What Royal Caribbean did to a dying cancer patient...

[time4u2go]

If they gave him a refund, where does it end? Other terminal diseases? what's considered terminal? What would your prognosis have to be? 6 months? a year? And who decides that? What if you're just very elderly? Does that count?

 

Once you make an exception, it can easily snowball.

 

Besides in his situation I'm sure missing the cruise is much worse than losing the money. Without being too cold, I will say that money means alot less at the end of one's life than experiences. The only way they could really make it right would be to let him go in a couple of weeks if they have any unsold cabins.

 

why? its his own fault and if they bent over backwards for every sob story out there they and every other cruise line would be out of business on a month.

 

newsflash: beings sick is not an excuse to be granted special treatment or to have policy ignored. no sympathy for the situation whatsoever especially since a supposed prior cruiser who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER didn't give the 'non well traveled' individual the correct information.

Exactly!

[cheezwiz]

why? its his own fault and if they bent over backwards for every sob story out there they and every other cruise line would be out of business on a month.

 

newsflash: beings sick is not an excuse to be granted special treatment or to have policy ignored. no sympathy for the situation whatsoever especially since a supposed prior cruiser who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER didn't give the 'non well traveled' individual the correct information.

 

Wow, the milk of human kindness by the quart in this one...smh

[Aquahound]

Actually being a blustering bully is pretty much the MO of that poster. On a recent thread he called posts "asinine" for suggesting that full service was not included the cruise contract, and said that for the cruise line "to hold back these services would be a breach of contract". Yet when presented with a copy of the contract and asked to show where it promised those services he suddenly was heard from no more...

 

Thanks for that. It made me look at some of his posts. Funny how in one post he said "Rules are rules and should apply to everybody."

[Karysa]

This is a sad story but making RCL the bad guy seems unfair here. I'm not sure how anyone could think that they could leave the country without at least a birth certificate. Also, since he was ill and not a traveler the others who were travelers should have recommended travel insurance for medical and cancellation and should have told him that he should have a passport to travel because that way he could come home easier if he got ill or something happened at home and he needed to get back. Someone dropped the ball here and instead of accepting responsibility they let RCL get hung out to dry for simply following the rules.

[KevinKruzer]

This is a sad story but making RCL the bad guy seems unfair here. I'm not sure how anyone could think that they could leave the country without at least a birth certificate. Also, since he was ill and not a traveler the others who were travelers should have recommended travel insurance for medical and cancellation and should have told him that he should have a passport to travel because that way he could come home easier if he got ill or something happened at home and he needed to get back. Someone dropped the ball here and instead of accepting responsibility they let RCL get hung out to dry for simply following the rules.

 

RCCL chose to be the "bad guy". Life isn't fair. They were put in a position thru no fault of their own.......but for $997 could have avoided it.

 

Policies / rules are bent & broken evvvverrrrrydayyyy by RCCL and other companies in the name of customer satisfaction & retention and are done so in varying amounts depending upon specifics of each case. For the life of me I cannot understand those that defend RCCL in standing by their policy in this specific case especially AFTER the guy was vetted and verified by a local FL tv station.

 

Very bad PR. Very bad judgement by a mid-level mgr.

Edited February 27, 2016 by KevinKruzer

[RadioRob]

A couple of thoughts here. Many of them are in line with what others have expressed.

 

* Whomever was supposed to be helping this person with planning the cruise certainly came up short here. It's the responsibility of each traveler to have the appropriate identification available. If I was standing in line at the airport and I failed to bring my ID, it's not the fault of the airline that I was not let aboard the flight. On an upcoming cruise, I'm bringing a friend's 70+ year old parents with us that never travel anywhere. I'm working with them to make sure they have their passports taken care of several months before we leave so that we don't have problems.

 

* The cruise contract clearly states there is nothing due back to a passenger that fails to come with appropriate identification. RCL went above and beyond offering a future credit.

 

* The fact the person is either unable or unwilling to take advantage of that offer is unfortunate but not the fault of RCL.

 

* Some individuals are arguing that RCL should have given a full refund. My question is why? Regardless of the situation the person is in, the people who were helping him failed to make sure he was ready to cruise. Because those people failed him, it's now the cruise line's responsibility to make it right? (Side note... the cruise line DID in fact make an effort to accommodate him, but it was not good enough.)

 

So in essence what we're arguing about here is the cruise line followed the rules and went 110% above and beyond what they were supposed to do here instead of going 125% above and beyond.

