HAL not being honest with loyal customers

[richwmn]

Hi Serendipity. HAL's parent line, Carnival, uses the term partial charter. This is an excerpt from the CCL cruise contract:

 

"For cancellation charges related to group bookings, partial ship charters or full ship charters refer to your charter contract or group booking agreement for terms and conditions."

 

However, Holland America does not use that terminology. In order for people to understand each other, they need to use the same language. Staying consistent with HAL language, especially when on the HAL forum, is what makes sense.

 

And in an attempt to make sure everything is correct Aquahound, Carnival Cruise Lines is NOT HAL's parent line, Carnival Corp - another entity - is the parent corporation to CCL and HAL which would be considered sister companies.

[2Fltravelers]

would you mind sharing the amount of the obc?

 

$100 pp for rebooking.

[RDC1]

What triggered this rambling discussion was a seemingly sympathetic position that favored share holders over passengers as the primary HAL corporate decision driver. The future was being presented - expect more large groups because they offered higher profit margins than regular passengers.

 

You of course raise a good point about buying back shareholder equity. And if the future of HAL demands more large group bookings for shareholder value, the wishes of regular passengers become a lost cause anyway.

 

All I was asking was HAL to notice regular passengers upfront, before cancellation penalties, when a large group will materially impact former expected regular passenger services. In this case the large group that impacted normal dining hours and locations. However, if the group takes over the Hudson Room, that does not move the needle on my radar.

 

How large of a group, or what prior promises made to that group by HAL up front, that creates material disruption to the remaining unsuspecting regular passengers is the lingering issue.

 

That does raise the question of what constitutes a material disruption. If you consult pretty much all of the regulations dealing with travel protections, of which the UK is the most stringent. None of them consider that such a limitation of dining hours to be material and actionable. The evening meal was still provided, with the same menu, in the same dining rooms.

 

There are a number of cruise lines that put customer service ahead of making sure that the cruise line was fiscally sound. Such cruise lines as Regency and Renaissance. Of course they are also bankrupt. HAL was close to that when CCL purchased them.

[RDC1]

And in an attempt to make sure everything is correct Aquahound, Carnival Cruise Lines is NOT HAL's parent line, Carnival Corp - another entity - is the parent corporation to CCL and HAL which would be considered sister companies.

 

Just to make sure that everything is correct CCL is the stock symbol for the parent company. So to be clear if you are talking about the cruise line and not the parent you should probably not just put CCL.

[bUU]

That does raise the question of what constitutes a material disruption. If you consult pretty much all of the regulations dealing with travel protections, of which the UK is the most stringent. None of them consider that such a limitation of dining hours to be material and actionable. The evening meal was still provided, with the same menu, in the same dining rooms.

Interesting. It makes sense. Function matters, form less so. It is the same basis on which airlines can switch an airline passenger from a nonstop jet to a connection routing with a couple of turboprops that arrives within the two or three hour period after the nonstop was to arrive without any reasonable expectation for compensation for the change.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Aquahound]

However, Holland America does not use that terminology. In order for people to understand each other, they need to use the same language. Staying consistent with HAL language, especially when on the HAL forum, is what makes sense.

 

This is Cruise Critic, not the HAL website.

[Cruzaholic41]

I'm having a deja vu moment. It seems this discussion recently happened.

 

I'm a former travel agent. Partial Charters are standard in the cruise industry. It's when a large group charters up to half the ship, blocks off up to half the rooms, and the passengers have to book though them. I used to arrange them all the time.

 

HAL does understand Partial Charters. They just don't advertise it and you won't see it on their website because Partial Charters cause problems. It's safe to say almost all of the remaining passengers will complain. They choose to use the words "group" or "incentive." Truth is, they're just euphemisms for Partial Charter.

 

Not understanding the generic terms seems to be a local Cruise Critic thing, more specifically this board.

[Cruzaholic41]

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

 

I found myself on a Partial Charter on Princess after I retired. It sucked and I had regrets about pushing them when I worked in the travel industry.

[Cruzaholic41]

While I'm not a legal expert, I do know something about maritime law, and I know that since the cruise lines are not incorporated in the US, that the ticket contracts, under maritime law, are written using the laws of the country of registration of the ship. Therefore, even though HAL specifies a venue for arbitration or legal proceedings, that venue will apply maritime law, not state or federal law.

