100% Refund today on the QM2

[LV Cindy & Jon]

I just heard it on NBC that some of the passengers have negotiated a 100% refund. Personally I think this went way overboard!

[Sirwinston]

I agree it is too much for missing 3 ports but perhaps not too much for putting up with all of the whinners onboard.

[Bramcruiser]

HERE HERE! I thought Cunard gave in far too much but I guess it wasn't the whining passengers that made them cave in. It was the possibility of bad press. It just sends a signal that if you cry and scream loud enough you can get anything even if you really have no entitlement to it.

 

At least this will get the sit-ins off the ship long before I take my cruise in December!

[starbug]

Hi,

 

Now that Cunard are refunding the full cost of the cruise, I hope that the passengers that have withdrawn their tips go back and put their tips back on.

 

It's not the service people's fault any of this has happened.

[waltd]

I kind of agree also. It's a bit much but on the other hand it looks like they missed all or most of the ports and they did not get the stay in Rio. So I think some compensation is in order. The only ones I feel sorry for are the passangers that took the cruise with a grain of salt and made the best of it. They had to deal with the disgruntled passngers which I'm sure made it miserable for the rest of them. I can only imagine that the same disgruntled passangers are now going to continue with their class action law suit to get more compensation. What is this world coming to???????

[Seaside2358]

And to think I got a measley 25% on a future cruise and never got to step foot onboard my ship. I can't believe Cunard gave into those pax. Guess I should have made more noise about my cancelled cruise. I didn't get any reimbursement for my airfare even though I was down in Ft. Lauderdale waiting to leave for days before RCCL actually cancelled the cruise.:mad:

[DanZ]

Seaside2358:

 

It's funny what perpsective can do... I was on RCCL's Sovereign DURING Wilma. They kept us out an extra day and said we we coming on on the tail end.... quite the tail it was. I was amazed to compare that the QM2 did better in 40 ft seas/85mph winds on our crossing last June, than the Sovereign did in 22 ft seas/75 mph winds. It's amazing what several years of technology can do.

[jerseygirl3]

They were actually given two options (both of which were more than generous, IMO). They have a choice between receiving a full 100% cash refund of cruise and air, or take a 50% cash refund on this cruise, and be given 75% discount on a future cruise.

 

Somehow, I have a feeling we future cruisers will be picking up the tab for this bunch of whiners.

[Emu]

Surely the 75% discount has some sort of limit............. I mean I would be booking the entire world cruise if somone gave me 75% off.

 

Hell............ I would probably book a suite or the grand duplex!!!!!!!

 

I hope Cunard understands that now when ANYTHING goes wrong......... screaming and whinging along with assorted tantrums will be the standard proceedure............. along with "you gave the others ALL the money back!!!" & "we'll sue and ring CNN".

 

What a precedent!!!!

[travel-to-go]

They were actually given two options (both of which were more than generous, IMO). They have a choice between receiving a full 100% cash refund of cruise and air, or take a 50% cash refund on this cruise, and be given 75% discount on a future cruise.

 

Somehow, I have a feeling we future cruisers will be picking up the tab for this bunch of whiners.

 

So does anyone think any of the big whiners (I mean the real troublemakers, not those who said their piece and then got on with business) feel the least bit guilty about kicking her when she's down? Now they got what they wanted. They got a free cruise- albeit not the one they truly wanted. in the meantime, Cunard has a big repair to somehow work into the schedule, not to mention the expense, which I am sure cannot be minor, especially if a shaft is bent, as sounds likely due to the vibration (or it could have been cause by the prop simply being out of balance- but we don't know yet) So these people had a week of gourmet food prepared in kitchens which cost a lot more than the same kitchen on land, no doubt, someone to make their bed and clean their toilets for them every day and give them fresh "Canyon Ranch" toiletries, toilet paper and fresh towels- dispose of the trash (but not at sea!) provide them with expensive desalinated and potable water, heat or air conditioning on demand, hot tubs, expensive satellite phone service and internet at half price, music, lights, and all of the other myriad expenses of running a huge ship. The only difference between wasting the fuel, wear and tear to run an empty ship (remember there are break even points in hotels, ships, airplanes, trains, etc where you have to have X number of revenue paying passengers to equal the expense of running the (hotel/ship/plane/train) is that this costs much, much more than running an empty ship! So Cunard is facing a big repair bill, a PR nghtmare, some downtime which will tick off even more potential passengers, plus all of the expenses of this leg of the cruise with LESS than zero revenue from it.

