Earthquake near Santiago Chile -- Princess Sailings and Passengers

[Cruise Junky]

Truest words spoken!

 

I never worried about it either, would just buy whatever insurance my TA suggested, until 2003. By then www.insuremytrip.com was up and running, and I have since spent lots of time reading the fine print.

 

How many people think that they are covered for something as simple as trip delay, when their flight is due to arrive at the embarkation port at noon, the ship is due to sail at 5pm, and the trip delay clause doesn't kick in for 6 (or longer) hours? Probably even more than believe that purchasing Princess Air means the ship will wait for you.

 

I was shocked about the trip delay small print that they would only cover you if your initial connection time was 2+ hours...I just checked all of ours for Europe and they average about 1 hr 45 mins...so I guess trip delay is out for me!!

[cherylandtk]

"Oddly, interestingly, strangely perhaps, changing ports does not void the cruise contract."

 

Lesson #5 ;-) Wow, although I was aware that ports during a cruise could be added, dropped, or changed at the line's will, I thought embarcation was sacrosanct. Hopefully, my next cruise won't have my Saint Thomas embarcation moved to Sydney. ;-)

 

So you're sure that if the cruise line changes where they pick me up and/or drop me off, they have no responsibility to me other than to pick me up and set me down on some dock somewhere? Blows me away!

 

EM Extended medical!

I think billet already answered this while I was away, but the embark/disembark ports are not sacrosanct. If changed, the cruiseline does have an obligation to provide some other transport between the original port and the new port, however, you would first have to get to the original port. But such a change does not void the contract.

[billet]

Wow. It can, and does get worse. I just copied this post from the roll call for the 3/2 cruise.

So they arrive presumably at Santiago airport where they are put up in a hotel because Princess is unable to either come alongside or use the tender pier. Thats does not seem unreasonable or would it have been better to put them in a tent somewhere? If Princess do not reimburse them I would be stunned and disgusted.

They arrive at the terminal and it takes 75 minutes to check in. Is that really the end of the world and cruise ruining?

Their luggage (presumably labelled for their original cabin) ended up at their original cabin - wow that is a real disaster :rolleyes:

The ship sailed and floated round the harbour - why is this negative?

Of course there were aftershocks and I am glad the hotel was presumably built to a standard to withstand them.

Cabins were not ready and they were corralled in the restaurant. I doubt that any staff would have stopped them leaving there and her husband certainly did 'sneak away'.

Yes they were inconvenienced but presuming the hotel is covered by Princess in the end it is not the end of the world.. They are now on a luxury cruise ship going to the Antarctic. Hopefully they will enjoy themselves rather than spending the whole time bleating about primarily minor inconveniences. I think mountains are being made out of molehills here. I feel sorry for the insured people who could not get there and had to cancel, I regret the effects on the people who chose to self insure, I feel far sorrier for the people of Chile who are trying to put their lives back together and would love to be on that cruise.

[HRHMadonna]

Everyone is saying what went/is going wrong but not offering their solutions.

 

What would you like Princess to do?

 

Per luvinretirements post - see #450 above :

"We got here March 2 and got the surprise of our lives when we were told by Princess reps - DMC workers - that we were going to be taken to hotels for 2 nights at $180 per night at our expense instead of to the ship. We experienced many aftershocks while at the hotel"

 

OK...Let's see if I understand this...These passengers followed Princess cruiseline's advice, and despite who knows what kind of obstacles, they actually managed to make their way to Valparaiso by March 2. They were there on time, but the ship wasn't. The ship was in the harbour, but because Princess had no way to transport passengers to the ship, they had to pay for their own hotel rooms until they could finally board the ship 2 days later. How is this fair? Does Princess not have any responsibility for anything?

 

On top of that, Princess had a relatively small group of passengers to check-in due to hundreds of so called "voluntary cancellations" and yet it took nearly all day to get this couple checked-in and finally into their cabin at 4 PM.

 

With all the earlier communication failures, I didn't think it possible for Princess customer service to get any worse. I was wrong.

 

This is inexcusable. And to answer Shangrila's question, here's a solution: Reimburse these people for their hotel expenses.

[cherylandtk]

From what I gleaned from the Princess Q&A, Princess is not paying for the hotels, but is instead offering a pro-rated OBC for the two missed days. If the hotels were $180 per night as posted, and presuming two people in a room, those who paid more than $1260 pp for their two week cruise will get that much or more back. Anyone who paid less will be out-of-pocket for some hotel costs.

 

Unaddressed is whether the two days in a rockin' hotel in the quake zone is equivalent to two days on the ship anchored in the harbor. According to some of the folks 'trapped on the ship' they would have preferred to be on land. Apparently some stuck in the hotel would rather have been on the ship. The grass is always greener.....

[Cruise Junky]

Per luvinretirements post - see #450 above :

"We got here March 2 and got the surprise of our lives when we were told by Princess reps - DMC workers - that we were going to be taken to hotels for 2 nights at $180 per night at our expense instead of to the ship. We experienced many aftershocks while at the hotel"

 

OK...Let's see if I understand this...These passengers followed Princess cruiseline's advice, and despite who knows what kind of obstacles, they actually managed to make their way to Valporaiso by March 2. They were there on time, but the ship wasn't. The ship was in the harbour, but because Princess had no way to transport passengers to the ship, they had to pay for their own hotel rooms until they could finally board the ship 2 days later. How is this fair? Does Princess not have any responsibility for anything?

 

On top of that, Princess had a relatively small group of passengers to check-in due to hundreds of so called "voluntary cancellations" and yet it took all day to get this couple checked-in.

 

With all the earlier communication failures, I didn't think it possible for Princess customer service to get any worse. I was wrong.

 

This is inexcusable. And to answer Shangrila's question, here's a solution: Reimburse these people for their hotel expenses.

 

I'm not defending Princess because I think they SUCK in this situation, but technically, they are rebating those two nights on the cruise, so that is paying for the hotel expenses.

[Tradewind40]

"So they arrive presumably at Santiago airport where they are put up in a hotel because Princess is unable to either come alongside or use the tender pier. Thats does not seem unreasonable or would it have been better to put them in a tent somewhere? If Princess do not reimburse them I would be stunned and disgusted."

 

billet, prepare to be stunned and disgusted. Take a look at the CC Q&A with the Princess Exec yesterday. This issue was directly addressed and the hotel rooms in question will not be reimbursed. The two days credit for the shortened cruise is supposed to make it a wash.

 

However, I take you at your commitment on this but am puzzled why you missed Princess's message to the masses!

[billet]

"So they arrive presumably at Santiago airport where they are put up in a hotel because Princess is unable to either come alongside or use the tender pier. Thats does not seem unreasonable or would it have been better to put them in a tent somewhere? If Princess do not reimburse them I would be stunned and disgusted."

 

billet, prepare to be stunned and disgusted. Take a look at the CC Q&A with the Princess Exec yesterday. This issue was directly addressed and the hotel rooms in question will not be reimbursed. The two days credit for the shortened cruise is supposed to make it a wash.

 

However, I take you at your commitment on this but am puzzled why you missed Princess's message to the masses!

Ewwww that is one messy way of dealing with the situation!:eek:

[PescadoAmarillo]

I'm not defending Princess because I think they SUCK in this situation, but technically, they are rebating those two nights on the cruise, so that is paying for the hotel expenses.

And what about the food, beverages and entertainment that they would have had on the ship?

 

Sorry, folks, but Princess didn't even step up to the plate for the hotel? $180 per couple per night and even that was too much to do?

 

It comes down to doing the least thing, versus doing the right thing. And Princess has shown that their interest is in doing the former, and not the latter.

[Tradewind40]

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=875278&page=91

 

 

Interesting post on the related CC thread.

 

Poster has been in touch with his credit card company about lack of delivery of contracted service by Princess. Don't know whether air and cruise was included.

 

However, the credit card company said it would go to work on it.

 

I broached this here some time ago, as I had a somewhat similar situation some years back and prevailed. Not sure if the hotel paid or the credit card company reimbursed me to stop my dogged pursuit of the issue.:)

[Cruise Junky]

And what about the food, beverages and entertainment that they would have had on the ship?

 

Sorry, folks, but Princess didn't even step up to the plate for the hotel? $180 per couple per night and even that was too much to do?

 

It comes down to doing the least thing, versus doing the right thing. And Princess has shown that their interest is in doing the former, and not the latter.

 

Ok again, not defending Princess but playing devil's advocate here... where does corporate responsibilty end and personal begin? NO ONE should be travelling to South America without Travel Insurance.... Travel Insurance would be covering your hotel expenses.

[Princess Cruiser 10]

Ok again, not defending Princess but playing devil's advocate here... where does corporate responsibilty end and personal begin? NO ONE should be travelling to South America without Travel Insurance.... Travel Insurance would be covering your hotel expenses.

 

NO ONE should be traveling to Santiago...PERIOD!

[Tradewind40]

NO ONE should be traveling to Santiago...PERIOD!

 

Right on, and it is unconscionable for any company to insist its passengers travel from safe locations into that danger area where it and its passengers make demands on the damaged infrastructure while Chileans wait. PERIOD!

[Cruise Junky]

NO ONE should be traveling to Santiago...PERIOD!

 

I was talking Pre-Earthquake, but I'm pretty sure you knew that.

[yelp]

Ok again, not defending Princess but playing devil's advocate here... where does corporate responsibilty end and personal begin? NO ONE should be travelling to South America without Travel Insurance.... Travel Insurance would be covering your hotel expenses.

 

So why don't the Toyota customers take personal responsibility too? Princess told me to get to Punta Arenas, and the ship isn't even stopping there! If I was in Punta Arenas right now, there should be no corporate responsibility?

 

Before that, they said that if i I didn't fly to Santiago by 3/2 (which was not even feasible!), I would be a no-show and that I shouldn't even try traveling to Santiago after 3/2 because the ship was definitely going to leave by 3/2. No corporate responsibility?

[abbydancer2003]

So why don't the Toyota customers take personal responsibility too? Princess told me to get to Punta Arenas, and the ship isn't even stopping there! If I was in Punta Arenas right now, there should be no corporate responsibility?

 

Before that, they said that if i I didn't fly to Santiago by 3/2 (which was not even feasible!), I would be a no-show and that I shouldn't even try traveling to Santiago after 3/2 because the ship was definitely going to leave by 3/2. No corporate responsibility?

 

 

Apples and Oranges - sorry. Toyota manufactured the defective cars. Princess did not have anything to do with the earthquake happening.

 

Unless I'm missing your point completely - in which case, apologies.

[Tradewind40]

Apples and Oranges - sorry. Toyota manufactured the defective cars. Princess did not have anything to do with the earthquake happening.

 

Unless I'm missing your point completely - in which case, apologies.

 

Who ever said Princess caused the earthquake, or shut down the airport, or cancelled flights, all red herrings produced to avoid discussing what Princess itself should and shouldn't have done!

 

I miss the point of all these suggestions that anyone's suggesting Princess caused any of that, but I keep seeing people saying they didn't.

 

Who said they did? Goodness knows they've screwed up enough without those being added to their shortcomings.

 

Go back and refer to my messages where I list Princess's abysmal behaviour towards its March 2 passengers, and never have I suggested they bear any responsibility for the above, nor have I seen anyone else do so.

 

Please!:rolleyes:

[abbydancer2003]

My only point was that the situation with Toyota was completely different, as there was cause there in the initial event.

 

My most recent comment had nothing to do with how Princess handled the situation after the earthquake.

 

And Toyota isn't exactly a poster child for good customer handling either.

[julieanne]

This is all very interesting.

 

First, I feel bad for those of you who didn't make the cruise. We planned extensively for our cruise in February and I would have been devastated to miss it (and the day before I thought I might because my passport was stolen - but the US Embassy was very efficient and by 10am I had a new passport). One of my friends was supposed to be on the ship, and I feel bad for her.

 

However, I do think Princess is in a no-win here. They could have canceled the cruise, but then they'd have people already in Santiago/Valparaiso who would be very unhappy.

 

So, who pays? This was a force of nature - the cruiseline is in fact not responsible and neither are the passengers. I understand that people couldn't make the ship, but that too was not the cruiseline's fault. Why, then, is it their responsibility to pay for it?

 

If you change the situation - say you miss the ship because of weather - would you expect them to pay for it then? That's what insurance is for, I guess.

 

With the communication problems (a valid complaint IMHO) Princess should offer everyone some some compensation - not a full refund, but certainly a significant OBC or a discount on a future cruise.

 

This is really a lose lose situation. I really don't know what the right answer is.

 

By the way, how many of you have actually been through a major earthquake? There's a lot of chaos, communication breakdowns and service interruptions. It takes a few days for things to settle down. (I know this from experience - San Francisco in 1989 - a lot of confusion and misinformation).

 

My sympathies to those who had to miss their cruise, I hope you do get something from Princess to make up for the frustration of the last few days.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I have been through a few major earthquakes. I am going to discount your communications breakdown as I was in contact with my Chilean travel agent the same day. I also received a response on the same day. I am one small person, Princess is a huge corporation with offices world wide. They have people in Santiago, Valparaiso and on and on. This was no simple task and while I truly do understand their dilemma, I do not understand the poor answers given by Princess. It sounds like their insurance was worthless and I feel badly for the people who purchased it. In good conscience, they should be crediting the new passengers with their daily rate divided by # of days onboard, not the measly $50-$75 stated. They should have made hotel arrangements and comped the arriving passengers for their hotel (which I am certain they would never have paid $180 per night) and given them food vouchers. This would have been good will as they did not deliver on their contract.

[RaySR in NH]

It seems to me that all of the back and forth about insurance, it's advisability and coverages, and yes I purchased it, misses and obscures the real point.

Due to the earthquake and subsequent events, which were neither Princess' nor my fault, Princess was unable to deliver the cruise as advertised and purchased by us. Nor could they offer any reasonable alternative itinerary. Therefore it was Princess that cancelled the cruise, which requires them by their own contract to refund the customers money, not make the customer file an insurance claim.

By stubornly insisting that the cruise is not cancelled they are hiding from their obligations while pocketing our money.

[Mapu]

It seems to me that all of the back and forth about insurance, it's advisability and coverages, and yes I purchased it, misses and obscures the real point.

Due to the earthquake and subsequent events, which were neither Princess' nor my fault, Princess was unable to deliver the cruise as advertised and purchased by us. Nor could they offer any reasonable alternative itinerary. Therefore it was Princess that cancelled the cruise, which requires them by their own contract to refund the customers money, not make the customer file an insurance claim.

By stubornly insisting that the cruise is not cancelled they are hiding from their obligations while pocketing our money.

 

This is the issue in a nutshell and a strategy worth pursuing,

[Mapu]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I have been through a few major earthquakes. I am going to discount your communications breakdown as I was in contact with my Chilean travel agent the same day. I also received a response on the same day. I am one small person, Princess is a huge corporation with offices world wide. They have people in Santiago, Valparaiso and on and on. This was no simple task and while I truly do understand their dilemma, I do not understand the poor answers given by Princess. It sounds like their insurance was worthless and I feel badly for the people who purchased it. In good conscience, they should be crediting the new passengers with their daily rate divided by # of days onboard, not the measly $50-$75 stated. They should have made hotel arrangements and comped the arriving passengers for their hotel (which I am certain they would never have paid $180 per night) and given them food vouchers. This would have been good will as they did not deliver on their contract.

I too contacted friends in Santiago the morning after the earthquake. Email communications seemed to be working fine. I received responses in a few hours. I can understand that phone service was probably limited but email was not. Princess frequently communicates with passengers by email. Communication on the part of Princess could and should have been better and more immediate.

[julieanne]

This is the issue in a nutshell and a strategy worth pursuing,

So agree with this! They did not honor their contract and by modifying the whole cruise (ok, ports can be modified but, you paid for a certain number of days, they did not deliver) it seems to be they did not live up to the terms of the contract. I am sure they have it in fine print just like they do when ports have to be missed due to foul weather so that they are not in breach of contract. Right now, I am only concerned about their goodwill. I am sure they have covered their behinds 100% but, they could have chosen a much better spokesperson to address the issue and once they found said person was incapable of using the right "buzz words", they should have chosen another spokesperson and had a prepared statement. Princess had the misfortune of being in the hot seat and its very unfortunate that they did not take the opportunity to turn this to their advantage.

[greatam]

NO ONE should be traveling to Santiago...PERIOD!

 

There is little damage in Santiago or Valpo. The severe damage is quite a bit south. The airport is structurally intact-the SUSPENDED CEILING fell in and things flew off the shelves which is most of the damage. AA flew its first flight into Santiago Wednesday (there were Star Princess cruise passengers on that flight as well as a flight crew of 16-do you think AA would send their own employees into an area "too dangerous"???). LAN has been flying either into SCL (limited flights) or into Mendoza and busing their customers into Santiago since the earthquake. The road between Mendoza and Santiago suffered no damage. Communications have been mostly restored.

 

I am in daily contact with my business associates in Santiago and I am in KUWAIT working. My associates in Santiago have MUCH less problems calling or emailing me than I have calling or emailing to Santiago (and this isn't a disaster zone-just a poor communication system). I will be in Santiago within two weeks for business.

 

The aftershocks that are being felt are primarily in the ocean off the Chilean coast at about 20 MILES deep. I love all the media overhype-6.6 aftershock (they failed to mention above the fold that it was 14 miles off shore at a depth of 27 MILES.

[greatam]

They did not honor their contract and by modifying the whole cruise (ok, ports can be modified but, you paid for a certain number of days, they did not deliver) it seems to be they did not live up to the terms of the contract

 

Per Princess' own statement, they are reimbursing via OBC for the two days missed. Decent travel insurance would reimburse hotel expenses incurred in Santiago. Hotels in Santiago average $200 on a last minute walk up basis for a 3* hotel.

 

Princess handled the communications abysmally. But to give them some credit, they allowed those that wanted to get off the ship on March 2 to get off the ship. This has been verified by two or three posters who are already back in the USA. One even took a tour of Santiago and saw little damage. The post is on the roll call thread.

 

THEN the Chilean officials (port and military) instructed the Star Princess Captain to take the ship to anchor offshore. I know this to be a fact, as the container ship my company is loading 30 containers of fruit bound for the USA on had to stay at anchor and could not dock so we could load our containers.

 

To give a little more credit, Princess met passengers who managed to arrive Santiago and took them to a hotel. Princess probably worked pretty hard to get a block of hotel rooms to put arriving passengers in.

 

I am no Princess cheerleader-I have been on one Princess cruise and will not do another (just not the experience I expected). I also despise the way Princess has treated shore excursions vendors in Alaska-they essentially put one of DH's closest friends out of business for an entire season.

 

The REAL problems (other than a lost vacation, which no one could foresee and is a definite disappointment) seem to be the Princess cruise/air package and the really, really crappy insurance Princess offers.

 

AS I have posted soooooo many times on these boards-READ THE FINE PRINT. Know what you are buying. Do NOT believe that the cruise line will get you to the ship. Do NOT believe that someone "will take care of everything". You are in a FAR better position legally and accommodation wise to book your own hotels/air and insurance.