Anybody else had this happen to their HAL Alaska Cruise?

[TiogaCruiser]

The same thought crossed my mind, too Silver...

 

Same here. And haven't other lines (including HAL) moved ships from Europe to Alaska for this summer?

 

OP: we loved Hubbard and Sitka. I see that set as just important as GB to see.

Hopefully you will be able to work out a way to eventually see all.

 

You mentioned hiking Mendenhall. We've done that twice: once via helicopter with Northstar and once on foot with Above and Beyond. Absolutely amazing.

Edited December 8, 2016 by TiogaCruiser

[Italy52]

Here is a link to the 2017 Alaska Port schedule. Take a look to see if indeed there is a lot of traffic in port the day that you were going to arrive.

 

http://claalaska.com/?page_id=1250

[Cruise_More_Often]

Count me among those who prefer Hubbard Glacier to Glacier Bay. Hubbard Glacier is huge and in my opinion much more impressive than the smaller glaciers visited in Glacier Bay.

 

Sailing toward Hubbard Glacier - May 2012

If your parents and in-laws have done Alaska cruises before, they might prefer visiting Sitka over Skagway. I know I am looking forward to it when we return to Alaska in 2018.

 

Wherever you end up going on your cruise, I'm sure you are going to be impressed. Alaska is amazing!

[Tom O.]

Your cruise in May is very early in the Alaska cruise schedule. There is still a lot of ice in the water at that time. It is common for cruises to reroute around the ice. We cruised there once in early June, and one cruising day near a glacier (don't remember which one) was canceled because of ice, but it was replaced by another one in which most of the ice had broken up.

 

I just remembered the details of the cruise I took in early June (not this year). It was Norwegian cruise line, and we did not know that Glacier Bay was canceled until the Captain announced it after we embarked. It was replaced by Hubbard glacier, and it was incredible! Highlight of the cruise, at least for me.

[Engineer_abroad]

Same here. And haven't other lines (including HAL) moved ships from Europe to Alaska for this summer?

 

OP: we loved Hubbard and Sitka. I see that set as just important as GB to see.

Hopefully you will be able to work out a way to eventually see all.

 

You mentioned hiking Mendenhall. We've done that twice: once via helicopter with Northstar and once on foot with Above and Beyond. Absolutely amazing.

 

We are booked with Northstar for the extended trek so sounds like we made a good choice.

[Engineer_abroad]

It does not suggest anything..It is possible that HAL knew of the change earlier, but they may have been trying to re-negotiate with the powers to be to keep the original schedule.. Also don't see why their notice of "port congestion" would upset you..You don't know what has been going on the past few months with scheduling problems.. They could have been working on the European schedule changes for next year..There is a thread where someone on a Europen Cruise in April was just notified that all stops in Turkey have been cancelled.. HAL ships are going all over the world, not just to Alaska & sometimes other schedule changes are more important.. IMO a Turkey cancellation for all HAL ships would take precedence over an Alaska cancellation..

 

As someone who was in the Travel business for over 30 years I believe you are over reacting..Schedule changes are a constant in this business for airlines, cruise lines, Railroads, Bus Lines, etc.No company enjoys notifying Psgrs. of schedule changes, but you have to learn to accept it..

 

And they don't always advise of the changes 6 to 7 months in advance such as yours is.. It is hardly the last minute.. If you are so annoyed 6 months in advance, what will you do if you have a last minute schedule change.. When you travel you have to learn to accept schedule changes & sometimes last minute ones.. There might be times when you will be advised of a port change the day of or the day before departure.. Are you going to be one of those Psgrs. who becomes angry if this happens? :eek:

 

No if there are last minute changes these are typically because of a last minute unforeseeable issue (weather, mechanical etc. etc.).

 

However, in this case what we are looking at is HAL offered 3 different cruises all going to Glacier Bay 1 day after the other. Now HAL know that both Princess and Norwegian run a very similar schedule, or could be expected to given previous years scheduling. So that means HAL (and the others) know there is likely to be at least 3 ships vying for 2 places each and everyday. What are the chances that HAL will get a ship each and every day? I would suggest it is close if not 0. This means they sell at least one cruise which is almost certain to be amended. Despite them using contract clauses to try and say we can do what we want, the fact that they sell one knowing they can hide behind their right to change clause could be viewed as misrepresentation at the time of contract. In addition, it may also violate the requirement to act in good faith.

 

The idea that they have spent 4 months trying to re-negotiate is, quite frankly, laughable. You really think they have been trying to argue with US national parks service that they deserve all 3 days they have booked passengers for and that another company should only get 1, really?

