Cancel for any reason insurance

[mitsguy2001]

Just out of curiosity, if you ran a cruise line what, if any, cancellation penalties would you impose? Especially for cancellation within the last 14 days prior to sailing?

 

If I could re-fill the room at the same price, then no penalty. If I had to discount the room in order to sell it, then I would just charge the difference. Not the whole cost of the cruise.

[cruiseco]

If I could re-fill the room at the same price, then no penalty. If I had to discount the room in order to sell it, then I would just charge the difference. Not the whole cost of the cruise.

 

I guess that could possibly work as long as everyone books a specific cabin. But back in my TA days probably a third or more of the cabins we booked were on a "guarantee" basis with no specific cabin assigned.

 

Imagine this scenario: Ten days before sailing the ship still has five "inside guarantee" cabins unsold. That day you cancel your "inside guarantee" booking so the total now available is six. The next day someone books an "inside guarantee" cabin. Who gets the money? The cruise line says the cabin came out of their existing inventory and the money's theirs. You say it was your cancelled booking/cabin that was sold so you should get a 100% refund. How many lawyers would it take to settle that dispute?

 

And from an insurance point of view it changes nothing. The insurers will still have to price their coverage under the assumption that the full fare will be lost. And the clients will still have to make their same decision based on the assumption they won't get anything back in the case of a late cancellation..

[cruiseco]

 

Imagine this scenario: Ten days before sailing the ship still has five "inside guarantee" cabins unsold. That day you cancel your "inside guarantee" booking so the total now available is six. The next day someone books an "inside guarantee" cabin. Who gets the money? The cruise line says the cabin came out of their existing inventory and the money's theirs. You say it was your cancelled booking/cabin that was sold so you should get a 100% refund. How many lawyers would it take to settle that dispute?

 

Here's another scenario: You cancel your assigned suite 30 days out. A couple of days before the sail date you check the cruise line's web site and discover that it's no longer available for booking. You're getting your money back, right? When that doesn't happen you call the cruise line and they tell you that since the suite was not re-sold they gave some other passengers a complimentary upgrade to fill it. Are you going to buy that? Or will the lawyers going to get into this too?

[mitsguy2001]

Then how about this: give everyone a full refund if they cancel. For most people, the cost of a cruise is a significant expense. Also, when someone cancels a cruise, it is very likely due to some other misfortune (losing a job, serious medical problem of themselves or a family member, a death in the family, etc). So someone is suffering whatever misfortune caused them to cancel, plus they are losing a vacation that they worked hard for and were looking forward to, and they also lose a lot of money (when they can least afford to lose it). Cruise lines are huge corporations, and losing a single fare is insignificant to them. That is what nobody seems to understand.

 

I wonder why it is that land hotels almost always give a full refund even if you cancel the day of your reservation, while cruises make it almost impossible to get a refund. What is so different about the two?

[klfrodo]

I wonder why it is that land hotels almost always give a full refund even if you cancel the day of your reservation, while cruises make it almost impossible to get a refund. What is so different about the two?

 

When they do/IF they do,,,, a land hotel is going to be in the same location 365 days a year at (what they hope) is 80 - 90 percent occupancy.

 

A cruiseship IS your hotel, however, the hotel sails around from port to port and is never in more than one place for a few of hours at (what they hope) is 100% occupancy.

 

I can pull up to almost any city and find a hotel room. I can't just walk up to a ship and say I want a cabin.

Your expectations are understandable, however, for cruiseing, they're unrealistic.

[cruiseco]

Then how about this: give everyone a full refund if they cancel. For most people, the cost of a cruise is a significant expense. Also, when someone cancels a cruise, it is very likely due to some other misfortune (losing a job, serious medical problem of themselves or a family member, a death in the family, etc). So someone is suffering whatever misfortune caused them to cancel, plus they are losing a vacation that they worked hard for and were looking forward to, and they also lose a lot of money (when they can least afford to lose it). Cruise lines are huge corporations, and losing a single fare is insignificant to them. That is what nobody seems to understand.

 

I wonder why it is that land hotels almost always give a full refund even if you cancel the day of your reservation, while cruises make it almost impossible to get a refund. What is so different about the two?

