RCCL changed itinerary without telling us

[HotlantaCruiser]

 

People are stupid.

 

And you're proving it.

 

 

There is no reason a cruise ship or airline shouldn't be held to the same standard - stop offering flights that will be <snip>.....overbooked so people with a confirmed seat still get bumped.

 

:p

 

When have you personally seen a a plane that was overbooked result in someone actually being bumped who didn't VOLUNTEER?

 

I've only seen this once in my many years of heavy business travel.

[633]

i completely disagree with you on this one. many of our cruises have had port changes. you must expect it. it happens a lot, even to us in the med. usually the changes are made once the cruise has started. i dont know how you could expect rci to try to call or contact every passenger every time one of their ships has to make an itenery change it would be a monumental task.

all you need to do is be aware and informed.

 

Why would it be a monumental task? How many cruises do they run that have itinerary changes? Time from an outsourced customer service phone bank is pretty cheap - it can be had for as cheap as $15/agent hour, and in that agent hour they can contact or leave messages for anywhere from 30-50 people. Even cheaper to load all the phone numbers into an autodialer and have it launch calls with a recorded message to inform people of the change. Cost of doing that is almost nothing. This just sounds like poor customer service to me.

[WeLuvVacation]

i completely disagree with you on this one. many of our cruises have had port changes. you must expect it. it happens a lot, even to us in the med. usually the changes are made once the cruise has started. i dont know how you could expect rci to try to call or contact every passenger every time one of their ships has to make an itenery change it would be a monumental task.

all you need to do is be aware and informed.

 

Rccl could do a mailing. In this case there seems to be enough time.

 

They also have a web site where they could post too.

 

Or tell Cruise Critic and put it here.

 

Or all 3.

 

See not so MONUMENTAL!

[WeLuvVacation]

OK, but this is out of their brochure.

 

In the event of strikes, lockouts, riots, weather conditions or mechanical difficulties, or for any other reason whatsoever, Royal Caribbean may at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone, or deviate from any scheduled sailing or port of call and may, but is not obligated to, substitute another ship or port of call, and shall not be liable for any loss whatsoever to guests by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, deviation or substitution. Royal Caribbean shall not be responsible for any failure to adhere to the arrival and departure times published in this brochure for any of its ports of call. While every effort will be made to adhere to the specifics shown herein for a cruise, circumstances may necessitate changes or deviations therefrom. Neither Royal Caribbean nor any affiliated party shall be required to refund any portion of fare or other charges or make any compensation under these circumstances.

 

 

You may not like it. I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

What does this have to do with NOTIFICATION.

 

They use this DISCLAIMER for LAST MINUTE CHANGES.

 

When they have 8 days advance notice they can and should give notice.

 

Is that really to much to ask???

 

If you believe so then you can not possibly work in retail.

[Ericknow32]

DisneyDestroyer: You really don't believe what you are saying do you. That is the biggest bunch of ____ I have ever read on these boards. I have a great solution for you, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICY DON'T USE IT. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO CRUISE OR FLY. S**t happens the cruise line cannot be held responsible for things deemed to be an act of God. I would love for you to start a thread saying that RCCL shouldn't cruise during the summer due to hurricanes. I can't wait for the response you will get.

[Ericknow32]

WeLuvVacation: I do agree with you. I think it would be great if the cruise lines set up some sort of notification system. The problem is that they don't have to and they have made that perfectly clear. They could set up some automated telephone device that notifies travel agents and guests that book directly through the cruiseline but once again they don't have to. You may not like it. I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

[TrinaLC]

DD, the chicken analogy doesn't hold water.

 

The cruise ship has a contract that limits its liability. Chose to cruise and you are bound by that contract. Obviously, you don't like the terms, so don't cruise.

 

And do the math - say a ship diverts to Canada instead of going to Bermuda in the belief that the Bermuda weather would cause docking problems, and Canada is the only realistic choice that complies with the legal requirement of docking at a foreign port. It turns out that the weather in Canada was horrible, and Bermuda actually had good weather. 2000 pax sue for the return of their fare.

 

Is that reasonable? How long would a cruise line be in business if every judgment made subjected it to liability like this??

