CCL removes family's 'lifetime ban'

[dan40]

don't consider myself naive, but honestly.....if carnival had a leg to stand on they would not have removed the ban. They would have come out with the "real" reason to counter the negative publicity. Why is it that we will defend to the death companies we frequent who don't really give a crap about us.....they love our bank accounts....but not us.

 

 

Other than our bank accounts, exactly what interest should a corporation have in us?

 

OUR interest is in acquiring their product at the lowest possible rate, even if the corporation suffers a loss.

[hoop4321]

Other than our bank accounts, exactly what interest should a corporation have in us?

 

OUR interest is in acquiring their product at the lowest possible rate, even if the corporation suffers a loss.

 

That they have only our bank accounts in mind is a good thing. That means that the need to stay competitive to lure customers and to have what customers they do have to return. I agree with you 100%. It amazes me the fan base companies have...from cruises to ketchup! Say one thing that a loyal customer disagrees with, well then it's war. To the company.....it is no benefit.

 

Just give me a good product at a reasonable price and I am happy.

[pnjkeith]

Another good example of "money talks' date=' BS walks"....

 

Big shot insurance guy pulls strings.........[/quote']

 

Nothing wrong with that!

[pnjkeith]

I hope Carnival gets nailed ot the wall for this...their employees kept passengers prisoners on a ship over some scrapes on a desk? I hope the settlement they get from Mr. Arison hurts him good...this company is out of control sometimes with the way they react.

 

I know, they treat us so bad! They provide a horrible product! Dang quess I better book another cruise so I can be treated bad again!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[ehfl]

Holding a passenger against their will, untill they signed a form, is clearly illegal. They could have sued Carnival for false imprisonment. If they don't sue, Carnival is lucky. Lifting the ban was litterally, the very least they could have done.

[Ocean Spirit]

At least they did reverse the call.... better to look dumb vs. being dumb LOL

[jimd909]

Well just to be clear, I didn't 'bash' anyone. I stated (on that other thread) that I thought it was bizarre. I didn't believe the story. I thought something was 'missing'.

 

You may be all boo-hooey for that family because a few people on here bashed them or didn't believe them, but sadly that's something that happens when you put your 'stuff' in the news.....

I don't think they really give a rats butt what was said on Cruise Critic. They got an apology (and whatever else) from CCL....I'm sure that's what was important to them.

 

I hear/read a lot of so called 'news' and there are MANY times I don't believe what I'm reading.

 

Feeling a bit guilty? I never said YOU were bashing that family. I just said people in GENERL.

[Snorkel2Much]

Oh, brother! The title of the article should have been "Carnival Caves In to Media Spotlight".

 

Sure, some bean counter said hey - let't compare the cost of the dresser damage to the cost of Carnival's reputation... hmmm... we think the reputation is worth more.

 

Lift the ban and blame the EMPLOYEES and not the idiot cruiser who did whatever he did to merit the worst penalty a ship can impose. Yeah, Carnival, you show your true colors!!

 

You are Fun Ship to all but those who live there for months. Frankly, I am disgusted.

:rolleyes:

[DGP1111]

Well, if there were any Cruise Critic members who missed the original threads, they'll certainly see the 'News' banner, now in lights, to show yet another Public Relations situation within CCL.

 

The competition keeps quality notes, and they're being given 'substance' with some frequency.

[salty dingo]

I still think the guy was guilty, but the fallout from this may be that the steward has to photograph the cabin before the new guests arrive. One more task to add to a huge workload.

 

Digital photos are cheap, and they would not need to keep them long. In this case, Carnival could have whipped out the photos and said "see - no damage when you boarded. Damage now. You must pay."

 

Of course the passenger would claim that the steward did it while cleaning the cabin, or that the guy delivering room service set the tray down too hard.

 

Maybe a lifetime ban was too much - but if not that, how do you force someone to pay when they refuse to? A picture would do wonders in that case.

[Carnival Platinum Cruiser]

don't consider myself naive, but honestly.....if carnival had a leg to stand on they would not have removed the ban. They would have come out with the "real" reason to counter the negative publicity. Why is it that we will defend to the death companies we frequent who don't really give a crap about us.....they love our bank accounts....but not us.

 

How stupid can the carnival bean counters/execs be. If they were bold enough to impose a ban they should stick with it whether it was a good decision or not. By lifting the ban it makes them look like idiots, damage is still done and gets them more negative publicity. Bottom line is they are a business and from a customer service viewpoint the vast majority of times they could care less about their average customer. $$$ is the only bottom line. IMO they made the whole company (unfortunately) look terrible when there are hundreds of excellent hard working folks in this organization.

[big_duck]

A branch office (the ship) has a decision overturned by it's corporate headquarters for PR/customer relations reasons. Big whoop, happens in corporations all over the planet everyday.

[DGP1111]

A branch office (the ship) has a decision overturned by it's corporate headquarters for PR/customer relations reasons. Big whoop, happens in corporations all over the planet everyday.

 

Duck, I do fully agree with you about those global daily occurances, but if you focus the spotlights exclusively on those corporations that consider themselves (rightfully so or not) the benchmark of their respective industries, you'll see that the top dogs seemingly take their PR duties more seriously.

 

In how many boardrooms far and wide have the words been issued, "We will not let ourselves drop to become the next Enron, or General Motors"??

[big_duck]

Duck, I do fully agree with you about those global daily occurances, but if you focus the spotlights exclusively on those corporations that consider themselves (rightfully so or not) the benchmark of their respective industries, you'll see that the top dogs seemingly take their PR duties more seriously.

 

In how many boardrooms far and wide have the words been issued, "We will not let ourselves drop to become the next Enron, or General Motors"??

 

I believe the ships personnel acted within company policy. Did they react out of proportion to the damage, we will never know, we only have one side of the story. Corporate overturned it, no biggie.

 

I would move on the my HLS thread, but it seems to have disappeared. Someone else overreacting perhaps??

[bazarr2]

Yup. Anyone who thinks there wasn't more to this story is incredibly naive.

 

Who sent the new story to press? If it wasn't Carnival maybe the guy paid the bill and Carnival then reversed the ban.

[cathyoo]

I do think it was probably an over zealous employee (captain, hotel director, whatever) who let a little power go to his head. The damage did not look extensive or as if it was done on purpose.

 

The world is full of bizarre things thats why they say truth is stranger than fiction. Maybe some folks will think twice before declaring something not true or labeling someone a Troll. but I won't bet my next cruise on that.

[meluvtogocruise]

ROFLMAO!!! Yeah that big bad insurance guy pulled one over on a multimillion dollar company........

 

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself.;)

[Megnolia]

Now that the ban is lifted, I highly doubt that family will have any desire to set foot on another Carnival ship for life. I certainly wouldn't if I were in their position.

[WinnipegCruiser]

Yup. Anyone who thinks there wasn't more to this story is incredibly naive.

 

Well, supposedly there is a letter that he signed...Something in writing explaining the ban.

 

I can't find the post where the guy details this out. I wonder if he posted a copy of the letter (I know I would have).

 

I can't imagine what he could have done that would deserver a banning, and would be lifted with no further explanation.

 

Until I get more, put me in the naive column. I don't think there is more to the story....

[sharecruises]

Another "we will never know" all the facts deal

 

My OWN opinion was/is that probably some staff on Freedom overreacted...while I still feel

the guy probably was obnoxious and causing a scene

 

rather than go to the "mat" with him, Corporate PR people in Miami decided to lift the ban

(which I must agree makes Carnival look pretty foolish)

[picklebongo]

Another "we will never know" all the facts deal

 

My OWN opinion was/is that probably some staff on Freedom overreacted...while I still feel

the guy probably was obnoxious and causing a scene

 

rather than go to the "mat" with him, Corporate PR people in Miami decided to lift the ban

(which I must agree makes Carnival look pretty foolish)

 

 

What's wrong with a company admitting they made a mistake, not not in words, and moving on from there?

[gtalum]

Personally I'd have just signed the agreement, as they did, but then started a massive word of mouth campaign against Carnival. I'm sure this family will never sail Carnival again. I can't believe Carnival is stupid enough to give their ship staff this kind of power anyway. That kind of power should reside only with those at the top of the corporate hierarchy.