 

 

As to your ways to force compliance with US laws, just a couple of notes. While the "port state" has jurisdiction while in port and in national waters, the overlap between flag state and port state jurisdiction is typically handled "for the good of international comity" to be that unless the "safety and well-being of the port" is affected, then the port state will not force its jurisdiction on the ship. Things that affect outside the ship, like pollution or emissions, or commerce (taxes, casinos, etc) can be regulated when in territorial waters, but not outside. Gee, not letting them us US banks, they might have to go to offshore banks like Grand Cayman, and get a better deal, real hardship. How do you justify making an "embargo" against doing business with one foreign company (the cruise line) for not complying with a US law, when other foreign companies doing business with US companies do not comply either. Won't stand up to any legal challenge. If you stop a Panamanian or Bahamian flag ship from entering US ports, what is to stop these countries from stopping all of their flag ships from coming to the US (and Panama accounts for a very large share of US commerce). As for the ADA, you do know that even SCOTUS has ruled that not all aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships.

 

 

If it was easy to force foreign flag ships comply with US laws, don't you think that Senator Rockefeller, who has worked at it for decades, would have been able to swing it? Even his "landmark" "cruise passenger bill of rights" was voluntarily adopted by CLIA, since it, as passed, had no jurisdiction.

 

It doesn't matter where the cruise lines are incorporated or what the ships flags are. The cruise lines are not immune from consumer protection laws. The UK is probably the best example of consumer protection that the cruise lines routinely have to follow.

[RocketMan275]

It doesn't matter where the cruise lines are incorporated or what the ships flags are. The cruise lines are not immune from consumer protection laws. The UK is probably the best example of consumer protection that the cruise lines routinely have to follow.

 

they only have to follow for cruises booked within the UK.

If those protections are so good for the consumer, why do we have so many inquiries about how UK passengers can book with US TA?

[bUU]

they only have to follow for cruises booked within the UK.

If those protections are so good for the consumer, why do we have so many inquiries about how UK passengers can book with US TA?

Probably because the base prices​ are lower from US agents. Folks from the United Kingdom are perhaps becoming like Americans, where the typical consumers are fixated on bargain hunting with a grievously inadequate regard for the impact of bargain hunting on the quality of service and with a grievously inadequate regard for how bargain hunting prompts suppliers to have add on fees, and increase them over time.

 

Just review what we seen in this thread, all the implications that passengers are due compensation. That's nonsense for cruises booked in the US, but posters in this thread have suggested that if booked in the UK or Australia or even Canada, then this change is an actionable violation. For All I know that could be one reason why those prices are higher in the UK or Australia or even Canada.

 

Regardless what's clear is that the jurisdiction of the cruise contract matters and that maritime law does not trump federal or state laws where the purchase was domiciled.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[RocketMan275]

Probably because the base prices​ are lower from US agents. Folks from the United Kingdom are perhaps becoming like Americans, where the typical consumers are fixated on bargain hunting with a grievously inadequate regard for the impact of bargain hunting on the quality of service and with a grievously inadequate regard for how bargain hunting prompts suppliers to have add on fees, and increase them over time.

 

Just review what we seen in this thread, all the implications that passengers are due compensation. That's nonsense for cruises booked in the US, but posters in this thread have suggested that if booked in the UK or Australia or even Canada, then this change is an actionable violation. For All I know that could be one reason why those prices are higher in the UK or Australia or even Canada.

 

 

When you look at the increased costs and the restrictions on changes, those UK 'consumer protection' provisions may have had the objective of protecting the Travel Agents and the Cruise Lines, not the customers.

 

Personally, I prefer 'add on fee' instead of all inclusive fares. I'd rather only pay for the things I prefer. Things like beverage packages, gratuities, etc., may be included in the fare but they are not 'free'.

[Cruzaholic41]

they only have to follow for cruises booked within the UK.

If those protections are so good for the consumer, why do we have so many inquiries about how UK passengers can book with US TA?

 

I think you missed my point. The point was, they have to follow the consumer protection laws. My argument was, if the US enacted such laws, the cruise lines would have to follow, just like they already do in the U.K. The person I responded to was claiming this can't happen. Well, it does happen in the U.K.

[RocketMan275]

I think you missed my point. The point was, they have to follow the consumer protection laws. My argument was, if the US enacted such laws, the cruise lines would have to follow, just like they already do in the U.K. The person I responded to was claiming this can't happen. Well, it does happen in the U.K.

 

Fully understood. My point was that it is very easy to call something "consumer protection" when it's principal purpose is to protect the travel industry.

[bUU]

When you look at the increased costs and the restrictions on changes, those UK 'consumer protection' provisions may have had the objective of protecting the Travel Agents and the Cruise Lines, not the customers.

My point was that it is very easy to call something "consumer protection" when it's principal purpose is to protect the travel industry.

Consumers do get protection, and apparently in places like the UK, superior consumer protection. However: "All magic has a price." If you get something extra (i.e., extra consumer protections) then you are invariably paying for it somehow (i.e., higher prices, more restrictions, etc.) File this under, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

 

Personally, I prefer 'add on fee' instead of all inclusive fares. I'd rather only pay for the things I prefer. Things like beverage packages, gratuities, etc., may be included in the fare but they are not 'free'.

There's a mystique to "all-inclusive" but it can only ever to be to the benefit of those who overeat, overdrink, etc. By all rights, your preference should be the most efficient for the average person.

 

I wavered a bit with this in the past, but more and more now I have us take the perspective of "self-insurance". "Self-insurance" is the way most big companies deal with liability and other situations within which other entities would hold an insurance policy. The company sets aside a specific amount of money, and pay for "claims" from that money they've set aside. They tend to have a umbrella of some sort, in case there are any claims that exhaust the fund, but most of the time there aren't, and therefore the entirety of that cost is covered from the set-aside, thereby avoiding the cost associated with getting another company to underwrite a policy.

 

That underwriting cost is analogous to the costs associated with all-inclusives, including the premium that the supplier charges for the convenience and pleasure inherent in an all-inclusive, and the extra cost associated with having to subsidize overeaters and overdrinkers.

 

I prepare a budget for each vacation (no kidding - the spouse is supposed to scrutinize it to make sure I haven't forgotten anything, haven't fudged, and that the bottom line amount is something we can afford - too expensive, and my vacation request should be rejected and I should have to find a new, less expensive option). The budget gives us peace of mind that if we just pay as we go we'll be okay. We've gone over-budget once or twice (to be clear: we only check after we get home and all the bills come in, not along the way during the vacation itself) but by such small amounts that those cases are relegated to me simply learning about those service providers a bit more and learning how to make future budgets more accurate.

 

I feel confident now that if you budget accurately, honestly and conscientiously, you can always do better paying as you go as compared to any kind of package deals, all-inclusive arrangements, etc. And whatever convenience and pleasure we got from such arrangements we now get from the upfront work I do budgeting the trip.

 

The point was, they have to follow the consumer protection laws. My argument was, if the US enacted such laws, the cruise lines would have to follow, just like they already do in the U.K. The person I responded to was claiming this can't happen. Well, it does happen in the U.K.

And it does happen in the United States as well, though of course the laws aren't as consumer-friendly here. Edited March 22, 2017 by bUU

[Globaliser]

When you look at the increased costs and the restrictions on changes, those UK 'consumer protection' provisions may have had the objective of protecting the Travel Agents and the Cruise Lines, not the customers.

I'm pretty sure that they don't.

 

First, although the UK has had such protection for a long time, most of the current framework is set by the EU. While it's not impossible that travel agents and cruise lines have somehow suborned the EU's legislative process, it's harder to do that than to influence the process in a single country.

 

Second, the UK's protection was firmly based on real-life experience of things going wrong as the package tourism industry developed and to respond to real stories of problems that needed to be addressed.

 

Third, cruise lines have almost incidentally become covered by the most onerous parts of the legislation, which is not primarily aimed at cruising holidays but at the rest of the package tourism industry, many parts of which operate at much lower (financial and operational) standards than cruise lines generally do.

 

Fourth and finally, you do not have to look very far to see real-life examples of the legislation working as intended to protect the interests of the consumer rather than the industry. A high-profile cruising example is when flights in Europe were so disrupted by the Icelandic volcanic eruption. Those who had full package tour protection simply got all their money back, no questions asked and without recourse to travel insurance. Those who didn't have the protection had a much tougher fight on their hands.

 

But on a much more mundane level, there is a regular stream of package tourists being repatriated at no cost to themselves (or to their travel insurers) when providers go under, because of the bonding schemes that are required as part of the legislation. However, these schemes are expensive for the travel agents and tour operators, and inevitably the costs are higher than if this protection is not in place.

[RocketMan275]

When you look at the increased costs and the restrictions on changes, those UK 'consumer protection' provisions may have had the objective of protecting the Travel Agents and the Cruise Lines, not the customers.

 

I'm pretty sure that they don't.

 

Then there has indeed been a miracle. Once a framework is established to protect something by regulating an industry/profession, that industry will begin to organize to co-opt the regulators and politicians who write the laws and regulations. The stronger the regulations, the more incentive to co-opt the regulators. That is an inescapable law of politics and organizations.

[RocketMan275]

And it does happen in the United States as well, though of course the laws aren't as consumer-friendly here.

 

The only way we know the laws are more consumer friendly in the UK is because the government tells us that is true.

[EDLOS]

Management 101...When you know you are going to have a problem, get out in front of it to solve or minumize it.

 

So let's go:

All partial charter bookings will have the following Dinner Venue on seven day cruises.

Every OTHER night there will be for the Charter Group, a themed buffet on the Port side of Lido with private seating from outside at the Sea View pool to the Lido Pool

Choices:

An Italian Night

A Barbecue Night

An Asian Night

A German Night

A Mexican Night

ALL with appropriate decorations and music

Group bookings on HAL must agree to have at least 3 theme nights and HAL can and will be sure to sell the sizzle to the group.

The regular cruisers are not totally shut out of dining at Fixed and Anytime dining for a whole week.

HAL can, in advance, make everyone aware of what will happen for MDR dinner seating each day. NO SURPRISES particularly on B 2 B !

It may not make everyone happy, but it sure seems more logical to eliminate the neurotic combat between Management Staff and Crew and irate passengers

[RDC1]

they only have to follow for cruises booked within the UK.

If those protections are so good for the consumer, why do we have so many inquiries about how UK passengers can book with US TA?

 

Largely because with increased protections, comes on average higher costs.

[RocketMan275]

Largely because with increased protections, comes on average higher costs.

TANSTAAFL.

 

I really do not appreciate regulators who assume the mission of taking care of me. I would bet there are more travel agent and cruise line protections than consumer protections.

[RDC1]

I think you missed my point. The point was, they have to follow the consumer protection laws. My argument was, if the US enacted such laws, the cruise lines would have to follow, just like they already do in the U.K. The person I responded to was claiming this can't happen. Well, it does happen in the U.K.

 

However, even in the UK the items we are talking about here (groups and the impact on dining) would not be considered to be sufficient for someone to succeed in making a claim for damages.

 

The protections in the UK have also resulted in changes in language and process by the cruise lines, that mitigate some of those protections and have set prices and reduced the ability to make changes to cover the increased to the cruise lines bookings from those areas.

 

I do not have quick access to the HAL UK terms but I have previously linked the Celebrity terms so I will use those for example. HAL's web sites are set up such that I can only get the US terms and cannot access the UK terms.

 

From Celebrity's UK terms:

 

5.15 Common Interest Groups and Immersion Sailings.

From time to time we may have various common interest groups onboard attending for example conventions, conferences, seminars, training courses, competitions, tournaments or specialty holidays such as cookery and dancing courses. These groups may take place on the dates when you are sailing with us. While we envisage that this will not affect the overall normal day-to-day operation of the ship, there may be occasions when certain facilities are unavailable to you whilst these groups are on board.

Some sailings are sold by the regional country market for that itinerary in higher numbers, so there may be a large majority of that region’s guests on that sailing, such as Celebrity Eclipse sailings from Southampton, which will be largely sold to the UK and Irish market. These sailings are known as Immersion sailings and this means that the product will be tailored to the local market onboard in terms of language, food and entertainment. However English language will always be used onboard all of our ships for any onboard announcements, onboard programmes and menus.

4.1 What are the dining arrangements?

You have a choice of several seatings for meals in the Main Dining Room. Please request your preferred seating and table size at the time of booking. We cannot accept any bookings which are conditional on your preferred seating being or becoming available before departure. If you cancel because your preferred seating is not available (whether or not this was confirmed at the time of booking), our normal cancellation charges will apply. Seating requests cannot be guaranteed. Your table number will be confirmed in your stateroom at the start of your cruise. Dining times may vary slightly on port days due to shore excursion departures. Celebrity Select DiningSM (open seating) is now offered fleet wide offering guests flexibility with their evening dining. You can decide when you would like to dine between the hours of 18:00 and 21:30 (may vary by itinerary) each evening; much like a regular restaurant, however, we strongly encourage reservations to ensure the best service and to avoid any potential wait times. You can also reserve your dining times in advance of your cruise through our website’s ‘Manage my Booking’ section. Celebrity Select Dining is subject to availability. Should you wish to book this option, then please contact your travel agent or if booked directly with us please contact your Personal Cruise Specialist on 0844 493 2034* who will be happy to help you.

5.5 Can you change or cancel my holiday?

Occasionally, we have to make changes to the brochure and other details both before, and after, bookings have been confirmed and, even more rarely, cancel confirmed bookings. There may be a requirement to carry out maintenance/building works on your cruise. Where the works are likely to seriously impair your holiday, we will notify you as soon as possible.

Occasionally we may also be forced to cancel a U.S. back to back cruise due to local legal restrictions preventing us from allowing you to travel on this basis but will endeavour to advise you promptly after making such a booking if this is necessary (see Frequently Asked Questions, What about Consecutive Cruises?).

Whilst we always endeavour to avoid changes and cancellations, we must reserve the right to do so. If we have to make a significant change or cancel, we will tell you as soon as possible. If there is time to do so before departure, we will offer you the choice of the following options:-

(a) (for significant changes) accepting the changed arrangements or

(b) purchasing an alternative holiday from us, of a similar standard to that originally booked if available. We will offer you at least one alternative holiday of equivalent or higher standard for which you will not be asked to pay any more than the price of the original holiday. If this holiday is in fact cheaper than the original one, we will refund the price difference. If you do not wish to accept the holiday we specifically offer you, you may choose any of our other then available holidays. You must pay the applicable price of any such holiday. This will mean you paying more if it is more expensive or receiving a refund if it is cheaper.

© cancelling or accepting the cancellation in which case you will receive a full and quick refund of all monies you have paid to us.

Please note, the above options are not available where any change made is a minor one.

What is a significant change?

A significant change is a change to your confirmed holiday, which we can reasonably expect will have a significant effect on it. Examples of significant and minor (defined below) changes are as follows:

Significant change: Examples include a cruise itinerary change from two days port of calls to two days at sea instead; a change in UK departure airport (excluding changes between local airports) and a change in the time of your outbound flight by more than 12 hours on a 14 night holiday.

Minor change: Examples include a cruise itinerary change from one port of call to another; a change from one day’s port of call to one day at sea; a change in timings for any port(s) of call but the ship still calls at all confirmed ports; a change in order of ports that are visited; and a change in the time of your departure or return flight that is less than 12 hours on a 14 night holiday.

 

 

Note that a major change is actionable under UK protections law, minor changes are not. As such they are defined in UK terms, but not in the US terms.

Edited March 22, 2017 by RDC1

[Globaliser]

I really do not appreciate regulators who assume the mission of taking care of me. I would bet there are more travel agent and cruise line protections than consumer protections.

As you have at best only the haziest idea of what the consumer protections are here, maybe you ought to learn a bit more about the history of UK/EU package tour consumer protection, the actual problems that were encountered that led to the protection being compulsorily put in place (because the industry was too busy feathering its own nests and writing grossly unfair contracts to be relied on to do it voluntarily), and who the legislation protects in practice and how, before making tub-thumping ideological pronouncements on the subject.

[sail7seas]

Management 101...When you know you are going to have a problem, get out in front of it to solve or minumize it.

 

So let's go:

All partial charter bookings will have the following Dinner Venue on seven day cruises.

Every OTHER night there will be for the Charter Group, a themed buffet on the Port side of Lido with private seating from outside at the Sea View pool to the Lido Pool

Choices:

An Italian Night

A Barbecue Night

An Asian Night

A German Night

A Mexican Night

ALL with appropriate decorations and music

Group bookings on HAL must agree to have at least 3 theme nights and HAL can and will be sure to sell the sizzle to the group.

The regular cruisers are not totally shut out of dining at Fixed and Anytime dining for a whole week.

HAL can, in advance, make everyone aware of what will happen for MDR dinner seating each day. NO SURPRISES particularly on B 2 B !

It may not make everyone happy, but it sure seems more logical to eliminate the neurotic combat between Management Staff and Crew and irate passengers

 

 

I find nothing ab out this to be gtempting or appealing. NOT for me...... Ugh. Thatg is not th way I wish to dine on a cruise.,

 

t

Anyway, thanks for trying.

[RocketMan275]

As you have at best only the haziest idea of what the consumer protections are here, maybe you ought to learn a bit more about the history of UK/EU package tour consumer protection, the actual problems that were encountered that led to the protection being compulsorily put in place (because the industry was too busy feathering its own nests and writing grossly unfair contracts to be relied on to do it voluntarily), and who the legislation protects in practice and how, before making tub-thumping ideological pronouncements on the subject.

 

I have had the opportunity to review those regulations in the past and found they offer little that I find attractive. I'm sure there are provisions that might be attractive to some. I personally prefer to do my own due diligence and take the actions I find necessary to mitigate travel issues that I, and not some government bureaucrat, find appropriate.

 

Once again, if these provisions are so attractive, why do so many attempt to book through US agents and avoid the associated costs?