Boarding denied? Why?

[loveandcruises]

My husband was denied boarding on the Grand Princess in 2003, and our whole group of 6 had to take a plane home from Fort Lauderdale to NY. My husband had had a bad pastrami sandwich the night before and vomited in a trash can just as we were checking in. The ship's doctor came down to the pier and said with all the norovirus, he could not take any chances. The purser arranged to have our luggage taken off the ship and sent us home. My kids were small at the time, and they did get free kids' club backpacks.

 

Now when we sign the paper about not being sick prior to boarding, we always check we were not sick (and fortunately, we have not lied about it).

 

Has anyone lied?

[okgirl]

My friend was denied boarding last year in Galveston because he realized at the pier that he had lost his passport and didn't have any way to get his birthcertificate faxed to the pier.

[Aquahound]

Hiding "smoking" materials in empty/fake bottom shaving cream cans.

 

But it was for totally legal stuff....

 

Negative. I know the other side of the story. But even if the substance actually was legal, hiding it in a fake can and then hiding the can in a dive bag shows intent of deception. Not a good move for international travel. ;)

[sparks1093]

One could be denied boarding for being banned by the cruise line (actually they probably wouldn't even be able to book).

[paul929207]

One could be denied boarding for being banned by the cruise line (actually they probably wouldn't even be able to book).

There were a number of posts recently about a couple that sued Princess because they were banned.

[FTLcruisers]

One could be denied boarding for being banned by the cruise line (actually they probably wouldn't even be able to book).

 

they can book - but it gets caught at checkin. My husband used to work for cruise line and had to deal with this situation. Dad and daughter from 1st marriage were banned for life - showed up at port with wife and children from 2nd marriage. Dad and daughter went home - others went on cruise.

[TVanTuyl]

what would someone have to do to be banned "for life"??

[Aquahound]

what would someone have to do to be banned "for life"??

 

Excessive complaining and always demanding reimbursment over questionable complaints is a good start. It happened to a CC member a few years ago.

[spookwife]

The woman with someone else's green card didn't have one. The bridegroom said when they told the TA the bride didn't have a BC because she wasn't born in the US, the TA told them she had to have a green card. He was livid because the TA didn't say it had to be hers. He also said she had no way to get one and Princess was ruining their honeymoon. At that point the clerk called somebody over and they led them off somewhere. The groom had a passport and was obviously a generic American. She spoke very little English. I never saw them again.

 

 

 

holee crap. so much for common sense not being weeded out of the gene pool......

 

oh. wait. This is the country that took a law suit to mandate 'caution hot liquid' be placed on every styrofoam cup of coffee sold at mc Donald's. never mind. ( and yes i am well aware of the fact that the coffee spilled in that woman's lap was far too hot than it should have been as per Mickey D' protocol)

[spookwife]

what would someone have to do to be banned "for life"??

 

the article I most recently saw( I think it was that Princess customer mentioned earlier in fact) was due to a huge lawsuit the customer filed for an art auction piece they bought. i could't follow all the twists but really at some point a company has to tell a customer it isn't worth their patronage.

 

I used to work for JCP.. and we had several people we banned due to their penchant for buying and returning stuff on a weekly basis. usually buy on sale or clearance then come back conveniently without the receipt and then demand full price in cash.. then the company got wise and started saying..sorry no receipt, no cash or credit.. only GC.

 

too many legitimate customers complained so it was scrapped in under a year.

 

after a while the sales associates were told point blank to NOT sell anything to them.. we had pictures and names at the registers. One just changed their antics and started going to the other anchor Dept store in the mall. she did't realize that we all talk to each other.. and she was booted from there in like a month.

[NoobCruise]

holee crap. so much for common sense not being weeded out of the gene pool......

