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

[fish6]

I was also on this cruise. My 10th with Royal Caribbean. I did send a letter to corporate office why this sailing was the only one that did not receive compensation. Royal did a fine job concerning the ill child. We should have received at least an email about shortened itinerary. Knew nothing about the short times @ the ports until checking in. Does anyone have a phone number where our party of 6 can call? I do not think Royal Caribbean handled this situation (obc) with the integrity they are known for.

 

Well said thank you.

 

Please call......they do want to hear about this. The ladies name I spoke to was Joan and she actually called me after I sent a letter.

 

1-888-767-4644

Option 1

Ext. 11723

 

Good Luck :)

Edited January 3, 2015 by fish6

[phoenix_dream]

I think it is not wrong to expect to be treated consistently by a cruise line. Clearly, when facts are reviewed without bias, this was not done. It doesn't matter whether one cruise was more expensive than another. If anything, perhaps that would warrant an adjustment as to the amount of compensation, but certainly not to whether there should be compensation or not. No use to quote the cruise contract that they do not need to compensate you at all. We all know that. The issue is consistency and therefore fairness. If they compensate one cruise, they should compensate the next if it encounters the same issue. Perhaps the issue was presented a little bit incoherently initially by the OP, and perhaps with a bit more emotion than some would like. But fair is fair, and it sounds like in this case RCI wasn't.

[CptSticky]

Let me see if I understand a few of the posts here: RCI will not compensate me. I am never going to sail with them again. Now let me be RCI for a second: this customer is "never" going to sail with us again and they want compensation. Yeah, makes perfect business sense to compensate them based on their assertion that they will never do business with us again.

BTW, was on a Carnival ship last year that totally changed it's port schedule (for a known propulsion problem) and there was never any compensation offered. Guess they are "unfair" also. Who does that leave? Joe's row boat tours?

[shipshape sam]

My company does not provide customer service based on whether you 'say' you are going to do business with me again or not. My company treats all customers right each time. If they deserve compensation, they get it whether they are polite and not expecting it or if they yell, kick and scream.

 

OP is making the point that, if true, that cruses pre and post theirs got compensation, thus one might assume they too would be entitled to compensation if the problem existed during their sailing. Apparently the problem did exist plus a new problem/emergency happened. OP is suggesting that cruise line used this new emergency reason for no compensation and completely disregarded the other underlying issue/problem. :)

[Tenderpaw]

I can't blame the OP for having a bad taste in their mouth over previous and subsequent cruises getting a credit and their cruise not getting one. It does look suspicious like Royal is using the emergency as an excuse and Royal should have considered that in their decision.

 

I don't think I'd "never sail with them again" over it, but i would be annoyed.

 

I have heard someone say Rooked in a very long time!

 

Dave

[Starry Eyes]

My company does not provide customer service based on whether you 'say' you are going to do business with me again or not. My company treats all customers right each time. If they deserve compensation, they get it whether they are polite and not expecting it or if they yell, kick and scream.

 

OP is making the point that, if true, that cruses pre and post theirs got compensation, thus one might assume they too would be entitled to compensation if the problem existed during their sailing. Apparently the problem did exist plus a new problem/emergency happened. OP is suggesting that cruise line used this new emergency reason for no compensation and completely disregarded the other underlying issue/problem. :)

Sigh....perhaps you did not waste time reading the whole thread....Again, the cruises pre and post theirs were Eastern itinerary (longer distances are covered on those itineraries) while the OP was on a Western itinerary (shorter distances, thus slower speed was expected to have less impact on Western itinerary). Until the medical emergency, the company probably thought they'd be giving an experience quite close to the published itinerary. I have had itineraries changed far, far more than theirs with no compensation (other than refunded port fees). That said, it is perfectly reasonable for them to ask for some consideration, but the cruises Immediately before and after are a red herring.

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

My company does not provide customer service based on whether you 'say' you are going to do business with me again or not. My company treats all customers right each time. If they deserve compensation, they get it whether they are polite and not expecting it or if they yell, kick and scream.

 

OP is making the point that, if true, that cruses pre and post theirs got compensation, thus one might assume they too would be entitled to compensation if the problem existed during their sailing. Apparently the problem did exist plus a new problem/emergency happened. OP is suggesting that cruise line used this new emergency reason for no compensation and completely disregarded the other underlying issue/problem. :)

Here's the problem with the OP's logic though... the preceding and post cruises got their OBC upon boarding. In order for the OP's theory to be correct (that RCI didn't compensate because of the child's illness), that would mean RCI knew the child would get sick before the cruise took off.

 

I would like to know why a similar cruise (12/21) got OBC because of the propulsion issue and 12/7 didn't. However, I feel it is over the top to say RCI "rooked", "scammed", or blamed the lack of OBC on the illness, much less "I'm never going to sail with them again."

[awhcruiser]

You want compensation from a cruise line you will never sail again? Let me know that works out.

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:

[aloha43]

Hello,

 

I said to take the sick child out of the equation as for most of us it was the shortened times in each of the ports that we are debating here and the lack of consistency displayed by RCI.

 

Our itinerary was changed on boarding day just like the itinerary on December 21st. We were both Western Itineraries. They were immediately offered OBC as some of the other sailings were that weren't Western. We were not. That's my point. I would have liked to see Royal treat all of their passengers the same....consistency.

 

BTW what delay are you referring to? We had no delays. We missed Cozumel and made it back to Port Canaveral with no delay.

 

Thank you,

Donna

 

I thought you had delays due to the propulsion issue. If not, then it was the sick child that was the problem.

 

If that is the case, then why should you be compensated?