 

As for 'airlines, cruise lines, Railroads, Bus Lines, etc' only one of them sells the idea of a holiday, the ports of call, the excursions etc. and in all the other cases you are offered compensation when they cannot fulfill that. Fundamentally a customer has the right to enjoy the product they have purchased and not have it swopped for one they didn't want because it is more convenient to the provider and especially when trying to offer zero in the way of compensation.

[Engineer_abroad]

I'm confused... how is it "foreseeable" that they'd lose the lottery?

 

If you buy 3 lottery tickets and the chances of winning and 2/3 do you expect all three tickets to win the lottery?

[OlsSalt]

No if there are last minute changes these are typically because of a last minute unforeseeable issue (weather, mechanical etc. etc.).

 

However, in this case what we are looking at is HAL offered 3 different cruises all going to Glacier Bay 1 day after the other. Now HAL know that both Princess and Norwegian run a very similar schedule, or could be expected to given previous years scheduling. So that means HAL (and the others) know there is likely to be at least 3 ships vying for 2 places each and everyday. What are the chances that HAL will get a ship each and every day? I would suggest it is close if not 0. This means they sell at least one cruise which is almost certain to be amended. Despite them using contract clauses to try and say we can do what we want, the fact that they sell one knowing they can hide behind their right to change clause could be viewed as misrepresentation at the time of contract. In addition, it may also violate the requirement to act in good faith.

 

The idea that they have spent 4 months trying to re-negotiate is, quite frankly, laughable. You really think they have been trying to argue with US national parks service that they deserve all 3 days they have booked passengers for and that another company should only get 1, really?

 

As for 'airlines, cruise lines, Railroads, Bus Lines, etc' only one of them sells the idea of a holiday, the ports of call, the excursions etc. and in all the other cases you are offered compensation when they cannot fulfill that. Fundamentally a customer has the right to enjoy the product they have purchased and not have it swopped for one they didn't want because it is more convenient to the provider and especially when trying to offer zero in the way of compensation.

 

Have you thought about canceling this cruise - it is not off to a very good start.

[VennDiagram]

Fundamentally a customer has the right to enjoy the product they have purchased and not have it swopped for one they didn't want because it is more convenient to the provider and especially when trying to offer zero in the way of compensation.

 

150+ days to sailing. The Nieuw Amsterdam goes on May 13 on the itinerary you want. Could you change to it? DH and I are either taking this cruise, or swapping for the Nieuw Amsterdam one day earlier. I'm leaning to staying with the Noordam but I can see why some would be unhappy with the heavy revisions to the itinerary.

 

As for compensation -- what kind of compensation would you make you happy with this new itinerary, which appears to be not at all to your liking?

[Engineer_abroad]

Have you thought about canceling this cruise - it is not off to a very good start.

 

If it was just me and the wife I probably would re-arrange for a another time. Unfortunately my parents are already committed to their flight.

 

I actually would of got on with the new itinerary fine and am really just being prickly because I view what they have tried to do as a bait and switch and do believe that the contracts favor the cruise line far to much. Airline passengers have more rights than cruise passengers do.

 

However.... we have just finished on the phone with HAL. After a bit on complaining (all nicely) we have had HAL agree to switch our cruise to the Nieuw Amsterdam which leaves the same port on our original schedule just 1 day earlier. Result. Took a little bit of work and some discussions but to their credit HAL have really come through and completely restored my faith in them.

 

Right back to dreaming of glaciers.

[bUU]

If you buy 3 lottery tickets and the chances of winning and 2/3 do you expect all three tickets to win the lottery?

 

They bought two tickets, not three. And two tickets win.

 

So I'll ask again: How is it "foreseeable" that they would lose the lottery?

[JudithLynne]

Another thing that could be affecting the itinerary change is the ships that were re-deployed from Europe to Alaska 2017 cruises. Our Alaska cruise next July was rescheduled to one day earlier although the itinerary remains the same. Those of us already booked received $100 OBC per cabin.

 

To the OP: We have completed 13 Alaska cruises. I concur with the rave reviews about Hubbard glacier, it is the fasted caving glacier in Alaska. Last summer we saw it calve five times. Sitka is a wonderful port with much to see and do and the locals are very friendly. I would stick with your current plans. I do not think that you and your family will be disappointed.

[Engineer_abroad]

They bought two tickets, not three. And two tickets win.

 

So I'll ask again: How is it "foreseeable" that they would lose the lottery?

 

No, they bought three tickets because they sold 3 tickets to customers knowing that only 2 had a chance of winning.

 

If they only bought 2 tickets and sold three then this is now a case of fraud.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Engineer_abroad

[bUU]

No, they bought three tickets because they sold 3 tickets to customers knowing that only 2 had a chance of winning.

Incorrect again. They bought two tickets of the three tickets available.

Edited December 8, 2016 by bUU

[Engineer_abroad]

Incorrect again. They bought two tickets of the three tickets available.

 

see edit above. If they bought two tickets and sold three then it is fraud. Unless I was playing a lottery which would then have to be governed by gambling legalization.

 

Lets say a airline sold three tickets on three planes all to Place A. But when they sold those tickets they know it was highly likely that only 2 planes would fly to place A. You are on the plane they now tell you is going to place B, unlucky. Fundamentally a customer has the right to receive the product they bought.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Engineer_abroad

[bUU]

Again: There are three tickets in the lottery (and the number of tickets in the lottery may actually be unknown; all anyone knows is how many tickets they themselves buy).

 

Two tickets win.

 

They bought two tickets.

 

The insinuation that they should have known that one of the tickets would not be a winner is without merit.

 

These situations are one of several reasons why there are "subject to change" provisions in travel contacts.

Edited December 8, 2016 by bUU

[SilvertoGold]

If it was just me and the wife I probably would re-arrange for a another time. Unfortunately my parents are already committed to their flight.

 

I actually would of got on with the new itinerary fine and am really just being prickly because I view what they have tried to do as a bait and switch and do believe that the contracts favor the cruise line far to much. Airline passengers have more rights than cruise passengers do.

 

However.... we have just finished on the phone with HAL. After a bit on complaining (all nicely) we have had HAL agree to switch our cruise to the Nieuw Amsterdam which leaves the same port on our original schedule just 1 day earlier. Result. Took a little bit of work and some discussions but to their credit HAL have really come through and completely restored my faith in them.

 

Right back to dreaming of glaciers.

 

Great! Glad you received gracious treatment from HAL.

 

I apparently am one of the few who loves Glacier Bay and would take it over Hubbard any day.

 

Been only twice to Hubbard and about 14 times to Glacier Bay. I find Hubbard a drive-by at best, with a lot of time at seas getting there and back, but Glacier Bay an all-day scenic cruise. Reid, Lamplugh, Johns Hopkins, Margarie Glaciers, forests, islands, whales, otters, maybe a bear on the shore. The best day of an Alaska cruise for me.

 

Also, I would take the Nieuw Amsterdam over the Noordam any day, too. Try Tamarind!

Hope you all enjoy the cruise!

Edited December 8, 2016 by SilvertoGold

[Engineer_abroad]

150+ days to sailing. The Nieuw Amsterdam goes on May 13 on the itinerary you want. Could you change to it? DH and I are either taking this cruise, or swapping for the Nieuw Amsterdam one day earlier. I'm leaning to staying with the Noordam but I can see why some would be unhappy with the heavy revisions to the itinerary.

 

As for compensation -- what kind of compensation would you make you happy with this new itinerary, which appears to be not at all to your liking?

 

luckily this is what we have been able to do. If you go the same route, be warned they initial wanted to charge us $400 a person because the price was now higher for the ship leaving 13 because it was closer to sail date. We asked what the price difference was on September 18 and they said nothing as it was still a long time to the sail date. We then told them we had a copy of the ACA schedules published 18 September showing they didn't have a spot in Glaicer bay at that time and why hadn't they offered us the opportunity then. They then waived the $400 extra charge.

 

As for compensation had this not been possible. Probably $150 OBC per passenger would have been sufficient

Edited December 8, 2016 by Engineer_abroad

[Engineer_abroad]

Again: There are three tickets in the lottery (and the number of tickets in the lottery may actually be unknown; all anyone knows is how many tickets they themselves buy).

 

Two tickets win.

 

They bought two tickets.

 

The insinuation that they should have known that one of the tickets would not be a winner is without merit.

 

These situations are one of several reasons why there are "subject to change" provisions in travel contacts.

 

Ok I have obviously tried to oversimplify this. It isn't actually a lottery as that implies random chance. In this case the US park service tries to accommodate all the companies In this case 3) so there is a inherent bias to the system.

 

This inherent bias means that you are almost certainly never going to get 3 of the 6 slots (50%) available when you are only one third of the people asking for it.

 

In addition, has HAL ever received 50% of the available slots? If no or even if they have but only in the minority of cases it is foresable that you would have to change one itinerary, which could be argued to break the good faith requirements for a contract to be legal.

[Engineer_abroad]

Great! Glad you received gracious treatment from HAL.

 

I apparently am one of the few who loves Glacier Bay and would take it over Hubbard any day.

 

Been only twice to Hubbard and about 14 times to Glacier Bay. I find Hubbard a drive-by at best, with a lot of time at seas getting there and back, but Glacier Bay an all-day scenic cruise. Reid, Lamplugh, Johns Hopkins, Margarie Glaciers, forests, islands, whales, otters, maybe a bear on the shore. The best day of an Alaska cruise for me.

 

Also, I would take the Nieuw Amsterdam over the Noordam any day, too. Try Tamarind!

Hope you all enjoy the cruise!

 

Thank you Silverton. We are very pleased as we now get to go to Skagway and therefore go over White Pass into the Yukon Territory.

[SilvertoGold]

luckily this is what we have been able to do. If you go the same route, be warned they initial wanted to charge us $400 a person because the price was now higher for the ship leaving 13 because it was closer to sail date. We asked what the price difference was on September 18 and they said nothing as it was still a long time to the sail date. We then told them we had a copy of the ACA schedules published 18 September showing they didn't have a spot in Glaicer bay at that time and why hadn't they offered us the opportunity then. They then waived the $400 extra charge.

 

As for compensation had this not been possible. Probably $150 OBC per passenger would have been sufficient

 

Hum? May 13 and May 14? They wanted $400 pp more for the 13th? Remarkable!

Edited December 8, 2016 by SilvertoGold

[SilvertoGold]

Thank you Silverton. We are very pleased as we now get to go to Skagway and therefore go over White Pass into the Yukon Territory.

 

The White Pass is an added benefit. Make sure you take the time to wander the main street (Broadway) of Skagway, pseudo-frontier town with Diamonds International! Really, a cute little place with a decent chocolate shop!

Edited December 8, 2016 by SilvertoGold

[bUU]

Holland America specifically only bought one ticket. So if you're going to view it that way there is even less reason in your argument.

 

Accusations of fraud should never be bandied about casually. I take such things very seriously. Hardcore proof and comprehensive understanding of the law should be evident. People who don't like something can say that they're not happy, rather than trying to make their dissatisfaction sound like a crime was committed. What constructive purpose is served by presenting something as something it is not?

[OlsSalt]

No, they bought three tickets because they sold 3 tickets to customers knowing that only 2 had a chance of winning.

 

If they only bought 2 tickets and sold three then this is now a case of fraud.

 

No, it is not fraud if you read the fine print in the sales contract and later want to ignore it.

[Engineer_abroad]

Holland America specifically only bought one ticket. So if you're going to view it that way there is even less reason in your argument.

 

Accusations of fraud should never be bandied about casually. I take such things very seriously. Hardcore proof and comprehensive understanding of the law should be evident. People who don't like something can say that they're not happy, rather than trying to make their dissatisfaction sound like a crime was committed. What constructive purpose is served by presenting something as something it is not?

 

I am not bounding about fraud casually. Ultimately a legal argument like this could only be settled in a court of law so our arguing here is actual pretty pointless as we are both arguing aspects of law which can only be interpreted by a judge based on common law precedence. I maintain that this situation COULD be seen as either misrepresentation, fraud (if there was deliberate misrepresentation) or a breach of the requirement for good faith,

 

If you sell a customer a product the customer has a right to receive the product they bought. That is a fundamentally principal of consumer law. Lets say I am a TV salesman. I have in my possession two 55" tvs and there is a 33% chance I may be able to get another. I sell three different people my three 55" TV's all at the same price. A few days before people are due to collect I email one person and say I'm sorry but I don't have your 55" TV but I do have a 50" TV that I am giving you instead, however the cost is the same.

 

In this situation they have clearly misrepresented themselves (they never had three TVs to sell). If they did this deliberately then a fraud has been committed. How would a court likely resolve this. 1) buyer must provide a 55" to the customer or 2) they must give that customer their money back.

 

I would argue this case is fundementtaly no different. Whether it is or isn't is for a court to decide based on the strength of legal argument and precedence.

 

In addition a contract term is not legal just because it is there. HAL are registered in the Netherlands, an EU country. In EU countries there isa such a thing as the unfair contract terms act which is defined as follows

 

" The Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts introduces a notion of "good faith" in order to prevent significant imbalances in the rights and obligations of consumers on the one hand and sellers and suppliers on the other hand.'

 

Now is the idea that supplier can unilaterally change an agreement with no compensation significantly imbalncing the rights of the consumer. Possibly, would make one very interesting court case.

 

Look, ultimately me and you have very differing views of the legal basis here and are not going to agree on. I wish you all the best and bow out.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Engineer_abroad