Deceptive Advertising by Royal Carribean

[sparks1093]

Based on the fact that most ships seem to sail full, it would appear that Royal doesn't have to worry too much. Doesn't mean they don't give it any weight, just means that whatever they do/have done in the past has created enough goodwill to more than make up for any bad goodwill.

 

 

 

 

And it may be that Carnival NEEDS to do this to counter the many, many negative incidents they've had in recent years. ;)

p.s. I'm building a house at the moment and the timetable for completion is very much affected by weather. I'll have to let my builder know that you seem to think weather is controlled by Royal, LOL

 

Absolutely no reason for the snark, the debate has been very civil up until now. I still believe that Royal should allow people affected to cancel their cruise without penalty, you don't. No big deal since neither of us has any say in the matter.

[Countrygurl]

Wow I swear some of you must own RC stock. You can't take any criticism of this cruiseline. IMHO I believe OP has every right to be upset. I have had many a cruise where itineraries were changed. Mostly due to the weather. I rolled with it and still very much enjoyed myself. But I can understand his frustration at not wanting the change to include a stop in Miami. I think he needed to vent and most of you jumped on him. Give him a break. Hopefully, OP will calm down and cruise again. If not, its his hard earned money. Take it where you at least feel appreciated. Happy honeymoon!

[Domino D]

I feel like I have read about past incidents with credit cards being blocked after a dispute, but if it’s not too late for the OP given they already cancelled their cruise, the credit card dispute might be a good idea.

 

I have to say - I am surprised at both Royal and the OP...I’m surprised Royal wouldn’t allow them to apply the funds to another cruise without price protection and I’m surprised the OP couldn’t talk to his future bride about still sailing even without the stop in Coco Key - it’s hardly ‘the Bahamas’ and $800 is a lot to throw away just for that!

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not sure what was said, but I do agree it feels like there is more to the story. The OP said this was a honeymoon cruise, and the Bahamas was his wife's desire. I can imagine, that any offer to switch dates or ships (departure ports) was not going to be acceptable in that situation. I think that perhaps his situation and circumstances, would limit any of the other solutions that Royal might normally offer. I could be completely wrong.

 

I really do feel bad for the guy, but my experience with cruise lines, airlines, hotels, etc. is they rarely take such a hard line stance, and will try to work with you. Sometimes when things are this emotional for a customer, it isn't the talk of lawyers that is a problem, it is the "I want you to send the ship to Coco, that's what I want." that is the problem. Often people insist that the only thing acceptable, is the one thing you can't do. Also, once someone says "I'll never use your company again", a lot of companies will feel there is no reason to negotiate any further.

[Domino D]

So you'd be fine if you booked a cruise to Aruba but 4 months before the cruise they changed the port to Nassau:confused:? ....

 

But I still think it's the right thing for them to do from a customer service standpoint.

 

I get that for a lot of people, this can be upsetting enough to change plans. That is your right. I can honestly tell you that this wouldn't bother me at all, even though, like all of us, I've been to Nassau enough. Still on a ship, still on vacation, it's good. That is me, and doesn't mean anyone else needs to feel the same.

 

I agree 100%, that they could have bent the rules, given the man back his $800 and avoided all this. They didn't have to, and would likely tell you they won't set a precedence, but they should have given the situation.

[RocketMan275]

The cruise has changed from what he booked and because of that Royal should waive the non-refundable deposit, which was made for a different itinerary. Can Royal be forced to do this? I have my doubts. But I still think it's the right thing for them to do from a customer service standpoint.

 

 

You're making two mistakes:

- You're not booking an itinerary. Read the cruise contract which defines the item being purchased.

- You're trying to apply consumer law. Cruises fall under maritime law. Big difference.

 

Here's the applicable portion of the cruise contract: "6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:a. Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from anyscheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel orport of call, destination, lodging or activity. Except as provided in Section 6(e) below, Carrier shall not be liable for anyclaim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of suchcancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation."

 

I'll translate that. It says: 'We intend to sail on XXX ship, from XXX port, on or about XXX date, and visit XXX ports of call. We may or may not sail from that port, we may sail on a different date, we may or may not visit any of those ports, and we may or may not sail on that specific ship. We have no obligation to compensate or refund your money.'

 

IOW, you may think you've booked a cruise on Oasis, leaving Port Canaveral, on 23rd of September, and cruising the Western Caribbean and visiting Cozumel. However, this cruise may leave from Fort Lauderdale, on the 22nd of October, cruise the Eastern Caribbean and come no where near Cozumel. It may or may not be on Oasis.

 

I'm not saying Royal would make those changes with out compensating the passengers but I am saying they could, legally.

[twangster]

Booked on Vision, impacted by this change.

 

I went through the phases of dealing with this change before getting over it and I plan to keep my Vision booking. I enjoy sailing out of NOLA and starting the cruise sailing down the Mississippi river. RCI doesn't always home port there so that makes it even more special.

 

I was last on Cococay two weeks ago. Pier is progressing but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't complete on the latest offered date in November which is already the 3rd revised date for completion. It's the islands, no projects complete on time. Construction of the Perfect Day expansion had no impact on my visit two weeks ago, still love it there. Going again next month and looking forward to another drink on the floating bar.

 

For the cruises that are being updated to remove CocoCay on Vision and Grandeur, on these dates Enchantment will continue to visit CocoCay. The original plan was to have two ships visit on these days, two Vision class ships which isn't unheard of, it's been done in the past. Combined population of two Vision class ships is near that of Anthem who calls on CocoCay some times so nothing news worthy about this. Vision and Grandeur are not home ported in Florida, Enchantment is. Diverting to Miami for Enchantment makes less sense since it starts in Florida. Consequently Enchantment 'won' and keeps CocoCay, Vision and Grandeur do not.

 

I've visited Miami as a stop and I've departed from there on a ship home ported in Miami. It's not my favorite by a long stretch but after two sea days coming through the Gulf from NOLA, adding a 3rd sea day made less sense than finding some port. Ports are hard to come by with many ships from all lines competing for berths. Miami it is.

 

While I don't like this update, I have to give RCI credit for announcing it when they did and no longer marketing the cruise with CocoCay as a destination. They could have continued to sell it with CocoCay and once on-board announce some excuse to divert. They didn't do that, they have been transparent. Yes, the cruise contract is tilted in their favor, they wrote it and we all agree to it. A lesson for any one reading this - book refundable and 'problem' solved.

 

At the end of the day I'll be on a ship, enjoying a cruise that started as a river cruise down the Mississippi. Not a lot to complain about.

[sparks1093]

You're making two mistakes:

- You're not booking an itinerary. Read the cruise contract which defines the item being purchased.

- You're trying to apply consumer law. Cruises fall under maritime law. Big difference.

 

Here's the applicable portion of the cruise contract: "6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:a. Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from anyscheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel orport of call, destination, lodging or activity. Except as provided in Section 6(e) below, Carrier shall not be liable for anyclaim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of suchcancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation."

 

I'll translate that. Tt says: 'We intend to sail on XXX ship, from XXX port, on or about XXX date, and visit XXX ports of call. We may or may not sail from that port, we may sail on a different date, we may or may not visit any of those ports, and we may or may not sail on that specific ship. We have no obligation to compensate or refund your money.'

 

Not making any mistakes at all- my position is based on the customer service aspect of the situation and it's a simple one- since Royal changed the itinerary, well before the sailing date, they should waive the terms and conditions of the booking and fully refund the deposit for anyone who wishes to cancel because of the change.

 

And consumer law does apply because maritime law only applies once on the ship and at sea.

[RocketMan275]

Interesting. Not sure I follow. I've booked suites that showed both refundable and non-refundable fares. I didn't know there were categories without an option.

No doubt you have. Try booking a suite today. You can get refundable deposits only on Junior Suites. GS and above are all non-refundable.

[asalligo]

I agree with the OP and the cruise industry is full of deceptive practices. First, any cruise line should be required by law to refund your fare 100% if they sail full or re-book your cabin. It is just wrong to take money for no service when another cruiser took your spot and I do one day expect a class action suit along those lines for many industries.

 

When major points of the cruise change, cruisers should be offered a full refund and I do not care what the contract says, it is just good business practice. If a cruise line ever comes along who does that, the rest will have to fall in line or go out of business.

 

I do think the OP overreacted though, Ports are such a small part of why I cruise.

[Domino D]

No doubt you have. Try booking a suite today. You can get refundable deposits only on Junior Suites. GS and above are all non-refundable.

 

Interesting

[A&L_Ont]

Quite a few years ago Princess Cays was hit by a Hurricane. Thanks to CC we found out it was hit in the summer or early fall and shut for the entire season.

 

Princess knew well before final payment, but kept selling it as one of thei port stops and never let their guests know 5 months prior. They replaced the port with Costa Maya. On that Princess cruise most guests were finding out on embarkation day that we were not stopping at Princess Cays the next day. They then in turn had to stand in line to book shore excursions for the first stop in Costa Maya. It was one of our first cruises and we excepted that things change.

 

Yes it was a hurricane, not a scheduling issue but I’d give some credit to RC for notifiying their guests months in advance. Could they be more flexible, sure but part of cruising is rolling with the changes. That being said last fall people were losing their “stuff” when Saint Martin was cancelled because of hurricane damage and when she was opened others didn’t want to go because she had been hit by a hurricane.

 

I don’t think cruising is for people who only want to go somewhere specific, as scheduling can change. They should book a specific land trip to that destination.

[twangster]

When major points of the cruise change, cruisers should be offered a full refund and I do not care what the contract says, it is just good business practice. If a cruise line ever comes along who does that, the rest will have to fall in line or go out of business.

They could do that, but that would mean higher fares for all of us. By offering non-refundable fares they create stability and predictability in their goal of booking the entire ship. The ability to make changes on a whim is there for those that desire it, in the form of fully refundable fares (non-suites), but this creates volatility that translates into higher fares.

 

Make no mistake. They are a business first and always. They have shareholders and are accountable to generate a profit, not have an half empty ship operating at a loss.

 

Everyone loves cheap fares but with those fares comes terms and conditions. Don't like those terms and conditions? Don't book those fares, and that includes suites.

[IndpdntChik324]

I've been lurking on this thread for a couple days and wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

I am an inexperienced cruiser who just booked my first cruise with RCL last week. We will be on a trip to the Bahamas on the Grandeur in November 2019.

 

I decided to book RCL over Carnival based mostly on CocoCay. Take a look at the RCL website, it is inundated with CocoCay! That waterpark looks awesome, and I think my kids will love it.

 

I will be very upset if they cancel that port, and it will feel like a "bait & switch" situation. I understand they can pretty much do whatever they want because of the contract, but does that mean they should? At what point does customer service matter, regardless of the one-sided contract?

 

My opinion is that they should do the right thing, even if they don't have to. Their construction timelines are way off and they are upsetting a lot of cruisers. If that continues and they dont make things right, people will choose other cruise lines or other types of vacations.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Forums mobile app

[Livelikeagypsy]

It is hard to fight based upon the cruise contract. The claim must be filed in Federal Court in Southern Florida and the contract has a agreement not to go the class action route. Can these things be broken by a skilled lawyer? Yes sometimes but it is hard and will be costly. Far more than the amount of money lost. So the legal route through the courts is not the first choice.

 

You do have one very easy route and the cruise contract is not all powerful this way. You can file a credit card dispute with your card provider for the amount not return,. With the credit card company you can make the claim about the port change. You can claim false advertising and or the other issues you raise. The big difference is the credit card merchant agreement has first standing over the cruise contract. No need to involve a lawyer and if it does not work you can still go the lawyer route.

 

Royal does not hold all the power with credit card disputes. In fact if anything the card providers are pro consumer if the issues are close. Now I'm sure some members here will post information like Royal can ban you, etc. Which is absolutely false part of the merchant agreement is that the merchant (Royal) agrees to accept whatever ruling they make. And that the merchant will take no retaliation actions against the customer. Doing so is a direct violation of the use terms and is subject to the merchant being banned from processing credit card payments. If anything once you file a dispute the merchant will be extra nice as they do not want to cross the line.

 

 

LOL

 

Once again, like every single one of your posts, you are incorrect. Merchants can ban people from their services. Stop pretending to be a lawyer - you're very, very bad at it.

[nelblu]

I've been lurking on this thread for a couple days and wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

I am an inexperienced cruiser who just booked my first cruise with RCL last week. We will be on a trip to the Bahamas on the Grandeur in November 2019.

 

I decided to book RCL over Carnival based mostly on CocoCay. Take a look at the RCL website, it is inundated with CocoCay! That waterpark looks awesome, and I think my kids will love it.

 

I will be very upset if they cancel that port, and it will feel like a "bait & switch" situation. I understand they can pretty much do whatever they want because of the contract, but does that mean they should? At what point does customer service matter, regardless of the one-sided contract?

 

My opinion is that they should do the right thing, even if they don't have to. Their construction timelines are way off and they are upsetting a lot of cruisers. If that continues and they dont make things right, people will choose other cruise lines or other types of vacations.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Forums mobile app

 

 

Paxs have a choices. Plus, go with a refundable fare and you will be fully protected.

[Domino D]

I agree with the OP and the cruise industry is full of deceptive practices. First, any cruise line should be required by law to refund your fare 100% if they sail full or re-book your cabin. It is just wrong to take money for no service when another cruiser took your spot and I do one day expect a class action suit along those lines for many industries.

 

When major points of the cruise change, cruisers should be offered a full refund and I do not care what the contract says, it is just good business practice. If a cruise line ever comes along who does that, the rest will have to fall in line or go out of business.

 

I do think the OP overreacted though, Ports are such a small part of why I cruise.

 

Broken record time... I understand how as consumers people feel it's unfair, however it is not deceptive to follow the written terms and conditions to which people agree.

 

You really should care what the contract says, that is the only thing that matters in these types of situations.

 

The current administration is not going to pass a law that is this much anti-business.

 

It is not "good business" to NOT enforce the terms of your contact. It may be good customer service, but not good business.

 

There have been plenty of class action suits over policies like this. A great many in the airline industry. Not a lot get to trial, or get judgement against the airlines.

 

This particular action would be highly unlikely to ever even reach trial. It would likely be thrown out.

[dchurchward]

I don't see it as deceptive advertising since RCL notified people of the port change. However, it does seem like they could have done more, even though they weren't required to, to help the customer look at other options. As others have pointed out, the OP may not have a lot of ability to consider other options since the cruise was for a honeymoon and his fiance has a specific area she wants to go. What none of us know is if RCL did offer alternatives.

 

If the OP just wants his money back because of the change, then I would suspect RCL would refund everything but the non-refundable deposit. If the OP has travel insurance, he may have the option to get his money back that way, depending on the coverage. I personally, would be fine with a Miami stop, but I understand the desire to go the island. I am sympathetic to the OP, but can understand RCL's position, especially if the OP said he was going to get a lawyer.

[RocketMan275]

A lot of posters think that the cruise lines should waive the non-refundable deposit for OP. However, that sets a precedent to waive every non-refundable deposit every time there is an itinerary change any time in the future. This isn't just a $800 loss to the cruise lines. If this policy that some prefer was in place, the cruise lines would lose a lot more than that. Far more than they would gain in good will.

[sparks1093]

A lot of posters think that the cruise lines should waive the non-refundable deposit for OP. However, that sets a precedent to waive every non-refundable deposit every time there is an itinerary change any time in the future. This isn't just a $800 loss to the cruise lines. If this policy that some prefer was in place, the cruise lines would lose a lot more than that. Far more than they would gain in good will.

 

It's a refund of a deposit, it's not a loss.

[emdia43]

Are they still selling the cruise with Coco Cay on the itinerary?

[mjkacmom]

It's a refund of a deposit, it's not a loss.

But it helps their bottom line to keep the deposit. If they refunded all of the non refundable deposits, they’d have to increase profit from somewhere.

[RocketMan275]

It's a refund of a deposit, it's not a loss.

 

If the loss of a deposit is not a loss to the cruise line,

then the loss of a deposit is not a loss to OP either.

[Toofarfromthesea]

 

Completely my personal opinion, but I think the younger and next generation of cruisers won’t be beholden to any one cruise line. We certainly aren’t beholden to any one corporation for the duration of our careers like my parent’s generation and that approach spreads to other aspects of our life. You require us to sign an unfair contract and we will move on. Customer service matters.

 

More likely that younger generation of cruisers will learn a lesson that us oldsters already know: just because you think things should work a certain way doesn't they will.

[sparks1093]

But it helps their bottom line to keep the deposit. If they refunded all of the non refundable deposits, they’d have to increase profit from somewhere.

 

If the loss of a deposit is not a loss to the cruise line,

then the loss of a deposit is not a loss to OP either.

 

If their bottom line is substantially impacted by non-refundable deposits I have to wonder how healthy Royal really is as a company. Might also explain why they have to cut their fares so much.

[emdia43]

OK if they were booked on VOS on 5th January then the website reflects that change of ports - but Enchantment is still scheduled for CocoCay the same day they were - Jan 8th. What was the initial reason given for the change of ports?:confused: