HAL not being honest with loyal customers

[VennDiagram]

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 replied to your post in the other thread, also :) I like how you think. Innovative, creative, a bit outside of the box. It's a great starting point for working towards some sort of solution.

[bUU]

HAL's web sites are set up such that I can only get the US terms and cannot access the UK terms.

I believe there was an explicit request for someone to access and post the UK terms earlier in this thread or a related thread. I took the fact that they were not posted as indication that they probably included the same kinds of exclusions that were evident in the Celebrity UK terms you posted, and that that would have belied the contention that recent concerns about the impact of groups on other passengers would be actionable within the UK.

[Globaliser]

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

Simple: they don't.

 

Cruise passengers are a small proportion of those covered by this legislation. As I said, the full panoply is applicable to some (but not all) cruise passengers almost by accident. The bulk of those covered by this legislation could not book through US agents, because US agents simply do not offer the package tours that are at the core of these provisions.

 

And even amongst the small population of UK (or EU) cruise passengers, only a very small proportion is interested in booking with US agents. So we are actually talking about very few people seeking to do this.

 

If you actually understood what this legislation is aimed at, you would not have such a jaded and cynical view of it. I am one of those who is interested in booking my cruises through US agents, because I know what I'm doing, what risks I would be running, and how I can mitigate against those risks. But none of that detracts from the valuable role that this consumer protection legislation plays for the benefit of those at whom it is primarily aimed, who (as experience shows) would be unable for various reasons to get their own protection against package tour risks, some of which can be uninsurable. It is not done to line the pockets of the industry, and it is not done out of some government-gone-mad bureaucratic urge.

[RocketMan275]

 

If you actually understood what this legislation is aimed at, you would not have such a jaded and cynical view of it.

 

There are several reasons for my "jaded and cynical view".

First, the costs exceed the value for me.

Second, if I were to live in the UK, I would have no option to opt out.

 

I recognize that there are some who might need or desire these protections but I do not like being told I must buy something just because some bureaucrat thinks he knows what is best for me.

[bUU]

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 for the ADA, you do know that even SCOTUS has ruled that not all aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships.

We're beating a dead horse.

I know I said before that we were beating a dead horse, but I've had time this morning to gather up the citations establishing that US law is definitively the supreme law over all cruise ships operating in US waters. Putting these citations down here makes them easier to dig out the next time the question comes up.

 

The crux of the matter is that the United States retains full discretion, despite your claims to the contrary; the United States in the exercise of its discretion may apply its own standards of reasonable accommodation, to the exclusion of the dictates of any foreign or international power; and those standards themselves may deliberately refer to other sources, including foreign or international standards, rather than establishing a unique set of standards. By doing so, the United States is explicitly including the referenced matter within the laws of the United States, and for all intents and purposes it is if those standards were issued by the United States (and therefore their applicability can be revoked by the United States, and/or other standards can be substituted in or applied over-and-above those standards). Beyond that, since the United States retains full discretion, it may administer justice regarding its laws, including applying its own interpretations to referenced standards or deferring to prevailing interpretations, as it see fit.

 

A number of cases established precedent in this regard. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 100, 127 (1923), Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U. S. 234, 240 (1931), etc. The legal threshold generally applied separates matters that involve only the internal order and discipline of the vessel (to which the United States generally, exercising its discretion to do so, defers to the prevailing authority aboard ship). Until cruise ships start selling passage solely after they reach international waters, that exception will not apply to the cruise contract itself, which is a commercial transaction taking place wholly on land.

 

The ADA is the prototypical example of this. Even the words you used in your comment tacitly granted that the United States has supreme authority, and only defers to other standards as it sees fit, to the extent it sees fit, belying the implication that those other standards have primacy. In Spector et. al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (03-1388, 2005), the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed that what I outlined above is the case with regard to the ADA. The reason given for not forcing cruise ships to remove architectural barriers to wheelchairs was not deference to maritime law, but rather the lack of a specific provision within the ADA that makes the ADA applicable to foreign-flagged vessels. Recall the threshold by which the United States defaults to shipboard jurisdiction, i.e., "matters that involve only the internal order and discipline of the vessel".

 

What is most important to note though is that the SCOTUS' decision makes very clear that "congressional intent" to impose the ADA even beyond that boundary is all that would be needed to make the ADA fully enforceable aboard cruise ships. Contrary to what you claimed, the SCOTUS has not ruled that "not all aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships". Rather, they ruled that the ADA has not made itself or been made applicable to foreign-flagged vessels. Big difference, legally. From the decision, "As a matter of international comity, a clear statement of congressional intent is necessary before a general statutory requirement can interfere with matters that concern a foreign-flag vessel's internal affairs and operations." A vote in the two houses of Congress and the stroke of the President's pen, and things change aboard cruise ships; no change in maritime law necessary.

 

Why did this come up this morning? Because (in another thread) a poster raised a concern that certain changes going on in the industry are making cruising yet-even-more inaccessible for the physically disabled. Rather than throwing our arms up in resignation, folks should be well-aware that our nation holds the power, if it is of a mind to do so, to extend protections of all sorts (not just ADA) to any vessel that enters US waters for any reason whatsoever.

[Roz]

I'm still on my first cup of coffee. Too much legal language first thing in the morning.

 

Roz

[serendipity1499]

I'm still on my first cup of coffee. Too much legal language first thing in the morning.

 

Roz

 

I agree..

 

This thread has morphed into ridiculous arguments about which country has the more stringent laws..

[RuthC]

I'm still on my first cup of coffee. Too much legal language first thing in the morning.

 

Roz

Or any other time of day, for that matter. ;p (and I just finished my second cup)

[Lizzie68]

I'm still on my first cup of coffee. Too much legal language first thing in the morning.

 

Roz

 

No kidding! There seems to have been a takeover of CC, of sorts, and some threads are forums within themselves for who can post longest, loudest and most argumentative. I yearn for the bad old days of dress code threads.:D

[Roz]

Maybe after happy hour :cocktail: it will make more sense.

 

Roz

[RuthC]

Maybe after happy hour :cocktail: it will make more sense.

 

Roz

Don't bet your cruise budget on that.

[iancal]

I think that all vendors have to earn 'loyalty'. This includes cruise lines.

 

It is one of the reasons why we are not 'loyal' to any one cruise line...

[Globaliser]

Second, if I were to live in the UK, I would have no option to opt out.

Actually, this is not true. If you were to live in the UK, in most scenarios you could in effect opt out if you really didn't want the UK/EU protection and you were happy to choose (say) US levels of consumer protection instead.

 

The main exception that I have come across is buying a cruise. This is not because the UK/EU legislation doesn't allow you to opt out. It is because the cruise lines' US-based business practices (try to) prevent you from exercising a choice which you would have in most other travel contexts. But that's not the fault of the UK/EU legislation; that is squarely the responsibility of the cruise lines concerned.

 

For those who are wondering about the relevance of this discussion, the main point is that both the UK/EU and the US have consumer protection legislation in place. It is effective, even though the cruise lines and ships concerned are often foreign to both areas. So effective consumer protection legislation could in theory be devised to protect passengers from the effects of late-notice full charters and of large groups / part-charters.

[bUU]

It is because the cruise lines' US-based business practices (try to) prevent you from exercising a choice which you would have in most other travel contexts. But that's not the fault of the UK/EU legislation; that is squarely the responsibility of the cruise lines concerned.

I think it might go deeper than that. In the scenario you outlined, if I were running a cruise line I'd be concerned that too many consumers would seek to avail themselves of such protections afforded them regardless of having exercised a choice to give such protections up. This goes back to what someone said earlier in the thread about not being able to waive protections you're entitled to.

 

For those who are wondering about the relevance of this discussion...

Don't sweat those comments. People who aren't interested in the discussion have the ability to stop reading the thread. It is bewildering that people post messages in a thread about the thread expressing their disinterest instead of using the features of the forum to unsubscribe.

[iancal]

It is much easier to keep a loyal customer than it is go obtain a new one. Most especially in the age of the millennials. In this age of internet it is much more difficult for a vendor to treat a customer poorly and not have it mentioned on the web. The opposite is also true.

 

We are older but we certainly do not feel a loyalty towards any vendor. Preference yes, but preference for a vendor can be as short lived as our last experience or a price that is not competitive.

 

I believe that HAL, and a few other lines, have lost sight of this.

[bUU]

It is much easier to keep a loyal customer than it is go obtain a new one.

But neither you nor any of the rest of us have objective market data about whether the old customer is more or less profitable than the new customer to any cruise line and by how much, nor do you or any of the rest of us have objective consumer behavior data about the actual price and features sensitivity of the full customer base of any cruise line. The cruise lines do have that research, and have objective data on which they can make a reliable decision about what is or is not best for them. As a matter of fact, the best insight we can have into what's the right decision for cruise lines is by watching their actions and reverse engineering what data obviously drove their decisions.

[Globaliser]

I think it might go deeper than that. In the scenario you outlined, if I were running a cruise line I'd be concerned that too many consumers would seek to avail themselves of such protections afforded them regardless of having exercised a choice to give such protections up. This goes back to what someone said earlier in the thread about not being able to waive protections you're entitled to.

Other than cruise lines, no other part of the travel industry seems to have a concern of this kind when taking bookings from UK/EU customers. Nor do the cruise lines which are happy to take bookings via US channels from UK/EU customers. Which is why I am deeply suspicious of the cruise lines that refuse to do so.

[bUU]

Other than cruise lines, no other part of the travel industry seems to have a concern of this kind when taking bookings from UK/EU customers. Nor do the cruise lines which are happy to take bookings via US channels from UK/EU customers. Which is why I am deeply suspicious of the cruise lines that refuse to do so.

Well, the most contextually comparable service are airlines. Can you go to the American Airlines US website, not get redirected to the UK/EU website, and purchase airline tickets in US currency with US terms and conditions?

[Globaliser]

Well, the most contextually comparable service are airlines. Can you go to the American Airlines US website, not get redirected to the UK/EU website, and purchase airline tickets in US currency with US terms and conditions?

Yes.

[iancal]

We often buy airline tickets, vacations, and indeed cruises, on foreign websites or directly from providers in foreign countries. The most recent buy was direct on Sky AIrlines in Chile. Booked flights to Montevideo for under $100. NA websites were quoting $250. plus for the same service

 

No issue whatsoever. Two months ago we phoned down to the Aerolineas call center in BA to book flights to Iguazu. We saved thirty percent. We booked an Austalian/NZ cruise directly wth RCI Australia. A significant 30 percent savings over the US website and pricing model. We have done the same with internal flights in Turkey, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia etc. We have purchased vacations from UK websites and by calling TA's direct. And they are happy to call us back in NA in order to secure the business.

 

What on earth is so special about buying travel on a US or a North Amercian web site? Do you think that US T's and C's are so special. Compared to those in the UK or Europe they are actually quite poor.

Edited March 24, 2017 by iancal

[bUU]

Do you think that US T's and C's are so special. Compared to those in the UK or Europe they are actually quite poor.

Precisely the point, and the most likely reason why the cruise line would have taken the action of ending direct bookings by foreigners that Globaliser posited.

[iancal]

There is one reason why HAL and some other cruise lines try to stop customers from booking on out of country sites.

 

It is because they practice variable pricing. Fortunately there are ways around this, just as there is with manufactured goods in the 'grey market'.

 

Compare this to the hospitality industry. We book with Accor hotels,on their site, and we pay the same rate in local currency whether it is France, Thailand, or Canada. Does not matter what country we book in or book from.

[bUU]

It is because they practice variable pricing.

Not selling something isn't variable pricing. There has to be some other reason that they would go beyond IP blocking. What could it be?

[donaldsc]

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

 

By definition, a charter is the entire ship. There is no such thing as a "partial charter".

 

DON

[brule]

Re Koningsdam Feb 2018

We were booked on 21 days from Feb 14 and discovered that the ship had been chartered until Feb 25. We immediately changed our booking to 21 days starting Feb 25. We were not notified by HAL but discovered the charter by asking questions of our travel agent. Don't know who chartered the ship but we do not want to be the odd couple who are not part of the charter group. I would hope that timely notification would have been given by HAL.