 

I'm almost ashamed to admit this but every year a group of us go to Vegas for the Super Bowl. For the 2012 game I'm holding 8 rooms at each of six different hotels to lock in some pretty good early booking rates. We're all getting together New Year's weekend (about 60 days before the game) at which time we'll all decide which hotel to stay at. Then I'll dump the other rooms back to the hotels with no penalty. Pretty sweet deal. Do you seriously think that if the cruise lines instituted the same "no cancellation penalty" policy this wouldn't be happening all the time? Of course it would. "Hey. let's book a Mexico cruise. We'll hold cabins on three different sailings then if the first one looks like the weather will be bad we'll cancel it at the last minute and do the second one. Still bad weather? Cancel it at the last minute and go the third week. Still bad weather? Cancel that one too". Apparently I have much more faith in people's ability to game the system than you do.

[mitsguy2001]

I'm almost ashamed to admit this but every year a group of us go to Vegas for the Super Bowl. For the 2012 game I'm holding 8 rooms at each of six different hotels to lock in some pretty good early booking rates. We're all getting together New Year's weekend (about 60 days before the game) at which time we'll all decide which hotel to stay at. Then I'll dump the other rooms back to the hotels with no penalty. Pretty sweet deal. Do you seriously think that if the cruise lines instituted the same "no cancellation penalty" policy this wouldn't be happening all the time? Of course it would. "Hey. let's book a Mexico cruise. We'll hold cabins on three different sailings then if the first one looks like the weather will be bad we'll cancel it at the last minute and do the second one. Still bad weather? Cancel it at the last minute and go the third week. Still bad weather? Cancel that one too". Apparently I have much more faith in people's ability to game the system than you do.

 

What is needed (and I am admitting I don't know what the ideal solution is) is some sort of compromise in order to keep people from gaming the system, while not punishing someone who legitimately suffered a misfortune and was forced to cancel their cruise. Like I said, I admit I don't know exactly what the ideal solution would be, and aparently nobody else does either.

[mitsguy2001]

What is needed (and I am admitting I don't know what the ideal solution is) is some sort of compromise in order to keep people from gaming the system, while not punishing someone who legitimately suffered a misfortune and was forced to cancel their cruise. Like I said, I admit I don't know exactly what the ideal solution would be, and aparently nobody else does either.

 

Actually, this is what I think the most fair policy would be: allow cancellation with a full refund for certain reasons, such as a serious illness of yourself or a family member, a death in the family, a layoff, or an employer refusing to allow you to go on the cruise. That would protect people who suffered a misfortune, while not allowing people to game the system because the weather is predicted to be bad. Although, on every cruise I've been on (I've only been on 3), they predicted bad weather, but I had beautiful weather on all 3 cruises, so I would never cancel based on predicted bad weather, even if it was a covered reason.

[6rugrats]

What is needed (and I am admitting I don't know what the ideal solution is) is some sort of compromise in order to keep people from gaming the system, while not punishing someone who legitimately suffered a misfortune and was forced to cancel their cruise.

 

The compromise is that people purchase insurance. Sounds as if you should perhaps consider a land vacation.

[mitsguy2001]

The compromise is that people purchase insurance. Sounds as if you should perhaps consider a land vacation.

 

But that is hardly a compromise, since the cancel for any reason insurance only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise, and it is expensive. Cruise lines are very misleading when they compare their costs to land vacation costs. Among other things, they do not take into account the cost of cancellation.

[sirwired]

But that is hardly a compromise, since the cancel for any reason insurance only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise, and it is expensive. Cruise lines are very misleading when they compare their costs to land vacation costs. Among other things, they do not take into account the cost of cancellation.

 

But insurance usually covers the reasons you listed at 100%! "allow cancellation with a full refund for certain reasons, such as a serious illness of yourself or a family member, a death in the family, a layoff, or an employer refusing to allow you to go on the cruise." And insurance for those reasons is far cheaper than an Any Reason policy.

 

The only one of those things that would be iffy is those rare "corner-cases" you came up with dealing with new employment with no vacation time. (I could see the potential of all sorts of abuse if this were an allowed reason; i.e. get a job at QuickieMart, get your new boss to say you have no vacation, cancel, claim, quit.)

 

And cruise lines are hardly alone with this policy; tour operators and many all-inclusive resorts also have strict advance cancellation policies. And without paying through the nose, airlines only provide a reduced credit.

 

In addition, many 1st-party policies DO provide a 100% credit (or, in some cases a 100% fare refund) for Any Reason for a not-unreasonable amount. That doesn't help your airfare, but it does cover the cruise fare.

[pbnjrockette]

We had to cancel a trip to China with Yangtze River cruise in 2010. We had the "cancel with no reason" insurance from TripMate. We got 100% of our money back due to my mother's illness. We were told we could use the "no reason" clause and get a full CREDIT for another trip and it would involve less paperwork--but we opted for the 100% refund (minus the insurance cost.)

[6rugrats]

But that is hardly a compromise, since the cancel for any reason insurance only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise, and it is expensive

I can get Cancel for Any Reason insurance for $37.50, for a $1000 trip, through Travelguard that covers 75% of the trip cost. This is hardly only a "fraction of the cost" and I don't consider it expensive. This cost/benefit varies by policies and states.

 

Cruise lines are very misleading when they compare their costs to land vacation costs. Among other things, they do not take into account the cost of cancellation.

Not really sure what you are talking about here. You can lose money on land vacations too.

 

It basically comes down to this, no matter how endless the debate; you either accept the cruise line or insurance company terms or you don't. If you can't accept them, don't book.

[mitsguy2001]

But insurance usually covers the reasons you listed at 100%! "allow cancellation with a full refund for certain reasons, such as a serious illness of yourself or a family member, a death in the family, a layoff, or an employer refusing to allow you to go on the cruise." And insurance for those reasons is far cheaper than an Any Reason policy.

 

The only one of those things that would be iffy is those rare "corner-cases" you came up with dealing with new employment with no vacation time.

 

But that is by far the most likely scenario that would cause us to cancel (my wife is unemployed and willing to accept just about any job), which makes the type of insurance you are talking about useless for us.

 

(I could see the potential of all sorts of abuse if this were an allowed reason; i.e. get a job at QuickieMart, get your new boss to say you have no vacation, cancel, claim, quit.)

 

But if someone is laid off from their job, and QuickieMart is the only place willing to hire them, then what are they supposed to do? If someone who is employed and had the vacation time approved quits their job in order to start a new job at QuickieMart, then they should not be covered. So, I see no potential for abuse.

 

And cruise lines are hardly alone with this policy; tour operators and many all-inclusive resorts also have strict advance cancellation policies. And without paying through the nose, airlines only provide a reduced credit.

 

I agree that the airlines are just as unfair as the cruise lines.

[6rugrats]

I agree that the airlines are just as unfair as the cruise lines.

Fair/unfair has absolutely nothing to do with it. Before you purchase airfare or a cruise ticket, you need to read the terms and conditions. You agree to those when you push the "purchase" button and they all clearly outline penalties for cancellation.

 

Travel providers are in the business to make money, not provide charity. If you want to protect yourself from potential loss, you book insurance that will cover as much as possible. Nothing in life is guaranteed, and you can't get coverage to protect you 100% for every eventuality.

 

If you can't accept the penalties, don't book.

[sirwired]

But that is by far the most likely scenario that would cause us to cancel (my wife is unemployed and willing to accept just about any job), which makes the type of insurance you are talking about useless for us.

 

Not covering your particular situation is a very long way from not being useful to most policy purchasers. If I were in your shoes, I would either A) put off booking the cruise B) Pay the extra for an Any Reason rider or C) Buy a 1st-party policy that will provide a 100% credit (or refund.) Just because the options are either a little unpleasant or cost a little more for you doesn't mean they aren't viable for most people or that the cruise industry is a bunch of greedy thieves out to get you. Compared with airlines or pre-paid hotel stays, the protection trip insurance provides your cruise vacation is CHEAP! Is it perfect? No. But you aren't really paying that much for the protection it provides, relative to the cost of buying that same protection via a fully refundable airfare or hotel stay.

 

But if someone is laid off from their job, and QuickieMart is the only place willing to hire them, then what are they supposed to do? If someone who is employed and had the vacation time approved quits their job in order to start a new job at QuickieMart, then they should not be covered. So, I see no potential for abuse.

