Feeling a bit screwed over by RC, Irma safety/risk issue and no-refund, greed?

[Sam Ting]

Isn't the cruise line delivering their product? If you choose the shortened product, you are being refunded for a portion of your cruise. If you are not able to make it, you are receiving a full refund to use on a future cruise.

 

And yes, the cruise line chose to offer the cruise during hurricane season, but no one made the consumer book it.

 

Take some responsibility. You booked a cruise during the height of hurricane season. And you're surprised when a hurricane disrupts your vacation? The strongest hurricane to ever be in the Atlantic just demolished plenty of places and people are upset they're not getting whatever they think they should get. It amazes me how much some people complain when there are people who lost their lives, and all of their possessions and people are upset because the cruise line is doing more than they have to but people want more (direct quote from someone here). You're either getting a refund, or you're getting a discount and FCC. No one is cheating you out of anything.

 

 

What a load. People bought a 7 day cruise. Not a 4 day cruise. The cruise lines chose to sail in hurricane season. That's a risk they take, not the consumer taking them up on what they offered for sale.

 

Not everyone even knows about hurricane season and it should not be incumbent on a consumer to consider if a company will be able to deliver what they paid for.

 

The cruise lines take that risk when they sail during hurricane season. They sure want all the rewards.....

 

There are consumer protection laws you know.

[perditax]

What a load. People bought a 7 day cruise. Not a 4 day cruise. The cruise lines chose to sail in hurricane season. That's a risk they take, not the consumer taking them up on what they offered for sale.

 

No, Cruise Critic has taught me recently that only consumers can be blamed for traveling during hurricane season, cruise lines are exempt. ;)

[S.A.M.J.R.]

Isn't the cruise line delivering their product? If you choose the shortened product, you are being refunded for a portion of your cruise. If you are not able to make it, you are receiving a full refund to use on a future cruise.

I would say they're not delivering their product. If you pay for a dozen eggs and only get 6, would you say the store is delivering their product? And doesn't the full refund need to be used within a year? Not everyone has that flexibility.

 

What a load. People bought a 7 day cruise. Not a 4 day cruise. The cruise lines chose to sail in hurricane season. That's a risk they take, not the consumer taking them up on what they offered for sale.

The consumer IS responsible for knowing about things that can affect their trip. No different than flying in/out/through a northern state during winter. Travelers should know and understand their trip can be impacted by snow and ice.

[rukkian]

Thank you, S.A.M.J.R. You "get" it !!

 

I cancelled my flight to FLL on the 10th because it had a layover in ATL and I didn't want to spend 2-3 nights in the ATL airport while Irma cleared FL (and it's turning out to be 3-4!!), then get stuck in ATL while Irma cancelled flights out of there and then get to miss the 9/13 sailing and be stuck in FLL until the 18th for my flight back to MN.

 

I am angry because I was a good little cruiser who flew in a day before and out a day after, who bought travel insurance, who kept on top of Irmageddon information and made prudent choices to protect the safety of my family and I am still being hosed by Royal Caribbean. And chided by CC members who feel I am angry without justification.

 

Like every other person on this planet, I was born with a conscience and I have not seared my conscience with all the things that can blur the lines between right and wrong. I did everything right and what I am going through right now is wrong. I know it, I feel the wrongness of it so strongly that I have lashed out, perhaps more than reached out.

 

I am not talking about taking responsibility or assigning blame. (hurricane, duh) Like many cruisers, this is an extreme financial hardship on top of the stress and heartache caused by things that are out of my control, despite my best efforts to make contingencies. The one entity that can make it right, Royal Caribbean, won't.

 

Instead of helping me, they are PROFITING from my hardship. I really do not see any other way to view my situation, although some lawyer or beancounter will prattle on about contracts and/or risk. Since beancounters routinely allow manufacturers to financially justify things like Pintos blowing up and lawyers routinely defend these corporate criminals, you can guess how I feel about their opinions. (and yes, I am aware that not all beancounters and lawyers are spawns of satan)

 

I did read this entire thread. I believe I understood Tag's comment that since the OP would have to be here for the cruise on the 10th that he could also be here for the truncated cruise on the 13th. I also still believe it was an asinine and cruel comment and I stand firmly on my original assessment of Tag.

 

I understand you are upset, and if you feel another line did better for this, you have the right to switch to them. In this instance, RCI is following the contract you signed with them. If you don't like the terms, don't sign them.

 

As for all the people saying they should just eat the cost, that only works in 1 of 2 scenarios imo:

1. All cruises during hurricane season are automatically increased in cost to cover the cost of cruise insurance. The reason they are cheaper than other times is due to the potential of storms and many people not wanting to take the risk.

2. All cruises increase in cost to cover potential for losses this time of year. This would penalize everybody all year round to take some of the risk of the people that accept the risk currently for lower fares.

 

Anybody can say that RCI should just refund all money because they are not comfortable cruising, and that the company should just eat it. In the end, they are a business, and that business is to make money selling cruise fares and the related costs along with that. They are not in the business of mitigating risk for individuals, that is the insurance industry.

 

Some are saying that RCI should carry insurance to cover their losses, but that insurance does cost money, and would then have to be passed on to all cruisers, so it is really not any different that the above saying they should just eat the cost of the cruise.

[Luckybee]

All three lines showed how they will handle this situation if/when it happens again. It appears Royal will stick to what the contract says while Carnival and NCL will not. Consumers can now add those decisions to their "pros/cons" list when they decide on their next choice of cruise lines.

 

However, I'm guessing in about a month most people will forget about this decision. Even those it directly affected (like the OP) are likely to decide based on all the other differences (cost, itinerary, amenities, etc). RCI will probably lose a couple customers over this, but I think they'll be readily replaced.

 

I agree...and we as consumers can may the choice. Knowing what I know now and seeing the options we would never now book with Royal anytime from June until November, and the rest of the time it would have to be very enticing to consider them for a cruise at all. By enticing I don't mean simply financially but rather I mean getting something we cant get somewhere else. I hate their new policy on non refundable suite deposits too but unfortunately I do like their ships.

 

But generally you might be right as well that many will simply forget and it will have no effect. The difference is because we are not regular "cruisers" in the sense that we travel more land based we are not "tied" to one particular cruiseline so we are not perhaps the market Royal most wants.

 

For us it means we've booked two other cruises now (including 1 today....) and neither will be with RCCL.

[rukkian]

I would say they're not delivering their product. If you pay for a dozen eggs and only get 6, would you say the store is delivering their product? And doesn't the full refund need to be used within a year? Not everyone has that flexibility.

 

The consumer IS responsible for knowing about things that can affect their trip. No different than flying in/out/through a northern state during winter. Travelers should know and understand their trip can be impacted by snow and ice.

 

If you signed a contract that said you were paying 12$ for a dozen eggs, and if we cannot give you 12, we will discount the cost to cover the difference (say a bumpy road made 6 of the crack on the way to deliver, and they then refunded $6). While you did not get the full $12, you are getting refunded the portion you were missing.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

Anybody can say that RCI should just refund all money because they are not comfortable cruising, and that the company should just eat it. In the end, they are a business, and that business is to make money selling cruise fares and the related costs along with that. They are not in the business of mitigating risk for individuals, that is the insurance industry.

I don't think anyone is saying RCI should refund money because cruisers are "not comfortable". But cruisers very likely can't get to the port and if they got there they probably couldn't have found someplace to stay (all hotel rooms were taken with evacuees).

[Luckybee]

Isn't the cruise line delivering their product? If you choose the shortened product, you are being refunded for a portion of your cruise. If you are not able to make it, you are receiving a full refund to use on a future cruise.

 

And yes, the cruise line chose to offer the cruise during hurricane season, but no one made the consumer book it.

 

Take some responsibility. You booked a cruise during the height of hurricane season. And you're surprised when a hurricane disrupts your vacation? The strongest hurricane to ever be in the Atlantic just demolished plenty of places and people are upset they're not getting whatever they think they should get. It amazes me how much some people complain when there are people who lost their lives, and all of their possessions and people are upset because the cruise line is doing more than they have to but people want more (direct quote from someone here). You're either getting a refund, or you're getting a discount and FCC. No one is cheating you out of anything.

