Jump to content

Is it time for cruisers to speak out?


Travelcat2
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I understand that people should buy travel insurance. And, I also understand that cruise lines do not want to lose money when tragedies occur (nor should they).

 

There are a couple of current threads that discuss people unable to cruise due to hurricanes, illness, etc. Unfortunately, in many part of the world, including the U.S., there seems to be tragedies that happen too frequently. For the U.S., we had a tragedy last night in Las Vegas. People that have full intensions of sailing on a cruise are hit with life changing obstacles (death, medical emergencies that require immediate care, hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.). This obviously does not happen only to older passengers but can happen to anyone.

 

As it stands now, if, due to an emergency (which would need to be defined very specifically), a passenger loses 100% of their cruise fare if they do not have insurance. This could be a loss of between $15,000 to $100,000+ if the passenger does not have insurance. I am not questioning this policy.

 

However (wanted to put this in all caps but don't want to "yell"), if the cruise line fills the suite that was cancelled, they are in essence doubling their money on that suite. Somehow this sounds wrong on many levels. Why should any cruise line benefit from a tragedy?

 

While many older passengers do get insurance, the younger ones (that many of you feel that Regent should be trying to entice) do not. And, in the case of the tragedy last night, many younger people were killed or in the hospital.

 

Is it time to speak out against all cruise lines and let them know that it is not okay to benefit from a tragedy? That when a suite is filled by a full paying passenger that the passenger that had to cancel should receive a future cruise credit equal to the amount that they paid?

 

If we could change the way a cruise line thinks in terms of this issue, it is a win-win. Regent, for instance, would fill the suite and would also be booking a future cruise. There is no loss whatsoever for the cruise line.

 

Things in the world have changed - we have to change - cruise lines and airlines need to change as well. Am I the only one thinking this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travelcat you are not alone in this. What if the cruise line allowed you to send someone else to fill your spot? you could either "sell" your reservation to someone else, maybe at a reduced price, or even give it to someone else. You can do this when you rent a villa and can't go, why not a cabin on a cruise ship? Just a thought.

Edited by sharon2975
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travelcat you are not alone in this. What if the cruise line allowed you to send someone else to fill your spot? you could either "sell" your reservation to someone else, maybe at a reduced price, or even give it to someone else. You can do this when you rent a villa and can't go, why not a cabin on a cruise ship? Just a thought.

 

Would be nice if you could do this with airline tickets, too. it actually happened a lot before IDs were required "for security reasons." I know...I used to work for a major airline. :halo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2016, we had to cancel our Regent 11-day trip around the British Isles due to a family accident one week before we were to leave. Our Travel Agent was wonderful and helped us notify all companies involved with our trip. We were fortunate, we did have travel insurance (independent insurance, not Regent Care).

 

I am sure Regent did fill all 7 of our suites that we had booked for that trip. It bothered me a little that Regent did get paid twice for those rooms. We did the British Isles trip this year (2017) through Regent. It would have been nice to have earned a little recognition for having paid twice, or even receiving days towards the Seven Seas Society for having "paid" for that trip twice.

 

I truly feel bad when people do have tragedies and have to cancel a trip they have looked forward to for so long. It was hard on our family to have to cancel, but after an accident, that doesn't matter at the time. I like the post earlier that maybe Regent should offer the person a credit for a future trip within 18 months. That seems fair to me.

 

My family feels fortunate that the family member in the accident was able to get healthy and well enough to travel this summer. We feel blessed for that! It was a trip of a lifetime for all of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice if you could do this with airline tickets, too. it actually happened a lot before IDs were required "for security reasons." I know...I used to work for a major airline. :halo:

 

It would be great! Actually, airlines, insurance companies and cruise lines all need to review any policy that was put in place in the last century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I understand that people should buy travel insurance. And, I also understand that cruise lines do not want to lose money when tragedies occur (nor should they).

 

 

 

There are a couple of current threads that discuss people unable to cruise due to hurricanes, illness, etc. Unfortunately, in many part of the world, including the U.S., there seems to be tragedies that happen too frequently. For the U.S., we had a tragedy last night in Las Vegas. People that have full intensions of sailing on a cruise are hit with life changing obstacles (death, medical emergencies that require immediate care, hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.). This obviously does not happen only to older passengers but can happen to anyone.

 

 

 

As it stands now, if, due to an emergency (which would need to be defined very specifically), a passenger loses 100% of their cruise fare if they do not have insurance. This could be a loss of between $15,000 to $100,000+ if the passenger does not have insurance. I am not questioning this policy.

 

 

 

However (wanted to put this in all caps but don't want to "yell"), if the cruise line fills the suite that was cancelled, they are in essence doubling their money on that suite. Somehow this sounds wrong on many levels. Why should any cruise line benefit from a tragedy?

 

 

 

While many older passengers do get insurance, the younger ones (that many of you feel that Regent should be trying to entice) do not. And, in the case of the tragedy last night, many younger people were killed or in the hospital.

 

 

 

Is it time to speak out against all cruise lines and let them know that it is not okay to benefit from a tragedy? That when a suite is filled by a full paying passenger that the passenger that had to cancel should receive a future cruise credit equal to the amount that they paid?

 

 

 

If we could change the way a cruise line thinks in terms of this issue, it is a win-win. Regent, for instance, would fill the suite and would also be booking a future cruise. There is no loss whatsoever for the cruise line.

 

 

 

Things in the world have changed - we have to change - cruise lines and airlines need to change as well. Am I the only one thinking this way?

 

 

 

Cruise lines aren’t the only ones who operate this way. Hotels, Airlines, Uber, any means of travel operate and spike prices. Not because they are inconsiderate of people effected by tragedies but because they anticipate on losing money anyway because people don’t like to travel in fear. So to make up for possible loses, they spike their prices.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TC2 I agree if they rebook the room they should give the person or persons a future trip. If not they should leave the suite I booked vacant. Which would benefit nobody.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travelcat2,

I think your heart is in the right place, but your business sense certainly isn't.

 

That is what TRAVEL INSURANCE is providing. So the cruise line is now supposed to just refund based on if they resell the cabin. What about guarantees. How do you figure that one out?

 

What about the bitching, not to mention the lawsuits because cruise line could resell Pax A but not Pax B's cabin.

 

Of course there is a revenue loss for the cruise line and it could be a double loss for the cruise line

Cruise revenue is recognized on sailing date.

In your scenerio

* the cruise revenue that is given a future cruise credit is not recognized and most likely is now a liability on the books. Loss #1.

** Lets say that the future cruise credit passenger decides to use that cruise credit for a very popular itinerary that has wait lists. Because the cruise credit passenger displaced a regular paying passenger that cannot go because there is no cabin available. Loss #2.

Edited by commodore2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of travel companies potentially 'profiteering' from cancellation charges has been debated in the UK for years. The following articles may be of interest:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

commodore2010 - Yes - details would need to be worked out and this may not be available to people who book guarantees. I also see your point about revenue not being based on future bookings - I had not thought about that.

 

flossie's first linked article (thank you for the links) speaks to how insurance companies do whatever they can to avoid paying a claim. Having worked with insurance companies (not in an insurance company but a large corporation that dealt with healthcare insurance companies on a daily basis), I know their tactics and wonder how they are permitted to rip off the public to the degree that they do but that is another issue.

 

 

The scenario that I was discussing would work in the weeks prior to the sailing rather than the day or week before sailing (in most instances - not all). They are two ways with dealing with how the future credit approvals could work (probably more than two but I can only think of two). 1). You are in suite 777 and have to cancel for an "approved reason". The category is waitlisted. Regent can put your suite back into inventory and see if it sells; or 2). A suite category is full or waitlisted. Two passengers cancel and only one suite is sold. This would be a first come - first served situation. The person who cancelled first would receive the future cruise credit.

 

 

If, Regent does not issue a future cruise credit before receiving full payment for the passengers that they resold the suite to, how is the cruise line losing money? I am truly curious and am not trying to be sarcastic in any way. If I am missing something, please let me know.

 

 

P.S. Wish that I made this Regent specific so that the thread would not have been moved. My mistake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to figure out is why people decide that THEY should determine a for profit companies policies.

These are not charities. I invest my hard earned money in these publicly traded companies so I can have a decent retirement.

 

If these are actions that you truly feel would make a company more profitable, then there are choices.

 

1. Start you're own cruise line and make your own policies. Start like any of them did. Develop a business plan, find investors, buy a used ship, start making lots of money with your new policies.

 

2. Start your own hedge fund, buy up lots of stock, sit on the board and make policy decisions.

(hint: then short your own stock)

 

 

 

Or, on second thought. Cruise lines could do exactly as airlines have done.

So, you want to cruise? Okay

Non-Refundable $100 a night pp

Fully Refundable $200 a night pp

 

of course just as with the airline situation everyone would buy the non refundable but complain when something happens and they don't get a refund.

Edited by klfrodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to figure out is why people decide that THEY should determine a for profit companies policies.

These are not charities. I invest my hard earned money in these publicly traded companies so I can have a decent retirement.

 

.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but it should be said that we are not talking about a few hundred dollars a night - we are talking upward of $1,000/night/person (not that it should matter). Personally, I invest in companies that make money and have a heart. Regent's parent company had ships going to the rescue of people living on the hurricane ravaged islands (and still may have some delivering aid).

 

Regent, Oceania and NCL are run by human beings that definitely care about their customers. I am not trying to set policy, but are simply asking for Regent (in particular) to look inside of their hearts and set a revise a policy that should have been revised years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the only time that a cruise line could be considered to be 'profiting' from a cancellation charge is if the ship is 100% full at time of sailing.

In that case it could (morally) be argued that the cruise line has not suffered a financial loss due to the cancellation (with the exception of some admin costs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the only time that a cruise line could be considered to be 'profiting' from a cancellation charge is if the ship is 100% full at time of sailing.

In that case it could (morally) be argued that the cruise line has not suffered a financial loss due to the cancellation (with the exception of some admin costs)

 

I suspect they can argue somewhat that there is a financial loss due to a cancellation. Part of the loss may be attributed to less spent in the casino, spa, shops ... and whatever else one may spend money on, even on an all inclusive line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the only time that a cruise line could be considered to be 'profiting' from a cancellation charge is if the ship is 100% full at time of sailing.

In that case it could (morally) be argued that the cruise line has not suffered a financial loss due to the cancellation (with the exception of some admin costs)

 

Trying to figure out your reasoning. Why wouldn't the cruise line profit If one category is full, one person cancels, loses their money and Regent resells the cabin at full price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but it should be said that we are not talking about a few hundred dollars a night - we are talking upward of $1,000/night/person (not that it should matter). Personally, I invest in companies that make money and have a heart. Regent's parent company had ships going to the rescue of people living on the hurricane ravaged islands (and still may have some delivering aid).

.

 

2 points that I am hearing.

 

So, you're only concern is for the high end clientele spending $1000 a night pp vs the Royal or Carnival customer who only spends $100 to $150 a night pp.

So, the Nordstrom customer vs, the Walmart or Target customer.

These are the clients who should be provided a better level of protection in case of emergency (since they are paying way more) than the Royal or Carnival customer.

 

 

I'm very glad to hear that regents parent company provided ships and space on those ships to help with the recent disasters. However, I hope you understand that ALL of the cruise lines assisted in anyway they could also. Carnival used cargo space to ship in supplies. Royal sent in ships for supplies and to help survivors. heck, even little companies that run casino adventures to the Bahamas stopped their operation so they could turn their ships over to FEMA personnel.

So, help me understand how Regent has more "heart" than the other cruise lines?

Help me understand why a person paying $1000 a night requires better financial protection in case of emergency than a lower person who pays $100 a night. And please tell me how this would play into the $1000 a night has more 'heart" than a $100 a night person.

 

Hell,,, I can afford the $1000 a night cruise but I prefer the $100 a night crowd. That's where you'll find "heart".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to figure out your reasoning. Why wouldn't the cruise line profit If one category is full, one person cancels, loses their money and Regent resells the cabin at full price?

 

Because the whole ship is a profit or loss center, not an individual cabin, regardless how many fares are collected. Yes, fares are set and sold per cabin, but Regent cannot just pull empty cabins off the ship and reduce operating costs accordingly. They are taking a risk that they will be able to sell all cabins on every single sailing. Sometimes they have to reduce prices to fill the ship, sometimes not. But they have to send the whole ship out on every sailing, and they cannot just cancel a sailing if some cabins are empty.

Edited by cherylandtk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 points that I am hearing.

 

So, you're only concern is for the high end clientele spending $1000 a night pp vs the Royal or Carnival customer who only spends $100 to $150 a night pp.

So, the Nordstrom customer vs, the Walmart or Target customer.

These are the clients who should be provided a better level of protection in case of emergency (since they are paying way more) than the Royal or Carnival customer.

 

 

I'm very glad to hear that regents parent company provided ships and space on those ships to help with the recent disasters. However, I hope you understand that ALL of the cruise lines assisted in anyway they could also. Carnival used cargo space to ship in supplies. Royal sent in ships for supplies and to help survivors. heck, even little companies that run casino adventures to the Bahamas stopped their operation so they could turn their ships over to FEMA personnel.

So, help me understand how Regent has more "heart" than the other cruise lines?

Help me understand why a person paying $1000 a night requires better financial protection in case of emergency than a lower person who pays $100 a night. And please tell me how this would play into the $1000 a night has more 'heart" than a $100 a night person.

 

Hell,,, I can afford the $1000 a night cruise but I prefer the $100 a night crowd. That's where you'll find "heart".

 

First, it is important to note that this thread was moved from the Regent board because I didn't make it Regent specific so my comments were aimed towards Regent passengers. I clearly wrote in my first response to you that the high cost of the cruise "really shouldn't matter".

 

I don't know how to answer one question. You say that you can afford $1,000 a night but prefer to pay $100 a night. No problem there but wouldn't losing 100% of a $7,000 fare hurt a bit more than losing 100% of a $700 fare?

 

The discussion of having a "heart" was related to your comment that you only invest in publicly traded companies.......... I responded that I invest in companies that also have heart. I mentioned what Regent did because Regent is our cruise line of choice and in no way indicated that other cruise lines did not do the same.

 

I found your post very harsh - especially since I was only making a suggestion to learn what other people thought. Either you think it is a good idea or it is a bad idea (or somewhere in between). I didn't expect a rant about people trying to determine profit for a company. IMO, that was way of topic.

 

cherylandtk, ignoring the fact that you called me "naive or narcissistic" and getting back to the point. I'm not talking about profit and loss or operating costs. Let me break it down to make it easier to understand.

 

Regent often waitlists an entire category of suites (note Regent ships range in size from 490 to 750 passengers). Often, the entire ship is waitlisted (as our upcoming cruise for November has been for months). When a waitlist occurs, people put a deposit on the suite that they want (this deposit is not required but people with a deposit will be first on the waiting list).

 

So, if someone's spouse passes away today and needs to cancel their suite and they do not have insurance they lose 100% of their money (note: the penalty phase for some cruises begins 5 months before the cruise). Now, if the suite that was just cancelled has people on the waiting list, it will be filled with a full paying guest. In this case I was recommending giving the person that had to cancel due to an emergency a future cruise credit equal to the amount they paid for the cruise minus administrative fees, airplane cancellations (if they booked air through Regent), etc.

 

This is all that I was talking about. If it is a bad idea - so be it. I just don't think that it is something worth bashing someone over.

P.S. BTW, Regent does not lower prices on cruises when it gets closer to sailing. While most of their ships sail full (or nearly full), they will sail with empty suites. Regent has never cancelled a cruise due to how many passengers were onboard.

Edited by Travelcat2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem there but wouldn't losing 100% of a $7,000 fare hurt a bit more than losing 100% of a $700 fare?

 

I don't think so, No

 

If my annual income was only $20K or $30K a year, I'm probably only booking a $700 fare. Losing that $700 fare would be extremely painful.

If my annual income is $250K a year, I might book that $7000 fare. It's going to be just as painful to lose that $7000 to me as it would be a $700 fare to someone who has less disposable income than I do.

 

Just because your fare has more zero's doesn't mean it's more painful or stressful to lose.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the $700 fare would be more painful. That $700 is a higher percentage of disposable income than the $7K for a much higher income family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in the few cases when this happens I suppose the cruise line picks up some additional revenue.

 

I saw few cases because for some tragedies there is certainly insufficient time for the cruise line to sell the room again.

 

I think it would be a nightmare to administer/police and I think there are much bigger issues out there such as the way that cruise lines advertise their fares.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you worked in or near the insurance industry you are well aware of the mindset they have. What you propose seems wonderful, but avoids the reality of the 'corporate mindset'. The responsibility, sad to say, of the insurance provider is not to the policyholder. It is to the stockholder. ( have a close relative who works for the largest healthcare insurer in the US...his comment was that any claim they see is always denied on the first submittal.)

 

I am not agreeing with any of this, just stating a reality.

 

As we are aware on CC....our UK friends are required to purchase travel insurance, and presumably have little risk in the scenario described.

 

Side point: Something that is not often mentioned in these discussions is the coverage offered, automatically, by Visa, MC, Amex, etc. for travel issues. While they vary a lot, it seems that relatively few travelers even know that they may have coverage by virtue of using their credit card to pay for their trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I understand that people should buy travel insurance. And, I also understand that cruise lines do not want to lose money when tragedies occur (nor should they).

 

 

 

There are a couple of current threads that discuss people unable to cruise due to hurricanes, illness, etc. Unfortunately, in many part of the world, including the U.S., there seems to be tragedies that happen too frequently. For the U.S., we had a tragedy last night in Las Vegas. People that have full intensions of sailing on a cruise are hit with life changing obstacles (death, medical emergencies that require immediate care, hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.). This obviously does not happen only to older passengers but can happen to anyone.

 

 

 

As it stands now, if, due to an emergency (which would need to be defined very specifically), a passenger loses 100% of their cruise fare if they do not have insurance. This could be a loss of between $15,000 to $100,000+ if the passenger does not have insurance. I am not questioning this policy.

 

 

 

However (wanted to put this in all caps but don't want to "yell"), if the cruise line fills the suite that was cancelled, they are in essence doubling their money on that suite. Somehow this sounds wrong on many levels. Why should any cruise line benefit from a tragedy?

 

 

 

While many older passengers do get insurance, the younger ones (that many of you feel that Regent should be trying to entice) do not. And, in the case of the tragedy last night, many younger people were killed or in the hospital.

 

 

 

Is it time to speak out against all cruise lines and let them know that it is not okay to benefit from a tragedy? That when a suite is filled by a full paying passenger that the passenger that had to cancel should receive a future cruise credit equal to the amount that they paid?

 

 

 

If we could change the way a cruise line thinks in terms of this issue, it is a win-win. Regent, for instance, would fill the suite and would also be booking a future cruise. There is no loss whatsoever for the cruise line.

 

 

 

Things in the world have changed - we have to change - cruise lines and airlines need to change as well. Am I the only one thinking this way?

 

 

 

If you hard at cruise insurance or travel insurance. There are policies that allow you to Cancel for Any Reason. This gives you cruise line credit or cash for your cruise. Some policies are 100% and some as low as 75% .

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...... have a close relative who works for the largest healthcare insurer in the US...his comment was that any claim they see is always denied on the first submittal.

 

The largest healthcare insurer in the US is UnitedHealth Group. They certainly don't always deny every claim the first time it's submitted. They aren't my favorite company to work with, but that's just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in the few cases when this happens I suppose the cruise line picks up some additional revenue.

 

I saw few cases because for some tragedies there is certainly insufficient time for the cruise line to sell the room again.

 

I think it would be a nightmare to administer/police and I think there are much bigger issues out there such as the way that cruise lines advertise their fares.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Keith

 

Thanks Keith - as always you are the voice of reason. Overnight I did rethink my position on this and have changed my mind. The Regent board had two threads regarding tragedies - one regarding a hurricane and another cancer. Also, while these threads were going on we had the horrible event that happened in Las Vegas. My mind was going through a lot - disbelief, shock, sorrow..........

 

I do not regret starting this thread as I do believe that these topics should be brought up periodically and it would not be a bad idea for cruise companies to revisit their contracts. In any case, I'm definitely guilty of perhaps feeling too much compassion and allowing it to cloud my judgement.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...