 

If you are laid off and you've already booked, you should simply file your layoff claim right away and re-book if/when a new job allows you to do so. My abuse scenario covers somebody who takes a job at QuickieMart (without quitting their current job, if currently employed) with no intention of actually working for long, if at all: just collecting a "no vacation" letter, filing, then quitting.

 

Except for hotels and rental cars, not providing full refunds for cancellations is par for the course in the travel industry. (And hotels and rental cars are ALSO slowly moving towards significant upcharges for non-pre-paid service; most hotels now offer pre-paid, non-refundable, rooms for a significant discount and they are starting to slowly creep into rental cars also.)

[mitsguy2001]

No just pragmatic. You don't call someone a name because they explain something to you and then you don't like the answer.

 

You are right, I am sorry about that. I posted in frustration, and I realize I should not have.

 

Not covering your particular situation is a very long way from not being useful to most policy purchasers. If I were in your shoes, I would either A) put off booking the cruise B) Pay the extra for an Any Reason rider or C) Buy a 1st-party policy that will provide a 100% credit (or refund.)

 

What exactly is a 1st party policy? Are you talking about the insurance that you book through the cruise line? If so, Carnival's does not offer a cancel for any reason refund, unless they changed very recently. Or are you referring to something else?

 

Just because the options are either a little unpleasant or cost a little more for you doesn't mean they aren't viable for most people or that the cruise industry is a bunch of greedy thieves out to get you.

 

But I think it is greedy that they re-sell the cabin (as far as I'm concerned, if they sail full, they resold every cabin that was cancelled) and still refuse to give a refund.

 

Compared with airlines or pre-paid hotel stays, the protection trip insurance provides your cruise vacation is CHEAP!

 

But it only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise.

 

Is it perfect? No. But you aren't really paying that much for the protection it provides, relative to the cost of buying that same protection via a fully refundable airfare or hotel stay.

 

Most hotels allow a full refund even if you cancel the day of the reservation. I would never stay at a hotel that does not allow refunds.

 

If you are laid off and you've already booked, you should simply file your layoff claim right away and re-book if/when a new job allows you to do so.

 

But that does not help with my wife, who is unemployed, and willing to accept any job.

 

My abuse scenario covers somebody who takes a job at QuickieMart (without quitting their current job, if currently employed) with no intention of actually working for long, if at all: just collecting a "no vacation" letter, filing, then quitting.

 

But I have already said that scenario should not be covered, so it's not really relevant. I am saying that it should be covered only if you are unemployed at the time you book, or if you are laid off from the job that employed you at the time you booked, and you are hired at a new job that won't let you take the time off. I am not referring to where someone starts a second job or voluntarily quits their job and starts a new job. In that case, if you choose to work a second job or choose to leave your job to start a new one, then you are freely accepting both the good and the bad that comes with the new job. But if you are unemployed or laid off, then you aren't really making a free choice. Do you understand the difference?

 

Except for hotels and rental cars, not providing full refunds for cancellations is par for the course in the travel industry. (And hotels and rental cars are ALSO slowly moving towards significant upcharges for non-pre-paid service; most hotels now offer pre-paid, non-refundable, rooms for a significant discount and they are starting to slowly creep into rental cars also.)

 

Maybe another compromise solution would be to offer a service similar to Stub Hub, to allow someone who is unable to go on a cruise to sell it on the secondary market to someone else.

[sirwired]

What exactly is a 1st party policy? Are you talking about the insurance that you book through the cruise line? If so, Carnival's does not offer a cancel for any reason refund, unless they changed very recently. Or are you referring to something else?

 

Direct from the Carnival Vacation Protection homepage: "In addition, should you or your traveling companion need to cancel your cruise for "any other reason", you may be eligible for cruise credits up to 75% of the non-refundable, prepaid cruise vacation cost. Brought to you by Carnival Cruise Lines*."

 

No, it's not 100%, but it's also not bad, and part of the standard plan with no added rider needed. And covered reasons ARE 100% covered. (And there are many 1st-party policies (i.e. other lines) that DO offer 100%. (Princess and HAL are the first two that come to mind. HAL even offers the refund in cash!)

