9/11 Ecstasy cruise - Commentary

[want2cruiseagain]

This is a commentary in the Houston Chronicle today about the cruise were were on:

 

http://blogs.chron.com/trip/

[klfrodo]

While I'm sorry for the problems this storm caused, I see no mention in this article regarding travel insurance which would have alleviated most of the additional costs incurred.

Travel insurance would not have covered the emotional distress but it sure would have put some salve on the sting I'm sure.

 

I'm curious to know why the reporter didn't cover the travel insurance angle?

[want2cruiseagain]

While I'm sorry for the problems this storm caused, I see no mention in this article regarding travel insurance which would have alleviated most of the additional costs incurred.

Travel insurance would not have covered the emotional distress but it sure would have put some salve on the sting I'm sure.

 

I'm curious to know why the reporter didn't cover the travel insurance angle?

 

 

We bought the travel insurance and I called the day we were leaving, got one answer that it would not be covered. Called back and got another answer that it would. Since we were going to evacuate our house anyway, we chose to go ahead on the cruise.

 

They filled the pool when we got to Veracruz and did not drain it until we got to New Orleans, which was Tuesday. It was refilled when we got back into open waters late Wednesday.

 

The seas were not that rocky. A little bit Thursday evening (leaving Galveston) and then rocky most of the day Friday. But by about 5 p.m., the sun came out and the seas were very calm. We had calm seas the rest of the trip. We never got seasick.

[aggieastrosfan]

A side note about all the people who say we should have bought insurance. Carnival has a vacation guarantee and there for does not offer vacation insurance. The only insurance they offer is medical - if you are very sick and need to cancel you will get a refund.

 

Interesting statement made by a poster in response to the "Life's a Trip" blog. While I certainly feel for these guys, is Carnival really telling people that there's NOWHERE to get travel insurance?

[okbookgirl]

I do think Carnival should have reconsidered having people drive up on an mandatory evactionary, but you know people still chose to do it. If they were not offered a chance to cancel(with the evacuation) they do have a grievence, but if not then they took the risk.

 

I do also think that CC should have done more to help people. get back home from NO.

[gypsycruiser]

I do think Carnival should have reconsidered having people drive up on an mandatory evactionary, but you know people still chose to do it. If they were not offered a chance to cancel(with the evacuation) they do have a grievence, but if not then they took the risk.

 

I do also think that CC should have done more to help people. get back home from NO.

 

I have been on these boards for some time even though this is my first post and have cruised during hurricane season, was suppose to be on conquest week of Katrina rebooked suppose to go opted out because of Rita. At what point do we as adults take resposibility for our actions? :confused: Those who took this and the Conquest cruise saw the same news CC saw you saw the same projected path and came to a port in a city that was evacuating, at this point why not blame the city for letting you even enter the city under a mandatory evacuation or the car rentals for letting you take their cars to Galveston. It is all a roll of the dice vacationing without travel insurance we do it for our land based vacations - have used it twice...Katrina & Rita.

[Cindy]

I don't think CCL should have done anything differently with the Conquest. At the time the Conquest sailed, the eventual landfall of the hurricane was still very much in question. If I recall correctly, Galveston wasn't even a high probability that far out.

The Ecstasy is another matter. I think since Galveston on Thursday was under a mandatory evacuation order for the entire island (not just the West End), Carnival was extremely irresponsible in not allowing area residents to cancel or rebook without penalty.

It's easy for those of us who weren't on that cruise to say people shouldn't have gone, and passengers should take responsibility for their losses since they chose to park in Galveston and take the cruise. I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who had saved for a vacation and didn't think I could afford to just throw the cost of the vacation away. Part of me would assume that Carnival wouldn't sail in a situation they thought would put passengers or passengers' property at risk.

IMO there's a big difference between a operating a cruise that has to sail an altered itinerary to avoid a storm and operating a cruise from a largely drive-in port with lots of local passengers, especially when that port is under mandatory evacuation orders and a hurricane is expected the next day.

What about the port employees who had homes and property to secure and evacuation plans to make? What about the provisioners who needed to secure their businesses and head to safer ground? What about the fact that area residents were being told to keep the roads clear so Galveston residents could evacuate? I think insisting on operating a cruise under these conditions at risk to safety and property was an extremely poor decision.

[LHP]

Just one week earlier, we were in Galveston that had a voluntary evacuation for Gustav.

 

Folks were shocked that the Conquest was still sailing on Sunday with Gustav .....set to hit the next day. Well, it did hit the next day....but not Galveston.

 

Galveston did not get one drop of rain. However, Carnival delayed our Ecstasy cruise by 2 days. We were given a 50% refund (although we only lost 40% of our cruise) PLUS a 50% discount on a future cruise because our 5 day cruise turned into a 3 day cruise to nowhere. We were also given the option to cancel. So Carnival has demonstrated that they are willing to cancel or delay cruises when necessary. And reward us very well, I think.

 

The Mandatory Evacuation was not issued until Thursday (the day the Ecstasy left). By the time the Mandatory Evacuation was ordered on Thursday, people were on the way to the ship. So then what is the choice....as people arrive tell them the cruise is cancelled and then have all these people mad that they made the trip for nothing???

 

Had Ike stalled or hit Brownsville instead of Galveston or just gone in another direction like Gustav...this would be a mute point.

 

People who did not want to cruise should have used their travel insurance.

With the mandatory evacuation (even as late as Thursday) insurance would have covered it. If people did not purchase insurance, then they took the personal responsibility to "self insure".

 

And where is personal responsibility in all of this? The people that cruised had the SAME information that Carnival had. At any time, they could have cancelled their cruise and either "collect the insurance" or "eat the cost" because THEY elected to "self insure".

 

I just can't understand why some folks want to rag Carnival about poor choices and yet says nothing about the people who made the personal choice to get on the ship. Fair is fair...