Cruise Bill of Rights and/or Government Regulation

[Hlitner]

This topic will likely cause some controversy but we think it is quite important.  In recent years, cruise lines have increasingly modified itineraries, after folks have made their final payments, or after they have boarded their cruise, with very little explanation.  There are times when this is because of wars, mechanical issues, and weather...all of which are generally beyond the control of the cruise lines.  But lately, there have been so many last minute changes without any viable explanation (cruise lines like to cite "operational reasons").  

 

The cruise lines all have passenger contracts (few ever read the fine print) which essentially give the cruise line something close to unlimited rights while giving their customers few rights.  One could get on a cruise that is supposed to go to Alaska, find themselves cruising in circles near San Francisco, and the cruise line might say "too bad,"  Recently, folks who had booked an Antartica Cruise (these are expensive) on the Norwegian Star learned that there itinerary had been modified with Antarticia eliminated!  Many were not aware of the change until after they had boarded the ship!  The only explanation from NCL has been "operational reasons"  I  could list numerous other examples (Oceania, Seabourn, etc) from our own cruises.  Cruise lines have also been routinely decreasing port times without much explanation.  Keep in mind that by eliminating and/or shortening port times the cruise lines can often save on fuel costs (this is never cited by the cruise lines as a reason for a change).  Not only do the cruise contracts give cruisers very few rights, but they are also written in a way that makes it very difficult to file a civil action (i.e. lawsuit) against any cruise line.  There are a few specialty law firms that handle cruise civil actions, but their success is limited, and it is a very convoluted/complex process.  

 

So now we get to the reason for my post.  Has the time come when cruisers need some kind of protection from cruise lines simply modifying their cruises without leaving the customer/cruiser any reasonable recourse?  Should cruisers be able to cancel (even within penalty periods) and get a complete refund if their itinerary is changed?  Should cruise lines be required to pay any extra expenses incurred by cruisers due to the cruise line making major changes?  Another related issue is about crime committed on ships.  There has been some progress with this issue, but cruise lines apparently will stil do their best to cover-up or minimize onboard crime.  In the USA there has been some progress with the FBI getting involved, but that assistance is quite limited in its scope.  

 

My personal opinion (which we have expressed for over 25 years) is that there should be a voluntary "Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights" that is developed and accepted by all the major cruise lines.  We always think that an industry regulating itself is a better option than activist groups and governments getting involved.  However, if the cruise industry refuses to increase the rights of their customers, perhaps it is time for the various government regulators here in the USA and the EU to implement tougher consumer protection laws!  

 

Am looking forward to hearing the opinions of many cruisers, some of the well-informed CC Mods, etc.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

Interesting concept. I would ask if the cruise lines adapted it, who would enforce it.

 

As for the government passing something along these lines, all I can say is that at the moment they don't seem to be able to pass anything.

[sparks1093]

You mean something along these lines:

The Members of the Cruise Lines International Association are dedicated to the comfort and care of all passengers on oceangoing cruises throughout the world.  To fulfill this commitment, our Members have agreed to adopt the following set of passenger rights:

The right to disembark a docked ship if essential provisions such as food, water, restroom facilities and access to medical care cannot adequately be provided onboard, subject only to the Master’s concern for passenger safety and security and customs and immigration requirements of the port.

The right to a full refund for a trip that is canceled due to mechanical failures, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures.

The right to have available on board ships operating beyond rivers or coastal waters full-time, professional emergency medical attention, as needed until shore side medical care becomes available.

The right to timely information updates as to any adjustments in the itinerary of the ship in the event of a mechanical failure or emergency, as well as timely updates of the status of efforts to address mechanical failures.

The right to a ship crew that is properly trained in emergency and evacuation procedures.

The right to an emergency power source in the case of a main generator failure.

The right to transportation to the ship’s scheduled port of disembarkation or the passenger’s home city in the event a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to lodging if disembarkation and an overnight stay in an unscheduled port are required when a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to have included on each cruise line’s website a toll-free phone line that can be used for questions or information concerning any aspect of shipboard operations.

