Viking: changing from a couple to a single, and how the single supplement applies

[Cienfuegos]

NJ.com Business reporter Karin Price Mueller describes a difficulty faced by a 79 year old man when he attempted to use his cruise vouchers on Viking, and ran into the single supplement.

 

Richard Anderson and his partner booked and paid for a Viking cruise to Egypt, with a side trip to Jordan. First class air. $26,000.  That trip was cancelled during the Covid outbreak.

 

Two years later, the partner is unable to travel, Anderson decides to go solo.Although the partner received a refund,  Viking slaps Anderson with the $10,000 single surcharge. The article goes into some detail about the vouchers, and Viking's policy of settling public complaints but requiring non-disclosure agreements. Based on Price's and Anderson's experience with Viking, it doesn't seem the company is particularly forthcoming about its policies.  Anderson was eventually offered vouchers worth twice the amount in dispute, but has asked for a clear statement of policy.

 

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/08/man-finally-takes-fully-paid-viking-cruise-canceled-by-covid-company-asks-for-10k-more.html

[Twitchly]

I’m a bit confused. It looks like the man’s travel partner had to cancel and got a voucher after canceling, and when the man decided to take the cruise without her he was charged an additional $10K to travel solo. That sounds like normal Viking procedure. 
 

What am I missing? 

[Heidi13]

I can't read the article, as I use ad blockers.

 

Based on the OP, it sounds like the cruise was cancelled by Viking, so the pax will have been provided the offer of vouchers (110% or 125%), or cash back. Looks like they accepted the vouchers.

 

After 2-years, one of them is unable to travel, so used the option available with the initial vouchers of getting the original cash back. He then booked the cruise as a single pax.

 

As is standard practice throughout almost the entire industry, cruise fares are based on double occupancy. With taking the cash for his partner's vouchers, he should have expected to pay the single supplement, as is charged to other single pax.

 

Why should he expect to be treated any differently?

 

For those of us that have cancelled the 22/23 World Cruise, due to health issues of either the husband or wife, using this chap's logic, we should have taken the refund for 1 pax, then made Viking let us travel as singles with no supplement.

[Twitchly]

The reporter of this piece starts out with:

 

“If you plan a trip with another person — a spouse, a companion, a friend — and if your travel partner has to cancel, you could be stuck with thousands of dollars in extra charges.

 

“We don’t mean losing the money paid for the person who can’t take the trip.

We mean extra charges, just for traveling as a single.”

And then she goes on to paint Mr. Anderson as a victim of Viking’s rapaciousness for charging a single supplement, something common in the cruise industry.
 

After Viking offers him additional vouchers, Mr. Anderson decides that’s proof Viking is corrupt: “I believe the fact Viking is willing to give me vouchers worth twice the value of my requested cash refund indicates they recognize that they have done something wrong.”

 

Damned if you do …

 

To be clear, I’m not a big fan of the business side of Viking for a variety of reasons. But this article is just irresponsible (and ignorant) journalism, trying to create outrage and cast themselves as Fighters for Justice Against Evil where none exists. Meh.

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Twitchly

[TayanaLorna]

I thought when Viking cancels a cruise a person has "x" amount of time to either take a cash refund or a voucher for the cruise fare plus whatever bump up % is offered.  Once the voucher is taken, the option to take cash at a future date is off the table.  Perhaps there have been different offers that i do not know about.   If my understanding is correct, getting a cash refund years later was a good deal and both people could have taken it.

 

However taking a refund for one person's fare and expecting to go on the cruise for half of the double stateroom occupancy is pretty cheeky.  It is common knowledge that cruise lines charge a single supplement.  Although some lines are advertising single occupancy cabins, most cruise line cabins are double occupancy.

 

Apparently this journalist thinks the cash refund vs voucher policy and what happens if one person takes a refund and the other takes a voucher, should be specifically outlined in the Terms & Conditions or Passenger Ticket Contract.  

 

[Cienfuegos]

Good observations.

 

Re-reading the original article, it seems that Mr Anderson and Ms Price Mueller have differing perspectives.  Indeed, Mr Anderson seems to feel his original reservation as a couple, years ago, should be honored by half. Allowing him to travel at half the new couples' fare. Given his history of cruise travel, I don't see this as reasonable. Cruise lines don't and haven't ever worked that way.

 

It seems to me Ms Price Mueller sees this kerfuffle as a failure by Viking to clearly and directly communicate its position. Any of the several comments above seem to express Viking's position better than Viking is represented as doing.  Long periods of radio silence from Viking isn't good customer service. Say what you have to say ("Your 2020 reservation was cancelled long ago, we paid you a voucher. Your 2022 reservation is a brand new one, and has nothing to do with that old one. You are traveling as a single, and will be charged as such.")

[Peregrina651]

 

 

When they suspended operations because of Covid and cancelled 18 months worth of sailings, Viking gave guests their money back (either in cash or in the form of a voucher, guests' preference). When a guest agreed to vouchers instead of cash, they did not give a voucher for a cabin on another sailing of the same itinerary;  they gave a dollar amount (equal to 125% of what the guest had paid) to use to book a future.  You got back the cash you had put down; if you had only paid a deposit, that is what you got back. That is all that Viking is obliged to do under law.

