sail7seas Posted November 18, 2017 #51 Share Posted November 18, 2017 You hit the nail right on the head (except they do owe the port fees). And the reason the ship did not stop at those ports was an outbreak of the plague. Does anyone seriously want to make a port stop in that circumstances? In this specific instance, THAT IS THE POINT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted November 18, 2017 #52 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Forgive me if I go a little off-topic here, but there are circumstances when a cruiser has the right to significant compensation for missed ports - though cruise lines will do their damnest to argue otherwise and it may even need action in a court of law, as we found out.. In very broad terms, a full refund for cancellation or compensation for significant shortfalls is payable for "a material change within the cruise line's control". Three missed ports is very definitely a "material change". In the OP's case, "within the cruise line's control" is very debateable. Apparently there was no official advice to avoid those ports, but the cruise line can argue that they did so with the welfare of their passengers in mind. And doubtless the cruise line has defences for failing to notify passengers in advance. Forming a group to fight the cruise line at the time, almost a mutiny, was perhaps counter-productive, Whilst forming a group for a class action post-cruise might give cruisers more power, a large group also raises the stakes for the cruise line so if the cruise line has a chance of winning it will fight harder. And mebbe disembarking the "ringleaders" was a foreseeable consequence - nipping the problem in its bud. Paying their airfares for repatriation would have been a small expense compared to potential outcomes if they'd not been disembarked. Our circumstances were that only one port was missed, but it was the most important port. And it was caused by mechanical failure, something we considered the responsibility of the cruise line & no different to the breakdown of a rental car or a train. All passengers were given fairly trivial compensation (IIRC something like £50 or £100 obc), but by ourselves we took the matter further post-cruise. Amongst the things we learned along the way was that if we took legal action the case would automatically be held in a court convenient to ourselves & not in the cruise line's home country. It never actually reached a court of law, the cruise line settled out of court - but it took a great deal of persistence. And quite possibly the cruise line decided that the relatively low cost of compo was better than the cost & grief of defending a court action. A victory, yes. But worth the effort? Perhaps not. JB :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travel mad Posted November 18, 2017 Author #53 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Thanks John Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whogo Posted November 18, 2017 #54 Share Posted November 18, 2017 What a shame to miss Madagascar. Costa was slow to act, maybe deliberately. Costa's private communications about Madagascar would make for interesting reading. I wonder if and when Costa will cancel their December and January calls in Madagascar. Cabins are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sail7seas Posted November 18, 2017 #55 Share Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) Forgive me if I go a little off-topic here, but there are circumstances when a cruiser has the right to significant compensation for missed ports - though cruise lines will do their damnest to argue otherwise and it may even need action in a court of law, as we found out.. In very broad terms, a full refund for cancellation or compensation for significant shortfalls is payable for "a material change within the cruise line's control". Three missed ports is very definitely a "material change". Would an outbreak of plague be considered a material change to the safety of those portsin terms of vacationing cruise pax going ashore and possib ly being exposed? How much would the suits amount to if the ship called there and many pax became seriously ill ? What liabiltity might the company be found guil ty of iif those ill pax spread it and it beca ame a massive oubreak? Now there is a frightening thought. It wouuld be wreckless IMO In the OP's case, "within the cruise line's control" is very debateable. Apparently there was no official advice to avoid those ports, but the cruise line can argue that they did so with the welfare of their passengers in mind. And doubtless the cruise line has defences for failing to notify passengers in advance. Would an outbreak of plague be considered a material change to the safety of hose ports?Forming a group to fight the cruise line at the time, almost a mutiny, was perhaps counter-productive, Whilst forming a group for a class action post-cruise might give cruisers more power, a large group also raises the stakes for the cruise line so if the cruise line has a chance of winning it will fight harder. And mebbe disembarking the "ringleaders" was a foreseeable consequence - nipping the problem in its bud. Paying their airfares for repatriation would have been a small expense compared to potential outcomes if they'd not been disembarked. Our circumstances were that only one port was missed, but it was the most important port. And it was caused