Cruise Bill of Rights and/or Government Regulation

[sparks1093]

4 hours 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.)

 

I'm actually not surprised that NCL and Oceania have that kind of record. Based on his comments when he took over NCL Del Rio struck me as someone more concerned with what what the guest could do for him than the other way round.

[clo]

5 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

What part of that needs a source?

Well, I have the impression that you were just giving your opinion all the way through that. And FWIW some cruisers have been successful with credit card disputes.

[navybankerteacher]

6 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I'm actually not surprised that NCL and Oceania have that kind of record. Based on his comments when he took over NCL Del Rio struck me as someone more concerned with what what the guest could do for him than the other way round.

Don’t we all realize that the reason ANYONE goes into business is more about making money than about making other people happy?  Nice if you can do both simultaneously but if only one goal can be achieved, on  which do you really think the businessman will focus?

[ilikeanswers]

10 hours 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.

 

I feel like this is something I see a lot of Americans worry about and maybe points to a cultural difference but my experience is validating a legitimate complaint doesn't lead to a cascade of frivolous complaints. Common sense can prevail and you can sort the frivolous from the valid and to be honest this fear of the frivolous complaint I think plays into cooperations interests by stigmatising everyone who complains.

[Joebucks]

8 hours ago, clo said:

Well, I have the impression that you were just giving your opinion all the way through that. And FWIW some cruisers have been successful with credit card disputes.

 

It's a loaded topic. I used to work in the "back office" of a large retailer. We would get people all of the time that would dispute charges because they felt entitled to a full refund at any inconvenience. The bank would ask us for proof the customer got what they bought and/or our written policies. The policies of a Fortune 100 company weren't illegal, no matter how many people on the internet you could get to shake their fist at them.

 

I spoke on the phone to quite a few bank agents that laughed at various disputes. I've also personally noticed that sometimes the bank might just side with the customer on small charges because it's not worth the battle. To think credit card companies are refunding entire cruises because an unforeseen act wouldn't allow them to reach a certain port or whatnot is crazy. You still went on a cruise, slept in a room, used the services, ate the food, used the amenities. 

 

That's not to say there aren't instances where it works. Perhaps not getting your river cruise, and getting a bus tour may do it. Who knows. That doesn't mean a lot of busybodies who never had such a thing happen to them, need the entire book rewritten.

[clo]

19 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

wouldn't allow them to reach a certain port or whatnot is crazy.

Who's talking about a "certain port"? Not I.

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, clo said:

Who's talking about a "certain port"? Not I.

 

The OP started this thread with the example of a cruise that was suppose to spend a couple of days in Antarctica but had that portion of the cruise cancelled. 

[sparks1093]

8 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Don’t we all realize that the reason ANYONE goes into business is more about making money than about making other people happy?  Nice if you can do both simultaneously but if only one goal can be achieved, on  which do you really think the businessman will focus?

This is true but one would expect that someone who goes into the hospitability industry would be concerned more with hospitality for the guest, especially if a premium is being charged for the services being provided. Customer satisfaction goes hand in hand with repeat business, after all. But in any case, as I said none of this surprises me about Oceania and NCL.

Edited February 19 by sparks1093

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

The OP started this thread with the example of a cruise that was suppose to spend a couple of days in Antarctica but had that portion of the cruise cancelled. 

They "bought a cruise that would include scenic cruising off the Antarctic mainland". This quote from the linked Forbes article above indicates to me that they weren't actually going to be going ashore, they were just sailing by. I can certainly understand the disappointment at not getting to see what most people won't, especially if the cruise line charges a premium for the itinerary (and I am sure that they did).

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I feel like this is something I see a lot of Americans worry about and maybe points to a cultural difference but my experience is validating a legitimate complaint doesn't lead to a cascade of frivolous complaints. Common sense can prevail and you can sort the frivolous from the valid and to be honest this fear of the frivolous complaint I think plays into cooperations interests by stigmatising everyone who complains.

See the nest post #80 about frivolous complaints.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

See the nest post #80 about frivolous complaints.