 

No all these cruisers are not getting a refund....nowhere in any definition of refund does it include a credit. Big difference between the two....sort of like , as an example, the difference between virtually every other cruise lines handling of this situation and Harvey's as compared to Royal !

 

definition of refund :

 

re·fund1

verb

verb: refund; 3rd person present: refunds; past tense: refunded; past participle: refunded; gerund or present participle: refunding

rəˈfənd,ˈrēˌfənd/

1. 1.
   pay back (money), typically to a customer who is not satisfied with goods or services bought.
   "if you're not delighted with your purchase, we guarantee to refund your money in full"
   synonyms:repay, give back, return, pay back More"we will refund your money if you're not satisfied"
    
    
    
   reimburse, compensate, recompense, remunerate, indemnify
   "they refunded the subscribers"
    
    
    
    
    
   
   • pay back money to (someone).
     "I'll refund you for the apples and any other damage"
      
      
     

 

 

 

noun

noun: refund; plural noun: refunds

ˈrēˌfənd/

1. 1.
   a repayment of a sum of money, typically to a dissatisfied customer.
   "you are entitled to reject it and insist on a refund"
   synonyms:repayment, reimbursement, rebate "a full refund
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
   

[bUU]

And that is what we are trying to point out here. Carnival and NCL quickly cancelled the cruises.

Carnival quickly canceled 3 day cruises. Their affected seven day cruises were delayed until Tuesday or Wednesday. A discussion about whether Carnival or Royal Caribbean have been making announcements quickly enough, without as many Carnival cruisers as Royal Caribbean cruises participating, isn't going to be very informative. If you really want to have that discussion, post a thread on a board that cruises of both cruise lines frequent. And full disclosure, this is not my original though: Someone else posted on the Carnival board this morning how people are bashing Royal Caribbean here for this as much as people there are bashing Carnival for it.

 

The message people should be getting is that they're all the same.

 

This thread is less about what the contract says and more about corporate responsibility to its clients and the areas it does business in.

And as such we should be discussing industry-wide considerations in that regard - you know, the ones that xpcdoojk just bashed and yet you said nothing in response - since it is foolish for one company to stick its neck out and "do the right thing" when we consumers have proven over and over again that we will punish the higher priced option and reward the lower priced option, and we investors have proven over and over again that we will punish the higher expense/lower profit option and reward the lower expense/higher profit option.

 

Their responsibility lies in living up to the contract. They are doing that. I don't think they have a responsibility to refund money, offer FCC or OBC, or anything that isn't listed in the contract. I think it would be good of them to do so and they can benefit from good PR.

Who has any idea how much it would cost to do so, and how much benefit they would get from it?

 

Answer: They do.

 

Why do you classify these situations as "problems"?

Because they are things that most American passengers complain about, in the same way some people on Cruise Critic complain about comparable aspects of cruising.

 

The airlines already offer larger seats and extras included in the price for those who wish to pay more.

And the cruise industry offers luxury brands, such as Seabourn and Regent Seven Seas. Let's get some of those cruise passengers over here so they can relay whether they feel a bit screwed over.

 

Why do you say this is not a market success?

I didn't say it wasn't. You must have just made that up. Let me ask you, why did you find it necessary to try to make it seem like I wrote something that I didn't?

 

Defensive much?

Are we reading the same thread? Have you noticed that very few of us are standing up for abiding by the terms and conditions of the cruise contract and that a very large number of posters, some rather rude and caustic in their replies, are trying to blot this perspective they don't like away so they can have an unrebutted soapbox for their baseless bashing of the cruise line?

 

I agree with you that RCI is doing what they have to (and some more). However I feel they should do even more.

There's no need to be concerned that someone else posted something in response to what you wrote, unless, as you can see above another poster did, someone tries to mischaracterize what you wrote. I didn't do that. Rather, I posted a comment in response to your opinion underscoring what you yourself just agreed to here, that the cruise line is doing what they have to (and some more).

 

There is enough disagreement among the posters in this thread - there is no need to argue about what we agree about! :)

Edited September 11, 2017 by bUU

[rukkian]

I don't think anyone is saying RCI should refund money because cruisers are "not comfortable". But cruisers very likely can't get to the port and if they got there they probably couldn't have found someplace to stay (all hotel rooms were taken with evacuees).

 

Right now, most people are simply speculating they will not be able to get there and don't want to accept the current offer. That is different than people being physically unable to get there.

[bUU]

Where in the cruise contract does it mention how long the FCC will be good for???

There is no requirement to offer the FCC at all. They could make it expire 60 days later, or even 30 days later, and still be compliant. The FCC is purely a gift - something the cruise line is offering as a positive gesture.

 

No good deed goes unpunished I suppose.

 

I am angry ... Like every other person on this planet, I was born with a conscience and I have not seared my conscience with all the things that can blur the lines between right and wrong.

The cruise line is offering FCC when it isn't required to, and yet you choose to accuse them of having no conscience. And really conscience isn't even the point: It's generosity not conscience prompting them to take onto the cruise line some of the impact of the risk the passengers originally agreed to take onto themselves.

 

I did everything right and what I am going through right now is wrong.

It is wrong because of the hurricane, not the cruise line. They, and I for that matter, empathize with your situation. That doesn't mean that they're obligated to retroactively give you the very best travel insurance you can buy, for free. This is a discussion, and we're digging into hard truths and difficult circumstances, and in the context of your loss it would be remarkable if it didn't feel wrong. However, the reality of the terms and conditions are such that things aren't designed to break your way. There are people, in your exact same situation, who did pay extra for that coverage. Why should those passengers who didn't pay for the coverage get the same benefits as those who did? Isn't that patently unfair?

 

I am not talking about taking responsibility or assigning blame. (hurricane, duh)

Bingo, but as you can see in this thread, many people are talking about mis-assigning blame. And the biggest problem with that is that it ensures that nothing ever gets better. Because the reality is X, and denying X means no one will ever think that they need to change X so that next time X isn't the reality. You said earlier that you're angry. I want to fix that. I don't want there to be as many angry people next time. There are a number of ways to do that, but expecting it to be addressed by way of one cruise line unilaterally suboptimizing its fidiciary obligations to its shareholders is naive. As Cuizer2 said:

Royal Caribbean has a responsibility to its shareholders.

That direction isn't going to yield any improvements. We can either fix the way the industry operates (but xpcdoojk rejected that) or we can educate ourselves and other passengers so the next time this happens, X is what more of us expect.

 

Here's the thing though... bUU isn't totally wrong. I got the feeling from reading this thread that if bUU said "the ocean is blue" people would say s/he is wrong.

Yeah, me too. ;) And it is because I don't allow sentiment to cloud my perspective. I have some opinions about whether we should go right or left, but I don't discuss them much here. That kind of discussion isn't really allowed on Cruise Critic. What I do discuss is integrity and how it works. Agreeing to obligations means you live up to those obligations, even if it feels "wrong". What is "wrong" is criticizing others for living up to their obligations (and actually doing better than that) and not relieving you of yours.

[Sam Ting]

I would say they're not delivering their product. If you pay for a dozen eggs and only get 6, would you say the store is delivering their product? And doesn't the full refund need to be used within a year? Not everyone has that flexibility.

 

The consumer IS responsible for knowing about things that can affect their trip. No different than flying in/out/through a northern state during winter. Travelers should know and understand their trip can be impacted by snow and ice.

 

Difference is the airlines refund your money. Not some credit you may or may not be able to use.

 

Funny how the cruise lines make the airlines look like angels.

[cruzbound]

Hi All,

 

Just some information I found out about last week. We booked on 9/1/17 to sail to the Bahamas at the end of November. I did not purchase trip insurance and once I saw how bad Irma was getting, I contacted my travel agent and a separate insurance company and they told me that I can purchase insurance still but it I cancelled the trip and it was relating to Irma, then there would not be any coverage. Basically, if you purchase travel insurance and there is already a storm "named" then insrance does not cover any travel issues related to that storm. So on 9/1 Irma was already named so if the Bahamas were taken out and we could not stop at them, we would not be able to cancel. Of course, we love going on a cruise but the main reason for this short cruise junt is to get in a dive day at the Bahamas (since our Cabo San Lucas trip was cancelled due to Tropical Storm Lidia - we haven't had the best of luck this year with travelling in the fall time frame :-) ) and if we couldn't dive we thought that it might be better to cancel. Of course, if we still would have bought the travel insurance, any "named" storm after the date we bought the insurance would fall under covering our travel. I figured that Irma was so bad, any other storm coming through couldn't do much more damage so I opted to forego the insurance. So the morale of this story is to book your cruise earlier than actual hurricane season and to purchase the trip insurance when you book it.

 

Our prayers and thoughts are with everyone who is enduring these terrible storms.

[Luckybee]

If you signed a contract that said you were paying 12$ for a dozen eggs, and if we cannot give you 12, we will discount the cost to cover the difference (say a bumpy road made 6 of the crack on the way to deliver, and they then refunded $6). While you did not get the full $12, you are getting refunded the portion you were missing.

 

But they are not refunding the difference, they are providing a credit of the difference to those who take the shortened cruise, and for those who don't a credit for what they spent. Already there are some on the boards who have said they cannot find cruises to fit there schedules, costs etc with those credits.

 

Let me give you examples....lets say Mr and Mrs Smith booked one of the affected cruises. They both had to get time off work and to do so they need to request same 6-12 months in advance. Then it takes a month for the employers to ok their time off and by the time they go back and forth they cant book within the 60 days needed. Or lets say they saved and saved to be able to afford this cruise and now the price for the same cruise next year is more than they can afford. Or this cruise was a special occasion, like a honeymoon or anniversary and they cant get another cruise now with Royal but instead they want to fly to Jamaica or Aruba because they want a 7 day holiday not a 4 day one, which after all is what they booked in the first place.

[ONECRUISER]

If you want to read about out of control looting, take a look at what is happening in the Caribbean islands.

Agree. That's what I meant to say, should have said Caribbean....and Texas, Caribbean looting is out of control. They just don't have the police and military/National Guard support we do to help stop this.

[CI66774]

Difference is the airlines refund your money. Not some credit you may or may not be able to use.

 

Funny how the cruise lines make the airlines look like angels.

 

I could be wrong, but isn't it a refundable OBC?

[bUU]

Regarding the bolded. You're correct. However, isn't a consumer responsible for choosing a vendor (in this case a cruise line) has policies they agree with?

Absolutely.

 

A long time ago American Airlines offered more legroom in every coach seat. Of course with less seats in the plane, American Airlines had to charge more per seat. American Airlines ended that experiment quickly. Why? Because many people only consider price. The other airlines cost less and American Airlines had to change to compete.

 

So United Airlines came out with a compromise. Some coach seats will have extra legroom, if you are willing to pay extra for it. Now American, Delta, and United offer this option. If demand for these seat increased, you would find more of these seats available.

 

This is not limited to airline seats. I prefer computers with dedicated graphic cards. I used to be able to get my computers at Best Buy. Then the very inexpensive computers (under $500 each) came out and Best Buy has a very limited selection of computers with dedicated graphic cards. So, my current computer was custom made. It cost less than $1,000, about what Best Buy was charging for its higher end computers. But now Best Buy only caters to the general public. It is sort of like the Walmart of computers, and as it turns out, GPS and dash cams.

 

If people are willing to pay a little extra for a little better product, then more of that little better product will be available. However, if people just look at price, then companies will continue to look at ways to make its product cheaper so it can continue to compete. That is why the mass market cruise lines are so much bigger than the premium and luxury lines.

I totally agree.

 

All the cruise lines have similar contracts. Royal is not alone in that regard. Yet I don't see the people complaining about how Carnival and NCL handled this very same situation.

I do. There is not quite as much unfounded expectations over on the Carnival board as there is here, but there is still some there.

 

Isn't a company responsible to provide the product paid for by the consumer?

As per the specifications, outlined in the terms and conditions.

 

All three lines showed how they will handle this situation if/when it happens again. It appears Royal will stick to what the contract says while Carnival and NCL will not.

Where are you getting this?

 

Carnival Magic was scheduled to take a seven night Western Caribbean cruise from Port Canaveral on Saturday, making four port calls. Instead that cruise is delayed. It will leave on Wednesday on a three night Bahamas cruise. The cruise fare will be prorated, and passengers are getting a 25% FCC.

