How to get a Free 6 weeks cruise!

[Cruachan]

This seems to me to be a drift of pigs.

G.Rat

 

Hmmm - more like pigs adrift I'd say.

 

J

[Bramcruiser]

I feel that you may not get a worthwhile reply regarding Savoia's personal preferences in terms of a favourite Cruise Line, as several posters have previously asked questions regarding Savoia's cruising history - but no reply has been forthcoming. If it has, then I must have missed it, and I sincerely apologise for this omission, but without this information it is somewhat difficult to haver a meaningful discussion on the subject.

 

Regards,

David

 

I am afraid that this is most likely a correct assumption. Savoia is a one topic poster - showing up now and then to post anti-Carnival conglomerate messages in regards to the unimaginative way they run the cookie-cutter empire with the same ship design. This has been said ad infinitum on the Carnival, HAL and Cunard boards for far too long. And yes, even thought there is a claim to having cruised before and being experienced, I am afraid we'll not likely to get clear answers.

 

I wouldn't even take the claim that the cabin was on an expansion joint as gospel - same person said there was a giant crack that went through many of the decks of the QV a while back.

 

Now back to the original story. I am late putting in my 2 cents worth but I have to agree that the lawsuit - based solely on what we know at this stage - is rather silly and I find it incredible any court in the universe would rule in favour of the complainant. If certain things are beyond the control of the cruise line then no one should be able to expect a guarantee of being happy from the service provider. Can I sue a restaurant simply because I thought the decor was ugly and it upset me even though the service and food may be wonderful - okay, simple example but one gets the point. If there really was reasons that made a ruling against Cunard justifiable then such information is being withheld from the public.

 

I have to support Cunard's appeal at this point and I would hate to be the neighbours or friends of this couple. Just what do you say to them?

 

David

[MARIANH]

The reason this case is in the headlines is that Cunard's appeal has recently been heard by th UK Court of Appeal.

The court has "Reserved Judgement" - meaning that the Judges are considering their verdict on the Appeal, and will deliver their decision soon.

D[/quote

 

And we should all wait for the outcome and not continue to indulge in the invective that has been directed at the complainants. I doubt any of the contributors on this site are in posession of all of the facts that are necessary to make informed comments. To suggest that Cunard is a paragon of virtue and the complainants are beyond the pale is ludicrous. It would be helpful if someone who knows the real facts ( rather than uninformed speculation) could share them on this thread so as to stop further nugatory debate whilst we await the deliberations of the Court of appeal. Then perhaps we could have a sensible discussion about Cunard, its relationship with customers and vice versa.

[stowaway2k]

I doubt any of the contributors on this site are in posession of all of the facts that are necessary to make informed comments.

Comments made seem to be mostly based on the reported information...

To suggest that Cunard is a paragon of virtue...

Was this suggested? I must have missed that one. :rolleyes:

...and the complainants are beyond the pale is ludicrous.

More ludicrous than those cheering for the plaintiffs?

It would be helpful if someone who knows the real facts ( rather than uninformed speculation) could share them on this thread so as to stop further nugatory debate

Such as speculation about expansion joints and cabin downgrades. Chances are not great for someone knowing the "real" facts (privy to the entire court case and all evidence presented in court) coming along here and setting us all straight on what we've gotten wrong. All we have to go on are the press reports, and opinions based on that are perfectly valid... and who is to say that everything reported on this story are not "real" facts?

In the mean time, perhaps all the cheering for the plaintiffs should stop as those posters are no more intimate with the case than those "negatory" posters. tit for tat. Is that a legal term? ;)

Then perhaps we could have a sensible discussion about Cunard, its relationship with customers and vice versa.

Such as refunding world cruise fares to passengers who are traumatized when a ship goes bump in a storm (which in this case was acknowledged by ship's crew as disturbing enough to warrant a cabin change) and feel trapped in their upgraded penthouse suite and then sail home for free after a horrible six weeks in Hawaii? And vice versa. :cool: