Eurodam - Bumped by Charter

[ETinCA]

Look at maltshopcruise dot com and this is the private charter group. Looks like fun. Sorry you got bumped.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[whogo]

"If a Cruise, Land + Sea Journey or Land Trip is cancelled before commencement, you will be entitled, as your exclusive remedy, to receive the applicable Refund Amount." So saith the Holland America cruise contract.

[Globaliser]

When HAL is actively selling cabins to the general public on cruises that have been chartered HAL knows it is offering a contract it will not honor.

We can't be sure about that without seeing the charterparty (contract), and HAL may not be sure about that either. For example, the charterer might still have the right to cancel.

 

This is no different in principle from HAL selling 100 X grade cabins to the public when there are only 50 of them on the ship, or selling 1100 cabins in total to the public when the ship only has 1000 cabins. People sometimes get bumped then, too. The charter issue is particularly visible because taking the whole ship is an all-or-nothing step. But if the charterer didn't charter the whole ship, instead booking all 1000 cabins on the ship, you can bet that HAL would continue selling cabins to the public beyond that figure.

 

The contract also includes this:-

... [Holland America Line] shall ... be entitled at any time prior to departure to cancel the Contract or to change and/or curtail the Package where this reasonably becomes necessary on operational, commercial or other grounds.

Note the bolded word.

[agabbymama]

If you really truly read the 'CONTRACT", it allows the cruiseline to do just about anything it wants to do, and as a passenger, you accept it or you don't cruise. JMHO

[RocketMan275]

We can't be sure about that without seeing the charterparty (contract), and HAL may not be sure about that either. For example, the charterer might still have the right to cancel.

 

This is no different in principle from HAL selling 100 X grade cabins to the public when there are only 50 of them on the ship, or selling 1100 cabins in total to the public when the ship only has 1000 cabins. People sometimes get bumped then, too. The charter issue is particularly visible because taking the whole ship is an all-or-nothing step. But if the charterer didn't charter the whole ship, instead booking all 1000 cabins on the ship, you can bet that HAL would continue selling cabins to the public beyond that figure.

 

The contract also includes this:-Note the bolded word.

 

I've read the contract. I'm not disputing HAL legal right to cancel for pretty much any reason. I am disputing HAL right to advertise a product it knows it cannot provide. HAL should advise potential customers of specific cruises that HAL has entered into a potential charter with a third party that could affect that cruise. I'm sure HAL lawyers would disagree.

[shearwood]

just got $170 obc due to price drop , woop woop , will keep watching

[Globaliser]

... to advertise a product it knows it cannot provide. ... entered into a potential charter with a third party ...

The bolded bits in this post are mutually inconsistent. And that seems to me to be at the heart of the problem. At least in the early part of the cycle of one of these charter cruises, it may well be only "potential". What is HAL to do then? It can't "know" at that time that it "cannot" provide the cruise.

[RocketMan275]

The bolded bits in this post are mutually inconsistent. And that seems to me to be at the heart of the problem. At least in the early part of the cycle of one of these charter cruises, it may well be only "potential". What is HAL to do then? It can't "know" at that time that it "cannot" provide the cruise.

 

I'm typing one handed due to tendon surgery so I am minimizing words. I apologize for not including 'simultaneously'. Once a charter contract has been signed, a cruise line should cease marketing that date to the public.

 

Do you know of another line that continues to market a cruise to the public once a charter contract has been signed?

[Globaliser]

I'm typing one handed due to tendon surgery so I am minimizing words. I apologize for not including 'simultaneously'. Once a charter contract has been signed, a cruise line should cease marketing that date to the public.

Sorry about the surgery - I hope you're fully mended quickly.

 

I don't think that adding "simultaneously" anywhere in your post addresses the problem. You can't expect HAL to be warning people not to book a cruise when there's only a potential for that ship to go out on charter. And that could be the status of a potential charter even after a contract has been signed. The contract may not yet be definitive or binding. Or it may be conditional. Or there may be wide cancellation provisions. All of these things could make the charter quite provisional and uncertain, even after a contract has been signed. And the wider public couldn't know whether a contract has or has not been signed at any particular moment, let alone what its terms are.

 

And while the charter remains a potential charter, HAL cannot know that it cannot provide the cruise to those who are booking separately.

Do you know of another line that continues to market a cruise to the public once a charter contract has been signed?

Neither in relation to HAL nor in relation to other cruise lines can we know when a charter contract has been signed, or whether and to what extent it's binding, or whether it might be conditional or cancellable. So this is a question that isn't capable of being answered by outsiders.

 

What I can tell you from personal experience is that NCL was selling a cruise that I was interested in (and nearly booked on) while Olivia was also selling the same cruise as a full charter. That's the same practice as is being complained about here. If other circumstances hadn't intervened and put me onto a different cruise that week, I would have been bumped.

 

And it's a practice that's often commercially necessary, because in many cases the charterer can't get a feel for whether the proposed charter will be viable until it's been out there taking bookings to gauge the level of support there will be for the venture. If it turns out not to be viable, the prospective charterer will cancel the plans and the bookings of those who had already booked. Otherwise the charterer is in a Catch-22 situation. So if the cruise line says you can't begin to market the cruise until you've signed an irrevocable and binding contract to take the full ship charter, many charterers simply won't be able to proceed with their ventures.

 

But throughout this period the cruise line will understandably want to continue taking direct bookings. So sometimes there have to be situations in which the charterer is marketing a full ship charter to test the market, while the cruise line continues to sell directly. Obviously, something has to give - but sometimes it's the charterer who cancels.

 

The complaints from people who've been bumped are real and legitimate. Coming from the European side of the Atlantic, I don't have the same horror of government regulation that Hlitner may have. I'm sure that something ought to be done. I've got a few ideas myself. But trying to find a remedy in contract law is likely to be akin to banging your head on a brick wall.

[Windsailer]

I don't think the contract law issue is terribly clear cut in favor of HAL, since we, as passengers, don't "agree" to the terms of the Cruise Contract until we do online check-in.

 

However, what is clear cut to me is when HAL continues to sell a cruise (Jan 11, 2015 Eurodam) that is a full charter, and is, according to the Smooth Jazz website, already sold out, HAL is committing a "deceptive act or practice" in violation the the State of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, Ch 19.86 RCW.

[RocketMan275]

"And while the charter remains a potential charter, HAL cannot know that it cannot provide the cruise to those who are booking separately."

 

By that logic, HAL could justify selling the same cabin to multiple customers. After all, who knows who will cancel their reservation.

 

"But throughout this period the cruise line will understandably want to continue taking direct bookings. So sometimes there have to be situations in which the charterer is marketing a full ship charter to test the market, while the cruise line continues to sell directly. Obviously, something has to give - but sometimes it's the charterer who cancels."

 

You've just described a process where the chartering party and the cruise line will take care of themselves leaving the private individual holding the bag.

 

"The complaints from people who've been bumped are real and legitimate. Coming from the European side of the Atlantic, I don't have the same horror of government regulation that Hlitner may have. I'm sure that something ought to be done. I've got a few ideas myself. But trying to find a remedy in contract law is likely to be akin to banging your head on a brick wall."

 

I'm not looking for a law. I'm looking for a cruise line that treats its customers in an ethical, transparent, and honest manner. As it is said, there are some things that are legal that still should not be done.

 

What are your ideas?

 

And, thanks. Complete recovery expected. Cast comes off Friday.

[Boytjie]

Do you know of another line that continues to market a cruise to the public once a charter contract has been signed?

 

There was a thread on the MSC boards about them still selling the Divina even though RSVP chartered it.

[Globaliser]

And while the charter remains a potential charter, HAL cannot know that it cannot provide the cruise to those who are booking separately.

By that logic, HAL could justify selling the same cabin to multiple customers. After all, who knows who will cancel their reservation.

That is exactly what HAL does. It overbooks, and it moves passengers from cabin to cabin without their agreement (so choosing a specific cabin is never a guarantee that you will get it). And some people get bumped off the cruise entirely when the overbooking doesn't resolve itself by departure.

 

All of this is simply less visible because it's done on an individual basis and by playing a sophisticated numbers game, so you only see the occasional bursts of noise when someone gets made a very good offer to change cruises, or someone complains that they've been moved without their agreement, or someone gets bumped off the cruise entirely. And some of it is going on in a way which doesn't produce complaints - the upgrade fairy comes calling, for example. But none of that should disguise what HAL is doing, namely selling more cabins than physically exist on the ship, because some passengers will cancel their reservations. In principle, that's no different from HAL believing that it may (or may not) have sold the entire ship to customer A (the charterer) but also selling individual cabins to individual customers B, C and D and so on.

But throughout this period the cruise line will understandably want to continue taking direct bookings. So sometimes there have to be situations in which the charterer is marketing a full ship charter to test the market, while the cruise line continues to sell directly. Obviously, something has to give - but sometimes it's the charterer who cancels.

You've just described a process where the chartering party and the cruise line will take care of themselves leaving the private individual holding the bag.

This is why something ought to be done.

The complaints from people who've been bumped are real and legitimate. Coming from the European side of the Atlantic, I don't have the same horror of government regulation that Hlitner may have. I'm sure that something ought to be done. I've got a few ideas myself. But trying to find a remedy in contract law is likely to be akin to banging your head on a brick wall.

I'm not looking for a law. I'm looking for a cruise line that treats its customers in an ethical, transparent, and honest manner. As it is said, there are some things that are legal that still should not be done.

 

What are your ideas?

It will either need effective regulatory action, or a law. I can't see any other obvious way of doing it. Contract law and other legal remedies are too uncertain to be effective - that is, it is too uncertain whether they would produce any effective ruling that would make the cruise lines behave better. How you design it would need discussion, but personally, I'd think I'd like to see something along the lines of a minimum protection guarantee from the time that you book (refund of money plus reimbursement of irrecoverable costs), plus a deadline (to protect people who've made time commitments/arrangements that they cannot undo).