Cruise Bill of Rights and/or Government Regulation

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, *Miss G* said:

 

In our case, we wanted to experience a river cruise.  I’ve been on a bus!  😂

I can understand that, but better than nothing we got when our ship was chartered.

 

We were once on a gate1 escorted tour, and on our 40th anniversary we were on a bus from Vienna to Prague. One of our fellow passengers said to us at a rest/lunch stop what a terrible way to celebrate your anniversary. And our reply was no it was good to wake up Vienna and end up in Prague. (And we did not even know at that point that a small bottle of champagne would be waiting for us in our hotel room in Prague.)

[ontheweb]

41 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I guess it would depend on who was in the wrong.  I can't remember the details.   Though, if I understand, the credit card company gives the vendor an opportunity to respond with their side of things.    

IIRC, that was happening when passengers did not think they were getting their refunds quick enough after all the Covid cancellations in 2020.

[clo]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

I guess it would depend on who was in the wrong.  I can't remember the details.   Though, if I understand, the So card company gives the vendor an opportunity to respond with their side of things.    

Sorry. My point was that the cruise line banning them was extreme. But we don't have any idea of what led to that.

[clo]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

Yeah, I think I reached a little on that one.  I agree with you.  

That's what I love about you. PS: We lived in SF a long time.

[ilikeanswers]

9 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, a bus tour would have been disappointing, but at least we would have got to see the ports, ports that we wanted to experience.

 

But you could have seen those ports with an actual bus tour company that would have cost a fraction of a luxury river cruise. The issue is the comparable value. Scenic the company runs bus tours as well but despite being premium tours none of their bus tours cost anywhere near what their river cruises cost. Those passengers might have enjoyed a bus tour if it didn't cost them the premium price of a river cruise. They didn't just pay to see the sights, they paid for a particular experience that cost extra so springing a surprise bus tour was not appropriate in this circumstance. 

[Joebucks]

19 hours ago, clo said:

I just wonder if, going forward, if more people will use credit card disputes.

 

A dispute is for paying for a cruise and not getting a cruise. Good luck getting your cruise refunded because your port schedule had to be changed. Like do you honestly expect a full refund?

 

This whole thread has a lot of nonsense in it. While I understand wanting balance, understand, there are pros and cons to EVERYTHING. The cruise companies were already on thin ice. What happens when another pandemic or whatnot hits? Do they bankrupt themselves because of the inconveniences of spoiled cruisers? Do you think IF these kinds of changes were implemented, it would carry no negative side effects? Are you all really that taken advantage of?

 

I mean honestly, how many of all of your cruising days were that messed up? More often than not, they also provide a credit or whatnot, when they don't have to. In my last 10 cruises, there was one time I didn't go to a port. Clearly the water was bad. They gave us all an OBC. What else do you want? I see no evidence of things being changed all willy nilly, that is ruining my vacation. Just because the Antarctica story came out, now people need something to get outraged at. 

[cruisemom42]

17 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

The issue is the comparable value.

 

Those passengers might have enjoyed a bus tour if it didn't cost them the premium price of a river cruise. They didn't just pay to see the sights, they paid for a particular experience that cost extra so springing a surprise bus tour was not appropriate in this circumstance. 

 

This is a point most people are ignoring.

 

How is it no one would willingly put up with getting a used Kia when they paid for a BMW, but are unable to understand why someone who pays for an Antarctica cruise (or a river cruise) is unhappy when provided with a South America cruise (or a bus tour) instead?

 

 

[cruisemom42]

Looks like the Antarctica story made Fodor's travel newsletter this week:

 

https://www.fodors.com/news/cruises/norwegian-star-cruise-drops-antarctica-from-itinerary-during-sailing

 

(Not much included that hasn't already been covered via other sources.)

[ontheweb]

22 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

This is a point most people are ignoring.

 

How is it no one would willingly put up with getting a used Kia when they paid for a BMW, but are unable to understand why someone who pays for an Antarctica cruise (or a river cruise) is unhappy when provided with a South America cruise (or a bus tour) instead?

 

 

We have a river cruise booked in a little over a month from now. And yes, we would be disappointed if it becomes a bus tour for any part because the waters are either too high or too low. But, as I wrote in a previous post, it would still be better than the other river cruise that we booked 20 or so years ago that was chartered out from under us after final payment. And what pray tell would you have a river cruise line do if the waters are not navigable?

 

Would I expect some compensation? I have a feeling we would get at most some sort of future cruise credit. That could be worthwhile, or it could be totally worthless. And if they put a time frame on it, it becomes more likely to become worthless.

[clo]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

This is a point most people are ignoring.

 

How is it no one would willingly put up with getting a used Kia when they paid for a BMW, but are unable to understand why someone who pays for an Antarctica cruise (or a river cruise) is unhappy when provided with a South America cruise (or a bus tour) instead?

 

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

[clo]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

A dispute is for paying for a cruise and not getting a cruise. Good luck getting your cruise refunded because your port schedule had to be changed. Like do you honestly expect a full refund?

 

This whole thread has a lot of nonsense in it. While I understand wanting balance, understand, there are pros and cons to EVERYTHING. The cruise companies were already on thin ice. What happens when another pandemic or whatnot hits? Do they bankrupt themselves because of the inconveniences of spoiled cruisers? Do you think IF these kinds of changes were implemented, it would carry no negative side effects? Are you all really that taken advantage of?

 

I mean honestly, how many of all of your cruising days were that messed up? More often than not, they also provide a credit or whatnot, when they don't have to. In my last 10 cruises, there was one time I didn't go to a port. Clearly the water was bad. They gave us all an OBC. What else do you want? I see no evidence of things being changed all willy nilly, that is ruining my vacation. Just because the Antarctica story came out, now people need something to get outraged at. 

Please give reputable and verifiable citations to support your claim. I guess this is what you think/feel/believe.

[sparks1093]

14 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

This is a point most people are ignoring.

 

How is it no one would willingly put up with getting a used Kia when they paid for a BMW, but are unable to understand why someone who pays for an Antarctica cruise (or a river cruise) is unhappy when provided with a South America cruise (or a bus tour) instead?

I fully understand why people would be unhappy about the Antarctica thing, but what would you expect me to do? I wasn't affected at all by it since I wasn't a passenger. As for having a bus tour instead of a river cruise, I get that, too but at least in those cases it happens only when nature interferes (and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that scenario isn't mentioned somewhere in all of the fine print). I haven't sailed NCL in years and am not really interested in river cruising so I can't even boycott the companies in question out of solidarity with those that were affected. Do I use these instances to insist on more government regulations? Um, no, not really. As pointed out that is a beast that is hard to control and hard to give any real teeth to the regulations/law. 

 

ETA- Since I had a few extra minutes I read through Viking's Passenger Ticket Contract. Summary- we might have to provide alternative transportation and lodging because of water conditions. Our obligation to the passenger if this happens- nothing. I am not a lawyer and that is only from a quick read so there may be something that I missed.

Edited February 18 by sparks1093

[navybankerteacher]

Perhaps the greatest annoyance about shifting from river boat to bus is the necessity to unpack and repack at each stop - just  seeing the same towns does not come anywhere near replacing the itinerary.

[ontheweb]

Just now, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps the greatest annoyance about shifting from river boat to bus is the necessity to unpack and repack at each stop - just  seeing the same towns does not come anywhere near replacing the itinerary.

Yes, but no one has answered what they are supposed to do if the water level is too high or too low for them to navigate the river. 

[Joebucks]

16 hours ago, clo said:

Please give reputable and verifiable citations to support your claim. I guess this is what you think/feel/believe.

 

What part of that needs a source?

[ilikeanswers]

37 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, but no one has answered what they are supposed to do if the water level is too high or too low for them to navigate the river. 

 

IMO they should offer the bus tour not force it on passengers but also refund the difference in price and those who do not want the bus tour full refund and let people instead use the money towards a trip they actually want. 

Edited February 18 by ilikeanswers

[navybankerteacher]

18 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

IMO they should offer the bus tour not force it on passengers but also refund the difference in price and those who do not want the bus tour full refund and let people instead use the money towards a trip they actually want. 

Of course — they should make a real effort to make their customers whole by refunding, in full or in part.  Their ability to sell the river cruises in the first place depends upon their presumed superior knowledge of what is involved in a river cruise.

 

A premium hotel could not get away with offering someone who booked a balcony suite just a room on an air shaft without a rate reduction or full refund.

[cruisemom42]

4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I fully understand why people would be unhappy about the Antarctica thing, but what would you expect me to do?

 

Thanks -- you ask a very practical question, and I appreciate that. 

 

The truth is that I'm not sure how much any of us can do individually, but it would be a start if there was more support for those passengers who ARE impacted by significant changes without appropriate compensation. It's not helpful when people come here looking for some guidance or help and only get blanket statements of "well, it's in the contract" -- which aren't helpful or supportive. And assuming the cruise lines do keep something of a handle on public opinion (which they do, even if they don't read every single post on CC or FB), it would help if they realize these situations can influence public perceptions of cruising -- and possibly potential future cruise bookings. (Now THAT would be impact! 😆)

 

As long as we keep giving the lines a pass for these behaviors, they will keep behaving in the same way and -- as the saying goes -- if you give them an inch, they'll likely take a mile. 

 

Recently the parent company that owns NCL and Oceania seems to be among the worst offenders in terms of ocean cruises. There is a very long, convoluted thread here about how Oceania's shameful treatment of passengers booked on a cruise that transited the Suez canal and Red Sea, for example. (They didn't change their opportunity despite potential risks, then compounded that by first offering passengers the opportunity to change their bookings and then shortly after denying those same passengers the opportunity that was extended...)

 

The problem is that two months later, people don't remember. We are a society with a collective fifteen-minute memory. For those of us who have a long history on these boards and who have heard some of these things before, it is important that we add perspective and possibly help others who are navigating (pun intended) these difficult situations, perhaps reminding them that there are ways to get the cruise lines' attention such as going to a consumer advocate or contesting the charge via their credit card company. Not chastising them for not reading their contracts.

 

As I said at the outset, I fully understand that "ship happens" and that there needs to be some latitude for last-minute changes to the itinerary that could not be foreseen.

 

However, I also think that, at a minimum:

 

-- Known itinerary changes should be communicated as soon as they are made; and

 

-- When an itinerary changes are so significant that the description used to sell it is no longer valid (e.g., an entire region is dropped; a Western Med cruise becomes a Greek Isles cruise), passengers should have a right to either cancel for a refund or rebook at a later date with no penalty..

 

(P.S. Shamefully, some people who contested the Oceania cruise in the post I cite above were banned from sailing with NCL ever again. Probably no great loss to those in the situation, but it seems pretty draconian.)

 

[cruisemom42]

35 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

(They didn't change their opportunity despite potential risks,

 

ugh, sorry. I meant didn't change their ITINERARY.

 

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Thanks -- you ask a very practical question, and I appreciate that. 

 

The truth is that I'm not sure how much any of us can do individually, but it would be a start if there was more support for those passengers who ARE impacted by significant changes without appropriate compensation. It's not helpful when people come here looking for some guidance or help and only get blanket statements of "well, it's in the contract" -- which aren't helpful or supportive. And assuming the cruise lines do keep something of a handle on public opinion (which they do, even if they don't read every single post on CC or FB), it would help if they realize these situations can influence public perceptions of cruising -- and possibly potential future cruise bookings. (Now THAT would be impact! 😆)

 

As long as we keep giving the lines a pass for these behaviors, they will keep behaving in the same way and -- as the saying goes -- if you give them an inch, they'll likely take a mile. 