 

I think I am going to need further clarification. Reading that post it seems they are sorting frivolous and valid complaints so doesn't that show you can validate a legitimate claim without the fear of some complaints free for all? People who want to make frivolous claims are always going to exist, illegitimising a valid complaint is not going make entitled people feel less entitled and why should someone with a valid complaint be punished for frivolous complainers? That feels frivolous in of itself😂. 

[clo]

6 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

The OP started this thread with the example of a cruise that was suppose to spend a couple of days in Antarctica but had that portion of the cruise cancelled. 

I interpreted their post as downplaying it be referring to it as was some ho-hum thing, which IMO.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I think I am going to need further clarification. Reading that post it seems they are sorting frivolous and valid complaints so doesn't that show you can validate a legitimate claim without the fear of some complaints free for all? People who want to make frivolous claims are always going to exist, illegitimising a valid complaint is not going make entitled people feel less entitled and why should someone with a valid complaint be punished for frivolous complainers? That feels frivolous in of itself😂. 

It seemed to me from reading post #80 that there were several frivolous complaints, complaints that people from the banks he contacted laughed at.

 

I got the impression that there were more of these than complaints that were valid.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I think I am going to need further clarification. Reading that post it seems they are sorting frivolous and valid complaints so doesn't that show you can validate a legitimate claim without the fear of some complaints free for all? People who want to make frivolous claims are always going to exist, illegitimising a valid complaint is not going make entitled people feel less entitled and why should someone with a valid complaint be punished for frivolous complainers? That feels frivolous in of itself😂. 

Here is an example of frivolous complaints. Read the first post. (The poster has not come back as no one shows any sympathy for him.)

 

 

[Joebucks]

5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I think I am going to need further clarification. Reading that post it seems they are sorting frivolous and valid complaints so doesn't that show you can validate a legitimate claim without the fear of some complaints free for all? People who want to make frivolous claims are always going to exist, illegitimising a valid complaint is not going make entitled people feel less entitled and why should someone with a valid complaint be punished for frivolous complainers? That feels frivolous in of itself😂. 

 

As with anything in life, there are always going to be varying context. Also, in usual internet fashion, taking an extreme example like .001% of cruisers who booked an "Antarctica" cruise and could not go there. Now we need sweeping reform (with zero consequences) for something that honestly doesn't need such attention. When will we learn to stay out of such things.

 

As to what is "frivolous" and what is "valid," who draws that line? What about a picture of bacon on the website, and there was no bacon on the ship? What about an advertised theater show didn't play because someone got injured? What about the port "I booked this cruise for" and the ship couldn't make it? What about a medical injury that threw off some other plans? As we see daily with these forums, there is a lot to complain about. It is impossible to make sure everything goes on without a hitch. Credit card companies are not there to ensure your total satisfaction. They ensure that sellers are acting in good faith with that they are offering. That does not mean if one of 100 variables is unfavorable, that the trip should be free for you, decided by the CC.

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

As with anything in life, there are always going to be varying context. Also, in usual internet fashion, taking an extreme example like .001% of cruisers who booked an "Antarctica" cruise and could not go there. Now we need sweeping reform (with zero consequences) for something that honestly doesn't need such attention. When will we learn to stay out of such things.

 

As to what is "frivolous" and what is "valid," who draws that line? What about a picture of bacon on the website, and there was no bacon on the ship? What about an advertised theater show didn't play because someone got injured? What about the port "I booked this cruise for" and the ship couldn't make it? What about a medical injury that threw off some other plans? As we see daily with these forums, there is a lot to complain about. It is impossible to make sure everything goes on without a hitch. Credit card companies are not there to ensure your total satisfaction. They ensure that sellers are acting in good faith with that they are offering. That does not mean if one of 100 variables is unfavorable, that the trip should be free for you, decided by the CC.

 

Personally I would rather the cruise companies take responsibility than credit card companies but with common sense you can easily draw the line on valid and frivolous. If you buy a product or service and don’t receive product or service you have always been entitled to a refund and paying a premium price for a premium product only to be given a cheaper downgraded version in any other industry would be considered a scam

I would assume most countries have legislation against scams, so maybe instead of sweeping reforms we need to start treating cruises the same way we would treat any other tourism business. 

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, ontheweb said:

It seemed to me from reading post #80 that there were several frivolous complaints, complaints that people from the banks he contacted laughed at.

 

I got the impression that there were more of these than complaints that were valid.

 

6 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Here is an example of frivolous complaints. Read the first post. (The poster has not come back as no one shows any sympathy for him.)

 

 

 

I think we are at impasse here as to me this fear of frivolous complaints is irrational. Do you believe they are going to bring down the cruise industry? A valid complaint and frivolous complaint are two different things to me and I can't understand why someone would treat them the same🤷‍♀️. 

[ontheweb]

48 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

 

I think we are at impasse here as to me this fear of frivolous complaints is irrational. Do you believe they are going to bring down the cruise industry? A valid complaint and frivolous complaint are two different things to me and I can't understand why someone would treat them the same🤷‍♀️. 

I agree we are at an impasse. No, I do not believe they will take down the cruise industry.

 

But I do believe there will be more frivolous complaints than valid complaints. 

[ilikeanswers]

39 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

But I do believe there will be more frivolous complaints than valid complaints. 

 

And you believe that is reason enough to ignore valid complaints? Are you not worried that ignoring valid complaints could lead to the cruise industry mistreating the customer? 

[sparks1093]

10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Personally I would rather the cruise companies take responsibility than credit card companies but with common sense you can easily draw the line on valid and frivolous. If you buy a product or service and don’t receive product or service you have always been entitled to a refund and paying a premium price for a premium product only to be given a cheaper downgraded version in any other industry would be considered a scam

I would assume most countries have legislation against scams, so maybe instead of sweeping reforms we need to start treating cruises the same way we would treat any other tourism business. 

I think the main question is do we want to invoke sweeping industrywide reforms for what has happened only in a few cases? It seems that there are only three main offenders being identified in this thread, Oceania, NCL, Viking. Yes, other cruise lines have to amend itineraries because of weather or mechanical issues but the norm is they allow affected passengers the opportunity to reschedule or cancel without penalty if the changes are major (and there is sufficient forewarning) or they offer a combination of onboard credits and future cruise credits. Does that result in 100% customer satisfaction? By no means. But it does satisfy the vast majority of passengers. As long as this remains such a limited thing I feel that we don't need to get the government involved in any reforms.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

And you believe that is reason enough to ignore valid complaints? Are you not worried that ignoring valid complaints could lead to the cruise industry mistreating the customer? 

I never said that valid complaints should be ignored, just that the majority of complaints do not fall into that category.

[Joebucks]

15 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

If you buy a product or service and don’t receive product or service you have always been entitled to a refund and paying a premium price for a premium product only to be given a cheaper downgraded version in any other industry would be considered a scam

 

When you buy a cruise, you are getting the cruise. If you don't go on the cruise, yes I would fully expect a refund per the terms you agreed to. Cruise companies might as well shut down now if they are going to held legally liable if anyone of their "advertised amenities" goes down for whatever reason. 

 

What's more dangerous than anything else, is the increasing entitlement of "I am the center of the universe. Everything must conform to my maximum satisfaction." 

[cruisemom42]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I never said that valid complaints should be ignored, just that the majority of complaints do not fall into that category.

 

And I think you've made your point numerous times and no one has disagreed with you. 🤷‍♀️

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

When you buy a cruise, you are getting the cruise. If you don't go on the cruise, yes I would fully expect a refund per the terms you agreed to. Cruise companies might as well shut down now if they are going to held legally liable if anyone of their "advertised amenities" goes down for whatever reason. 

 

What's more dangerous than anything else, is the increasing entitlement of "I am the center of the universe. Everything must conform to my maximum satisfaction." 

 

I understand and agree this should not get out of hand.  I don't think a lack of a second lobster on formal night, or a change needed for safety should generate a refund or rebooking option.  To me, it would be material changes known ahead of time but not shared that they should be on the hook for.  For example, an advertised Holy Land itinerary when the cruise lines know they aren't going to those ports.      

Edited February 20 by ldubs

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

And I think you've made your point numerous times and no one has disagreed with you. 🤷‍♀️

I believe ilikeanswers has continuously challenged my posts in this thread.