 

oh. wait. This is the country that took a law suit to mandate 'caution hot liquid' be placed on every styrofoam cup of coffee sold at mc Donald's. never mind. ( and yes i am well aware of the fact that the coffee spilled in that woman's lap was far too hot than it should have been as per Mickey D' protocol)

 

She was burned so badly it went to the bone. She had to have several surgeries with skin grafts and extended hospital stays. I've seen photos of her injuries. It was not a minor "owie" and it was not a frivolous lawsuit. I personally am totally against the sue-happy attitude in our society, but I think this one was needed. There were over 700 people with similar injuries requiring surgery and hospitalization caused by McDonalds coffee spills, so McDonalds *KNEW* the temperature was too hot, but refused to do anything about it. The only thing Corporations like that understand is profits. The jury awarded the huge payout in an attempt to force McDonalds to turn the temperature down and of course to punish them for their absolute negligence.

 

ok sorry for rant. This particular *frivolous lawsuit* is a pet peeve of mine.

[arhillbilly]

I know someone that should be banned. He thinks nothing of "brow beating" the crew and other passengers. (even assaulted both crew and passengers and nothing was done) Has happened more than once. He gets away with it because he books "the Haven" and pays BIG bucks for it....people like him & his wife makes me sick

[TVanTuyl]

about the McDonalds coffee case, I don't think people got worked up about the actual injuries, it was the 3 million in punitive damages (that were later reduced at appeal to something like $600,000) that got people up in arms. Her actual medical bills were around $12,000, so the burns were not as severe as "to the bone" would imply ... YES McDonalds should have paid the woman, they were clearly in the wrong, they were insulting with their original offer to settle, but $3 million? Hardly. I work for an insurance company and we just took some classes on punitive damages which is why this is fresh in my mind. Pay the medical bills, expenses, lost income etc and a "reasonable" settlement, (and FIX THE PROBLEM WITH THE PRODUCT!) and the problem goes away. Companies who get on their high horses and refuse to pay? You piss off the injured person and they get greedy.

[nanwel]

We were on a Disney cruise with a family that were allowed to board, but not allowed to get off the ship at any of the ports - thought that was strange. They could not even get off at the cruise ship private island (guess becuase it is not really all their island).

[sparks1093]

what would someone have to do to be banned "for life"??

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24711659/ns/travel-cruise_travel/t/complaining-couple-banned-cruise-line/

 

Doubt it's the whole story.

[Aquahound]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24711659/ns/travel-cruise_travel/t/complaining-couple-banned-cruise-line/

 

Doubt it's the whole story.

 

Oh, no. That's not even close to being the whole story. I remember her on these boards. She was waaaaay over the top with her complaints and her posting of false information.

[paul929207]

If things were as bad as Brenda claimed, why did she keep going back to RCI?

[ducklite]

She was burned so badly it went to the bone. She had to have several surgeries with skin grafts and extended hospital stays. I've seen photos of her injuries. It was not a minor "owie" and it was not a frivolous lawsuit. I personally am totally against the sue-happy attitude in our society, but I think this one was needed. There were over 700 people with similar injuries requiring surgery and hospitalization caused by McDonalds coffee spills, so McDonalds *KNEW* the temperature was too hot, but refused to do anything about it. The only thing Corporations like that understand is profits. The jury awarded the huge payout in an attempt to force McDonalds to turn the temperature down and of course to punish them for their absolute negligence.

 

ok sorry for rant. This particular *frivolous lawsuit* is a pet peeve of mine.

 

And the rest of the story is that she was originally asking for a small fraction of the end award to cover her medical bills. What she wanted was a very reasonable amount, given the extent of her injuries. McDonald's (and their insurance carrier) rolled the dice and lost in a big way, not only with the payout and defense costs, but also with the bad PR that came their way.

[ducklite]

about the McDonalds coffee case, I don't think people got worked up about the actual injuries, it was the 3 million in punitive damages (that were later reduced at appeal to something like $600,000) that got people up in arms. Her actual medical bills were around $12,000, so the burns were not as severe as "to the bone" would imply ... YES McDonalds should have paid the woman, they were clearly in the wrong, they were insulting with their original offer to settle, but $3 million? Hardly. I work for an insurance company and we just took some classes on punitive damages which is why this is fresh in my mind. Pay the medical bills, expenses, lost income etc and a "reasonable" settlement, (and FIX THE PROBLEM WITH THE PRODUCT!) and the problem goes away. Companies who get on their high horses and refuse to pay? You piss off the injured person and they get greedy.

 

If I recall she wasn't asking for that much in punitive damages--that's what the jury decided to award. McDonald's was stupid for not paying what she was originally asking, which was only to be made whole.

[kitty9]

There was a couple ahead of us in line, in the port of San Diego, and they forgot their passports, and they live in San Francisco. They were denied boarding.

 

Another time, we were cruising to China and an elderly couple behind us in line, didn't realize they needed visas for China. They said they would stay on board the ship in China, but they were told that once the ship entered the territorial waters of any country, they are considered "in" that country, therefore they needed the visa whether they got off the ship or not. They were denied boarding.

 

Once we saw a huge brouhaha going on in the terminal. Lots of police and even Feds. A family was trying to board the ship, and the father had multiple warrants for his arrest. They carted him away and the rest of the family were not allowed to board.

[ducklite]

Once we saw a huge brouhaha going on in the terminal. Lots of police and even Feds. A family was trying to board the ship, and the father had multiple warrants for his arrest. They carted him away and the rest of the family were not allowed to board.

 

That seems odd that the rest of the family wasn't allowed to board. They did nothing wrong.

[kitty9]

That seems odd that the rest of the family wasn't allowed to board. They did nothing wrong.

 

Oh, I totally agree. It didn't make sense for the rest of the family. Perhaps the family decided not to board without dad. But I guess that this whole "criminal record" thing happens a bit, especially for those who cruise to Canada. They seem to have a lot of rules against anyone coming in who have a past criminal record.

 

Also, cruise lines refuse boarding to pregnant women who are past a certain number of weeks in their pregnancy. For most lines, it's 24 weeks.

 

And, if people are cruising with minors who are not their own, and they don't have the proper documents such as the signed, notarized letter from both parents, that child can be denied boarding. This also goes for one parent who cruises without the other parent.....if the cruising parent doesn't have the letter from the parent staying at home, they can be denied boarding. This is to prevent a parent from taking a child out of the country, who might be involved in a custody dispute.

[spookwife]

She was burned so badly it went to the bone. She had to have several surgeries with skin grafts and extended hospital stays. I've seen photos of her injuries. It was not a minor "owie" and it was not a frivolous lawsuit. I personally am totally against the sue-happy attitude in our society, but I think this one was needed. There were over 700 people with similar injuries requiring surgery and hospitalization caused by McDonalds coffee spills, so McDonalds *KNEW* the temperature was too hot, but refused to do anything about it. The only thing Corporations like that understand is profits. The jury awarded the huge payout in an attempt to force McDonalds to turn the temperature down and of course to punish them for their absolute negligence.

 

ok sorry for rant. This particular *frivolous lawsuit* is a pet peeve of mine.

 

 

I was working for Ronald in the days of that lawsuit. trust me, every franchise was directed to manually check temps and make adjustments. yes, my store was above recommended temp, but not excessively so( not as high as what that woman experienced) and yes we adjusted down. what I dislike about that lawsuit is that it pasted a blanket label on public businesses and paved the way for people to stop taking responsibility for their own actions and take reasonable precautions

 

it goes both ways. consumer and vendor need to each be proactive

[YubaSutter]

... threatening to wear shorts in the main dining room...

 

Allowed on Carnival.

[sparks1093]

If things were as bad as Brenda claimed, why did she keep going back to RCI?

 

Reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode where a manufacturer of baked beans had a double your money back guarentee if you didn't absolutely love the beans. She ended up being stuck with a warehouse full of beans as I recall because she pushed her luck just a little too far also:).