Royal Caribbean strands 145 passengers in San Juan when Irene forces early departure

[Ocean Boy]

Why? RCI didn't choose to leave port. This is one of those situations that just sucks, because there really isn't anyone to blame...except the weather. Why should RCI be stuck with the bill? Cruising during hurricane season is a huge risk, and unfortunately for these passengers, the odds weren't on their side. There's also the common sense aspect. If I knew there was an impending hurricane I'd be concerned about getting back to the ship (power outages, road closures, etc.) in time anyway...I'd stay on the ship.

 

And of course you realize that someone could make just as valid an argument by turning yours around......

 

Why should the passengers get stuck with the bill? They didn't show up late. Why does the passenger take all the risk and the cruise line just gets to keep all the money? Cruising during hurricane season is a big risk. Unfortunately, for Serenade the odds were not on its side.

 

Of course the stand-by counter to that argument is..... the cruise contract.:p

 

I'm not saying that I by into it but there are certainly valid points on both side of the argument.

[Gone Fishing]

I am surprised that so many posters think that RCI should not have any responsibility. They left early because of weather. Not much they can do about that however they still sold a cruise to people and told them to be on the ship no later than 90 mins before sailing time.

Yes it was a small group on Serenade but what if Oasis was forced to leave port when it was half full because of weather? Would folks agree that RCI owes nothing and the people are just out of luck?

[amc80]

And of course you realize that someone could make just as valid an argument by turning yours around......

 

Why should the passengers get stuck with the bill? They didn't show up late. Why does the passenger take all the risk and the cruise line just gets to keep all the money? Cruising during hurricane season is a big risk. Unfortunately, for Serenade the odds were not on its side.

 

Of course the stand-by counter to that argument is..... the cruise contract.:p

 

I'm not saying that I by into it but there are certainly valid points on both side of the argument.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think RCI could have handled it better. I mean an employee at the port would have been nice. And, of course, there's something to be said for goodwill. But I don't see that RCI actually did anything wrong.

[bbbearden]

I do not believe that RCI has any obligation to compensate any of the 131 pax who missed the ship and were not on cruise/air. That said, RCI must have decided that the ill will, bad press? etc will cost less in the long run than providing assistance to those 131 people. Carnival, on the other hand and who I have never sailed with, must have decided that the cost of providing assistance to their pax who missed will be recouped due to the good press and good feelings of the people that they helped.

 

RCI has probably lost forever a good number of those 131 pax and many of them will advise their friends, family, co-workers etc etc of their experience. Carnival has probably a very good chance of keeping the pax they helped as well as any new business that occurs from their word of mouth.

 

There is a litany of companies who took their customers for granted and then these companies became a footnote in business history. it really comes down to a corporate cost/payback decision. Just sayin.

 

Extremely well said. I really do not care who's fault it is or who should have forcasted what. If the company I trusted my vacation dollars to leaves me high and dry without any attempt to notify me or to make me whole, I can promise I will never do business with them again and I will tell everyone I know what happened and encourage them not to use that company.

 

I have to say, just completed my first RCCL cruise and loved it. However, their unwillingness to stand behind ALL of thier passengers who arrived at the port, regardless of how they booked thier airfare and were expecting the ship to be there makes me wander how safe it is to trust them with future vacation dollars.

[johneeo]

I remember a few years back sailing out of Ensenada(on rccl), mexico (hawaii cruise) that the departure time was in the evening. We got on the ship early afternoon and were encouraged to go ashore in Ensenada if we wanted to, to shop or sightsee,just be back an hour or so before sailing. I think the ship left around 9pm-it was dark.

 

If you were not there..................

 

I am sure that there was not a major hurricane barreling down on your port.:eek:

 

A hurricane was coming on a collision course. I would guarantee that no one was allowed to leave the ship once on board.

[Rutheth]

In my opinion I would have thought that RCI should have been able to send a text in order to warn of an earlier departure time as with the correct technology this would have taken seconds. Yes, some people do not use their cell phone on holiday (though I always carry mine with me for emergencies, even though it would cost international rates - well worth the cost!) Maybe this was why there were so few people left behind compared to the capacity of the ship. Also I never leave the ship without my passport and a credit card just in case. I often wonder why Americans do not have a passport - are they expensive?!

 

Having sailed from PR and done a back to back at Easter we spent the day away from the ship, though with poor weather as I expect it would be with a hurricane due I would have changed my plans and got on the ship and stayed on the ship for this very reason. I would not want to miss my cruise!! Though I would think it unlikely that I would ever book a cruise during hurricane season for this very reason!

 

Hopefully, RCI will learn from this and have a simple way to attempt to contact passengers in case of a situation like this. A message should have also been have made available at the port to inform passengers arriving late.

 

Travel insurance is definitely a 'must' and I would have thought arriving early, especially in hurricane season would definitely be a good idea.

[Syran]

I'm just curious why RCCL or any other cruise line should pay to transport people who

were left through no fault of the cruise line, and who chose to book their air independently of the cruise line. Since I don't have my cell phone set up for international calls, there is

no way anyone could reach me. I have a feeling that when the port authorities gave

the order to leave, there wouldn't have been time for even alerted pax to get to the

ship. The ship is under control of the port, and can't refuse to leave then told.

I would think anyone on a ship sponsored shore excursion or staying in a pre-cruise hotel

booked through the ship would be transported to the next port to meet the ship. Anyone

else is not the burden of the cruise line until they have checked in and boarded. Leaving the ship again after checking in is always a risk for the pax. We have done it, but if the

same circumstances had occurred to us, we would have expected to make our own way

to the next port.

 

Couple of notes. PR is in the US, you do not need international call plans to make or receive phone calls. You may be on roaming on some carriers, depending on your cell phone plan.

 

Also, to me, by giving a time of departure. If I meet their requirements, I should be okay, in their terms, to get on the ship. Even if weather grounds or cancels flights, Airlines have to get you from point A to B, they aren't required to provide you a place to stay, but they are still contracted to get you somewhere, so long as you played by their rules. To me, the same should be for a cruise line. Its why they have their own insurance policies (and I'm not talking about the ones they sell).

 

I can understand a ship needs to leave early due to weather, but I would expect if I'm on time, they would get me to where I need to be to meet it.

 

Its an unfortunate situation all around, and only made worse by the fact that it is bad press, and while, in a few months, it will probably be forgotten by most; many times, people will tell 20 people about their bad experience, over the 1 or 2 they tell about the great time.

[BklynBorn47]

BTW the carnival thread is buzzing about this as well. A couple of the posts state that carnival only provided flights for those that had insurance or booked flights thru carnival. So it appears they also did not provide for everyone.

 

But this is all second hand info and we will all have to wait and see from those that were actually there.

 

If this turns out to be the case I think it actually makes sense. If you elect not pay for insurance (saving money) or choose not to book your flight through the cruiseline (saving money also), you are on your own if the cruiseline is forced to make a change that adversely affects you. You save the money up front and then take your chances.

[Pushka]

Why we flew to SJ two days early and boarded as early as possible - and it wasn't even hurricane season. I figure if I am on the ship then I'm leaving when it does so there's no such thing as boarding too early.

 

In that case you could argue never to leave the ship in port.;)

[johneeo]

 

Then I would ask if you have ever cruised out of San Juan. I have!

 

 

And when you did, what hurricane was hitting your port at the time of embarkation?

 

 

The ships normally depart in the late evening and the cruise lines offer ship sponsered shore excursions in San Juan during the day.

 

With a hurricane on a collision course for your embarkation port, normal is not a part of the equation.

[Ramjet1997]

Not the cruise line's fault - HOWEVER they (RCCL) should PAY to get their PAID IN FULL passengers to the next port and PAY for any expenses - that would be the MORAL and ETHICAL thing to do, regardless if they want to claim it is "a weather problem" - I for one am very disappointed in RCCL's response and attitude to this situation. Now they are starting to sound like the AIRLINES - and that is not what you want your customers to think!!!!:mad:

[Cruising89143]

Maybe we will get a more clear picture once some of the ones that are currently sailing on the Serenade report back. As we always know there are three sides to a story. The cruise lines, passengers and the truth.

[ssb]

There are always two sides to every problem, and a cruise contract,

and travel insurance and the complications.

 

Playing it safe too relative to your own comfort zone,

knowing of possibility of effects of hurricane in the Atlantic

heading right at them.

[Pushka]

When you book a cruise, or a flight with any transport service, I have committed to a contract. That means that I agree to pay a certain amount, be onboard at a particular time, and obey the rules.

 

RCI were not able to fulfil their part of the contract - ie, they did not depart at the agreed time. Normally that would have meant they were late departing and it would be of no consequence. But they didnt, they left hours early. How on earth that does entitle them to wangle out of their side of the contract? Whatever the cause. RCI should have their own Insurance plans in place for actions that they have created (again, the cause is irrelevant) just as we have to have Insurance plans in place for actions that are part of our plans (eg a plane flight arriving late that isnt connected with RCI)

 

If this turns out to be the case I think it actually makes sense. If you elect not pay for insurance (saving money) or choose not to book your flight through the cruiseline (saving money also), you are on your own if the cruiseline is forced to make a change that adversely affects you. You save the money up front and then take your chances.

 

The cruiseline only offers airfares to people in the USA, and we know that a large proportion of passengers are not from the USA so it doesnt make sense to me. And in any event, that wouldnt have helped here.

[readytogo2]

Don't get me wrong, I think RCI could have handled it better. I mean an employee at the port would have been nice. And, of course, there's something to be said for goodwill. But I don't see that RCI actually did anything wrong.

 

I just read that there were Port agents at the pier assisting guests.

 

Article

[amc80]

When you book a cruise, or a flight with any transport service, I have committed to a contract. That means that I agree to pay a certain amount, be onboard at a particular time, and obey the rules.

 

RCI were not able to fulfil their part of the contract - ie, they did not depart at the agreed time. Normally that would have meant they were late departing and it would be of no consequence. But they didnt, they left hours early. How on earth that does entitle them to wangle out of their side of the contract? Whatever the cause. RCI should have their own Insurance plans in place for actions that they have created (again, the cause is irrelevant) just as we have to have Insurance plans in place for actions that are part of our plans (eg a plane flight arriving late that isnt connected with RCI)

 

Because it was the weather- an Act of God. From the cruise contract:

 

11. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY:

a. CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INJURY, DEATH, ILLNESS, DAMAGE, DELAY OR OTHER LOSS TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM BY ANY PASSENGER CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD, WAR, TERRORISM, CIVIL COMMOTION, LABOR TROUBLE, GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, PERILS OF THE SEA, FIRE, THEFTS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND CARRIER'S REASONABLE CONTROL, OR ANY ACT NOT SHOWN TO BE CAUSED BY CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE.

[vincentharris]

Found this on Travel USA Today:

 

"Carnival Cruise Lines left about 300 passengers behind in San Juan Sunday when approaching Hurricane Irene forced it to depart the island early. But unlike Royal Caribbean, which faced a similar problem, Carnival put all the passengers up in hotels and offered to fly them to the next port.:rolleyes:"

 

*************

Unfortunately I "also" have heard thru the "grapevine" that passengers who did not have passports were well...left on their own. My first thought was how did they get there without passports...alas I guess San Juan is a US territory and perhaps you don't need a passport to fly...

 

I'm interested to hear the "rest" of the story. SURELY...someone will post something upon the conclusion of the cruise. :confused:

 

This is the reason why everyone should get a PASSPORT and stop using birth certificates and drivers licenses. I can not figure out why Americans do not want to invest in a passport, it really is not that hard to get one. I for one am disappointed that when the Western Hemisphere travel initiative was pushed through they let the birth certificate exemption stick around. Also it would speed up getting through customs if people would have passports too.

[skandls]

I will wait to see what happens in the long run. In situations like this it seems that corporate at RCCL takes some time to decide what to do to compensate travellers. When we were 'stuck' in New Orleans waiting for the Grandeur (which had a large hole that needed repair) we did not get help from RCI even though we had their insurance. The only thing we were told was to keep all receipts. We had to find our own hotel (not easy on a Jazz Fest weekend). We did receive some credit for the lost days but that was a couple of months later. This was not a weather delay but a docking accident.

 

We now buy travel insurance separate from the cruiseline. It is worth it to have some help when things go wrong.

 

I do not expect the cruiseline nor the airline to be responsible for delays or cancellations due to weather. I would like assistance to be available - but that may not be possible all time.

[Aquahound]

Interesting argument, especially for an embarkation port. Normally, I would say RCI is not liable for anything here, but I have a few questions about this one. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[powelweb]

Aren't there several instances where RCCL has departed late (particularly from SJ) when there has been a weather related delay in the mainland such as snow? I seem to recall they would stay as late as they could and depart late so that as many guests could catch the ship as possible.

 

They do what they can in the given weather conditions.

[Sparky74]

Cruise Critic now has an article up that has some different/additional information to the USA Today one.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4584

[Ocean Boy]

I just read that there were Port agents at the pier assisting guests.

 

Article

 

The article also states that Serenade departed at 5:30 PM while they quote a guest who says she arrived at the pier shortly after 5 PM to find the ship gone and the pier closed.

 

So what is the truth?

[Pushka]

Because it was the weather- an Act of God. From the cruise contract:

 

11. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY:

a. CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INJURY, DEATH, ILLNESS, DAMAGE, DELAY OR OTHER LOSS TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM BY ANY PASSENGER CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD, WAR, TERRORISM, CIVIL COMMOTION, LABOR TROUBLE, GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, PERILS OF THE SEA, FIRE, THEFTS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND CARRIER'S REASONABLE CONTROL, OR ANY ACT NOT SHOWN TO BE CAUSED BY CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE.

 

And it will remain to be seen whether they made any attempt to contact anyone about the early departure. If they failed to notify people they were leaving, given they have everyone's contact details, then they could be seen to be negligent. How many hours did they leave early? OK, I see it was four hours early. Which meant RCI would have been notified hours ahead of that time.

 

How did they manage to get all the food supplies on then, but not find the time to try to contact people?????

[Ocean Boy]

This is the reason why everyone should get a PASSPORT and stop using birth certificates and drivers licenses. I can not figure out why Americans do not want to invest in a passport, it really is not that hard to get one. I for one am disappointed that when the Western Hemisphere travel initiative was pushed through they let the birth certificate exemption stick around. Also it would speed up getting through customs if people would have passports too.

 

Don't lump us all together. Plenty of us have passports.... and would never think of leaving the country without it.

[Pushka]

Don't lump us all together. Plenty of us have passports.... and would never think of leaving the country without it.

I do think that a large proportion of USA people dont want to get a passport though. I have had a passport since I was 18, and that is almost forty years ago, and never been without one. Mind you, every step out of Australian waters requires one.