Summit Alaskan cruise disappointment (MERGER OF 5 THREADS ON THIS TOPIC)

[renebfl]

Its not quite 2 weeks since we returned from our cruise. There is such bad feelings we have from our trip,all have been discussed by me and others on this board. I will never forget what happened to us and I will remain loyal to the fight we have. At the same time, I am trying to no longer talk about this first, when someone asks me how my once-in-a-lifetime cruise went. For the past few days ,I am telling the good points of my cruise, this does take conscious effort. One thing I remember, is that,yes, we were angry and yes we did talk about the issues when we where on the ship,yes we had meetings,but we also smiled, laughed, went to the shows,danced,saw some beautiful Alaska. There were parts of the cruise that were superb. I finally got our pictures together and watched them on our tv last night, boy they were nice..I do wish this never had happened to us, it left a sour taste the whole cruise.I wish I could have just closed my eyes and made it all go away, but I could not. I had to voice my displeasure while on the cruise. I truly felt we would have lost our thunder if we waited till being home. I am trying to move past the disappointment and I was wondering if my fellow passengers were going through the same thing?

[tbelian]

You will not be successful in your pursuit of additional compensation from Celebrity.

 

A contract is a contract.

 

Whether it is good, bad, consumer friendly, or company friendly, it does in fact exist. You can't turn a blind eye to it. You can rally all you want, but, if you really choose to purse 'legal action' in this case, how would you defend against the wording of the contract?

 

Even given that pursuing legal action is a form of vindication, perhaps you should invite opinions from others who have been victorious in class action litigation. 9 out of 10 times the lawyers get the bulk of the dollars agreed to in the settlement, and the consumer winds up with pennies on the dollar.

 

This has nothing to do with being an 'x' nut, or a cheerleader. This would apply regardless of the cruise line involved. Contract law is contract law.

[naked]

It's ironic that all the blame is placed on X and nobody here has said that they understood the history of pod issues on Summit and accepted the risks involved.

 

You could have easily learned what X is likely to do for pax that miss ports and what x is likely to do for pax that miss their entire cruise if you had done just a few minutes of homework.

[ZlistCelebrity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Sweet

Even if some people really thought the problems were so bad that they were entitled to compensation, I can't understand why they didn't make the most of the situation during their cruise, to maximize their enjoyment, and deal with the problem after they got home.

 

 

If you read any legal advice re faulty goods/services, trading standards etc, in UK ABTA guide to complaining

 

if unsatisafied, 'You must bring it to the attentions of the goods/service provider immediately'

If you have a complaint, you have a LEGAL DUTY to 'MITIGATE' your loss, that means taking all reasonable steps to minimise the disruption to your enjoyment of the holiday. Your claim may not succeed, IF YOU DIDN'T COMPLAIN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ON THE SPOT AND GIVE THE OPERATOR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THINGS RIGHT, or if you didn't accept any reasonable attempts by the company to sort out the problem ON TIME.

 

This will no doubt cull some replies, good, it's good to talk.

 

Lets debate the fact:- did the discerning passengers attempt to sort it out and the company wasn't listening,

did the passengers accept the reasonable attempts to put it right and it still didn't go right, eg hubbard and inside passage,

neither of these were informed to us as parts of the itinerary where we would not receive the full portion as promised, not like the four ports of call on the changed itinerary.

 

Over to you CC'ers.

 

Pauline and Rob Manchester , UK, Actual Passengers on the summit 7th May 2006 to 20th May 2006 13 nights on board, yes that is true, less than 50% cruise received.

 

By the way, just throwing the 'Jones Act' into the equation,anyone wanting to get off and do their own thing, was threated with it.

Anyone out there like to elaborate on this one!

 

That would require that the people act like reasonable adults. Reasonable adults are very rare these days.

 

 

We behaved impeccably like reasonable adults ( in our fifties), un fortunately we were not treated like reasonable adults.

 

nice to know we are amongst the rare breed as you say, along with 1400 other very reasonable passengers who signed the on board petition that we would not tolerate being treated like children

 

P & R

[Sky Sweet]

One thing I have discovered over the years is that moods can be very contageous. Is is possible that some of the discontent on this cruise can be attributed to the infectious environment of unhappy people who were constantly complaining?

[ZlistCelebrity]

Hi, What additional compensation are you talking about, we haven't had any compensation up to now, we have had a goodwill gesture! imposed on us and our port fees back.

 

For your information, we do not want compensation, we would love to prove that celebrity did know of the problem before leaving LA. They obviously need all their money, they can keep it.

 

Interesting point legal terms, unfair contract , is brought to mind, because when a supplier of a good or service knowingly holds back information, then the contract is unfair and not valid.

 

As for doing homework and checking, yes us lemons have learned a hard lesson on that one, who would have thought that a five year old ship had suffered this problem 4 times previously.

 

This was just our fourth cruise for your information, last year we went on Legend of the Seas, Panama Canal with RCCL, lovely cruise, passenger became ill 6hours out of Panama, Captain turned back to Panama instead of going onto Costs Rica. The delay meant we missed Costa Rica.

We got nothing, we asked for nothing, we understood that these things can happen and just hope if it was us the same would be done.

 

But, totally different circumstances on Summit, it could be said that Celebrity are negligent, allegedly, to contimue to operate the ships with this problem, who are we, just lay people, good hard working tax paying citizens, as you, expressing our opinions, informed on this situation though, cos we were there.

yes homework will be done in future, lucky all these review sites exist, didn't know before, ignorance is bliss, so they say.

 

any other advice will be more than welcome, hopefully we can get the message out en mass, so that people do check and walk with their feet, maybe then something will be done to correct the mess that is surely the millenium class

 

we all know lawyers are generally the only winners, publicity of the actions of this company so that people can make an informed decision where to put their money for their once a year, dream vacation, honeymoon, wedding, anniversary, last holiday whilst they are able! due to illness, is one aim at the moment.

 

Are people too trusting of a major company with new ships or just stupid for not doing major homework!

 

Over to you...

 

P & R,

 

 

 

 

You will not be successful in your pursuit of additional compensation from Celebrity.

 

A contract is a contract.

 

Whether it is good, bad, consumer friendly, or company friendly, it does in fact exist. You can't turn a blind eye to it. You can rally all you want, but, if you really choose to purse 'legal action' in this case, how would you defend against the wording of the contract?

 

Even given that pursuing legal action is a form of vindication, perhaps you should invite opinions from others who have been victorious in class action litigation. 9 out of 10 times the lawyers get the bulk of the dollars agreed to in the settlement, and the consumer winds up with pennies on the dollar.

 

This has nothing to do with being an 'x' nut, or a cheerleader. This would apply regardless of the cruise line involved. Contract law is contract law.

[naked]

The duty to complain does not extend to fellow passengers (ie: repeating your complaints to other pax on the ship) or to complain continuously. A written note to the ship's staff would satisfy your "LEGAL DUTY".

[tbelian]

 

Over to you...

 

This is the second post of yours I have read where, in closing, you clearly appear to be 'throwing down the gauntlet' so to speak, in an effort (perhaps?) to continue to engage in debate regarding the issue, or issues. I don't intend to debate this with you. I have stated my opinion and it stands.

 

Bad publicity? Well that would explain trying to keep the topic at the top of the heap , so to speak, on the cc message board. The problem is, the amount of real publicity you will generate here is a speck of attention in the grand scheme of things. Do some research on what the statistics are regarding people who participate in message boards compared to the overall cruise population. The numbers are staggering.

 

The news media will drop this quickly, if they havent already. Nobody died, fell overboard, fired weapons, or passed out drunk in the hallway in connection with someone falling over board. The FBI will not investigate, the CDC will not downgrade the rating for the ship as a result of this. Publicity factor? zip, zilch, very minimal.

[griswalds]

Finally someone has asked the real question. What is a true "griswald experience"? To me it is when reality meets or exceeds expectations. For example, when I first went to Disneyland as an adult it was exactly as I had hoped for and more. I had tears in my eyes (this is guy talk) when I saw the castle, I was so overwhelmed with it all. Same with me first cruise and most of the following cruises. That is a true griswald experience.

 

 

Griswalds

 

Thank you for asking this question. Perhaps, you might also ask them to express what they consider a "griswald experience".

[BB5953]

Interesting point legal terms, unfair contract , is brought to mind, because when a supplier of a good or service knowingly holds back information, then the contract is unfair and not valid.

 

 

 

 

This is valid. I don't have an opinion on this subject. I wasn't there and frankly it is just too messy.

 

I was recently involved in a lawsuit where I entered into a contract that was (thank god) deemed unfair because information was held back. Additionally this "information" must be discussed formally between the 2 parties and cannot be assumed known b/c of what one considers common knowledge.

[griswalds]

My motives are as pure as the driven snow. I found this thread facinating and as a result I was drawn in to the conversation. The common theme to my posts are to gather information and show support for those who were on this ill fated cruise and feel they were not treated fairly. If you were on the cruise and you are happy with the end result then my hat off to you. Some people simply have lower expectations. If you do feel treated unfairly and I can see why then I can easily see merit in moving forward with a claim. Perhaps I will be in their shoes one day. I hope not though.

 

It is also interesting to me to follow the logic of others and to weigh their opinions against mine. I find this website to be full of amazing information and I have benefitted from many posts. I read much more than I post. However I must confess that I have a unkown past with CC as that was lost when I changed my ISP address. Griswald has been out there longer that you may know.

 

Griwalds

 

 

2/3 of your total posts are in this thread. You weren't on the cruise. What is your interest in continuing to rouse the rabble?

 

Those arguing the other side, who were not on the cruise, have been called everything from Celebrity employees to cheerleaders. :rolleyes:

[magmagee]

One thing I have discovered over the years is that moods can be very contageous. Is is possible that some of the discontent on this cruise can be attributed to the infectious environment of unhappy people who were constantly complaining?

 

 

The answer to that is yes as far as I am concerned and I think that is why so many people might have signed these papers. It was like the snowball rolling down the hill affect. This women writes about the trauma she experienced from the cruise line but that is the feeling I got from the disgruntled passengers. No matter where we went it seemed to be the topic of conversation. I feel that after awhile some felt they might as well sign because if they did not they might be the only ones left out and not receive part of some big settlement. I even felt that way for just a moment. I have written before that one day I was walking to my room and there were so many people blocking the hall way trying to get their names on this paper they were passing out. It was like they could not sign it fast enough. That is my side of it. But i was in Alaska on my cruise of a life time ,as one of the unhappy passengers put it , and it was hard not letting this negativity affect our cruise.

[Cuizer2]

You will not be successful in your pursuit of additional compensation from Celebrity.

 

A contract is a contract.

 

Whether it is good, bad, consumer friendly, or company friendly, it does in fact exist. You can't turn a blind eye to it. You can rally all you want, but, if you really choose to purse 'legal action' in this case, how would you defend against the wording of the contract?

 

Even given that pursuing legal action is a form of vindication, perhaps you should invite opinions from others who have been victorious in class action litigation. 9 out of 10 times the lawyers get the bulk of the dollars agreed to in the settlement, and the consumer winds up with pennies on the dollar.

 

This has nothing to do with being an 'x' nut, or a cheerleader. This would apply regardless of the cruise line involved. Contract law is contract law.

 

Obviously you are not a lawyer or you would know that often courts do find contracts invalid. There are some issues with cruise contracts in general and Celebrity's contract in particular that could cause a court to disregard what it says and deal stricly with the legal theories that the plaintiff passengers have. However, even if the contract is found not to be binding, Celebrity could still win. Even if the plaintiff passengers win, their damages might not exceed the compensation that Celebrity has already offered.

 

But in the end you are correct, the lawyers will get a lot more money than the passengers will.

[ImpulsivePuppy]

we are awfully fortunate in our lives that we can consider this such an intense and considerable situation. I am being totally serious here, not tongue-in-cheek. What the people in Darfur wouldn't give to have our problems, myself included.

[tbelian]

Obviously you are not a lawyer or you would know that often courts do find contracts invalid.

 

That is correct, I am not a lawyer. If you are an attorney I would be curious. Based on the information conveyed in this thread would you take a case against Celebrity? How would you expect to be compensated for the work? On contingency? If not, my belief would be that a hefty retainer would be required to proceed with a court case. Would the passengers who have been 'wronged' in this instance be willing to cough up hundreds (thousands?) of dollars to pursue a case like this, with no guarantees that they would win? I suspect many class action lawyers would be looking for a slam dunk before they would be involved with a contingency only arrangement. This does not appear to be a slam dunk from a legal standpoint. A possibility, yes, but a definite win?

 

It's amazing to me how much we don't know about the agreements we enter into. For instance, did you know now that many companies are burying in a 'binding arbitration' clause into their contracts? this essentially means that by entering into the agreements, you give up your right to settle things in court. Cell phone companies, for instance , are a good example.

[magmagee]

we are awfully fortunate in our lives that we can consider this such an intense and considerable situation. I am being totally serious here, not tongue-in-cheek. What the people in Darfur wouldn't give to have our problems, myself included.

 

I have been trying to look at the glass half full for this very reason. I have had a few snags in my life but the thing that keeps me going is that there are some much worse off than me. Maybe that is why I am not getting two excited about 2 missed ports. This is just me and I do not expect others to feel the same way.

[BB5953]

It's amazing to me how much we don't know about the agreements we enter into. For instance, did you know now that many companies are burying in a 'binding arbitration' clause into their contracts? this essentially means that by entering into the agreements, you give up your right to settle things in court. Cell phone companies, for instance , are a good example.

 

Just becasue a company created a contract with a clause like that does not mean it is legal or would hold up in court. Interesting statistic my lawyer told me.... 62% of contracts if challeged would be overturned.

[tbelian]

62% of contracts if challeged would be overturned.

 

62%? Even though that's more than 50%, I'm not sure I would want to go to court to challenge it with only a 62-38 chance. There is a 38% chance you could LOSE! The real point I'm trying to make is It costs money to take these things to court and get them overturned.

[BB5953]

62%? Even though that's more than 50%, I'm not sure I would want to go to court to challenge it with only a 62-38 chance. There is a 38% chance you could LOSE! The real point I'm trying to make is It costs money to take these things to court and get them overturned.

 

I hear ya! Fortunately for us we don't have to make the decision. My guess is that they IF they really go through with this they will shop it around until they find an attorney to take it on contingent. No doubt there a attorneys in Miami that would jump all over this ethical or not.

[Lotsacruising]

for your information... we had an attorney in Miami before the cruise ended.

:)

[tbelian]

for your information... we had an attorney in Miami before the cruise ended.

:)

 

That being the case so to speak, wouldn't a smart attorney advise you not to discuss your case publicly preferring instead to get results in court?

[Cuizer2]

That is correct, I am not a lawyer. If you are an attorney I would be curious. Based on the information conveyed in this thread would you take a case against Celebrity? How would you expect to be compensated for the work? On contingency? If not, my belief would be that a hefty retainer would be required to proceed with a court case. Would the passengers who have been 'wronged' in this instance be willing to cough up hundreds (thousands?) of dollars to pursue a case like this, with no guarantees that they would win? I suspect many class action lawyers would be looking for a slam dunk before they would be involved with a contingency only arrangement. This does not appear to be a slam dunk from a legal standpoint. A possibility, yes, but a definite win?

 

It's amazing to me how much we don't know about the agreements we enter into. For instance, did you know now that many companies are burying in a 'binding arbitration' clause into their contracts? this essentially means that by entering into the agreements, you give up your right to settle things in court. Cell phone companies, for instance , are a good example.

My job involves civil law (torts). However, I am not an attorney and thus cannot give legal advise. I am amazed at how often clearly worded contracts are found invalid and how often contracts which do not appear to be "fair" are upheld. In reading some cases it appears the judges came to a conclusion first, then found the facts to support their conclusion. This has resulted in the saying, "Bad facts make bad law." As a result we choose very carefully which cases we are willing to appeal.

 

As an example, in California, back in the 70's there was an earthquake in central California. Earthquakes are excluded in the standard homeowner's policy. Some judges decided it was not an earthquake, but rather "plate techonics" and thus the exclusion was found not to apply. Now the exclusions have been reworded to avoid this.

 

Nonetheless, finding something does not apply because you choose to refer to its definition is hard for me to understand (to put it nicely). It is the same as saying that you did not receive an injury, you broke a bone. Breaking a bone is an injury and plate techonics is an earthquake.

 

So how will this case come out? Who knows? Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses. No matter what, the passengers will not receive a 100% refund. If the passengers win, I don't know what they will receive, but my guess is around $400 each less attorney fees (that is $400 per person, not $400 per cabin) and any prior compensation. I am not saying the passengers will win. All I am saying is, based on what I think a judge would do, if the judge rules in the passenger's favor, I would expect an award around $400 per person.

 

The problem is, while a $200 dollar credit is easy to evaluate, what is a 30% discount worth? To a certain extent a 30% discount's value is dependent on the cost of the cruise, which can vary based on the time of year, where the cruise is going, and what cabin category you are in. A four day Mexican Riviera cruise in an inside cabin in January costs a lot less than the penthouse suite on an Alaskan cruise in July. So, how much is 30%? What conditions, if any, are attached to this discount? What if the person can only cruise once every two years and the discount is only good for 18 months?

 

Let me put it another way. Would you pay $200 for a $200 credit? It seems very fair (to both sides). So, how much would you pay for a 30% discount??? That is a little harder to evaluate.

 

There are many questions. Did Celebrity know the pod would fail before leaving Los Angeles? What would change if Celebrity found out in San Francisco that the pod would fail and told everyone before leaving San Francisco? What could the passengers do? Leave the ship? They are well past the 100% penality time, they would loose the value of their cruise. At least by staying on the ship they gained the value of the cruise (or at least what was left of the cruise). Besides, the passengers could not leave the ship in San Francisco, that would be a violation of the Jones act.

 

We are back to that age old question of, what did Celebrity know and when did it know it? Then suppose there was only a 2 minute delay between the time Celebrity knew something and when Celebrity told the passengers. Suppose that Celebrity told the full truth (I am not saying that they did not, only for this example we will assume that they did). What would change (from the current situation where some people believe Celebrity did not tell the truth). And by change I mean, how would the damages be different? What did the passengers do to mitigate their damages? Could the passengers mitigate their damages?

 

There are all sorts of legal questions here. If you really want to get a legal opinion, contact an attorney in Miami that has experience handling these matters. I don't have that training. I just know what some of the legal issues are, and I can guess what will happen based on my limited knowledge of the facts and the law. I have no idea who will win. I do know that if the passengers win, they will not receive a 100% refund.

 

The problem, as I see it, is Celebrity did not handle this problem very well from a customer service view (I am not referring to a legal view). Celebrity's customer service image is going to take a very big hit, even if it wins all the legal battles. Which leads to the saying, you can win all the battles and still loose the war. One can only hope that Celebrity (and the other cruise lines) will look back at this, analyze the mistakes, and take corrective action. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

[naked]

for your information... we had an attorney in Miami before the cruise ended.

:)

I am not an attorney but if I were opposing counsel, I would be very happy to note that Lotsacruising has stated, publicly:

Just get me on a ship and I am happy! :o

Credibility of the claimant can now be question based on conflicting statements.

[tbelian]

Celebrity's customer service image is going to take a very big hit, even if it wins all the legal battles.

 

I dont think so.

 

As an example, a search just conducted at www.cnn.com on the following keywords:

 

Celebrity, Summit, Alaska returned 0 results

Celebrity, Summit, zero results

Celebrity cruises, turned up a story (at #10 on the results list) regarding the recent tour bus tradgedy.

 

It ain't big news. I don't think they will suffer greatly for it.

[wrp96]

I'm surprised that their attorney didn't advise them to stop talking on public message boards like this one.