 

Viking only promised that we would be able to use that voucher to pay for a future cruise. They did not promise that we would be able to book exactly what had been cancelled at exactly the same price.  People just assumed that was what the voucher meant -- and you can't blame Viking for people's ignorance or their desire to believe that what they think it should be is the way it is.

 

 

12 hours ago, Cienfuegos said:

it doesn't seem the company is particularly forthcoming about its policies.

 

Viking is rarely forthcoming about its policies-- but they are all spelled out in the Terms and Conditions. And, they are clear about their pricing and it is based on double occupancy.  The guy booked as a single and he was charged the single rate. If the guy thought it would be different because he had a voucher, then he totally misunderstood what the voucher would get him. Still, he went ahead and booked the cruise.

 

45 minutes ago, Cienfuegos said:

Long periods of radio silence from Viking isn't good customer service.

 

Viking has made it clear that it is not going to discuss policies in public forums. I don't blame any company for not wanting to engage in any discussion in the "court of public opinion." No good can come of it.

 

2 hours ago, Twitchly said:

After Viking offers him additional vouchers, Mr. Anderson decides that’s proof Viking is corrupt: “I believe the fact Viking is willing to give me vouchers worth twice the value of my requested cash refund indicates they recognize that they have done something wrong.”

 

That is a load of hooey. They paid him off because it is cheaper than going to trial -- and they gave him more than he asked for because it makes them look good. On the other hand, they paid him in vouchers, which he agreed to, which he is going to have to use in order to get any benefit. 

 

I'm sorry Viking him paid him anything.

 

[Cienfuegos]

18 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

 

snip

 

 

Viking has made it clear that it is not going to discuss policies in public forums. I don't blame any company for not wanting to engage in any discussion in the "court of public opinion." No good can come of it.

 

snip

 

The discussion wasn't happening in a public forum. It was a prolonged private exchange between Viking and its customer.  Bringing NJ.com and its business columnist into the exchange seemed to speed up the replies from Viking's end.

 

Look, I'm not defending Mr Anderson. I think he's out and out wrong. But, had Viking been clear and definitive in its initial exchange, as I suggested above, that may have ended the process.  Dragging out a dispute like this with "long periods of radio silence" doesn't serve any useful purpose.

 

[PasadenaDave]

While I have compassion for someone who planned to go on a cruise with a partner and when the partner backed out, they then were subject to the single supplement.  As another poster mentioned, that is how the system works.

 

I did not read the article, however if he received a 125% voucher, that would somewhat offset the single supplement.

 

Many people today, too many in my opinion have a sense of entitlement and a skewed sense of fairness.  I seem to hear this more from young people rather than the Viking Crowd, but then again I have had my comments deleted from the site that should not be mentioned.

 

The good life is expensive and many including my wife and I are thrifty in other areas so that we can enjoy things such as international travel including Viking and other cruise line offerings.  This includes using airline miles to stay in the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec City before a cruise next month!  I have always wanted to stay there and after my wife read the Louise Penny books, she is also looking forward to it.

[TayanaLorna]

On 8/10/2022 at 5:02 PM, Peregrina651 said:

 

 

When they suspended operations because of Covid and cancelled 18 months worth of sailings, Viking gave guests their money back (either in cash or in the form of a voucher, guests' preference). When a guest agreed to vouchers instead of cash, they did not give a voucher for a cabin on another sailing of the same itinerary;  they gave a dollar amount (equal to 125% of what the guest had paid) to use to book a future.  You got back the cash you had put down; if you had only paid a deposit, that is what you got back. That is all that Viking is obliged to do under law.

 

Viking only promised that we would be able to use that voucher to pay for a future cruise. They did not promise that we would be able to book exactly what had been cancelled at exactly the same price.  People just assumed that was what the voucher meant -- and you can't blame Viking for people's ignorance or their desire to believe that what they think it should be is the way it is.

 

 

 

Viking is rarely forthcoming about its policies-- but they are all spelled out in the Terms and Conditions. And, they are clear about their pricing and it is based on double occupancy.  The guy booked as a single and he was charged the single rate. If the guy thought it would be different because he had a voucher, then he totally misunderstood what the voucher would get him. Still, he went ahead and booked the cruise.

 

 

Viking has made it clear that it is not going to discuss policies in public forums. I don't blame any company for not wanting to engage in any discussion in the "court of public opinion." No good can come of it.

 

 

That is a load of hooey. They paid him off because it is cheaper than going to trial -- and they gave him more than he asked for because it makes them look good. On the other hand, they paid him in vouchers, which he agreed to, which he is going to have to use in order to get any benefit. 

 

I'm sorry Viking him paid him anything.

 

Good breakdown of article with commentary.  I agree exactly.

 

Terms & Conditions also address lots of other things that Viking can do - fuel surcharge, change ports, cancel ports, boot people off the boat if they bring illegal substances, fire arms, smoke in their cabin, determine quarantine for Covid and other contagious diseases - and all are with no compensation unless specifically addressed in the Passenger Ticket Contract.  How many times we read how people expect compensation for a missed port, delayed arrival etc.  Any compensation is a gift not a right.