Proposal to Federal Maritime Commission

[govanguy]

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/us-weighs-changes-regulations-cruise-line-nonperformance-and-refunds?NL=ST-004&Issue=ST-004_20200728_ST-004_354&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&utm_campaign=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_07282020_888&utm_emailname=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_07282020_888&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_MDMContactID=4dd9cdb5-fd2d-4732-8d82-245e6a7854c0&utm_campaigntype=Newsletter&utm_sub=Seatrade Cruise News Latest Headlines&eM=31ca09fabe38c78bed1698fedac16ca43efae48788521de1dcefb938fcc19201&eventSeriesCode=ES_SEATRDCRSCTNT&eventEditionCode=MTM00SCC&sessionCode=S_STRDCRSNEWS

 

Someone may wish to shorten the link?

[TeeRick]

Here is the mission statement of this agency/commission.  I am no expert on marine affairs but I honestly never heard of them.  Perhaps others can weigh in on them?  Not really sure if we need another Federal agency (US only) trying to over-regulate the cruise industry.    Maybe if they focus on streamlining refunds and the refund process that would be a good thing.  But really not sure how that would affect all of the non-US cruisers in the refund process.  Anyway I would bet this would take years to accomplish just like most government initiatives.

 

Federal Maritime Commission- Our mission is to ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.

[bikerunner]

18 minutes ago, govanguy said:

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/us-weighs-changes-regulations-cruise-line-nonperformance-and-refunds?NL=ST-004&Issue=ST-004_20200728_ST-004_354&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&utm_campaign=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_07282020_888&utm_emailname=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_07282020_888&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_MDMContactID=4dd9cdb5-fd2d-4732-8d82-245e6a7854c0&utm_campaigntype=Newsletter&utm_sub=Seatrade Cruise News Latest Headlines&eM=31ca09fabe38c78bed1698fedac16ca43efae48788521de1dcefb938fcc19201&eventSeriesCode=ES_SEATRDCRSCTNT&eventEditionCode=MTM00SCC&sessionCode=S_STRDCRSNEWS

 

Someone may wish to shorten the link?

Shortened link

[govanguy]

Just now, bikerunner said:

Shortened link

Thank you. I had blisters on my fingers typing that out..lol

[Fouremco]

Good article and overview of the existing FCC/refund process and problems. I for one would love to see action taken to regulate the refund process, not to enhance compensation but to standardize the process. There have been far too many examples cited on this board of claims falling through the cracks or passengers having to chase Celebrity time and time again. Whether this should be a government regulator or a CLIA initiative is a different question.

 

 

[paulh84]

I suppose to optics are pleasing to some, but this proposed 'standard' is just a rehash of all of the major line's current policies.I don't think I've read a single complaint were someone was rightly due a refund and the cruiseline refused.

 

You have to allow the lines some accommodation for the sheer amount of refunds due. This is not normal. It backlogs the cruiseline and the credit card vendors. Now they are also having to do double work to contest charge backs that shouldn't have been granted initially. I don't see a bit of change coming from this...

[TeeRick]

23 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Good article and overview of the existing FCC/refund process and problems. I for one would love to see action taken to regulate the refund process, not to enhance compensation but to standardize the process. There have been far too many examples cited on this board of claims falling through the cracks or passengers having to chase Celebrity time and time again. Whether this should be a government regulator or a CLIA initiative is a different question.

 

 

But would this even apply to you in Canada?

[Fouremco]

22 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

But would this even apply to you in Canada?

Good question. To the best of my knowledge, the US DOT regulations for consumer protection apply to all passengers, not just to US citizens. That's certainly the case with the Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations; all references are to "passenger" or "passengers", with no qualification based on citizenship. Once you purchase a ticket, you are covered. The regulations apply to all flights to, from or within Canada by all carriers.   

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, paulh84 said:

I don't think I've read a single complaint were someone was rightly due a refund and the cruiseline refused.

On the other hand, there have been many cases reported on the Celebrity board alone of refunds being "lost" in the process or being delayed for an unacceptable period of time. Add to that all the cases on other CC boards, and consider that the vast majority of passengers aren't even CC members, and you know that there's a problem.

[Host Anne]

Where2Next ~ are you using a travel agent?  If so, that's where I would have started.  They should be helping you with this.  Are you familiar with Celebrity's Cruise with Confidence program?  You can read about it here:  https://www.celebritycruises.com/cruise-with-confidence.   

 

Read the "What You Should Know" under Flexible Cancellations.  It clearly states in the last bullet point:

Nonrefundable Deposit Bookings: If canceled outside of penalty, the full deposit amount will be returned (without penalty) in the form of an FCC. If canceled within any phase of penalty, the cruise fare including full deposit (without penalty) will be issued as an FCC.

 

So I'm really not understanding your post above.  You could have gotten an FCC for your non-refundable deposit which I consider generous.  Since you let your final payment date lapse, however, I don't know that you'll be able to get anything.

 

I strongly suggest that all cruisers become familiar with Celebrity's policies right now and if you have a travel agent, use them to help you.  

 

 

 

[markeb]

You know, I'm just going to assume based on this story and the previous CDC story that's linked on the same page that the US regulatory process just isn't part of the normal beat of seatrade-cruise.com, but somewhere before the fold, in this case buried peripherally in the 10th and 11th paragraphs, it would have been really nice to explain what this actually means. The commission hasn't even voted to proceed with proposing a rule, and won't until at least August (and that could easily be postponed, deferred, referred for more study, etc.). Realistically, any result of this proposal is probably at least 12 months after the August vote, just given comment periods on the proposal, actually writing a regulation, comment on the regulation, etc.

 

This is so far buried inside the Beltway at this point to almost not even be worth an article, and certainly the author could have done 15 minutes on Google to understand how far into the future this almost certainly is, and probably in the first couple of paragraphs something stating "Sola's proposal represents the beginning of a likely year-long regulatory process including comments from the industry and public."

[bEwAbG]

Also risky to book a cruise with nonrefundable deposits, as this situation makes clear.  Throwing what someone at the Florida AG's office said to you on the phone at them isn't going to resolve anything.  Unfortunately, you escalated this to the legal department by throwing them into the mix, so they're more likely to hold you to the letter of the contract now.  There are thousands of people in the same predicament as you.  You are correct that they're doing everything in their power to hang on to your cash until they cancel your cruise.  The contract gives them that right.  Yes, they'll have to figure out circumstances related to no-travel orders when that situation actually occurs.  Right now, it's a non-issue to them.  They're pretending that the cruise is still happening so that they don't have to refund your money.

[chengkp75]

20 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Here is the mission statement of this agency/commission.  I am no expert on marine affairs but I honestly never heard of them.  Perhaps others can weigh in on them?  Not really sure if we need another Federal agency (US only) trying to over-regulate the cruise industry.    Maybe if they focus on streamlining refunds and the refund process that would be a good thing.  But really not sure how that would affect all of the non-US cruisers in the refund process.  Anyway I would bet this would take years to accomplish just like most government initiatives.

 

Federal Maritime Commission- Our mission is to ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.

The FMC has been in existence, under one name or another, since 1936.  What the Commissioner is proposing is to modify an existing program, called the PVO (passenger vessel operator) Performance Certificate, where operators of passenger vessels in US waters must show that they have the capital, or a bond, equal to the "unearned passenger revenue" (i.e. the amount of money they have taken in on cruises that haven't been performed yet), up to a cap of $32 million.  While the cap is there to assist smaller PVO's, it makes the whole Performance Certificate a bit of a joke for the large cruise lines, especially in a situation like today's.  They really should make some sort of sliding cap, based on the annual "unearned revenue" of the PVO, so there is in reality a sufficient base for refunds.

 

This is not a new initiative, it has been around for years, and applies to all PVO's, foreign or domestic, and is not unique to the cruise industry either, as the FMC requires a performance bond from every ship, freighter, tanker, bulker, fishing, that wishes to enter US waters.  The FMC Performance Certificate is a pre-requisite for obtaining CBP clearance to enter port.

 

As these proposals will be simply agency rules and policies, if they move forward, this will only require a notification of proposed changes in the Federal Register, a notification of request for comments, and then final review, which could be in the 6 month range before implementation.

 

7 hours ago, Where2next10 said:

Actually, we had 4 trips planned and so far we have been able to obtain cash refunds from two companys and one airline all of which had cancellation policies that only offered future travel credits. Two of the companys have since changed their cancellation policies.To clarify, one of the travel companies we received a cash refund from had the same response as Celebrity until we filed formal complaints. So the formal complaints were filed last week. Filed with the Florida State Attorneys Office along with the Division of Consumer Services, The Federal Trade Commission, and the Better Business Bureau. I was also instructed to file with the Maritime Commission too but have not gotten to thst one yet. The filings were at the request of the attorney generals office who was made aware of the cruise lines cancellation policy, offer of future travel credit in lieu of cash refund. The reason this is a legal issue is when a state of emergency is declared which one was for Covid and as a US citizen we are banned from entering Italy due to covid to board the ship then technically there is no cruise thus Celebrity has no legal right to keep our monies. So far two of the three complaints have reached Celebrity. So remains to be seen what their response will be. 

