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

[AZWeLove2Cruise]

If I read my insurance correctly, the insurance I purchased through RCCL when I booked directly with them, it only refunds 75% and only under very strict circumstances. We are to leave on Oct 2 to Key West (not happening) and 2 days in Havana. Have not heard anything. The ONLY reason we are taking this cruise is to go to Havana. If they change both ports of call, it will have been a waste of money as we have recently been to most of the ports they would change us to. Waiting to see what happens. We live in Arizona. Had reservations in St Maarten at a very nice VRBO starting this Saturday. Cancelled. Have reservations north of Tampa for the following week, still going, but who knows about the cruise.

[DaniDanielle]

Well, we wanted the Allure 9/10 trip but we just booked November on the Anthem. No flying involved. We only had to be pay $74 extra after credit was applied so we ware happy, sort of.

[Lucky12500]

I see so many people complaining about the cruiselines not giving them all their money back.

 

This is what Trip insurance is for. A cruiseline (or any vacation) is not there to hand money out if something out of their control happens.

 

We all should know the ramifications of booking trips and cancellation fees, and trip insurance is very cheap. I just paid 100 bucks for 3 of us for our Allure trip 10/1 a few weeks ago. So glad I have that peace of mind and will not be worrying about problems if they arise. That's my responsibility as a consumer.

 

Would you drive your car without insurance? I have been in the insurance industry for 30 years and have seen more people than I can count try to save a few bucks on insurance (of any kind) and pay an immense price for it in the end.

I also am scheduled for Alllure on 10/1 - have you heard anything at all about the cruise and whether it still intends to go to St. Thomas and San Juan? I have the RC travel insurance, and I can pull in a medical if I need to as I have necessary surgery scheduled for 9/27. My guest also has the RC insurance and would perhaps lose 25%? I don't know how that all works, and I can't seem to get anyone to answer my question. I would actually love to just postpone.

[rukkian]

For me the question is: What is a cancelled cruise. If I bought a 7 day cruise from Florida, offering a 4 day cruise that leaves 3 days later doesn't seem like the same product I purchased. To me that is a cancelled cruise and those people should be entitled to a full cash refund.

I understand you don't like that, but you agreed to that in the contract. You may have buyer's remorse at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that they are full filling what they agreed to. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign it, but in the case of a cruise, that means your are probably not going on a cruise on any line.

 

You can try to get them to give you more then the contract says, and in some cases, they may do that, but getting upset that they have you what you signed (even if you wanted something else) seems unreasonable imo.

 

If you want to take a vacation to a place that is in a hurricane area, and you don't want to risk that investment, then buy insurance. Coming here saying that those of us that buy insurance and then also don't cruise during hurricane season should foot the bill to cover the risk you willingly took is not right. If the cruise line gives a bunch of people back their money to pay for those people's lack of insurance, then everybody else has to pay more to cover that loss.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

[cruisinfanatic]

I also am scheduled for Alllure on 10/1 - have you heard anything at all about the cruise and whether it still intends to go to St. Thomas and San Juan? I have the RC travel insurance, and I can pull in a medical if I need to as I have necessary surgery scheduled for 9/27. My guest also has the RC insurance and would perhaps lose 25%? I don't know how that all works, and I can't seem to get anyone to answer my question. I would actually love to just postpone.

San Juan is no problem but not likely St Thomas.

You aren't getting an answer because the answer isn't known yet. Your cruise is not going to get postponed because of a substitute port

[dswallow]

RCL makes a big deal about the Cuba-bound cruises. To then change a port visit in Cuba to a different country is, perhaps in the letter of their contract, but totally against the spirit of the marketing and sale. And, frankly, just because a "cruise contract" is written in some way doesn't make that contract legal in whole or in part. It can still be superseded by various consumer protection laws, oftentimes based on the residence of the purchaser, the location of the travel agent, or various other specific restrictions.

