Complaining Couple Banned from RCI

[jbrambach]

Here's the comment I was trying to add...I'm disappointed it didn't get included. I sent it to her as an email.

I would LOVE to see a follow up article.

 

As an aside, I wonder why the author, Anita, is so adamantly "standing by the story and all of the facts in it", when it is obvious that some parts of the story on MSN do not correspond with the Morans' own account posted here on CC?:confused:

[Cuizer2]

How does one search for and find all of these supposedly awful posts by the banned cruiser? I'm still not getting it. I read the review. It was not slanderous by any means.

 

As someone who has suffered myself from a cabin on another cruise line with sewage smells so bad we couldn't be in it -- even to sleep -- I have sympathy for the banned cruiser.

 

You click on the user's screen name, then click on list all posts. You will then get a list of the last 250 posts.

[kingsgirl]

I tell you, all of this is insane!

[Iamboatman]

I always ask the question of clients that complain about their cruise: "If it was so bad, or if you have consistently had problems, why do you want to cruise that line again?"

 

It is a pretty simple question and the answer needs to be more than the frequent cruiser status. With capacity being what it is, and the products being similar enough in many respects, I am baffled as to any legitimate reason to continue cruising that particular line...other than to use up the credits given to them. Ironically, that might well have been part of the problem: Inviting them back for more.

 

I do not hesitate to post objectively about the good and the bad of my cruises. It is a passion, a pleasure and goes with the territory of my job. Objectively critiquing a cruise on a message board like CC can be effective for educating others and obtaining other's opinions, but when you post to obtain compensation (or it appears to be that way) you are well and truly dancing with the devil.

 

Cruise lines do read the posts and do respond to objective comments and complaints. Royal Caribbean is no different. But I must say one thing that is different about Royal Caribbean and Celebrity is that if there is a legitimate issue which they substantiate they are more than fair.

 

I don't think giving examples here is appropriate, but either there was seriously something amiss or there was a horrific misunderstanding. While the latter might have been possible, it clearly seems that everyone knew what they were doing and what the situation was in this instance.

 

So I would not fear that critiquing on Cruise Critic is a dangerous thing to do. Trying to parlay it into something else might be. Making things up or exaggerating might be as well.

 

I hope everyone keeps posting critical thought (positive and negative) here.

[Leejnd4]

 

So I would not fear that critiquing on Cruise Critic is a dangerous thing to do. Trying to parlay it into something else might be. Making things up or exaggerating might be as well.

 

I hope everyone keeps posting critical thought (positive and negative) here.

 

Eric, excellent points. And I think it's been made pretty clear that we really don't have to worry about continuing to post our honest critiques of our cruises on here. Do a little digging into the story, and it becomes obvious that the Morans were NOT banned due to their reviews and/or posts on CC.

 

Joan, great email - you gave her just the specifics, which hopefully will open her eyes enough to realize that she needs to do a bit more fact-finding for her sequel. And I REALLY hope she writes one!

[SailorJack]

I was actually very glad to see this string as it reminded me of a correction I needed to make.

 

In my review of my cruise on RCI's Brilliance, it may have appeared that I was complaining about the long and drawn out Life Boat drill. What I actually meant to say was that RCI's boarding process was Brilliant...as it afforded me ample opportunity to meet my fellow passengers and help several of them with their autobiographies.

 

And, as I recollect that cruise, I realize I may have accidently reversed some numbers on my cabin. It was not 646 as I originally stated, but actually 464.

 

SailorBill regrets any misunderstanding this may have caused.

[BobBeaSea]

It is an extraordinary occurrence for a company to say to a customer - we do not want your business and therefore you will denied entry to our premises, ship, plane....etc. It happens, probably more than we think but I would think it is a rare thing to happen in the cruise industry. It is extraordinary that circumstances suggest that RCI feels it is necessary to take this step.

 

In other words, the situation with this customer must have been beyond dreadful. There can be no other explanation....

[Leejnd4]

In other words, the situation with this customer must have been beyond dreadful. There can be no other explanation....

I think that's been established. :D

[Retired LEO]

I don't know if this has been brought up since I haven't read the 300+ posts but I wonder how many frivolous lawsuits they may have filed since they seem to want compensation for every little thing. Some people make a living out of this until someone says "enough is enough" as RCI did.

[crusinmama06]

WOW that sure is some interesting reading over at the other site. And instead of the writer saying "I will report any updates" she writes that she stands by her story. And then got an editor to back her up to call it "fair and balanced". :rolleyes:

 

Yeah about as "fair and balanced" as the National Enquirer.

 

All the story needed was an alien abduction and it would have been perfect! :D

[SuziClue]

Hi, agreed at first with BobBeaSea about this -- it being extraordinary to tell a customer to take a walk, but after reading this thread (well, most of it anyway, LOL) and after stumbling across the following (did I find it on here? can't remember) it kind of can make sense. Check out this story, it's interesting: http://positivesharing.com/2006/07/why-the-customer-is-always-right-results-in-bad-customer-service/.

 

I also saw a news story on Cruise Critic's front page that addresses the hows and whys of getting banned, thought it was useful info http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2604 .

 

Suzi

 

It is an extraordinary occurrence for a company to say to a customer - we do not want your business and therefore you will denied entry to our premises, ship, plane....etc. It happens, probably more than we think but I would think it is a rare thing to happen in the cruise industry. It is extraordinary that circumstances suggest that RCI feels it is necessary to take this step.

 

In other words, the situation with this customer must have been beyond dreadful. There can be no other explanation....

[joycefnp]

I was actually very glad to see this string as it reminded me of a correction I needed to make.

 

In my review of my cruise on RCI's Brilliance, it may have appeared that I was complaining about the long and drawn out Life Boat drill. What I actually meant to say was that RCI's boarding process was Brilliant...as it afforded me ample opportunity to meet my fellow passengers and help several of them with their autobiographies.

 

And, as I recollect that cruise, I realize I may have accidently reversed some numbers on my cabin. It was not 646 as I originally stated, but actually 464.

 

SailorBill regrets any misunderstanding this may have caused.

 

SailorJack, or , er, SailorBill, wink, wink, that was also Brilliant

[joycefnp]

According to RCL, their policy includes banning passengers for saving deck chairs. While I realize we all get irritated by that from time to time, haven't we all done it at least once? Sounds extreme to me.

[Lightsluvr]

 

RCCL asked that the reviews be amended or pulled down?? That is just ridiculous. That is censorship... did RCCL learn their tactics from Joseph Stalin?

 

RCCL won't be bullying me.

 

If in fact RCCL asked that an untruthful thread be pulled, is someone akin to the murder of millions of Soviet citizens?

 

That's a bit of a stretch, doncha think?

 

JMHO

 

LL

[crusinmama06]

According to RCL, their policy includes banning passengers for saving deck chairs. While I realize we all get irritated by that from time to time, haven't we all done it at least once? Sounds extreme to me.

 

I just read that on the CC news article (good job on the article by the way...refreshing to read an actual FAIR and BALANCED article. Two thumbs up :D )

 

But yeah, surprising that chair hogs can be banned. :eek:

 

Not that I disagree, lol, it's just surprising.

[Lyncruiser]

I tried to find the banned cruiser's posts. From her review, it only linked to some other reviews. From the bulletin board, it linked me to posts going back only a month or so. I have read the links to her posts that others have provided. Based on everything I've read, I'm still not getting it.

 

I prefer to withhold my judgment unless I can consider and review the facts. In this case, I can't locate sufficient facts to make a judgment, so I won't.

 

Would that those who are intent on burning her at the stake would comment only if they have personal knowledge of the facts -- rather than heresay.

[joycefnp]

Of course, if they really ban everyone who saves chairs, soon it won't be a problem will it? Lots of empty chairs.....and cabins. LOL

[Leejnd4]

I also saw a news story on Cruise Critic's front page that addresses the hows and whys of getting banned, thought it was useful info http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2604 .

 

Outstanding article by Carolyn Spencer Brown! And it dispels some myths and misinformation that keep popping up in this (and the many other) threads about this incident: 1) that this couple has been banned because of their negative reviews/posts on CC, and 2) that RCI asked CC to delete or alter one or more of their reviews/posts. Laura Sterling has repeatedly repeated in there that the latter DID NOT HAPPEN.

 

I hope that people just coming to this thread read this article before they keep posting the same questions and misinformation.

[Leejnd4]

According to RCL, their policy includes banning passengers for saving deck chairs. While I realize we all get irritated by that from time to time, haven't we all done it at least once? Sounds extreme to me.

 

Um....no, I have never been a chair hog. :eek: But let's not go there...that's seriously off-topic.

[CruiseKeeper]

According to RCL, their policy includes banning passengers for saving deck chairs. While I realize we all get irritated by that from time to time, haven't we all done it at least once? Sounds extreme to me.

 

Nope, I don't save deck chairs. Ever. If my butt isn't in that chair, except for trips to the ladies, it's up for grabs.

 

You can't blame RCI for this action. After making monetary concessions to the complainers, balcony discounts, shareholder discounts and possibly senior discount, it's possible they were losing money on each cruise they took. Couple that with the continuing bad press the cruise line gets from the complainers and I'd have made the same decision.

[Leejnd4]

I tried to find the banned cruiser's posts. From her review, it only linked to some other reviews. From the bulletin board, it linked me to posts going back only a month or so. I have read the links to her posts that others have provided. Based on everything I've read, I'm still not getting it.

 

I prefer to withhold my judgment unless I can consider and review the facts. In this case, I can't locate sufficient facts to make a judgment, so I won't.

 

Would that those who are intent on burning her at the stake would comment only if they have personal knowledge of the facts -- rather than heresay.

Lyncruiser, some members have been reading her posts for years, so actually DO have personal knowledge.

 

There are two links in an earlier post of mine that give some great background. If you really want to do even more digging, then you can do a members list search for the member name, then click on it, then click on "Find All Threads Started By..." This will give you access to threads going back years.

 

Or you can try going to the Celebrity board and do a search on "blacklights" :D .

[joycefnp]

Guess I'm a chair hog. I save chairs if my party is on the way up or something. I don't save them if they're not coming for hours.

Mea Culpa.

And it's no more off topic than anything else.

[PH8]

I just read that on the CC news article (good job on the article by the way...refreshing to read an actual FAIR and BALANCED article. Two thumbs up :D )

 

But yeah, surprising that chair hogs can be banned. :eek:

 

Not that I disagree, lol, it's just surprising.

I have been trying to stay out of this,but getting banned for being a chair hog??? :eek: Come on,I don't believe that one for one minute. I think the execs at RCCL would laugh at that one if someone asked.........

[Leejnd4]

Guess I'm a chair hog. I save chairs if my party is on the way up or something. I don't save them if they're not coming for hours.

Mea Culpa.

And it's no more off topic than anything else.

 

Then you are not a chair hog. The "official" definition (based on the bazillions of post that I've read on that topic, as well as the official policy of RCI) is someone who saves a deck chair for longer than 20 minutes. So if you aren't doing that, then you are fine.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone has ever been banned for chair hogging...but I appreciate that they include that as a banable (is that a word?) offense! In any case, I suspect they include such items in their policy so that they can refer to it, to impress its severity on people who do it.

[joycefnp]

Don't shoot me I'm the messanger. Look at the write up on the front page of cruise critic. According to RCL, it's one of the bannable offences, oh and that's along with underage drinking. Gee, someone should talk to all those bartenders on the boats, shouldn't they?