 

Or even when the ship is more in error - say due to negligence, there is a mechanical problem, and 2 of 3 ports are missed. Should all pax be refunded 2/3 their fare? Again, do the math, and think how long the industry would survive.

 

Or I guess they could start charging more - alot more. That would certainly be in everyone's interests. Let's all start paying 10,000 for an inside cabin so folks can get reimbursed for their passage everytime something goes wrong.

[smeyer418]

I never understand why someone gets flamed for a post such as this.

1. Yes the cruise lines can change iternaries for any reason or no reason without liability.

2. Why in this day of email shouldn't they at least send an email out to all addresses they have when they do so? It is without cost except for the creation of the email list(which they like to do for advertising purposes anyway) which people can opt in to or opt out of.

3. Many cruise line use the term "any reason or no reason" just because there is an ambiguity in "any reason"...you may disagree that it is an ambuguity but I assure you that it can be view that way.

4. Florida Law which governs most cruise contracts(to the extent not preempted by Federal law) implies in every contract a duity of good faith and fair dealing no matter what the contract says. That being said this would not IMO rise to the level of bad faith no matter what the reason(if any) for the change(except maybe to be on the Apprentice).

5. Finally the cruise line could if it wished provide some notice without creating liability. by providing as follows We may change the iternary at any time for any reason or no reason. although we are not obligated to and without creating any liability on our part, we may(although we are not required to) send an email out to the address that you have given us or notify you TA.

 

I don't understand why people feel that when they know they shouldn't at least try---without creating a new right to sue...

[kyriecat]

I heard about the schedule change for the 10/3 BOS sailing on the Roll Call board in March. I just checked the RCI website and it shows the same itinerary for the Sept. sailings so I assume (but don't know for sure) that RCI made the change at the same time as the 10/3 sailing.

 

My TA never received a notification from RCI. I called her once I read the notice on the Roll Call board. She contacted RCI and was told that the schedule had changed. It showed up on the RCI web page a couple weeks later. I guess RCI only notifies some TAs but not all.

 

I check the RCI web page at least once a week just to see if there are any rate or schedule changes that may affect my cruise.

[DisneyDestroyer]

Telling me that the have a contract limiting their liability doesn't really address what I'm saying.

 

I'm saying that the limited liability section of the contract is crap. Obviously that means I know they have it. I just think it's crap.

 

Trina, I'm saying that people paid for a cruise to Bermuda. If the cruise line decides to go to Canada instead, these people have no say. They paid big money for a cruise to a specific location. A cruise to Canada might be less if they had booked that - meaning they paid more and got something they didn't want. They have no say, no ability to cancel with a refund (even when the diversion is known ahead of time). They paid for a cruise to Bermuda and got a cruise to Canada. Maybe they live there and don't want to visit there. Maybe they are a fugitive from Canadian justice, is it really the cruise line's duty to bring them into the country?

 

Does it really matter WHY they are upset that they're being taken to Canada? The point is that the cruise line is taking them where they don't want to go, with no recompense and no show that it even understands they are upset.

 

If you buy a Mustang GT and Ford delivers you a Focus, you would be pissed - what you ordered is not what you received. If Ford had a clause in the contract saying that they would not guarantee the exact vehicle is delivered, would you shrug your shoulders and drive the Escort away? Hell no, you would want the vehicle that you ordered, paid extra for, and they told you that you would get. Would you accept a free oil change as their attempt to make you feel better? I don't think so, you would be insulted that they think a free oil change would lessen the impact of a Focus for a speed demon who ordered a Mustang GT. Would you be satisfied if they said that they couldn't get any Mustang GTs so they figured an Escort is better than nothing? Of course not, you would want your money back so you can go buy something you want - and possibly extra for your costs associated with this unexpected change (such as a rental car until you can buy and receive a vehicle you want).

