Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Are you sure it's not the other way around? I honestly don't know - but the article at the center of this debate states that Mr. Keskeny is suing RCI, not RCCL.

 

I was recently reprimanded (nicely) by a knowledgeable board member for having these backwards. I had been thinking of RCCL as Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, and it's Lines, plural. If you look at the cruise line's website, it's Royal Caribbean International.

 

If he's suing RCI, he's really going to have problems. Probably just a little more inaccuracy in the original report.

 

Quadalupe?:confused:

[montgomeryfamily]

Correct, I have no direct knowledge, but it doesn't make sense that they would leave a non-compliant lip or bump in an accessible cabin if they could avoid it. 1200 and 1201, the accessible Sky Suites, were created in the 2006 refurbishing. Prior, there was a standard Sky Suite and a Concierge cabin occupying the space. This, at least, created the only two accessible cabins with balconys on the Century. I don't know if this is the reason why a lip remains or not, but I'm guessing it was cost-prohibitive to remove them completely. I'm certainly no expert, but I believe ADA precludes the necessity to achieve full compliance if it's impractical from a cost standpoint. I could be way off base on this, though. You say that it did work well enough for your family member-- I wonder if anyone else since 2006 has had the same difficulty as Mr. Keskeny had?

 

I do sympathize with the problem in getting access to the balcony, and think that Celebrity should do more to rectify this. This is a separate topic from the one at hand, however.

 

Playing devil's advocate, I can see some logic in saying that the lip was the reason for the difficulty. If you have a cabin booked that's listed as accessible, you're not anticipating not being able to get over the lip to get to the bathroom. Whether the lip is exempt from ADA requirements because it's too costly to completely remove is a moot point. Some disabled may be mobile enough, have the arm strength, or have motorized wheelchairs that can negotiate the lip, but not necessarily.

 

However, this is all trumped by the fact that Mr. Keskeny did manage to get into the bathroom by himself on the third night, so evidently the lip was not an insurmountable obstacle, after all. The fact that he fell off the toilet and could not get back up would be evidence enough that he was not self-sufficient enough to travel unaccompanied. An offer was made to secure him the assistance he obviously required, and he refused. He's now complaining about the cost and inconvenience of getting home, when it would have been much less expensive to get the assistance.

 

 

As I have said before, I will not take a position on the claims of the man in this article because I don't know the entire situation.

 

However, I do know about the particulars of the wheelchair accessible Century skysuites, including the lip or bump up to the bathroom and I have commented on those particulars in this thread in order to correct the assumptions which had been made as to that issue and to insure that disabled who may plan to book the Century skysuites are aware of these particulars. While we were booked in 1201, we also visited 1200 and the two wheelchair accessible skysuites are alike, including the lip or bump up at the bathroom entrance.

 

We meet the couple who was booked in 1200 at the muster drill--the wife was in a wheelchair. Because our two groups were the only two with wheelchairs, we were placed adjacent to each other at the muster drill. This couple was friendly and we began talking. I asked them if they had a ramp to their balcony, as we noticed shortly after we entered our suite that we did not. We had attempted to go out on the balcony to take in the view and relax before the muster drill and found there was no ramp and we advised this couple of that. They had just recently boarded and had not looked at their balcony, so after the muster drill, they invited us back to their suite to look at their balcony. They also had no ramp to the balcony. In addition, their bathroom, including the entrance, was the same as ours. We visited their suite several times, including for before dinner appetizers/drinks and also when their ceiling fell in.

 

In my opinion, the lip or bump up at the entrance to the bathroom was left because the Century/Celebrity thought the ramp provided sufficient wheelchair accessibility to the bathroom and did not consider the lip or bump up. I do not believe that removal of the lip or bump up is cost prohibitive and I think that if you saw it you would not think so either. Celebrity does not even claim that removal of the lip is cost prohibitive--indeed, in the Cruise Critic story the Royal Caribbean/Celebrity spokeswoman claims there is no lip.

 

I do think that the lack of ramp to the balcony is relevant. I mentioned this issue in the posting because I think this shows that the Century/Celebrity did not fully consider the wheelchair accessibility of these skysuites and the ramifications of lack of accessibility to various suite and ship features. Lack of a ramp to the balcony was ADA noncompliant. And since a ramp was eventually installed late on day 4 of a five day cruise, there was no cost prohibitive exemption excusing non-compliance. (installed only after my continued elevation of complaints regarding the lack of ramp).