 

This brings to mind a saying that I've heard used elsewhere many times...

 

 

Whomever should have been helping this person plan the cruise should be the one to give the person the money for the cruise to do something else he might enjoy doing. They were the ones who failed him in this case.

[Karysa]

RCCL chose to be the "bad guy". Life isn't fair. They were put in a position thru no fault of their own.......but for $997 could have avoided it.

 

Policies / rules are bent & broken evvvverrrrrydayyyy by RCCL and other companies in the name of customer satisfaction & retention and are done so in varying amounts depending upon specifics of each case. For the life of me I cannot understand those that defend RCCL in standing by their policy in this specific case especially AFTER the guy was vetted and verified by a local FL tv station.

 

Very bad PR. Very bad judgement by a mid-level mgr.

 

I haven't cruised RC for 5 years so I am hardly a cheerleader here and sure they could have sucked it up but honestly do you really think that in this day and age reading about a company that followed the rules regarding who is going in and out of the country is really bad and going to be bad press? It's a little reassuring to me actually.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Karysa

[KevinKruzer]

I haven't cruised RC for 5 years so I am hardly a cheerleader here and sure they could have sucked it up but honestly do you really think that in this day and age reading about a company that followed the rules regarding who is going in and out of the country is really bad going to be bad press? It's a little reassuring to me actually.

 

I don't recall calling you a cheerleader :confused:

 

RCCL was RIGHT in not letting him board due to improper ID as its not their call (FED law). No one is arguing that.

[Karysa]

I don't recall calling you a cheerleader :confused:

 

RCCL was RIGHT in not letting him board due to improper ID as its not their call (FED law). No one is arguing that.

 

You didn't I just wanted folks to know where I was coming from. :)

 

Well if it's sending the guy on a cruise that's the PR issue we are talking about then ya I agree. Send him on another cruise and make sure the press and maybe even a news magazine show videos it and runs a story.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Karysa

[KevinKruzer]

A couple of thoughts here. Many of them are in line with what others have expressed.

 

* Whomever was supposed to be helping this person with planning the cruise certainly came up short here. It's the responsibility of each traveler to have the appropriate identification available. If I was standing in line at the airport and I failed to bring my ID, it's not the fault of the airline that I was not let aboard the flight. On an upcoming cruise, I'm bringing a friend's 70+ year old parents with us that never travel anywhere. I'm working with them to make sure they have their passports taken care of several months before we leave so that we don't have problems.

 

* The cruise contract clearly states there is nothing due back to a passenger that fails to come with appropriate identification. RCL went above and beyond offering a future credit.

 

* The fact the person is either unable or unwilling to take advantage of that offer is unfortunate but not the fault of RCL.

 

* Some individuals are arguing that RCL should have given a full refund. My question is why? Regardless of the situation the person is in, the people who were helping him failed to make sure he was ready to cruise. Because those people failed him, it's now the cruise line's responsibility to make it right? (Side note... the cruise line DID in fact make an effort to accommodate him, but it was not good enough.)

 

So in essence what we're arguing about here is the cruise line followed the rules and went 110% above and beyond what they were supposed to do here instead of going 125% above and beyond.

 

This brings to mind a saying that I've heard used elsewhere many times...

 

 

Whomever should have been helping this person plan the cruise should be the one to give the person the money for the cruise to do something else he might enjoy doing. They were the ones who failed him in this case.

 

Wow.

 

Some people make mistakes..... I have no idea who booked it or helped him. Maybe they were well intentioned, but unseasoned travelers themselves, maybe not. They cant rewind the clock and do it over. So the question is what to do now going forward...

 

I say- the 8 billion dollar company can and should make an exception for this guy not because they did something wrong, but it is the right thing to do. Most here apparently disagree and say screw him, the policy is the policy, no exceptions.....

[Funbobby68]

Sad story but cruise line is not at fault .... Another 1 post wonder just starting a fire for others to fuel

[KevinKruzer]

You didn't I just wanted folks to know where I was coming from. :)

 

Well if it's sending the guy on a cruise that's the PR issue we are talking about then ya I agree. Send him on another cruise and make sure the press and maybe even a news magazine show videos it and runs a story.

 

Apparently, per the TV story, he is asking for the refund because his health has declined to the point where his doctor wont sign off on a cruise, so he would spend the $ on a resort or something for a few days.