 

And yes, costs related to negligence should certainly be covered by the cruise line. Where else do you accept that the negligent party is not responsible? That is a basic principle of law, the negligent party is responsible. It extends VERY FAR - if a burgler is breaking into your home and hurts themselves due to your negligence, you can still be successfully sued. So of course I think the cruise line should be responsible if they are negligent in their maintenance and the motor breaks. Those passengers missed out on the opportunity to visit two cities, and they may never get another chance. They may have lost money on excursions, and if they want to go back it will cost those 2000 people vacation time from work, airfare, etc. - all because the cruise line was not responsible enough to take care of the vessel. That is 100% attributable to the cruise line's bad policy, but somehow you think they should get off scott free!!! :confused:

 

And Erik, I never said they shouldn't do the cruises. I said that they are the professionals and know the risk better than an individual, but they take no responsibility related to that risk. They know a risk exists, but put all the downside on the people who trust them and don't even know it's there - the passengers. Don't you think it would be appropriate for them to notify people at the time of booking when there is a specific, easily foressable risk that the cruise could be cancelled or modified at a future date? I don't mean to rely on a small paragraph buried within multiple pages of small text, I mean a direct and specific notification. Of course I understand that mother nature-related changes are possible, and I don't think the cruise lines should necessarily be responsible for mother nature any more than an airline. But there's a big difference between a last-minute change due to unexpected inclement weather, and the cruise ship knowing beforehand that they will only make 20% of the ports but making no effort to tell the other party of the contract (the riders).

 

I just don't understand how you can support the concept of propping up an industry by allowing them to pass the cost of their stupidity onto the consumer. You claim that their business would be hurt if they started acting responsibly, I still say that responsibility (including corporate responsibility) should take higher precidence than the fortunes of a specific company or industry.

[HotlantaCruiser]

I don't speak Whinese.

[HazyDavey]

You are some curmudgeon. Check out all your posts in this thread, they are all negative and, at times, mean spirited.

 

Just because someone's opinion differs from yours, doesn't make your (or their) opinion right.

 

A little civility would be nice.

 

Go ahead, flame away.

[smeyer418]

Telling me that the have a contract limiting their liability doesn't really address what I'm saying.

 

I'm saying that the limited liability section of the contract is crap. Obviously that means I know they have it. I just think it's crap.

 

Trina, I'm saying that people paid for a cruise to Bermuda. If the cruise line decides to go to Canada instead, these people have no say. They paid big money for a cruise to a specific location. A cruise to Canada might be less if they had booked that - meaning they paid more and got something they didn't want. They have no say, no ability to cancel with a refund (even when the diversion is known ahead of time). They paid for a cruise to Bermuda and got a cruise to Canada. Maybe they live there and don't want to visit there. Maybe they are a fugitive from Canadian justice, is it really the cruise line's duty to bring them into the country?

 

Does it really matter WHY they are upset that they're being taken to Canada? The point is that the cruise line is taking them where they don't want to go, with no recompense and no show that it even understands they are upset.

 

If you buy a Mustang GT and Ford delivers you a Focus, you would be pissed - what you ordered is not what you received. If Ford had a clause in the contract saying that they would not guarantee the exact vehicle is delivered, would you shrug your shoulders and drive the Escort away? Hell no, you would want the vehicle that you ordered, paid extra for, and they told you that you would get. Would you accept a free oil change as their attempt to make you feel better? I don't think so, you would be insulted that they think a free oil change would lessen the impact of a Focus for a speed demon who ordered a Mustang GT. Would you be satisfied if they said that they couldn't get any Mustang GTs so they figured an Escort is better than nothing? Of course not, you would want your money back so you can go buy something you want - and possibly extra for your costs associated with this unexpected change (such as a rental car until you can buy and receive a vehicle you want).

 

And yes, costs related to negligence should certainly be covered by the cruise line. Where else do you accept that the negligent party is not responsible? That is a basic principle of law, the negligent party is responsible. It extends VERY FAR - if a burgler is breaking into your home and hurts themselves due to your negligence, you can still be successfully sued. So of course I think the cruise line should be responsible if they are negligent in their maintenance and the motor breaks. Those passengers missed out on the opportunity to visit two cities, and they may never get another chance. They may have lost money on excursions, and if they want to go back it will cost those 2000 people vacation time from work, airfare, etc. - all because the cruise line was not responsible enough to take care of the vessel. That is 100% attributable to the cruise line's bad policy, but somehow you think they should get off scott free!!! :confused:

 

And Erik, I never said they shouldn't do the cruises. I said that they are the professionals and know the risk better than an individual, but they take no responsibility related to that risk. They know a risk exists, but put all the downside on the people who trust them and don't even know it's there - the passengers. Don't you think it would be appropriate for them to notify people at the time of booking when there is a specific, easily foressable risk that the cruise could be cancelled or modified at a future date? I don't mean to rely on a small paragraph buried within multiple pages of small text, I mean a direct and specific notification. Of course I understand that mother nature-related changes are possible, and I don't think the cruise lines should necessarily be responsible for mother nature any more than an airline. But there's a big difference between a last-minute change due to unexpected inclement weather, and the cruise ship knowing beforehand that they will only make 20% of the ports but making no effort to tell the other party of the contract (the riders).

 

I just don't understand how you can support the concept of propping up an industry by allowing them to pass the cost of their stupidity onto the consumer. You claim that their business would be hurt if they started acting responsibly, I still say that responsibility (including corporate responsibility) should take higher precidence than the fortunes of a specific company or industry.

 

I am obviously an attorney. I don't want to teach a classs in Maritime law. But you miss what has been the history of Maritime law and how this came about. Ships under sail never had a schedule until enterprising Americans came up with the concept of a packet ship. They would leave at a certain time to get to their ultimate post by a certain date(in fact if they made it faster they would be able to demand more) so they left whether full or not at the appointed time. However this did arise liability if they didn't get there on time so they came up with the idea of limiting their liability under the contract(that is why they are so long). This date back to the 1800's. Limiting liability under contract is an acceptable practice. Some limitations of liability violate public policy and are unenforceable. An example US law prohibits cruise lines from enforcing limitations of liability for US connected people for injuries sustained on ship where the cruise line is negligent(this doesn't apply to crew). The reasons for this is if there were no such limitations the cost of carrying either people or goods would be much higher since its the customer that ultimately pays all costs. By the way the duty owed to a transpessor or buglar doesn't extend to ordinary negligence. The cases you see are either atractive nuisance(where kids break into a house and are hurt) or cases where the homeowners sets a deadly trap for a buglar----very limited types of cases. Normally if a buglar falls in a house its tough noughies. Most juries don't give a dime to a bugler excewpt when he is a kid.

 

No one holds a cruise line liable for missing a port. That is the current state of the law. If it changes expect to pay much more for your ticket. I do think that good customer relations requires that the customer be notified, but that is not enforceable by money damages only by people refusing to travel when a cruise line does it...

[Ericknow32]

DisneyDestroyer: I can't help but to enjoy your posts. They make me laugh so hard.

 

No but seriously, you don't believe what you are saying, DO YOU???

 

The car analogy is full of holes. If someone is dumb enough to sign a contract that would give Ford the right to give them any car for the price of a Mustang then they deserve what they get.

 

People should know what they are getting into.

 

This thread has nothing to do with engine problems. If RCCL had engine problem then they should and do compensate for missed ports.

[DisneyDestroyer]

Smeyer, very interesting history of how we got to this place. Certainly makes sense, something to think about.

 

Whether the car analogy is full of holes or not, it is the same situation. You are agreeing to a contract that gives them the right to give you whatever they want, after you have paid, regardless of what was advertised and agreed upon. Including giving you something of less value, without any right to compensation. This is true of my analogy and of the cruise contracts. If all the car manufacturers had the same text in their contracts, you would be in the same position as with cruising - everybody does it, so if you want a car you would need to sign on and hope for the best.

 

As for whether I believe what I'm saying - I understand that what I'm saying can't practically come to pass, that doesn't mean that I must accept and be happy with the current situation.

[spalady]

No matter what anyone says I am still upset that RCI removed Key West from the Christmas cruise and are substituting Miami.

 

I don't want to go to Miami - I booked the cruise because of Key West. I made plans with family and friends to spend Christmas Eve day with them in Key West, I bought non-refundable airline tickets and I am upset.

 

I don't care what the reason for the change is - I booked the itinerary I wanted - now I have to cancel and lose what I paid for the airline or pay $130 each to rebook.

 

No matter what rights they have - I am still upset!

[worldsbestcandles]

Why couldn't RCL (or any cruiseline for tha matter?) set up a place on their website that you enter your reservation number and sailing info and email address. Then you enter yourself into a database for that particular mailing, and if anythign changes, they send one email to that list. Granted that doesn't help those who aren't online, but as time goes on, it should hopefully help more and more of the people who are cruising.

