Disney banned my service dog after allowing it

Regardless of what you feel is "ridiculous", the simple fact is that the Disney "terms and conditions" or "ticket contract" that you agree to when you book your cruise, if you read them as you should have, clearly states that it is the passenger's responsibility to obtain any and all clearances for a service animal. Despite their statement that "Disney Cruise Line is not responsible for your inability to visit a port of call due to your failure to comply with any such entry requirements." That means only that some countries may allow a service animal to stay onboard without a clearance, but obviously the Bahamas does not. Do you hold an airline responsible if they sell you a ticket for you and your service animal, and then you find out they didn't tell you the country you are flying to doesn't allow the dog? It is not their responsibility to ensure you have the proper travel documentation.

This is no different than if you needed a visa to visit a country, were told by a customer service agent that you didn't, and were denied boarding because of it. The cruise line has no responsibility to inform you of your travel document requirements in advance, any more than an airline does.

This was found online in my research prior to booking:

~ I met the 72 hour notification

~Strict entry requirements...we were going to remain onboard as other do.

~inability to visit a port due to failure to comply with entry requirements...we were remaining onboard and not exiting in the port we did not have the permit for. This isn’t misleading as strict entry requirements are assiciated with getting off in the port.

Very simple clause that could be added to resolve any and all confusion regarding the word “entry” not meaning getting off the ship, but meaning being on the ship in port of that country, is to include, “failure to obtain entry requirements for all ports on your itinerary, regardless if passenger remains onboard or exits the ship, will result in banning the service animal from entering the ship on day one”.

When you interpret the contract and state,“that means only that some countries may allow a service animal to remain onboard...” then that is your interpretation and not factual in the contract. You are proving the point I’m trying to make. The way it’s worded and the practices seen onboard other ships is misleading you to interpret that as some countries may allow the dog but the Bahamas does not. No where in he contract does it state some countries will let you remain onboard and some will not when you don’t have the permits. Your interpretation is the same as mine although I did not interpret it to mean the bahamas will not. So you are the second person to read the contract and understand it to mean remaining onboard is permitted in some countries, even though the contract does NOT state this. Thank you for proving my point further that its not just me reading the flawed contract and coming away with the same misunderstanding from it. This is why I so desperately ask that they amend the contract to include it is not acceptable to remain onboard without having a permit for the island.

As for would I hold an airline responsible, yes and no, it’s different situation. If I told the agent I have a dog and I have no valid health certificate for the dog to travel and the agent goes ahead and sells me the ticket with the knowledge that they are selling me something I won’t be able to use, then yes, I hold them responsible. If the airline is not on a direct flight and has a layover where all the passengers that are going to the next destination remain onboard and do not exit the aircraft, and I tell the agent I don’t have a permit to step foot in that country and they give me the 100% that I’m able to fly with the paperwork I have, then yes, I hold them responsible if customs boards the aircraft and takes my dog. Do I hold them responsible if the plane is going on direct flight to my final destination, then no, I would have the permit to exit the aircraft in my final destination.

You say the company wouldn’t be responsible for their employee telling me I don’t need a visa in a country that requires one...you’re wrong. The agents have no right to lie to customers!!! Imagine the chaos if agents were allowed to lie to customers and no one was held accountable for their actions!! If an agent doesn’t know, they need to ask, they can’t just make up their own rules. When I enter into any contract, I expect the contract to revolve around the truth, a contract is not legally binding when it was created under false statements.

Oh, please.

No one is lying to you. No agent can know every aspect of every citizen from every country wanting to bring an animal into every country in the world. This is why it is your responsibility to obtain the required clearances or visas for you and your dog. The agents give the answer to the best of their knowledge, but the only experts are the consular officials for each country. Try searching these forums for passengers who were told they did need a visa for a country, and when the consulate was contacted, they were told they didn't. Is this lying? No, the agents don't know every law.

But, I'm done here.

First off, I don't believe there is anywhere in any policy or contract where it says anything about "getting off the ship." This is simply not understanding, and I'm not blaming you for this because it can be confusing, "enter" and "visit". When they say "enter" the country, that means clearing customs at the dock. When they say you may not be able to "visit" a country, it's the same as "enter." Not entirely blaming you for that.

 

 

 

This is not a fair comparison. Here, you're comparing CRUISE LINE policy with the laws/policies of the country the ship is visiting. OBs routinely tell pregnant women that, barring complications, travel is safe up through Week 30. My wife's OB has said she wishes cruise lines allowed women to travel later in their pregnancy.

 

These are cruise line policies, so of course cruise line employees will be better versed in them.

 

 

 

And this is everything that's wrong with society today. The "you're wrong, but sue anyway" approach. C'mon. Grow up and own some responsibility. (Not directed at you, OP, but society in general.)

This is what I found online prior to booking, this is also what the executive in charge of complaints told me it taken directly from the cruise contract:

The words “inability to visit a port” is very misleading, as I was just replying to another person who stated that this meant “some countries allow you to remain onboard and others do not”. Meanwhile, no where does it say anything about remaining on the ship being allowed, but that is how it is interpreted.

Using the pregnancy as an example is to show that agents are aware of the rules and regulations. Instructing an agent to immediately transfer the phone call to the special needs department to handle and ensure everyone has all documents needed, whether it be service dogs or pregnant cruisers, this would ensure no one is given false information and prevent a lot of confusion and hardships.

I worked in an area where a small part of my job was dealing with permits. My coworker allowed someone on to travel who required a permit, the driver knew he needed a permit, I had to call and report there is a truck entering with no permit, law enforcement had to pull the truck over and bring the driver back to get the permit, the officer told us that if anything happened to that truck it was the fault of our company, I tried to side with my coworker and tell the officer the trucker does this for a living and knows the rules and regulations and knows he is required to get a permit to haul that load, the cop informed me yes, he knows he needed a permit, but once your coworker told him he is free to travel and handed him his ticket to travel, that released him of any fine I could of given him. Because as a representative of an agency or company, giving someone the all clear releases them of any responsibility.

Rules and regulations change, even the contract states the policy can change at any given time without notification. It is the responsibility of a company to not give out wrong information.

We all remember the airlines changing policy regarding liquid carry on, people lost a lot by having to throw out bottles of wine, make up, shampoos, and other items, but they were protected because policy can change without notice. The same is true in the reverse, that is why when I was given the 100% all clear to board and travel and assured all paperwork was filled out, I believed her, because she is trained to represent a company. No one should have to question what a trained representative says is the truth.

Thank you for your post, and for understanding and agreeing with me that those terms are very misleading. I was starting to feel like my neurological issue was getting the best of me by having a different understanding of what “entry” means. When I hear “entry” I think of a supermarket sign on the door, I have not legally entered the supermarket if I am still standing outside on the sidewalk. But I now understand “entry” does not only mean stepping foot in a country, it also means sitting on a ship in the waters surrounding their country.

1) Why would you expect all of the different Carribean countries to have the same laws? That's like expecting France and Germany to have the same laws because they are right next to each other. That is not how the world works.

2) The second the ship hits the dock, you have entered a different country. It doesn't matter if you stay on board. You still have to follow the laws of that country. For as much as you say you have traveled, I'm shocked that you don't understand that concept.

1) Why would you expect all of the different Carribean countries to have the same laws? That's like expecting France and Germany to have the same laws because they are right next to each other. That is not how the world works.

 

2) The second the ship hits the dock' date=' you have entered a different country. It doesn't matter if you stay on board. You still have to follow the laws of that country. For as much as you say you have traveled, I'm shocked that you don't understand that concept.[/quote']

 

I don’t expect them to have the same laws, I stated all the ships abide by the same laws, this issue was resolved by someone kindly telling me that “all the ships do have to obey the same laws, it’s different islands allow the dog to remain onboard” that was the reason I was seeing and talking to people throughout the years who stated they don’t have the permits but remain onboard, I believe my reply to this kind person who clarified this information to me was that makes sense because this was the first time in the Bahamas for me.

As for the second the ship hits the dock I’m in that country, do an online poll and ask “when do you believe you are officially in a country, when your feet touch the ground of that country by getting off the ship, or when you are still sitting in the water”, most people are like me and falsely say when their feet touch the soil of that country. Don’t be shocked that I didn’t understand the concept of sitting in water means you entered the country. Many others thought as I did. When you stand in front of an entry door to a restaurant do you say you entered the restaurant? Or do you say you went to the restaurants but did not enter? When I traveled by car from California to New York, I drove through many states, I have never told people “oh, I’ve been to that state” when all I did was drive through it. Humans are all different in the way they think, that is why when it comes to important information they trust a trained professional, such as a representative for a company.

 

Another poster stated to me that the words of the contract mean “some countries allow you to remain on the ship, but obviously not the Bahamas” when no where in the contract does it state anything about remaining in the ship. Yet this fellow cruiser replied to my post to inform me of what she understood it to mean, almost the same as what I understood it to mean. Does that mean we are both not highly educated people, or does that mean the contract is flawed, so far it’s not just me reading and coming up with the same wrong interpretation.

Again, I think you're missing the mark on all this -- and it has been explained several times in previous posts on this thread. You're not getting permits to exit in ports. Being on the ship, being off the ship. Doesn't matter. You're getting permits necessary just to dock at the pier.

.

Yes, I understand that now. When I wrote that I was trying to explain why at the time prior to booking I got confused. All the years of talking to handlers and being told most times they don’t get permits they just remain onboard, then mix that with the policy not clearly stating “no permits, no entry” is what caused this, along with getting the all clear to board.

I wish what you just wrote was in their policy, it’s very clear. When I read your words there is no confusion as to remaining onboard or not. No confusion as to what it means to enter their country!!!