 

I agree with you that Celebrity should rectify the lack of balcony ramp. I don't know if this was ever rectified as we never received a response to our letter to Celebrity.

 

Frankly, if someone came back from a Celebrity cruise and posted on Cruise Critic that the ship locked the balcony doors on the skysuites, prohibiting entrance onto the balcony, and that this was going to be the situation on all Celebrity ships/sailings, there would be such an uproar that this thread would be outstripped rapidly in terms of numbers of postings/views and there would be significant outrage expressed by members directly to Celebrity via email and telephone. Yet that is essentially what the Century/Celebrity has done in the wheelchair accessible skysuites by not providing a ramp or other means of wheelchair accessibility to the balcony.

 

You also raise a point I had not considered. Our disabled family member would not have had the arm strength to get over the threshold by himself. He is in a manual wheelchair and we assisted him in getting through the bathroom entrance. He could make it out by himself, but I don't think he would have had enough arm strength to make it into the bathroom by himself. We could push him through the entrance as long as we didn't come in at an angle. We always travel with our disabled family member and so this was not an issue for us. So we did not make any complaint about this. I cannot tell from the picture whether the man in the article had an electric wheelchair or a manual one.

[lvz2cruz]

He was actually debarked on day 5, I just checked the itinerary for that cruise. So he made it through 4 nights, and was halfway through the cruise when it was discovered he was not self-sufficient and he refused the aide and chose to leave the ship.

 

Clearly, if it was a problem with the accessibility in his stateroom, he would've said something sooner, don't you think?

 

I think that's simply a smokescreen in a search for sympathy and/or a reason to sue.

 

From the cruise critic article, Celebrity determined he was not self sufficient on one of the first two sea days. When he refused to hire a nurse, they were going to put him off at the first port of St. Barts but waited til the next day in Guadalupe because of a bigger airport and St. Barts was a tender port.

He must have had problems early on.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

As I have said before, I will not take a position on the claims of the man in this article because I don't know the entire situation.

 

However, I do know about the particulars of the wheelchair accessible Century skysuites, including the lip or bump up to the bathroom and I have commented on those particulars in this thread in order to correct the assumptions which had been made as to that issue and to insure that disabled who may plan to book the Century skysuites are aware of these particulars. While we were booked in 1201, we also visited 1200 and the two wheelchair accessible skysuites are alike, including the lip or bump up at the bathroom entrance.

 

We meet the couple who was booked in 1200 at the muster drill--the wife was in a wheelchair. Because our two groups were the only two with wheelchairs, we were placed adjacent to each other at the muster drill. This couple was friendly and we began talking. I asked them if they had a ramp to their balcony, as we noticed shortly after we entered our suite that we did not. We had attempted to go out on the balcony to take in the view and relax before the muster drill and found there was no ramp and we advised this couple of that. They had just recently boarded and had not looked at their balcony, so after the muster drill, they invited us back to their suite to look at their balcony. They also had no ramp to the balcony. In addition, their bathroom, including the entrance, was the same as ours. We visited their suite several times, including for before dinner appetizers/drinks and also when their ceiling fell in.

 

In my opinion, the lip or bump up at the entrance to the bathroom was left because the Century/Celebrity thought the ramp provided sufficient wheelchair accessibility to the bathroom and did not consider the lip or bump up. I do not believe that removal of the lip or bump up is cost prohibitive and I think that if you saw it you would not think so either. Celebrity does not even claim that removal of the lip is cost prohibitive--indeed, in the Cruise Critic story the Royal Caribbean/Celebrity spokeswoman claims there is no lip.

 

I do think that the lack of ramp to the balcony is relevant. I mentioned this issue in the posting because I think this shows that the Century/Celebrity did not fully consider the wheelchair accessibility of these skysuites and the ramifications of lack of accessibility to various suite and ship features. Lack of a ramp to the balcony was ADA noncompliant. And since a ramp was eventually installed late on day 4 of a five day cruise, there was no cost prohibitive exemption excusing non-compliance. (and installed only after my continued elevation of complaints regarding the lack of ramp).

 

I agree with you that Celebrity should rectify this (along with any other ADA non-compliant situations). I don't know if this was ever rectified as we never received a response to our letter to Celebrity.

