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

[Cuizer2]

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.

 

Even you homeowners policy and your auto policy will not cover everything that could happen.

[xpcdoojk]

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.

 

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.

 

Not actually a perspective but a fact of natural law.... Ignoring fundamental natural laws is very destructive. Like ignoring gravity it will put a lump on your head every time you try to fly on your own.:evilsmile:

 

Yes, at least a third are fools. :halo:Unless you can show me the unicorn place where those in power know how to make everyone perfectly happy. Nowhere in the history of the world has ever achieved that thru the exercise of unilateral power. But I am sure that the third of people will continue to dream of those rainbows ending with a pot of gold for everyone.

 

JC

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

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.

 

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.

If you would have read my post (which you quoted), I said 'in my OPINION' (that's what IMO means if you didn't know that), putting a limit on when the FCC needs to be used is not good enough.

 

I also said in an earlier post that RCI is within their rights to offer what they did. That doesn't mean I (or anyone) has to think they are "right". If you feel they way they handled this is good enough (or great), that's fine. I can feel they needed to handle this better. Neither one of us is wrong.

[bUU]

Not actually a perspective but a fact of natural law....

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.

 

Yes, at least a third are fools.

Rudely attacking your political opponents on an online forum that prohibits political debates is uncalled for. Hopefully no one else stoops to your level of blatantly violating the rules of the forum and we can leave the political matter as an open question for debate elsewhere.

 

It is ironic though that you choose to blatantly violate the rules in response to a comment within which I wrote that when we make agreements with each other and so should abide by those agreements.

 

If you would have read my post (which you quoted), I said 'in my OPINION'

Obviously I read your post. I posted my response just like you posted yours. Last I checked, we all can comment on each others posts.

 

Neither one of us is wrong.

Indeed. Neither.

[Cuizer2]

The fact that you're still posting personal attacks on me shows that you're lying to yourself about this. Why don't you create a fan page where you can shower your love on me without derailing threads? Maybe the moderators will open up a separate forum just for you to post your personal attacks.

 

I am not lying to myself. I have every right to point out a post that has inaccurate information. You just seem to be the one who does it the most. I'm sure you have noted that I am not the only one who has issues with your posts.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Cuizer2

[Cuizer2]

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

 

You should have used the sarcasm font. :evilsmile:

[Cuizer2]

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.

 

And that is what we are trying to point out here. Carnival and NCL quickly cancelled the cruises. Royal Caribbean is putting its customers in a position of trying to find flights into an area that is trying to recover from a natural disaster, or possibly lose the fund they paid for the cruise. That resulted in some people trying to get to Galveston after Harvey hit, when such an action was impossible. And even if it could have been done, there was no ship to board anyway.

 

This thread is less about what the contract says and more about corporate responsibility to its clients and the areas it does business in. I am sure the people around Houston were not happy about having extra guests trying to get to Galveston and taking up hotel rooms that the newly homeless could have used because Royal Caribbean said, get there or lose your money. Then it is my understanding that Royal Caribbean is unwilling to reimburse those that followed Royal Caribbean's advise.

 

We will soon see how this plays out in this case. However, since the hurricane changed its predicted course from the east coast of Florida to the west coast of Florida, the cities and cruise ports on Florida's east coast may be in better shape than what was originally expected.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Cuizer2

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

And that is what we are trying to point out here. Carnival and NCL quickly cancelled the cruises. Royal Caribbean is putting its customers in a position of trying to find flights into an area that is trying to recover from a natural disaster, or possibly lose the fund they paid for the cruise. That resulted in some people trying to get to Galveston after Harvey hit, when such an action was impossible. And even if it could have been done, there was no ship to board anyway.

 

This thread is less about what the contract says and more about corporate responsibility to its clients and the areas it does business in. I am sure the people around Houston were not happy about having extra guests trying to get to Galveston and taking up hotel rooms that the newly homeless could have used because Royal Caribbean said, get there or lose your money.

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.

 

I understand trying to keep the cruise as close as scheduled, but by Thursday or Friday they should have known the storm wasn't going to magically move out to the Atlantic or Gulf and Florida would be greatly affected.

[epixx]

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.

 

Why do you classify these situations as "problems"?

 

The airlines already offer larger seats and extras included in the price for those who wish to pay more. Apparently, the large majority of the flying public prefers the current lower economy prices with accompanying small seats and a la carte extras, since most people still fly in economy. Likewise, the hub and spoke systems allow airlines to operate more efficiently to provide the majority of the flying public what they most want, i.e., a low price.

 

Why do you say this is not a market success?

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

Obviously I read your post. I posted my response just like you posted yours. Last I checked, we all can comment on each others posts.

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

[Cuizer2]

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.

 

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

 

Here is a link to the Royal Caribbean cruise contract ...

 

https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

[A&L_Ont]

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

 

SAMJR, dont spend a lot of time on bUU as you will never get it back.

[alexmom]

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?

 

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.

[Cuizer2]

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.

 

I understand trying to keep the cruise as close as scheduled, but by Thursday or Friday they should have known the storm wasn't going to magically move out to the Atlantic or Gulf and Florida would be greatly affected.

 

If you are claiming that the only responsibility Royal Caribbean has is contained within the four corners of the contract, then I disagree. Royal Caribbean has a responsibility to its shareholders. That is not in the contract and it is not in dispute here either. Royal Caribbean has a responsibility to keep its customers safe. Read the contract, Royal Caribbean does not provide such a statement in its contract. The contract deals with the passenger's obligations to Royal Caribbean and with Royal Caribbean's disclaimers for liability, even if caused by one of the independent contractors that Royal Caribbean contracted with.

 

The Constitution has a Bill of Rights that protects the people. Royal Caribbean offers no similar protections for the passengers in its contract. In fact, nothing in the contract says that the ship is sea worthy.

 

Here is a link to Royal Caribbean's contract ...

 

https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

[hiccups]

Why do you classify these situations as "problems"?

 

The airlines already offer larger seats and extras included in the price for those who wish to pay more. Apparently, the large majority of the flying public prefers the current lower economy prices with accompanying small seats and a la carte extras, since most people still fly in economy. Likewise, the hub and spoke systems allow airlines to operate more efficiently to provide the majority of the flying public what they most want, i.e., a low price.

 

Why do you say this is not a market success?

 

 

I don't believe the large majority of the flying public prefers the smaller seat and being nickel and dimed--they just don't have much of a choice if they can't afford business class or whatever upgraded economy seat options are offered. The price differential puts business class out of reach for many people--that doesn't mean they're happy with smaller seats and less service, it just means they have to accept it or find another way to travel.

 

Look, for example, at the difference between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, and how livid people are if they've booked on Air Canada and then find their flight "Rouged."

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

SAMJR, dont spend a lot of time on bUU as you will never get it back.

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.

 

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

 

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.

While I understand your feelings and feel RCI could have handled this better, I don't think you should be angry unless it's at yourself. RCI is doing more than what the contract states. You (presumably willingly) agreed to that contract. If a customer doesn't like a business' policy, they are free to not do business with them. You knew (or had the capability to be informed) of what RCI could do in regards to a cruise when you booked.

 

I know many have posted the hurricane "season" is June-November, but let's admit the chances are drastically higher in August/September/October.

[KDOG687]

Obviously people haven't been keeping up with all that royal has done to help provide relief for the islands as well as the cruisers. Any seasoned cruiser should understand the risk is higher sailing this time of year. Also by such risk the prices tend to be cheaper for that trade off. I was on the harmony last week in Aug and knew full well that when I booked it life can happened. My advice is a vacation shouldn't be stressful it should be relaxing. I get the inconvenience aspect but if that is a major concern the maybe a all inclusive resort or just a typical land vacation would be more suited for the net sayers. Remember you always have a choice next time if you del that a different cruise line handled the situation better than sail with them.

 

Sent from my H1611 using Forums mobile app

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

If you are claiming that the only responsibility Royal Caribbean has is contained within the four corners of the contract, then I disagree. Royal Caribbean has a responsibility to its shareholders. That is not in the contract and it is not in dispute here either. Royal Caribbean has a responsibility to keep its customers safe. Read the contract, Royal Caribbean does not provide such a statement in its contract. The contract deals with the passenger's obligations to Royal Caribbean and with Royal Caribbean's disclaimers for liability, even if caused by one of the independent contractors that Royal Caribbean contracted with.

 

The Constitution has a Bill of Rights that protects the people. Royal Caribbean offers no similar protections for the passengers in its contract. In fact, nothing in the contract says that the ship is sea worthy.

Here is a link to Royal Caribbean's contract ...

 

https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

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?

[Cuizer2]

I don't believe the large majority of the flying public prefers the smaller seat and being nickel and dimed--they just don't have much of a choice if they can't afford business class or whatever upgraded economy seat options are offered. The price differential puts business class out of reach for many people--that doesn't mean they're happy with smaller seats and less service, it just means they have to accept it or find another way to travel.

 

Look, for example, at the difference between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, and how livid people are if they've booked on Air Canada and then find their flight "Rouged."

 

I disagree. 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.

[Cuizer2]

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.

 

While I understand your feelings and feel RCI could have handled this better, I don't think you should be angry unless it's at yourself. RCI is doing more than what the contract states. You (presumably willingly) agreed to that contract. If a customer doesn't like a business' policy, they are free to not do business with them. You knew (or had the capability to be informed) of what RCI could do in regards to a cruise when you booked.

 

I know many have posted the hurricane "season" is June-November, but let's admit the chances are drastically higher in August/September/October.

 

No, she is not totally wrong. It is her "I'm better than you" attitude that is causing the friction.

[Big_G]

Well this thread has gone off the rails. Good luck to the Florida locals and to the cruisers that are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Cuizer2]

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?

 

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. There is nothing in the contract that says, well, if there is a hurricane that threatens the home port, we will be understanding verse, we don't care if there is a hurricane threatening the port, here is what our contract says that is what we are going to do!!!

[Sam Ting]

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?

 

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

 

In this case, the cruise line chose to offer a cruise during hurricane season. If they can't deliver what was advertised and bargained for then it should be in them.

 

If the cruise line elected not to insure losses in cases like this, then that's a risk they took.

 

Looks like they are now trying to mitigate damages while the consumer suffers.

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

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. There is nothing in the contract that says, well, if there is a hurricane that threatens the home port, we will be understanding verse, we don't care if there is a hurricane threatening the port, here is what our contract says that is what we are going to do!!!

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.

[Blondie419ag]

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

 

In this case, the cruise line chose to offer a cruise during hurricane season. If they can't deliver what was advertised and bargained for then it should be in them.

 

If the cruise line elected not to insure losses in cases like this, then that's a risk they took.

 

Looks like they are now trying to mitigate damages while the consumer suffers.

 

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.