 

But I think it is greedy that they re-sell the cabin (as far as I'm concerned, if they sail full, they resold every cabin that was cancelled) and still refuse to give a refund.

 

Cabins sold at the last minute are often unloaded at steep discounts. How do they determine how much they sold "your" cabin for? Because of the way, upgrades, guarantees, etc. work, it's impossible to tell. This isn't an apartment lease here...

 

But it only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise.

 

For the umpteenth time, this only applies to Any Reason cancellations! (and only under some policies, at that) For most "not my fault" cancellations, you get 100% back, in cash! Yes, there are some situations where you don't, but they simply don't apply to most claims.

 

Most hotels allow a full refund even if you cancel the day of the reservation. I would never stay at a hotel that does not allow refunds.

 

This is changing. Most chain hotels will now offer you a pre-paid (non-refundable) rate in addition to your traditional bookings. The price premium is not as great as airlines (yet), but it does exist.

 

But that does not help with my wife, who is unemployed, and willing to accept any job.

 

Yes, and I laid out several options you could do instead. You can book a line that offers 100% back or pay for the rider (and accept a reduced refund.)

 

But I have already said that scenario should not be covered, so it's not really relevant. I am saying that it should be covered only if you are unemployed at the time you book, or if you are laid off from the job that employed you at the time you booked, and you are hired at a new job that won't let you take the time off. I am not referring to where someone starts a second job or voluntarily quits their job and starts a new job. In that case, if you choose to work a second job or choose to leave your job to start a new one, then you are freely accepting both the good and the bad that comes with the new job. But if you are unemployed or laid off, then you aren't really making a free choice. Do you understand the difference?

 

John Q. and Jane Q. Traveler want to cancel their cruise vacation because they simply don't want to go any more. Jane is currently retired and happily watching soap operas all day long. Because they don't have Any Reason coverage, they can't just cancel on a whim. However, Jane notices that their insurance provider has inexplicably decided to pay in full if they cancel because a new job won't grant vacation. Jane goes to local MinimumWageSlaveLaborGangLandMart and applies for a job. Because the pay stinks, the hours terrible, and it's in the middle of a war zone, they are always hiring. Jane gets her new boss to sign a piece of paper saying she has no vacation. They use this to file a claim. As soon as the claim gets signed and mailed, Jane quits, possibly before working a single shift.

 

Instead of trying to create a situation for yourself where you'll have to cancel (your wife could get a new job at any time), even if you could find appropriate insurance, wouldn't it be a better idea to simply book a more flexible vacation? A road trip perhaps?

 

Maybe another compromise solution would be to offer a service similar to Stub Hub, to allow someone who is unable to go on a cruise to sell it on the secondary market to someone else.

 

They don't do this for excellent reasons: Namely they don't want people scalping cruise bookings. (Nobody in the travel industry lets you do this; not car rentals, not hotels, not airlines, etc.)

 

 

Look, we can all tell you are frustrated that you cannot get the exact coverage you want. Life isn't perfect. That doesn't make cruises or trip insurance a bad deal, they just may not be the best choice for you at this time. (You'd have the same issues with an all-inclusive resort, just about any tour operator, many hotels, or any airline ticket.)

[mitsguy2001]

Direct from the Carnival Vacation Protection homepage: "In addition, should you or your traveling companion need to cancel your cruise for "any other reason", you may be eligible for cruise credits up to 75% of the non-refundable, prepaid cruise vacation cost. Brought to you by Carnival Cruise Lines*."

 

No, it's not 100%, but it's also not bad, and part of the standard plan with no added rider needed. And covered reasons ARE 100% covered. (And there are many 1st-party policies (i.e. other lines) that DO offer 100%. (Princess and HAL are the first two that come to mind. HAL even offers the refund in cash!)

 

It seems that the insurance that covers 90% is better than what Carnival offers, even though it's still not good.

 

Cabins sold at the last minute are often unloaded at steep discounts.

 

Then they should at least refund the difference. Plus, keep in mind that they make a lot of money off of shore excursions and drinks, which will not be discounted.

 

How do they determine how much they sold "your" cabin for? Because of the way, upgrades, guarantees, etc. work, it's impossible to tell. This isn't an apartment lease here...

 

By how much they sold the cabin that you were intended to occupy.

 

For the umpteenth time, this only applies to Any Reason cancellations! (and only under some policies, at that)

 

But there does not seem to be any insurance that covers the most likely reason that will cause me to cancel, other than the "any reason" insurance.

 

For most "not my fault" cancellations, you get 100% back, in cash! Yes, there are some situations where you don't, but they simply don't apply to most claims.

 

But the situation I'm in is not my fault either.

 

This is changing. Most chain hotels will now offer you a pre-paid (non-refundable) rate in addition to your traditional bookings. The price premium is not as great as airlines (yet), but it does exist.

 

I have never seen that, and would never book such a hotel, when there are plenty of other options available.

 

Yes, and I laid out several options you could do instead. You can book a line that offers 100% back or pay for the rider (and accept a reduced refund.)

 

Ok

 

John Q. and Jane Q. Traveler want to cancel their cruise vacation because they simply don't want to go any more. Jane is currently retired and happily watching soap operas all day long. Because they don't have Any Reason coverage, they can't just cancel on a whim. However, Jane notices that their insurance provider has inexplicably decided to pay in full if they cancel because a new job won't grant vacation. Jane goes to local MinimumWageSlaveLaborGangLandMart and applies for a job. Because the pay stinks, the hours terrible, and it's in the middle of a war zone, they are always hiring. Jane gets her new boss to sign a piece of paper saying she has no vacation. They use this to file a claim. As soon as the claim gets signed and mailed, Jane quits, possibly before working a single shift.

 

First of all, the coverage should not apply to retired people, only to people involuntarily unemployed. Secondly, maybe there should be a requirement that you have to work for that employer (or be laid off due to lack of work, not due to incompetence or misconduit) for at least a year in order to get the refund. Yes, it might mean waiting for the refund, but it's better than nothing.

 

You keep coming up with ways to game the system. And I keep coming up with solutions to stop people from gaming the system without punishing honest people.

 

This is starting to remind me of when I was in high school or college, and teachers or professors would not allow makeup exams, and would give you a 0 for any exam that you missed, even for serious reasons such as a serious illness, a death in the family, required attendance in court, etc. I'm talking about exams that were woth a very significant portion of your final grade, where it's basically impossible to pass the class if you have a 0. Their argument was that if they allowed makeups, students would intentionally be absent and get the answers from another student. Or even if the teacher created an alternate version of the exam, they argue that students would be intentionally absent in order to buy themselves more studying time. Unfortunately, this policy would severely punish honest students who, through no fault of their own (serious illness, attending a funeral, required to appear in court, etc) were unable to take the exam.

 

It always really bothered me that these teachers would never come up with a solution that would stop students from gaming the system, while not punishing so severely students who legitimately could not take the exam.

 

Instead of trying to create a situation for yourself where you'll have to cancel (your wife could get a new job at any time), even if you could find appropriate insurance, wouldn't it be a better idea to simply book a more flexible vacation? A road trip perhaps?

 

Maybe, although we do really want to do this cruise. My wife wants to have children soon (we're in our 30s), so this is probably one of our last chances to be able to take a vacation entirely on our terms.

 

They don't do this for excellent reasons: Namely they don't want people scalping cruise bookings. (Nobody in the travel industry lets you do this; not car rentals, not hotels, not airlines, etc.)

 

They should have a rule that you can only sell the cruise for the same or less than what you paid.

 

Look, we can all tell you are frustrated that you cannot get the exact coverage you want. Life isn't perfect. That doesn't make cruises or trip insurance a bad deal, they just may not be the best choice for you at this time. (You'd have the same issues with an all-inclusive resort, just about any tour operator, many hotels, or any airline ticket.)

 

I agree, but this forum is about cruises, which is why I'm only discussing cruises here.

[cruiseco]

I think there's a couple of things we can all agree on:

 

1) there is a cost to the cruise line for mitsguy's proposal. Let's say that for every cabin cancelled at the last minute and not resold they lose $2000 -- 2X $800 plus maybe $200 p/p in onboard revenue. Plus the lost revenue for never ever again selling their insurance program. This is just an estimate but probably close to average for a seven-night cruise.

