KevinKruzer

The problem with the #2 above is that we don't have the whole story. For all we know' date=' RCI may have been willing to be more flexible than OP let on. However, he said that he was on the phone with the legal department, which I have to assume means he threatened to take legal action first. Once that occurs, all of the customer-service-type "flexibility" is lost. This has been covered previously.

 

As to your example, if my cruise were changed so dramatically, I would call RCI and see if they would be willing to work with me to reach another outcome. If not, I may never cruise with RCI again. However, I would not threaten a lawsuit, nor claim that they acted deceptively (ignoring other considerations such as whether there had been a pattern of them regularly making these types of changes, or some other evidence that would indicate a willful intent to defraud).

 

They may have acted stupidly in such a case, but the scenario in your example is so far removed from the OP's scenario as to not really be relevant. RCI as a business would not want to make that drastic of a change for fear of the overall repercussions to the business. If there were some reason they had to do something like that because they needed the Freedom at that particular time, they would likely just cancel the cruise. However, a minor change to one port (which some will see as an upgrade anyway) is not going to have that large-scale effect.

 

I do feel sorry for OP that he is not getting the vacation that he wanted; it's unfortunate. However, I also feel like we're not getting the whole story.[/quote']

 

You are absolutely correct. We probably don't have the full story. I am pretty sure, fwiw, that my initial post stated that my opinion was based on what was given, allowing that there were likely parts we didnt know....

 

 

I really think any reasonable company would try to accommodate given the circumstances (port of call was a big deal, cruise 5-6 months away, paid-in-full, etc.) and I bet RC did do that and if they didnt (yet) it could be that it wasnt escalated one level above the initial contact.

All this post does is show how people are ill equipped to handle changes/ things life throws at them. How to figure out new solutions or how to make the best of a situation.

 

For Pete’s sake. My carnival European honeymoon cruise was cancelled something like 2 months beforehand. I pulled up my big girl pants and researched an alternative cruise with the refunded credit and discount carnival gave us generously. Had an amazing Alaskan cruise instead. I’ve also had a Western Caribbean cruise changed with whole new ports to eastern and had a great time. Found out at the dock due a hurricane.

All this post does is show how people are so judgemental and will psychoanalyze complete strangers on the internet based on one post venting about a customer service issue.... :eek:

OP says his first step was to switch to a later sailing date. If the port that was changed was a big deal to him, wasn't that the first logical step? He did the same thing YOU did- researched an alternate cruise that was the same cruise, same ship at a later date. Your scenario was not the same.

You seem to misunderstand the gist of what I've said overall. Do I think it would be good if Royal was more lenient in this situation? Absolutely. I have simply explained that legally, they don't have to, and apparently from a goodwill standpoint, they don't feel the need to. Never have I said that Royal shouldn't allow more liberal cancellation when this happens.

 

 

 

 

So every cruise line should do exactly as every other cruise line? if that's the case, why have different cruise lines? I, for one, am glad they do things differently. I would really dislike it if Royal and Celebrity did as Carnival does and put a daily limit on the drink package.

No one has suggested they do "exactly" as every other cruise line....

It seems we all mostly agree on two things- 1) "Legally" RCCL owes nothing. 2) They "should" be flexible in some cases, like this one, since it is so far from sailing date and port of call was BIG reason for booking. That would be imo the right thing to do and the smart thing from a customer service point of view.

For those that insist..."the contract"..... since they can, per the contract, change basically anything- ship, ports of call, cabin, etc.... suppose they did do that to you? Suppose they changed your 7 day Southern Caribbean on the Freedom turned out to be a 7 day New England on the Grandeur? :eek:

Like a previous poster stated, I am a big guy (former USMC, 6'4 250) so I can intimidate with my size, despite being a big pussycat inside...... But, no. I wouldn't do a thing. It isn't my place and it can only escalate the situation.

This isn't their (waiters, RC management) first rodeo. They can handle it just fine.

Now multiply this 'good will' theory to THOUSANDS or 10s of thousands of people ... it would be impossible to keep everything straight, and the money would be a mess.

 

As it has been said before, this isn't ONLY RCI's policy ... it's standard throughout the industry. It is wholly user (cruiser) error.

First of all, most transactions DON'T have issues... Second, why do you think they have a customer service department? To correct the mistakes, misunderstandings, etc.....to keep customers satisfied through good will accommodations. Especially when it doesn't cost them anything (such as switching from a cruise 5 months out to one 6 months out)

The contract is to protect Royal "legally", of course. But, just because they aren't legally required to accommodate the OP ( or others) doesn't mean that it isn't the "right" thing to do in this case.

Not EVERY consumer is as brilliant and savvy as all the Militantly Loyal Royal fanboys & girls on CC (re: travel insurance or refundable vs non-refundable, etc). Yes, you can say (and many have in one form or another) in essence- TOUGH LUCK- GO pound sand & READ your contract..... That is the wrong approach for Royal in this scenario, imo, as it's laid out, considering:

-It appears that port (CoCo Cay) was a BIG reason for that specific booking. Is it really a shock to some that itineraries (or ships or embarkation port) are reasons some pick a sailing?

-He asked to switch to later date to ensure that port. (this far out from sail date seems like a win-win )

-Seems like he jumped on the issue ASAP after hearing of the change, 5 or more months BEFORE sail date.

This is a scenario where Royal SHOULD be flexible if there ever was one..... The only exception would be if that & all near future cruises on same ship/itinerary are all sold out (which is extremely unlikely). Not everyone (me included) reads or understands EVERYTHING in the contracts..... In recent years- I have had things fixed (APPLE, FORD, to name two) that were not under warranty still but because they felt the nature of the repair was the right thing to do... Name two companies that I continue to do business with (professionally & personally)?

Contracts are legally binding. But, many good businesses that care about their reputation and retaining customers negotiate and make exceptions EVERY day. So to those RCCL Loyalists that say "if they make an exception for him, they will have to do it for EVERYONE"..... Nonsense. "Precedents" are set every day in business to make or keep deals. I bet if he escalates this thing 1 level it will get resolved. The quip in OP about lawsuit I took as him venting......not actually trying to get a lawsuit going...

We may not know the whole story, but if this case is nothing more than a guy booking his honeymoon (and paying in full) 5-6 months ahead of time and immediately asking for help as soon as he hears his main reason (bahamas/coco cay) for booking is in jeopardy- what reputable business wouldn't try to help him?

Thank you all for the responses..... to answer a few at once- 1) all the "kids" in our group are now young adults (21-25 yrs of age- several sets of parents have waited for the last one in our group to turn 21 for this cruise). I have been on the Grandeur out of Baltimore (25 min. drive from my house to port) but, I can add the cost of flights to FL/PR and still come out ahead ($) on a better ship. Camofwilliamsburg- I also enjoy a few sea days mixed in......

The scales have tilted slightly in favor of the FOS Southern (Barbados/Antigua/St Lucia).............

I am planning a cruise for next summer. It will be a mix of veteran cruisers with several newbies......

Please give me some thoughts/opinions on why (or why not) the ship/itinerary....... Fwiw, I have been on the FOS (loved it), not been on Harmony or Allure...but I have been to almost all of the Eastern/Western ports of call... So, personally, I favor the Allure/Harmony (not been on either) ships, but slightly prefer the itineraries of the FOS. :confused: But, its not all about me. :o

Freedom (San Juan) Southern Caribb. St Thomas, Aruba, Curacao, St Maartan

Freedom (San Juan) Southern Caribb. St Maartan, St Kitts, Antigua, St Lucia, Barbados

Allure (Ft Laud.) Western Caribb. Bahamas, Cozumel, Honduras, Costa Maya

Harmony (Ft Laud.) Eastern Caribb. St Maartan, San Juan, Haiti

I realize, at the end of the day, I can't go wrong with any of the ships/itineraries..... just looking for opinions & comments on both the ships, itineraries, individual ports, etc......

Thanks. I look forward to any comments

I am in a very different position than most on this thread. I am in the insurance industry in Canada and at the present time I have a child who is newly pregnant. I have received numerous notices from Insurers over the past year stating emphatically that anyone who is pregnant OR believes that they will become pregnant in the near future SHOULD NOT travel to specific countries where the Zika virus is known to exist. When I sell travel insurance one of the first questions that I ask is whether or not a female is pregnant, or is considering a pregnancy in the near future. In the event that the answer is yes, then I strongly urge the client NOT to travel to areas where the Zika virus has been documented. It simply is not worth the risk!

 

We frequently purchase cruises/trips for our adult children as Christmas gifts or wedding gifts. When the gift is given it belongs to whichever child we have given it to. Due to the Zika warning we have been adamant with our children about NOT traveling to areas where the virus has been documented. In the event that one of them had become pregnant we would have wanted the refund to go to our child quite gladly since it was a gift and we were going to receive the gift of a grandchild!

 

The parents, by what I saw in the video, gave the family a trip at Christmas time, so I am assuming it was a Christmas gift. The video also said that they had Royal's cruise insurance, however, it did not cover pregnancy. Therefore, the insurance would not pay out. The Zika virus is an unprecedented situation and possibly so was the lady's pregnancy. This is not a pregnancy cancellation, this is a health warning cancellation and she has been instructed by a physician.

 

If this was my child, I would definitely want her to receive a refund after documentation from her physician is submitted to prove the pregnancy and the reason being the risk of the Zika virus for cancellation of the cruise. No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC. I believe that RCI should refund the price of the cruise, whether to the original credit card or the lady in question, but definitely they should be providing a refund.

 

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

Dee

Agree on all points, well said.

I agree I think she got more than she deserved.

Really? If you were in her shoes and were initially promised a full refund with a cheery "no problem"...... and then reneged and said- "nevermind, we thought and about it and changed our mind....your arent getting a refund, but instead you will have the privilege of sailing on a different boat in the near future (before it expires)"- you would say "wow, i got more than i deserved- thank you RCCL"?

And the kicker is- she would have to take her baby on cruise (2 yr window before exp date) and there is a THREAD where everyone is telling someone else they should NOT take their baby on cruise..... The deal gets even better for her- huh? Either she gets to pay someone to watch her baby so she can sail without her/him or she gets to deal with stroller, diapers etc... Considering the timing of the preg.zika etc... would it really upset you that much if some lady got a refund? Geez.

WOW...this was such a simple situation to resolve...OMG! just give her her money back....I have never understood why billion dollar companies are so petty with these sensitive situations...if this had of been handled correctly no one would have ever herd a word about this....the negative publicity that this news story has the potential of creating for RC totally outweighs the few thousand dollars they needed to refund her....OMG

 

This is were you need proper management in place...

 

I am not saying she is 100% correct, don't get me wrong but from a business/public relations point of view this has the potential of being blown way out of proportion and costing RC much much more.

I agree with you.... they could have buried it right away. But, if RCCL put their foot down and wouldnt refund that one guy dying of cancer whose condition worsened dramatically between the time the cruise was purchased and the sail date (DR wouldnt let him sail) so its not surprising the say no to a pregnant woman.

Yet.....

The fact is that they DO make exceptions to their policies EVERYDAY anyway....

Another aspect of this one is that everyone seems to have missed an important mitigating circumstance that if true would probably have everyone of us on her side- the first RCCL rep told her "no problem, full refund".

Come on....who wouldnt be really ticked off if you were promised that but then they reneged on it?

It should be at the managers discretion. It would make people who are just cheap have to look a senior manager in the eye and explain why they have a good reason to remove gratuities--there would be far fewer cases if this happening. It would also allow senior management the opportunity to address and correct issues they might not otherwise learn about.

 

And as I mentioned, it would make sure innocent parties weren't punished for someone else's actions as only a percentage of gratuities would be removed.

Do you realize what you are suggesting? :eek:

Would you apply the same logic to a meal at your favorite local restaurant- tip level decided by restaurant, applied to your bill with ONLY the managers discretion on whether or not your tips are removed? If you truly felt you had a bad meal, and the mgr said "sorry" I dont believe you...would you EVER go back again? It is up to the CUSTOMER whether or not his issue is legitimate. Of course, there are people, few and very far between that cannot be happy. But, I bet those are very rare and the cost of doing business. They are offset by extra generous people. Vast majority of people in all walks of life are decent, fair, reasonable people......

Since when are ALL cruise employees ENTITLED, come hell or high water, to what THEY say they should get?

Also, why do so many people automatically brand anyone who may want to use the "old fashioned way" (tipping for good service AFTER it is received to who provided it) is a "cheapskate" (see end of first paragraph, MOST people are fair....etc, that applies here too, imo) ?

There are legitimate arguments on all sides of this debate. I personally on principle do not agree with the idea of prepaying. I have always gone along with it AND dished out more cash on top of it (Hmmm cynic in me says that is the plan- they can have their cake and eat it too). Now we are having a second increase in amount of gratuitiy in less than 1 year. Even though it isnt a lot of money, its the principle. I am about to the point where I say- fine RCCL (or other cruise lines) if this is what you suggest (gratuities per day) then THAT is what you are going to get and no more extra cash. After all, service has been on the decline over the years anyway.

Apples and oranges. If I have the drink package on a ship, that 18% I pay up front doesn't cover the amount of service I get...nor the alcohol. Just sayin'... ;)

No it isn't apples and oranges.... Gratuities are gratuities whether you are adding them or the establishment adds them for you automatically.

The 18% is for the service. Rather than guessing whether or not they will get 0 or 20% tip- they have decided to automatically place an 18% tip on every drink order.

I believe the intent was a win-win scenario for customers and staff in that we dont have to be burdened with math (especially on drinks 5 or 6 :D) and they were guaranteed a base-line of 18% of sales.

Anyone can tip more, but I don't think its "unfair" not too and there should NOT be an expectation of more.

I think there are two different discussions going on here.

 

One is tipping and the other is about bribing.

 

I think its great that cruisers want to tip the staff no objections at all go for it (as much as you want - I don't care)-

 

Bribery - that's what I don't like as some cruisers seem to think that by flashing the cash ahead of service they will buy a better product or skip the line. However, any waiter doing their job well should not be swayed by that extra cash - they should do their job and serve you in line. How would you feel if you were in a queue at a hotel/shop and someone walked up and handed the cashier some $$ and skipped the queue - Would you classify that cashier as doing their job well - I would not.

Also if by bribing the waiter he is encouraged to do a larger pour (as some on here suggest) then you are in fact encouraging him to steel from his employer for your extra money. If you need more alcohol than in an allotted measure then the non crooked way would be to buy more and tip as appropriate for the extra drinks you need.

I agree with your thoughts.

I have always tipped well. Usually its 15% at the minimum (bad service). 20% (for large tabs/bills) and sometimes anywhere from 25-50% (small diner type bills).

On ships, I used to tip more (in cash) BEFORE the prepaid, BEFORE the 18% automatically added to drinks. Now its a tad awkward..... how much to give above and beyond the prepaid for steward/wait staff? Give the guy an extra $10 and he looks at you like you are a cheapskate (even though you already paid the "official cruise line suggested amount", give the guy $50 and now you have paid 4x the amount).

But, ever since RCCL said "this is our policy"..... I do sometimes tip wait staff/steward more in cash but i never add anymore for a drink (usually its a beer, wine or simple gin/tonic) ESPECIALLY considering the fast rise in drink prices (let alone the price of cruise).

At some point, its a matter of principle- the ever rising cost of everything along with more and more people in the loop that expect an additional tip. I have heard of entertainers and people giving classes (yoga for ex) on ships wrapping up the show/class with flat out asking for tips.......

We always tip in cash even though we have drink packages. Who knows how much of that 18% goes to the bartenders. I do it not just for better service but also for the smile. I know how hard they work and love having the chance to say thank you and nothing said thank you better than cash!!

The same logic would apply to local restaurant/bars too, right?

Say you go to a local Bonefish or Applebees- do you give cash tips to your bartenders/servers on top of the 18-20% on the bill that your charged to your Visa/MC/Amex?

If not, why?

I don't get the people who don't believe the automatic gratuities really go to the service crew. I understand that some people want to give a little extra, and hope it gets to be kept by just the particular person helping them, rather than going into a pool. To think that the company is keeping the money, rather than distributing it to the employees, though, just seems odd. I don't think RCI is that slimy, but if I did think they were, I'd avoid doing business with them.

I agree, the drink gratuities likely go completely to the bartenders, bar wait staff. I would also avoid RCCL if they took their tips and pocketed them.

I also agree with the 18% tip is generous enough considering its on top of an already overpriced drink. Cash, upfront no less, should NOT be a condition of good or better service. :eek:

I may slip some cash to a favorite bartender with a purchase on the last evening along with a thank you for a great cruise.

Espically the day after it occurs.:D

LOL, I know right :D

It is amazing how anyone that disagrees with the criticism is labeled a "cheerleader"

 

Perhaps some should start their own forum - CruiseLineWhiners.com

And on cue.....;)

There is a difference. I can't recall anyone starting a positive thread or review where others (ie non cheerleaders) jump on and gang up on the positive reviewer to mock them and tell them that they couldnt have possibly experienced such a good time....and if they did it was an anomoly and CERTAINLY not due to the credit of RCCL, etc....

I don't think there are lots of "cheerleaders". Most posters I read here, the vast majority, are RCCL loyalists that are regular fair minded respectful people.

The "cheerleaders" are the handful of extreme loyalists that feel the need to gang up and pounce with snark/ridicule at anyone who complains (especially new posters) about their experiences.

I'm glad to see your a weather expert also, you should have been the captain seeing as you think you know a lot about handling a ship in a storm.

Captains aren't weather experts. :rolleyes:

Captains are expert at piloting ships.

Meteorologists are experts on weather. ;)

First, no one buys "millions" from RCCL or the porters. But I bet people with "stuff happens" attitude DO buy from "your company." Or is "your company" the only company in the entire world that never makes a mistake? Heck, when I was younger I worked for my Dad's company. My Dad was a fantastic businessman, and was the most honest and ethical person I know. My title when I worked for him: "Claims Manager." I handled all the claims for issues that arose. But you know what? I had a lot of people who wanted "blood" for minor mistakes. I also had a lot of people who just simply realize "stuff happens." Was the Porter correct? Heck no! But he also wasn't representative of ALL the porters. 27 cruises and we've always been treated with nothing but a smile and a cheerful greeting from all the porters we've come in contact with.

I am a pilot for a major airlines. Believe me, STUFF DOES HAPPEN. So... you can deal with it as the anomaly it is, or you can let it fester like an open wound and ruin your entire day.

I agree, "stuff happens".... I can deal with mediocre or even bad service from an uncaring, unmotivated worker (or one just having a bad day). I still tip unsmiling porters, cab drivers, bartenders, etc...... But, if I have an angry porter cursing/yelling and getting aggressively in my face demanding a tip..... that is so over the line that I would look for another porter to deal with, a supervisor or something. That is unacceptable behavior way beyond a "stuff happens" level. That guy, if true, should be unemployed now.

Some people have gotten caught up believing a corporation is their friend. Any negative thing said about the corporation is akin to calling their wife ugly or their children stupid.

