Royal Caribbean International will offer compensation to 130 passengers of the Seren

[Evys]

I’m addicted to cruise critic, but I’m not much of a poster as you can see, but this time I just feel compelled to say something, I just can’t understand why people is still defending RCI actions on this.

I’m from Puerto Rico (my first language is Spanish so sorry for any mistake), and since 11:00 am that Sunday, the port authorities were telling the cruises lines to leave port as soon as possible, it was clear that Irene will hit us at night, only a miracle will save us at that point, so they had about six hours to at least try and contact the passengers, with email blasts, texts, calls, and of course inform their customer service call center that they were leaving early, so they can correctly inform to any passenger calling.

I understand that there are a risk involved cruising at hurricane season, and maybe is cheaper, but it cost good money, it’s not a big of a bargain either, and they need to make business too.

RCI must have a better way to handle this kind of situation, it’s apparent that they don’t have a procedure established. It was totally bad customer service and most important horrible damage control.

[piscesgal223]

I'm not defending RC..but at the same time I'm not not giving them my buisness.That,IMO is ridiculous.

 

 

I loved Puerto Rico when I was there..the few hours we had there weren't enough! it'd be interesting to start my cruise in San Juan-get there a few days ahead(of course..) and do some sightseeing.

[Cruising89143]

I really don't see how that could be true. The problem was, while RCI was being dragged through the mud, they said nothing. In fact, when this story first broke on CC, the latest comment by RCI was they were not compensating. If, in fact, they were in the process of compensating people, why wouldn't they say it? Did they want bad press for some odd reason? Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

 

I agree Paul. Bottom line, RCI dropped the ball on this big time.

[yj2cute]

What I don't get is people always trying to stop the discussion of a topic THEY feel is dead. If there is still an interest in the topic and still posts to the thread, it ain't dead. Anyone who no longer has an interest in it, don't open the thread. The subject is clearly marked. Stop trying to tell other people what they should say or do. You are not board moderators so stop acting like it! :mad:

 

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

[Ocean Boy]

Exactly. Not a big fan of Carnival, but if you like them, cruise with them. The "Carnival is SO much better than RC" stuff gets old really fast.Sorry.:mad:

 

What is really getting old is people twisting comments about how Carnival handled this issue better better that RCI into "Carnival is SO much better than RC". Yeah, that is really getting to be old.:rolleyes:

[piscesgal223]

To use one of my favourite phrases: "To each his/her own". :D

[DaytonCruiser]

What I don't get is people always trying to stop the discussion of a topic THEY feel is dead. If there is still an interest in the topic and still posts to the thread, it ain't dead. Anyone who no longer has an interest in it, don't open the thread. The subject is clearly marked. Stop trying to tell other people what they should say or do. You are not board moderators so stop acting like it! :mad:

 

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

I think some love a company so much that they hate for anyone to keep bringing up something negative about it. Its almost like someone talking about their spouse, close relative or best friend.

[Cruising89143]

Can we just say travel Carnival if you like their customer service so much better and be done with it? Dollars speak more to a company then bitching on the internet

 

There is no amount of money that would get me back on Carnival. I can tell you from personal experience that their customer service has issues also. This time Carnival got it right and RCI wrong. Next time it may be the other way around.

[YYC F/A]

Can we just say travel Carnival if you like their customer service so much better and be done with it? Dollars speak more to a company then bitching on the internet

 

If you think this is true, then I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the power of the internet. Just look at viral marketing, viral news stories etc.

[YYC F/A]

Here's a quick analogy.

 

You book a flight from your home airport - let's say somewhere in Canada or one of the Northern US Cities where snowstorms can happen in the winter months.

 

There is a big snowstorm predicted to roll in later in the night of the day you are due to fly. You head up to the airport allowing extra time, let's say 3 hours before your flight. When you arrive at the check-in counter, you are told by the airline "sorry, we sent that flight out 5 hours early - there is a good chance of a snowstorm later".

 

Now, imagine the airline told you that not only would they not get you to your destination, not cover any expenses - but that they would not even refund your ticket - despite you turning up exactly when they told you to. "No, we ended up changing the flight time at the last minute. Yes, we know we didn't tell you, but no, we're still not refunding you your ticket even though you showed up on time. Sorry. No refund. Have fun!".

 

Now, in that example above, would you really rush to give your future business to that airline?

 

Why does RCI get a free pass?

 

To this day, I still don't understand the culture on these boards of "apologists" or "loyalists" that defend a cruise line vociferously - even when they have done something that is clearly poor service at best, unethical or barely legal at worst.

 

For the record, I'm not a cheerleader for any cruise brand (and while I applaud Carnival in the recent situation in San Juan, I personally don't enjoy cruising the Carnival brand).

[mommabean]

Here's a quick analogy.

 

You book a flight from your home airport - let's say somewhere in Canada or one of the Northern US Cities where snowstorms can happen in the winter months.

 

There is a big snowstorm predicted to roll in later in the night of the day you are due to fly. You head up to the airport allowing extra time, let's say 3 hours before your flight. When you arrive at the check-in counter, you are told by the airline "sorry, we sent that flight out 5 hours early - there is a good chance of a snowstorm later".

 

Now, imagine the airline told you that not only would they not get you to your destination, not cover any expenses - but that they would not even refund your ticket - despite you turning up exactly when they told you to. "No, we ended up changing the flight time at the last minute. Yes, we know we didn't tell you, but no, we're still not refunding you your ticket even though you showed up on time. Sorry. No refund. Have fun!".

 

Now, in that example above, would you really rush to give your future business to that airline?

 

Why does RCI get a free pass?

 

To this day, I still don't understand the culture on these boards of "apologists" or "loyalists" that defend a cruise line vociferously - even when they have done something that is clearly poor service at best, unethical or barely legal at worst.

 

For the record, I'm not a cheerleader for any cruise brand (and while I applaud Carnival in the recent situation in San Juan, I personally don't enjoy cruising the Carnival brand).

 

This argument holds no weight.

 

Turn around time on airliners is sometimes as short as a half hour. The flight has to arrive before it can leave. Even the first flight of the day from any given airport wouldn't do that unless it left totally empty. And if a HUGE storm were coming that might toss around the aircraft as sometimes happens with rare hurricanes, they just might fly it away. But in that case, no one would be arriving at the airport as they would be making their own hurricane preparations.

 

I do have a friend in the midwest from cruise critic - Bill-Wi :) - who has been known to watch for these sort of winter snow storms. He has the unusually ability to call the airlines and get his flights moved up by a couple of days so he never misses a winter cruise.

 

Flights don't fly out once a week and spend the day loading supplies for thousands of passengers. There is just no comparison because it really is impossible to fly the plane away 5 hours early when it hasn't even arrived with it's previous occupants.

 

It still gives no one a free pass.

 

I'm just not buying that reasoning.

 

Gina

[cruisenfever]

There is a big snowstorm predicted to roll in later in the night of the day you are due to fly. You head up to the airport allowing extra time, let's say 3 hours before your flight. When you arrive at the check-in counter, you are told by the airline "sorry, we sent that flight out 5 hours early - there is a good chance of a snowstorm later".

You must be kidding right? An airline is going to dispatch a flight out 5 hours early "empty" !?:eek:

 

Here in the snowy NE, the term "grounded" and "canceled" comes to mind.

[TWELVEOHONE]

The whole situation bring up another point that has been discussed before.

If you are one of those that missed the ship, either Carnival or RCI and do not have a passport you could not fly to the first port of call to meet the ship. It does not matter if the cruise line is paying or your paying, NO PASSPORT NO GO

 

Birth certificates and/or passport crad will not work.

[Starry Eyes]

You must be kidding right? An airline is going to dispatch a flight out 5 hours early "empty" !?:eek:

Here in the snowy NE, the term "grounded" and "canceled" comes to mind.

While I really wish Royal had handled this better and I wish they had taken good care of all you arrived by normal checkin deadline, the analogies used by some posters on these thread just do not work.

I live in snow country. The flights do not go early. The are delayed or canceled.

To make that poster's analogy work, the airport tells flights they must leave pronto before the airport closes the runways. I have never seen a flight depart early, but I have watched airports close. I once had a cheap flight to North Carolina where I was registered (prepaid) for an expensive professional conference. The expensive conference hotel had a 72 hour cancelation policy. A light snow was predicted, and we had an easy drive to the airport. Suddenly, the light snow turned into a blizzard (shift in wind caused lake effect:eek:). The airport closed all runways to incoming and outgoing flights, rather like the port closed, ah. they delay our flight again and again, then canceled it. We were moved to a later flight, and it too was delayed, then canceled. The airline offered us another flight in 4 days, but the conference would have been over. When we declined that offer, the airline offered a flight one or weeks later. Umm, no, the conference would be over and did not repeat in future weeks:rolleyes:. the airline did not want to give me a refund. Frankly the cost of the airfare was small compared to to the registration fee, the hotel penalty, and the lost professional opportunity.

[Aquahound]

This argument holds no weight.

 

I'm glad to finally see someone say that the airline comparison makes no sense. When a cruise ship leaves, that ship is no longer available until 7 days later. It's not like they can just put you on another ship an hour later and it's not like a cruise ship has a 30-60 minute turn around. Plus, airplanes don't have 7 day itineraries where you can join it in another city. :rolleyes:

 

The only comparison that makes sense is wishing for the cruise lines to have the ability to alert passengers like airlines do. Otherwise, cruise lines really can't be compared to airlines.

