14 year old daughter denied boarding due to fever.

[Ourusualbeach]

Strongly disagree. RCI is doing what it needs to to protect its ship and other guests. If RCI feel a passenger is not well enough or not fit to travel they have every right to deny boarding. It is unfortunate that it ruined a family holiday but those that DO pay their ticket price AND buy insurance should NOT be subsidizing those who did not.

 

Life happens, and that's not RCI's fault or issue. That is why you take proper insurance coverage to make sure you can be made whole on any financial losses incurred.

 

I too applaud OP for being honest, but being honest and not having insurance does not, and should not, equal the same benefits as having insurance. Otherwise for what purpose am I buying insurance if I can get the same benefits without paying?

 

Like I said its a fine line as to what constitutes a reason to deny boarding. Unless RCI publishes an extremely detailed description of what boarding will be denied for then I think the current system is working just fine.

 

Insurance would cover major events like being hospitalized prior to trip. Those that do not buy it would not be covered.

 

What is considered a high fever and how is it decided what that fever is related to. I think that the ships doctor that examines the patients who answers yes to any of the questions will rightfully err on the side of caution and deny boarding. In this case I still think that having the cruise fare refunded by RCI is the right thing to do.

[LMaxwell]

So that maybe just maybe some idiot won't get on the boat with a bola even though they know they're sick!

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forums mobile app

 

If RCI doctor denies someone boarding either

 

A: They have insurance and are reimbursed

B: Do not have insurance and are not reimbursed

 

It's really that simple. RCI shouldn't be giving away free cruises or refunds to people who do not make the correct choices to protect themselves. Yes, I agree it would be nice, but that's not an acceptable reason to do it. Lots of things in life would be nice, but that alone is not valid reasoning for them to be done.

 

Giving away for free what people purchase insurance to protect against undermines the very reason to purchase insurance at all.

[Jana60]

If RCI doctor denies someone boarding either

 

A: They have insurance and are reimbursed

B: Do not have insurance and are not reimbursed

 

It's really that simple. RCI shouldn't be giving away free cruises or refunds to people who do not make the correct choices to protect themselves. Yes, I agree it would be nice, but that's not an acceptable reason to do it. Lots of things in life would be nice, but that alone is not valid reasoning for them to be done.

 

Giving away for free what people purchase insurance to protect against undermines the very reason to purchase insurance at all.

 

I disagree because once a person has made the decision not to purchase insurance their choice is at that point to lie and go on the ship even if they're sick or to be honest and potentially be excluded from the cruise. I would want them to be encouraged to make the right choice given those two choices. Wouldn't you???? I don't believe anybody makes the choice to purchase or not to purchase insurance based on thinking they're going to get sick on the way to a cruise. I personally make that choice due to fear of losing my luggage or of something happening as significantly amp of time before the cruise. Never would it occur to me that I would be barred from boarding. Of course since I'm a physician I assume I'm a little more savvy about whether I have any conditions that would cause me to be barred from boarding but most people would have the same thought.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forums mobile app

[LMaxwell]

I disagree because once a person has made the decision not to purchase insurance their choice is at that point to lie and go on the ship even if they're sick or to be honest and potentially be excluded from the cruise.

 

Same choice if you have insurance, no? Either lie and try to get on or be honest and potentially be excluded.

 

I would want them to be encouraged to make the right choice given those two choices. Wouldn't you????

 

Sure

 

I don't believe anybody makes the choice to purchase or not to purchase insurance based on thinking they're going to get sick on the way to a cruise. I personally make that choice due to fear of losing my luggage or of something happening as significantly amp of time before the cruise. Never would it occur to me that I would be barred from boarding.

 

Well, I happen to think your belief is wrong. Lots of people likely purchase insurance in case they get sick and can't make the trip. Or in case they have a medical emergency while onboard and require out of country care. Luggage coverage is of course a key selling feature for insurance but I don't think many people take insurance for luggage as their prime decision factor like you might.

