an ethos of big business led society. The only change the legislation led to was poor companies being told what they had to do.p if they didn't already know, Some monolithic inflexible companies declined and great consumer orientated companies prospered,

However what you seemingly seem to have overlooked is all the positives and you also seemingly fail to understand several other factors.

Firstly more cash is spent in the US per customer transaction communicating and arguing with disgruntled customers who are then lost than in the UK where both sides know exactly where they stand and sort it out quickly and cheaply and customers are retained longer.

Secondly American companies have comparatively become lazy compared to the more lean and hungry approach to dealing with issues relatively quickly in the contention cycle in the EU.

Finally, cream floats to the top and excellent companies who exceed customer expectations attract customers from the dregs and those customers produce more revenue.

Jeff