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

[Cuizer2]

If you think this is a one-sided contract, just read any apartment lease.

 

There are a lot of one sided contracts. The government is very good at preparing one sided contracts. Have your read the indemnity agreement in a construction contract? Some are so unfair that some states have passed laws that limit the scope and reach of some indemnity contracts (and some have not).

 

There have been some shore excursions that I have not signed up for because of the waiver they make you sign. It is one thing to stand in front of a Nerf gun after signing a waiver and catch the bullet in your teeth. It is another to stand in front of a .22 caliber gun after signing a waiver and catching that bullet in your teeth.

[caribill]

 

The only fools are those for whom this is a big surprise. A knowledgeable and informed selection of a cruise this time of year, with an acknowledgement of the risks that you are taking onto yourself by selecting a cruise this time of year, is not foolish.

 

This is only the 2nd hurricane in 12 years to reach Florida.

 

 

There were hurricanes in other years, but they affected ports of call and not the embarkation ports. The cruises sailed as scheduled and adjusted itineraries to avoid the storms.

 

 

So over the past 12 years there were thousands of cruises from Florida that did not face problems like the ones caused by Irma.

[Cuizer2]

This is only the 2nd hurricane in 12 years to reach Florida.

 

There were hurricanes in other years, but they affected ports of call and not the embarkation ports. The cruises sailed as scheduled and adjusted itineraries to avoid the storms.

 

So over the past 12 years there were thousands of cruises from Florida that did not face problems like the ones caused by Irma.

 

Remember, bUU is all knowing. Just ask her.

[caribill]

If you had travel insurance, then you would be reimbursed. If you didn't, you gambled and lost. It's that simple.

Not that simple.

 

 

If you had "cancel for any reason" insurance, you could get back a major part (but usually not all) of your fares.

 

But with normal travel insurance, if the plane flight you were booked on took off, no reimbursement if you were not on it, even if it would have put you in South Florida in the middle of a mandatory evacuation just before the storm.

 

And if the cruise did take place, even on a delayed basis, and you were not on it, the insurance would not cover your cruise fare.

[caribill]

 

I have yet to see a single report of this (looting) on the news?

 

 

OK, here is a single report for you from the Miami Herald

Broward deputy shoots teenager in early Sunday burglary

 

8:09 p.m.: A Broward Sheriff’s Deputy shot a 17-year-old early Sunday morning and another teen was in custody after reports of a burglary inside a Weston home as Hurricane Irma moved through.

According to BSO, homeowners, who had left town, got an alert at about 3 a.m. from their surveillance system showing two burglars inside their home on the 2500 Block of Monterey Court.

When deputies arrived they found two teens inside, according to BSO.

At least one deputy opened fire on Dylan Lemon, 17, injuring him, BSO said. It was not clear the severity of his injuries.

Jean Coello, 17, was arrested. Both teens face charges including burglary and grand theft.

No deputies were injured. The shooting is now being investigated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/hurricane/article172389907.html#storylink=cpy

[caribill]

Im in my 50's and can actually recall when we had real customer service not just cruise specific. Part of the problem is that many today really don't know what cs used to be like and have much lower expectations and imho it's sad. The more people accept mediocre the more it will happen but I guess if one doesn't understand the difference it may seem perfectly acceptable.

 

As an example of good customer service today (not from a cruise line), we were at a franchise steak restaurant.

 

Soon after our meal orders were taken, the manager came by to ask if all was OK.

 

Near the end of the mean he stopped by again to see how we were.

 

When the dishes were being taken away, one of our group told the waitress that her prime rib was mostly fat, but what little bit of meat there was did taste very good.

 

Five minutes later the manager came by to offer the person a serving of prime rib with all the trimmings to take home.

 

Now that was good customer service.

[caribill]

I've actually been in that situation once in FLL. I don't recall which hurricane it was, but FLL was trashed the week before departure - hotels weren't open but flights had resumed on Friday, the day before our cruise. Delta let us change our flight at no charge to come in the on day of the cruise. If hotels aren't open in FlLL I would imagine the airlines will allow changes.

 

Changes may be allowed, but these days planes are often very close to 100% full and there might not be any seats available on the alternate flights. Might not even be any available seats for days or for even a week.

[caribill]

This is definitely a world class problem that has had a domino effect affecting hotels, cruise ships and airlines. Philly has cancelled 50,000 flights since Harvey into the future flights to the Caribbean, and that's just one airport reported on tonight's local news. No i don't have a transcript.

 

PHL averages about 1200 daily aircraft movements. This would cover inbound and outbound flights and would include private aircraft.

 

If every flight into and out of PHL is to or from the Caribbean, 50,000 flights cancelled would mean cancelling every flight for 42 days.

 

 

Of course every flight to/from PHL does not involve the Caribbean. Assuming that even 10% of flights do, that would mean cancelling every Caribbean flight for over a year.

 

I seriously doubt the 50,000 cancelled flights that you reported is an accurate number.

Edited September 11, 2017 by caribill

[ONECRUISER]

I probably should have clarified my earlier comment. The poster I was making reference to, atleast to me, made it seem like wide spread looting was occurring. I'm sure, yes some looting is occurring, horrible people will always find a way to take advantage of people when they can. But without someone showing some verification, saying it's happening all over is just an assumption.

I know the news has talked about looting out of control in Texas last week and on the Islands that just got hit was talked about yesterday... Just read 2 articles that more then 2 dozen people have been arrested looting in Ft Lauderdale/Miami, so far...

Edited September 11, 2017 by ONECRUISER

[alexmom]

You buy insurance to protect yourself in case something happens to prevent you from making a scheduled cruise. If the cruise line can't deliver, no matter what the reason, you should be entitled for a total refund. If you paid cash the refund should be cash not a fcc or obc or any other phony payment. You don't pay for something you didn't receive. Maybe the cruise line should have insurance for their end of the deal. If you let them get away with this kind of stuff, yet continue to sail with them, you reap what you plant.

 

I bought insurance from AIG called Travel Guard, $176 for the 3 of us (4th person did not buy insurance). If I have an appendicitis attack while on board the Allure, if my son is accidentally dead/dismembered while on board the Allure, if my husband is arrested for embezzling billions from his employer and arrested at the port before boarding the Allure - well then, hell, we're covered ! Royal didn't cancel the cruise so I'm FUBAR and FURIOUS !

 

There are no flights to FLL from MSP on the 12th or the 13th on SWA, the airline where my original airfare for the September 10th was purchased from. September 9th flight was cancelled. (duh!) Travel Guard policy only covers the cost to CHANGE the reservation, not refund the airfare. SW will honor the tickets, but only until March 10th of next year. And there are no cruises on the Allure until May that will accommodate 4 people in a cabin when 2 of the people are NOT sharing a bed together.

 

So please tell me again how valuable and necessary and vital to my financial well being travel insurance is.

[caribill]

And if I had a client that paid me for a project and I wasn't able to deliver due to weather, I'd feel pretty awful if they took their money back instead of letting me do my job and just give them what they asked for later on. Like I'd want to be given the opportunity to give them what they paid for, I can't control the weather, I still have everything involved to give them what they need, I just can't safely give it to them the moment they asked for it for reasons I can't control.

 

That would acceptable to many if that equivalent future cruise could be booked at the same price with the same booking amenities that the cancelled booking had.

 

 

But that is not the case. The future credit may not cover the pricing of the equivalent cruise at a later acceptable date.

[caribill]

 

September 9th flight was cancelled. Travel Guard policy only covers the cost to CHANGE the reservation, not refund the airfare. SW will honor the tickets, but only until March 10th of next year. And there are no cruises on the Allure until May that will accommodate 4 people in a cabin when 2 of the people are NOT sharing a bed together.

 

 

I would check with SW again. Since they did not fly the flight you had booked, they should offer you a full cash refund.

 

Now if you had cancelled your flight reservations, then the March 10th deadline for using the funds would definitely apply.

[nealstuber]

That depends ! Are they offering me a different main course, or appetizer, or are they suggesting I have tapas instead ? If I went expecting to have dinner and was told I could only have a snack I wouldn't be staying.

 

But to take it one step further...there is a pizza place near where I live that offers a package that one can purchase in advance for x number of pizzas over a year. If I bought the package and then ordered my first pizza and they said sorry we only have chicken wings now, darn right I'd expect my money back.

 

 

 

What if they said, I'm sorry we can't deliver pizza in the middle of hurricane in to an area that's been evacuated?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[nealstuber]

I have to agree with you we need to rewrite maritime law, and make it so, that if the cruise lines ever do something like this again, that we put them on the rack... those medieval monks had it so

 

JC

 

 

I could not disagree more. There is a wide disparity in how the the cruise lines have handled this. If how one line handled one particular circumstance bothers you, then you have options.

 

Putting laws in place to handle these situations would prevent lines from competing with each other to provide the best service in these circumstances. All of the lines would be forced in to a mediocre standard until the law was repealed.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

I could not disagree more. There is a wide disparity in how the the cruise lines have handled this.

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.

 

Putting laws in place to handle these situations would prevent lines from competing with each other to provide the best service in these circumstances. All of the lines would be forced in to a mediocre standard until the law was repealed.

This is not true. Standards are a minimum. Competitors are entitled and encouraged to go well beyond whatever standard is employed. All a standard does is provide a floor below which competitors cannot go. So for example, there are safety standards that make sure that some budget smartphone maker doesn't offer for sale smartphones that are too likely to catch fire and cause damage or harm, yet many smartphone makers produce products that are far better than the minimum standard.

[Big_G]

I could not disagree more. There is a wide disparity in how the the cruise lines have handled this. If how one line handled one particular circumstance bothers you, then you have options.

 

Putting laws in place to handle these situations would prevent lines from competing with each other to provide the best service in these circumstances. All of the lines would be forced in to a mediocre standard until the law was repealed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I think that was sarcasm Neal.

[xpcdoojk]

I could not disagree more. There is a wide disparity in how the the cruise lines have handled this. If how one line handled one particular circumstance bothers you, then you have options.

 

Putting laws in place to handle these situations would prevent lines from competing with each other to provide the best service in these circumstances. All of the lines would be forced in to a mediocre standard until the law was repealed.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Huh....

 

I was making a joke. Not a particularly subtle one. I agree, competition is the answer to almost any problem. One of the problems with the world right now is that companies lobby for laws or more likely regulations that they can hide behind and force their competitors to do business like they do. I.E. spending boatloads of money to entice politicians to set the conditions to do business so as to make competition impossible. I.E. they must all make vanilla ice cream, and can't add something new to ice cream.

 

JC

[bUU]

I agree, competition is the answer to almost any problem.

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. The natural state of business unregulated is to seek increasing profits, so now we have hub and spoke systems, with many airline connections and many fewer direct flights; and airlines that no longer accept each other's tickets when one or the other has issues that prevent serving certain passengers.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating regulation of cruise lines (though I have to say that, for airlines, it may very well be the right thing to do). Rather, I'm making clear that not regulating cruise lines doesn't lead to nirvana. Just like lack of regulation of airlines means the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat, lack of regulation of cruise lines means terms and conditions that make passengers, like the OP, feel "screwed over". It allows cruise lines to draw a line between what they're responsible for and what the passenger is responsible for in a place that justifies the price point that the passenger is demanding, but to justify that price point the line is drawn in a place that the passenger is left taking on more risk than the passenger is unprepared to accept, when that risk manifests in a loss, even though the passenger originally agreed to assuming the risk for that loss originally. Either something is wrong with the integrity of the passengers or something is wrong with letting cruise lines operate in an unregulated manner, able to impose these terms and conditions on customers.

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

OK, I've read the whole thread and while I don't really have a dog in this fight, I wanted to give my opinion.

 

RCI is well within their right to modify a cruise as they see fit (changing departure dates, length, ports of call, etc). Customers all agree to those terms. However, IMO, that doesn't make "right". I feel RCI should have given all cruisers for September 10-17 the option for a full refund, FCC (maybe with an additional 10% as an 'enticement' to take that option), or a prorated amount to take a shortened cruise.

 

It is difficult to compare the cruise industry to other business models. Airlines (at least some) give passengers the option to get a full refund if the schedule changes arrival or departure time by as little as an HOUR. Changing from a 7 day cruise to a 4 day is a significant change IMO. Hotels usually let you cancel within 24-72 hours with no penalty.

 

Again, I get RCI (or any cruise line) doesn't HAVE to do this. However, I feel it is the right thing to do and they can benefit from the PR aspect.

 

Back to the bickering.

[MikeBTN]

OK, I've read the whole thread and while I don't really have a dog in this fight, I wanted to give my opinion.

 

RCI is well within their right to modify a cruise as they see fit (changing departure dates, length, ports of call, etc). Customers all agree to those terms. However, IMO, that doesn't make "right". I feel RCI should have given all cruisers for September 10-17 the option for a full refund, FCC (maybe with an additional 10% as an 'enticement' to take that option), or a prorated amount to take a shortened cruise.

