Anyone affected by the volcano?

[atanac]

If the passenger isn't on board, they cannot spend any money. Chances are RCCL will end up giving free upgrades (again less money) so it will free up cheaper cabins that are easier to sell at the last minute but still not have a full ship. RCCL already has the "missing" passengers money that will not be refunded so how is the cruise line losing anything?

MARAPRINCE

 

Don't forget how the crew will suffer as they will be deprived of gratuities from the missing passengers. A large component

of their salary is derived from tips and should there be a substantial lack of passengers they will feel it big time. Everyone

is losing because of this !##* volcano!

[Pumbaamd]

Oasis sailed at 8:50 tonight from Port Everglades, after waiting for some passengers from Europe.

R&D

[imsulin]

About two million world wide non-cruisers have been affected.

[spirite]

Exactly .

 

Think of the loss to the cruise companies when cruises with a huge % of UK guests on board, such as Brilliance repo out of Dubai, or Splendour out of Venice this weekend- these ships will be sailing almost empty.

Plus side is you will get a sunbed by the pool.....;)

 

We had a late departure from the Splendour in Venice yesterday. At 2pm it was still eerily quiet. They were expecting many people not being able to turn up for sailing. Many of the crew were due to be replaced having been on board for months, many from Brazil, and were stuck on board.

 

We are in Venice and unable to fly home for at least 5 days. No prospect of compensation from airline (booked independently) or insurer (act of God). Likely to cost us £1000 plus kids due to be at school etc.

 

There are no winners from this.

[spirite]

This is just a different point of view between Europe and the United States. Here in Europe, the consumer is given the most protection in this respect. That is why we have EU Airline Passenger Rights, the EU Package Travel Directive, etc.

 

Our strong consumer protection laws is one reason why we are seeing incidents like in Frankfurt airport, where everyone is being given three meals, a bed to sleep and updated information. That's all written into our laws here.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Nice idea in principle, but not in practice.

 

We are due to fly BA from Venice to London. There is no ba reprentative at Venice, so no-one at the airport will feed you or find a hotel for you. There is no chance of getting through to ba's phone lines. Their website gives no help or guidance on what to do. We are paying our own hotel and food bills, not cheap in Venice, plus expensive mobile calls home to ask family and travel agent to try to sort something out. I don't expect to get any money back from ba.

[OHCruisinDad]

The cruise line doesn't "have a soft heart"....it is just clever marketing and good customer relations that assures that the passengers stay with them on a future sailing rather than taking their business to a competitor. RCCL is already losing money on the empty cabins on the sailing that is affected because it is impossible that they will be able to sell enough cabins to replace the passengers who can't sail. If the passenger isn't on board, they cannot spend any money. Chances are RCCL will end up giving free upgrades (again less money) so it will free up cheaper cabins that are easier to sell at the last minute but still not have a full ship. RCCL already has the "missing" passengers money that will not be refunded so how is the cruise line losing anything?

 

 

MARAPRINCE

 

The cabins are sold. The cruise line has no way to know how may paid passengers will show up. Their contract says that a cabin was sold so thay have to hold that cabin as they expect the passenger to show up. Once the passenger doesn't show up its too late to resell it, even last minute. The only cabins they can sell would be the result of cancellations. In US port departures (not sure about European departures), they close the passenger rolls 72 hours in advance due to Homeland Security requirements requiring the submission of the full pax list.

 

There is no way that a company can cover the costs of refunds for something totally out of their control. That is why they offer travel insurance. Your example is no different that if you were to have a shoppping bag taken from your car and then expect the department store to refund or replace your stolen goods, They have no control over your car or goods once you leave the sales counter in the store. That's why you have automobile and/or homeowner's insurance.

[mechcc]

My sympathies to all that are loosing out on a wonderful vacation due to this situation. And even more so to those that are stuck with a big financial loss. Then there are those that bought insurance and the companies are hiding behind the "act of God" clause and not going to pay. That's like buying flood insurence and having a 100 year flood the next month and saying oh "Act of God, we aren't going to pay".

 

Do I think Royal Caribbean should reimburse their passengers that booked air independently - no. Did I learn something from this? Yep - I did. Actually, reinforced my thought that booking airfare through cruiseline is really expensive but worth it for instances where departure ports are outside of the U.S. (except Alaska and Hawaii).

 

Again - Sorry to those that are in a lose situation.

[madforcruising]

Your statement above, just made my point.....those who do not need to fly to board the ship will benefit and the cruise line will offer last minute bookings to fill up the ship.

 

At least the line should offer the passengers the option of rebooking at a later date so they do not lose their entire cruise fare. This will go a long way to create good will and retain these unfortunate passengers. I am not avocating that the line give them a discount off a future sailing -- merely allowing the passengers affected to rebook for what they have already paid. If the fare is higher, then the additional monies would be paid by the passenger. If it is lower, put the passenger in a cabin category that is equivalent to what was paid. This way everyone wins -- the cruise line by retaining the passenger and selling a cabin on an upcoming cruise and the passenger since they are not losing all their money.

 

 

MARAPRINCE

 

Your logic entirely fails - if the cruiseline allows to rebook they are not selling a cabin on an upcoming cruise, they are in fact giving it away for free instead of selling it to someone that would have paid for it.

 

An empty ship brings no profit. The current sailing is a victim of Nature. If the passengers who missed the sailing don't rebook because they are out their entire fare, that's more cabins that will not be sold. I am not talking refund, but being allowed to apply the money paid to a future sailing. RCCL will still have their money. They do it if a ship cannot sail due to mechanical problems.

 

 

MARAPRINCE

 

Your entire logic would only work under the assumption that they usually sail with hundreds of cabins they can´t sell. That is not true, so they will lose money on every cabin they let people re-book.

 

Would it make them look good in a matter of customer service and good will? For sure! But I doubt the price they´d have to pay for it would be worth it to them, especially when all other major lines handle it the same way. With all major lines handling it the same way it also eliminates the argument of people booking with other lines in the future.

[UKBayern]

It is a shame Gunther does not mention what he does for a living or studied that he knows all this, but I can say from academic and working experience that I have to warn people that there is a very clear way out of the EU air law for the airlines, and that they therefore should not get their hopes up too much. The airlines have had to use this clause many times before, especially when flying to the Caribbean or Florida was not possible due to a hurricane, when there were riots in Bangkok, when the earthquake in Haiti and Chili hit, when the US was covered in snow, and when Glasgow airport had to close due to a terrorist attack.

 

For anybody who is interested in EU-law, look at Regulation EU 261/2004.

under clause (14) it very clearly states: "...obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances

may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

 

The problem is in this case that it is actually unsafe to fly a plane through a cloud of ash. This is a "security risk" or an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming". I saw a post somewhere on this board of somebody who was happy that the airline defined the ash cloud as "meteorological conditions" rather than an "Act of God". He was under the (wrong) impression that all was now well.

 

The European airlines are doing what they can, but with them losing over 200$ per day, options are drying up fast. Even in 2001, when this EU-regulation was not yet in place, the airlines in Europe did as much as they could to get people home after 9/11. Unfortunately, there are no planes, trains and busses are overbooked and in major European cities, there are no hotelrooms anymore either. The situation has become so bad that in a few places the authorities (such as in Amsterdam) have called on local citizens to offer a place to sleep in their private homes to those stranded in the airport.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

I am a retired diplomat and former senior executive of AENA in Spain (if you look up what AENA is in Spain you will know that I am qualified to talk about this subject).

 

If the airlines are not providing you with information or assistance in Venice, please ask for their formal complaint sheet and document this. Then save all of your receipts of expenses incurred (hotels, meals, telephones, etc.) and file a claim with your airline when this is over.

 

They will pay it, even if you have to bring it before the Consumer Affairs board where you live.

 

Some airlines do the right thing and provide the required assistance up front. Other airlines are SOBs and provide nothing knowing that the percentage of passengers who actually file a claim will be minute in comparison with passengers actually affected. But the law is the law and you will get paid if you pursue it.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[CruisinGerman]

The Euroepan Commission admits that airlines do not fancy following the laws. There have been ultimatums given to the airlines and jurisprudence established by the Courts of the individual member states to promote enforcement of the EU Airline passenger rights.

 

Here in Spain, when this situation first started a few days ago, all of the news broadcasts clearly outlined passenger rights and what to do to get them enforced. I repeat, if you are in-transit (not at your home city), and subject to the airline cancellations due to the volcano, you have a right to be re-routed, to hotel accommodations, meals, telephone calls, faxes or e-mails, OR to a refund. This was clearly announced on all of the newscasts by the Spanish airport and governmental authorities.

 

I cite below EU Commission press releases dated 2007 and later regarding this issue.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Brussels, 4th april 2007

Commission gives airlines and Member States six months to make the air passenger rights regulation work

 

Today, the European Commission presented a report which evaluates the results and the application of the air passenger rights Regulation[1]. Although some progress has been made since its introduction two years ago, further important steps should be taken to ensure that airlines apply the rules more consistently and that these rules are better enforced by Member States. This is the main finding of the study[2] which the Commission ordered to complement its Communication on the results of the common rules protecting citizens' rights when travelling by air.

 

”Although there is no doubt that air passengers enjoy better protection today, we must make sure that airlines and Member States fully comply with their obligations”, stressed Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot in charge of transport. “The Commission will give them six months to make the air passengers regulation work and will provide them with full support in that process".

Although stranded passengers now have specific rights, they are still in a weaker position compared to airlines. For example, airlines often do not inform passengers about their rights when their flights are disrupted, although the Regulation obliges them to do so, since passengers need this information in order to claim their rights.

The Commission therefore considers that further work is needed in a number of areas: improving enforcement, clarifying the interpretation of certain aspects of the Regulation, establishing clarity between delays and cancellations as different rights are awarded to the passengers depending on the circumstances, and enhancing the role of the National Enforcement Bodies that oversee the application of the common rules.

During the next six months, the Commission will intensify cooperation with the National Enforcement Bodies and airlines in order to achieve better results. If the final outcome remains unsatisfactory, the Commission will initiate infringement procedures against Member States. Should these contacts and procedures fail to reach satisfactory results, the Commission could consider amending the current Regulation.

The Regulation introduced new rules on compensation and assistance for air passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations, long delays and involuntary downgrading. Depending on the circumstances, the Regulation requires airlines to provide passengers with assistance such as accommodation, refreshments, meals and communication facilities, offer re-routing and refunds, pay compensation, and proactively inform passengers about their rights under the Regulation.

The Commission has also prepared updated information material in order to better guide passengers concerning their rights. A new poster will be available at all airports before the Summer.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/information_en.htm

More informations on : Memo/06/293

[Barral]

In the end, all said and done, I believe the courts and the lawyers (good for them) will have to sort out an awful lot of passenger claims. Unless of course, the airlines, the cruise companies etc. show some good business sense.

 

In my case, the airline (Emirates) has already indicated to me that they'll give me a full refund of the fare paid for the cancelled flight.

 

As for not being able to make it to the ship: To my layman way of legal thinking there is a big difference between missing the boat for any reason that I am responsible for or the airline or the taxi driver has to stand up for, or for a reason that nobody is responsible for.

 

In the latter case which we are facing here, the laws pertaining to this situation will have to be interpreted and applied. And as I said before, I pretty much think and I hope here in Europe the consumer is quite well protected.

 

Maybe I'm missing the boat here again. ;)

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends,

 

The EU Transport Commissioner has made it perfectly clear that EU Air Passenger Rights apply during this crisis -- including the right to re-routing, refund, meals, accommodation, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, but excluding additional financial compensation.

 

For those of you who are still in doubt please see below. If your airlines refuse to cooperate file a claim with the enforcement authorities in your individual country.

 

Also, I repeat that if you purchased various elements of your cruise (air, transfers, cruise) at the same EU travel agency, you qualify for protection under the EU Package Travel Directive and the laws of the individual countries enacted to equal or better that protection. That means that your travel agency must arrange a full refund of your trip if you could not reach the ship because of the airline cancellations. This also holds true if you purchased RCCL air/sea product -- they must give you a full cash refund if you so request -- not merely a credit towards a future cruise.

 

See below and please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Air passengers' rights apply during ash cloud

disruption

(BRUSSELS) - Inconvenienced European travellers have the right to care and compensation even in the

"exceptional circumstances" of the volcanic ash cloud which has grounded flights, the EU said Thursday.

EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas praised the "very swift and appropriate action to safeguard the

public", after airlines and aviation authorities in Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia closed their

airspace and airports as the potentially dangerous ash cloud wafted across Europe after an Icelandic volcano

disrupted.

"This is a situation which is causing immense difficulties for passengers travelling throughout Europe," Kallas

added.

"It can be considered a very exceptional circumstance. Nevertheless, it is important to remind passengers and

airlines that EU passenger rights do apply in this situation."

This includes "the right to chose between reimbursement of fares or be re-routed to final destination," he

underlined.

There is also "the right to care" in the form of refreshments, meals and accommodation as appropriate.

Another key right, according to the EU commissioner, is the right to receive information from airlines, on

cancellations, the length of delays and the situation as it evolves.

However in such an exceptional circumstances passengers are not entitled to additional financial compensation

that would be the case where delays or cancellations were the fault of the airline, Kallas added.

The passenger rights are enshrined in EU law.

The commission advised stranded passengers to contact their airlines, "and in case of problems the national

enforcement bodies".

Air passenger rights - legislation in force since 2005

Text and Picture Copyright 2010 AFP. All other Copyright 2010 EUbusiness Ltd. All rights reserved. This material is intended

solely for personal use. Any other reproduction, publication or redistribution of this material without the written agreement of the

copyright owner is strictly forbidden and any breach of copyright will be considered actionable.

[Missus Makkem]

The news on the volcano action in todays press is more and more gloomy but at least we are still in the comfort of our own home and not stranded heaven knows where.

Hope those on TA cruises are able to make it back home after they arrive in Europe.

[madforcruising]

The news on the volcano action in todays press is more and more gloomy but at least we are still in the comfort of our own home and not stranded heaven knows where.

Hope those on TA cruises are able to make it back home after they arrive in Europe.

 

 

Maybe we can give our CC friends shelter in case they get stranded in Europe:)

I´ve already promised my bed to CC friends from California who leave on a TA tomorrow in case they can´t get home. :cool:

[Janespup]

What a horrible blow to the European economy. I hope this ash problem is short lived.

[Janespup]

According to the European laws that were quoted earlier, any passengers from Europe who booked through the cruise line or a travel agency will be able to rebook or get a refund. This is probably a large percentage of European travelers. Passengers in other parts of the world are not effected, unless they are traveling to or through Europe to get to their ports. Sad case for those who are negatively effected but it is the airlines and cruise lines that will suffer greatest from this. Sure, they have been pre-paid for current flights and cruises but they will lose many customers if they don't handle it correctly. I think they should offer some kind of credit (bone) to travelers who were unable to get any money back,

just to keep them as customers.

[anastasia1]

Well its planes boats and automobiles- whoops no planes.

 

The highly inventive British are getting back soemhow!

 

My sons school were in rome- then diverted to venice- finally got 1 German coach to Rome to Calais (17 hours and 4 countries later ) where a coach from the Uk came out to meet them (no foot passengers allowed now) and brought them home last night- 26 hour total trip.

 

Friend in reggio (italy) with tour of 20- hired cars to drive to paris- getting eurostar to London- then train to yorkshire

 

Colleague in tenerife looking to pick up a cruise ship (cargo and passenger ships all booked) heading to mainland europe then driving/ferry/train.

 

One uk news reporter is doing a dunkirk style rescue- taking a small flotilla of boats to calais to pick up the stranded.

 

My new concern (lol) we are an island that no longer produces enough food for our needs. When will we all run out of food? I imagine that the African ladies finders and the south american blueberries are already no longer available. Maybe I need to stockplie those middle class luxuries now! (no french cheese, italian sausage I fear)

[Cruzaholic41]

In the end, all said and done, I believe the courts and the lawyers (good for them) will have to sort out an awful lot of passenger claims. Unless of course, the airlines, the cruise companies etc. show some good business sense.

 

In my case, the airline (Emirates) has already indicated to me that they'll give me a full refund of the fare paid for the cancelled flight.

 

As for not being able to make it to the ship: To my layman way of legal thinking there is a big difference between missing the boat for any reason that I am responsible for or the airline or the taxi driver has to stand up for, or for a reason that nobody is responsible for.

 

In the latter case which we are facing here, the laws pertaining to this situation will have to be interpreted and applied. And as I said before, I pretty much think and I hope here in Europe the consumer is quite well protected.

 

Maybe I'm missing the boat here again. ;)

 

I do believe you are missing the boat on this. According to the cruise contract that you agreed to, if you do not book air travel through the cruise line, getting to the ship is 100% your responsibility. If you are unable to make it, for whatever the reasoning is, it is your loss. That's a chance you take when you book your own flights.

 

As for the interpretation of the laws....what laws are you referring to, and how would they apply in U.S.? Civil cases against RCI are litigated in the Southern District of Florida (Miami), also according to your contract. And in a civil case, you have to prove the cruise line to be at least 51% at fault for you not making your cruise.

 

I feel very bad for those who are losing money and losing out on their vacations. That sucks. But let's be reasonable here. You can't expect these big companies to change their policies just for you, especially when it's a policy you agreed to when booking. This sort of thing happens all the time...not necessarily volcanoes....but people missing their cruises due to weather problems or flight problems.

[Barral]

Not a lawyer and in the end it would all be a matter of interpretation of a judge anyway, but from reading the mentioned § in the BGB I don´t think it applies to your situation, at least not when cruise and air are booked independently. But good luck in discussing this with RCI.

What makes you think that law doesn't apply to my situation? There is no provision in there for booking independently or not. The text seems very clear and unambiguous to me. Would be genuinely interested in an educated opinion.

[Cruzaholic41]

Thus, for all practical purposes we are definitely unable to get to our ship. This is a situation that in the German travel laws is called 'hoehere Gewalt' or 'Force majeure' aka 'Act of god' and it gives the traveller explicitly the extraordinary legal opportunity (as opposed to regular cancellation) to cancel or revoke the contract (and recoup your entire fare). We did that with RCCL Germany. They responded negatively blablabla, however, in my opinion the legal situation is very clear: volcanoes are explicitly mentioned as an 'act of god' in the comments to that law. (For German users: §651j BGB).

 

The difference here is that the planes were canceled. The ship was not. Yes, you should be reimbursed for flight costs, but the ship is still sailing. The cruise line is still fulfilling their end of the deal.

[Barral]

I do believe you are missing the boat on this. According to the cruise contract that you agreed to, if you do not book air travel through the cruise line, getting to the ship is 100% your responsibility. If you are unable to make it, for whatever the reasoning is, it is your loss. That's a chance you take when you book your own flights.

 

As for the interpretation of the laws....what laws are you referring to, and how would they apply in U.S.? Civil cases against RCI are litigated in the Southern District of Florida (Miami), also according to your contract. And in a civil case, you have to prove the cruise line to be at least 51% at fault for you not making your cruise.

 

I feel very bad for those who are losing money and losing out on their vacations. That sucks. But let's be reasonable here. You can't expect these big companies to change their policies just for you, especially when it's a policy you agreed to when booking. This sort of thing happens all the time...not necessarily volcanoes....but people missing their cruises due to weather problems or flight problems.

I am referring to European and German law. I do have a cruise contract with Royal Caribbean Germany, located in Frankfurt, Germany. So, our laws here apply!

 

And even if I had a contract with an American company doing business in Germany, our laws would apply. Aren't American courts claiming jurisdiction over European companies that are doing business in the US? Why should the reverse situation be different?

[madforcruising]

What makes you think that law doesn't apply to my situation? There is no provision in there for booking independently or not. The text seems very clear and unambiguous to me. Would be genuinely interested in an educated opinion.

 

As I said before I am not a lawyer so I can´t give you an educated opinion, but reading the BGB my understanding is that this would not apply to your situation.

As you booked the cruise not as a package the purchased product is a cruise from/to Dubai. The deal you have with RCI therefore starts and ends at the port in Dubai. As there is no problem at Dubai at all IMO there is no reason to cancel the booking under the BGB§51j. I don´t think the problem of getting there is covered in the BGB in this case. It would be different if the flight had been booked as a package as then your trip had started and ended in DUS. But that´s just how I understand the BGB and in the end it will be a matter of lawyers and a judge to make a decision about it.

[Cruzaholic41]

I am referring to European and German law. I do have a cruise contract with Royal Caribbean Germany, located in Frankfurt, Germany. So, our laws here apply!

 

And even if I had a contract with an American company doing business in Germany, our laws would apply. Aren't American courts claiming jurisdiction over European companies that are doing business in the US? Why should the reverse situation be different?

 

Ok, I'll admit I do not know exactly how your particular cruise contract is worded, but I'll bet it still releases the cruise line from liability under these circumstances. Where does it say claims against the cruise line are to be handled....what venue?

 

My previous point still stands, though. The cruise is not canceling on you, and you opted not to have them get you to the ship.

[Barral]

In cases of an 'act of god' where nobody is responsible the risk may be laid either on the customer or the company that provides a service. Simple logic.

 

Our laws say very clearly that in those cases (which btw have a very low probability), the burden is on the company. Period. It's a risk they have to absorb when they are in business.