 

It's insurance. The only thing anyone really can insure for is to be remunerated in event of financial loss. Insurance can't stop you from being sick. Insurance can't stop your plane from being delayed. Insurance can't make your luggage show up. Insurance can't obviate the need for a Medical Evacuation. Insurance only is to make sure you are made financially whole in case of unforeseen events. So in the unforeseen circumstance where a dependent family member is ill and requires your care you skip the cruise and either

 

A: If you have insurance you get remunerated

or

B: You don't have insurance and suffer the financial loss

 

It's really that simple. I'm not saying people deserve bad things to happen to them. I am saying that people are responsible for the choices they make and have to live with the outcome of their choices. In the case of cruising it's almost impossible to book without being offered insurance, so it would be pretty difficult to be totally ignorant of its existence. It is a choice one makes to buy or not based on the amount of risk they want to take.

 

You tell me; why should I continue to buy travel insurance if I could just count on the cruise line giving me a good will refund instead? Should I also count on them to pay if my luggage is lost? Should I count on the cruise line to do the "nice thing" and pay for a medical evacuation flight if that is what I needed?

[Grandma Dazzles]

Same choice if you have insurance, no? Either lie and try to get on or be honest and potentially be excluded.

 

 

 

Sure

 

 

 

Well, I happen to think your belief is wrong. Lots of people likely purchase insurance in case they get sick and can't make the trip. Or in case they have a medical emergency while onboard and require out of country care. Luggage coverage is of course a key selling feature for insurance but I don't think many people take insurance for luggage as their prime decision factor like you might.

 

It's insurance. The only thing anyone really can insure for is to be remunerated in event of financial loss. Insurance can't stop you from being sick. Insurance can't stop your plane from being delayed. Insurance can't make your luggage show up. Insurance can't obviate the need for a Medical Evacuation. Insurance only is to make sure you are made financially whole in case of unforeseen events. So in the unforeseen circumstance where a dependent family member is ill and requires your care you skip the cruise and either

 

A: If you have insurance you get remunerated

or

B: You don't have insurance and suffer the financial loss

 

It's really that simple. I'm not saying people deserve bad things to happen to them. I am saying that people are responsible for the choices they make and have to live with the outcome of their choices. In the case of cruising it's almost impossible to book without being offered insurance, so it would be pretty difficult to be totally ignorant of its existence. It is a choice one makes to buy or not based on the amount of risk they want to take.

 

You tell me; why should I continue to buy travel insurance if I could just count on the cruise line giving me a good will refund instead? Should I also count on them to pay if my luggage is lost? Should I count on the cruise line to do the "nice thing" and pay for a medical evacuation flight if that is what I needed?

 

very well said.

[Ourusualbeach]

 

You tell me; why should I continue to buy travel insurance if I could just count on the cruise line giving me a good will refund instead? Should I also count on them to pay if my luggage is lost? Should I count on the cruise line to do the "nice thing" and pay for a medical evacuation flight if that is what I needed?

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

There is a big difference between the very few people who are denied boarding by RCI and being offered compensation to the vastly larger number who get sick, injured etc. either prior to or on their cruise and receive absolutely no compensation from RCI. I have never heard of anyone getting sick or injured on a cruise and having the cruise line pick up the tab for that. You visit the medical department you get a bill. No one is expecting Royal to pick up the tab for this.

 

It is not a case of people purposely not buying insurance because they know Royal will pick up the tab, it is simply a case of a company doing the right thing both for the guest that it denied boarding to in order to protect its guests on board.

 

If they came out with a clear and concise list of reasons to be denied boarding then my thoughts on this matter could change but that is not likely to happen as you can't quantify symptoms purely with numbers. All symptoms have to be taken into account together and ultimately it is a judgement call by a qualified medical practitioner.

[marci22]

If you are going to deny boarding to someone for being honest, I think you should offer future cruise credit to all of those involved in missing the cruise, if they do not have insurance. If they do have insurance, a token credit for a future cruise would be nice.

 

How many people are denied boarding because they admitted to being ill or having a fever at check in? I've maybe heard of a few in the many years I've been on cc.

 

It's just not a common occurrence.

[LMaxwell]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

There is a big difference between the very few people who are denied boarding by RCI and being offered compensation to the vastly larger number who get sick, injured etc. either prior to or on their cruise and receive absolutely no compensation from RCI. I have never heard of anyone getting sick or injured on a cruise and having the cruise line pick up the tab for that. You visit the medical department you get a bill. No one is expecting Royal to pick up the tab for this.

 

It is not a case of people purposely not buying insurance because they know Royal will pick up the tab, it is simply a case of a company doing the right thing both for the guest that it denied boarding to in order to protect its guests on board.

 

If they came out with a clear and concise list of reasons to be denied boarding then my thoughts on this matter could change but that is not likely to happen as you can't quantify symptoms purely with numbers. All symptoms have to be taken into account together and ultimately it is a judgement call by a qualified medical practitioner.

 

I agree with you on some of your points. Therefore it is best to have insurance to protect yourself from financial loss and not rely on a possible good will gesture which likely would not ever materialize.

 

I sympathize with anyone put in this position but I can not agree with anyone stating the cruise line should refund them or give a free future cruise, etc. Royal has an obligation to look out for the welfare of all its guests. If Royal believes they have reason to deny boarding that is where insurance comes in.

 

I agree with, and applaud, OP for doing what is right. Maybe there is a bigger discussion to be had here? Should travel insurance be compulsory?

[Ourusualbeach]

I agree with you on some of your points. Therefore it is best to have insurance to protect yourself from financial loss and not rely on a possible good will gesture which likely would not ever materialize.

 

I sympathize with anyone put in this position but I can not agree with anyone stating the cruise line should refund them or give a free future cruise, etc. Royal has an obligation to look out for the welfare of all its guests. If Royal believes they have reason to deny boarding that is where insurance comes in.

 

I agree with, and applaud, OP for doing what is right. Maybe there is a bigger discussion to be had here? Should travel insurance be compulsory?

 

That certainly would be an interesting conversation.

 

Totally agree with the OP's decision to do what is right.

 

While we self insure for the cancellation part of the insurance as we drive so are not out the expense of flights I cannot imagine travelling anywhere without full medical coverage.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Ourusualbeach

[marci22]

I sympathize with anyone put in this position but I can not agree with anyone stating the cruise line should refund them or give a free future cruise, etc. Royal has an obligation to look out for the welfare of all its guests. If Royal believes they have reason to deny boarding that is where insurance comes in.

 

You can say that all you want. But most people won't report any sickness or fever knowing that they will be denied boarding. Like I said, I rarely see a post about this happening, but I see lots and lots and lots of people onboard with colds, sneezing, coughing, etc.

 

It's not that the people are owed anything, it's that it would encourage people to be more truthful.

[Ourusualbeach]

I went years without purchasing insurance and only purchase annual insurance now because of the age of some of our relatives and the possibility of us getting sick while on the cruise and needing to return home. Luckily for us between our 2 different health insurance we are covered in most places overseas, just worry about medavac costs.

 

While I don't know for sure I would think that the cruise lines would as they did with the OP credit someone who self reported a sickness that popped up. But without insurance this should be in the same manner as the OP they took the time and effort to go to the port and be checked by the ships doctor.

 

I just never worried about getting sick and missing my cruise because of that reason so I never purchased for that reason.

 

Once you are on board you will be charged for use of the medical facilities. The only exception I have seen to this is when a ship gets hit with an outbreak of Noro.

 

Perhaps it's because I do not live in the US and do not have any out of country medical coverage but there is no way I would travel without insurance.

 

10 yrs ago DS had a cut on his finger get infected and required a single visit to the ER in Florida. Insurance claim for $1200.

 

Last year a co worker was in Florida and had appendicitis. The insurance claim on that one was over $100,000.

 

Illnesses happen to otherwise healthy individuals. No reason to take a chance for the sake of a few hundred $ and travel without at least basic medical coverage.

[insidecabin]

This was a uk cruiser so would have uk insurance.

 

failure to notify prior to travel could result in the pre existing condition not covered.

 

a claim for two fares would be insurance fraud if RCI gave a credit.

[oneputt18]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

I have never heard of anyone getting sick or injured on a cruise and having the cruise line pick up the tab for that. You visit the medical department you get a bill. No one is expecting Royal to pick up the tab for this.

 

.

I was injured on the 3rd day of a seven day Allure cruise. Another Pax opened the bathroom door as I was about to enter. Door broke my big toe. I was never charged for medical services and received credit towards a future cruise.

Edited November 10, 2014 by oneputt18

[harry0]

Once you are on board you will be charged for use of the medical facilities. The only exception I have seen to this is when a ship gets hit with an outbreak of Noro.

 

Perhaps it's because I do not live in the US and do not have any out of country medical coverage but there is no way I would travel without insurance.

 

10 yrs ago DS had a cut on his finger get infected and required a single visit to the ER in Florida. Insurance claim for $1200.

 

Last year a co worker was in Florida and had appendicitis. The insurance claim on that one was over $100,000.

 

Illnesses happen to otherwise healthy individuals. No reason to take a chance for the sake of a few hundred $ and travel without at least basic medical coverage.

 

 

Because you live in Canada and do not get out of country coverage it might be a good idea to get it for that reason.

I rarely get insurance and travel alot. You stated there is no reason to take a chance- I do have a reason for not spending a few hundred dollars on basic coverage-I do not want to spend money to try to cover all bases of things that might happen. I can afford to cruise and not to cruise(if i have to cancel).

I am not alone in the no insurance category but probably minority.

[ThePNVT]

Would trip insurance even help this man? It would have to be a "cancel for any reason" plan wouldn't it? He wasn't denied boarding, he chose not to get on the boat...(no, he had no other choice) but it seems like most insurances would say "sorry 'bout your luck"

 

This scenario was my worst nightmare when we took 4 adults and 6 children cruising during the h1n1 fiasco (not cause we were scared of the flu but we figured it would be a minor miracle if none of the 6 young children had but a sniffle and we were allowed to board with ask the extra screening-- miracles happen I guess ;) )

 

Anyway I started thinking about it after this was posted and joking with my husband that I was boarding without him if he got sick for our upcoming cruise when I realized....I guess I'd have to-- I purchased what I think was pretty decent insurance, but I don't think they'd pay because I "didn't feel like going alone" even though that would pretty effectively ruin the vacation...

 

Anyway, interesting thread.

[LMaxwell]

Would trip insurance even help this man? It would have to be a "cancel for any reason" plan wouldn't it? He wasn't denied boarding, he chose not to get on the boat...(no, he had no other choice) but it seems like most insurances would say "sorry 'bout your luck"

 

This scenario was my worst nightmare when we took 4 adults and 6 children cruising during the h1n1 fiasco (not cause we were scared of the flu but we figured it would be a minor miracle if none of the 6 young children had but a sniffle and we were allowed to board with ask the extra screening-- miracles happen I guess ;) )

 

Anyway I started thinking about it after this was posted and joking with my husband that I was boarding without him if he got sick for our upcoming cruise when I realized....I guess I'd have to-- I purchased what I think was pretty decent insurance, but I don't think they'd pay because I "didn't feel like going alone" even though that would pretty effectively ruin the vacation...

 

Anyway, interesting thread.

 

Many insurances cover illness of immediate family members. If you were on a cruise and, for instance, a parent passed away and you left the cruise you could claim the portion of the cruise you missed for insurance reimbursement. If you were booked for a cruise and missed it because your child was sick, even if they were not booked for the cruise, but you had to care for them, you could claim this on your insurance. It depends on what level of insurance plan you have.

[DerekB]

Although not an exact comparison...an airline that denies someone boarding for absolutely any reason (other than they showed up too late and perhaps a tiny number of other reasons) gives the passenger a full refund.

 

RCCL should do the same. RCCL also should do the same for the father since no reasonable person would leave a 14 year old alone in a foreign country and hence they have essentially denied the father boarding as well.

 

The big difference between on-board injuries and becoming ill/injured prior to the trip and cancelling on your own is that RCCL refused boarding.

[Jenjer]

As a parent I am wondering what RCCL will do. You can not just leave a minor child at a port and board the ship. You should get 2 fares back they could give you back the 3 rd and 4th person fare you paid. If you were all in one room that would not be half of your cost but at least honest.

 

They would not allow a minor to board a ship without an adult. Refusing passage to a minor means you are refusing passage to their parent too.

 

Please update and let us know what they say.

[American Bear]

Actually, if they did reimburse the OP, it would be sending a message for people to not bother getting insurance. Incidents like this are precisely why people should take out travel insurance. People get sick/have accidents and miss cruises all the time. That's what insurance is for. Why should the cruise line take responsibility?

 

 

If what you say is true, 'people get sick and miss cruises all the time', maybe we wouldn't see so many sick cruises this year like the 3 sick cruises in a row on one ship reported here on the RCL threads!

RCL doesn't have to do anything, but from our perspective as RCL cruisers, and stockholders, it's nice to hear about people doing the right thing!

The illness problems RCL will have from those sick cruises reported this year, I see the cost of a reimbursement as incentive for people to do the right thing, a cost savings! Sometimes a little money rewarding those doing the right thing can save a lot of money later! Imagine how much it costs to sanitize a ship after an outbreak! My opinion!

[Able Seaman H]

People keep talking about insurance.

 

"Hello, is that the insurance company? My daughter has caught a cold and so I would like all the money back for our holiday as we've decided not to go".

 

 

A pause accompanied by commotion in the background.

 

 

"Sorry for the delay there sir, I laughed so much that I inadvertently spilled my cafe latte all over my lap so had to run over to the drinks fountain and bath my crotch in ice cold water to avoid scrotal scalding. So you want us to refund the trip because your daughter has caught a cold? That probably isn't going to happen. Is there anything else I can help you with today?"

 

 

This isn't a family wanting to cancel their cruise, it's royal Caribbean choosing to refuse entry on grounds of their own making. When have you ever been refused entry somewhere because you've got a cold?

 

 

If Royal Caribbean want to decide who gets on and who doesn't then I'm afraid they need to put their money where their mouth is and refund passengers. They probably have to refund travel costs as well. I would be incredibly surprised if an insurance company would pay out for a common cold.

 

Henry

Edited November 11, 2014 by Able Seaman H

[Big_G]

Because you live in Canada and do not get out of country coverage it might be a good idea to get it for that reason.

I rarely get insurance and travel alot. You stated there is no reason to take a chance- I do have a reason for not spending a few hundred dollars on basic coverage-I do not want to spend money to try to cover all bases of things that might happen. I can afford to cruise and not to cruise(if i have to cancel).

I am not alone in the no insurance category but probably minority.

 

Good story here...

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2124462

[awhcruiser]

Not to be rude, but why was your daughter traveling at all with a fever? Even if she felt fit to travel, the fever was still present.

[ThePNVT]

Of course I had to go check my policy...I was pleasantly surprised to see that most covered incidents apply to both myself AND my travel companion. Now I feel a little better... I'll have to let hubby know I've had a change of heart and wouldn't leave him on the pier ;)

 

For illnesses it applies to "covered sickness" so not sure of the cold/ a fever applies...

[zekekelso]

Not to be rude, but why was your daughter traveling at all with a fever? Even if she felt fit to travel, the fever was still present.

 

Probably because a fever alone is not nearly enough to justify somebody self-quaranteening themselves.

[Able Seaman H]

She hadn't got malaria, she had a cold. I go to work when I've got a cold so I'm pretty sure I could manage to go on holiday.

 

Henry :)