The right to have this Cruise Line Passenger Bill of Rights published on each line’s website.

 

The pasting removed the number lines but it is still readable so I won't take the time to add them back in. A couple of your items aren't on here, so maybe it's just a matter of having passengers contact the CLIA asking for this Bill of Rights to be modified. 

[cruisemom42]

Oh Hank, you are preaching to the choir (me) on this one. I have brought it up on CC several times in the past, and I agree that what was once a sensible loophole for cruises -- which are affected by some factors that are hard to predict -- has now become taken advantage of by the lines to cover all kinds of situations.

 

I fully understand and support the occasional necessary change of itinerary or port hours based on some of the things you mention. Some of these cannot really be known long in advance, such as weather or a sudden mechanical issue. 

 

But there are times when it has to be known to cruise lines that they will need to modify itineraries (or in fact the modification is already made), and yet they do not communicate this to passengers until after final payment or until passengers are onboard the ship. One example I can give is from my recent Oceania cruise through the Panama Canal. We were scheduled to stop in Acapulco (this was end of December). I was very aware of all the hurricane damage there and knew of other ships with canceled calls there, yet Oceania kept it on the itinerary. I even had word on the roll call from someone who purportedly has close connection with their operational activities who told me it was 'canceled' -- yet it was on the itinerary until after we boarded. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ And to cap it off, they also had Nicaragua on the itinerary. That port has been repeatedly canceled by O in recent months/years due to political issues most are aware of. Needless to say, it was also canceled. So...why leave it on the itinerary?

 

There are other times when it seems cruise lines really do cancel ports for no particularly valid reason. I recall back in 2013, I was on a cruise on the boutique line Voyages to Antiquity in the Med. At the very same time, my parents were on a HAL cruise, also in the Med. We laughed about chasing each other around the sea. We were both scheduled to visit Sousse, Tunisia, one day apart. My ship made our call there. My parents boarded their cruise to find a letter on their bed -- port canceled. There were no weather-related or political issues and their ship appeared to be fine mechanically (no other changed or shortened port times) -- so why??  (This was a couple of years before the tourist attacks in Tunisia.) My parents were really looking forward to a rare port they'd not visited before.

 

What is most disturbing, as the OP already pointed out, is when entire itineraries are changed. Too often there is either no communication in advance or no appropriate offer of compensation or chance to move to a different cruise.

 

To those who mostly cruise the Caribbean or perhaps coastal Mexico, I can understand that this might not be such a big deal. One port is much like another and the focus of the trip is often relaxation, not exploration. But when a cruise promises Antarctica for four days and doesn't deliver, that is really not acceptable. (Or when one books a so-called "Holy Lands" cruise only to have it morph into a significantly cheaper "Greek Islands" cruise with no "Holy Land" ports.) Folks pay hefty fares to get to these out-of-the-way locations. Just dropping that part of the cruise with no compensation is akin to selling a customer the highest-price model of a car and then delivering the lowest, most stripped-down model while shrugging and saying, "Well, it's still the model you ordered. No refund or money back for you!"

 

I've heard it said many times over the years that the UK does have some type of legislation that helps prevent at least the most egregious situations like those described immediately above. As I understand it, cruise lines can't substantively change an itinerary without some regulation kicking in regarding what passengers are owed. One of those involves changing either the port of embarkation or disembarkation. Another one is if a certain percentage of the ports are changed. In those cases, some kind of compensation or option is due the affected passengers.

 

Something like this would at least be a starting point. But increasingly cruises are making it difficult to change or cancel cruises booked well in advance (locking folks into nonrefundable deposits and the like), while not being transparent about changes to itinerary until it is too late to make a change, e.g., after final payment.

 

I have always booked both cruises and land travel, the latter particularly when there are a number of places in close proximity that I want to see. However I admit that as someone newly retired, I had looked forward to doing some of those longer cruises to see some one-off, far-flung places that are less easy/economical to get to on one's own via a land trip.

