HAL not being honest with loyal customers

[OlsSalt]

Sadly ALL the cruise lines engage in this practice, and to my knowledge NONE of them inform passengers in advance of sailing when a large group will be onboard, and very few provide any notification to non-group guests even once onboard. This is true whether the cruise line is Carnival, Crystal or anything in-between. The cruise lines KNOW that non-group guests may choose to book other sailings hence the secrecy. I'm not a fan of the practice but it is industry wide and with the growth in incentive/affinity/theme cruise group business will continue to affect more and more of us "regular" passengers.

 

The impact of these large group can be quite significant. I have been on both sides of the equation and not sure there is a solution that works for all parties involved.

 

There does appear to be a solution:

 

1. Large groups cannot expect special accommodations at the expense of regular passengers.

2. Notice to regular passengers up front.

3. Cut off-point between what becomes large group, and the requirement they instead do a full charter, if the large group needs and/or demands materially impact regular cruisers marketed expectations.

 

Quibble about the definitions of what "materially impacts" regular passengers.

[cruisemom42]

Sadly ALL the cruise lines engage in this practice, and to my knowledge NONE of them inform passengers in advance of sailing when a large group will be onboard, and very few provide any notification to non-group guests even once onboard. This is true whether the cruise line is Carnival, Crystal or anything in-between.

 

Do we know this to be true? I would imagine large groups (and charters) are less common on the higher-end lines simply due to the increased cost of participation, e.g., will they be able to sell the more expensive trip to folks that may not be regular cruisers, in many cases?

 

At any rate, I'd be curious to know. I don't really follow the boards for all of the higher-end lines or even the premium ones (Azamara, Oceania).

 

On Voyages to Antiquity (small line; one ship of ~350 pax), we occasionally have a group of Road Scholars alongside, but due to the structure of the ship (no fixed dining) and the shared interests of the passengers, there is not any conflict or impact on regular cruisers.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

Do we know this to be true? I would imagine large groups (and charters) are less common on the higher-end lines simply due to the increased cost of participation, e.g., will they be able to sell the more expensive trip to folks that may not be regular cruisers, in many cases?

 

At any rate, I'd be curious to know. I don't really follow the boards for all of the higher-end lines or even the premium ones (Azamara, Oceania).

 

The Luxury and Near-Luxury brands do a robust and healthy group and charter business. Due to the type of clientele involved there are fewer nighttime activities (theme parties, private entertainment, etc) per participant that can affect the general population as a whole, the focus tends to be more on daytime seminar and lectures. However there will still be closed venues for cocktail parties, dining, etc and due to the smaller nature of the ships a group of 50-100 can be just as noticeable and intrusive as a group of 4-500 on a mainstream vessel.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

There does appear to be a solution:

 

1. Large groups cannot expect special accommodations at the expense of regular passengers.

2. Notice to regular passengers up front.

3. Cut off-point between what becomes large group, and the requirement they instead do a full charter, if the large group needs and/or demands materially impact regular cruisers marketed expectations.

 

Quibble about the definitions of what "materially impacts" regular passengers.

 

On the other hand the needs of the group, regardless of size, may or may not be able to be met under your list of conditions and thus the cruise line loses business. Also how do we define a "large group"? Is it 50 passengers, 100 passengers, 500 passengers? Should a cruise line be obliged to turn away a group from a specific sailing that may be 40-80% of the passenger capacity and tell them charter or nothing?

 

Your proposals provide benefit to the individual consumer but no benefit to the groups or the cruise line. My point is that there is no solution that satisfies ALL THREE parties.

[EDLOS]

Read your contract. You agreed to arbitration to resolve issues such as this.

 

Somehow, some way, I believe the Airlines once had a similar contract. There two words that can nullify even the most stringent "fine print" contract. the words are "Fair and Equitable" Many industries I.e. Insurance, learned this the hard way.

[OlsSalt]

On the other hand the needs of the group, regardless of size, may or may not be able to be met under your list of conditions and thus the cruise line loses business. Also how do we define a "large group"? Is it 50 passengers, 100 passengers, 500 passengers? Should a cruise line be obliged to turn away a group from a specific sailing that may be 40-80% of the passenger capacity and tell them charter or nothing?