 

It is difficult to compare the cruise industry to other business models. Airlines (at least some) give passengers the option to get a full refund if the schedule changes arrival or departure time by as little as an HOUR. Changing from a 7 day cruise to a 4 day is a significant change IMO. Hotels usually let you cancel within 24-72 hours with no penalty.

 

Again, I get RCI (or any cruise line) doesn't HAVE to do this. However, I feel it is the right thing to do and they can benefit from the PR aspect.

 

Back to the bickering.

 

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.

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

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.

Does the 100% FCC have to be used within a certain time? If so, that's not good enough IMO (unless it's like 5 years or something).

 

The "free" 4-day cruise doesn't help people who can't get to the port. I think all Florida airports are shut down today. It will take more than 2 days to get back to normal schedule for flights.

 

Think about it this way... you're set to embark on 9/10 (for example). Being the conscientious cruiser that you are, you have booked flights to arrive 9/9 or 9/8. That was done MONTHS ago. Now, you see Irma. You watch the track. You find out your cruise isn't leaving now until 9/13. You also realize (it doesn't much to figure out) flying in on 9/8 or 9/9 will be an iffy position. You also see/know traffic to get to a port will be difficult. How do you arrange to get to the port by 9/13? Do you still fly down on 9/8-9? Do you try to arrive even earlier? What if you can't get added vacation time? Do you pay for a last minute flight change (yes, if you're flying SW, you don't have a change fee, but you still have to pay the difference in fares)? So, what do you do?

[bUU]

Does the 100% FCC have to be used within a certain time?

IIRC the rebooking must be done within 60 days, so that puts a limit on how long the FCC is good for. I think on top of that, the FCC must be used within a year.

 

If so, that's not good enough IMO (unless it's like 5 years or something).

Well it is good enough as it is, even if we consumers would prefer better terms and conditions that are being offered, given that what is offered by the cruise lines is either exactly what they promised to offer in the terms and conditions, or better.

[xpcdoojk]

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. The natural state of business unregulated is to seek increasing profits, so now we have hub and spoke systems, with many airline connections and many fewer direct flights; and airlines that no longer accept each other's tickets when one or the other has issues that prevent serving certain passengers.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating regulation of cruise lines (though I have to say that, for airlines, it may very well be the right thing to do). Rather, I'm making clear that not regulating cruise lines doesn't lead to nirvana. Just like lack of regulation of airlines means the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat, lack of regulation of cruise lines means terms and conditions that make passengers, like the OP, feel "screwed over". It allows cruise lines to draw a line between what they're responsible for and what the passenger is responsible for in a place that justifies the price point that the passenger is demanding, but to justify that price point the line is drawn in a place that the passenger is left taking on more risk than the passenger is unprepared to accept, when that risk manifests in a loss, even though the passenger originally agreed to assuming the risk for that loss originally. Either something is wrong with the integrity of the passengers or something is wrong with letting cruise lines operate in an unregulated manner, able to impose these terms and conditions on customers.

 

Argueing with you about whether capitalism works, would be a waste of everyone's time.:evilsmile: Nothing ever occurs without causing unforeseen changes. To think that any group of humans are smart enough to know when to step in to "regulate" and when to withdraw from "regulating" is a fool's quest. Human's when given power over human commerce will never voluntarily quit exercising power. QED.....:eek:

 

JC

[bUU]

Argueing with you about whether capitalism works, would be a waste of everyone's time.:evilsmile:

This isn't a matter of whether capitalism works or not. It is working. The OP feeling a bit screwed over is the result of capitalism. That's all I'm saying there. There's nothing wrong with the fact that one artifact of capitalism made the OP feel screwed over.

 

Nothing ever occurs without causing unforeseen changes. To think that any group of humans are smart enough to know when to step in to "regulate" and when to withdraw from "regulating" is a fool's quest.

That's your political perspective, shared with roughly a third of other Americans. There another third of Americas who believe the exact opposite, and another third of Americans in between. We'll all have to agree to disagree about who is correct about that, since we won't resolve that quarrel online. My only interest there is that while we're engaging with each other in a capitalism system, we make agreements with each other and so should abide by those agreements, even when doing so means we feel screwed over.

[Cuizer2]

I know the news has talked about looting out of control in Texas last week and on the Islands that just got hit was talked about yesterday... Just read 2 articles that more then 2 dozen people have been arrested looting in Ft Lauderdale/Miami, so far...

 

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