 

Recently the parent company that owns NCL and Oceania seems to be among the worst offenders in terms of ocean cruises. There is a very long, convoluted thread here about how Oceania's shameful treatment of passengers booked on a cruise that transited the Suez canal and Red Sea, for example. (They didn't change their opportunity despite potential risks, then compounded that by first offering passengers the opportunity to change their bookings and then shortly after denying those same passengers the opportunity that was extended...)

 

The problem is that two months later, people don't remember. We are a society with a collective fifteen-minute memory. For those of us who have a long history on these boards and who have heard some of these things before, it is important that we add perspective and possibly help others who are navigating (pun intended) these difficult situations, perhaps reminding them that there are ways to get the cruise lines' attention such as going to a consumer advocate or contesting the charge via their credit card company. Not chastising them for not reading their contracts.

 

As I said at the outset, I fully understand that "ship happens" and that there needs to be some latitude for last-minute changes to the itinerary that could not be foreseen.

 

However, I also think that, at a minimum:

 

-- Known itinerary changes should be communicated as soon as they are made; and

 

-- When an itinerary changes are so significant that the description used to sell it is no longer valid (e.g., an entire region is dropped; a Western Med cruise becomes a Greek Isles cruise), passengers should have a right to either cancel for a refund or rebook at a later date with no penalty..

 

(P.S. Shamefully, some people who contested the Oceania cruise in the post I cite above were banned from sailing with NCL ever again. Probably no great loss to those in the situation, but it seems pretty draconian.)

 

All well and good, but both of us having been on these forums a long time (you even about a year longer than me) have seen people wanting refunds or at least some form of compensation for things that are ridiculous. How many posts have you seen over the years that complained about a missed port and wanted a full refund when the reason was a hurricane? When it is pointed out that there could be nothing more dangerous than docking in a port with a hurricane, they respond that they do not care that's what they booked. There was a recent thread on the NCL board with multiple complaints starting with the weather was bad the whole cruise and that was NCL's fault.

[cruisemom42]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

All well and good, but both of us having been on these forums a long time (you even about a year longer than me) have seen people wanting refunds or at least some form of compensation for things that are ridiculous. How many posts have you seen over the years that complained about a missed port and wanted a full refund when the reason was a hurricane? When it is pointed out that there could be nothing more dangerous than docking in a port with a hurricane, they respond that they do not care that's what they booked. There was a recent thread on the NCL board with multiple complaints starting with the weather was bad the whole cruise and that was NCL's fault.

 

That's a red herring argument. Those aren't the situations I'm talking about here.

 

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

That's a red herring argument. Those aren't the situations I'm talking about here.

 

Yes, I realize that, but all I am trying to say is that there are people whose complaints are not only not valid, but ridiculous. 

 

Oh, and in that same thread I wrote about, they were also more than peeved that NCL did not immediately have a table for 14 ready for them whenever they went to eat. The demands that some have are way above ridiculous. 

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, I realize that, but all I am trying to say is that there are people whose complaints are not only not valid, but ridiculous. 

 

Oh, and in that same thread I wrote about, they were also more than peeved that NCL did not immediately have a table for 14 ready for them whenever they went to eat. The demands that some have are way above ridiculous. 

 

Sure. But just because someone has a ridiculous complaint doesn't mean that other complaints aren't valid.

 

Maybe us long-time posters should be the ones helping to make it clear that some issues/complaints are indeed valid ones.

 

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Sure. But just because someone has a ridiculous complaint doesn't mean that other complaints aren't valid.

 

Maybe us long-time posters should be the ones helping to make it clear that some issues/complaints are indeed valid ones.

 

Fine, as long as we can also say that some are truly frivolous.

 

Some of this discussion started when I posted that we had a river cruise chartered out from under us after final payment, and I thought at least getting to the ports by bus was a better alternative than that.

[cruisemom42]

18 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Fine, as long as we can also say that some are truly frivolous.

 

Of course. I've said that since the very beginning, not sure why you keep calling it out.

 

For example:

 

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

As I said at the outset, I fully understand that "ship happens" and that there needs to be some latitude for last-minute changes to the itinerary that could not be foreseen.