 

Have to admit, though, that as a solo I'm already paying double freight on most cruises. It certainly would not sit well with me as a solo to book an "Antarctic" cruise that does not sail anywhere near it!  Or a cruise that includes Easter Island, then at the last minute cancels it.

 

Sorry for the long screed. Clearly an issue that hits a button with me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by cruisemom42

[chengkp75]

Yes, it's been a decade (2013) since CLIA voluntarily adopted the Cruise Passengers' Bill of Rights.  This was prompted by Congress, but is voluntary, since US law does not entirely apply to the foreign flag ships that it covers.  As for enforcement, I'm not sure that "port state" consumer protection laws totally apply to foreign flag ships, since each ship is a separate foreign corporation, and the revenue generated is foreign source income.  If it comes to that, the cruise lines could sell the cruises using foreign entities over the internet, and therefore consumer laws would not apply, I believe (not an internet law expert).

 

As an example of how hard it is for the US government to apply laws to the foreign flag ships, just look at the watered down "Cruise Passenger Safety and Security Act" that still does not have a whole lot of jurisdiction for non-US citizens.

 

Do I condone the itinerary changes, and the like, that cruise lines are currently doing?  Nope.  I'm just pointing out the real world difficulties in regulating this industry, any more than the current level of international regulation has affected the number of ships that sink, break up, or are owned by shadow owners to bypass embargos and sanctions.

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

You mean something along these lines:

The Members of the Cruise Lines International Association are dedicated to the comfort and care of all passengers on oceangoing cruises throughout the world.  To fulfill this commitment, our Members have agreed to adopt the following set of passenger rights:

The right to disembark a docked ship if essential provisions such as food, water, restroom facilities and access to medical care cannot adequately be provided onboard, subject only to the Master’s concern for passenger safety and security and customs and immigration requirements of the port.

The right to a full refund for a trip that is canceled due to mechanical failures, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures.

The right to have available on board ships operating beyond rivers or coastal waters full-time, professional emergency medical attention, as needed until shore side medical care becomes available.

The right to timely information updates as to any adjustments in the itinerary of the ship in the event of a mechanical failure or emergency, as well as timely updates of the status of efforts to address mechanical failures.

The right to a ship crew that is properly trained in emergency and evacuation procedures.

The right to an emergency power source in the case of a main generator failure.

The right to transportation to the ship’s scheduled port of disembarkation or the passenger’s home city in the event a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to lodging if disembarkation and an overnight stay in an unscheduled port are required when a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to have included on each cruise line’s website a toll-free phone line that can be used for questions or information concerning any aspect of shipboard operations.

The right to have this Cruise Line Passenger Bill of Rights published on each line’s website.

 

The pasting removed the number lines but it is still readable so I won't take the time to add them back in. A couple of your items aren't on here, so maybe it's just a matter of having passengers contact the CLIA asking for this Bill of Rights to be modified. 

 

Deleted -- I didn't originally realize the origin of this.   

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by ldubs

[sparks1093]

11 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Deleted -- I didn't originally realize the origin of this.   

 

 

 

As Cheng pointed out it has been around but not every cruise line has adopted it. I did not find it posted on Oceania's or Seabourn's front page. 

[ldubs]

Just now, sparks1093 said:

As Cheng pointed out it has been around but not every cruise line has adopted it. I did not find it posted on Oceania's or Seabourn's front page. 

 

It seems very reasonable to me.  Thanks for sharing.   

[ldubs]

32 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, it's been a decade (2013) since CLIA voluntarily adopted the Cruise Passengers' Bill of Rights.  This was prompted by Congress, but is voluntary, since US law does not entirely apply to the foreign flag ships that it covers.  As for enforcement, I'm not sure that "port state" consumer protection laws totally apply to foreign flag ships, since each ship is a separate foreign corporation, and the revenue generated is foreign source income.  If it comes to that, the cruise lines could sell the cruises using foreign entities over the internet, and therefore consumer laws would not apply, I believe (not an internet law expert).

 

 

Aren't there consumer protection laws applicable to passengers from the UK regardless the foreign flag?  If that is the case, it seems as though it isn't an insurmountable issue.  

[ontheweb]

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, it's been a decade (2013) since CLIA voluntarily adopted the Cruise Passengers' Bill of Rights.  This was prompted by Congress, but is voluntary, since US law does not entirely apply to the foreign flag ships that it covers.  As for enforcement, I'm not sure that "port state" consumer protection laws totally apply to foreign flag ships, since each ship is a separate foreign corporation, and the revenue generated is foreign source income.  If it comes to that, the cruise lines could sell the cruises using foreign entities over the internet, and therefore consumer laws would not apply, I believe (not an internet law expert).

 

As an example of how hard it is for the US government to apply laws to the foreign flag ships, just look at the watered down "Cruise Passenger Safety and Security Act" that still does not have a whole lot of jurisdiction for non-US citizens.

 

Do I condone the itinerary changes, and the like, that cruise lines are currently doing?  Nope.  I'm just pointing out the real world difficulties in regulating this industry, any more than the current level of international regulation has affected the number of ships that sink, break up, or are owned by shadow owners to bypass embargos and sanctions.

Is there any enforcement mentioned in Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights adapted in 2013? Has there been any examples of it being enforced?

[njhorseman]

41 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

As Cheng pointed out it has been around but not every cruise line has adopted it. I did not find it posted on Oceania's or Seabourn's front page. 

It doesn't have to be on the front page . All CLIA members have agreed to adopt it.

Oceania: https://www.oceaniacruises.com/legal/bill-of-rights

Seabourn: https://www.seabourn.com/en/us/legal-privacy/passenger-bill-of-rights

Edited February 13 by njhorseman

[Hlitner]

ChengKP75 raises the issue about how to craft a law that can truly impact an international market with ships registered in other lands.  He and I went around the block, a few times, back when cruises needed to bypass Canada (due to Canadian COVID rules) on some Alaskan cruises.  We disagreed when I said it would be a simple matter to alter the enforcement of the PVSA to handle that situation.  Eventually an easy solution was found and the US did allow cruises that clearly violated the PVSA statute.  Having spent much of my working life in government (I do not like to admit this) I understand that there are always ways to craft laws and regulations to deal with issues.

 

In this case, I do believe that the industry should simply clean their own house, be more transparent, and give passengers real rights (not just a CLIA document that is more of a joke than real).  In the USA it would be very easy for the Federal government to force the issue with a simple change to one of several Financial acts that control major credit cards and "charge backs."  Through these rules (and it could be handled by law or regulations) the cruise lines would be forced to deal with compensation (or full refunds) for changes or the same thing could be accomplished by consumers availing themselves of the charge-back rules.  For those who do not understand these provisions, this is where a consumer files a request with their credit card company who effectively enforces the law/regulations with a credit back to one's credit card.  The credit card company ultimately gets their money back from the merchant (in this case the cruise lines).  Charge backs should generally be used as a last resort, but it is certainly the easiest way to give consumers some real options rather than a CLIA statement which is generally meaningless.

 

The EU and UK already have a lot of consumer-friendly laws and I wonder how issues such as the Norwegian Star situation (which I find completely outrageous) would be handled under their rules.  I imagine there are Europeans on that cruise, and they will be seeking some kind of compensation or refund!  

 

There are a lot of recent itinerary changes related to the Middle East situation.  No question, cruise ships have no business going into the Red Sea.  However, it does also seem like some cruise lines have taken advantage of the situation to cancel many other ports not really in the impacted area.  We do not think any organization or law should force cruise lines to go places they do not want to go, but we do think that the cruiser/consumer should have the right to cancel (and be made fully whole) for substantial changes.  

 

We have a current booking, with Seabourn, that was supposed to be from Istanbul to Dubrovnik.  Seabourn changed (substantially) the itinerary making it a round trip cruise from Dubrovnik and eliminated Istanbul and two other Turkey ports.  To Seabourn's credit they disclosed the change and offered booked cruisers a full refund of their deposits (this all happened prior to final payment) and assistance with any lost airfare expenses.   That is a reasonable way to handle an itinerary change!  The decision whether to continue with the booking rests with the customer!

 

Hank

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

it doesn't have to be on the front page .  CLIA members have agreed to adopt it.

Oceania: https://www.oceaniacruises.com/legal/bill-of-rights

Seabourn: https://www.seabourn.com/en/us/legal-privacy/passenger-bill-of-rights

Right and I'm glad they have it. Didn't have the time to dig for it.

[clo]

3 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

You mean something along these lines:

The Members of the Cruise Lines International Association are dedicated to the comfort and care of all passengers on oceangoing cruises throughout the world.  To fulfill this commitment, our Members have agreed to adopt the following set of passenger rights:

The right to disembark a docked ship if essential provisions such as food, water, restroom facilities and access to medical care cannot adequately be provided onboard, subject only to the Master’s concern for passenger safety and security and customs and immigration requirements of the port.

The right to a full refund for a trip that is canceled due to mechanical failures, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures.

The right to have available on board ships operating beyond rivers or coastal waters full-time, professional emergency medical attention, as needed until shore side medical care becomes available.

The right to timely information updates as to any adjustments in the itinerary of the ship in the event of a mechanical failure or emergency, as well as timely updates of the status of efforts to address mechanical failures.

The right to a ship crew that is properly trained in emergency and evacuation procedures.

The right to an emergency power source in the case of a main generator failure.

The right to transportation to the ship’s scheduled port of disembarkation or the passenger’s home city in the event a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to lodging if disembarkation and an overnight stay in an unscheduled port are required when a cruise is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

The right to have included on each cruise line’s website a toll-free phone line that can be used for questions or information concerning any aspect of shipboard operations.

The right to have this Cruise Line Passenger Bill of Rights published on each line’s website.

 

The pasting removed the number lines but it is still readable so I won't take the time to add them back in. A couple of your items aren't on here, so maybe it's just a matter of having passengers contact the CLIA asking for this Bill of Rights to be modified. 

Where is that "WOW" emoji?!?!

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

To Seabourn's credit they disclosed the change and offered booked cruisers a full refund of their deposits (this all happened prior to final payment) and assistance with any lost airfare expenses. 

As a side question are their any cruise line companies who do things like this and have that reputation? I'd be inclined to give them my money. But I realize that for those who spend a large part of the year on cruises that would be quite limiting.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Aren't there consumer protection laws applicable to passengers from the UK regardless the foreign flag?  If that is the case, it seems as though it isn't an insurmountable issue.  

I believe that it has to do with where the cruise is sold, and by this I mean the company that actually receives the money from the passenger, and where that company is incorporated.  If a UK citizen books a cruise through a US website, I don't believe they get the same protections as they would if purchased through a UK entity.  So, the UK's protections don't always apply to UK citizens, as I understand it.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I believe that it has to do with where the cruise is sold, and by this I mean the company that actually receives the money from the passenger, and where that company is incorporated.  If a UK citizen books a cruise through a US website, I don't believe they get the same protections as they would if purchased through a UK entity.  So, the UK's protections don't always apply to UK citizens, as I understand it.

I believe you're right.

From what I've read the price of a cruise booked in the UK is typically higher than the same cruise if booked  in the US. Apparently it's not uncommon for UK citizens to book cruises through North American agents in order to save money.

The explanation for the higher price is that passengers on cruises booked in the UK have additional rights that are not provided to US-booked passengers and the cruise lines factor the additional costs associated with those additional rights into their pricing structure.

[wcook]

First, the political aspect. Self regulation is essentially no regulation. No way they produce anything with teeth. And if by some miracle the US was able to pass anything, it would be super industry friendly. If anything passenger friendly comes about, it’ll be via Europe. 

[wcook]

Second, before we get into hard stuff like compensation for missed ports, we need a fairness in price advertising rule. Lines should be required to show fares with all taxes, port fees and “mandatory” tips/charges. I believe several European counties (the UK?) already require this. 

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I believe that it has to do with where the cruise is sold, and by this I mean the company that actually receives the money from the passenger, and where that company is incorporated.  If a UK citizen books a cruise through a US website, I don't believe they get the same protections as they would if purchased through a UK entity.  So, the UK's protections don't always apply to UK citizens, as I understand it.

 

7 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I believe you're right.

From what I've read the price of a cruise booked in the UK is typically higher than the same cruise if booked  in the US. Apparently it's not uncommon for UK citizens to book cruises through North American agents in order to save money.

The explanation for the higher price is that passengers on cruises booked in the UK have additional rights that are not provided to US-booked passengers and the cruise lines factor the additional costs associated with those additional rights into their pricing structure.

 

Thank you for the explanation.  Now that you have explained it, I better understand the enforcement issues discussed earlier.     

[sparks1093]

10 hours ago, wcook said:

Second, before we get into hard stuff like compensation for missed ports, we need a fairness in price advertising rule. Lines should be required to show fares with all taxes, port fees and “mandatory” tips/charges. I believe several European counties (the UK?) already require this. 

It would be nice to see that applied to the entire travel industry, but after the first time exploring any trip it quickly becomes apparent that what is advertised is often far from what one pays. Some we were looking at a trip to Ireland with some friends through a website and the price was very attractive, until you got to the bottom line when it more than doubled. I doubt there are many people that look at the advertised price and book blindly from it without doing any research.

[John Bull]

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I believe that it has to do with where the cruise is sold, and by this I mean the company that actually receives the money from the passenger, and where that company is incorporated.  If a UK citizen books a cruise through a US website, I don't believe they get the same protections as they would if purchased through a UK entity.  So, the UK's protections don't always apply to UK citizens, as I understand it.

 

 

Yes, a point that I've brought up many times on CC when comparing the price of  a cruise bought in North America against buying it in the UK, the EU,  Aus and probably elsewhere.

 

I'm wary about disagreeing with knowledgeable members like @chengkp75 but I don't believe that where a ship is flagged is relevant, it's where the purchase is made.

 

One reason for higher prices for bookings outside the US is that  Brits & others booking in their own country have much greater protection from the stricter consumer laws of those countries,

By booking thro a US agent a Brit loses that enhanced protection - comparison of the terms & conditions on US and UK websites is quite revealing.
 

Matters such as weather conditions, industrial action in the ports, and civil unrest are beyond the control of the cruise lines, but changes of itinerary for "operational reasons" or mechanical failure are within their control and therefore their responsibility under UK law.  On a cruise which we booked in the UK, when we missed an important Red Sea port-of-call due to a faulty dynamo the cruise line didn't admit liability & offered rather meagre compensation but we stuck out for a more realistic figure. The Cyprus-based cruise line said they'd fight the claim in the Cypriot courts but when told that the claimant had the right to sue in the court of their own country they paid-up. (Yes, we have better legal protection but -  like all businesses - cruise lines try to wiggle out of their responsibilities 🙄).

 

JB 🙂

[d9704011]

20 minutes ago, John Bull said:

Yes, a point that I've brought up many times on CC when comparing the price of  a cruise bought in North America against buying it in the UK, the EU,  Aus and probably elsewhere.

Recently, the difference in Terms and Conditions of purchasing goods and services 'offshore' has become a little more evident to me.  I have been looking for flights to Australia from Canada and, naturally, Qantas is one airline I'm considering.  When choosing potential flights, I am asked whether I want to book under Qantas (Australia) Ts & Cs or those of Qantas (Canada).  The total fares are somewhat different.  Of course, I don't appreciate the differences being offered and, I think, it would take an appreciable amount of effort/experience to understand the potential impact(s) of my choice.  So, being an informed consumer can be a tricky business and pricing can be somewhat of a less than ideal criterion for making choices.  Regulating travel through industry initiative(s) is not something I foresee happening given different government (nationalities) expectations.

Edited February 14 by d9704011

[GeezerCouple]

I have a REAL concern about one aspect of the "cruise changed" issue.

 

There are other types of issues that are still very unpleasant in a variety of ways for the passengers/would-be passengers, as discussed above and in lots of other posts here on CC (and elsewhere, too).

 

However, I completely understand that "things happen".  There can be weather or a critically ill passenger, or civil unrest... that really necessitate a change in schedule or ports, etc.  It's unfortunate, no question.  And that's one reason for the recommendation that if there is a destination that one REALLY "must" visit, don't plan to do it via a cruise... or be prepared to make another trip.

 

The thing that I find totally and truly reprehensible?

When a cruise line has made a change, especially with respect to schedules or entire changes to a port of call, BEFORE penalty dates and the cruise line does not disclose it in a timely fashion.   

They don't need to wait for a "replacement" or whatever.  Once they know that an advertised port is NOT going to be visited, regardless of the reason, there is no excuse for the cruiseline not to tell passengers and to adjust the schedule on their website (and any other place where they have control).  That includes *timely* (e.g., "prompt") notification of ALL passengers and travel agents, etc.

[Yes, I realize that there are times when there was not enough advance time to give such notice/etc., before penalties. I 'm *not* referring to those situations.]

 

Waiting until after final payment/when no refunds are allowed (or even significant payments if not "full" payment) to notify passengers of a change when the cruise line has known about it for some time...?  It's not okay, and waiting until there is the maximum possible penalty for passengers?  NOT OKAY.  This becomes willful and in my mind, dishonest.

I'm not going to get into exactly how much time a cruiseline should have when they find out about something like this within a relatively short time prior to a payment deadline, be it an intermediate or final deadline.  There's obviously some "time" needed to deal with such a change.

 

I'm referring to times when the cruiseline KNEW of itinerary changes or cancellations well in advance and made other plans (or knew they would need to be made), BUT THEY DID NOT TELL PASSENGERS OR CHANGE THE PUBLISHED ITINERARY UNTIL LATER... such as when there would be *more* of a penalty to change or cancel their reservations.

 

IF there is some valid excuse to do that?  I'm listening.

But at least some of the time, there was NOT any known reason that the cruiseline couldn't have provided notifications sooner, when they already were making - or already had made - other plans, and when passengers would have had *less* of a penalty if they chose to cancel due to the change... but they were left uninformed...

Apparently in some cases, this delay could have been quite long.

(And meanwhile, others - but not passengers - knew of the changes, such as people in the cancelled/changed port.)

 

GC

 

[clo]

6 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

I have a REAL concern about one aspect of the "cruise changed" issue.

 

There are other types of issues that are still very unpleasant in a variety of ways for the passengers/would-be passengers, as discussed above and in lots of other posts here on CC (and elsewhere, too).

 

However, I completely understand that "things happen".  There can be weather or a critically ill passenger, or civil unrest... that really necessitate a change in schedule or ports, etc.  It's unfortunate, no question.  And that's one reason for the recommendation that if there is a destination that one REALLY "must" visit, don't plan to do it via a cruise... or be prepared to make another trip.

 

The thing that I find totally and truly reprehensible?

When a cruise line has made a change, especially with respect to schedules or entire changes to a port of call, BEFORE penalty dates and the cruise line does not disclose it in a timely fashion.   

They don't need to wait for a "replacement" or whatever.  Once they know that an advertised port is NOT going to be visited, regardless of the reason, there is no excuse for the cruiseline not to tell passengers and to adjust the schedule on their website (and any other place where they have control).  That includes *timely* (e.g., "prompt") notification of ALL passengers and travel agents, etc.

[Yes, I realize that there are times when there was not enough advance time to give such notice/etc., before penalties. I 'm *not* referring to those situations.]

 

Waiting until after final payment/when no refunds are allowed (or even significant payments if not "full" payment) to notify passengers of a change when the cruise line has known about it for some time...?  It's not okay, and waiting until there is the maximum possible penalty for passengers?  NOT OKAY.  This becomes willful and in my mind, dishonest.

I'm not going to get into exactly how much time a cruiseline should have when they find out about something like this within a relatively short time prior to a payment deadline, be it an intermediate or final deadline.  There's obviously some "time" needed to deal with such a change.

 

I'm referring to times when the cruiseline KNEW of itinerary changes or cancellations well in advance and made other plans (or knew they would need to be made), BUT THEY DID NOT TELL PASSENGERS OR CHANGE THE PUBLISHED ITINERARY UNTIL LATER... such as when there would be *more* of a penalty to change or cancel their reservations.

 

IF there is some valid excuse to do that?  I'm listening.

But at least some of the time, there was NOT any known reason that the cruiseline couldn't have provided notifications sooner, when they already were making - or already had made - other plans, and when passengers would have had *less* of a penalty if they chose to cancel due to the change... but they were left uninformed...

Apparently in some cases, this delay could have been quite long.

(And meanwhile, others - but not passengers - knew of the changes, such as people in the cancelled/changed port.)

 

GC

 

You nailed it, you geezer.

[sparks1093]

8 hours ago, GeezerCouple said:

I have a REAL concern about one aspect of the "cruise changed" issue.

 

There are other types of issues that are still very unpleasant in a variety of ways for the passengers/would-be passengers, as discussed above and in lots of other posts here on CC (and elsewhere, too).

 

However, I completely understand that "things happen".  There can be weather or a critically ill passenger, or civil unrest... that really necessitate a change in schedule or ports, etc.  It's unfortunate, no question.  And that's one reason for the recommendation that if there is a destination that one REALLY "must" visit, don't plan to do it via a cruise... or be prepared to make another trip.

 

The thing that I find totally and truly reprehensible?

When a cruise line has made a change, especially with respect to schedules or entire changes to a port of call, BEFORE penalty dates and the cruise line does not disclose it in a timely fashion.   

They don't need to wait for a "replacement" or whatever.  Once they know that an advertised port is NOT going to be visited, regardless of the reason, there is no excuse for the cruiseline not to tell passengers and to adjust the schedule on their website (and any other place where they have control).  That includes *timely* (e.g., "prompt") notification of ALL passengers and travel agents, etc.

[Yes, I realize that there are times when there was not enough advance time to give such notice/etc., before penalties. I 'm *not* referring to those situations.]

 

Waiting until after final payment/when no refunds are allowed (or even significant payments if not "full" payment) to notify passengers of a change when the cruise line has known about it for some time...?  It's not okay, and waiting until there is the maximum possible penalty for passengers?  NOT OKAY.  This becomes willful and in my mind, dishonest.

I'm not going to get into exactly how much time a cruiseline should have when they find out about something like this within a relatively short time prior to a payment deadline, be it an intermediate or final deadline.  There's obviously some "time" needed to deal with such a change.

 

I'm referring to times when the cruiseline KNEW of itinerary changes or cancellations well in advance and made other plans (or knew they would need to be made), BUT THEY DID NOT TELL PASSENGERS OR CHANGE THE PUBLISHED ITINERARY UNTIL LATER... such as when there would be *more* of a penalty to change or cancel their reservations.

 

IF there is some valid excuse to do that?  I'm listening.

But at least some of the time, there was NOT any known reason that the cruiseline couldn't have provided notifications sooner, when they already were making - or already had made - other plans, and when passengers would have had *less* of a penalty if they chose to cancel due to the change... but they were left uninformed...

Apparently in some cases, this delay could have been quite long.

(And meanwhile, others - but not passengers - knew of the changes, such as people in the cancelled/changed port.)

 

GC

 

If a cruise line routinely does those things then why continue to sail with them? Vote with your dollars and cruise with another line.