[rukkian]

RCL makes a big deal about the Cuba-bound cruises. To then change a port visit in Cuba to a different country is, perhaps in the letter of their contract, but totally against the spirit of the marketing and sale. And, frankly, just because a "cruise contract" is written in some way doesn't make that contract legal in whole or in part. It can still be superseded by various consumer protection laws, oftentimes based on the residence of the purchaser, the location of the travel agent, or various other specific restrictions.

That is different than most of the discussion here.

 

I agree that Cuba cruises might be different, just not sure what can be done, if the Port is not available. Haven't heard much on that front.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

[lbjen]

I also am scheduled for Alllure on 10/1 - have you heard anything at all about the cruise and whether it still intends to go to St. Thomas and San Juan? I have the RC travel insurance, and I can pull in a medical if I need to as I have necessary surgery scheduled for 9/27. My guest also has the RC insurance and would perhaps lose 25%? I don't know how that all works, and I can't seem to get anyone to answer my question. I would actually love to just postpone.

 

Your guest might also be able to claim if you use the medical reason. Maybe you can check.

[Covepointcruiser]

San Juan is no problem but not likely St Thomas.

You aren't getting an answer because the answer isn't known yet. Your cruise is not going to get postponed because of a substitute port

Because of your surgery, you should have canceled your cruise as soon as that was scheduled. If you go, you will go to different ports. St. Thomas and St. Martin will take some time to recover. Luckily, there are other ports, St. Croix or Guadeloupe, and they mat be happy to accommodate the ship.

[Steelers0854]

RCL makes a big deal about the Cuba-bound cruises. To then change a port visit in Cuba to a different country is, perhaps in the letter of their contract, but totally against the spirit of the marketing and sale. And, frankly, just because a "cruise contract" is written in some way doesn't make that contract legal in whole or in part. It can still be superseded by various consumer protection laws, oftentimes based on the residence of the purchaser, the location of the travel agent, or various other specific restrictions.

 

 

 

If there is a place that you absolutely must see then a cruise is not the right vacation for you. Ports can be changed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which in this case is a devastating storm. I can totally understand being disappointed in not being able to visit a port. It happened to us in January when we missed key west due to fog in Galveston, were we disappointed,? yes greatly, it was the main reason we booked this itinerary. Did we even contemplate a lawsuit over it? Absolutely not, this is simply a part of taking a cruise vacation.

 

RCI, or any cruise line for that matter, doesn't make port change decisions lightly. In this case in particular, being upset about not going to a particular port is diminishing what the people in these storm damaged areas have gone through by something that was outside of everyone's control.

[caribill]

If the cruise line gives a bunch of people back their money to pay for those people's lack of insurance, then everybody else has to pay more to cover that loss.

 

 

No.

 

If a cruise line refunds payments for a cruise that the passenger could not get to due to being unable to travel into a disaster area, then the result is lower profits for that quarter.

 

No reason to raise rates for anyone.

 

If my cable company does not provide service for a week, I do not get charged for that week and my cable pricing is not increased.

 

If my electricity is out during a storm, I do not have to pay for the electricity I did not use.

 

And if a storm makes it impossible to get to a cruise, I should not have to pay for it either.

[Ourusualbeach]

No.

 

If a cruise line refunds payments for a cruise that the passenger could not get to due to being unable to travel into a disaster area, then the result is lower profits for that quarter.

 

No reason to raise rates for anyone.

 

If my cable company does not provide service for a week, I do not get charged for that week and my cable pricing is not increased.

 

If my electricity is out during a storm, I do not have to pay for the electricity I did not use.

 

And if a storm makes it impossible to get to a cruise, I should not have to pay for it either.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

The cable company and the electric company are not providing the service, the cruise line is still providing the service and it is you that is not able to take advantage of that service dude to unforeseen circumstances.

[payitforward]

No.

 

If a cruise line refunds payments for a cruise that the passenger could not get to due to being unable to travel into a disaster area, then the result is lower profits for that quarter.

 

No reason to raise rates for anyone.

 

If my cable company does not provide service for a week, I do not get charged for that week and my cable pricing is not increased.

 

If my electricity is out during a storm, I do not have to pay for the electricity I did not use.

 

And if a storm makes it impossible to get to a cruise, I should not have to pay for it either.

 

If a storm makes it impossible to get to a cruise, you don't have to pay for it - as long as you purchased insurance. If I paid for insurance, and you did not, why should you get something for free that I had to pay for? That's why insurance exists - to cover things like not being able to get to a cruise due to a storm.

[Coralc]

I have a question it maybe stupid...but if someone had 3rd party insurance that pays if they cancel for any reason and they turn in claim for this cruise. Then could same person receive the FCC that RCL is offering for this shorted cruise. It doesn't sound right it's like double dipping. But RCL doesn't know you have insurance or will insurance not pay since your getting a refund in form of FCC from RCL.

 

In order to file a claim with your travel insurance you have to submit the cancellation paperwork from the cruise line to the insurance company. I think that they would probably catch on before they allow you to commit insurance fraud. :D

[dswallow]

I'd be royally pissed if I was booked on a cruise that was being shortened by the cruise line's choice and they were unwilling to provide compensation to me for my non-refundable travel expenses related to my booking. Right now, doesn't matter if it's for "humanitarian" reasons. There's zero reason RCL couldn't be running these recently-shortened cruises as originally agreed. Insurance isn't going to help. The cruise you booked isn't being canceled. At best you could see a prorated reimbursement for the short-changed days. But if you "chose" to take a 100% future cruise credit, you're stuck. You've still lost out on your travel costs -- at least to the extent any of those aren't refundable. Now maybe a squeaky wheel will get greased if you complain loudly about it. But it shouldn't be that way. When RCL (or any line) voluntarily shortchanges your booking, they need to have some liability for related costs you suffer, too.

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

I understand you don't like that, but you agreed to that in the contract. You may have buyer's remorse at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that they are full filling what they agreed to. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign it, but in the case of a cruise, that means your are probably not going on a cruise on any line.

 

You can try to get them to give you more then the contract says, and in some cases, they may do that, but getting upset that they have you what you signed (even if you wanted something else) seems unreasonable imo.

 

If you want to take a vacation to a place that is in a hurricane area, and you don't want to risk that investment, then buy insurance. Coming here saying that those of us that buy insurance and then also don't cruise during hurricane season should foot the bill to cover the risk you willingly took is not right. If the cruise line gives a bunch of people back their money to pay for those people's lack of insurance, then everybody else has to pay more to cover that loss.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

You are 100% correct. However, based on the contract, RCI (any cruise line) can decide on a whim (day of sailing) "hey, instead of being a 7 day cruise, we're going to come back in 4 days". Passengers who flew would then have to find hotel arrangements or pay to change their flights. Passengers would be rightfully upset, but still not due anything from the cruise line. Insurance wouldn't cover anything because the cruise actually happened.

 

That sounds "fair" to people? Yes, I know, we all signed the contract allowing the cruise line to do that. Many people would say "I'm never sailing line 'z' again!" and probably wouldn't. Would they be justified?

 

So why should a weather incident make it ok?

[Sue1260]

In order to file a claim with your travel insurance you have to submit the cancellation paperwork from the cruise line to the insurance company. I think that they would probably catch on before they allow you to commit insurance fraud. :D

Oh that makes sense I have never filed a claim so was unsure of how process works. Thanks

[waterbug123]

2 days in Havana. Have not heard anything. The ONLY reason we are taking this cruise is to go to Havana. If they change both ports of call, it will have been a waste of money

 

You realize that that port could have been changed even if there wasn't a hurricane, right? Any port can be changed. Cruiselines won't change them randomly, but there could be other issues that necessitate a change. If you are bound and determined to see a particular place, flying there makes more sense.

 

 

RCL makes a big deal about the Cuba-bound cruises. To then change a port visit in Cuba to a different country is, perhaps in the letter of their contract, but totally against the spirit of the marketing and sale.

 

Oh please, if the ship can't call on Havana due to storm damage, what is Royal supposed to do about it? They also make a big deal about seeing glaciers and bald eagles during their Alaska cruises, and fall foliage during New England cruises, historic sites on European itineraries, but at any time a port can be canceled. 2 years ago we did a cruise out of Istanbul and I was looking forward to seeing parts of Greece for the first time, but the Athens stop was canceled for reasons that were never made clear. Royal is not intentionally misleading people advertising a cruise to Cuba, and then canceling that port due to weather.

[waterbug123]

You are 100% correct. However, based on the contract, RCI (any cruise line) can decide on a whim (day of sailing) "hey, instead of being a 7 day cruise, we're going to come back in 4 days".

 

But they don't, because if they actually did make changes like that "on a whim" people would catch on quickly and stop booking with them.

[rukkian]

You are 100% correct. However, based on the contract, RCI (any cruise line) can decide on a whim (day of sailing) "hey, instead of being a 7 day cruise, we're going to come back in 4 days". Passengers who flew would then have to find hotel arrangements or pay to change their flights. Passengers would be rightfully upset, but still not due anything from the cruise line. Insurance wouldn't cover anything because the cruise actually happened.

 

That sounds "fair" to people? Yes, I know, we all signed the contract allowing the cruise line to do that. Many people would say "I'm never sailing line 'z' again!" and probably wouldn't. Would they be justified?

 

So why should a weather incident make it ok?

It is not in a whim, it is being done due circumstances outside their control. Insurance (if you pick the right one) would cover this as part trip interruption, or as a last resort, cancel for any reason.

 

If they refund everybody's money, them those funds have to come from somewhere. Rcci is not the government, they have to make more then they spend and can't just print more money.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

[Steelers0854]

I'd be royally pissed if I was booked on a cruise that was being shortened by the cruise line's choice and they were unwilling to provide compensation to me for my non-refundable travel expenses related to my booking. Right now, doesn't matter if it's for "humanitarian" reasons. There's zero reason RCL couldn't be running these recently-shortened cruises as originally agreed. Insurance isn't going to help. The cruise you booked isn't being canceled. At best you could see a prorated reimbursement for the short-changed days. But if you "chose" to take a 100% future cruise credit, you're stuck. You've still lost out on your travel costs -- at least to the extent any of those aren't refundable. Now maybe a squeaky wheel will get greased if you complain loudly about it. But it shouldn't be that way. When RCL (or any line) voluntarily shortchanges your booking, they need to have some liability for related costs you suffer, too.

 

 

 

Sorry, but they didn't voluntarily modify anything. If your referring to the shortened cruises that occurred because they were supposed to leave during a hurricane how is that voluntary? If you're talking about missed ports in subsequent cruises due to storm damage how is that voluntary? They have 0 liability for your travel costs, that's what insurance is for and if you chose not to purchase insurance then that's on you to cover the costs as you assumed that risk when you declined to purchase insurance.

 

Now, if they were making changes due to some type of mechanical failure or something that they actually had some responsibility for, I could see them having more responsibility, but again this is why you should buy insurance or you have no ground to stand on for complaints about lost funds.

[nealstuber]

I'd be royally pissed if I was booked on a cruise that was being shortened by the cruise line's choice and they were unwilling to provide compensation to me for my non-refundable travel expenses related to my booking. Right now, doesn't matter if it's for "humanitarian" reasons. There's zero reason RCL couldn't be running these recently-shortened cruises as originally agreed. Insurance isn't going to help. The cruise you booked isn't being canceled. At best you could see a prorated reimbursement for the short-changed days. But if you "chose" to take a 100% future cruise credit, you're stuck. You've still lost out on your travel costs -- at least to the extent any of those aren't refundable. Now maybe a squeaky wheel will get greased if you complain loudly about it. But it shouldn't be that way. When RCL (or any line) voluntarily shortchanges your booking, they need to have some liability for related costs you suffer, too.

 

 

 

Reading through how RCCL has handled this, if you chose to make you arrangements through RCCLs air to Sea program, you would not have to worry about any of this.