 

Frankly, if someone came back from a Celebrity cruise and posted on Cruise Critic that the ship locked the balcony doors on the skysuites, prohibiting entrance onto the balcony, and that this was going to be the situation on all Celebrity ships/sailings, there would be such an uproar that this thread would be outstripped rapidly in terms of numbers of postings/views and there would be significant outrage expressed by members directly to Celebrity via email and telephone. Yet that is essentially what the Century/Celebrity has done in the wheelchair accessible skysuites by not providing a ramp or other means of wheelchair accessibility to the balcony.

 

You also raise a point I had not considered. Our disabled family member would not have had the arm strength to get over the threshold by himself. He is in a manual wheelchair and we assisted him in getting through the bathroom entrance. He could make it out by himself, but I don't he would have had enough arm strength to make it into the bathroom by himself. We could push him through the entrance as long as we didn't come in at an angle. We always travel with our disabled family member and so this was not an issue for us. We also did not make any complaint about this. I cannot tell from the picture whether the man in the article had an electric wheelchair or a manual one.

 

Thank you for clarifying that. I did not mean to say that there are no problems with the suite, just that whatever problems there might have been ultimately did not matter in this case, because Mr. Keskeny is not self-sufficient. I'll take you at your word that the lip could have been easily eliminated-- I wa picturing something that was tied into superstructure and would require thousands of dollars to eliminate. This definitely should be addressed, both the bathroom and the balcony access.

 

"...and also when their ceiling fell in." What's the story behind that?:confused::eek:

[2blueyam]

Not that it really matters to the lawsuit, but there seems to be some possible confusion around the place where the passenger was disembarked. It was on the Island of Gaudeloupe. It is a Leeward Island in the Lesser Antilles between Montserrat and Dominica.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadeloupe

 

It was not Gaudalupe, Mexico or Quadalupe (if that place even exists - goggle maps only found a church in Texas by that name). Some of this confusion was certainly started by the original article.

 

More on topic:

Celebrity should permanently add or at least make ramps readily available for the accessible balconies. They should get rid of any impediment to get into the bathroom if they can do so at a reasonable cost. If Mr. Keskeny and his lawyers are really not after the money, they should focus their attention on getting Celebrity to fix these issues. Celebrity should also get any cranes or lifts that are designed for accessibility working properly.

 

None of those issues appear to be the reason Mr. Keskeny was disembarked mid-cruise, so I see no reasonable basis for his lawsuit. It is quite sad that this whole episode happened to pretty much all parties involved.

[montgomeryfamily]

"...and also when their ceiling fell in." What's the story behind that?:confused::eek:

 

Thanks, Steve. The ceiling in the main part of the suite in 1200 fell in on day 3 of the cruise (but not in the bathroom). I understand that the ship maintenance staff thought it was due to a water leak. It was fairly substantial but there were no other available wheelchair accessible rooms for them to move into, so it was repaired while they occupied the room. We allowed the other couple to use our bathroom and to rest in our suite while the work was being done. Ironically, 1200 was our first choice, but it wasn't available and we booked 1201. :eek:

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Hey, gang, we made the Oakland Press local news!

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/13/news/local_news/doc4da618148ad79760097044.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

Or, at least, some forum called cruisecritics dot com. There's a link in the story that takes you to this--

http://cruisecritics.com/

 

Some highlights--

 

Mr. Keskeny states that the toilet he fell off was four inches short of ADA compliance, 15 inches high instead of 19 inches. It was in his cabin, not a public restroom. No explanation as to how other passengers were able to gain access to his cabin to rescue him.

 

The cost of providing a nurse would have included the cost of flying them out from Miami.

 

He also states that he was never asked to fill out a special needs form.

 

The article also states that our little message board (or actually our doppleganger with the extra "s") "had several comments from prior passengers who had occupied the identical suite on the same vessel who indicated that the stateroom was less than accessible." There was no mention of the two hundred-plus posts critical of Mr. Keskeny.

 

There are other inaccuracies, such as reference to some company called Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd., apparently an effort to correct the reference to Royal Caribbean International as the corporate entity involved.

 

This article is under their Local News section, not their Life section as the original article was. Journalism at its finest.

 

I'm too tired to thoroughly mull over all the implications-- have at it.

[dmwnc1959]

At least this new article didn't start off with phrases like 'kicked off', 'scary' and 'shocking', 'seniors should think twice', or any assorted selection of inflammatory hyperbole aimed at a specific 'target audience'.

[YOW]

Hey, gang, we made the Oakland Press local news!

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/13/news/local_news/doc4da618148ad79760097044.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

Or, at least, some forum called cruisecritics dot com. There's a link in the story that takes you to this--

http://cruisecritics.com/

 

Can't believe we're discussing another hack piece by Hacky McHackington in the Whogivesa$#!+ Times.

 

Dunno about y'all, but when I load the article page, there's a banner ad at the top for Royal Caribbean. :D

[fungo]

No mention of the butler he "hired" to assist him with the special needs he's now claiming aren't all that extensive.

 

Of course it's still Celebrity's fault that he didn't read his contract, didn't fill out the special needs form or make them aware in any other fashion of his needs, and chose to travel alone.

 

Yep. All Celebrity's fault. :p

 

It's interesting to me the stance the tour operator is taking because while this man has an axe to grind (legitimately or not) and RCI will defend themselves to the end (legitimately or not), the tour operator really has not much to gain either way. At this point, it's their side of the story that I think is most credible. Of course, it's not shocking that their side of the story makes a lot more sense.

[fungo]

So if I am not wrong, the most through, balanced, well researched and well written piece of journalism on this story so far was written by CC, followed by AOL in 2nd?

 

Way to go CC!

[cnote100]

It seems as though, based on accessability issues (toliet, bathroom lip, balcony) he may actually have a small ADA case. Who knows what the end result will be, but theres probably an argument. However, it's very difficult to see how he'd have any claims under the cruise contract. Now what would be funny, is if RCI (or whatever the proper entity is deemed to be) countersues for the expenses incurred in dealing with this individual who embarked on cruise while not being self sufficient as required by the cruise contract. They probably already excersied their main remedy by kicking him off, but it will be interesting to see if they try to claim other expenses which resulted from having to deal with him.

[purpleally]

I agree completely.

 

My problem with the article in the Oakland Press is that it is apparently a blog or opinion piece, but nowhere on the webpage that the OP cited does it say that. The only way we know it's an opinion article is that we assume it is, due to the unprofessional writing-style, and because the OP said so. This article is in the "Life" section of the newspaper - and NOT in the "Blog" or "Opinion" sections. Seems like mis-representation to me. I'm glad this "Oakland Press" isn't my local newspaper.

 

Thanks to CC for the unbiased and researched report on the issue.

The Oakland Press is my local newspaper and they have several weekly columns. This one is written on disability life so yes it was more of an opinion. However, this morning they have a follow up story and put it on page 3 of the front section along with other "news". The Oakland Press is more about fluff and what the local people are doing; it is very different from any other paper I have read.

[98Charlie]

The cost of providing a nurse would have included the cost of flying them out from Miami.

So instead he had to pay for a flight to Miami. BTW American Airlines serves Basse Terre airport with non-stop flights to/from MIA. That might have required an overnight in Guadeloupe before the flight. But a better option than hanging out in Haiti IMHO.

 

Then again after bringing suit against an airline in the past could it be possible that he's on a "no fly" list with other US based airlines??

 

Charlie

[Eurobikefan]

Since there are several comments around "ADA compliance" on the ship, you should be aware that there does not yet exist ADA architectural guidelines for passenger vessels---these are still pending from US Access Board. http://www.disaboom.com/accessible-planes-trains-and-cruises/ada-access-guidelines-on-cruise-ships

 

Last fall Department of Transportation did enact new ADA rules concerning passenger vessels, but these do not yet address physical accessibility aboard vessels:

"The Department is issuing a new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rule to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by passenger vessel operators (PVOs). This rulemaking concerns service and policy issues. Issues concerning physical accessibility standards will be addressed at a later time, in conjunction with proposed passenger vessel accessibility guidelines drafted by the United States Access Board." http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/asp/wateracc.asp

[Dan Askin]

Hi everyone,

 

Just a heads up that we're working on a follow-up -- starring Mr. Keskeny, Richard Bernstein, Celebrity Cruises, Bare Necessities -- for this evening. Hopefully, we'll be able to answer more questions than we raise.

 

Dan Askin

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Thanks, Dan! Since there's more info a comin', I think I'll hold off further comments for now.

[kitkat9438]

Hi everyone,

 

Just a heads up that we're working on a follow-up -- starring Mr. Keskeny, Richard Bernstein, Celebrity Cruises, Bare Necessities -- for this evening. Hopefully, we'll be able to answer more questions than we raise.

 

Dan Askin

 

Thanks Dan.

 

One comment I'd like to make about the toliet issue that we are just now hearing about from the new article. It clearly states on Celebrity's website that a Guest Special Needs Form must be completed and faxed 30 days prior to sailing when an accessible room is requested. It also states that a request must be made 30 days prior to sailing if you need a raised toliet seat and other special needs. Here's the link to the form:

 

http://media.celebritycruises.com/celebrity/content/en_US/pdf/CEL_Special_Needs_Form_November_2010.pdf

 

I don't know if this form is really required as stated, since I've never had to fill out one. We do know that we all have to acknowledge the cruise contract where you agree to all the terms, with the online checkin procedures, including the cancellation of your cruise if you don't comply.

 

Looking forward to hearing more details.

[sarahc78]

Thanks Dan.

 

One comment I'd like to make about the toliet issue that we are just now hearing about from the new article. It clearly states on Celebrity's website that a Guest Special Needs Form must be completed and faxed 30 days prior to sailing when an accessible room is requested. It also states that a request must be made 30 days prior to sailing if you need a raised toliet seat and other special needs. Here's the link to the form:

 

http://media.celebritycruises.com/celebrity/content/en_US/pdf/CEL_Special_Needs_Form_November_2010.pdf

 

I don't know if this form is really required as stated, since I've never had to fill out one. We do know that we all have to acknowledge the cruise contract where you agree to all the terms, with the online checkin procedures, including the cancellation of your cruise if you don't comply.

 

Looking forward to hearing more details.

It is required. I have an accessible room booked for our upcoming cruise. Even though the room was released because it hadnt been booked my TA suggested I fill a form out for my foot/leg issue so we would not be moved.

 

However the form does not specifically ask what your disability is.

 

I have a copy of the special needs form. Should I post?

[PS90]

The Oakland Press is my local newspaper and they have several weekly columns. This one is written on disability life so yes it was more of an opinion. However, this morning they have a follow up story and put it on page 3 of the front section along with other "news". The Oakland Press is more about fluff and what the local people are doing; it is very different from any other paper I have read.

 

Thanks for the insight. ;) Sounds like something you take with a grain of salt on a regular basis.

 

I will admit that the second article by Mr. Wolffe is slightly better written and less biased. Still poor and unprofessional by "real" journalist standards, IMO, but better.

[woodofpine]

Look, I love cruising... but...

 

Cruiselines market very heavily (especially to seniors) with the glossy promises of 'super service' then hide behind fine print when claims arise. All this, Did he read his contract!? (Really now...)

 

Cruiselines market heavily and are almost completely exempt from ADA, OHSA, and just about everything else - including taxes on their very handsome US profits. So boo-boo the cruiseline...:rolleyes: They really need your help. If you knew some of the catastrophic tragedies that have occurred on cruiselines - including X - due to plain old mechanical failures and the ENORMOUS length the lines go to to NOT write a check (if its substantial), the kissy kissy (the line), kicky kicky (the victim) attitudes might be different.

 

I'm able bodied and have travelled with highly disabled cruisers on Celebrity, HAL, and Princess. I think X is a credible line, but they didn't WoW me with disabled support or 'disabled cabin' design features. It was not #1 of the three mentioned. Based on my experience, I can definately believe a 'we don't give a d*mn' attitude from middle to senior level on board guest relations on an X ship (seen it first hand). Should this guy have had a personal attendant, hard to say. It appears that he is self-transferrable (chair to bed). Should they have put him ashore, I doubt it. They made the mistake of dissing an activist.

 

The 'fact' is - we aren't going to get the 'facts'; we're bystanders to hearsay, but the disabled in this world have only gotten the 'consideration' they absolutely need - by fighting for it. So given that 'David vs. Goliath' history --- personally, I'm not going to go 'Atta Boy Goliath!'.

[montgomeryfamily]

We have always been sent the special needs form, either by Celebrity if we booked direct or by our travel agent. Until the wheelchair accessible cabins are released to the general inventory, those are controlled by the special needs dept/access group and cannot be booked until released. Our travel agents (and we have used several), have always been advised of the necessity of our filling out the special needs form by the Celebrity staff person who releases the cabin. I know this because our travel agents have told us this and sent us the form. But we have never sailed on a chartered cruise and I don't know what the procedures would have been in the situation involving this man. (We have also never booked an accessible cabin that was released to the general inventory. Those are usually snapped up quickly after release. So I don't know what the procedure is in that case either).

 

I am surprised about the report of the man's claim that toilet height was an issue. While our disabled family member used the toilet and had no difficulty with the height, a toilet seat riser should be available on the ship upon request. If the special needs form is filled out, there is a category to request certain medical equipment and supplies such as this and the medical equipment/supplies requested is usually in your cabin upon arrival. But our experience is that a toilet seat riser and other similar equipment/supplies is available on the ship even without advance request. So I don't understand why he would have an issue with the toilet height unless he just didn't request a toilet seat riser or unless he requested one and it was not available. Dan, perhaps that is a question you can ask in your follow up article.

 

There were rails around the toilet as shown in the photograph in this thread. In addition, although you cannot see the inside of the shower from the photograph, there are rails in the shower, a pull down shower chair, and a hand-held shower.

 

Eurobikefan, while the US Access Board has not finalized architectural ADA guidelines for passenger vessels, there is a general requirement for access and also some barrier removal (unless exempted due to being cost prohibitive) in the ADA. But access can often be achieved by use of medical equipment such as toilet seat risers or by other physical adjustments or aids such as ramps--it doesn't necessarily have to be architectural.

[PS90]

Look, I love cruising... but...

 

Cruiselines market very heavily (especially to seniors) with the glossy promises of 'super service' then hide behind fine print when claims arise. All this, Did he read his contract!? (Really now...)

 

Cruiselines market heavily and are almost completely exempt from ADA, OHSA, and just about everything else - including taxes on their very handsome US profits. So boo-boo the cruiseline...:rolleyes: They really need your help. If you knew some of the catastrophic tragedies that have occurred on cruiselines - including X - due to plain old mechanical failures and the ENORMOUS length the lines go to to NOT write a check (if its substantial), the kissy kissy (the line), kicky kicky (the victim) attitudes might be different.

 

I'm able bodied and have travelled with highly disabled cruisers on Celebrity, HAL, and Princess. I think X is a credible line, but they didn't WoW me with disabled support or 'disabled cabin' design features. It was not #1 of the three mentioned. Based on my experience, I can definately believe a 'we don't give a d*mn' attitude from middle to senior level on board guest relations on an X ship (seen it first hand). Should this guy have had a personal attendant, hard to say. It appears that he is self-transferrable (chair to bed). Should they have put him ashore, I doubt it. They made the mistake of dissing an activist.

 

The 'fact' is - we aren't going to get the 'facts'; we're bystanders to hearsay, but the disabled in this world have only gotten the 'consideration' they absolutely need - by fighting for it. So given that 'David vs. Goliath' history --- personally, I'm not going to go 'Atta Boy Goliath!'.

 

You are attempting to make it sound like the majority of posters on this thread have implied a "worship-like" following of Celebrity, and that the main reason for disagreeing with Mr. Keskeny was simply the fact that he "dared" to question the Celebrity/RCCL corporation - and I don't see anything of the sort conveyed in this thread.

 

In fact, IMO, the vast majority of posts in this thread seem very logical and unbiased - at least given the amount of information that we have been spoon-fed up to this point. In other words, the "gist" of the majority of posts seem to say that, based on the information that we have available, Mr. Keskeny's complaints seem much more unreasonable than Celebrity's responses.

 

I don't see the "cheerleading" going on that you imply.

[hcat]

I have not read all the posts since I read it through the first time

 

anyone who plans to book the refurbed Century should keep in mind that it is an older ship..several decks do not connect so you have to go up & over & then down.. the pool deck is not as modern as many & not as appealing as many newer ships.. and I do not know if it is as fully equipped with machinery to help handicapped cruisers into the water as other ships--

 

If I had special needs I would have made sure in advance that they could be met by the ship, cruise line, port or my own personal care aid...but this point has been made over & over....

[fungo]

All this, Did he read his contract!? (Really now...)

 

Um, ya, really.

 

Are you saying that you advocate people entering legally binding agreements without full understanding of the terms of that agreement?

 

Or are you saying that even if you enter that agreement you shouldn't be held to it if you think it's a bad deal?

 

The only real "fact" in all of this was that this guy entered an agreement, didn't comply with the terms of the agreement, didn't like the available remedies afforded in the agreement, and ultimately was compelled to disembark as a last resort remedy, as permitted by the agreement he signed.