How should lines compensate Mexico travelers?

[knight2096]

Just because something is perceived to be unfair doesn't mean it's not valid. Contracts are contracts. When folks sign on the dotted line - in the case of a cruise' date=' book and deposit - they have AGREED to the contract in place and are bound by it.

 

If, after reading the contract - and before depositing - someone finds the contract to be unfair, they have the option of not booking.....[/quote']

 

I understand what your saying, but with that thinking you would not be able to do anything in life or make any major purchases. These contracts are too one sided.

[CC Help Michell]

Just because something is in a contract does not mean its FAIR. Most contracts are full of crap that screw the customer and are not in the customers best interest. Please don't give me the line that if you don't like it don't sail, if people followed that thinking they would never be able to fly, sail, buy a home, buy a car, get insurance, etc... Its seems if you want to do anything these days you have to sign something that is not in your best interest. Again just because its in the contract does not mean its FAIR!!!!!

 

Two points.

 

One, regarding the port change language in the contract

 

I'm not a big fan of standardized contracts (look up "contracts of adhesion" sometime), but I do comprehend that cruiselines couldn't stay in business at all if they had to offer a full fare refund to all passengers when ports change. That clause permits the industry to exist -- that's why ALL the cruiselines have one. Either the cruiseline reserves the right to change ports when necessary, at their sole discretion, unreviewable in court, OR the cruiseline is constantly in litigation with thousands of people over whether THIS port change on THAT day in THESE circumstances was "reasonable." No business could function like that.

 

Two, regarding "fairness."

 

Why is it any more "fair" for the cruiseline to take the financial hit for an event outside anyone's control (this disease) than it is for an individual, in these unusual circumstances? I don't ask that as flamebait -- I am a teacher and work significant hours at extra jobs every year to afford cruising and travel -- but I know that my being able to do is a luxury. I work those extra hours for my "fun" -- not to put food on my table. I value that vacation money (I work darned hard to earn it), so I always buy insurance just in case, but know what? Even so sometimes things happen which are NOBODY'S "fault."

 

I don't get why the cruiseline should automatically be the one expected to eat this kind of loss, especially when the contract, which every passenger agreed to, specifically protects them against it.

 

Some folks have mentioned generating "goodwill?" We aren't talking small money, "aw, make a concession to the customers" here. We are talking potential refunds for multiple ships holding thousands of passengers each -- I'd guess maybe 10,000 passengers per week, for four weeks or so (I tried to be conservative). If the average fare for those folks is $1000 each, that is $40,000,000 lost in a month, and that doesn't even count lost onboard revenue, which is no doubt a significant multiple of that figure. I also imagine my numbers are way off, on the low side, of the exposure here.

[Aquahound]

I understand what your saying, but with that thinking you would not be able to do anything in life or make any major purchases. These contracts are too one sided.

 

...and some people on these boards are too quick to start reciting cruise contracts as a way of minimizing someone else's ruined vacation plans (not you, knight).

 

It's a really shallow thing to do. :rolleyes:

[lysolqn]

Go ahead and flame me but is there anyone else out there who is tired of reading the word "compensation" in this and similar threads regarding cancelled ports and/or itinerary changes in connection with the current flu outbreak?

 

IMHO, the cruise lines should give pax the option to cancel without penalty any upcoming cruise that would otherwise have called on ports in Mexico - but that's it. Why doesn't anyone expect the airlines to offer anything beyond the no-fee cancellations they're permitting? What is it about cruise pax that fosters in them a sense of entitlement that is far beyond reasonable, allowing them to believe that they are entitled to be recompensed for something that is no more the fault of the cruise lines than it is the fault of the airlines? Talk of future cruise credits, onboard credits, reimbursement, open bar, free this and free that because the US government is advising against travel to Mexico is ridiculous. Perhaps the cruise lines shouldn't bother to cancel ports but instead allow pax to disembark and have a rolicking old time in Mexico. Of course, for obvious reasons getting back on the ship would have to be a no-no - which would surely lead to demands for compensation for illness-related expenses, not to mention a cruise cut short and airfare home.

[Mary Ellen]

What an ignorant statement, you are comparing apples to oranges.