It is amazing how some of the more militant "cheerleaders" take it so personally and go into attack mode when you offer anything short of fanatical praise for anything RCCL, let alone actual criticism.

Imagine that....Criticism on CruiseCritic.com Perhaps some should start their own forum- CruiseLineWorship.com :D

I think the media was a little disappointed this morning. The people interviewed as they got off the Anthem had nothing but praise for RCI and the Anthem. One lady said "We missed a couple of ports but had a wonderful cruise". Another lady said "GO ANTHEM". Not one person had anything negative to say.

They didn't get the low down that they were looking for.

Oh, there were some upset with what they felt was dishonesty by RCCL (it was Norovirus, not "weather" that brought ship back was speculation by passengers)

http://pix11.com/2016/03/02/anthem-of-the-seas-turned-back-again-but-this-time-passengers-say-it-wasnt-the-weather/

And this couple was understandably upset that their honeymoon didn't go as planned despite that a norovirus isn't RCCL fault.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/03/a_honeymoon_can_never_be_replaced_man_shares_story.html

BND.........agree with your good points.

 

With as many crew sick as many have been posting on this and other threads, I think RCL is doing to right thing to get the whole ship back and where the crew might actually be able to get 8+ hrs sleep and regain some of their health and resistance from overwork during the earlier hurricane cruise and now cleaning and cleaning with probable 16+ hr work days/nights

That makes sense to me..... but then RCCL should be HONEST and say this is the reason rather than a phantom storm.

Honesty IS always the right policy. Especially after what they went through.

General advice- when you are in a proverbial hole, reach for a ladder, not a shovel.

Telling the truth might piss a few people off, but they will get over it and in the end usually respect you for it.....but getting caught in lies will piss almost everyone off and have no one respect you.

Ok, this is a bit of a ranty editorial, but its just my gut feeling/opinion so here goes...

In my opinion, RCCL's product has been watered down in recent years with the double whammy of reduced quality and higher costs. Still better than most but either the others (NCL for ex) are catching up or RCCL is playing down to their competition.... I still plan to travel RCCL but will at least, in light of recent events (and principle) at least give a look to what others are offering.

Also, I think most objective people will say that RCCL made a bad judgement call to take the ship out into that bad storm several weeks ago.

Most objective people I believe would also conclude that the ship is coming back now NOT because of the weather (as stated by RCCL) but because of the virus.

In both cases- virus & bad judgement call to go into storm, it is reflecting badly on RCCL. Like in politics- its often the cover up is worse than the crime. Sh*t happens to people (and companies) , but if you deal ALWAYS in honesty & integrity you will come out ahead. People are forgiving... But if you are dishonest....

Something smells badly in RCCL land when you consider their actions of the last few years in total...... from the dishonest BOGO sales, skyrocketing drink prices, going into a storm when it was a know iffy proposition, lying to customers about it, lying about the "weather" etc...

Just a few short years ago- Grandeur caught fire.... Adam Goldstein was on the ground in the bahamas BEFORE the ship got there to greet ALL of the passengers..... He paid a pretty penny to charter a lineup of 747's to get EVERYONE home asap. He was universally praised for his textbook crisis management.

I don't get the same warm fuzzy feelings from RCCL that I did just a few short years ago. They changed CEO's and possibly other execs and likely some philosophy it appears in how they "operate". :(

Is it just a coincidence? Am i out of my mind? Am I on to something? Idk....

End/rant.

When was Royal Caribbean absolutely honest and forthcoming about anything? They have a reputation for lack of transparency. Many people know this..... I have trouble accepting any statement coming from the Corporate Office in Miami and "Honest Abe" the Cruise Director. I know the Royal Caribbean diehards will protest this..... And they will continue to defend RC no matter what - in order to purchase the "cheap seats"

 

My bet is Royal Caribbean is desperately trying to downplay the Noro Virus outbreak with a cover up about the "weather" They cannot afford any more adverse publicity for this ship.

Agree.