Anyone else duped by RCI-Radiance of the Seas 7-10-20?

[Bloodgem]

7 hours ago, mayleeman said:

Well, that goes for the initial complaints, too. "Bait and switch" and "false advertising" are a bit much. I agree the OP might not have bought the tour knowing it was a mistake, but they went way beyond the pale in their accusations.

 

Then, not even conceding that RC gave them more compensation than obligated...not a steaming pile of BS, but definitely not able to accept mistakes gracefully.

I have no problem with the OP not giving RC any credit for the compensation they received. I do feel the OP could have thanked the CC members that tried to defend him/her. 

[island lady]

6 hours ago, Paulette3028 said:

My problem with that....is are you so 'sure' they called Royal, and not someone within their own agency (sorry for being the skeptic -- but I have worked in sales organizations all my life and know of unscrupulous behavior to land a sale).  That brouchure/ad printout is NOT Royal.

 

That was what I found suspicious.  Plus the fact the price was so low..."too good to be true".   

[Iamcruzin]

21 hours ago, Paulette3028 said:

If the rate was available on Royal's website, maybe they should have taken a screen shot of that, but they did not.  It causes me to wonder whether it was so.  You can call me a 'doubting Thomas' when it comes to what the OP has said....but I work with customers all the time, and what they say and what is 'reality' is often NOT the case.  

I have to agree about the screen shot. They should have also done a mock booking from the Royal site and screen shot that as well for evidence.  I also work with customers on a retail level. They read sale signs to what they want them to say. I'm not saying that this is case for the OP but I see it all of the time. 

[smplybcause]

The problem with a law that forces a company to abide by a so-called "fat finger" pricing error is there's a lot of fallout and unintended consequences. For one, honoring the mistake could cripple smaller companies that just don't have a cushion to take a hit like that and still be in the black. And another is companies always look for ways to recoup and counteract unexpected expenses or revenue. I personally have no idea the workings of Royal, but when I saw the threads on high cruise prices next year start after Royal honored the $18 drink package, I did have a thought wondering if that's where they were making up their money. 

[AnnaNicole]

On 7/31/2019 at 12:14 PM, smplybcause said:

The problem with a law that forces a company to abide by a so-called "fat finger" pricing error is there's a lot of fallout and unintended consequences. For one, honoring the mistake could cripple smaller companies that just don't have a cushion to take a hit like that and still be in the black. And another is companies always look for ways to recoup and counteract unexpected expenses or revenue. I personally have no idea the workings of Royal, but when I saw the threads on high cruise prices next year start after Royal honored the $18 drink package, I did have a thought wondering if that's where they were making up their money. 

I doubt the $18 drink package is hurting RCI.   I booked a Celebrity cruise with Pick2 - I choose beverage package and $300 OBC.    The difference in price for the added "free" perks was $600.   That means, effectively, the beverage package was purchased for $300 for two people for 7 days - ~$20pp including gratuities.

[smplybcause]

I doubt the $18 drink package is hurting RCI.   I booked a Celebrity cruise with Pick2 - I choose beverage package and $300 OBC.    The difference in price for the added "free" perks was $600.   That means, effectively, the beverage package was purchased for $300 for two people for 7 days - ~$20pp including gratuities.

Celebrity priced those deals knowing exactly what it cost them and those expenses compared to revenue was budgeted for. The beverage package debacle was not budgeted or planned for and absolutely would change their bottom line (if it wouldn't it wouldn't have taken them so long to decide to honor it once the backlash started) - there's no way they're not trying to make up for that to keep their earnings the same for the year. Any changes in earnings changes stock prices. Every company does this. They either cut expenses elsewhere or increase revenue to make up for the lack of revenue they're getting from those packages.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[smplybcause]

I doubt the $18 drink package is hurting RCI.   I booked a Celebrity cruise with Pick2 - I choose beverage package and $300 OBC.    The difference in price for the added "free" perks was $600.   That means, effectively, the beverage package was purchased for $300 for two people for 7 days - ~$20pp including gratuities.

Celebrity priced those deals knowing exactly what it cost them and those expenses compared to revenue was budgeted for. The beverage package debacle was not budgeted or planned for and absolutely would change their bottom line (if it wouldn't it wouldn't have taken them so long to decide to honor it once the backlash started) - there's no way they're not trying to make up for that to keep their earnings the same for the year. Any changes in earnings changes stock prices. Every company does this. They either cut expenses elsewhere or increase revenue to make up for the lack of revenue they're getting from those packages.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Biker19]

2 hours ago, AnnaNicole said:

   That means, effectively, the beverage package was purchased for $300 for two people for 7 days - ~$20pp including gratuities.

The difference is that you can’t opt of the drink package so X can spread out the cost over more passengers. There are many non-drinkers for whom even the $18 package makes no sense on RCI and they won’t buy it. 

[taglovestocruise]

On 7/26/2019 at 6:30 AM, DarrenM said:

So the price was available, the TA confirmed it and the transaction took place.

 

And still the reneged?

 

Wow. The poor lambs must be short of cash.

They are swimming in cash. 

Royal Caribbean Cruises cash on hand from 2006 to 2019. Cash on hand can be defined as cash deposits at financial institutions that can immediately be withdrawn at any time, and investments maturing in one year or less that are highly liquid and therefore regarded as cash equivalents and reported with or near cash line items. 

• Royal Caribbean Cruises cash on hand for the quarter ending June 30, 2019 was $0.235B, a 115.6% increaseyear-over-year.
• Royal Caribbean Cruises cash on hand for 2018 was $0.288B, a 139.65% increase from 2017.

[taglovestocruise]

To the OP. To answer your original question, and after reading  110 posts, the answer is NO, no-one else has been duped. 

[SRF]

On 7/30/2019 at 8:27 AM, HBE4 said:

 

If the issue becomes widespread enough, I suppose a consumer protection agency could get involved.  About a decade ago, JetBlue came out with a 'Customer Bill of Rights" after they had a few public relations disasters involving planes sitting on the runways for hours with passengers unable to get off for 7, 8 or more hours.  But it took the threat of passing Federal regulations for the company to do that. Even thought there i still some vague, legal wording in the BOF, at least its a step in the right direction.

 

Speaking of airlines, there are regulations protecting the passengers from unfair pricing, bumping, etc. However, as cruising is still considered a luxury vacation, it's still "buyer beware" mentality.

 

 

 

There ARE Federal regulations on this issue.

 

Of course, now, instead of making you wait, they just cancel your flight.  And if for weather, they have no responsibility for you other than booking you on a later flight.

[AnnaNicole]

On 8/4/2019 at 6:38 PM, Biker19 said:

The difference is that you can’t opt of the drink package so X can spread out the cost over more passengers. There are many non-drinkers for whom even the $18 package makes no sense on RCI and they won’t buy it. 

You could pick 2 of 4 perks:  $300 OBC, free gratuities, free drinks, or free internet.

[Biker19]

1 minute ago, AnnaNicole said:

You could pick 2 of 4 perks:  $300 OBC, free gratuities, free drinks, or free internet.

That's the point, you have to pick something (and pay for it), you can't opt out altogether - so the X comparison is not quite the same. 

[AnnaNicole]

3 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

That's the point, you have to pick something (and pay for it), you can't opt out altogether - so the X comparison is not quite the same. 

You could choose no perks.  

 

My point is - I only paid $20pp per day (incl gratuities) for Celebrity's drink package.   They would not sell the perks promo if it was not profitable for them.   I would think people who are more inclined to drink would chose the beverage package over the others as it provides the greatest savings on retail cost.    

Edited August 7, 2019 by AnnaNicole