 

This is basically the same thing that we do on here when we subscribe to a thread. It generates a new email when something has changed on the thread. Heck, allow the cruiselines to set up threads on here that the mods only allow them to post to. We can subscribe and unsubscribe as we wish... something.

 

On a general customer service note. Someone on the first page said that they don't feel that we should expect RCL to notify customers. I think this is sad. It is an epidemic all around as far as I'm concerned. People don't expect anything and therefore expectations are lowered and then services are lessened. It happens everywhere you look. I like to be in control of my situations so I would always check on things anyways, even if the cruiseline notified us, because I check the website all the time anyways, but I shouldn't HAVE to.... It would be nice for them to want to build a report with me, as I'm a first-time cruiser and am hoping to be addicted. Right now, I'm sure I'll get addicted, but RCL should care that I get addicted to them not to cruising in general.... hope that makes sense.....

 

My TA has been notified of all of our itinerary changes, but it has been at least 3-4 days after it has been on the RCL website, so I always call her about them to verify (she hates that BTW, but not my fault either).

 

Either way I'm excited to go on my cruise, 4 weeks from today!

 

WBC

[brn2crz]

I am obviously an attorney. I don't want to teach a classs in Maritime law. But you miss what has been the history of Maritime law and how this came about. Ships under sail never had a schedule until enterprising Americans came up with the concept of a packet ship. They would leave at a certain time to get to their ultimate post by a certain date(in fact if they made it faster they would be able to demand more) so they left whether full or not at the appointed time. However this did arise liability if they didn't get there on time so they came up with the idea of limiting their liability under the contract(that is why they are so long). This date back to the 1800's. Limiting liability under contract is an acceptable practice. Some limitations of liability violate public policy and are unenforceable. An example US law prohibits cruise lines from enforcing limitations of liability for US connected people for injuries sustained on ship where the cruise line is negligent(this doesn't apply to crew). The reasons for this is if there were no such limitations the cost of carrying either people or goods would be much higher since its the customer that ultimately pays all costs. By the way the duty owed to a transpessor or buglar doesn't extend to ordinary negligence. The cases you see are either atractive nuisance(where kids break into a house and are hurt) or cases where the homeowners sets a deadly trap for a buglar----very limited types of cases. Normally if a buglar falls in a house its tough noughies. Most juries don't give a dime to a bugler excewpt when he is a kid.

 

No one holds a cruise line liable for missing a port. That is the current state of the law. If it changes expect to pay much more for your ticket. I do think that good customer relations requires that the customer be notified, but that is not enforceable by money damages only by people refusing to travel when a cruise line does it...

 

And therein folks...Lies the reason why Smeyer is my 2nd favorite poster:D

[TrinaLC]

I can certainly understand why folks would be upset missing a port! But the reality is they are missed very frequently.

 

Clearly, the cruise lines could emphasize this more, perhaps at least online, but their marketing folks probably have decided against it.

 

So - the lesson for all is not to book a cruise for the primary reason of visiting a particular port. And especially not for any special occasion, such as a wedding or holiday!

 

(PS This is not to say the cruiselines shouldn't do more to communicate, IMO they absolutely should! As others have pointed out, how hard can it be to set up an email database by sailing?)

[Bagologist]

It all comes down to a matter of ATTITUDE.

 

Is this the attitude you look for when looking for someone with which to do business???

 

Basically your only recourse is choose the cruise line that treats you the way

 

YOU want to be treated.

 

Have a nice cruise.

[trailercruiser]

Oh Please! You know these boards are notorious for people finding an audience and unloading. There is no way to know if what is being typed is true or not. I clearly stated that if the situation was as described, it was unexcusable. However, hearing only one side of ANY situation, one must be careful, and willing to admit that we don't know the exact scenario. THere is a raging thread on the RCCI board right now from a lady who wanted some compensation for an accident she had on a wet deck. Once the board peppered her with questions and a few comments of "sign said wet deck, what did you expect", she hasn't been back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You got that right. I want to know just how many marriages Newt Gingrich wants to defend. He's on his 3rd now. Last I checked Hillary Clinton was still on her first. Go figure.

Yes she lets Bill cheat on her whenever she wants I guess you can call that a marriage lmao!!