No, someone's vacation plans have been altered by something neither they, nor the cruise lines, have any control. All that differs is the magnitude of the number of passengers affected.

[knight2096]

No, someone's vacation plans have been altered by something neither they, nor the cruise lines, have any control. All that differs is the magnitude of the number of passengers affected.

 

This flu is as much out of our control as it is the cruise lines control. You are one sided on this issue.

[sail7seas]

I am going to take a minute and after doing some more thinking, kind of argue against a previous post of mine.

 

I work in the insurance industry. We insure big businesses (and cruise lines are certainly big businesses). They purchase insurance called 'business interruption'. Now I obviously do not know the specific insurance coverage of the individual cruise lines, I would hazard a guess that they do carry insurance that would compensate them for revenue lost from missed ports, or customer cancellations, etc.. under certain conditions. So I wonder..........are they in fact being compensated from their insurers somehow but are not passing that compensation along to their passengers? I don't know the answer, but I wonder..........:rolleyes:

 

 

If, indeed, the cruise lines have such insurance and are collecting on their policies, does that change your opinion?

[JeanieRich]

Instead of Puerta Vallarta, Mazatlan and Cabo San Lucas the Splendor is going to San Francisco, Seattle and Victoria. They did this for May 3rd. I sail May 17 and my agent has said they expect the same ports that date but it is not set in concrete yet. I am thrilled, I love the Northern ports :-) Not everyone in my group (of 150 singles) shares my opinion but I have been on 29 cruises (been there done that) so I'm easier to please maybe....Carol in CA

What substitute ports are available if you are doing the Mexican Riviera? Hawaii?

[bmazzo]

Companies hire lawyers to make unreasonible contracts to make sure they can get away with doing whatever they want. In the end its the consumer that gets the shaft.

 

 

And stupid people sign them and complain when if they don't get what they want. :D

[bmazzo]

Go ahead and flame me but is there anyone else out there who is tired of reading the word "compensation" in this and similar threads regarding cancelled ports and/or itinerary changes in connection with the current flu outbreak?

 

IMHO, the cruise lines should give pax the option to cancel without penalty any upcoming cruise that would otherwise have called on ports in Mexico - but that's it. Why doesn't anyone expect the airlines to offer anything beyond the no-fee cancellations they're permitting? What is it about cruise pax that fosters in them a sense of entitlement that is far beyond reasonable, allowing them to believe that they are entitled to be recompensed for something that is no more the fault of the cruise lines than it is the fault of the airlines? Talk of future cruise credits, onboard credits, reimbursement, open bar, free this and free that because the US government is advising against travel to Mexico is ridiculous. Perhaps the cruise lines shouldn't bother to cancel ports but instead allow pax to disembark and have a rolicking old time in Mexico. Of course, for obvious reasons getting back on the ship would have to be a no-no - which would surely lead to demands for compensation for illness-related expenses, not to mention a cruise cut short and airfare home.

 

Well Said

[jtoniva]

Go ahead and flame me but is there anyone else out there who is tired of reading the word "compensation" in this and similar threads regarding cancelled ports and/or itinerary changes in connection with the current flu outbreak?

 

IMHO, the cruise lines should give pax the option to cancel without penalty any upcoming cruise that would otherwise have called on ports in Mexico - but that's it. Why doesn't anyone expect the airlines to offer anything beyond the no-fee cancellations they're permitting? What is it about cruise pax that fosters in them a sense of entitlement that is far beyond reasonable, allowing them to believe that they are entitled to be recompensed for something that is no more the fault of the cruise lines than it is the fault of the airlines? Talk of future cruise credits, onboard credits, reimbursement, open bar, free this and free that because the US government is advising against travel to Mexico is ridiculous. Perhaps the cruise lines shouldn't bother to cancel ports but instead allow pax to disembark and have a rolicking old time in Mexico. Of course, for obvious reasons getting back on the ship would have to be a no-no - which would surely lead to demands for compensation for illness-related expenses, not to mention a cruise cut short and airfare home.

 

As stated in a previous post, we as passengers are a captive audience; the cruise lines hold all the cards and we don't have any of the information they have as to whether or not they are insured against this type of flu outbreak or not. I can tell you from personal experience that they don't give a hoot about refunding any of your monies if you have to cancel a cruise due to a family emergency that is not covered under the insurance plan you buy from them.

