Was She Treated Fairly?

[Rosy1013]

Agree 109%.

What monies were refunded should go back to the original cc, she can pass the voucher on to her parents who do like to cruise. It is a win win. The parents actually end up with more money than they were entitled to and they get an extra cruise and their daughter doesn't have to go on a cruise she didn't want.

 

I totally agree. She's not a "cruise person," she never wanted to go. The parents are "cruise people," and cruise people always love a free cruise.

 

I don't think spending however long fighting Royal Caribbean for money that never came out of your pocket is good for the baby either. I would imagine that adds stress to your life and takes up time better spent getting ready for the new baby.

[Paul65]

Really? If you were in her shoes and were initially promised a full refund with a cheery "no problem"...... and then reneged and said- "nevermind, we thought and about it and changed our mind....your arent getting a refund, but instead you will have the privilege of sailing on a different boat in the near future (before it expires)"- you would say "wow, i got more than i deserved- thank you RCCL"?

 

Not exactly accurate. What she was "initially" promised, was in the e-mail that promised "a future cruise credit valid for two years so that they may re-schedule their voyage for a later date, with no penalty." That was an e-mail that went out to everyone who was booked on a Caribbean cruise. Maybe she didn't see it, or maybe her side of the story just conveniently leaves that out as being the 'initial' promise.

 

We got that notice for our cruise (each of us booked on the cruise) both as an e-mail and as a text message. It was very clear what accommodations they were offering, but I'll admit it's quite possible that someone answering the phone for RC may have said "no problem" when she called asking for more.

[John&LaLa]

Not exactly accurate. What she was "initially" promised, was in the e-mail that promised "a future cruise credit valid for two years so that they may re-schedule their voyage for a later date, with no penalty." That was an e-mail that went out to everyone who was booked on a Caribbean cruise. Maybe she didn't see it, or maybe her side of the story just conveniently leaves that out as being the 'initial' promise.

 

We got that notice for our cruise (each of us booked on the cruise) both as an e-mail and as a text message. It was very clear what accommodations they were offering, but I'll admit it's quite possible that someone answering the phone for RC may have said "no problem" when she called asking for more.

 

I even got that email. ;):eek:

[KiwiGal117]

I agree with you.... they could have buried it right away. But, if RCCL put their foot down and wouldnt refund that one guy dying of cancer whose condition worsened dramatically between the time the cruise was purchased and the sail date (DR wouldnt let him sail) so its not surprising the say no to a pregnant woman.

 

Yet.....

 

The fact is that they DO make exceptions to their policies EVERYDAY anyway....

 

Another aspect of this one is that everyone seems to have missed an important mitigating circumstance that if true would probably have everyone of us on her side- the first RCCL rep told her "no problem, full refund".

 

Come on....who wouldnt be really ticked off if you were promised that but then they reneged on it?

 

I think the woman has entitlement issues for sure, BUT as stated above, in typical RCI fashion, she was originally told sure, no problem, and then told no. I'd be annoyed too. RCI really needs to get it together in communicating their policies to the front line staff. They may have avoided much of this brou ha ha if the first CSR had simply communicated the policy properly.

[Thetrail]

WOW...this was such a simple situation to resolve...OMG! just give her her money back....I have never understood why billion dollar companies are so petty with these sensitive situations...if this had of been handled correctly no one would have ever herd a word about this....the negative publicity that this news story has the potential of creating for RC totally outweighs the few thousand dollars they needed to refund her....OMG

 

This is were you need proper management in place...

 

I am not saying she is 100% correct, don't get me wrong but from a business/public relations point of view this has the potential of being blown way out of proportion and costing RC much much more.

RC ships sail full for the most part. Because one whiner didn't get her way yet was compensated fairly,in all honesty I don't think this will impact RCL's bottom line one single penny! The woman can stew over this and rightly so.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Thetrail]

I can't think of a better recent example of a thread that has so rapidly deteriorated into absurdity. There's even a post attacking casino members and suite guests........ Sometimes CC is just too funny:D

LOL BH, so I've been attacked on two separate threads and didn't even know it!!.....K.O.:) Edited May 5, 2016 by Thetrail

[cruisinfanatic]

Really? If you were in her shoes and were initially promised a full refund with a cheery "no problem"...... and then reneged and said- "nevermind, we thought and about it and changed our mind....your arent getting a refund, but instead you will have the privilege of sailing on a different boat in the near future (before it expires)"- you would say "wow, i got more than i deserved- thank you RCCL"?

 

If the first person really did tell her that (we read it on the internet, LOL) she'd get a refund, they'd be wrong. It's not the policy on Zika

[mom2dina]

They should have just refunded her or her parents, its obvious she couldn't go and risk the baby. Looks like she was only cruising because it was a big family trip and doesn't want to go on future cruises by herself.

They did end up giving her a refund not sure what the hefty fee was .,,

[lemansz20]

She deserves a future cruise credit as per the policy, thats where it ends. The people who think she deserves all her money back, OBVIOUSLY have no business experience what so ever. The cardinal rule, if you give it to one, then 10 will ask. You break policy for one, then 20 will ask for the exception.

[marci22]

She had another option, which would be to go on the cruise and just not get off at the ports. I don't think I have ever seen an insect onboard any ship I have been on. (haven't been on Empress though)

[TC1957]

She deserves a future cruise credit as per the policy, thats where it ends. The people who think she deserves all her money back, OBVIOUSLY have no business experience what so ever. The cardinal rule, if you give it to one, then 10 will ask. You break policy for one, then 20 will ask for the exception.

 

Really? Do you know of ANY business that NEVER makes an exception to ANY of their policies, regardless of the situation?

 

Heck, even RCI makes exceptions on a fairly regular basis.

 

Apparently her parents are not "Loyal to Royal" because by sticking to their policy guns after she was told verbally the a refund was not a problem they risked losing a loyal customer.

 

Besides, by quietly giving the refund she was "promised" over the phone (even if the CS rep overstepped) then this would never had made the news. Now, by attempting to put their foot down then caving after the news story, everyone knows they caved and now they risk more people asking for refunds.

Edited May 5, 2016 by TC1957

[mjkacmom]

Not sure this is the place to try to change anyone's opinion....

 

Why in the world would anyone purchase cruise insurance, if cruise lines would issue refunds for medical reasons? People (like myself) purchase insurance exactly for situation like this, unexpected things that come up that prevent us from going on the cruise(illness, death, house fire, injury).

 

Insurance us always offered when you book a cruise, and for good reason. All of the lines have the same policy.

[Chip and Dale]

I am in a very different position than most on this thread. I am in the insurance industry in Canada and at the present time I have a child who is newly pregnant. I have received numerous notices from Insurers over the past year stating emphatically that anyone who is pregnant OR believes that they will become pregnant in the near future SHOULD NOT travel to specific countries where the Zika virus is known to exist. When I sell travel insurance one of the first questions that I ask is whether or not a female is pregnant, or is considering a pregnancy in the near future. In the event that the answer is yes, then I strongly urge the client NOT to travel to areas where the Zika virus has been documented. It simply is not worth the risk!

 

We frequently purchase cruises/trips for our adult children as Christmas gifts or wedding gifts. When the gift is given it belongs to whichever child we have given it to. Due to the Zika warning we have been adamant with our children about NOT traveling to areas where the virus has been documented. In the event that one of them had become pregnant we would have wanted the refund to go to our child quite gladly since it was a gift and we were going to receive the gift of a grandchild!

 

The parents, by what I saw in the video, gave the family a trip at Christmas time, so I am assuming it was a Christmas gift. The video also said that they had Royal's cruise insurance, however, it did not cover pregnancy. Therefore, the insurance would not pay out. The Zika virus is an unprecedented situation and possibly so was the lady's pregnancy. This is not a pregnancy cancellation, this is a health warning cancellation and she has been instructed by a physician.

 

If this was my child, I would definitely want her to receive a refund after documentation from her physician is submitted to prove the pregnancy and the reason being the risk of the Zika virus for cancellation of the cruise. No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC. I believe that RCI should refund the price of the cruise, whether to the original credit card or the lady in question, but definitely they should be providing a refund.

 

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

Dee

[TC1957]

Why in the world would anyone purchase cruise insurance, if cruise lines would issue refunds for medical reasons? People (like myself) purchase insurance exactly for situation like this, unexpected things that come up that prevent us from going on the cruise(illness, death, house fire, injury).

 

Insurance us always offered when you book a cruise, and for good reason. All of the lines have the same policy.

 

We never buy insurance and if this was discussed I missed it, but would insurance have helped?

 

She didn't purchase the cruise, it was a gift. The story doesn't say how long before the gift was given the purchase was made (the parents may have booked it a couple of months earlier). Is there a time limit on the types of coverage you can purchase? How long after the gift was given did she find out she was pregnant? That may have made insurance a "no brainer" but would this issue be covered since she was advised not to travel based on her condition (which would have been pre-existing).

 

Since we don't normally purchase insurance, I don't know the answer to those questions.

[ewenix]

I think it would have been fair to give her (preferably the parents) a refund once she provided the documentation from her doctor. Depending on how close to sail date, it may be most fair to both to offer her the choice of full credit voucher or refund minus a reasonable cancellation fee.

 

It does seem that she was initially told a refund was okay, then they offered the voucher. One thing I cannot stand is companies that fail on customer service. Granted it's not so simple in the given scenario, but generally if I have to fight a company for what I "deserve" then the compensation should be increased to offset the time and money that I spend on the fight.

[marci22]

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

 

'Lack of compassion' would be to say, 'sorry, you cancelled, not our problem'. Instead they gave back her refundable amounts, and also gave her a FCC good for 2 years (usually it is 1 year, I think).

 

What do you mean by, "No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC." What happens to people who have to use their FCC in one year?

 

There are a lot of times that people have to cancel and lose money. It happens all the time. If RC doesn't want to compensate every person in the name of compassion, I don't think they are evil. And I am far from a Royal apologist.

[KevinKruzer]

I am in a very different position than most on this thread. I am in the insurance industry in Canada and at the present time I have a child who is newly pregnant. I have received numerous notices from Insurers over the past year stating emphatically that anyone who is pregnant OR believes that they will become pregnant in the near future SHOULD NOT travel to specific countries where the Zika virus is known to exist. When I sell travel insurance one of the first questions that I ask is whether or not a female is pregnant, or is considering a pregnancy in the near future. In the event that the answer is yes, then I strongly urge the client NOT to travel to areas where the Zika virus has been documented. It simply is not worth the risk!

 

We frequently purchase cruises/trips for our adult children as Christmas gifts or wedding gifts. When the gift is given it belongs to whichever child we have given it to. Due to the Zika warning we have been adamant with our children about NOT traveling to areas where the virus has been documented. In the event that one of them had become pregnant we would have wanted the refund to go to our child quite gladly since it was a gift and we were going to receive the gift of a grandchild!

 

The parents, by what I saw in the video, gave the family a trip at Christmas time, so I am assuming it was a Christmas gift. The video also said that they had Royal's cruise insurance, however, it did not cover pregnancy. Therefore, the insurance would not pay out. The Zika virus is an unprecedented situation and possibly so was the lady's pregnancy. This is not a pregnancy cancellation, this is a health warning cancellation and she has been instructed by a physician.

 

If this was my child, I would definitely want her to receive a refund after documentation from her physician is submitted to prove the pregnancy and the reason being the risk of the Zika virus for cancellation of the cruise. No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC. I believe that RCI should refund the price of the cruise, whether to the original credit card or the lady in question, but definitely they should be providing a refund.

 

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

Dee

 

Agree on all points, well said.

[marci22]

I think OP's question was, 'was she treated fairly?' I think she was.

 

Did Royal Caribbean go above and beyond? No, but I do not think her treatment was unfair.

[Bailey & Sophie]

Would love to hear what the Cruise Critic contingent thinks about this. Sounds like Royal was forced by bad publicity to cave in to the demands of this woman, but she still isn't satisfied.

 

What say you?

 

http://wfla.com/2016/05/04/pregnant-woman-denied-refund-after-cancelling-cruise-over-zika-concerns/

She's not entitled to any money. The parents are. They are the ones who purchased the tickets as a Christmas gift.

 

"Matassini’s parents bought the tickets as a gift for Christmas. "

[Bound4Bermuda]

Purely from a business standpoint, I get why RCI isn't going to set a precedent of 100% refund for Zika. I assume she went to the press thinking that it would give her leverage, but that's entirely why RCI CAN'T cave at this point, or you'll have EVERY pregnant woman demanding a 100% refund because that woman in the press got it. They have to stick to their policies at least on a public front even if you might find some C&A rep who might bend the rules behind the scenes. I have no doubt Zika has had a huge impact on their bottom line--which might explain the weekly sales begging people to come cruise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[Chip and Dale]

'Lack of compassion' would be to say, 'sorry, you cancelled, not our problem'. Instead they gave back her refundable amounts, and also gave her a FCC good for 2 years (usually it is 1 year, I think).

 

What do you mean by, "No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC." What happens to people who have to use their FCC in one year?

 

There are a lot of times that people have to cancel and lose money. It happens all the time. If RC doesn't want to compensate every person in the name of compassion, I don't think they are evil. And I am far from a Royal apologist.

 

No one has a crystal ball to know whether or not it will be possible to take a cruise within the 2 year, or yes even the 1 year time limit. Why exactly do you think companies use future credits rather than refunds! Statistically it is always in favour of the company issuing the credit. They often go unused for many reasons including people forgetting about them.

 

I don't think that this is the same as many other situations that are discussed on these boards. This is a warning issued by the CDC. I firmly believe that that should be taken into account. She was responsible and did have insurance.

[John&LaLa]

No one has a crystal ball to know whether or not it will be possible to take a cruise within the 2 year, or yes even the 1 year time limit. Why exactly do you think companies use future credits rather than refunds! Statistically it is always in favour of the company issuing the credit. They often go unused for many reasons including people forgetting about them.

 

I don't think that this is the same as many other situations that are discussed on these boards. This is a warning issued by the CDC. I firmly believe that that should be taken into account. She was responsible and did have insurance.

 

I have 20 booked in the next two years.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

Agree with everyone. settlement was more than enough.

 

But this is not as bad as the law suit ageists Starbucks for having too much ice in the iced coffee LOL

 

OT, but I 100% agree. That is the picture-perfect definition of "frivolous lawsuit". Especially because all you have to do is open your mouth and say "Light/less/no ice please" and I guarantee you they will fill the cup with liquid. I know because I used to be a barista and while there are prescribed scoops for the ice for each cup size, the amount can be modified in either direction (more or less) per the customer's request.

[Chip and Dale]

I have 20 booked in the next two years.

 

I'm guessing you are not pregnant!

[marci22]

No one has a crystal ball to know whether or not it will be possible to take a cruise within the 2 year, or yes even the 1 year time limit. Why exactly do you think companies use future credits rather than refunds! Statistically it is always in favour of the company issuing the credit. They often go unused for many reasons including people forgetting about them.

 

I don't think that this is the same as many other situations that are discussed on these boards. This is a warning issued by the CDC. I firmly believe that that should be taken into account. She was responsible and did have insurance.

 

Look through some insurance policies. I don't think I have ever seen one that covers 'complications of pregnancy'. Even a third-party 'cancel for any reason' policy will only reimburse 50-75% of non-refundable expenses.

 

She is asking for special treatment. It would be nice if she got it, but I don't think it is wrong if she doesn't.