Shame Royal Caribbean- Ovation of the Seas

[Sam Ting]

10 minutes ago, banzaii said:

So do you agree that it is totally irresponsible for anyone to travel without specialist care or just every infant?  Many a cruise itinerary has been changed by a return to port for these reasons!

the adults can decide if they want to take that risk for themselves and their personal well being.  The infants clearly have no choice in the matter. 

[banzaii]

10 minutes ago, Sam Ting said:

the adults can decide if they want to take that risk for themselves and their personal well being.  The infants clearly have no choice in the matter. 

I guess what I am saying is that adults can and do make wrong decisions about cruise travel based on financial, emotional or selfish reasoning.  People with pre-existing conditions requiring specialist care often embark anyway.  There is no policy preventing this although, if it goes wrong, it affects the entire cruise itinerary.  As it did on an Ovation TP last year.

 

If the itinerary changes prior to sailing for two experienced Paediatric specialists travelling with a fit and healthy full-term 11mth old, is it down to a black and white decision by the cruise line to prevent their travel regardless?  

[Biker19]

18 minutes ago, banzaii said:

If the itinerary changes prior to sailing for two experienced Paediatric specialists travelling with a fit and healthy full-term 11mth old, is it down to a black and white decision by the cruise line to prevent their travel regardless?  

Yes, because the RCI lawyers say so.

 

We all know that's why RCI won't bend on this rule.

[hancock]

Got off the Radiance last Sunday. On our cruise we had two different itinerary changes while on the cruise.. First we learned that Mare and Lifou were cancelled with Isle of Palms and Luganville as replacement ports. We were later notified that Isle of Palms was not allowing us to come because of the Corona Virus. We would return to Noumea a second time at the end of the schedule before returning to Sydney.

Royal handled the schedule to the best of their ability considering the limited ports that were available.  All this was very last minute.

BTW,Mystery Island has no access for medical care. It is an uninhabited island.

Edited February 14, 2020 by hancock

[A&L_Ont]

32 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

Yes, because the RCI lawyers say so.

 

We all know that's why RCI won't bend on this rule.

This exactly. It’s the same reason why those same paediatricians wouldn’t allow some random doctor into their offices to do the same on land. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, twangster said:

 

Yes because that how itineraries are created - maximum adult appeal for vacation value.  Itineraries are not created based on proximity to pediatric resources for infants.

 

And that is relevant how? We're discussing the viability of the cruise in this scenario and why a booking was cancelled, not why cruise planners decide which locations to visit when they create itineraries.

[The_Big_M]

4 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

All very well and true, until someone’s child is in danger and it becomes an issue. There will be a reason to why it is set up like this, and debating the ports of the world won’t change the outcome.
 

 

Except there's no difference in danger between the route that the cruise line accepted, and the route they are taking. The same proximity exists on both. The only difference is whether a port is visited or not, so that point is moot.

[gatour]

Question.  Would the reservation contain information about the actual age of the infant.  If so, then an attempt probably should have been made to contact them once the decision to change the itinerary was made.  If not how would RCCL know, until they showed up at the pier.  I believe the final decision to change the itinerary was done relatively close to when passengers were allowed to start embarking.

 

If so RCCL is not always great in communicating changes to soon to be passengers

[HBE4]

4 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

There are some cruisers that would love RC to do that. 

 

18 years old seems like a good cut-off point.

 

Just kidding.    6 yo is a good age limit.

 

Still kidding. I really don't have any thoughts/feelings on the matter.

 

2 hours ago, Biker19 said:

Yes, because the RCI lawyers say so.

 

We all know that's why RCI won't bend on this rule.

 

I guess that is why having the family signing a wavier absolving RCI of responsibility should some go wrong isn't offered?

 

Just to add: the wavier would only be offered in situations similar to the OP.

 

[lovescats5]

RCI knows the age of everyone who sails.  They look at the forms you fill out every time you book a cruise and it always asks for the birthday of each traveler.

[BeachChik]

4 hours ago, Jimbo said:

Still sounds like a crazy rule, A sick child at 1 year old or 2 or 3 years old is no difference, A child is sick and in need of care. I guess pretty soon you won't be allowed to bring any kids onboard.

 

I'm going to assume that you understand there is a major difference in treating a sick 9 month old and a sick 3 year old. There are many things you can't give to a baby plus they aren't old enough to tell you what is wrong. I wouldn't want a doctor that isn't a pediatrician treating an infant.

 

Arguing about it is pointless since this is a rule that all cruise ships follow. Their ship, their rules.

[BeachChik]

4 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

There is a reason why the have rules for young children and pregnant cruisers. They are not as capable to care for them if an emergency arises. They tend to be more medically fragile than a 45 year old individual.  
 

It’s easy to say just change the medical clinic, but doing it is a different reality. Think of medical on the ship as your local mom and pop garage. Sure they can repair a tire on a Lamborghini, but they are not trained/capable of technical work.  They get you fixed up enough to limp along to the certified dealership.  You can’t expect them to bring in a import car specialist for the warm summer months, while you are out in your summer car, on the chance you might show up needing dire help. 
 

The same is said of the cruise line medical department.  Yes, they have a doctor and a few nurses but that’s it for staff. They are not NICU doctors, and nor do they have the specialized equipment to care for specialized situations. If you want that I would think they would have to revamp the entire medical team, medical area layout and bring in specialized equipment just to sail in specific areas of the world. Or the cruise lines could continue to do as they are now, set restrictions for specific situations and keep those guests stable until they can be passed along to specialized care. 
 

It is easy to say change it.  Everything after isn’t.

 

That is an excellent analogy.

[HBE4]

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Except there's no difference in danger between the route that the cruise line accepted, and the route they are taking. The same proximity exists on both. The only difference is whether a port is visited or not, so that point is moot.

 

While there may be a nearby port that they are sailing past, there is no guarantee that they could get into that port on short notice, assuming there is a berth available.

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Except there's no difference in danger between the route that the cruise line accepted, and the route they are taking. The same proximity exists on both. The only difference is whether a port is visited or not, so that point is moot.

 

You will have to get RC to see your point of view as I have no sway in that matter.

 

What really is moot; the opinions of individuals expressed on CC and how it relates to RC's daily operations.

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, HBE4 said:

I guess that is why having the family signing a wavier absolving RCI of responsibility should some go wrong isn't offered?

 

Just to add: the wavier would only be offered in situations similar to the OP.

 

 

A lawyer would argue that it was signed under/in duress.  The guest signed it as they were under pressure and the fear of missing their cruise vacation.  Sure the child might not have any medical issue the entire trip but RC made the exception and let them go.

 

1 hour ago, BeachChik said:

 Their ship, their rules.

 

This says it all.

Edited February 14, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[elephant98]

15 hours ago, brad_p said:

 

 

Issue one: RCI didn't give you enough notification time.

I get this one. The only thing I have to say in RCI's defence is that had they told you 24-48hrs in advance of your departure, the 7yo still would have cried, you still would have all been disappointed and still out of pocket for expenses. Apart from a waste of time, I think your emotional outcome would have been the same?

 

 

 

Well, I would think that the emotional impact on the kids is much higher by being turned away at the port, rather than being told before they hopped on a flight to Sydney.   Poor analogy, but I'm reminded of the movie Vacation.   I think the Griswolds would have preferred to know that Wally World was closed before they made the cross country trip in the family truckster.  🙂    

[twangster]

Cruising in cyclone season.  Basically like cruising in hurricane season.  

 

We had some outer rain bands from Usei when Ovation arrived in Sydney on the 13th.  Brisbane and the southeast Queensland region had terrible flooding, it was all over the news shown at the airport that day.  

 

Usei has moved Southwest and is spinning in the Tasman Sea.  Glad we got back to Sydney when we did, wouldn't want to be heading to or from New Zealand right now.

 

I believe this is what ultimately delayed Ovation's departure and sent other ships from other cruise lines looking for alternate ports.  A couple days ago Usei was to the right and higher in the picture blow.  With some island ports closed to cruise ships because of CV that further complicated the matter.  Tender ports may also have been questionable based on swell from Usei.

 

Image from the BOM website:

 

 

From two days ago:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/weather/2020/02/13/lord-howe-cyclone-uesi/

 

Residents of Lord Howe Island are bracing for 14-metre waves, destructive winds and up to 150 millimetres of rain as Tropical Cyclone Uesi continues tracking straight for the island.

 

The category-two cyclone is expected to weaken as it reaches the tiny island on Thursday.

 

The island is 600 kilometres off the NSW coast and home to 400 people.

 

The Bureau of Meteorology is warning residents to expect gales with gusts up to 150km/h and swells of about 14 metres.