 

Consumers can now add those decisions to their "pros/cons" list when they decide on their next choice of cruise lines. However, I'm guessing in about a month most people will forget about this decision.

Yes, you're right. Because, again, people aren't really realizing that the problem is X, and they generally agree with those who don't want to see the industry regulated.

 

Even those it directly affected (like the OP) are likely to decide based on all the other differences (cost, itinerary, amenities, etc). RCI will probably lose a couple customers over this, but I think they'll be readily replaced.

Indeed, lots of Carnival customers will become Royal Caribbean customers and lots of Royal Caribbean customers will become Carnival customers, and neither set will realize that they're not actually improving their own situation.

 

Take some responsibility. You booked a cruise during the height of hurricane season. And you're surprised when a hurricane disrupts your vacation?

I have to laugh at some of the comments above that my comments present an "I'm better than you" attitude. Several posters have dropped comments like this one from Blondie into the thread and I've said nothing that was anywhere near as close to being offensive as what Blondie posted here. I don't post "better than you". As I said before, I post, "This is integrity." I don't say whether I'm better at it that anyone else. That would be irrelevant.

[hamrag]

Taking Harvey and Irma together, I would be interested to know what wide disparities there have been between how Royal Caribbean, Carnival, and NCL have handled this.

It is unlikely anyone on this forum would take the time to attempt that, and then have you disect their post sentence by sentence. Most of your posts, generally pompous in nature, make us yawn!;)

[Luckybee]

Right now, most people are simply speculating they will not be able to get there and don't want to accept the current offer. That is different than people being physically unable to get there.

 

It isn't speculation....out of curiosity (and wanting to have a vague idea of what Im talking about) I took a look at Southwest and Delta (admittedly just 2 of the more popular carriers) and from what Im seeing good luck finding a flight. From our location availability out of Buffalo....I then looked out of Toronto....could get flights for one person only (at a cost of $1100) per ticket when normally it is less than half.

 

It is easy for those of us, from the comfort of our homes, or offices to talk about how one "could" get there, but not so easy for those who cant find flights, or hotels, or cant afford the much higher costs involved.

[CI66774]

Thank you, S.A.M.J.R. You "get" it !!

 

I cancelled my flight to FLL on the 10th because it had a layover in ATL and I didn't want to spend 2-3 nights in the ATL airport while Irma cleared FL (and it's turning out to be 3-4!!), then get stuck in ATL while Irma cancelled flights out of there and then get to miss the 9/13 sailing and be stuck in FLL until the 18th for my flight back to MN.

 

I am angry because I was a good little cruiser who flew in a day before and out a day after, who bought travel insurance, who kept on top of Irmageddon information and made prudent choices to protect the safety of my family and I am still being hosed by Royal Caribbean. And chided by CC members who feel I am angry without justification.

 

Like every other person on this planet, I was born with a conscience and I have not seared my conscience with all the things that can blur the lines between right and wrong. I did everything right and what I am going through right now is wrong. I know it, I feel the wrongness of it so strongly that I have lashed out, perhaps more than reached out.

 

I am not talking about taking responsibility or assigning blame. (hurricane, duh) Like many cruisers, this is an extreme financial hardship on top of the stress and heartache caused by things that are out of my control, despite my best efforts to make contingencies. The one entity that can make it right, Royal Caribbean, won't.

 

Instead of helping me, they are PROFITING from my hardship. I really do not see any other way to view my situation, although some lawyer or beancounter will prattle on about contracts and/or risk. Since beancounters routinely allow manufacturers to financially justify things like Pintos blowing up and lawyers routinely defend these corporate criminals, you can guess how I feel about their opinions. (and yes, I am aware that not all beancounters and lawyers are spawns of satan)

 

I did read this entire thread. I believe I understood Tag's comment that since the OP would have to be here for the cruise on the 10th that he could also be here for the truncated cruise on the 13th. I also still believe it was an asinine and cruel comment and I stand firmly on my original assessment of Tag.

 

I don't understand your anger. I've had cruise issues due to storms, too. My travel insurance reimbursed me. That's what your insurance is for. RCL isn't responsible for Irma. When my cruises deviated and/or ports eliminated, etc. that's life. I dealt with it. Sure it was a pain in the a** but that's life.

