RE: onboard mutiny

[world~citizen]

The editor of Cruise Critic wrote a very pointed editorial: From the Bridge: An Onboard Mutiny.

 

I understand that the issue was debated at length on the Carnival board. However, as Cruise Critic has chosen to editorialize on this issue - weighing in as it were on one side of a polarized debate, I would like to make some observations and request your views.

 

First, outlandish behaviour is - well, outlandish. It has no place in civilized discourse. I don't know if what that passenger did constituted the "outlandish" label or not. I wasn't there. I do know that he may, if he so chooses, bring this whole matter to court - the proper venue to make that determination. I hope he does, but I doubt he will.

 

I have seen people disappointed on a cruise. I have seen many different kinds of "customer relations" responses - and I have seen people read their cruise contract for the first time.

 

As was indicated on the editorial, the cruise contract is pretty much weighted on the side of the cruise line. I really believe that passengers responses in difficult situations are determined as much or more by the 18th century rights they have under their cruise contract, and to the cruise lines iron fisted determination to enforce them, than it is to the character or nature of the actual difficulty or grievance.

 

I read my first cruise contract in the Amsterdam passenger ship terminal just before I embarked on a cruise. (I had to sign it.) I was surprised to see that the line had no obligation with respect to what ship I boarded, what route it took, or what kind of services were offered on board. I think the only obligation the cruise line placed on itself was to end the trip at the contracted final destination.

 

To all of you people who own a business: wouldn't you like to commit your customers to a contract like that?

 

How would Carnival like to contract to buy a ship, of which the nature and power of the engines, the size of the dining venues (if any) and the hydrodynamics of the hull were considerations reserved to the sole discretion of the builders - the only obligation being that in the end, Carnival would get a ship?

 

Perhaps most of these "mutinies" would never come to pass if cruise contracts were brought up at least to last century standards, if not this one. I applaud efforts of consumer groups and legislators to do just that.

 

In Europe, Legislators have made good progress on behalf of the travelling public with respect to compensation for flight cancellations, delays and mishandled luggage. Consumers who "didn't want to stay home in their own back yard" lobbied for them. The travel industry, in general is the better for it.

 

Cruise companies can't control the weather, or when or where a medical emergency my occur. They do determine their responses to unforeseen events.

 

When things don't go as planned, there is no reason for people on either side of the cruise contract equation to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden.

 

What Carnival did was probably lawful.

 

I hope not for very much longer.

[jhannah]

How else could they write a cruise contract? Nothing is guaranteed because nothing CAN BE guaranteed. Mechanical systems fail. Unrest develops in ports of call. Mother Nature deals an ugly hand. Sick people board a ship to infect lots of other people. And the list could go on.

 

I know the cruise contract reads like dirt for those of us who cruise, but really ... what all can they "guarantee?"

[Sailorgirlseattle]

I agree with you. And here is a thread on cc about the article:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=14195863#post14195863

[Sailorgirlseattle]

How else could they write a cruise contract? Nothing is guaranteed because nothing CAN BE guaranteed. Mechanical systems fail. Unrest develops in ports of call. Mother Nature deals an ugly hand. Sick people board a ship to infect lots of other people. And the list could go on.

 

I know the cruise contract reads like dirt for those of us who cruise, but really ... what all can they "guarantee?"

 

Of course there are things that are unforeseeable and uncontrollable, but companies can and should make all reasonable efforts to make good on what was offered and paid for. I realize that we may have to miss a port, or have hours ashore shortened (happened to us last March, during the Oosterdam's famous azipod problems in Mexico - we had a shortened itinerary in Puerto Vallarta, I believe it was). These things are no big deal and should be taken in stride by passengers. And of COURSE medical emergencies take precedence over all else, especially out at sea.

 

That said, though, I do think that a lot of companies -- airlines are an especially great example of this -- get greedy and err on the side of their own profit and convenience. And there is little or no recourse for the paying public. And that is where I think we need to see some change.

[hammybee]

The cruise contract is entirely in favor of the customer, up to the point of final payment. Consumers can and do tie up inventory for more than a year, often with as little as a $100 deposit and come final payment date, do a " never mind". In the meantime, the cruise line incurs a lost opportunity cost, as that cabin probably could have been sold to someone else.

 

Business contracts generally and specifically disclaim responsibility for third party services and cruising is no different.

 

Force majeure is present in all contracts and generally covers unforessen and uncontrollable events, war, hostilities, rebellion, terrorism, strikes and natural conditions that interupt expected events and resitricts parties from fufilling their obligations.

 

One onboard, the cruise contract greatly favors the reality and uncertainties of cruising in the open seas, not too disimilar to flying the open skies. And sometimes this includes missing a port due to weather, passengers going overboard, transporting critically ill passenger/crew and even the occasional mechanical breakdown or civil unrest at the port.

 

Ship happens. And when it occasionally does, it seems some consumers believe it necessary to be compensated - get their money back or a free cruise.

 

I applaud Carolyn Spencer Brown for the best advise, given on these boards:

 

"The trick is that, these days, there is no guarantee by any form of travel that you'll experience the trip you've planned. Airlines cancel and delay flights, and they lose luggage. Hotels overbook or engage in massive renovations without notice, and employee issues can impact your stay. Events on land -- protests and terrorist threats among the possibilities -- can mean that key attractions are closed. In all cases, weather can be unexpectedly problematic.

 

Vacations are more precious than ever and we all need a break from the unruliness of daily life. But life doesn't stop happening just because you're bound for paradise. Be prepared for the unexpected ... or just stay home in your own backyard."

[DFD1]

For what it's worth.........After decades of roaming 'round, I'd prefer a cruise contract with a major cruise line to any commercial airline or major car rental contract.

 

Both the airlines and car rental companies regularily pull "stunts" on their customers that absolutely defy explaination...and more often than not, none is offered.

 

Changes and failures in cruise line services, on the other hand, generally, not always, have some sort of logical explaination behind them. At least, that's the way I have found it.

 

The airlines are hopeless and the car rentals aren't far behind, IMO.

[Sailorgirlseattle]

 

Vacations are more precious than ever and we all need a break from the unruliness of daily life. But life doesn't stop happening just because you're bound for paradise. Be prepared for the unexpected ... or just stay home in your own backyard."

 

I would agree that cruise vacations are all "vacations," yes, but not all travel is vacation-related. Much of it is work-related, in which botched air travel, for example, directly impacts another company's bottom line -- not to mention the employee, who is missing at least one more day of work, another day away from family, etc. Others of us travel cross-country for family reasons, and can be quite adversely affected by changes in travel arrangements. Many times (not all, I know), these changes appear arbitrary on the airline's part and COULD be addressed to the customer's satisfaction -- but the company is simply not willing to take the extra step.

 

And what's this line about "hotels engage in massive renovations without notice"?! Come on, NO COMPANY is going to spontaneously engage in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of renovations. That information SHOULD be available to the clientele when or before they book. Shouldn't we be able to make that choice instead of the hotel?

[manbehindthecurtain]

If you don't like the contract, don't go on a cruise.

 

And cruiselines don't order ships with a yard, do all the payments, and then read the contract the day before delivery of the ship.

 

Cruise contracts can be read before you even make your first booking, so if you choose not to read it don't go complaining afterwards.....

[jhannah]

... companies can and should make all reasonable efforts to make good on what was offered and paid for.

I believe Holland America (and other cruise lines) do this very thing, bending over backwards to do it sometimes.

[jackkip]

I had the unfortune opportunity of sailing on the Carnival Conquest. Like other posters, we missed a port. It was due to weather problems.

 

Yes, I realize that Carnvial cannot control Mother Nature. I think the captain and crew have a responsiblity of the safety of everyone aboard. When we were onboard this was no exception.....BUT,

 

The staff and crew did very little as far as informing passengers what was going on. It was very frustrating. Every crew member had vague answers about the whole situation. I do realize that the "contract" is in place to protect both parties. But there comes a time when you have to have good business practices.

 

I own my own business, and I can tell you that if I treated my customers the same way Carnival treated me, I would be out of business. I truly feel for this guy that booted off in Cayman. I have been there (not booted off, but kept in the dark) and it is frustrating to be at sea and have no one in charge that is willing to tell you the truth. This whole thing could of been avoided if the powers that be had just stopped and listened to the complaints of a customer.

 

In the end that is what it all boils down to. The customer! Yes Safety and well being of everyone should come first. But Carnival (and all cruise lines) has to figure out how to accomplish safety and keep customer satisfaction up. It is a tough job, but I think this should be a wake up call for all the big companies. The little guy is getting tired of being left in the dark.

[George W. Bush]

Mechanical systems fail.

 

I would say that is the one contigency that the cruies line should be held absolutely accountable for.

[jhannah]

I would say that is the one contigency that the cruies line should be held absolutely accountable for.

How? You probably maintain your car very well. Doesn't it still break down eventually? I guess I don't understand "absolutely accountable."

[richkinkade]

And what's this line about "hotels engage in massive renovations without notice"?! Come on, NO COMPANY is going to spontaneously engage in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of renovations. That information SHOULD be available to the clientele when or before they book. Shouldn't we be able to make that choice instead of the hotel?

 

I showed up at Capt Don's in Bonaire for a stay in a beachfront condo booked a year in advance, only to be told on arrival in Bonaire that it was being renovated. I was moved to another room as far from the beach as possible and refused any refund. I've also been lied to repeatedly by airline personnel. In contrast to that, I've never been badly treated by a cruise line. (I did once go on an excursion involving much more walking than described, and lied to about the reasons by the excursion operator).

 

The $25 credit for missing a port is exactly what Carnival promises on its web site.

[George W. Bush]

How? You probably maintain your car very well. Doesn't it still break down eventually? I guess I don't understand "absolutely accountable."

 

If they can't operate the cruise as advertised due to mechanical problems they should offer a refund.

[Boatdrill]

This whole thing could of been avoided if the powers that be had just stopped and listened to the complaints of a customer.

 

......... The little guy is getting tired of being left in the dark.

 

 

According to the on scene reports I read (on the CCL thread) Carnival staff did listen to the man's complants. When he complaining continued, the Captain was asked to come down and speak to the man and the crowd. He did so. The man and crowd still were not satisfied....but they were definitely heard.

 

As for the little guy getting tired of being left in the dark, well let's add that companies are tired of being sued by "the little guy". So please forgive the companies for not blabbing away when something is amiss.

[donaldsc]

Most problems can be defused by good communications - tell the customer what the problem is and why you are doing what you are doing. Also tell him what you are doing to fix it. Problems occur when the customer thinks that things are happening to him for no reason.

 

I was on a flight once where the plane was delayed for many hours and the airline told us that it was a mechanical problem. However, it was clear that there was no mechanic within 500 ft of the plane and nobody was trying to fix the problem. After a lot of customer grumbling, we were told that a part was needed that was not at the airport and was being flown in from another place. They also told us that when the part arrived, it would take only a few minutes to install. All our grumbling could have been avoided by telling us this up front.

 

I was not on the cruise in question so I have no first hand knowledge but from what has been posted on the various threads, it appears that Carnival failed the communications test.

 

DON

[AerynSun_JohnCrighton]

The editor of Cruise Critic wrote a very pointed editorial: From the Bridge: An Onboard Mutiny.

 

I understand that the issue was debated at length on the Carnival board. However, as Cruise Critic has chosen to editorialize on this issue - weighing in as it were on one side of a polarized debate, I would like to make some observations and request your views.

 

First, outlandish behaviour is - well, outlandish. It has no place in civilized discourse. I don't know if what that passenger did constituted the "outlandish" label or not. I wasn't there. I do know that he may, if he so chooses, bring this whole matter to court - the proper venue to make that determination. I hope he does, but I doubt he will.

 

I have seen people disappointed on a cruise. I have seen many different kinds of "customer relations" responses - and I have seen people read their cruise contract for the first time.

 

As was indicated on the editorial, the cruise contract is pretty much weighted on the side of the cruise line. I really believe that passengers responses in difficult situations are determined as much or more by the 18th century rights they have under their cruise contract, and to the cruise lines iron fisted determination to enforce them, than it is to the character or nature of the actual difficulty or grievance.

 

I read my first cruise contract in the Amsterdam passenger ship terminal just before I embarked on a cruise. (I had to sign it.) I was surprised to see that the line had no obligation with respect to what ship I boarded, what route it took, or what kind of services were offered on board. I think the only obligation the cruise line placed on itself was to end the trip at the contracted final destination.

 

To all of you people who own a business: wouldn't you like to commit your customers to a contract like that?

 

How would Carnival like to contract to buy a ship, of which the nature and power of the engines, the size of the dining venues (if any) and the hydrodynamics of the hull were considerations reserved to the sole discretion of the builders - the only obligation being that in the end, Carnival would get a ship?

 

Perhaps most of these "mutinies" would never come to pass if cruise contracts were brought up at least to last century standards, if not this one. I applaud efforts of consumer groups and legislators to do just that.

 

In Europe, Legislators have made good progress on behalf of the travelling public with respect to compensation for flight cancellations, delays and mishandled luggage. Consumers who "didn't want to stay home in their own back yard" lobbied for them. The travel industry, in general is the better for it.

 

Cruise companies can't control the weather, or when or where a medical emergency my occur. They do determine their responses to unforeseen events.

 

When things don't go as planned, there is no reason for people on either side of the cruise contract equation to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden.

 

What Carnival did was probably lawful.

 

I hope not for very much longer.

 

 

Look at your thread title! MUTINY!

 

This idioit man, acted like a 3-yr old and threw a temper tantrumn.

 

Carnival had every right to protect themselves and their passengers...

 

he threatened a riot..

 

a TERRIOST ACT... under Federal Law!

 

Frankly, this guy should be in jail...

 

try this on an airplane.. go ahead.. they'll land the plane and charge you fuel thousands of dollars and THEN turn you over to the authorities...

 

 

Carnival paid for this man's plane tix, they didn't have to do that.. not under federal law, after he threaten a terrorist act...

 

post 9-11 they take ALL THOSE acts or threaten acts VERY seriously..

 

but if you people think grown adults should act like this... go ahead... I DON'T want you on MY cruise...

[DCT61]

I dont know why.....but the term "the stockholm syndrome" keeps coming to mind....hmmm.

[Guest LoveMyBoxer]

Maybe it's because I ride the Long Island Rail Road and NYC subways every day to go to work, that I'm used to being told untruths about delays. In the past we have left ports early, one time missed one port, and on another occasion actually stayed in port an extra day because of a Tropical storm was on its way. Not once did I request or expect compensation for anything. Yes I have read the contracts, just like I've read the fine print on my passport (you'd be surprised what's there). What kind of compensation other than the port charge which was charged to you would make up for missing or leaving a port early? I agree with a previous poster that once we are "unhappy" with service, some people throw the word "sue" around frequently. You are on a ship with many services. Unlike those poor people stuck for hours on a plane, you have options to continue to enjoy your vacation. Were we dissapointed because we missed or left a port early, yes, but how would suing the cruise line make up for that dissapointment? JMHO

[world~citizen]

Look at your thread title! MUTINY!

 

This idioit man, acted like a 3-yr old and threw a temper tantrumn.

 

Carnival had every right to protect themselves and their passengers...

 

he threatened a riot..

 

a TERRIOST ACT... under Federal Law!

 

Frankly, this guy should be in jail...

 

try this on an airplane.. go ahead.. they'll land the plane and charge you fuel thousands of dollars and THEN turn you over to the authorities...

 

 

Carnival paid for this man's plane tix, they didn't have to do that.. not under federal law, after he threaten a terrorist act...

 

post 9-11 they take ALL THOSE acts or threaten acts VERY seriously..

 

but if you people think grown adults should act like this... go ahead... I DON'T want you on MY cruise...

 

Hi:

 

Thanks for your considered and thoughtful observations.

 

As you may have read from the second paragraph of my original post, "outlandish behaviour" is "outlandish", and I would add that neither I nor any CC member condones it. If I have not expressed that view strongly enough, I say now: take it as given that neither I, nor any member of cruise critic I bet, condones interference with any ships crew member in the performance of their duties, or interference with any passenger with respect to the quiet enjoyment of their holiday.

 

I hope that speaks to your concern.

 

That said, I think you missed the point of my post. It is doubtless my fault for expressing myself poorly. I didn't mean to comment on the expulsion of the passenger from the ship, but to the circumstances that confront passengers that sometimes lead to what the editorial referred to as:

 

...a relatively new trend in which passengers, unhappy about some aspect of a cruise, band together and form a mutiny against a cruise line, ship's captain and officers...

 

I hope that if you re-read my post with that in mind, that becomes a little more clear - and that you will allow me on your ship sometimes.:)

 

Jhannah:

 

Thanks for being the first to respond to the post. Your views are always considered and serious, and merit a serious answer.

 

Your point about guarantees are well taken...as is your observation that cruise contracts read like dirt.

 

In a nutshell, what I have (apparently poorly) attempted to say runs something like this:

 

If you want to cross a lake and I have a little boat and I offer to ferry you across, as a matter of friendship not of money, and you agree and my motor fails and you miss an important meeting as a result, my liability for damages to you would be considerably less that if I charged you for the service, and you chose me from numerous ferry operators offering the same service.

 

In the first instance I think you would be happy if I just rowed you safely back to shore, in the second you might demand a second boat to come to finish the trip, and monetary compensation.

 

Money makes the standard of performance different, if I understand contract law correctly. Cruise companies seem to want to take your money, while oblige you to a standard of performance as if they were bringing you along for free. Hence, "we don't have to take you to port and we don't owe you any money".

 

To many people, that seems a contradiction, and is leading to unfortunate circumstances such as this "mutiny".

 

Now I read the original Fox press release on this ... its the only information I have at present, and it begins: "It was hardly a mutiny, but a man claims he and his three boys were forced to walk the plank..."

 

It continues that the Captain removed him on the grounds that he was deemed by command to be disruptive to the safe operation of the vessel. If true, he deserved it.

 

Now this notion of "mutiny" is getting hyped into the depths of sidereal space. The original press account didn't call it a mutiny. The term is catchy though, and everyone seems to be using it, to the point where the CC editorial asks when referencing customer relations problems : "At what point does the mutiny become excessive?"

 

Is there a non-excessive mutiny?

 

I may be wrong, but I see no mutiny here in the sense of "Caine Mutiny" or "Mutiny on the the Bounty".

 

The editorial references the ill fated QM2 South America cruise where passengers most unlikely to say "thank you sir, may I have another" when given the standard compensation for a loss of a "handful of ports", performed something of a sit-in until more reasonable compensation was secured - under the watchful eye of the world.

 

That was a bad precedent for Carnival, the mega-corporation that owns the Queen. It was bad for cruise lines everywhere.

 

Perhaps what happened was not akin to "Mutiny on the Bounty" but a perfectly predictable sequel to the saga that began on the QM2 as "Ship Wars", and is continued on the Carnival Conquest as "The Empire Strikes Back".

 

Smooth sailing to you.

[Sailorgirlseattle]

I believe Holland America (and other cruise lines) do this very thing, bending over backwards to do it sometimes.

 

I agree. I've had no problem with HAL, or any other cruise line I've sailed on. My comments on this issue are based on Carolyn's final comments in the article she wrote, saying we should expect and forgive bad corporate behavior from airlines and hotels. And yeah, I know we're a message board about cruising. :cool: I just think that the airlines in particular are pushing the envelope in terrible service and Carolyn's comments made me think we should expect the cruise lines to follow.

 

Let me tell you about my first cruise, my honeymoon in '93. We were on Carnival Jubilee to the MR. Airline lost my luggage, gave me 100 bucks cash to "tide me over" til Puerto Vallarta, three days later. Irritating, but alright. We arrive at the pier, late, thinking we can just make the ship before she sails. Wrong. Couple thousand people standing on the pier in the hot sun, no shade, no food or drink, no seats. Turns out that first the ship was delayed at sea for a Lifeflight for a heart attack patient, then after docking disembark was halted while a pregnant passenger went into labor on the gangway! I must admit we were a little grumpy when we were finally boarded, but still went on to have a happy cruise ... yes, these things happen and you have to take it all in stride. As far as I know, there were no mutinies, no lawsuits, no nothing. The thought never even crossed our minds!

 

Now, I almost had to cancel my recent cruise, and subsequent traveling around the country when Amtrak canceled the first leg of my cross-country train travel to get to the port in Florida. They didn't even tell me! I found out when I showed up two weeks before depart to print my actual ticket. They also offered no alternative to get me anywhere. What happened? A mudslide on the tracks in Oregon. Ok, unforeseeable, act of nature all that. Understandable. But couldn't they have have rented a bus to shuttle us from Point A to Point B and connect to regularly running train service? And couldn't someone at least have picked up a phone to CALL ME? I seriously considered backing out of my travel plans entirely, which would have meant canceling the cruise, three nights hotel in FLL, three nights hotel in Houston, a night in LA, car rentals, subsequent train travel, etc etc. In the end, I rented a car and drove from Seattle to Sacramento and then hooked up with Amtrak again. Irritating? YES. Understandle? Somewhat. Am I gonna sue? No. But I may still write to Congress and express my frustration because in my mind, the whole thing was handled poorly and my trust in their system to work is seriously eroded.

[jackkip]

World Citizen,

I have to commend your for your posts. You write so eloquently and precise. I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work!

[pipedreams62]

This is a case of a poor pathetic sole who figured,what a great opportunity for me to 'Take Advantage" and "Get Something" for nothing.

 

What rational person,would have their whole cruise ruined because they missed a port? What a gracious captain. I would have tossed him overboard,and thrown him two ends of a rope.

[fann1sh]

Incivility is never an answer to any customer relations problem. If news reports are correct, that passenger was way out of line.

 

But, civility must flow both ways. Almost without exception, cruise line employees (especially HAL's) exceed expectations in this way. Occasionally, they don't.

 

On one Maasdam cruise, there was an air conditioning problem which affected perhaps 20% of the ship. When we queried the front desk, saying it was 80 degrees in our cabin with the a/c at maximum, the response was "Yes? And you have a problem with that?" Air flow was quickly reallocated to give a/c to the cabins, and take it away from the restaurant and a couple of other public venues, but NEVER was there any acknowledgment of the problem.

 

Words cost nothing, and good communication will salve 95% of complaints. Those words need not admit any legal liability to the other 5% who threaten to sue. I quite likely am wrong, but it sounds to me this malcontent had a following because Carnival failed in speed and civility of communication.

 

I'm suggesting cruise lines (and airlines, etc.) are so phobic an admission of any problem will lead to law suits, they stonewall instead. I'm suggesting this makes the problem worse, not better.

[hammybee]

 

 

The editorial references the ill fated QM2 South America cruise where passengers most unlikely to say "thank you sir, may I have another" when given the standard compensation for a loss of a "handful of ports", performed something of a sit-in until more reasonable compensation was secured - under the watchful eye of the world.

 

That was a bad precedent for Carnival, the mega-corporation that owns the Queen. It was bad for cruise lines everywhere.

 

Perhaps what happened was not akin to "Mutiny on the Bounty" but a perfectly predictable sequel to the saga that began on the QM2 as "Ship Wars", and is continued on the Carnival Conquest as "The Empire Strikes Back". Smooth sailing to you.

 

The cruise line responses to the QM2 deal and the Princess Asian Cruise (whereby they had to miss about half of their scheduled port calls due to multiple cyclones) were bad management calls and created precendent ....that compensation will increase, dependent upon the extent and duration of passenger tantrums.

 

Given how infrequent a port is missed for any reason, one would think an insurer would underwrite the risk and market missed port/disappointment insurance.