 

 

 

the Florida State Attorney Generals Office has 

As to this, while I am no legal expert, and you are correct in trying all aspects to recoup your money, I will say that the Celebrity Ticket Contract, like nearly every cruise lines has the following:

 

d) Carrier shall have the right to comply with any orders, recommendations, or directions whatsoever given by any governmental entity or by persons purporting to act with such authority and such compliance shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement entitling the Passenger to assert any claim for liability, compensation or refund.

 

So, the ban on US citizens by Italy is an "order" "by any government entity", and the cruise line in complying with this order is not, by contract, entitled to give you any compensation or refund.

[wrk2cruise]

As always @chengkp75 thank you for your informed clarification.

[TeeRick]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The FMC has been in existence, under one name or another, since 1936.  What the Commissioner is proposing is to modify an existing program, called the PVO (passenger vessel operator) Performance Certificate, where operators of passenger vessels in US waters must show that they have the capital, or a bond, equal to the "unearned passenger revenue" (i.e. the amount of money they have taken in on cruises that haven't been performed yet), up to a cap of $32 million.  While the cap is there to assist smaller PVO's, it makes the whole Performance Certificate a bit of a joke for the large cruise lines, especially in a situation like today's.  They really should make some sort of sliding cap, based on the annual "unearned revenue" of the PVO, so there is in reality a sufficient base for refunds.

 

This is not a new initiative, it has been around for years, and applies to all PVO's, foreign or domestic, and is not unique to the cruise industry either, as the FMC requires a performance bond from every ship, freighter, tanker, bulker, fishing, that wishes to enter US waters.  The FMC Performance Certificate is a pre-requisite for obtaining CBP clearance to enter port.

 

As these proposals will be simply agency rules and policies, if they move forward, this will only require a notification of proposed changes in the Federal Register, a notification of request for comments, and then final review, which could be in the 6 month range before implementation.

 

As to this, while I am no legal expert, and you are correct in trying all aspects to recoup your money, I will say that the Celebrity Ticket Contract, like nearly every cruise lines has the following:

 

d) Carrier shall have the right to comply with any orders, recommendations, or directions whatsoever given by any governmental entity or by persons purporting to act with such authority and such compliance shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement entitling the Passenger to assert any claim for liability, compensation or refund.

 

So, the ban on US citizens by Italy is an "order" "by any government entity", and the cruise line in complying with this order is not, by contract, entitled to give you any compensation or refund.

Thanks for the expert feedback.  I was hoping that you would comment.

[npcl]

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The FMC has been in existence, under one name or another, since 1936.  What the Commissioner is proposing is to modify an existing program, called the PVO (passenger vessel operator) Performance Certificate, where operators of passenger vessels in US waters must show that they have the capital, or a bond, equal to the "unearned passenger revenue" (i.e. the amount of money they have taken in on cruises that haven't been performed yet), up to a cap of $32 million.  While the cap is there to assist smaller PVO's, it makes the whole Performance Certificate a bit of a joke for the large cruise lines, especially in a situation like today's.  They really should make some sort of sliding cap, based on the annual "unearned revenue" of the PVO, so there is in reality a sufficient base for refunds.

 

This is not a new initiative, it has been around for years, and applies to all PVO's, foreign or domestic, and is not unique to the cruise industry either, as the FMC requires a performance bond from every ship, freighter, tanker, bulker, fishing, that wishes to enter US waters.  The FMC Performance Certificate is a pre-requisite for obtaining CBP clearance to enter port.

 

As these proposals will be simply agency rules and policies, if they move forward, this will only require a notification of proposed changes in the Federal Register, a notification of request for comments, and then final review, which could be in the 6 month range before implementation.

 

As to this, while I am no legal expert, and you are correct in trying all aspects to recoup your money, I will say that the Celebrity Ticket Contract, like nearly every cruise lines has the following:

 

d) Carrier shall have the right to comply with any orders, recommendations, or directions whatsoever given by any governmental entity or by persons purporting to act with such authority and such compliance shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement entitling the Passenger to assert any claim for liability, compensation or refund.