[caribill]

Yes, but often problems are found at the opposite ends of a spectrum, and competition will solve one problem while causing the other. Airline deregulation "solved" the problem that air travel was not affordable for many. It also caused the problem of the "Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat", prompting airlines to reduce seat pitch from 35" to 31" and reduce seat width from 18" to 16 1/2". Paradoxically, airline deregulation made air travel more affordable, but is also credited with paving the way for many new fees.

 

And led to a new definition of competition. After one airline started charging fees for baggage, other airlines said they were adding the fees "for competitive purposes."

 

True competition would have meant the other airlines would not have added baggage fees.

 

And when the price of oil fell by a giant amount, one airline announced they would continue to price flights as if the price of oil had not fallen. The other airlines remained competitive by not lowering their prices either.

[chrisdom3]

Hoping the OP and their family are fine after this devastating storm.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[rukkian]

It isn't speculation....out of curiosity (and wanting to have a vague idea of what Im talking about) I took a look at Southwest and Delta (admittedly just 2 of the more popular carriers) and from what Im seeing good luck finding a flight. From our location availability out of Buffalo....I then looked out of Toronto....could get flights for one person only (at a cost of $1100) per ticket when normally it is less than half.

 

It is easy for those of us, from the comfort of our homes, or offices to talk about how one "could" get there, but not so easy for those who cant find flights, or hotels, or cant afford the much higher costs involved.

 

And your insurance should cover that, plain and simple. That is what insurance is for. If you decided to not buy an insurance policy, then you are still having your insurance cover it, but you are self insured, so you are covering it.

 

Additional cost for a different flight is part of the risk you took to cruise during this time of year.

[caribill]

They did better than that - should a passenger choose to sail with the shortened itinerary, they receive 50% of their fare as a refundable on board credit (anything not spent in board is refunded to their form of payment or cash) and 50% refunded as a future cruise credit - basically a free 4-night cruise. Or if the passenger chooses not to sail, they receive 100% of their fare refunded as a future cruise credit.

 

Which might not be enough credit to pay for a future equivalent cruise thus costing the passenger more to get what was once paid for 100%. It is like a rain check at a grocery store saying you can buy the same product next week, but not at this week's advertised price.

[xpcdoojk]

Bicker, I know this will go right over your head, because I know I have scolded you in the past.... It is wrong to pull a line from a paragraph and then destroy the straw man arguement. It seems to be your only effective technique for debate, and you have done it for over a decade. One of the many reasons why so many people are frustrated with your posts. Just trying to give you some helpful advice that you will ignore. You take these poor forum members out of context and then prove your point at their expense. That is just wrong.

 

BTW, I don't know if I have a problem with industry standards or not, but I do have a problem with regulation for the sake of regulation. I didn't bash industry standards, I only bashed the way we get to some of those industry standards. Here I will give you an example. Let's say president trump were to tell the regulators that all cruise lines must have at a minimum a single flowrider on all cruise ships. I would, personally, be thrilled by this regulation, as would RCI, they wouldn't have to spend a penny, but their competitors would have to spend a fortune, because Waveloch the one and only producer of flowriders has an exclusive contract with RCI, and Carnival for example would have to create their own. Since you are wanting to empower these regulators with these powers, it would cause Carnival to lobby congress and the president to make Waveloch break their exclusive contract because it would be cheaper than reinventing a flowrider. In the end RCI has gained an advantage because they have forced a huge cost on their competition. That is the real world X reality that you are obsessed with.:evilsmile: I.E. if the industry controls the regulation (as they seem to) then they benefit greatly from that regulation.

 

IF the free market creates smaller airplane seats/spaces... then regulating the free market causes for every thing to be more expensive and impractical. Regulations, also, destroy incentive to create new options. If in my previous example, flowriders are regulated off cruise ships and out of existence because the regulators think the dangers involved should not be accepted by the customers, then I and everyone who loves the flowrider loses, but the cruise lines that don't have a flowrider wins. Unintended consequences flow from humans thinking they know the right amount of regulation far more than the free market.

 

IPSO FACTO QED....

 

JC