[cheezwiz]

I haven't cruised RC for 5 years so I am hardly a cheerleader here and sure they could have sucked it up but honestly do you really think that in this day and age reading about a company that followed the rules regarding who is going in and out of the country is really bad and going to be bad press? It's a little reassuring to me actually.

 

I do agree that a story like this is a one-day (or maybe one hour) story and will probably have close to zero effect on RCCL's reputation or anyone's buying choices, except perhaps close acquaintances of the gentleman involved.

 

It would have been nice if RCCL had gone the extra mile and given a complete refund, but they are not at fault and have no obligation whatsoever to do so. I do think that it's possible that a nicely worded letter to the CEO would have been a lot more likely to result in a full refund that going to the media like this ever would.

[Alter Ego]

Not only the US agency, but also those foreign countries he was about to visit that would not have accepted his DL as his only way of ID.

 

I have to say well travelled or not, but this man was about to leave his home Country and visit foreign countries thinking he could just do that with a DL?:eek::eek:

 

I didn't want to say it, but I had the same thought. The guy was also a reporter who researched stories. I would think that an unseasoned traveler especially would be asking passport questions. But, he was also sick, and one cannot fault him as much as the others who were putting it together for him. I do wonder if this was more of a fund me campaign, however, based on the story, and really nobody was helping him.

 

One thing that I don't think was brought up was the timing of everything. He was clearly well enough to cruise. Because he was well enough, seems like Royal did him a favor and gave him a cruise credit - he could have turned around and used it the next week. But, NOW he's too sick. Given the facts Royal knew at the time, the FCC was a nice gesture.

 

To those commenting about insurance, I don't know how it would cover something like this as he was clearly in the wrong. I would still have hoped that he would have had something in case he got sick while traveling.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Alter Ego

[janetz]

With all due respect, since you mentioned that this gentleman was not well traveled, then it was up to the folks that were helping him make the arrangements to find out what documentation was needed at the time of boarding. You, yourself, having sailed with RCI several times as you stated, should have known what was required to board.

 

In this case it was absolutely necessary to take responsibility for someone else.

 

Well said.

[Karysa]

Apparently, per the TV story, he is asking for the refund because his health has declined to the point where his doctor wont sign off on a cruise, so he would spend the $ on a resort or something for a few days.

 

Well in that case they would be wise to find out the resort and both companies can give him a great holiday and film it for a TV crew and newspaper article.

[Thetrail]

This is a heartbreaking story that is now getting media attention. Please avoid Royal Caribbean. I have sailed with them several times and usually loved them. But, when our friend Derek Kinner was diagnosed with lung and brain cancer, we chipped in to send him on his dream trip. He is not well-traveled and wasn't told to bring more than his driver's license, so he was not allowed to board. His health has quickly declined. Royal will not refund his money an only offered him 50% off on a future cruise, which he is too ill to do. His doctor verifies everything. Here is a television and news story on him. Please share. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/%E2%80%A6/man-dying-of-cance%E2%80%A6/57618972

 

#royalcaribbean #royalcaribbeaninternational

and hopefully your last.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Paul65]

This is a heartbreaking story that is now getting media attention. Please avoid Royal Caribbean. I have sailed with them several times and usually loved them. But, when our friend Derek Kinner was diagnosed with lung and brain cancer, we chipped in to send him on his dream trip. He is not well-traveled and wasn't told to bring more than his driver's license, so he was not allowed to board. His health has quickly declined. Royal will not refund his money an only offered him 50% off on a future cruise, which he is too ill to do. His doctor verifies everything. Here is a television and news story on him. Please share. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/%E2%80%A6/man-dying-of-cance%E2%80%A6/57618972

 

#royalcaribbean #royalcaribbeaninternational

 

Sorry that this happened, but being a dying cancer patient doesn't get you a pass on required documentation for international travel.

[RadioRob]

Wow.

 

Some people make mistakes..... I have no idea who booked it or helped him. Maybe they were well intentioned, but unseasoned travelers themselves, maybe not. They cant rewind the clock and do it over. So the question is what to do now going forward...

 

I say- the 8 billion dollar company can and should make an exception for this guy not because they did something wrong, but it is the right thing to do. Most here apparently disagree and say screw him, the policy is the policy, no exceptions.....

 

So again... you're saying the people that screwed up should not be held accountable and instead hold the cruise line responsible because they are following the law? This does not make sense to me.

 

I'm not saying "screw him"... Royal offered something to him to try and help the situation. That's already going above and beyond. So again... they've done 110% instead of 125% even though they were not the ones to put him in that situation in the first place.

 

The people that screwed him (either intentionally or not) are the ones that were SUPPOSED to be helping him. (By making sure he had the appropriate travel documentation AND making sure he had travel insurance especially considering his medical conditions.)

 

You ask what should be done going forward? In my opinion whomever it was that was supposed to be helping him with this cruise should be the ones to come up with an alternative for him since THEY were the ones that failed him (again intentionally or not). Again, the cruise line gave an option that they did not have to offer in the first place. In my opinion, you're expecting too much here for a situation that's not even their fault.

[Thetrail]

Drama thread of the day - started by another drive by poster.:rolleyes:

Classic, have never heard that one before!...."Drive by poster".....:)

[Paul65]

I say- the 8 billion dollar company can and should make an exception for this guy not because they did something wrong, but it is the right thing to do. Most here apparently disagree and say screw him, the policy is the policy, no exceptions.....

 

No need to be dramatic, as no one is saying "screw him." But, if you've read these boards for a while, you'd know that this is a very common theme - people saying, "I know it's not their fault, but they should make an exception in this case . . . . "

 

Because they're a big company, people seem to think it's "the right thing to do" for them to take the hit for someone else's mistake, because that someone else has a good sob story. I'm not making light of the gentleman's condition, but lots of us have been through hardships, and don't really think that means that someone else should bail us out, because they have the money.

[foxgoodrich]

Wow.

 

Some people make mistakes..... I have no idea who booked it or helped him. Maybe they were well intentioned, but unseasoned travelers themselves, maybe not. They cant rewind the clock and do it over. So the question is what to do now going forward...

 

I say- the 8 billion dollar company can and should make an exception for this guy not because they did something wrong, but it is the right thing to do. Most here apparently disagree and say screw him, the policy is the policy, no exceptions.....

 

This thread needs a new title.

 

DYING MAN'S FRIENDS SCREW UP HIS DREAM TRIP

Sadly, it happened. Too bad their sense of responsibility and willingness to help their friend plan for his trip weren't as great as their generosity.

Maybe a new title would clarify the situation.

Judy

Edited February 27, 2016 by foxgoodrich

[Ocean Boy]

Some times when geezers get older they get grumpier. It happens.;) :)

We all have our bad days around here but some people just seem to be consistently grumpy. And, as a side note, there are some who are consistently lacking when it comes to empathy also.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Ocean Boy

[KevinKruzer]

So again... you're saying the people that screwed up should not be held accountable and instead hold the cruise line responsible because they are following the law? This does not make sense to me.

 

I'm not saying "screw him"... Royal offered something to him to try and help the situation. That's already going above and beyond. So again... they've done 110% instead of 125% even though they were not the ones to put him in that situation in the first place.

 

The people that screwed him (either intentionally or not) are the ones that were SUPPOSED to be helping him. (By making sure he had the appropriate travel documentation AND making sure he had travel insurance especially considering his medical conditions.)

 

You ask what should be done going forward? In my opinion whomever it was that was supposed to be helping him with this cruise should be the ones to come up with an alternative for him since THEY were the ones that failed him (again intentionally or not). Again, the cruise line gave an option that they did not have to offer in the first place. In my opinion, you're expecting too much here for a situation that's not even their fault.

 

Get the facts straight. Neither I or anyone else (the few of us on this side of issue) have EVER suggested RCCL should break the law. I have REPEATED over and over that RCCL was RIGHT in not letting him board without proper ID (Fed law).

 

What I have said is that in this specific case, the right thing to do would have been to refund the 997 dollars. Companies in the service/entertainment business make exceptions/accommodations everyday on a case-by-case basis.

 

It's a strange decision to draw a line in the sand (Policy is a policy), with a sick, dying man (stage 4 lung/brain cancer) whose friends pitched in for this cruise and it was a featured story on a TV news program?

[KevinKruzer]

This thread needs a new title.

 

DYING MAN'S FRIENDS SCREW UP HIS DREAM TRIP

Sadly, it happened. Too bad their sense of responsibility and willingness to help their friend plan for his trip weren't as great as their generosity.

Maybe a new title would clarify the situation.

Judy

 

If he only had "perfect" mistake-free freinds like Judy, he would have had his dream cruise. :rolleyes:

 

Too bad his friends were only "generous"....

 

Thankfully, RCCL's 8 plus billion revenue stream wont be hit with that massive 997 dent.