 

Your proposals provide benefit to the individual consumer but no benefit to the groups or the cruise line. My point is that there is no solution that satisfies ALL THREE parties.

 

You miss the point. Not doing this also risks losing business and therefore also not meeting the ever-loving bottom line.

 

HAL is obviously getting push back on this recent N-A debacle, and it also harmed the crew-passenger relationships too. That is a pretty high price to pay for the extra bucks they picked up on this particular cruise.

 

This will be HAL's task to find where is the tipping point between large groups and permanently damaging regular passenger relationships. Out of my field of expertise. And yours too. We can just raise the issues to consider.

 

A few years back HAL took a big risk affecting passenger loyalty, when they changed their alcohol policy from BYO in unlimited quantities to the far more restrictive policy today. Did it ultimately impact their overall reservations, who knows? Or maybe that is why HAL is having to cater to large groups now to make up for those lost BYO loyalists.

[OlsSalt]

.......

Your proposals provide benefit to the individual consumer but no benefit to the groups or the cruise line. My point is that there is no solution that satisfies ALL THREE parties.

 

Since right now we are seeing only the occasional report of this material large group disruption, all three groups should be accommodated since this is still only an occasional, but highly troubling, happenstance.

 

There remains a solution: upfront notice that allows for penalty free cancellations for the regular passengers, or compensation to the regular passengers for their disrupted expectations on that particular cruise.

 

Add this regular passenger compensation to the costs charged the large group if they are granted priority treatment at the expense of regularly paying passengers. It is only fair.

[Boytjie]

My DW and I are booked on the Koningsdam Feb 14/2018 to Mar 7/2018 for an 11 and then a 10 day cruise. We have 5 other friends booked on all or part of these cruises but I have been checking all the postings here and it seems that our ship has already been reconfigured from a 11 & 10 day cruises to 3 seven day cruises.

According to CJcruzer who has a list of charters on HAL the Koningsdam has a charterfrom Feb 4 to 11/2018

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showt...light=charters

also according cruise critic member Kazu the Koningsdam from Feb 11 to 18 is doing anRSVP Charter Eastern Caribbean.

Is HAl letting people book cruises knowing that they already have these ships booked for charters? Isn't that false advertising?

 

How long ago did you book the cruises? We are on the RSVP charter Feb 11-18 which was announced on this year's RSVP cruise in February. RSVP cruises are usually negotiated and announced a year out and by that time, HAL had already opened booking for cruises that become charters.

 

 

I checked the HAL website and the only cruises for the Koningsdam available for booking starts February 25, 2018. There often is a period of time after the charter is announced that HAL still shows it as available for booking. I suspect that is due to communication from the charter division not getting the information to the IT department fast enough.

 

You should have been contacted with alternative options for the cruises that you booked.

[Boytjie]

It might just be a partial charter, not the entire ship??

 

Charters usually refer to full ship charters (RESERVATIONS sold by someone other than HAL) and then there are groups that sail on regular cruises - and they can range is sizes from a couple of people to more than half the ship.

 

RSVP is always a full ship charter.

[RocketMan275]

 

Your proposals provide benefit to the individual consumer but no benefit to the groups or the cruise line. My point is that there is no solution that satisfies ALL THREE parties.

 

Since right now we are seeing only the occasional report of this material large group disruption, all three groups should be accommodated since this is still only an occasional, but highly troubling, happenstance.

 

 

There remains a solution: upfront notice that allows for penalty free cancellations for the regular passengers, or compensation to the regular passengers for their disrupted expectations on that particular cruise.

 

Add this regular passenger compensation to the costs charged the large group if they are granted priority treatment at the expense of regularly paying passengers. It is only fair.

 

If your 'solution' does satisfy all three groups, then you should be able to explain why hasn't it been implemented.

[OlsSalt]

If your 'solution' does satisfy all three groups, then you should be able to explain why hasn't it been implemented.

 

Let's wait to see if the OP on the N-A gets a letter back from HAL. Then we can work from there.

