Nieuw Amsterdam Group Booking - HUGE - Eliminates fixed dining and cuts open seating

[JVilleGal]

Never mind all the ifs, ands, or buts. And the contract of passage details.

 

We have been cruising for along time. We would not be pleased if we were told that our

hours of dining in the MDR were so restricted/eliminated.

 

Nothing else matters. Our expectations would not be met. We would not be happy. We would vote with our feet and with our wallets.

 

We would not care about any soppy excuses or excusing the cruise line by way of 'fine print'

 

Some cruisers may find this action by HAL reasonable or acceptable. We do not, nor do I think that the vast majority of cruisers would.

 

Why make excuses? Call it out for what it is. Unacceptable.

 

 

I agree

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RocketMan275]

Who reads the contract? Does anyone expect the contract to be changed? I certainly don't.

 

The cruise line reads it.

 

The passengers certainly should. Not that they could negotiate a change, but because they should know how limited their rights actually are.

[cruisemom42]

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but haven't there been cases of companies being held accountable for changes/damages/substitutions, despite what the wording in the contract says, if the wording is held to absolve the company of taking reasonable to ensure that the customer receives what they purchased?

[styles27]

Does anybody have any info on which cruise lines book the most large (900+) group/charter cruises?

[cruisemom42]

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but haven't there been cases of companies being held accountable for changes/damages/substitutions, despite what the wording in the contract says, if the wording is held to absolve the company of taking reasonable to ensure that the customer receives what they purchased?

 

Sorry, that should read "reasonable care to ensure...."

 

For example, would a reasonable person think that there is a difference between skipping/reordering ports due to a weather event or political upheaval, versus simply reordering ports in a completely different geography for no apparent reason (and without notice to passengers in advance of boarding)?

[iancal]

How many people actually read their cruise contract, or their airline contract, or in fact other contracts? Very, very few.

 

Part of my job prior to retirement was reading, and negotiating contracts. It always took three reads to truly get the gist of a contract. Read one your eyes glass over. Read two you get the salient points. Read three you get down to the details and just maybe understand the clauses but perhaps not even the legal issues. At that point I deferred to the legal experts in that particular field of law.

 

Do we expect the same from someone reading the contract of passage from a cruise line?

[OlsSalt]

FYI: for background information interests only - (spare any attacks about WIKI as legal authority - it is not.)

 

Cruise contracts can be considered "contracts of adhesion", or in simpler terms a "take it or leave it contract" that provides no mutual bargaining, which compromises their ultimate legality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

 

Certainly the cruise ship has ultimate authority over public health and safety issues; however less so over matters of mere convenience of one group of passengers over others, all things being equal between the two groups up front.

 

Particularly when no notice was offered to the compromised group of passengers, nor allowing for either acceptance or opt-out of the original contract that became materially compromised by arbitrary acts of the offending contract partner.

[RocketMan275]

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but haven't there been cases of companies being held accountable for changes/damages/substitutions, despite what the wording in the contract says, if the wording is held to absolve the company of taking reasonable to ensure that the customer receives what they purchased?

 

The problem is, except in case of physical injury/death, the passenger agrees to arbitration on the cruise lines home turf. You're chances of winning are not good.

 

This isn't limited to HAL. All the cruise contracts are similar. The cruise lines have very good attorneys to write these contracts.

 

Every one should take fifteen minutes and read these contracts. The cruise lines promise very little.

[bUU]

Contracts of adhesion are legal, and as a matter of fact the entire mass market hinges on their legality. There is no mass market supplier I know of that does not rely on the validity and legitimacy of contracts of adhesion for the viability of their business. The efficiency of the mass market that is wholly responsible for making cruising affordable to so many of us would not exist were it not for the ability of mass market providers to establish common, non-negotiable, "take-it-or-leave-it" terms and conditions. (The mass market is also responsible for people being able to afford personal computers, automobiles, cellular telephone service, hospital stays, etc.) As such, reading and understanding the terms and conditions that you agree to is part of living in a society governed by law. What RocketMan275 said is 100% spot on-target: It is important that people realize how limited their rights are when they engage the mass market for the products and services they need. Those limitations are precisely why people, if they can, choose to avoid the mass market and seek out superior options. The bottom line, though, is that consumers who doggedly refuse to internalize the reality of the mass market are destined to be repeatedly disappointed - they are explicitly setting themselves up for disappointment. There is no benefit I can see from repeatedly putting yourself through such tumult.

[RDC1]

You really cannot state "my perspective". So let's take made-up stuff out of the discussion. Who said they are switching to XYZ from ABC? My perspective if treatment becomes common practice is to choose another vacation venue, that allows one retain more personal control over up front expectation.

 

HAL can solve this simply by disclosing upfront there will also be a very large group which can materially impact regular passenger expectations. Then it becomes a fair choice for the consumer to make. Pot luck is not going to cut it.

 

Depending upon how you define common practice, it is common practice. All of the cruise lines book large groups, none of them disclose that such groups are booked, all of them provide special treatment for the groups that include private access to certain venues, same time dining, etc. While you run into more on some cruise lines than others more on Celebrity and HAL, less on Princess, they all do it.

[RocketMan275]

Depending upon how you define common practice, it is common practice. All of the cruise lines book large groups, none of them disclose that such groups are booked, all of them provide special treatment for the groups that include private access to certain venues, same time dining, etc. While you run into more on some cruise lines than others more on Celebrity and HAL, less on Princess, they all do it.

 

Not only that but the issue here is OP wanted late seating and only open seating at limited times is available. The cruise line does not promise passengers specific seating or times to dine. Suppose there wasn't a group but OP still doesn't get their preferred dining. Is there grounds for a complaint?

[OlsSalt]

Depending upon how you define common practice, it is common practice. All of the cruise lines book large groups, none of them disclose that such groups are booked, all of them provide special treatment for the groups that include private access to certain venues, same time dining, etc. While you run into more on some cruise lines than others more on Celebrity and HAL, less on Princess, they all do it.

 

The new media bully pulpit may change "standard practice". The issues in this case are both the size of this particular group and the materiality of the disruption. A sliding scale in over-all customer satisfaction for all paying customers.

 

It appears a tipping point was breached in this case - too large a group booked, and too material an impact on the regular passengers. (To the point of reported major impact on ship's operations with the crew having to face the brunt of the unhappiness)

 

This is HAL's call; how ever the new media rebalances the impact equation of this sort of arbitrary management choice.

[iancal]

There is a world of difference between working within the confines of the contract of passage and 'doing the right thing' for your customers.

 

IMHO, HAL's actions were certainly in accordance with the terms of their contract.

 

IMHO, HAL's actions did not even come close to 'doing the right thing' for your customers. Quite the opposite. They put profit well ahead of this.

 

The commercial history is full of bankrupt or less than successful companies that worked within the confines of their contractual obligations but entirely missed 'doing the right thing' for their customers.

 

Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty have very little to do with the contract. If you are doing business in a respectful manner neither you nor your customers should have cause to even look at the contract once it is agreed to.

Edited March 18, 2017 by iancal

[RDC1]

The new media bully pulpit may change "standard practice". The issues in this case are both the size of this particular group and the materiality of the disruption. A sliding scale in over-all customer satisfaction for all paying customers.

 

It appears a tipping point was breached in this case - too large a group booked, and too material an impact on the regular passengers. (To the point of reported major impact on ship's operations with the crew having to face the brunt of the unhappiness)

 

This is HAL's call; how ever the new media rebalances the impact equation of this sort of arbitrary management choice.

 

Neither is unusual. I have seen groups taking up more than 50% of the passengers on several different cruises and cruise lines. It is also not unusual for them to block out an entire dining room or dining period. I have run into that on Celebrity as well as on HAL. Have seen specialty restaurants blocked out for an entire cruise as well.

 

Now the interesting question is if those people that booked for the impacted cruise was able to reserve late traditional dining. Usually that gets blocked out well in advance. The people that have commented here seem to either have have late dining from the earlier cruise and assumed that it carried over, or were anytime dining.

 

Since the cruise line still provides dinner options (early dining period, buffet, or room service) they are not in violation of contractual terms, even in countries such as the UK were there are very specific requirements for promised services.

[OlsSalt]

Neither is unusual. I have seen groups taking up more than 50% of the passengers on several different cruises and cruise lines. It is also not unusual for them to block out an entire dining room or dining period. I have run into that on Celebrity as well as on HAL. Have seen specialty restaurants blocked out for an entire cruise as well.

 

Now the interesting question is if those people that booked for the impacted cruise was able to reserve late traditional dining. Usually that gets blocked out well in advance. The people that have commented here seem to either have have late dining from the earlier cruise and assumed that it carried over, or were anytime dining.

 

Since the cruise line still provides dinner options (early dining period, buffet, or room service) they are not in violation of contractual terms, even in countries such as the UK were there are very specific requirements for promised services.

 

Very interesting. Having been on this forum for a number of years, this is the first time I have even heard this sort of disruptive major impact during a cruise due to a large group.. Maybe my memory is worse than I thought. Nor after our nearly 400 days on HAL have we ever experienced what the OP on this thread reported.

[RDC1]

Very interesting. Having been on this forum for a number of years, this is the first time I have even heard this sort of disruptive major impact during a cruise due to a large group.. Maybe my memory is worse than I thought. Nor after our nearly 400 days on HAL have we ever experienced what the OP on this thread reported.

 

Do a search there have been previous postings of groups taking over entire dining periods. I first ran into it on a Celebrity Panama Canal cruise were a group had taken over all early dining.

 

I would suspect that the reason this got the notice that it did was because of the people on the back to back that had their dining changed between the two cruises. If they had been booking from the start for only the second trip the traditional would have been blocked entirely. While it is less common for both traditional and anytime to both be fully booked during one dining period it does happen. The cruise lines tend to use late, instead of early because more people prefer early dining in the US. Thus the groups get late.

 

I have found posts on this subject about varying cases of dining rooms getting taken over and others restricted going back as far as 2008. Most of the time it doesn't even make it to the board. If there are large groups they will be scheduled together.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=809618

 

Plus a discussion just a few weeks back about a similar case on the Westerdam

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2314129

 

In this stream someone also mentions that it happened to them in 2013.

 

Nothing new. Just one of the landmines one can run into.

Edited March 18, 2017 by RDC1

[Liz54]

Neither is unusual. I have seen groups taking up more than 50% of the passengers on several different cruises and cruise lines. It is also not unusual for them to block out an entire dining room or dining period. I have run into that on Celebrity as well as on HAL. Have seen specialty restaurants blocked out for an entire cruise as well.

 

Now the interesting question is if those people that booked for the impacted cruise was able to reserve late traditional dining. Usually that gets blocked out well in advance. The people that have commented here seem to either have have late dining from the earlier cruise and assumed that it carried over, or were anytime dining.

 

Since the cruise line still provides dinner options (early dining period, buffet, or room service) they are not in violation of contractual terms, even in countries such as the UK were there are very specific requirements for promised services.

 

This was booked as ONE 14 day cruise. So of course I expected my dining assignment to last for the whole cruise! Did not even get a new cruise card or account on turnaround day.

[OlsSalt]

Do a search there have been previous postings of groups taking over entire dining periods. I first ran into it on a Celebrity Panama Canal cruise were a group had taken over all early dining.

 

I would suspect that the reason this got the notice that it did was because of the people on the back to back that had their dining changed between the two cruises. If they had been booking from the start for only the second trip the traditional would have been blocked entirely. While it is less common for both traditional and anytime to both be fully booked during one dining period it does happen. The cruise lines tend to use late, instead of early because more people prefer early dining in the US. Thus the groups get late.

 

I have found posts on this subject about varying cases of dining rooms getting taken over and others restricted going back as far as 2008. Most of the time it doesn't even make it to the board. If there are large groups they will be scheduled together.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=809618

 

Plus a discussion just a few weeks back about a similar case on the Westerdam

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2314129

 

In this stream someone also mentions that it happened to them in 2013.

 

Nothing new. Just one of the landmines one can run into.

 

Thanks for the research - interesting to learn of the exact same group description (gospel) and the same dates causing the exact same disturbance: CAVEAT EMPTOR HAL PASSENGERS - DO YOUR GROUP RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BOOK ANY HAL CRUISE IN FEBRUARY

 

Now you know the real story if you get this notice on your own cruise.

 

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION:

 

We would like to advise you of a change to the open seating option offered in the main dining room on board the ms Westerdam sailing on February 20, 2016.

 

Due to the number of guests requesting dining at 8:00pm, open seating will be offered from 5:00pm to 6:30pm only. Should you wish to dine later, complimentary dining will be available in the Lido after 6:30pm, or for anominal fee we invite you to make reservations at our Canaletto or Pinnacle Grill Restaurants.

 

We regret any disappointment this change may cause.

[RocketMan275]

There is a world of difference between working within the confines of the contract of passage and 'doing the right thing' for your customers.

 

IMHO, HAL's actions were certainly in accordance with the terms of their contract.

 

IMHO, HAL's actions did not even come close to 'doing the right thing' for your customers. Quite the opposite. They put profit well ahead of this.

 

The commercial history is full of bankrupt or less than successful companies that worked within the confines of their contractual obligations but entirely missed 'doing the right thing' for their customers.

 

Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty have very little to do with the contract. If you are doing business in a respectful manner neither you nor your customers should have cause to even look at the contract once it is agreed to.

 

The members of the group are customers of HAL too.

[Liz54]

Thanks for the research - interesting to learn of the exact same group description (gospel) and the same dates causing the exact same disturbance: CAVEAT EMPTOR HAL PASSENGERS - DO YOUR GROUP RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BOOK ANY HAL CRUISE IN FEBRUARY

 

Now you know the real story if you get this notice on your own cruise.

 

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION:

 

We would like to advise you of a change to the open seating option offered in the main dining room on board the ms Westerdam sailing on February 20, 2016.

 

 

Due to the number of guests requesting dining at 8:00pm, open seating will be offered from 5:00pm to 6:30pm only. Should you wish to dine later, complimentary dining will be available in the Lido after 6:30pm, or for anominal fee we invite you to make reservations at our Canaletto or Pinnacle Grill Restaurants.

 

We regret any disappointment this change may cause.

 

 

Well, nobody on the Nieuw Amsterdam got this notification although staff were told we had all been notified.

[RocketMan275]

The new media bully pulpit may change "standard practice". The issues in this case are both the size of this particular group and the materiality of the disruption. A sliding scale in over-all customer satisfaction for all paying customers.

 

It appears a tipping point was breached in this case - too large a group booked, and too material an impact on the regular passengers. (To the point of reported major impact on ship's operations with the crew having to face the brunt of the unhappiness)

 

This is HAL's call; how ever the new media rebalances the impact equation of this sort of arbitrary management choice.

 

It's a bit melodramatic to claim that the fact that some passengers didn't get the dining they preferred or the fact that alcohol sales were down for the week constitutes a "tipping point".

[OlsSalt]

The members of the group are customers of HAL too.

 

Then they should not have gotten special treatment, just regular treatment. Which is not what happened.

[OlsSalt]

It's a bit melodramatic to claim that the fact that some passengers didn't get the dining they preferred or the fact that alcohol sales were down for the week constitutes a "tipping point".

 

The point is there is a sliding scale tipping point when group becomes too large a group that it materially impacts and deprives other passengers of their own reasonable expectations. Not melodramatic, just factual.

 

And this is what happened on this cruise. HAL apparently knows when this will happen, but does not disclose this to the regular passengers are not until it is too late. HAL created the drama.. Not the reporting about it after the fact. Read the OP's reports - unhappy crew, hostility between passengers and staff and glowering friction between the two passenger groups.

 

That is 100% unacceptable for a cruise vacation, when regular passengers were given no notice up front when they still could have made other plans.

 

Do you want to tell us more about your own defense of this incident, since you consistently dismiss this as reasonable and to be expected?

[RDC1]

The point is there is a sliding scale tipping point when group becomes too large a group that it materially impacts and deprives other passengers of their own reasonable expectations. Not melodramatic, just factual.

 

And this is what happened on this cruise. HAL apparently knows when this will happen, but does not disclose this to the regular passengers are not until it is too late. HAL created the drama.. Not the reporting about it after the fact. Read the OP's reports - unhappy crew, hostility between passengers and staff and glowering friction between the two passenger groups.

 

That is 100% unacceptable for a cruise vacation, when regular passengers were given no notice up front when they still could have made other plans.

 

Do you want to tell us more about your own defense of this incident, since you consistently dismiss this as reasonable and to be expected?

 

Almost any group impacts the rest of the customers to some degree. For example on one cruise I was on, on Princess, a TA had put together a group of about 100 passengers, pretty small, yet in Glacier Bay they had the best spot for indoor viewing on the ship as a private event the entire time we were in the Bay.

 

Bottom line is that it has happened, it does happen, and it will continue to happen. As a consumer we can make the decision if we wish to continue the product or not, but it is pretty certain that others will.

[Liz54]

I never, in my posts suggested that this was a legal issue. It is a consumer issue. Recent posters seem to believe that if it is not to my liking or yours cruise lines will simply sell those cabins to others. If that is the case, why bother with all the frequent cruiser incentive programs?

 

Anyone who has taken Marketing 101 knows that it is much more cost effective to business to retain clients than attract new ones.

 

With that in mind, I have expressed myself here and in a letter to HAL. I loved my first half of the cruise, and the second half was severely impacted by the large group. The decision to book 1200 was HAL's alone. In writing to them I am merely stating how it was from the point of view of a regular cruiser who will think long and hard about booking with them again.

 

If they respond and say they will do better, such as informing passengers in advance, limiting group size etc. I will feel that those of us who complained may have been heard. I would likely then consider another cruise on HAL. If they offer me an incentive such as OBC or reduced fare, I likely will try them again.

 

I always understood what the contract was. That does not cause me to lie down and play dead if I am disappointed. I believe they would be wise to reconsider their approach. The 1200 also were unhappy as those in late dining found it too late and too formal. Not sure how many of them are gleeful new customers for HAL. But that is for HAL to decide.

 

I will feel better having alerted other HAL passengers about what happened and having expressed my position clearly to HAL. The ball is now in their court.

 

Those who shrug about my issues have a different tipping point. If the casino had been closed all week I would have barely been aware. Others would have been up in arms. But I would never have the defeatist attitude that says, my tough luck, say nothing, move on all because of the contract wording and some notional marketing ideas that indicate that "nothing can be done".

 

But that is just me.