Consumer advocate article: "This is what happens when you're kicked off your cruise"

[Fouremco]

So in your alternate universe, pointing out that someone's injury was so severe as to require medical attention is the same as saying he was "severely injured"?

 

One is a fact. The other is not.

 

It's a FACT that his injury was so severe as to require medical attention (at least according to HAL). The actual degree of severity of the injury was not specified, or even commented on, by the journalist other than in the context of pointing out the FACT that HAL stated it was so severe that it required medical treatment. Which they did.

 

That is not the same thing as saying he was "severely injured".

 

I'm a writer, so I actually do grasp the difference here. If you don't, that's okay. I understand. These language nuances can be complicated. :D

It's too bad that you still don't grasp the fact that medical attention does not equate to severe injury, but hey, medical nuances can be complicated.

[Leejnd4]

It's too bad that you still don't grasp the fact that medical attention does not equate to severe injury, but hey, medical nuances can be complicated.

And it's...um...odd that you still don't grasp the fact that nobody ever said he was severely injured.

 

The journalist stated that his injury was "severe enough to require medical treatment". Which means it was more severe than an injury that doesn't require medical treatment. That still doesn't state that the injury is "severe", which is an adjective that comes with some, let's say, understandable parameters. All she said is that whatever severity it was, was greater than the severity of an injury that requires no medical intervention whatsoever. It still might have just been a band-aid. But a cut needing a band-aid is, ya know, more severe than a bruise needing no medical attention whatsoever.

 

If that's too complicated for you, then I throw my hands up in the air and give up ever getting through to you.

 

Happy cruising!

[chengkp75]

WHAT? Um, where are you seeing this? I just re-read the entire article, and nowhere does Mrs. Chan state she wasn't with her husband. On the contrary, she repeated stated THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED.

 

From the article:

Can you please show where you see Mrs. Chan stating that she wasn't with her husband during the time the incident occurred? If I missed that in the article, mea culpa...but I can't find it.

 

EDITING to add: I discovered a comment from the author of the article that makes it clear the wife WAS with her husband when the incident occurred:

 

Comment by Michelle Couch-Friedman, author of the article:

So you are wrong. The wife WAS with her husband. They both witnessed the scuffle, but claim they weren't involved. And they have repeatedly asked for the video tapes that they insist will prove it.

So, I am willing to admit that I was wrong on this point.

Ah, so now you admit that it was HAL who said their crew member required medical attention. The journalist pointing out that the crew member required medical attention is not hyperbole. It was simply a fact. How you turn that into the journalist and/or Mrs. Chan being guilty of hyperbole is...well...baffling.

 

I never denied that HAL said the crew member needed medical attention, you seem to be confusing posters in your frenzy to justify your sole interpretation of events.

 

Show me a human who doesn't have some level of bias, and I'll show you...a non-human. ;)

 

And yet you castigate another poster for having a bias that disagrees with yours. Hmm.

 

As for an ax to grind - no ax here, hon. Just some wry observations about the Cruise Critic culture as revealed in the comments in this thread! And this entire conversation since I joined it has done nothing to refute my original points.

 

Again, and this will be my last post on this dead horse, most of the people with whom you so violently disagree, and whom you denigrate as cruise line cheerleaders and "die hards" have only said that they feel that the cruise line did an investigation and since we don't know the facts of that investigation, they believe that the couple's story may be either flawed or slanted.

[kazu]

Oh, and one more comment.

 

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet this "incident" had to do with the cruise ship refusing to let passengers with private tours leave the ship in time to meet their tour guides.

 

This is an ugly practice that some cruise lines use to try to get more passengers to use their own overly-expensive excursions. I encountered this on my own Baltics cruise...which was not on HAL, but in my research I learned that pretty much all the cruise lines pull the same dirty tricks.

 

First they will lie to us, telling us that if we don't go on their high-priced tours, we will need to get an expensive, difficult-to-obtain Russian Visa or Russian checkpoint officials won't let us off the ship. This is, of course, bull - as long as your private tour guide is legally registered, all you need are your tour tickets and you can waltz right through the checkpoint.

 

Once we learn that we absolutely CAN book private tours, their next tactic is to force pax with private tours to wait for hours to exit the ship until all the pax on the ship tours are off. That is an ugly and totally unnecessary tactic, designed just to penalize those who didn't pay the jacked-up prices for the ship tours. There is no reason private-tour passengers can't be allowed off in St. Petersburg just as they are at many other ports worldwide. There's no tenders, and the checkpoints run smoothly.

 

On our Baltics cruise, we booked a private van with two other couples, in which we were able to set our own itinerary and visit twice the number of sites, with only six of us, compared to the ship tour which had dozens of pax crammed into huge buses and cost twice what we paid.

 

So I can certainly understand the frustration of passengers who paid for private excursions and are being "bullied" themselves into not being allowed to take them. Not that I would ever condone any kind of physical altercation, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that's what let to the incident. I can imagine that scores of private-tour pax were standing around, seeing that there were no lines in the checkpoints, and yet not being allowed off the ship. That would make me mad too. We were told that would happen to us on our cruise, but we were lucky enough to not be detained, and were allowed off at the same time as the ship tour pax.

 

I don't know what bee is in your bonnet, but I can tell you on our last Baltic cruise on HAL we had private tours including St. Petersburg.

 

It's a port where you dock, not tender so what is your issue?

 

We just went down early with our group and were the first ones off. Easy peasy.

 

We had no need to push or abuse anyone. We simply were ready and walked off like civilized people.

 

We have NEVER been told we had to wait when it was a regularly docked port. It might be rushed but we have never been told that.

 

Tenders, yes, docked ports, never.

 

and by the way, you don't need to be "severely injured" to be hurt. NO ONE has the right to abuse another.

 

But that's probably a Canadian view ;)

[OlsSalt]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! OlsSalt I'm starting to really enjoy chatting with you. :)

 

I can kinda see your point...which, if you'll allow me to re-state it, is that medical "attention" is not the same as medical "treatment".

 

On the other hand, I think you are overly parsing words here. I think it's a reasonable assumption that someone who needs medical "attention" received medical "treatment". And making that leap is, well, such a TINY leap that it can't even remotely be considered "hyperbole". It certainly doesn't meet the metric of being an extravagant exaggeration! Wouldn't you agree?

 

Editing to add - are you, perhaps, a lawyer? Just curious! :)

 

Editing again to add: by the way, it wasn't I who did the "morphing". It was the author. She is the one who used the term "medical treatment" when HAL used the term "medical attention". But again, I fail to see this as anything that could be considered hyperbole.

 

No. Medical attention can mean just a survey for any impacts after this recorded incident.

 

Maybe he was scratched, slapped, bit, or was pushed and fell to the floor or slapped up against the wall or any of the equipment at the disembarkation station. Maybe he wore classes and they broke,, got spit in the eye or even sneezed and/or coughed on. That we do not know.

 

Medical attention is a survey to see did any impact on his body warranted (1) further attention, observation or follow-up. Or (2) is medical attention required by work procedures and/or maritime law so a base line can be documented. Will any later symptom lessen or get worse. Or (3) did any impact on his person also require "treatment" - superficial or acute. We don't know, but each word choice is a term of art and cannot be used interchangeably, especially for effect.

 

Let alone any survey for psychological effect if he was harassed or verbally abused by a passenger. Our HAL crews take their hospitality mission very seriously so becoming party to an unfortunate incident as reported that allegedly put them in some sort of peril could be traumatizing.

[Leejnd4]

Again, and this will be my last post on this dead horse, most of the people with whom you so violently disagree, and whom you denigrate as cruise line cheerleaders and "die hards" have only said that they feel that the cruise line did an investigation and since we don't know the facts of that investigation, they believe that the couple's story may be either flawed or slanted.

Are you are assuming my comments were directed to every single person in this thread?

 

If so, please allow me to clarify that...um...they were not. :) There, does that help?

 

Anyone who acknowledged that we don't know the actual facts, and kept an open mind that the couple may very well be telling the truth, can rightly exclude themselves from my comments.

[Aquahound]

So "common sense" doesn't qualify? How about the fact that the couple are actively seeking the video from which he was supposedly identified? Wouldn't that seem to indicate they are pretty darn sure it will exonerate him? :rolleyes:

 

Yes. Common sense does apply....and common sense says a cruise line would not remove a revenue generating passenger without cause. So I'm siding with the cruise line because in cases like this, they're almost always are right. At least, that's been my experience from actually working with them in cases like this.

 

But either way LeeAnne, you and I are just looking at it from 2 different perspectives. At this point, neither one of us knows who is right.

 

Not only the cruise industry, Paul, but all ships, as I feel you know. The Master's "overriding authority" only pertains to the safety of the vessel and the environment. Removal of a passenger for violation of a corporate policy would be covered under the ISM Code, and as you say, this would normally require approval from corporate, written into the ISM.

 

Exactly. I was going to get in to security plans and the such, but I figured only you would understand the lingo. ;)

Edited July 24, 2018 by Aquahound

[OlsSalt]

I know what Oprah would say ........just breathe. Oooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm.

[cruisemom42]

I don't know what bee is in your bonnet, but I can tell you on our last Baltic cruise on HAL we had private tours including St. Petersburg.

 

It's a port where you dock, not tender so what is your issue?

 

We just went down early with our group and were the first ones off. Easy peasy.

 

We had no need to push or abuse anyone. We simply were ready and walked off like civilized people.

 

We have NEVER been told we had to wait when it was a regularly docked port. It might be rushed but we have never been told that.

 

Tenders, yes, docked ports, never.

 

;)

 

Kazu, you might have missed my post earlier in this thread, but the situation in St. Petersburg is far from straightforward. As an avid reader (and contributor) to most of the European Ports of Call boards, I can say that various cruiselines -- including HAL -- have repeatedly tried to restrict independent passengers from leaving the ship and entering the queues for Russian visa clearance until after the ship tours have ALL departed.

 

Princess and at least one other cruise line tried telling cruise passengers that private tours could not get off "by orders of the Russian immigration officials" -- however they ended up eating crow when said officials denied that this was the case. Over a period of several months back in, I think, 2006 or 2007 this played out and eventually the lines relented and began letting people with private tours off the ship again.

 

Unfazed, last year they started another tactic, in apparent cahoots with the large Russian tour agencies that provide the SHIP tours, saying the only passengers taking tours with these companies would be allowed to get off the ship initially.

 

Here is an insightful thread on the topic from the Baltics board on CC: https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2534350

[Leejnd4]

Yes. Common sense does apply....and common sense says a cruise line would not remove a revenue generating passenger without cause. So I'm siding with the cruise line because in cases like this, they're almost always are right. At least, that's been my experience from actually working with them in cases like this.

;)

 

Unless that cause was an incorrect identification of the husband by a crewmember. Which is what the couple is claiming, and which would explain this entire mess. It certainly would explain HAL's refusal to produce the video. Which would make sense if they discovered that they'd put the WRONG PASSENGER off the ship. Better to just stay silent than admit to such an egregious error.

 

And y'know what? I would agree with you...except for the part about the couple repeatedly asking to see the video that they claim would exonerate them. And HAL refusing to do so. And then there's the fact that Elliott's team works with HAL on customer issues on a regular basis and almost always gets a response from them...except for this one.

 

Something smells fishy here.

 

Y'all, of course, are going to assume the stink is coming from the couple. Which, as I pointed out in my very first post on this thread, is not at all surprising given the history of the Cruise Critic culture. ;) But I personally believe...my OPINION (there's that word again is...that the couple makes a much more persuasive case than HAL.

 

Dumping passengers prematurely off ships after full payment does cut down on their later food expenses and service personnel needs. That would be revenue enhancing. Though that might also deprive the bottom line of any excursion, spa, shopping, casino losses or bar tabs. Maybe there is a sweet spot somewhere between the two end points. Calibrated to each passengers spending habits.

 

Hmmm...maybe you're onto something! ;p (And in case anyone tries to take me literally here...I'M KIDDING! (yeesh...tough crowd!)

[Leejnd4]

Kazu, you might have missed my post earlier in this thread, but the situation in St. Petersburg is far from straightforward. As an avid reader (and contributor) to most of the European Ports of Call boards, I can say that various cruiselines -- including HAL -- have repeatedly tried to restrict independent passengers from leaving the ship and entering the queues for Russian visa clearance until after the ship tours have ALL departed.

 

Princess and at least one other cruise line tried telling cruise passengers that private tours could not get off "by orders of the Russian immigration officials" -- however they ended up eating crow when said officials denied that this was the case. Over a period of several months back in, I think, 2006 or 2007 this played out and eventually the lines relented and began letting people with private tours off the ship again.

 

Unfazed, last year they started another tactic, in apparent cahoots with the large Russian tour agencies that provide the SHIP tours, saying the only passengers taking tours with these companies would be allowed to get off the ship initially.

 

Here is an insightful thread on the topic from the Baltics board on CC: https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2534350

 

THANK YOU THANK YOU! Frankly I was getting tired of being told that I'd "jumped the shark" and "have an ax to grind" and was "speculating" and offering unsupported "anecdotes" when I know that this DOES happen, and that there are many many reports of it happening on various cruise lines, many of which could be found right here on Cruise Critic.

 

You nailed it. And I still am quite confident that is exactly what was transpiring on the cruise in question, that resulted in this supposed scuffle.

 

Thank you!

[OlsSalt]

THANK YOU THANK YOU! Frankly I was getting tired of being told that I'd "jumped the shark" and "have an ax to grind" and was "speculating" and offering unsupported "anecdotes" when I know that this DOES happen, and that there are many many reports of it happening on various cruise lines, many of which could be found right here on Cruise Critic.

 

You nailed it. And I still am quite confident that is exactly what was transpiring on the cruise in question, that resulted in this supposed scuffle.

 

Thank you!

 

Here is where you jumped the shark, or at least look the discussion into new territory without any facts in evidence regarding HAL policy, this passengers particular situation on a HAL ship, and/or the true state of the Russian tour industry mafia who may well resort to tactics bordering on extortion:

 

This is an ugly practice that some cruise lines use to try to get more passengers to use their own overly-expensive excursions. I encountered this on my own Baltics cruise...which was not on HAL, but in my research I learned that pretty much all the cruise lines pull the same dirty tricks.

 

First they will lie to us, telling us that if we don't go on their high-priced tours, we will need to get an expensive, difficult-to-obtain Russian Visa or Russian checkpoint officials won't let us off the ship. This is, of course, bull - as long as your private tour guide is legally registered, all you need are your tour tickets and you can waltz right through the checkpoint.

[Leejnd4]

No. Medical attention can mean just a survey for any impacts after this recorded incident.

 

Maybe he was scratched, slapped, bit, or was pushed and fell to the floor or slapped up against the wall or any of the equipment at the disembarkation station. Maybe he wore classes and they broke,, got spit in the eye or even sneezed and/or coughed on. That we do not know.

 

Medical attention is a survey to see did any impact on his body warranted (1) further attention, observation or follow-up. Or (2) is medical attention required by work procedures and/or maritime law so a base line can be documented. Will any later symptom lessen or get worse. Or (3) did any impact on his person also require "treatment" - superficial or acute. We don't know, but each word choice is a term of art and cannot be used interchangeably, especially for effect.

 

Let alone any survey for psychological effect if he was harassed or verbally abused by a passenger. Our HAL crews take their hospitality mission very seriously so becoming party to an unfortunate incident as reported that allegedly put them in some sort of peril could be traumatizing.

Ah...just saw your response...I somehow zipped past it before.

 

Okay, I do hear what you're saying...that medical "treatment" and medical "attention" are dissimilar enough that they should not be used interchangeably. I'll grant you that. I agree.

 

That being said...that still doesn't make what the journalist wrote "hyperbole". She simply pointed out that whatever happened to the crewmember was severe enough to involve medical "something". And I do not think it's an hyperbolic leap to assume that medical attention would usually lead to some kind of treatment. If it didn't, then...wouldn't HAL be the ones being rather hyperbolic? If all that happened was that their crew member had to be LOOKED AT by the ship doc, but nothing was wrong with him...why mention it to begin with, if not to make it seem far more severe than it actually was?

 

Anyway, this has been an interesting conversation, and I thank you for that. I'm kinda done now, so I'll leave you all to your ongoing discussion. Fair winds and all that! :)

[kazu]

Kazu, you might have missed my post earlier in this thread, but the situation in St. Petersburg is far from straightforward. As an avid reader (and contributor) to most of the European Ports of Call boards, I can say that various cruiselines -- including HAL -- have repeatedly tried to restrict independent passengers from leaving the ship and entering the queues for Russian visa clearance until after the ship tours have ALL departed.

 

Princess and at least one other cruise line tried telling cruise passengers that private tours could not get off "by orders of the Russian immigration officials" -- however they ended up eating crow when said officials denied that this was the case. Over a period of several months back in, I think, 2006 or 2007 this played out and eventually the lines relented and began letting people with private tours off the ship again.

 

Unfazed, last year they started another tactic, in apparent cahoots with the large Russian tour agencies that provide the SHIP tours, saying the only passengers taking tours with these companies would be allowed to get off the ship initially.

 

Here is an insightful thread on the topic from the Baltics board on CC: https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2534350

 

thanks for the link which I had read. I am on the ports boards a fair bit but only post if I think I can give genuine help.

 

I am well aware of their Visa tactics which I knew to ignore.

 

We sailed into the Baltics before last year (our second time) so I guess our experience is redundant then. However, my report stands. We had no issue, BUT we met early (on our guide's advice) and were there before the doors were opened and any ship's excursions started. I have no idea what happened after the ship's excursions started. they take time to organize and we were long off, through customs and with our guide by then.

 

I guess now I am glad I did the Baltics when I did as I really have never found this issue in any port IF you are early and organized. Tenders are a whole different kettle of fish.

 

In any case, I would never push a fellow passenger or crew member to get there. That is totally uncalled for and unforgivable. Guides ( who will give tips on how to get off which we followed) will wait if need be and are totally cognizant in most cases.

[Fouremco]

Again, and this will be my last post on this dead horse, most of the people with whom you so violently disagree, and whom you denigrate as cruise line cheerleaders and "die hards" have only said that they feel that the cruise line did an investigation and since we don't know the facts of that investigation, they believe that the couple's story may be either flawed or slanted.

 

Are you are assuming my comments were directed to every single person in this thread?

 

If so, please allow me to clarify that...um...they were not. :) There, does that help?

 

Anyone who acknowledged that we don't know the actual facts, and kept an open mind that the couple may very well be telling the truth, can rightly exclude themselves from my comments.

You truly have a reading comprehension problem. Since when does "most of the people with whom you so violently disagree" equate to "every single person in this thread"?

[Leejnd4]

You truly have a reading comprehension problem. Since when does "most of the people with whom you so violently disagree" equate to "every single person in this thread"?

 

GAHH...I know I shouldn't respond, but you're just so damn insulting in your comments, which is surprising since they are so, well, logically challenged! So I'll respond to you one last time and then y'all can pile on all you want, since that seems to be what you want to do.

 

My response was that my comments were NOT directed to every person in the thread. Meaning that if a commenter in the thread happened to not fit the profile of the people I WAS referring to (specifically: the MANY who were immediately assuming the couple were lying...and yes, there are many, go look yourself), then they were not among the people I was referring to.

 

My reading comprehension is fine, hon. Is yours? Asking for a friend.

 

I fully expect you will rip me to shreds once I depart, but just as I pointed out when I first popped into this discussion - that's the culture here, and is to be expected. I will not be coming back to read your childish insults. I had a point to make, which was a valid point, and I made it. Some got it, some didn't. Doesn't really matter to me which one you are.

 

Nighty night dear!

[Hlitner]

There are several things that bother me about the case and the various posts. We are familiar with Chris Elliot's site and work and its an excellent advocacy group/site for nearly anything related to travel. That site does some of their own due diligence and are obviously convinced there is a real issue or they would not have published the case.

 

But we have our own cruise experience (well over 1000 days) and more then our share on HAL. We have trouble accepting that this couple was tossed off the ship without any prior knowledge or change to dispute the charge. The situation would have been investigated by the ship's Security Officer and likely reviewed by the Staff Captain. As part of the investigation the staff would have normally interviewed the accused. Another strange thing is that most cruise lines would impose a lifetime ban on any passenger who assaulted a crew member or another passenger.

 

From where I am sitting there are just too many questions and incomplete info to form any kind of opinion. A very strange case.

 

Hank

[*Miss G*]

When the author wrote "I promise this story will make you angry" I disagreed. Turns out she was right! Well, in this instance anyway.

[Aquahound]

Y'all, of course, are going to assume the stink is coming from the couple. Which, as I pointed out in my very first post on this thread, is not at all surprising given the history of the Cruise Critic culture. ;) But I personally believe...my OPINION (there's that word again is...that the couple makes a much more persuasive case than HAL.

 

C'mon LeeAnn. You've been around a long time and I know we've been on some of the same threads in the past. I am faaaaar from a cruise line cheerleader. In fact, I'm usually pretty critical of HAL. My opinion in this case is based on my personal experience working with them, not from my love of cruising or any connection I might feel with any particular line (I almost gagged even typing that). Believe when I say I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.....at least, not at this juncture.

[Leejnd4]

C'mon LeeAnn. You've been around a long time and I know we've been on some of the same threads in the past. I am faaaaar from a cruise line cheerleader. In fact, I'm usually pretty critical of HAL. My opinion in this case is based on my personal experience working with them, not from my love of cruising or any connection I might feel with any particular line (I almost gagged even typing that). Believe when I say I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.....at least, not at this juncture.

 

Yes I have, and I do remember you from discussions past. And I very much appreciate your reasonable, respectful response here. (Unlike some others who haven't shied away from outright rude insults, and to whom I will no longer be responding.)

 

For the record, when I said "Ya'll, of course, are going to assume the stink is coming from the couple" I didn't mean you specifically. I was referring to the prevailing opinion that I'm seeing in this thread, that I saw from the start, and that prompted me to comment to begin with: that the HAL loyalists immediately jumped to the conclusion the couple was lying, completely disregarding the rather compelling evidence that they're not.

 

I acknowledge I should not have lumped you in with them. For that I sincerely apologize. I just kept getting ripped to shreds for the most minuscule minutia, and it seemed few were actually HEARING me. But now I see you were, and are.

 

That being said...yes, if you still assume the couple is lying, we will definitely have to agree to disagree. I still find the evidence that they are telling the truth far more persuasive than HAL's side. And there's a post just above this that explains it perfectly:

 

There are several things that bother me about the case and the various posts. We are familiar with Chris Elliot's site and work and its an excellent advocacy group/site for nearly anything related to travel. That site does some of their own due diligence and are obviously convinced there is a real issue or they would not have published the case.

 

But we have our own cruise experience (well over 1000 days) and more then our share on HAL. We have trouble accepting that this couple was tossed off the ship without any prior knowledge or change to dispute the charge. The situation would have been investigated by the ship's Security Officer and likely reviewed by the Staff Captain. As part of the investigation the staff would have normally interviewed the accused. Another strange thing is that most cruise lines would impose a lifetime ban on any passenger who assaulted a crew member or another passenger.

 

From where I am sitting there are just too many questions and incomplete info to form any kind of opinion. A very strange case.

 

Exactly. I won't restate everything Hank just said. I bolded the parts that I feel are the most crucial, and explain why it's, IMO, wrong to assume the couple is lying.

 

I feel that this couple has been given an very unfair shake, both by HAL, and by the loyalists in this thread who assumed they are lying in spite of the solid evidence they are not. And that's really all I have to say.

 

Aquahound, I mean my apology to you sincerely. I hope I continue to run into you in other threads, on happier topics. I'm planning a South America cruise right now, and I think I'll slink back to my threads on that. :) Ciao!

Edited July 24, 2018 by Leejnd4

[Aquahound]

Thanks LeeAnne. I also apologize if at any point I came across as rude. Enjoy your South America cruise! :)

[Oakman58]

I don't know how much of the story is true or how much is false. I do know that if I were completely innocent and suffered the embarrassment of being kicked off the ship without a refund I wouldn't be talking to a consumer advocate. Nope, I would have been talking to a lawyer about a lawsuit.

[Leejnd4]

I don't know how much of the story is true or how much is false. I do know that if I were completely innocent and suffered the embarrassment of being kicked off the ship without a refund I wouldn't be talking to a consumer advocate. Nope, I would have been talking to a lawyer about a lawsuit.

They are.

[RDC1]

In a number of cruises on several different cruise lines I have seen instances during port stops where passengers group where they are not supposed to, line up far too early, try to cross over lines, etc. I have also seen the crew telling some people to stop so that another group can go by and do numerous other traffic control type actions. I have seen passengers push in front of others, ignore crew directions and get into verbal altercations. So no real surprise that such an altercation could take place.

 

As several have said there are several steps that a cruise line would take in both on board investigation and corporate approval prior to removing a passenger.

 

As far as the cruise line not giving them the video I fall back on a rule that I followed recommended by my legal department prior to my retirement. If someone has threatened legal action do not voluntarily give them anything that might help them weaken your case without them having to go through the legal steps to get it.

 

The company might have made mistakes in this case, they might not have, but I believe that they would not have been arbitrary in their decision.

[ellieanne]

In a number of cruises on several different cruise lines I have seen instances during port stops where passengers group where they are not supposed to, line up far too early, try to cross over lines, etc. I have also seen the crew telling some people to stop so that another group can go by and do numerous other traffic control type actions. I have seen passengers push in front of others, ignore crew directions and get into verbal altercations. So no real surprise that such an altercation could take place.

 

I have seen this kind of behaviour as well. I have seen disembarkation/getting off at ports stopped when passengers did not follow the rules/crew instructions, or crowded the doors, lines up on the stairs, or were just annoying local officials. It would not surprise me in the lease if the subject of the article was an impatient passenger. With some situations, I have seen security step in to deal with the more belligerent passengers.

 

I don't really see a problem with the cruise line giving priority to passengers who have booked ship-based excursions. It's a practice that happens quite frequently at tender ports, why not keep the groups together at docked ports? I rarely, if ever, book private shore excursions, but if I did I would certainly realize that I may be delayed getting off the ship and plan accordingly.