News on the Westerdam

[bobnatt]

26 minutes ago, MadManOfBethesda said:

So HAL should refund everyone's money, give them a free future cruise, pay for their airfare, pay for their hotels, PLUS give them an additional $10,000?  All for (in your words) "an act of god"? Why are you punishing HAL for an act of God? It sounds to me like God should be responsible for giving everyone $10,000 plus a free cruise, not HAL.  

 

[bobnatt]

If they don't treat the customers fairly they will be in for class action suits and congressional hearings...it is a lot cheaper to do the right thing now

[Level six]

It would have been a lot cheaper for them to just not dock in HK.  HAL should have told everyone about this once the CDC and WHO made their statements.  Given refunds to those people who were to board in HK for lost travel fares, including hotels, air, etc.  

 

Then the current cruise probably would have been able to dock at the ports and there would not be this big mess. 

 

I don't know.  I had the most stressful week before the cruise.  People on our roll call called me a fear monger and other names because I was concerned about the very thing that is happening now.  

 

It's not easy to lose money.  But it makes it worse when people to call you names. 

 

 

[MAVIP]

57 minutes ago, bobnatt said:

They shouldn't worry about precedent as this is a once in a lifetime situation.

An "Act of God" once in a lifetime? 

[Viv0828]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:52 PM, Moparop said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Level six said:

I was supposed to be on the FEB 1 cruise, but saw all of these problems happening the week before.  I cancelled and lost my money.  Do I deserve the same?  

 

you certainly deserve a refund and anything else the cruiseline decides to give to the people who were on the sep 1 cruise. they didn't even have to feed or entertain you! they saved money on you.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Viv0828

[Viv0828]

23 minutes ago, Level six said:

don't know.  I had the most stressful week before the cruise.  People on our roll call called me a fear monger and other names because I was concerned about the very thing that is happening now.  

 

It's not easy to lose money.  But it makes it worse when people to call you names. 

 

i remember that. what a chicken - LOL! obviously, chickens are extremely smart animals that can look into the future!

Edited February 9, 2020 by Viv0828

[Level six]

1 minute ago, Viv0828 said:

 

i remember that. what a chicken - LOL! obviously, chickens are extrememly smart animals that can look into the future!

haha, you are my favorite "cat" Viv0828!  Love your cat photo!  

[cruiseing marly]

50 minutes ago, Level six said:

So Actually, I did just not show up.  I say cancel, but I was a no show

I would contact HAL through my agent. They may do something for you if you did it to avoid health complications. Also getting to Hong Kong instead should be enough for a refund.

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by cruiseing marly

[cruisemom42]

43 minutes ago, bobnatt said:

If they don't treat the customers fairly they will be in for class action suits and congressional hearings...it is a lot cheaper to do the right thing now

 

Class action suits for what?  They have clearly followed all the guidances that were available to them at the time.  What are they going to be charged for/with??  

[bobnatt]

Class action for picking up all the passengers in Hong Kong when they knew the virus existed...A lot cheaper to be fair and generous now then having to be forced into a settlement which they certainly will do rather then risk a trial

[cruisemom42]

5 minutes ago, bobnatt said:

Class action for picking up all the passengers in Hong Kong when they knew the virus existed...A lot cheaper to be fair and generous now then having to be forced into a settlement which they certainly will do rather then risk a trial

 

At the time, Hong Kong was being considered as separate from mainland China. HAL abided by the recommendations in effect at that time -- keep in mind they would have had to make their decision SEVERAL days in advance of the cruise, otherwise many passengers would've been stranded mid-travel or in Hong Kong. Most people don't travel to these cruises only one day ahead of time....

 

Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But I don't seriously imagine that any judge or court would hold HAL accountable for following guidelines that were in place.

[Level six]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

At the time, Hong Kong was being considered as separate from mainland China. HAL abided by the recommendations in effect at that time -- keep in mind they would have had to make their decision SEVERAL days in advance of the cruise, otherwise many passengers would've been stranded mid-travel or in Hong Kong. Most people don't travel to these cruises only one day ahead of time....

 

Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But I don't seriously imagine that any judge or court would hold HAL accountable for following guidelines that were in place.

 

Maybe, but considering 500,000 people from Wuhan traveled to HK on the fast rail the week before the cruise and quarantine in Wuhan started the likely hood that this would have happened was high.  That was enough information for me to not board. 

[IPB4IGO]

15 hours ago, summer slope said:

***** shows the Westerdam in Okinawa.  I'm sure that is not true, but does anyone know where she is?

https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9226891

[cruisemom42]

1 minute ago, Level six said:

 

Maybe, but considering 500,000 people from Wuhan traveled to HK on the fast rail the week before the cruise and quarantine in Wuhan started the likely hood that this would have happened was high.  That was enough information for me to not board. 

 

Certainly at any time you can exercise your own considered judgement as to the risks. But that's not the same thing as having evidence or proof of negligence on the part of HAL that some are talking about.

 

 

[bobnatt]

This is my last response to my post. Frankly the issue is not legal it is more marketing and customer relations.  Turn a lemon into lemonade.. In order to maintain the goodwill of the passengers and more importantly travel agents the cruise line should go the extra mile.

[BarbarianPaul]

2 hours ago, bobnatt said:

This is a situation that is truly an act of god and the cruise lines should be more concerned about their reputation rather then their internal rules or next quarters earning report.  This is what should be done for this on the cruise now: 1. Full refund (not credit) 2. FCC credit for the same level cabin for any cruise in the next two or three years 3. Full payment for the air fares and hotels  and 4. an inconvenience fee for an amount which I would peg as $10,000. They shouldn't worry about precedent as this is a once in a lifetime situation.

Sorry, but that $10,000 inconvenience fee is ridiculous. You don’t want to drive HA out of business. But I do think a full refund is in order. And a FCC good for a few years, as you said, as well. There are people on board who started in Singapore on 1/16, who completed the relatively uneventful first half, a separate cruise, that ended in Hong Kong. HA should refund that portion as well.

[3rdGenCunarder]

13 minutes ago, bobnatt said:

This is my last response to my post. Frankly the issue is not legal it is more marketing and customer relations.  Turn a lemon into lemonade.. In order to maintain the goodwill of the passengers and more importantly travel agents the cruise line should go the extra mile.

 

This could turn out to be a non-issue for HAL marketing because this seems to be the only place it's getting discussed, possibly because there are no corona cases onboard and they passed the travel check.

 

HAL is looking golden compared to Princess. The news stories I'm seeing don't mention HAL. It doesn't matter what network or newspaper or if anyone thinks it's fake, it's about what's out there and it's all about Princess. Royal Carib is getting some heat locally for their day-by-day changes to a ship that came back to Bayonne with suspected Corona cases. Should have sailed the day it returned, but being held for quarantine and tests and cleaning. Supposed to go the next day, but oops, no, day after that, totally new itinerary...

[BarbarianPaul]

1 hour ago, Level six said:

So Actually, I did just not show up.  I say cancel, but I was a no show

I assume you did not have trip insurance through HA, which offers 90% cancel for any reason protection? Perhaps you should purchase it in the future, no?

[BarbarianPaul]

1 hour ago, Level six said:

So Actually, I did just not show up.  I say cancel, but I was a no show

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound judgmental, and of course everyone needs to make the decision to purchase insurance for themselves.  But, among frequent cruisers, I believe the general consensus is that some form of travel insurance is absolutely essential. HA’s insurance is one of the few that will allow you to cancel for any reason up to the very last minute. I’ve never actually had to use it, but just knowing I have it usually provides piece of mind.

[bennybear]

25 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

Sorry, but that $10,000 inconvenience fee is ridiculous. You don’t want to drive HA out of business. But I do think a full refund is in order. And a FCC good for a few years, as you said, as well. There are people on board who started in Singapore on 1/16, who completed the relatively uneventful first half, a separate cruise, that ended in Hong Kong. HA should refund that portion as well.

 

I don’t understand why you think  HAL should refund the prior uneventful cruise? 

[kathy49]

53 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

At the time, Hong Kong was being considered as separate from mainland China. HAL abided by the recommendations in effect at that time -- keep in mind they would have had to make their decision SEVERAL days in advance of the cruise, otherwise many passengers would've been stranded mid-travel or in Hong Kong. Most people don't travel to these cruises only one day ahead of time....

 

Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But I don't seriously imagine that any judge or court would hold HAL accountable for following guidelines that were in place.

it will never go to court....they will no doubt be forced (key words here) to refund those that did not board and of course the reimbursement for all the people on the cruise to nowhere plus punitive damages for the stress.  Would have been much better PR not to be forced.

[kathy49]

13 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound judgmental, and of course everyone needs to make the decision to purchase insurance for themselves.  But, among frequent cruisers, I believe the general consensus is that some form of travel insurance is absolutely essential. HA’s insurance is one of the few that will allow you to cancel for any reason up to the very last minute. I’ve never actually had to use it, but just knowing I have it usually provides piece of mind.

most standard insurance is not covering a quarantine...

[leerathje]

57 minutes ago, bobnatt said:

Class action for picking up all the passengers in Hong Kong when they knew the virus existed...A lot cheaper to be fair and generous now then having to be forced into a settlement which they certainly will do rather then risk a trial

 

However, no one on board is infected with Coronavirus. I don't see how there can be a class action lawsuit. You can't sue for something that didn't happen.

 

L.

 

[Viv0828]

2 minutes ago, bennybear said:

I don’t understand why you think  HAL should refund the prior uneventful cruise? 

 

if you were  on that first leg as well, do you think you could ever look back at that whole trip and not shudder. not me. the second leg would color the whole cruise.

[bennybear]

@Viv   Agreed, but how is this HALs fault?