 

2) The cruise line is not going to absorb that loss. They will spread it around to every booking just like they do for any other cost of doing business. How much this would be depends on how many of these cancellations actually occur over the course of a year, of which I have no information. But let's say they slap a $5 increase on everyone's fare to make up their costs.

 

So the question becomes why should those who do do not purchase insurance for their cruises and see no need for the coverage think that this is more "fair" than the current system? If fairness is the issue should they be forced to subsidize mitsguy's reluctance to buy a cancel for any reason policy. I vote no. I do not feel that I should be forced to spend $10 (2X $5) to save him a few bucks.

[cruiseco]

One other problem. If the cruise line refunds 100% of a client's money for a late cancellation it has to decide what to do with the commission paid to the travel agent. Does it go ahead and let the TA keep the commission (let's say that's an additional $100 in this scenario) or does it recall the commission from the TA and absolutely infuriate the whole TA community? That's on top of the fact that they're losing commissions on all of the insurance policies they're not going to sell.

 

What cruise exec is going to be brave enough to be the first to adopt that kind of policy and risk the kind of TA boycott that pretty much sank Renaissance Cruises?

[mitsguy2001]

I think there's a couple of things we can all agree on:

 

1) there is a cost to the cruise line for mitsguy's proposal. Let's say that for every cabin cancelled at the last minute and not resold they lose $2000 -- 2X $800 plus maybe $200 p/p in onboard revenue. Plus the lost revenue for never ever again selling their insurance program. This is just an estimate but probably close to average for a seven-night cruise.

 

2) The cruise line is not going to absorb that loss. They will spread it around to every booking just like they do for any other cost of doing business. How much this would be depends on how many of these cancellations actually occur over the course of a year, of which I have no information. But let's say they slap a $5 increase on everyone's fare to make up their costs.

 

$5 is an insignificant amount and I would gladly pay it in exchange for being able to cancel and getting a refund.

 

So the question becomes why should those who do do not purchase insurance for their cruises and see no need for the coverage think that this is more "fair" than the current system? If fairness is the issue should they be forced to subsidize mitsguy's reluctance to buy a cancel for any reason policy. I vote no. I do not feel that I should be forced to spend $10 (2X $5) to save him a few bucks.

 

The issue with the cancel for any reason insurance is that it only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise. I would be losing far more than the $5 that you proposed.

[cruiseco]

$5 is an insignificant amount and I would gladly pay it in exchange for being able to cancel and getting a refund.

 

The issue with the cancel for any reason insurance is that it only covers a fraction of the cost of the cruise. I would be losing far more than the $5 that you proposed.

 

My point is that with the system you propose, you lose NOTHING and each of the other 2,000 passenger on that ship loses some ($2, $5, whatever) by having to pay a higher fare to cover the cruise line's loss created by your late, uninsured cancellation.

 

Yes, if you have to buy a cancel for any reason policy and have to cancel for a non-covered reason you will have a loss. But it will be YOUR loss. Not mine. And I'd like to keep it that way.

[mitsguy2001]

My point is that with the system you propose, you lose NOTHING and each of the other 2,000 passenger on that ship loses some ($2, $5, whatever) by having to pay a higher fare to cover the cruise line's loss created by your late, uninsured cancellation.

 

Yes, if you have to buy a cancel for any reason policy and have to cancel for a non-covered reason you will have a loss. But it will be YOUR loss. Not mine. And I'd like to keep it that way.

 

But, at least in my opinion (and I realize not everyone agrees), I'd rather everyone suffer a small, insignificant loss, rather than one person suffering a large loss.

[mitsguy2001]

I think people that need to cancel should refuse to cancel, out of spite, and just not show up to their cruise. If I need to cancel, why should the cruise line be able to re-sell my cabin and make even more money, while I get no money back at all? If enough people do this, then the cruise lines would be forced to re-think their policy. They would need to offer some compensation for cancelling (even if not a full 100% refund) so that people would cancel, rather than refuse to show up out of spite. People who cancel cruises and get no refund are doormats and are enablers who are enabling the cruise lines to continue their unjust policies.