I'm not saying Cunard is without blame here, just that I think there are probably some smirking gleeful greedy people who don't care, as long as they got what they wanted. Something for nothing, and making as many people miserable as possible along the way. Talk about your power plays. And it's not as if Cunard deliberately rammed their ship into the side of the channel for the express purpose of making these people individually, personally miserable. (like some seem to think) Don't they have the least bit of guilt over getting something they didn't really deserve (at least not to that extent) through bullying and doing a mighty fine job of trying to interfere with the enjoyment of those who wished to salvage what they could of their vacations.

 

I hope I don't ever knowingly meet any of these people. The worst ones certainly managed to shatter any sympathy I might have had for them. My sympathy lies with the ones who were upset, felt a loss and got on with their lives anyway, and with Cunard, the staff and crew.

I would love to find out what percentage of these people ended up tipping their hard-working crew members. If anyone still on board can sniff around the subject, I would love to know. I think a lot of us are very concerned for these crew members.

 

Karie,

feeling like sometimes I am not particularly proud to be a member of the same human race as certain others.

 

P.S. Melissa and Jack and Anne, and others like you who acted like decent human beings, even though I am sure you suffered disappointment, too- don't you feel guilty.You were upstanding and fair. The key word here is fair. You folks shine in my mind! People with grace under adversity will always be winners, as far as I'm concerned.

[guernseyguy]

What a precedent!!!!

 

Amen......where Angels fear to tread.........

 

Peter

[LV Cindy & Jon]

Travel-to-go, I am exausted reading the crap! I agree with you....I am going on the 2/25 sailing to Hawaii, and hope that my DH and I can make up for some of the creeps that have been taking it out on the staff.....As far as Cunard....100% refund is assinine!!

Those people made there own cruise misirable.....I'm sure their gourmet dinner cuisine (along with room service, breakfast in bed) was ridden with conversation on how miserable their cruise is.

I believe they have to have a pretty bad attitude about life to begin with! I am really mad at these stingy, selfish people!!! Cindy

[Germancruiser]

Hi all

I agree, it is to much of a refund. But I guess it won´t make Miky Arrison a poor guy anyway.

I would love to go on a 9 day cruise on board such a nice ship on no cost, some pax of that special cruise sounded like they were on slave bark!

Greetings

Michael

[Bramcruiser]

On a positive side for a change: enjoy your Hawaii cruise Cindy!

[Toots]

One of the posters above is right: the bill for 100% refund will be paid by future cruisers of not only Cunard but parent company Carnival.

 

We have English friends on board who are disembarking in Rio. Can't wait to get their full story.

[2moose]

They were actually given two options (both of which were more than generous, IMO). They have a choice between receiving a full 100% cash refund of cruise and air, or take a 50% cash refund on this cruise, and be given 75% discount on a future cruise.

 

Somehow, I have a feeling we future cruisers will be picking up the tab for this bunch of whiners.

TAKE THE FUTURE CRUISE AND IF THEY SCREW THAT ONE UP YOU MAY GET TWO MORE CRUISES FREE!!!! YA GOTTA LUV IT!!

[cruisin4eversezme]

So does anyone think any of the big whiners (I mean the real troublemakers, not those who said their piece and then got on with business) feel the least bit guilty about kicking her when she's down? Now they got what they wanted. They got a free cruise- albeit not the one they truly wanted. in the meantime, Cunard has a big repair to somehow work into the schedule, not to mention the expense, which I am sure cannot be minor, especially if a shaft is bent, as sounds likely due to the vibration (or it could have been cause by the prop simply being out of balance- but we don't know yet) So these people had a week of gourmet food prepared in kitchens which cost a lot more than the same kitchen on land, no doubt, someone to make their bed and clean their toilets for them every day and give them fresh "Canyon Ranch" toiletries, toilet paper and fresh towels- dispose of the trash (but not at sea!) provide them with expensive desalinated and potable water, heat or air conditioning on demand, hot tubs, expensive satellite phone service and internet at half price, music, lights, and all of the other myriad expenses of running a huge ship. The only difference between wasting the fuel, wear and tear to run an empty ship (remember there are break even points in hotels, ships, airplanes, trains, etc where you have to have X number of revenue paying passengers to equal the expense of running the (hotel/ship/plane/train) is that this costs much, much more than running an empty ship! So Cunard is facing a big repair bill, a PR nghtmare, some downtime which will tick off even more potential passengers, plus all of the expenses of this leg of the cruise with LESS than zero revenue from it.

I'm not saying Cunard is without blame here, just that I think there are probably some smirking gleeful greedy people who don't care, as long as they got what they wanted. Something for nothing, and making as many people miserable as possible along the way. Talk about your power plays. And it's not as if Cunard deliberately rammed their ship into the side of the channel for the express purpose of making these people individually, personally miserable. (like some seem to think) Don't they have the least bit of guilt over getting something they didn't really deserve (at least not to that extent) through bullying and doing a mighty fine job of trying to interfere with the enjoyment of those who wished to salvage what they could of their vacations.

 

I hope I don't ever knowingly meet any of these people. The worst ones certainly managed to shatter any sympathy I might have had for them. My sympathy lies with the ones who were upset, felt a loss and got on with their lives anyway, and with Cunard, the staff and crew.

I would love to find out what percentage of these people ended up tipping their hard-working crew members. If anyone still on board can sniff around the subject, I would love to know. I think a lot of us are very concerned for these crew members.

 

Karie,

feeling like sometimes I am not particularly proud to be a member of the same human race as certain others.

 

P.S. Melissa and Jack and Anne, and others like you who acted like decent human beings, even though I am sure you suffered disappointment, too- don't you feel guilty.You were upstanding and fair. The key word here is fair. You folks shine in my mind! People with grace under adversity will always be winners, as far as I'm concerned.

While I understand the position you make above, I wonder if you sailed on this cruise? More importantly, have you had a similar situation whereby a cruise line decided to replan your vacation for you without your consent? Have you ever had a situation whereby you received a bait and switch as soon as you arrived at the port of embarkation?

 

I sailed on a different cruise line in December and found this similar situation happened with the cruise operator. Essentially, you have a situation where you know that you cannot complete the cruise as it was sold. It is arguable about who is at fault and possible remedies, but where is the passenger's say in this process? When the cruise line decides unilaterally what you will get, how much (if any) compensation you will receive for having your vacation totally changed, you might get a little miffed.

 

Let's take things to a different direction altogether. Instead of just missing three ports of call, what if they missed all ports of call? Where is the line drawn? They are providing a clean bed and food every night, so there should be no complaints, correct? Is it even a requirement to provide entertainment, air conditioning, usable swimming pools? Where do you draw the line? How much is too much? Likely, all of you who are diving in with the "me too, this was over the top in terms of compensation" were not on that cruise.

 

My family last night watched a one hour special by the ABC news "Prime Time" show. It was likely a repeat show. It covered four or five incidents at sea and how each of the cruise lines dealt with the incidents. One of the incidents was the basis for US Congressional hearings on the subject. None of the Cruise Lines reponded in what a reasonable disinterested person would consider a forthcoming standard. Almost all of the cruise lines destroyed evidence of crimes, one dropped a passenger off in Turkey to fend for herself with the Turkish police, another refused to even search for a passenger that was shown to be overboard. That particular cruise line had to be **ORDERED** by the US Coast Guard to turn back and show the exact point of where the passenger went over so a search could be launched. Regulation of cruise lines does not fall under US maritime law for the most part. It is all a crap shoot for the most part. If your cruise goes well, there is no foul play of any sort, or the cruise line does not pull a "QM2", then it is all good. Nevertheless, if any of these things do happen, you are out in no man's land with essentially no protection. The **only** protection you have is in the court of public opinion, namely the media.

 

Right now, the cruise industry is under intense scrutiny from many different sources. If they don't start policing their practices and start doing the right things, they are going to have a wholly different operating environment thrust upon them from outside agencies.

 

So what should have been done differently? For starters, QM2 knew before they set sail on the voyage that they damaged a propulsion system on the ship. The knew up front that they would not be able to make best speed for the voyage. Rocket science is not required for this calculation (loss of 25% of usable power); best speed will be 75% of top speed, assuming they are not going to destroy the remaining engines to make up for the loss of the fourth. If Given that, they knew that in order to complete the journey, they would miss a specified amount of hours available to do ports of call, it can reasonably be determined just how many ports of call will be lost. They should have made an offer to all passengers when they pulled back in to Florida to get off the ship with compensation, and fixed their ship in Florida. Those who were willing to stick it out while repairs were being made could have been offered a better compensation, which would have allowed them to preserve their bottom line/profit. Instead, the passengers had their terms dictated to them as the voyage progressed. Nobody likes to be deceived or had.

 

Instead of complaining about how these "ingrates" will have ruined pricings for your future cruises, consider the possibility that they may have paved a path for future cruises you might sail where the cruise lines **up front** will do the right thing, instead of doing yet another bait and switch.

 

Just my $.02 worth...

[mufi]

cruisin4eversezme - Nice to see a bit of logic added to this debate, and I agree with your views. We should remember that any offer Cunard made was not out of sympathy with the passengers but to try to avoid bad publicity. The fact that they made a complete c.... up of the whole affair from the start was par for the course for a big corporation dealing with their customers.

 

And the idea that 1500 nasty, grabbing, mainly British passengers just happened to be aboard at once is plain stupid. These were a cross section of the passengers who are Cunard customers. They thought they had a grievance and Cunard have put that right. It really has nothing to do with any of us who were not aboard.

 

David.

[Bramcruiser]

Far from being a bait and switch situation. Three islands were missed to make up time for a cruise that INADVERTENTLY was pushed off schedule. Again it wasn't Cunard scheming to find a way to knock an azipod off the ship and delay it.

 

Maybe Cunard should have just cancelled everything altogether and spent the money to do the repair and get the ship back out on a later date. Eventually this will have to happen. But they decided to go to Rio anyway and kept everyone aboard. I think the majority of passengers and outsiders understand that situation for what it really is.

 

Unfortunately some people just believe that they can get something for nothing and/or are more important than they really are. I don't see this situation as a British vs. American thing and I don't think everyone on the ship is a revolutionary. Unfortunately, its always a small handful of people that ruin the situation for everyone else.

 

Yes, those who had their vacation plans changed have a right to be disappointed. However, I won't sympathize enough to see that a free trip is given or that they should receive compensation more than what should be considered fair. Also a sit-in and threats to not get off the ship in Rio is just plain mutiny and carrying the situation way overboard. Its a situation like this I would simply applaud anyone bringing in the Brazilian military.

 

So, I totally understand the loss of sympathy for these jilted passengers. Its okay to grieve but this went way overboard and Cunard gave in far too easily just to avoid the press giving it a bad image and to shut up those few who hijacked the medium for their selfish reasons.

[wearytraveller]

cruisin4eversezme - Hurrah. You are not alone. One of the few balanced views I have read on this forum. I have been reading this thread in anticipation of a forthcoming cruise (my first) and have been dismayed at the intemperate language and the rush to judgement of those with no direct knowledge of events. What happened to tolerance and empathy? In my naivety I had thought that cruisers were supposed to be nice people. Nobody comes out of this with much credit, including the majority of contributors to this forum.

A plague on (nearly) all your houses I say. I may go by air.

[lk4xits]

I have been following the discussion (debate) over who was right,wrong,sensible,meanspirited etc and etc. This is the correct forum to post these thoughts and I am sure that Cunard is also following the dialogue.

 

Our cruise on QM2 ended on January 15th in New York City. We missed probably the most important port (Costa Rica), one out of four on our 12 night cruise. It was a big disappointment to all of us particularly the Commodore who had relatives waiting for him on what would have been QM2's first visit to that nation. The waves were too high to tender safely and we could not get off the ship. Most of us understood and took the matter no further. However this single event pales in relation to what happened to the QM2 passengers on their ill fated voyage to Rio.

 

I commend Cunard for doing the right thing, recognizing the anger and unhappiness many passengers felt. It was not pain and suffering but frustration and group anger that may have put passengers over the top.

 

I find no fault in anything you wrote or the behavior of the Cruise line,or the majority of the passengers. IMHO your opinions were well presented.

 

This was a tough call to pay 100 percent but the right one.

 

Marty

[MuseCruiser]

Its amazing to me how people who were not on the journey can sit by and berate those "ingrates" who were on the ship and got "a free cruise." Once the tables are turned its amazing how people's opinions often change!

[travel-to-go]

While I understand the position you make above, I wonder if you sailed on this cruise? More importantly, have you had a similar situation whereby a cruise line decided to replan your vacation for you without your consent? Have you ever had a situation whereby you received a bait and switch as soon as you arrived at the port of embarkation?

 

You have probably not seen my posts on similar (but different subjects) For instance the cruise where the Captain sold our potable water to the island of Roatan (after hurricane Mitch devasted the area) so we had to stop in MEXICO (for a second time) to take on water, he sold our berth in Key West during Fantasy Fest (with ship-load of gay men from California who had taken this cruise expressly for that port and spent thousands on gowns for a drag parade) so we had to skip that port. A Scuba group was LITERALLY kidnapped by a rogue operator, taken out to the middle of nowhere and told they didn't have enough tanks and half of them were empty, so pay up if they wanted to get back to the ship. Very shortly thereafter the line went into bankruptcy, and that ship was "allegedly" scuttled. I viewed the pics Coast Guard rescue of the remaining crew at sea in fifty foot swells with tears streaming down my face. I was in touch with people on the Fantome as they were being off-loaded in Belize, and the remaining 34 souls on board were refused safety in Belize's Hurricane Hole so they went where they thought the lee of the storm would be on the far side of an island where they were presumably sent to their deaths. (RIP) Those people were friends of a friend of mine. I had almsot planned tobe on that ship. I was also on the 3 Jan cruise where we could not port in at the inaugural port of Puerto Moins, and could not make an alternate port. There were ony four ports scheduled on that 12 day cruise. So 1/4 of our itinerary was scuttled. I realize these are not quite the equivalent. I've had other ports scuttled, non-working toilets, soot in my shower, other things happen on other cruises. I take them in stride. How about the person who has posted here that she sat in FLL for four days last fall, at her own expense, only to find that her cruise was finally scrubbed due to Hurricane Wilma. She received ZERO compensation! and indeed, ate all of the money she had spent, plus the cost of her cruise. I have a lot of friends in the area, and was in a group that was the first group allowed back into the Keys afterward. Do you know how much damage the Fort Lauderdale area sustained? I do. I was there. Do you know how much damage the port sustained? I do not. That is one theory on how this incident happened. The channel may have shifted, and the QM2 may be (I do not know) the first really deep draft ship to use that channel since the storm. I have never EVER receieved any compensation for any of this, save $3.50 back (per person) for missing Costa Rica. It is not the passengers' right (nor would most understand) to know all of the deliberations that go into the decisions on what remedies to offer, and what changes must be made and alternate arrangemetns made. I've done a lot of digging on maritime law in the past week or so. It is by no means comprehensive, but I think I've got the gist of some of the basic tenets. I also have a friend who is licensed ship pilot, and works for Boston's Port Authority in an administrative capacity. He is not shy about propounding his views.

There are gracious was to deal with adversity and there are cowardly or selfish or immature, childish ways to deal with adversity. You have the choice how to react. You cannot control most events in life, only your reaction to them. If a person feels a store is ripping them off, so feels justified in shoplifting, and the store raises prices to compensate, would you be miffed over having to pay higher prices for something you had nothing to do with? Not the same, but the end result may be that an innocent is affected adversely by an incident that had nothing to do with him or her.

I have repeatedly said that people have legitimate gripes, some greater than others, but would be best dealt with individually, based on the individual case. I do not believe they should be made MORE than whole, in most cases. If the line were to refund all moneys plus air, even if not booked thru them, from the start of the incident, they should have stopped the ship, offloaded everyone at first opportunity (flown them to Rio to meet their connections, if necessary) put the ship into dry-dock for repairs, and gone back to Rio (if possible) to continue the rest of the journey. Do you think that would have been preferable to most to continuing their journey, albeit without the three intervening stops, and losing a day in Rio? Keep in mind that not all passengers even disembark the ship in ports. Some NEVER do! Imagine the screams of the passengers then! And I do not think, despite the screams of the American (not British) blow-hard that they will break Carnival or Cunard.

 

My family last night watched a one hour special by the ABC news "Prime Time" show. It covered four or five incidents at sea and how each of the cruise lines dealt with the incidents.

 

I am very aware of this. I do not watch TV, especially sensational TV, however, I have seen parts of this show on the web (on their web page) The people involved in this incident are from this area. The bride came from the next town over to where I work. The groom from a town downstate, Dr. Henry Lee was our state police commisioner and a top forensics scientist. I have friends (travel agents, on the side, as a matter of fact) who worked directly for him as forensics scientists- for all I know, may have even been on the crew that went to Ft Laud last week. I haven't spoken to them. I also got emails from the area rep for RCCL, who knows me. I don't know what really happened. No one does. I don't believe RCCL was completely in the right, however, I also don't believe they should have left a pool of blood on a canopy for all to see after the FBI had already been notified and the Turkish police had done their crime scene analysis and told them it was okay to clean up. Were mistakes made? No doubt. Was RCCL hasty in cleaning up the mess- probably, but put yourself in their shoes with a shipload of passengers who might also like to salvage the rest of their vacations, not be part of a crime scene. Look at both sides of the stories, not just what is presented to you in the sensational media. I have tried to look at all of it. It was my attorney general (who works down the street from me) who got involved, and my senator who called for the hearings. We get a lot of that news here from various sources.

 

I don't for one minute think the cruise industry is without fault. They are out to make money- plain and simple. They aren't in it for some altruisitc reason. I have also been reading up on some lawsuits on various subjects against various cruise lines (including Cunard) Real eye-openers!

 

For starters, QM2 knew before they set sail on the voyage that they damaged a propulsion system on the ship. The knew up front that they would not be able to make best speed for the voyage. Rocket science is not required for this calculation (loss of 25% of usable power); best speed will be 75% of top speed, assuming they are not going to destroy the remaining engines to make up for the loss of the fourth.

 

Read some of the other calculations posted here by people in the industry or in the know. That last pod does not boost power by 33% (25% of power over existing 75%) There is a point at which there is a law of diminishing returns. A fifth engine would not boost power and speed by 25% (25% over existing 100%) I don't think they KNEW what speed they could make, having never run the ship in that configuration, in those particular sea conditions. I think they were going to see just how much they could do, then make a decision based on that. Remember, they only lost a day and a half with the return to Ft Laud. While they knew they probably couldn't make that up, even at top speed, which is not what they probably orignally caluculated the trip on anyway, they likely thought they may have had a chance at salvaging one or two ports, depending on performance.

I'm not sure about the possibility of staying in FLL- Too many unknowns there, including the legal aspects, so I just don't want to go in that direction. I think at that point, the lines biggest "crime" was their optimism. I think they thought they could do better than, in fact, they could. Who wouldn't have thought the same, if it was their money, reputation, and passenger satisfaction at stake. Imagine the PR nightmare and screaming that would have ensued had they off-loaded all of the pax then! You'll never pleae everyone! I certainly WOULD have had a hissy if I had been on board and my trip abruptly cancelled! (but a NICE, POLITE hissy! <G>)

 

Just my $.02 worth...

 

I appreciate your alternate view. I suspect there is probably a truth somehwere in the middle of our two views. As you can see, I have, as usual, given my ten or twelve cents worth <G> I supposed I am playing the devil's advocate. And I do try to see both side. I try to put myself in the shoes (and the minds) of the people on the other end - "the bad guys" in the eyes of the disgruntled passengers. What decision would I have made- Of course we don't know their deliberations, or quite ALL of the facts. But based on what we know. What I am saying may end up being 100% hogwash. (Washing a hog is not a bad thing, is it?) I truly don't know. And I don't know how I would have reacted, except that I do know that in similar (though not the same) circumstances, Marc and I have gone with the flow, tried to calm other upset passengers and helped them to see the other possible side of the story. This includes explaining some of the realities (that we KNOW of) to some very irate passengers on our recent trip when we missed Costa Rica. We are both geeks, semi frequent, informed cruisers, both (airplane/helicopter) pilots, and know a little bit about related subjects, even thought it's not totally the same. And yes, I talked to staff and got their side, as much as possible. When Immigrations got on board 2 1/2 hours late, and there was a nighmare of snaking lines of angry passengers, I know how I reacted, and I know how SOME others reacted. Getting angry, screaming at people and getting worked up, did not help anyone. Remaining calm and reasonable made it a lot more bearable. Making a game out of it- talking and laughing with your neighbors and fellow sufferers made it a LOT more bearable and a lot more managebale for the staff, who were doing the best they could under the cirucmstances. Only YOU choose how to react to adversity, PITA (pains in the ...uh... arm) and inconveniences. Let's shake hands and agree to disagree. 'Kay? Maybe we'll meet on some future cruise, since we obviously both do share some passions!

 

Karie,

who will shut up now....for now. <G>

 

P.S. Some day, let me tell you about my trip to Puerto Rico when the Dupont Plaza burned down, 103 people died, including many from Connecticut, where I live, and our travel agent died before confirming our return air and we had no place to stay, our guest house was sold and didn't honor our paid deposit and there were no rooms to be had ANYWHERE, at any price, and we slept on several people's floors and at people's houses, and...well,. I'll save it for a different board, since it wasn't a cruise. And I still have fond memories (and cried an awful lotof tears)

[Bollinge]

Please do advise any upcoming cruises, so that we can avoid booking the same trip, as you are obviously a Jonah!

 

PS: I still remember the TV pictures of the Dupont Plaza on fire!

[Osidegrl]

I mediate disputes for a living (please don't ask me who I work for :) ...all kinds of disputes. Some people have very legitimate complaints but I am increasingly sickened and angered by the types of things that people complain about in order to get something for free. I have the latitute to make decisions as to who gets the money and if for some reason I can't actually get someone a refund, if they are deserving, I will usually send them flowers, fruit, candy, a plant, etc. One poster here mentioned "if you cry and scream loud enough you can get anything even if you really have no entitlement to it" and I can say this is mostly true. I know that if I have a very difficult customer who is NOT deserving (and they scream enough), if I don't give them what they want, my boss will (or my boss' boss will). This has taught me to "give in" most of the time, even though it is against my ethics because if it gets to my boss or higher, the customer will still get what they want and I will get a "ding" on my review for not being able to handle any situation without intervention. This is so sad because eventually, everyone pays for this. There is also no doubt in my mind that some of the people who were on this cruise (that were not in the group to get the refunds) will decide to dispute it later and I will be one of the people dealing with them. Personally, I have almost never been on a vacation where something did not go wrong and I have never expected a refund. Someone else posted here "what is this world coming to??????" and I echo those words every single day.