[cruizerboozer]

May 10th....Vancouver and Victoria ONLY!!

[knight2096]

And stupid people sign them and complain when if they don't get what they want. :D

 

 

The only thing stupid is your post. :D:D:D

[lysolqn]

As stated in a previous post, we as passengers are a captive audience; the cruise lines hold all the cards and we don't have any of the information they have as to whether or not they are insured against this type of flu outbreak or not.

 

The cruise lines hold none of the cards (insured or otherwise), unless of course you believe they planted the swine virus in Mexico because they absolutely relish the idea of dealing with the strategic nightmare of re-routing ships and dealing with thousands of disgruntled pax who think they're entitled to compensation when the direction of the wind changes and is no longer to their liking.

 

I can tell you from personal experience that they don't give a hoot about refunding any of your monies if you have to cancel a cruise due to a family emergency that is not covered under the insurance plan you buy from them.

 

Nor should they give a hoot. It's the pax' responsibility to properly insure themselves against any and all potential losses they may incur should they have to cancel for any reason, family emergency or otherwise. That's a concept called 'personal responsibility,' meaning that a) not everything that happens to you (not you, personally) is someone else's fault, and b) sometimes luck and timing come into play and you just can't hold someone else responsible for your bad luck and/or bad timing nor should you expect them to foot the bill for the aforementioned on your behalf.

[jtoniva]

The cruise lines hold none of the cards (insured or otherwise), unless of course you believe they planted the swine virus in Mexico because they absolutely relish the idea of dealing with the strategic nightmare of re-routing ships and dealing with thousands of disgruntled pax who think they're entitled to compensation when the direction of the wind changes and is no longer to their liking.

 

 

 

Nor should they give a hoot. It's the pax' responsibility to properly insure themselves against any and all potential losses they may incur should they have to cancel for any reason, family emergency or otherwise. That's a concept called 'personal responsibility,' meaning that a) not everything that happens to you (not you, personally) is someone else's fault, and b) sometimes luck and timing come into play and you just can't hold someone else responsible for your bad luck and/or bad timing nor should you expect them to foot the bill for the aforementioned on your behalf.

 

The title of my post was: "Perhaps Good Will and/or Cruise Line Loyalty in the Form of Repeat Business" as a reason why cruise lines might want to take action to compensate disappointed passengers.

 

Not sure where your statement: "unless you believe they planted the swine virus" is coming from? Of course I know that's not the case. In holding all the cards I was referring to the cruise lines decision to take a course of action to compensate or not once the so called pandemic took root and action became necessary on their part.

 

I'm a bit taken back as well by your comment about "personal responsibility"; why does a "pax" have it but not the cruise line? Is there also a cruise line responsibility "to properly insure themselves against any and all potential losses they may incur"?

 

Wishing U fair winds and following seas,

 

John

[bmazzo]

The only thing stupid is your post. :D:D:D

 

 

Truth hurts Huh:cool:

[knight2096]

Truth hurts Huh:cool:

 

Well maybe if you had some truth to speak. Heck, maybe if you had something even intelligent to say.

[mkdreams]

Truth hurts Huh:cool:

 

 

You sound like a child.

[knight2096]

You sound like a child.

 

 

Thats what I was thinking, if not a child at least very childish.

[knight2096]

Truth hurts Huh:cool:

 

Hey bright one, take a look above at the poll. Looks like most people agree with me. Like you said truth hurts Huh. :D:D:D

[mkdreams]

Hey bright one, take a look above at the poll. Looks like most people agree with me. Like you said truth hurts Huh. :D:D:D

 

So very true lol!!! :D

[sassysandlin]

i just got home from the carnival inspiration cruise that sailed from tampa 04/25/09-04/30/09.....one port of call was cayman island for about 6 hrs...and the next was supposed to be cozumel...which was cancelled due to the swine flu ...which was perfectly fine. it's the way the captain & senior staff went about it....instead of just taking us to another port of call....we went back to tampa very very slowly. a $20 credit for our port taxes was credited back to our "sail & sign" account....that was money we already paid...they didn't GIVE us anything....nothing....not even a free drink....nothing! we paid a huge fuel surcharge fee, port & tax fee to go there & all we got back was OUR $20....we just wanted some real compensation....or take us to another port of call.....we paid to go to 2 port of calls....that is why everyone is so upset.....we had already set sail when the cdc made the upgrade on the swine flu so we could've just stayed in the caymans for another day or some other port of call....they had no back up plan....i wanted to cry i was so upset. the stabalizers were out on the ship and it was very very rocky. i just wanted to be on land if only for a few hours. carnival is horrible and don't even try to get ahold of their guest care department...they hang up on you or frankly don't give a damn! :mad: they are thrilled everyone had to stay on the ship for an extra day and they made the money that cozumel would've made. funship special drink of the day $6.95 + 15% gratuity....16 oz bud light $4.75 + 15% gratuity.....being stuck at sea at carnival's mercy.....priceless!

[lysolqn]

i just got home from the carnival inspiration cruise that sailed from tampa 04/25/09-04/30/09.....one port of call was cayman island for about 6 hrs...and the next was supposed to be cozumel...which was cancelled due to the swine flu ...which was perfectly fine. it's the way the captain & senior staff went about it....instead of just taking us to another port of call....we went back to tampa very very slowly. a $20 credit for our port taxes was credited back to our "sail & sign" account....that was money we already paid...they didn't GIVE us anything....nothing....not even a free drink....nothing! we paid a huge fuel surcharge fee, port & tax fee to go there & all we got back was OUR $20....we just wanted some real compensation....or take us to another port of call.....we paid to go to 2 port of calls....that is why everyone is so upset.....we had already set sail when the cdc made the upgrade on the swine flu so we could've just stayed in the caymans for another day or some other port of call....they had no back up plan....i wanted to cry i was so upset. the stabalizers were out on the ship and it was very very rocky. i just wanted to be on land if only for a few hours. carnival is horrible and don't even try to get ahold of their guest care department...they hang up on you or frankly don't give a damn! :mad: they are thrilled everyone had to stay on the ship for an extra day and they made the money that cozumel would've made. funship special drink of the day $6.95 + 15% gratuity....16 oz bud light $4.75 + 15% gratuity.....being stuck at sea at carnival's mercy.....priceless!

 

I understand your disappointment but you were refunded the port charges you paid to visit the port of Cozumel, thus you were made 'whole.' No, you couldn't "have just stayed in the caymans for another day" because other ships were due to call there and the port authority limits the number of ships it can safely accommodate at its docks and/or in its harbor on any given day. The same thing goes for "some other port of call." I'm no fan of Carnival but they did have a back up plan - another day at sea. Surely you don't blame the cruise line for rocky seas - would you expect compensation for a rocky ride if it was on one of your scheduled sea days? Stuff happens...and sometimes you have to take it on the chin, chalk it up to life and move on. Expecting to receive monetary remuneration every time something goes awry is ridiculous.

[lysolqn]

The title of my post was: "Perhaps Good Will and/or Cruise Line Loyalty in the Form of Repeat Business" as a reason why cruise lines might want to take action to compensate disappointed passengers.

 

Perhaps common sense and understanding that not everything that happens to us in life requires someone else to throw money at us to make nice is an equally valid response to events that are beyond one's control.

 

Not sure where your statement: "unless you believe they planted the swine virus" is coming from? Of course I know that's not the case. In holding all the cards I was referring to the cruise lines decision to take a course of action to compensate or not once the so called pandemic took root and action became necessary on their part.

 

My comment was tongue in cheek.

 

I'm a bit taken back as well by your comment about "personal responsibility"; why does a "pax" have it but not the cruise line?

 

Because that's the definition of personal responsibility.

 

Is there also a cruise line responsibility "to properly insure themselves against any and all potential losses they may incur"?

 

Of course. And they do properly insure themselves, but they're also prudent about making claims against that insurance, particularly when they've suffered no loss but rather are dealing with a bunch of entitlement-minded pax whose response to disappointment is gimme, gimme, gimme.

 

Wishing U fair winds and following seas,

 

And the very same to you!

[m steve]

I'll hold my breath...until cocktail time.