[Sequim88]

Thanks for the link to the charters and groups. Interestingly I see for the cruise after ours:

 

Oosterdam : 18 June 2017 - 25 June 2017 : Alaska : Infectious Diseases seminar group

 

 

Maybe they will be extra diligent to keep things clean so they don't return the ship to Seattle full of Noro. :rolleyes:;)

 

 

[ and NO I'm not a robot] Not going to re-post the rest of a lengthy reply I just lost. CC moderators PLEASE pass along to the admins this needs to be FIXED! :mad:

[geoherb]

The OP's predicament makes me glad that we don't have to make our vacation plans far in advance. I tend to book cruises after the final payment date, even when we were constrained by DH's school break schedule when he taught at a community college.

 

As for flights, we have had them cancelled as well as had them rescheduled to where they no longer met our needs. It happens, and we worked with the airline to get something satisfactory--sometimes having to work longer than I would like.

[sail7seas]

It might just be a partial charter, not the entire ship??

RSVP IS NOT ever a 'partial charter(gootle RSVP charter cruise) There are very large groups qnd there are charters. I don't know for sur there is any such thing as a 'partial charter. I doub it there is. . if a ship is chartered, it can only be booked througfh the echartering agent. you cannot book a cabin on a chartered ship unless you go through the 'group which will populate it for that cruise.

 

When a groupc harters a ship, they are the only guests on it.

[bUU]

Caveat emptor. There are new sheriffs in town running HAL.

And every other major mainstream cruise line on the seas.

 

I would imagine large groups (and charters) are less common on the higher-end lines simply due to the increased cost of participation, e.g., will they be able to sell the more expensive trip to folks that may not be regular cruisers, in many cases?

To the extent that that is true, you're effectively directing folks who are expressing concern about this practice to go upscale, and most cannot due to financial limitations. For many people, this is simply one aspect of cruising that needs to be accepted, or alternatively should be viewed as a very good reason to not book cruises.

 

Regardless, it is important to underline the main point: Holland America is not being dishonest. They are doing precisely what they're supposed to be doing, given today's standards for the behavior of cruise lines. Don't like it? Get the laws changed.

[Aquahound]

RSVP IS NOT ever a 'partial charter(gootle RSVP charter cruise) There are very large groups qnd there are charters. I don't know for sur there is any such thing as a 'partial charter. I doub it there is. . if a ship is chartered, it can only be booked througfh the echartering agent. you cannot book a cabin on a chartered ship unless you go through the 'group which will populate it for that cruise.

 

When a groupc harters a ship, they are the only guests on it.

 

There most certainly is such a thing as a partial charter. Just, many on this particular board don't understand it because it's not a term HAL uses. Other lines do though.

 

From Cruise Critic:

 

A partial ship charter comes into play when a group wants only some cabins. They do have to meet a minimum: Some cruise lines will only draw up a charter contract for 50 percent or more, while others will consider a 20 or 40 percent ship charter. For example, there is a special interest group of motorcyclists ("Hogs on the High Seas") that books a partial ship charter twice a year. Upfront payment isn't required here -- but payment and cancellation terms are more stringent than for the honeymoon couple or family of four booking just one stateroom, and heavy penalties apply for non-booked space.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=760

[Boytjie]

There most certainly is such a thing as a partial charter. Just, many on this particular board don't understand it because it's not a term HAL uses. Other lines do though.

 

From Cruise Critic:

 

A partial ship charter comes into play when a group wants only some cabins. They do have to meet a minimum: Some cruise lines will only draw up a charter contract for 50 percent or more, while others will consider a 20 or 40 percent ship charter. For example, there is a special interest group of motorcyclists ("Hogs on the High Seas") that books a partial ship charter twice a year. Upfront payment isn't required here -- but payment and cancellation terms are more stringent than for the honeymoon couple or family of four booking just one stateroom, and heavy penalties apply for non-booked space.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=760

 

I don't quite understand Cruise Critic's definition. The dictionary tells us that a charter is "the reservation of an aircraft, boat, or bus for private use." Private, not sharing it with others.

 

I also think that when most people talk about "charter cruise" that they mean the whole ship is chartered for the use of that one group.,

[AV8rix]

The OP of this thread was particularly troubling to me because I’ve always figured that the best way to avoid groups was to book cruises of greater than 7 days’ duration. As a general rule, most groups schedule 7 day cruises (yes, I know that some schedule longer voyages but the majority are on the weeklong itineraries). The only two 7-day cruises I’ve had to book in the past were mandated by the constraints of my traveling companions.

 

So now I have learned that a 2-segment 21-day voyage can possibly be appropriated by HAL and reconfigured to suit their own purposes. I suppose that’s OK as long as it’s done as far in advance as this one was. And I’m retired and have no family constraints (children in school, working spouse, etc), so if it happened to me I wouldn’t like it but I could just cancel and select another cruise. However, I can see where it could cause serious problems for people who are still working and have to schedule vacation time in accordance with the needs of their employers, or have family issues that could be impacted.

[OlsSalt]

And every other major mainstream cruise line on the seas.

.......

Regardless, it is important to underline the main point: Holland America is not being dishonest. They are doing precisely what they're supposed to be doing, given today's standards for the behavior of cruise lines. Don't like it? Get the laws changed.

 

That is an interesting challenge. Which laws would need to be changed?

 

Certainly new environmental regulations have created new financial burdens on cruise ships. Are there new employment laws, fiduciary laws, maritime safety laws that are also now exerting more fiscal pressure on cruise company bottom lines? The sheer cost of labor competition and retention of employees is already built into overall financial realities.

 

Please let us know more about new legal pressures cruise companies are facing. Adding recently the extra surveillance monitoring for "man overboard" incidents must have been another pricy mandate.

[bUU]

That is an interesting challenge. Which laws would need to be changed?

For starters, it would include new and strengthened consumer protections in every state, individually, banning a number of standard business practices in the United States in every state, individually, such as the inclusion in contracts of any exculpatory clauses (clauses that essentially render one party faultless for unilateral, material changes to any characterization of the product or service), and power to enforce these bans granted to appropriate agencies in every state, individually. It would also include codifying most FTC regulations as very explicit laws, again separately in every state, written such that attorneys general nationwide are honor-bound under threat of impeachment to enforce those provisions, with penalties so significant that providers would just consider it a cost of doing business when an attorney general finds the time and money to take action.

 

The prototypes for some of these laws already exist in the UK and Australia. I alluded to a big part of the challenge above, i.e., that the United States is really 51(+) separate jurisdictions. Federal laws can only go so far when state laws conflict with them and politics is such that state officials refuse to abide the federal laws and the federal authorities are reluctant to remand state officials and/or place state agencies into federal receivership. That's why passage of these laws in every state, individually, and the explicit allocation of power is so critical, as is the importance of such allocation standing up in court.

 

And it is critical that the laws in every state all afford that same level of consumer protection, because if one state is allowed to opt-out or provide a lesser level of consumer protection then all businesses will relocate their headquarters to a PO box in that state, and establish that all sales take place in that state and therefore all contract disputes must be adjudicated in that state, according to that state's laws.

 

Being able to purchase things across state lines can lead quickly to a situation where the American consumer is only protected by the laws of the state that affords them the least protection.

 

Certainly new environmental regulations have created new financial burdens on cruise ships. Are there new employment laws, fiduciary laws, maritime safety laws that are also now exerting more fiscal pressure on cruise company bottom lines? The sheer cost of labor competition and retention of employees is already built into overall financial realities.

Good point. These additional consumer protections could wreck the industry, because they'd shift substantial costs off of the consumer and onto the service providers. At the very least, every penny of cost shifted from consumers to the service providers would invariably either [a] just come back around in a higher price, or damage shareholder value by that amount. The latter will make investing in service providers less attractive, resulting in a lack of investment capital and even a lack of funds to maintain existing services, as investors move their capital into better investments, unaffected by such regulations.

[OlsSalt]

.........

 

Good point. These additional consumer protections could wreck the industry, because they'd shift substantial costs off of the consumer and onto the service providers. At the very least, every penny of cost shifted from consumers to the service providers would invariably either [a] just come back around in a higher price, or damage shareholder value by that amount. The latter will make investing in service providers less attractive, resulting in a lack of investment capital and even a lack of funds to maintain existing services, as investors move their capital into better investments, unaffected by such regulations.

 

Maybe HAL should think about going private. Then they could stop worrying so much about "shareholders" and build a cruise ship line that simply keeps the passengers happy, returning, growing and profitable. They have a very good product and already earn a high degree of customer loyalty.

 

Your exposition of "consumer protection" laws negatively impacting HAL autonomy, sounds a lot like doctors complaining about medical malpractice matters that tie them up which makes "medical care" far more expensive than it need be. I had not thought about the role "consumer protection" laws play in HAL operations.