 

While the cyclone won’t hit the NSW coast, it is expected to produce large swells, high tides and strong winds over the weekend.

Edited February 14, 2020 by twangster

[ShazM]

7 hours ago, suesnake2002 said:

I do not fault RCCL for changing itinary. It happens, but there is a common theme that well actually makes me so angry. They show up at port and were told of itinary change. 

What happened royal?? You decided to change itinary hours before sail away?? 

Once again the last minute advisement and disregard for families is huge. 

You can not not tell me that they couldn't notify family before travel. 

This policy of we will give you info whenever we feel like it is crazy. Especially when we have had proof of rccl decisions being made days earlier on other sailings. 

Yes, it was literally made hours before sailaway. Ovation was due to leave that afternoon and as this cyclone unfolded the decision was made. They stayed at the terminal until something like 3am the following day and then had to move over to the other side of the harbour near Mosman to allow the other ship due to dock at the terminal. They stayed over there "at sea"  until late yesterday afternoon.

[Esilef]

7 hours ago, hancock said:

Got off the Radiance last Sunday. On our cruise we had two different itinerary changes while on the cruise.. First we learned that Mare and Lifou were cancelled with Isle of Palms and Luganville as replacement ports. We were later notified that Isle of Palms was not allowing us to come because of the Corona Virus. We would return to Noumea a second time at the end of the schedule before returning to Sydney.

Royal handled the schedule to the best of their ability considering the limited ports that were available.  All this was very last minute.

BTW,Mystery Island has no access for medical care. It is an uninhabited island.

 

Thanks for the information about port changes.

 

on previous cruises to noumea I have seen sick passengers taken off the ship.

 

FYI these islands are very natural and beautiful. No high rise hotels on mystery island and no water slides. Just beautiful beaches, clear water and sea life. 

[Esilef]

To the OP I hope you can all plan an alternative holiday together to catch up as a family. At the time holidays in Australia seem safest (once the weather has improved). Port Douglas is a wonderful place to visit with trips out to the Great Barrier Reef. 

[bobmacliberty]

OP...this really sucks.  I'd hate to be in your situation with my family, young children or not.  IF Royal had known sufficiently in advance, they absolutely should have contacted you.  We've seen in several situations, that Royal could improve in how well they communicate.  My guess (purely a guess) is that they did not have sufficient advanced knowledge to contact you before you left for Sydney.  Either way...still sucks.

 

Royal is a major corporation and like all major corporations, they need to put rules in place for many situations.  Like it or not, lawyers are absolutely part of the equation...ensuring CYA for the company.  That is often (not always) good for the shareholders of the company, to which corporate management has a fiduciary responsibility.  

 

Rules often involve drawing a line.  You can easily argue that one inch to the left of the line is no different than one inch to the right of the line.  If Royal tries to make that line flexible to allow for individual situations, they open themselves to legal issues AND they open themselves to people abusing the rules (see emotional support animals, 1 vs. 2 drink packages in a room, refunds after final, etc.).  Could Royal have done something different/better in this situation?  Who knows.  Again, either way, still sucks for the OP.

[ONECRUISER]

On 2/14/2020 at 7:23 AM, suesnake2002 said:

I do not fault RCCL for changing itinary. It happens, but there is a common theme that well actually makes me so angry. They show up at port and were told of itinary change. 

What happened royal?? You decided to change itinary hours before sail away?? 

Once again the last minute advisement and disregard for families is huge. 

You can not not tell me that they couldn't notify family before travel. 

This policy of we will give you info whenever we feel like it is crazy. Especially when we have had proof of rccl decisions being made days earlier on other sailings. 

This change is similar to many last minute missed Ports, "Weather" Happens. As the Infant Policy, Royal has had this for Decades

[gatour]

On 2/14/2020 at 2:23 PM, elephant98 said:

 

Well, I would think that the emotional impact on the kids is much higher by being turned away at the port, rather than being told before they hopped on a flight to Sydney.   Poor analogy, but I'm reminded of the movie Vacation.   I think the Griswolds would have preferred to know that Wally World was closed before they made the cross country trip in the family truckster.  🙂    

Except the decision was most  likely made an hour or two before embarkation began.

 

As someone who lives in Florida and do cruises during hurricane season, cruise itineraries can change right up to embarkation, and people don't know that their western Caribbean cruise is now an eastern Caribbean cruise, until they get the terminal.