 

So, the ban on US citizens by Italy is an "order" "by any government entity", and the cruise line in complying with this order is not, by contract, entitled to give you any compensation or refund.

Cruise lines currently not covered by any us law that establishes a time limit for refunds, nor any consistent requirements  between the lines to how refunds should be handled, especially in a pandemic situation. Based upon its history it would makes sense for such regulations to be done by the FMC. 

[mnocket]

I'm posting this separate from the Refunds thread because it does not pertain to the current situation.  Rather than discussing what is happening now, it suggests changes that may happen in the future - not all of them good imho.  The moderator may merge this with the Refunds thread if deemed appropriate.

 

Here's the link to the article.....

https://news.yahoo.com/cruisers-struggled-refunds-amid-pandemic-182434446.html

 

These are the recommendations that I find concerning.....

 

1) When a sailing is canceled or boarding is delayed because of a government order or declaration, refunds must be paid within 180 days of a passenger request. 

This would double, or more,  the time that most cruise lines are "promising".  

 

2) If a passenger cancels a cruise that could be affected by a declared public health emergency but the sailing hasn't canceled, the cruise line must provide a future cruise credit equal to the consumer's deposit

Would prefer choice of either refund or FCC.  What impact, if any, would this have on the timing of a cruise line's cancellations once a health emergency is declared?

 

 

3) This would set a standard policy for ALL US cruise line bookings.

I tend to prefer competition.  This would give all cruise lines and easy out - "Don't blame us, our refund policy is established by the government".   Competition drives some companies to do better than others.  I like that.

 

4) There's still no teeth to the regulation

Today most lines promise 60 - 90 days for refunds.  Many aren't meeting that goal and there is no penalty for missing it.  This proposed change doesn't seem to address the problem.  A new goal means little if there is no enforcement.

Edited July 30, 2020 by mnocket

[Georgia_Peaches]

I read this article and your summary and agree with your assessment.  I don't view such changes as being more consumer friendly.    What am I missing?

[npcl]

6 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I read this article and your summary and agree with your assessment.  I don't view such changes as being more consumer friendly.    What am I missing?

The fact that there are no laws covering these areas now.  The cruise contract language is supreme, and there is currently no law forcing any time frame on refunds.

 

This is similar to what DOT did for airlines a few years ago.  It identifies when a cruise line must pay a refund (if they cancel) and must offer an FCC if the passenger cancels (similar to what currently exists for the airlines)  As it sits now the cruise lines do not have to anything beyond their normal cancellation terms if the passenger cancels.  This regulations would take priority over the cruise contract language (similar to airlines)

 

Similarly with the refund it now establishes a maximum time for the cruise lines to process a refund.  Currently there is no defined time frame other than what they decide to offer.  There is nothing that prevents a cruise line from processing a refund faster.

 

It basically does for cruise lines much of what DOT did for airlines.

[markeb]

There's an earlier post on this topic that hopefully the mods will merge.

 

As npcl says, there's no law covering this. There likely won't be. So you're potentially into the federal regulations process, which heavily allows public and industry comment. You can only nudge the needle so far in that environment, but at least it's a start.

 

And, as a published federal regulation, under the authorities of commission, it largely takes on the rule of law, and would take priority over the cruise contract language.

[Georgia_Peaches]

Interesting.  I guess I wasn't really aware that there wasn't some sort of current regulation.  Appreciate the elaboration @markeb and @npcl.

[Fouremco]

3 hours ago, mnocket said:

3) This would set a standard policy for ALL US cruise line bookings.

I tend to prefer competition.  This would give all cruise lines and easy out - "Don't blame us, our refund policy is established by the government".   Competition drives some companies to do better than others.  I like that.

 

The regulations could establish a reasonable minimum standard, leaving lines free to compete by advertising quicker refunds, higher percentage FCCs, etc.. 

[mchell810]

8 hours ago, mnocket said:

1) When a sailing is canceled or boarding is delayed because of a government order or declaration, refunds must be paid within 180 days of a passenger request. 

This would double, or more,  the time that most cruise lines are "promising".  

 

I find this to be the most troubling.  Cruise lines would have NO incentive to pay until the 180 day mark, but even worse it would make it more difficult to use credit card charge-backs to get refunds (as many have done.)  If I were to dispute a charge because the cruise line took 90 days to refund they can argue they actually have 180 days to do so; thus, the credit card companies are unlikely to get involved until after the 180 days.  Six months is a long time to wait for funds to be returned.