 

Not sure if I see the financial impact - self-selected courts of jurisdiction versus laws of country of registry. Why doesn't HAL choose another friendlier legal jurisdiction entity, or does having US cruise ports preclude this.

[chengkp75]

For starters, it would include new and strengthened consumer protections in every state, individually, banning a number of standard business practices in the United States in every state, individually, such as the inclusion in contracts of any exculpatory clauses (clauses that essentially render one party faultless for unilateral, material changes to any characterization of the product or service), and power to enforce these bans granted to appropriate agencies in every state, individually. It would also include codifying most FTC regulations as very explicit laws, again separately in every state, written such that attorneys general nationwide are honor-bound under threat of impeachment to enforce those provisions, with penalties so significant that providers would just consider it a cost of doing business when an attorney general finds the time and money to take action.

 

And it is critical that the laws in every state all afford that same level of consumer protection, because if one state is allowed to opt-out or provide a lesser level of consumer protection then all businesses will relocate their headquarters to a PO box in that state, and establish that all sales take place in that state and therefore all contract disputes must be adjudicated in that state, according to that state's laws.

 

 

You do realize that you are voicing one of the major reasons the cruise lines are incorporated in foreign countries, and the ship fly foreign flags, right? That "state" with the least consumer protection is the flag of convenience country. Very difficult to regulate the business practices of foreign companies. So, to extend US consumer protection to the cruise industry, you would have to require the cruise industry to be US corporations and US flag ships.

[sail7seas]

I don't quite understand Cruise Critic's definition. The dictionary tells us that a charter is "the reservation of an aircraft, boat, or bus for private use." Private, not sharing it with others.

 

I also think that when most people talk about "charter cruise" that they mean the whole ship is chartered for the use of that one group.,

 

 

 

Yes, Peter. i think you hav e it right. A partial charter is what some people here term a very large group. A very large geoup is jus that,,,,,,,, a very large group on a sailin g that has many guests who arre not a part of the group. There are chareters and theere are large (and small) groups but no one has yet shown us in writing anything that proves their positon there is such a thing as a partial charter for a cruise ship. I am skeptical. Just because someone here says it, that does not make it so.

Edited March 21, 2017 by sail7seas

[chengkp75]

Maybe HAL should think about going private. Then they could stop worrying so much about "shareholders" and build a cruise ship line that simply keeps the passengers happy, returning, growing and profitable. They have a very good product and already earn a high degree of customer loyalty.

 

Your exposition of "consumer protection" laws negatively impacting HAL autonomy, sounds a lot like doctors complaining about medical malpractice matters that tie them up which makes "medical care" far more expensive than it need be. I had not thought about the role "consumer protection" laws play in HAL operations.

 

Not sure if I see the financial impact - self-selected courts of jurisdiction versus laws of country of registry. Why doesn't HAL choose another friendlier legal jurisdiction entity, or does having US cruise ports preclude this.

 

But, after buying back all of the shareholders' equity in the company, and not having any public stock to sell, where does the company get the capital to build new ships?

 

The cruise lines choose the most convenient and friendly legal venue they can. Most of the cruise lines use the US district court in Florida, because it is close to their corporate offices, and has shown a degree of friendliness to the lines. HAL chooses the courts in Washington state due to closeness to their corporate offices. HAL's ticket contract specifically specifies that arbitration will be pursuant to Federal law, the "Federal Arbitration Act", so debates about state's jurisdiction or level of consumer protection are somewhat moot.

[UPNYGuy]

There most certainly is such a thing as a partial charter. Just, many on this particular board don't understand it because it's not a term HAL uses. Other lines do though.

 

From Cruise Critic:

 

A partial ship charter comes into play when a group wants only some cabins. They do have to meet a minimum: Some cruise lines will only draw up a charter contract for 50 percent or more, while others will consider a 20 or 40 percent ship charter. For example, there is a special interest group of motorcyclists ("Hogs on the High Seas") that books a partial ship charter twice a year. Upfront payment isn't required here -- but payment and cancellation terms are more stringent than for the honeymoon couple or family of four booking just one stateroom, and heavy penalties apply for non-booked space.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=760

 

 

Yup. Norwegian did it on our last cruise. It inconvenienced a ton of people.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums