Cruise passengers threaten mutiny

[derf5585]

More than 200 passengers join in joint litigation (class action suit) against Cunard

from

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/events.html

[electricron]

200 out of 3,000 to 4,000 passengers. I suppose that small number is going to impress few judges.

 

Cunard uses the same ironclad contracts all the other cruise lines use.

It's not going to matter how many join, the lawsuit is going to loose....

 

50% credit on a future cruise is way over the normal compensation for missing ports.

Considering the ironclad contract cruise corportations use, they aren't obligated to give any compensation.

[osiebosie]

When we were on the "cruise to nowhere" on CCL two years ago and ended up cruising around the gulf 60 miles off of the coast of Mobile for four days in lousy weather, a large majority of the passengers got together and demanded a meeting with the captain. (We did not get to go to our one port, Cozumel because the ships propeller was broken) (And CCL knew this before we boarded). They gave us a meeting with the head of hotel. But at that meeting, I really thought there was going to be a mutiny. In fact, we all were just wanting to be let off of the ship, since we were so close to port, but they wouldn't let us.

 

Had they offered us 50% off a future cruise, that would have been wonderful!

 

I sort of feel for those people on the ship, since four days was hellacious for us. Note: sort of. Like I said, had CCL offered us something, it would have made the four days in cloudy cool weather more palatable.

 

I haven't given the facts of the whole story; too long. But when DH and I saw this on the evening news I had to laugh. I mean, the same thing happened to us, and we didn't make the evening news!:cool:

 

Shay

[derf5585]

Cunard caves in over cruise mutiny

from

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/27/cruise.anger/index.html

[shoreguy]

I am sorry they caved. I know that sounds strange but encouraging this kind of behavior could be contagious. Really not looking forward to a sit in in the lobby the next time I miss a port:rolleyes:

 

My favorite quote from another passenger.

 

"The group of 1,500 are 98 per cent British. No offence to anyone British but they are making you all look quite bad. The sooner they are off the ship in Rio, the happier the rest will be."

[bracket]

Hi Shoreguy, I agree with your last comment, I am British and cannot believe that Cunard have caved in to these people. I don't know what happens when you book in the States, but, when we book a holiday here, we sign paperwork agreeing to the booking conditions with whichever company the holiday is with, in this case it would be Cunard. As far as I am aware it clearly states in the booking conditions of all cruise companies that cuise itineries can change at any time and that ports may sometimes have to be missed. How can people expect a refund after signing to agree with this?:confused:

 

Yes it is disappointing not to go to expected ports ( I have had this happen to me ) but it means you get more time on the ship to enjoy all of its facilities, and for me this is one heck of a bonus.

[nitnyleo]

Initial news reports claimed that the pod was damaged when it hit a channel wall. It "sounds" like human error (ie, the captain?) .

 

No matter the boilerplate about being able to skip ports/change itinerary, when a untoward event occurs because of "human error", that boilerplate becomes meaningless.

 

I was surprised that Cunard gave everyone a free cruise. Afterall, the pax did get some value.

 

So, I'm wondering whether Cunard gave in because:

1. The captain did cause the pod damage.

2. The port was incorrectly charted and Cunard plans to sue for the loss.

(I hope Cunard wins, because the rest of us QM2ers will be paying for

this in the form of reduced service in the future)

3. Didn't matter who was at fault, just end the bad publicity.

 

I, for one, would have been happy to have been "stuck" on the ship....I would've taken my refund and applied it to the next segment.

 

And I hope all those stewards and wait staff got much more than their usual tip...it must've been hell for many of them.

[DawnCruise05]

A friend's parents are on the cruise right now and they are not too upset at the 50% refund. According to my friend, they paid in the neighborhood of $40,000 :eek: for a six-week voyage. I wonder if they will feel the same in six weeks if they miss many more ports of call. Hey, with that kind of money they can take a few more cruises!

[DawnCruise05]

A friend's parents are on the cruise right now and they are not too upset at the 50% refund. According to my friend, they paid in the neighborhood of $40,000 :eek: for a six-week voyage. I wonder if they will feel the same in six weeks if they miss many more ports of call. Hey, with that kind of money they can take a few more cruises!

[calmac]

This is such big news here in the UK that the BBC's consumer programme "Watchdog" is covering the story tomorrow. I usually avoid the programme but will watch it with interest tomorrow.

[derf5585]

This is such big news here in the UK that the BBC's consumer programme "Watchdog" is covering the story tomorrow. I usually avoid the programme but will watch it with interest tomorrow.

 

BBC's consumer programme "Watchdog"

from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/

[shoreguy]

Exit interview - you just can't make some people happy. He booked a 38 day cruise with 21 days at sea and he did not want to see water:eek:

 

"'I've had probably the worst week of my life, all I did was see water,'

said Stanley Shneldcki, 60, who says he paid $22,000 for the cruise

aboard the British-flagged ship from New York, where he lives, to Los

Angeles... 'The refund is not fair enough,' said Shneldcki."

[Ginamarie]

Initial news reports claimed that the pod was damaged when it hit a channel wall. It "sounds" like human error (ie, the captain?) .

 

No matter the boilerplate about being able to skip ports/change itinerary, when a untoward event occurs because of "human error", that boilerplate becomes meaningless.

 

I was surprised that Cunard gave everyone a free cruise. Afterall, the pax did get some value.

 

So, I'm wondering whether Cunard gave in because:

1. The captain did cause the pod damage.

2. The port was incorrectly charted and Cunard plans to sue for the loss.

(I hope Cunard wins, because the rest of us QM2ers will be paying for

this in the form of reduced service in the future)

3. Didn't matter who was at fault, just end the bad publicity.

 

I, for one, would have been happy to have been "stuck" on the ship....I would've taken my refund and applied it to the next segment.

 

And I hope all those stewards and wait staff got much more than their usual tip...it must've been hell for many of them.

 

My understanding is that the damage occurred while the ship was being maneuvered by a Florida pilot rather than the Captain himself.

 

I think Cunard caved because of the bad publicity, but I was a little disappointed that they caved to a 100% refund!

[shoreguy]

My understanding is that the damage occurred while the ship was being maneuvered by a Florida pilot rather than the Captain himself.

 

I think Cunard caved because of the bad publicity, but I was a little disappointed that they caved to a 100% refund!

 

The pilot never maneuvers the ship.

[smeyer418]

The pilot never maneuvers the ship.

 

except in the Panama Canal.

[calmac]

Well, I watched the programme. Needless to say, the person who interviewed unhappy passengers while onboard, seemed unable to find happy passengers :rolleyes:

 

Sounded as though Cunard just gave in because many of the passengers continued to be unhappy, even with a 50% refund. Don't know how Cunard avoid this becoming the "norm" when any of their ships have problems, miss ports etc. All the passengers would have to do is threaten to not leave the ship and to contact BBC's Watchdog again.

[derf5585]

The pilot never maneuvers the ship.

 

When I was in the Navy we learned the pilot can do what he wants but the Captain is still responsible for the ship. The Captain can overrule the pilot.

 

helps the captain navigate a vessel through unfamiliar waters

from

http://education.dot.gov/68/careers.html

 

Steer ships to avoid hazards. Use information from lighthouses and buoys to help determine route.

from

http://www.iseek.org/sv/13010.jsp?id=100451

[mbisson]

Well, I watched the programme. Needless to say, the person who interviewed unhappy passengers while onboard, seemed unable to find happy passengers :rolleyes:

.

 

Or did they just cut any interview with happy passengers?

 

-Monte

[calmac]

The video appeared to be one made by an unhappy passenger who of course couldn't think of finding any happy passengers on board. The BBC did interview some passengers who were home now. Mixed responses from them but I assume these were some of the "unhappy while on board" people.

[Happy ks]

I'm sure a happy interview would be too boring for the media. People would rather read and hear bad news.