by mechanical failure, something we considered the responsibility of the cruise line & no different to the breakdown of a rental car or a train. All passengers were given fairly trivial compensation (IIRC something like £50 or £100 obc), but by ourselves we took the matter further post-cruise. Amongst the things we learned along the way was that if we took legal action the case would automatically be held in a court convenient to ourselves & not in the cruise line's home country. It never actually reached a court of law, the cruise line settled out of court - but it took a great deal of persistence. And quite possibly the cruise line decided that the relatively low cost of compo was better than the cost & grief of defending a court action. A victory, yes. But worth the effort? Perhaps not. JB :) .... Edited November 18, 2017 by sail7seas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navybankerteacher Posted November 18, 2017 #56 Share Posted November 18, 2017 What a shame to miss Madagascar. Costa was slow to act, maybe deliberately. Costa's private communications about Madagascar would make for interesting reading. I wonder if and when Costa will cancel their December and January calls in Madagascar. Cabins are available. Given the nature of the plague risk, it seems ridiculous for any line to still sell itineraries stopping in Madagascar in December. It is bad enough that upcoming Caribbean itineraries still include ports which are likely to remain unavailable at time of sailing due to slow recovery from storm --- but when a world health crisis is in the cards, "business as usual" just does not cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted November 18, 2017 #57 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Sail 7 Seas' You ask me................... "Would an outbreak of plague be considered a material change to the safety of those portsin terms of vacationing cruise pax going ashore and possib ly being exposed? How much would the suits amount to if the ship called there and many pax became seriously ill ? What liabiltity might the company be found guil ty of iif those ill pax spread it and it beca ame a massive oubreak? Now there is a frightening thought. It wouuld be wreckless IMO" Well, it's no good asking me if it would be reckless for ships to call at Madagascar, you should check the advice of the world's health experts. What the experts (WHO, CDC, NathNac, etc) all seem to say is that various parts of Madagascar have outbreaks of bubonic plague every year, that it's more widespread this year than previous years but that the risk is still low (or low-to-moderate, depending which website you check) Given that the experts aren't advising against travel to Madagascar, as long as it passes on the health authorities advice to passengers I don't see the cruise line being held liable if the worst happened. Don't read that as me advising that cruise lines should visit. Or whether passengers should go - that's up to the individual. Some folk may seem incapable of putting risks in perspective & others may seem foolhardy, but each to their own comfort level. But advice from health authorities will impact on insurance claims and on law suits. And that's a whole other kettle of worms. ;) JB :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Hag Posted November 18, 2017 #58 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Here are the facts which affected the 1,000 plus passengers who were affected by the actual cruise in question:- 7- A few days later we received an update through our stateroom to say that the other 2 ports were now also cancelled and we were offered €150 each person onboard credit which could not be used to pay for the compulsory service fee aka gratuity. This item number 7 is the one that would have sent me ballistic, especially if that amount was the refunded port fees. I would have been plenty angry if I couldn't at least have used the credit for gratuities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sail7seas Posted November 18, 2017 #59 Share Posted November 18, 2017 This item number 7 is the one that would have sent me ballistic, especially if that amount was the refunded port fees. I would have been plenty angry if I couldn't at least have used the credit for gratuities. One would think that Costa has suffered enough negative pulicity after the dreadful event in Italy they would do most all reasonable to a avoid more angry pax and more bad publicity such as they are receiving here in this thread IMO Sea Hag, I, too, would b angry if Costa gave a credit with such strings attached. They deserve m any guests with negative view of the company. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPT Trips Posted November 19, 2017 #60 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Given the nature of the plague risk, it seems ridiculous for any line to still sell itineraries stopping in Madagascar in December. It is bad enough that upcoming Caribbean itineraries still include ports which are likely to remain unavailable at time of sailing due to slow recovery from storm --- but when a world health crisis is in the cards, "business as usual" just does not cut it. So if the line continues to sell this itinerary and not deliver, then what compensation do you think the cruise line should provide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldubs Posted November 19, 2017 #61 Share Posted November 19, 2017 One would think that Costa has suffered enough negative pulicity after the dreadful event in Italy they would do most all reasonable to a avoid more angry pax and more bad publicity such as they are receiving here in this thread IMO IMO Yes I agree. In my case, it is already too late. Costa is on my list of companies to be permanently avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bUU Posted November 19, 2017 #62 Share Posted November 19, 2017 11- Each cruiseline has their own rules and lines and lines of fine print however there is an expectation of getting bang for ones Buck You seem to be implying that cruises have a satisfaction guaranteed policy. In the US at least, they don't. Like it or not, at least under US law, the terms and conditions trump passengers' preferences. This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navybankerteacher Posted November 19, 2017 #63 Share Posted November 19, 2017 You seem to be implying that cruises have a satisfaction guaranteed policy. In the US at least, they don't. Like it or not, at least under US law, the terms and conditions trump passengers' preferences. This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors. "Satisfaction guaranteed" is a superficially attractive concept- the implementation of which would be impossible without definition - which requires referring to the "terms and conditions". If it is totally up to the customer, the sky would be the limit: compensation for any subjectively perceived flaw could be pursued. As a practical matter, adhering to the "terms and conditions" of any arrangement between two parties is the only reasonable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPT Trips Posted November 19, 2017 #64 Share Posted November 19, 2017 "Satisfaction guaranteed" is a superficially attractive concept- the implementation of which would be impossible without definition - which requires referring to the "terms and conditions". If it is totally up to the customer, the sky would be the limit: compensation for any subjectively perceived flaw could be pursued. As a practical matter, adhering to the "terms and conditions" of any arrangement between two parties is the only reasonable approach. Earlier you stated that when a line is continuing to sell these "plague cruises," "business as usual doesn't cut it." Here you continue to advocate business as usual. What is your answer to my a few posts ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sail7seas Posted November 19, 2017 #65 Share Posted November 19, 2017 yes i agree. In my case, it is already too late. Costa is on my list of companies to be permanently avoided. rci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navybankerteacher Posted November 19, 2017 #66 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Earlier you stated that when a line is continuing to sell these "plague cruises," "business as usual doesn't cut it." Here you continue to advocate business as usual. What is your answer to my a few posts ago? I certainly was not advocating “ business as usual” - I was simply responding to a suggestion that perhaps only in the US do “terms and conditions trump passengers preferences” — in the context of seeking the stated ideal: “satisfaction guaranteed”. No one, anywhere, gives a blanket, unconditional guarantee of “satisfaction”. There always is some objective measure of what it is that has, or has not been, delivered. Otherwise people would claim refunds if there was rain - or too much sun - or annoying fellow passengers. And, like it or not, the “terms and conditions” are what provide that measure, It is certainly arguable that the line should have been more generous in their offer of compensation - they may pay for their decision in bad customer relations - but that has to be between them and future customers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bUU Posted November 19, 2017 #67 Share Posted November 19, 2017 "Satisfaction guaranteed" is a superficially attractive concept- the implementation of which would be impossible without definition - which requires referring to the "terms and conditions". If it is totally up to the customer, the sky would be the limit: compensation for any subjectively perceived flaw could be pursued. As a practical matter, adhering to the "terms and conditions" of any arrangement between two parties is the only reasonable approach.I agree with this navybankerteacher 100%. It is certainly arguable that the line should have been more generous in their offer of compensation - they may pay for their decision in bad customer relations - but that has to be between them and future customers,That's the crux of the issue: They may pay for their decision or they may not... How could one improve the chances of making the best decision? Well, they could do market research, analyze trend data, and make sound decisions based on business analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navybankerteacher Posted November 19, 2017 #68 Share Posted November 19, 2017 .. That's the crux of the issue: They may pay for their decision or they may not... How could one improve the chances of making the best decision? Well, they could do market research, analyze trend data, and make sound decisions based on business analysis. Precisely - I wonder if cruise lines ever do research on passenger reactions to situations comparable to the Madagascar port cancellations. My one experience was when HAL's Oosterdam had an azipod fire - resulting to the cancellation a call at Puerto Vallarta and returning to San Diego the evening before scheduled day. $300 plus a 25% discount on next booking struck me as over the top --- but they never polled me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bUU Posted November 19, 2017 #69 Share Posted November 19, 2017 What's really important for the cruise line to know is how their handing of that incident affected the hundreds of thousands of other passengers of the line. It may be frustrating to realize it, but even a full ship's complement of passengers doesn't amount to a market, so how the handle exceeding rare situations matters little as compared to how they handle very common situations. This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bUU Posted November 20, 2017 #70 Share Posted November 20, 2017 so how the handle exceeding rare situations matters little as compared to how they handle very common situations. This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos. Darned autocorrect! ... so how THEY handle exceeding rare situations matters little as compared to how they handle very common situations. This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted November 20, 2017 #71 Share Posted November 20, 2017 My one experience was when HAL's Oosterdam had an azipod fire - resulting to the cancellation a call at Puerto Vallarta and returning to San Diego the evening before scheduled day. $300 plus a 25% discount on next booking struck me as over the top --- but they never polled me. Hi, NBT. I rather think that, as per the point I mentioned in an earlier post, HAL's more generous compo was down to the ship's propulsion being the cruise line's responsibility whereas Costa's decision was due to an external factor, the epidemic, which was beyond their control. JB :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navybankerteacher Posted November 20, 2017 #72 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Hi, NBT. I rather think that, as per the point I mentioned in an earlier post, HAL's more generous compo was down to the ship's propulsion being the cruise line's responsibility whereas Costa's decision was due to an external factor, the epidemic, which was beyond their control. JB :) I think you've nailed the difference - I was pursuing a line of thought about whether or not lines did research after the fact to determine how their compensation offers were received - as a matter of preserving/protecting image.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sail7seas Posted November 20, 2017 #73 Share Posted November 20, 2017 many years ago, we booked a Costa Caribbean cruise as a means to try the line, easily and we liked the itinerary. Prior to penalty phase, we cancelled. and b cause of bad att i tude andpoor customer relations, We sailed princesss, "X", , Carnival ( sort of ) and HAL far more than 100 cruises aggregate. We never again considered sailing Costa and in our case, that cost them. $$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlp20 Posted November 25, 2017 #74 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Late to this thread, here is something I have ALWAYS cautioned ALL CRUISERS to do, READ YOUR PASSENGER CONTRACT. Guess what folks, your "guaranteed" very little. In fact, after boarding the ship can push off the dock and stay there for a week and meet their end of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted November 25, 2017 #75 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Late to this thread, here is something I have ALWAYS cautioned ALL CRUISERS to do, READ YOUR PASSENGER CONTRACT. Guess what folks, your "guaranteed" very little. In fact, after boarding the ship can push off the dock and stay there for a week and meet their end of the deal. Hi. jlp, Yes, the cruise lines do their damnest to cover their backside in their terms & conditions, much as in a lot of other industries. But, with respect, you've perhaps fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the book . Many terms and conditions are actually unenforceable, & put there simply to dissuade folk from pursuing a claim. Under UK law (Sale of Goods Act etc) they have a duty to provide what they've sold as long as its within their power, and I strongly suspect there's similar legislation in the US,. And terms & conditions can't contract you out of your legal rights under a contract made in the UK - again I strongly believe it's the same in the US. Appreciated that you've given a hypothetical example, but if the ship stays put for a week the cruise line isn't meeting their end of the deal and is gonna have to come up with a damned good excuse. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I successfully claimed decent compensation for just one missed port due to ship's mechanical failure, though it took a great deal of effort and if the cruise line hadn't capitulated it actually wouldn't have been worth the cost vs benefit of testing it in a Court of Law. And had the port been missed due to something like health issues (the core of this thread) or local political instability or weather or other factors outside the cruise line's control, I'm pretty certain the cruise line's terms & conditions would be valid. JB :) (Barrack-room lawyer ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now