 

If you want a cruiseline to be responsible for your vacation from the time you leave your home till the time you return, they offer that service (at a pretty small premium these days). If you want the cruiseline to be responsible for your vacation from the time you get on the ship till the time you get off the ship, you can do that too. But it's really not fair to expect the cruislines to be responsible for one option when you chose the other.

 

And they already took a huge hit providing free cruise days to those who could not disembark as scheduled.

 

Also from what I've seen, the airlines have been very accommodating, waiving change fees and quickly refunding flights they had to cancel. But if someone had a ticket where they were supposed to fly in 2 days before the storm hit, and the airline would not let you cancel because you did not want to fly in an area that would be under evacuation orders, why wouldn't that person take it up with airline??

 

The key word in your post is in the last sentence "RELATED". If you chose to give your money to somebody else to get to the ship, that travel is not related in any way to the cruiseline - because that's how you set it up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[cruisebabe50]

Be happy you're not in Orlando where we took the direct hit. I had a tornado rip the tops out of my large oak trees; it actually got my house on Spectrum local news. Thank God no physical injuries or structural damage to house. We'll survive, but massive cleanup over next week or so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

I am sorry for you and pray that you all come through it well. Btw I live in Cape Coral just north of Naples. We got a direct hit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

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

If they refund everybody's money, them those funds have to come from somewhere.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

Oh come on, that's your reason? That's easy. Let's say I pay $1000 to go on a cruise. RCI wants my money 2 1/2 months before departure. They change from a 7 day to a 4 day cruise. I feel I should be entitled (I know I'm not based on the contract) to a refund. They give me MY money back. THAT'S where it comes from. Airlines will generally refund your money (even on non-refundable tickets) if they change your departure or arrival time by as little as an hour. Where does that money come from.

 

I'm just amazed that people think it's not a significant change to go from a 7 day to a 4 day cruise.

 

I asked this earlier and no one answered... you are booked to sail on 9/10. Being the good cruiser that you are, your flights are scheduled for 9/9 (I'm not referring to being able to drive to the port). However, a hurricane is on the way. Airports are shutting down on 9/9. The cruise line says "we're going to leave 9/13 instead of 9/10". You call around for hotels but they're all booked (with evacuees). What do you do? Change your air to fly in on a later day? Drive? Where do you stay?

[nealstuber]

Oh come on, that's your reason? That's easy. Let's say I pay $1000 to go on a cruise. RCI wants my money 2 1/2 months before departure. They change from a 7 day to a 4 day cruise. I feel I should be entitled (I know I'm not based on the contract) to a refund. They give me MY money back. THAT'S where it comes from. Airlines will generally refund your money (even on non-refundable tickets) if they change your departure or arrival time by as little as an hour. Where does that money come from.

 

 

 

I'm just amazed that people think it's not a significant change to go from a 7 day to a 4 day cruise.

 

 

 

I asked this earlier and no one answered... you are booked to sail on 9/10. Being the good cruiser that you are, your flights are scheduled for 9/9 (I'm not referring to being able to drive to the port). However, a hurricane is on the way. Airports are shutting down on 9/9. The cruise line says "we're going to leave 9/13 instead of 9/10". You call around for hotels but they're all booked (with evacuees). What do you do? Change your air to fly in on a later day? Drive? Where do you stay?

 

 

Another circumstance where the person in question wants to make their own travel arrangements and wants the cruise line to be responsible for them. If you really want the cruiseline to be responsible for getting you to and from the ship, then contract with them to do that.

 

And I've literally been on hundreds of flights that were delayed by an hour or more, while I may have had the option to cancel, I didn't in part because I already had money and time invested in getting to the airport. Have you ever seen an airline compensate anyone for their expenses getting to and from the airport (along with parking) for a flight that was cancelled?

 

I do wish RCCL would have offered outright refunds instead of FCC. Most would probably like to sail with RCCL again anyway;but, when scrambling to schedule an alternative vacation, it would be nice to have as many options as possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums