RCCL Uses a Child to Slip Between the Horns & ROOK Thousands of Guests

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

It is unfair that you weren't compensated when others were. However, if it is about the principle there is an option, cancel your upcoming cruise and take the penalty. Not the fairest to you, but to some principles come at great costs.

 

How much were other sailings compensated? I honestly don't know.

 

Maybe what you should do is go, but leave the lights on in your cabin all the time when you aren't sleeping, eat lots and lots of food, don't buy booze, make your own shore excursions and try your best not to give them more money. If you make it game you might have fun with the idea, instead of going into this cruise with this sour taste in your mouth.

 

 

 

 

If I was on your sailing I would not have worried about compensation. I would have been happy enough just knowing the sick child was in better care. I guess I worry about others well being more than myself.

 

With a fit ship the port would not have been missed. It's already been said that the child was well taken care of and the captain and his crew are to be commended.

 

It was ROYAL who USED the child to ditch responsibility for not maintaining the ship and being able to make the port IN SPITE of the emergency, as it WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to had the ship been PROPERLY MAINTAINED. :rolleyes:

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

Flashing back to the first time a cruise line (not Royal Caribbean, FWIW) changed an itinerary greatly (much larger change than missing a port and/ or adjusting times), unhappily I pulled out the cruise contract. then I realized the cruise lines can change pretty much any thing about the itinerary anytime. My choices are to reject cruising or to accept such contracts. So now, I treat itineraries more lightly; I consider them changeable.

 

JinxyB and the OP also need to read their cruise contracts (before final payment). If the terms of cruise contracts are not acceptable, do not cruise, period. By contract, the company probably did not have to give any cruiser compensation, and they did so for other cruisers as a show of good will. they are unhappy they did not also get compensation, but clearly an extenuating event occurred on their cruise. returning to port for the child's sake probably did largely result in missing another port; that sounds totally believable to me. Isn't FOS doing alternating itineraries? If so the cruises before and after we're meant to be different from theirs and are not realavant to the discussion. the similar cruises are the ones with the same itineraries 2 weeks prior and hence. Were they compensated?

 

That being said, the cruise contract is the same for everyone. Why would anyone EVER be compensated? :eek:

[MADflyer]

When I said consistency I meant actions of RCI, not necessarily dollar amount.

 

For what reason did 12/21 get compensation on boarding day and 12/7 did not? Those were the same itinerary (booked and paid for at least). Whatever the reason 12/21 got money is the exact same reason 12/7 should have gotten money.

 

.

I am not excusing the behavior, just explaining it.

 

I have certainly experienced numerous similar situations with RCI and other cruise lines and do fully understand the 'fairness' perspective. I could tell several 'horror' stories, but choose not to.

 

That said, I just think RCI have made decisions differently based on the facts and I do think those from the 7 December sailing should file a written complaint and that RCI 'may' offer a 20% FCC based on these complaints, but unfortunately they are not required to do so.

 

One of the downsides of 'differential' pricing systems is that some customers do get 'better' treatment than others and all an affected party can do is file a written complaint, state the facts and hope for the best response from the cruise line.

 

My point was simply to emphasize that you can not expect the same exact treatment when there are so many variables.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

We all know holiday vacations cost more than non-holiday weeks. But 12/7 cruisers were not on a free cruise. When I said consistency I meant actions of RCI, not necessarily dollar amount.

 

If compensation was calculated using a formula based on prices for 12/21 (pay more upfront, get more compensation) then even if that formula was applied to 12/7 they all still deserved something.

 

For what reason did 12/21 get compensation on boarding day and 12/7 did not? Those were the same itinerary (booked and paid for at least). Whatever the reason 12/21 got money is the exact same reason 12/7 should have gotten money.

 

I 100% agree with OP and the title of this thread. I am most bothered that no one at RCI wants to take ownership or address this. This may appease the cheerleaders, but some day they may be in the same position wondering why RCI won't give them a straight answer either.

When you pay a premium for something, the seller has more leeway on what they can do. Go into a car dealership and tell them you'll pay list price for the car as long as they cover oil changes for the first three years.

 

Then try negotiating a lower price on the car and ask for same oil changes.

 

Again, how much OBC did 12/21 passengers get? $50? $100? How much more did they pay for the cruise? $500? $1000?

 

You can argue "it's not fair" all you want. But as I tell my kids "life isn't fair".

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

I can not believe that someone would be so upset over a little compensation so instead of enjoying your cruise you let this ruin it for you . Sounds crazy to me !

 

Please pardon; but I don't think I said I didn't enjoy the cruise. Perhaps you are simply assuming that I didn't. :eek:

Edited January 2, 2015 by Alwaysacruiseinthequeue

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

As the itineraries are totally different and the distances are totally different, the complainers should not be comparing their cruise to the weeks before and after. Spurious comparisons are not a request for consistency, though they might fool people unfamiliar with details.

 

 

Again, we need to forget the cruise right after. Two cruises after is much more relevant. But might it be different, too?

 

for example, on 12/7, might sea and wind conditions predicted to be highly favorable, thus the line might have expected atimely cruise even with propulsions issues? Then perhaps the medical issue interfered, causing issues on that cruise? Two weeks later, perhaps sea and wind conditions were different from the start, immediately raising delay concerns, so the cruiseline made a good will gesture immediately? Just speculations, of course, meant to remind us all weeks are not the same.

 

I bet there is another big difference between 12/7 and 12/21: the fares. Erly December is usually one of the lowest demand, least expensive times to cruise. Christmas, on the other hand is one of the very high demand, most expensive weeks to cruise. Are the customers expectations not reasonably different? If the fares (not including taxes and port fees) are, for example, quadruple on the 12/21 cruise, should the compensation not be different?

 

it is awfully difficult to know if the ship would have made her itinerary if not for the medical issue, but for the sake of discussion...If the captain and cruise line really believe they could have given you the published itinerary had the child not been ill, do you still expect compensation?

 

It all boils down to inequity. All passengers sign the cruise contract; but not all are held to it.

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

Did you read your cruise contract?

 

Yes; but perhaps I need to read the contract of the itineraries that WERE COMPENSATED, where I might find the provision for their compensation as it differs from mine.

[MADflyer]

 

Then try negotiating a lower price on the car and ask for same oil changes.

 

Again, how much OBC did 12/21 passengers get? $50? $100? How much more did they pay for the cruise? $500? $1000?

 

.

 

It has been reported as $300 per cabin inside and $450 per cabin balcony.

 

This would be equal to 20% compensation on the lowest paid fares. The lowest fares for this sailing did come after final payment.

 

One could argue that this would be under the 20% FCC that might have been offered to those paying an even greater premium to lock in a specific cabin far in advance.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

It has been reported as $300 per cabin inside and $450 per cabin balcony.

 

This would be equal to 20% compensation on the lowest paid fares. The lowest fares for this sailing did come after final payment.

 

One could argue that this would be under the 20% FCC that might have been offered to those paying an even greater premium to lock in a specific cabin far in advance.

And how much more did the 12/21 sailing cost than the 12/7? 50%? 75%? 100%?

[FLACRUISER99]

OK am I correct saying that the folks on the 12/7 are upset because other cruises got OBC. So if the other cruises did not get OBC everything would be OK right. So instead of being happy about other folks getting the OBC they are mad that they got OBC and this cruise didn't.

[Paulxyz2004]

OK am I correct saying that the folks on the 12/7 are upset because other cruises got OBC. So if the other cruises did not get OBC everything would be OK right. So instead of being happy about other folks getting the OBC they are mad that they got OBC and this cruise didn't.

 

Or in other words these Folks are just extremely greedy and it won´t be a loss for RCI to lose them.

[MADflyer]

And how much more did the 12/21 sailing cost than the 12/7? 50%? 75%? 100%?

 

For comparison the pricing for the sailing of the 7th of December is not available and has been pulled from the pricing website used.

 

There was a lot of price activity in November with 50% off second passenger and OBC offers.

 

So, lowest pricing paid on other sailings after final payment for 7 night cruises was :

 

November 30th eastern

Inside $600, or $375 single $450 double if on offer.

 

December 7th western unknown as historical info has been currently pulled.

 

December 14th eastern

Inside $425 single or $525 double,

Outside $500 single or $599 double

 

This would indicate 20% amounts from $75, $80 and up to $120 would have been offered if using the same formula.

[Paulxyz2004]

It all boils down to inequity. All passengers sign the cruise contract; but not all are held to it.

 

Yes; but perhaps I need to read the contract of the itineraries that WERE COMPENSATED, where I might find the provision for their compensation as it differs from mine.

 

 

What´s so hard to understand?

 

Nobody was entitled a compensation! RCI gave as a gesture of Goodwill compensation to some Cruises and not yours! They were lucky, you were not and they still don´t owe you anything.

Congrats to those getting compensation, Applause to RCI to not make it regular Thing.

 

You should move on whereever your future Cruises will take you. Bye!!!

[lalenalei]

I didn't read the other thread. Just wanted to say: I'm sorry you missed some ports or had shorter port times. But it is what it is. I hope you made the most of it. And more importantly, being resentful is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[awhcruiser]

Do you have anything from RCCL's website regarding this?

It all boils down to inequity. All passengers sign the cruise contract; but not all are held to it.

Edited January 2, 2015 by awhcruiser

[A&L_Ont]

With a fit ship the port would not have been missed. It's already been said that the child was well taken care of and the captain and his crew are to be commended.

 

It was ROYAL who USED the child to ditch responsibility for not maintaining the ship and being able to make the port IN SPITE of the emergency, as it WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to had the ship been PROPERLY MAINTAINED. :rolleyes:

 

Why are you yelling at me? I said it was unfair that you didn't get compensated. However if yelling is your approach then lets see if you get a sympathetic audience. Rolleyes don't really help either. Thankfully you weren't on a ship bobbing at sea with no power or stranded in port with a generator that goes down.

 

Good luck to you and hopefully you get a FCC. I'm bettng all it will be is a couple of hundred bucks. The question is, what good will it do if you never want return to RC, a line that you state doesn't properly maintain its fleet.

[JinxyB]

Wow, some of the posters on here are really rude and quite hateful! Those on the 12/7 sailing are entitled to our opinion, as you are entitled to yours. If you were one of the customers being shafted on the 12/7 sailing, you might feel differently. Taking the issue with the sick child out of the equation, the cruise vacation was no where near what was advertised. I'm well aware of the cruise contract I signed. A company like Royal Caribbean should have given cruisers on all sailings affected by the damaged propeller the option to cancel with full refund, or at the very least, the option to reschedule within a year. I would have been happy with these options.

 

The 11/30 sailing and all other sailings after ours (not 100% sure of the 12/28 sailing) were compensated. I don't see how that is equal treatment. I've never been treated so poorly by customer service in 26+ cruises. I'm not loyal to any cruise line and will be taking my vacation dollars elsewhere.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

Wow, some of the posters on here are really rude and quite hateful! Those on the 12/7 sailing are entitled to our opinion, as you are entitled to yours. If you were one of the customers being shafted on the 12/7 sailing, you might feel differently. Taking the issue with the sick child out of the equation, the cruise vacation was no where near what was advertised. I'm well aware of the cruise contract I signed. A company like Royal Caribbean should have given cruisers on all sailings affected by the damaged propeller the option to cancel with full refund, or at the very least, the option to reschedule within a year. I would have been happy with these options.

 

The 11/30 sailing and all other sailings after ours (not 100% sure of the 12/28 sailing) were compensated. I don't see how that is equal treatment. I've never been treated so poorly by customer service in 26+ cruises. I'm not loyal to any cruise line and will be taking my vacation dollars elsewhere.

Here's the problem... you feel you got "shafted", simply because you know what happened on other cruises. If you didn't have that information, would you still be upset and leaving RCI?

 

Did you enjoy your cruise? Did they feed you? Did you feel safe? Did you get your port charges back?

 

Saying "they got money back and I didn't so I'm never cruising RCI again" sounds like kids saying "but Johnny's mom lets him go to the arcade" (pick whatever you want there). It sounds like whining to me.

 

Is it "fair" other cruisers got OBC/FCC and you didn't? No. Is it fair that other people on your same cruise paid more or less than you did for the same category of stateroom? No. Is it fair that airline passengers pay more or less depending on when they book? No. So? Life isn't fair.

[JinxyB]

Yes, I would still feel cheated out of my vacation due to the severly cut port times. One port I'm ok with, two is bordering on not ok, but all four ports cut down due to a known mechanical issue is not alright in my book. You may feel differently. The cheerleaders can keep cheering. This issue and the way I have been treated by customer service will make me not choose Royal Caribbean again.

[Paulxyz2004]

Yes, I would still feel cheated out of my vacation due to the severly cut port times. One port I'm ok with, two is bordering on not ok, but all four ports cut down due to a known mechanical issue is not alright in my book. You may feel differently. The cheerleaders can keep cheering. This issue and the way I have been treated by customer service will make me not choose Royal Caribbean again.

 

 

I agree you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I applaud to your decision to leave RCI for good with a big sigh of relief.

[Starry Eyes]

Yes, I would still feel cheated out of my vacation due to the severly cut port times. One port I'm ok with, two is bordering on not ok, but all four ports cut down due to a known mechanical issue is not alright in my book. You may feel differently. The cheerleaders can keep cheering. This issue and the way I have been treated by customer service will make me not choose Royal Caribbean again.

 

Does your cruise contract say that they promise certain ports or certain times in port? IF the contract said that, you'd have a right to demand cancellation, etc. However, I am fairly certain your cruise contract says no such thing. If what is promised in cruise contracts is not enough to assure you will enjoy a cruise vacation, you have a problem. Perhaps it would be best to pay the cancellation penalty for your next cruise and select a different vacation that will make you happier.

[awhcruiser]

What kind of compensation were you expecting? It's in the cruise contract that ports can be added or deleted anytime for any reason.

[Retired LEO]

A poorly maintained ship creates the need for shortened itineraries and guests are COMPENSATED on ALL cruises EXCEPT where the life of a child was involved.

 

While the captain and his medical crew did a HEROIC job where this child and the family was concerned (& the shipboard crew was AMAZING from start to finish), RCCL USED THE INCIDENT TO EXCUSE SHORTENED PORT TIMES AND MISSING AN ENTIRE PORT...which was actually due to the missing prop... WITH $0 COMPENSATION.

 

Their land-side team offers canned responses, quoting contract terms, with NO OTHER ANSWER ON THE TABLE.

 

I'm a second time cruiser and will never go back.

 

Way to go, RCCL! :mad:

 

Wow, some of the posters on here are really rude and quite hateful! Those on the 12/7 sailing are entitled to our opinion, as you are entitled to yours. If you were one of the customers being shafted on the 12/7 sailing, you might feel differently. Taking the issue with the sick child out of the equation, the cruise vacation was no where near what was advertised. I'm well aware of the cruise contract I signed. A company like Royal Caribbean should have given cruisers on all sailings affected by the damaged propeller the option to cancel with full refund, or at the very least, the option to reschedule within a year. I would have been happy with these options.

 

The 11/30 sailing and all other sailings after ours (not 100% sure of the 12/28 sailing) were compensated. I don't see how that is equal treatment. I've never been treated so poorly by customer service in 26+ cruises. I'm not loyal to any cruise line and will be taking my vacation dollars elsewhere.

 

Yes, I would still feel cheated out of my vacation due to the severly cut port times. One port I'm ok with, two is bordering on not ok, but all four ports cut down due to a known mechanical issue is not alright in my book. You may feel differently. The cheerleaders can keep cheering. This issue and the way I have been treated by customer service will make me not choose Royal Caribbean again.

 

What exactly are you looking for? If RCI caves into your demands you may receive a future cruise certificate which will do you absolutely no good. The certificates are not redeemable on Carnival. :rolleyes:

[Starry Eyes]

 

It was ROYAL who USED the child to ditch responsibility for not maintaining the ship and being able to make the port IN SPITE of the emergency, as it WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to had the ship been PROPERLY MAINTAINED. :rolleyes:

Let's run those numbers and see if your assertion is correct or incorrect.

 

If the original itinerary is to leave Georgetown at 4 pm and arrive Cozumel at 10 am, that is 18 hours. One must allow time on both ends for picking up pilot, dodging navigational hazards, low speed departure/approach, positioning, etc. So that leaves roughly 16 hours. Distance is about 325 nm, so ship ordinarily needs to make about 20 knots. That is already a substantial pace since it is a cruise ship, not a speed boat. Not a lot of wiggle room.

 

How long after leaving Georgetown did the ship turn around for the medical emergency? When did the ship depart the second time after seeing to the child's welfare?

[FLACRUISER99]

With a fit ship the port would not have been missed. It's already been said that the child was well taken care of and the captain and his crew are to be commended.

 

It was ROYAL who USED the child to ditch responsibility for not maintaining the ship and being able to make the port IN SPITE of the emergency, as it WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to had the ship been PROPERLY MAINTAINED. :rolleyes:

My only question is are you qualified to make this statement? Do you have any access to the ships maintenance logs? Do you have any training in cruise ship navigation? I think not and will gladly apologize to you if I'm incorrect.