[lovevacadays]

If you read one of the other threads you will see that there is now reporting that people who were IN San Juan called RCI to see if there were any changes to the sailing that they should be aware of only to be told that everything was on schedule. Therefore, they did not go over to the port earlier than they had originally planned.

 

Upper management should relent as there really was no "management" on there part at all.

 

Wow, that would be disappointing. I can understand that if you weren't checking in these types of circumstances then you might have some fault. But, if you were checking I'm sure it was quite a surprise to arrive at the port to find the ship had sailed.

[lovevacadays]

Just thinking about this and I do have empathy for those affected. What a disappointment to plan a vacation and have this happen. However, if I was already in San Juan and knew of these conditions I would go to the port and board the ship as early as I possibly could to avoid any problems. Just common sense to me.

[caribbean sailor]

I think some love a company so much that they hate for anyone to keep bringing up something negative about it. Its almost like someone talking about their spouse, close relative or best friend.[/quote

 

You hit the nail on the head.:D:):D:)AMEN

[YYC F/A]

I'm guessing I did not elucidate clearly enough.

 

My analogy is not to be taken literally. Of course flights don't go 5 hours early (empty). But that's kind of the point.

 

If an airline did this, without telling you, and then refused to refund you despite you turning up on time, most folks would be incredulous/outraged/would never go back to that airline again.

 

It doesn't happen. They either delay the flight, or they cancel it. And either way, if you cannot travel, or elect not to travel, you get your money back.

 

When you buy passage - be it on a cruise ship, an airline, or a train - if you turn up in good time per the information provided to you by the operator - and the plane/ship/train left hours early - you should be entitled to a refund. And Royal did not.

[bus man]

This argument holds no weight.

 

Turn around time on airliners is sometimes as short as a half hour. The flight has to arrive before it can leave. Even the first flight of the day from any given airport wouldn't do that unless it left totally empty.

 

You must be kidding right? An airline is going to dispatch a flight out 5 hours early "empty" !?:eek:

 

Here in the snowy NE, the term "grounded" and "canceled" comes to mind.

 

While I really wish Royal had handled this better and I wish they had taken good care of all you arrived by normal checkin deadline, the analogies used by some posters on these thread just do not work.

I live in snow country. The flights do not go early. The are delayed or canceled.

 

How is it that so many people have completely missed the point of YYC F/A's analogy? He (she?) wasn't saying that this is the way that airlines operate, or that it's a realistic scenario. He was simply saying, how would you like it if you showed up at the airport on time, only to find that your plane had departed early, and that the airline was not going to rebook you or refund your fare?

 

To me, this is the crux of the matter. How can RCI fail to deliver the promised product to a customer who complied with all requirements to obtain that product, and then keep the customer's money anyway? If it's legal, it shouldn't be; and it certainly ain't right.

[DaytonCruiser]

How is it that so many people have completely missed the point of YYC F/A's analogy? He (she?) wasn't saying that this is the way that airlines operate, or that it's a realistic scenario. He was simply saying, how would you like it if you showed up at the airport on time, only to find that your plane had departed early, and that the airline was not going to rebook you or refund your fare?

.

 

Thats often the issue with analogies, its comparing apples to oranges.

 

Why pull airplanes and trains into it,when we can just compare how 2 cruiselines handled the exact same issue.

[The_Big_M]

Can we just say travel Carnival if you like their customer service so much better and be done with it? Dollars speak more to a company then bitching on the internet

 

Not really, then they think a downturn could be due to a lack of promotions, or need to reduce price, or ships with the wrong itineraries, or pretty much anything.

 

Feedback is what counts - and they do monitor forum feedback.

[YYC F/A]

Thats often the issue with analogies, its comparing apples to oranges.

 

Why pull airplanes and trains into it,when we can just compare how 2 cruiselines handled the exact same issue.

 

Very true. Though the "C" word has fast become a dirty word on this board ;)

[mjldvlks]

There is no way that 2 days prior RCI could have ever predicted the possibility that they would leave early. . .

Actually, there is. The Coast Guard has a progression of port conditions that escalate to the point of closing the port and trying to get all the ocean going vessels out of port. Any vessel operator [i.e. RCI] should be well aware of the normal progression. As soon as they know that a hurricane is possible, operators likewise know early departure is possible. How many decades has RCI been operating in the Caribbean in general and San Juan in particular. With a hurrican in the area and on track to be near, if not over, San Juan on Sunday, to argue an experienced operator like RCI would not recognize the possibilities is in my opinion ridiculous.

 

By Saturday evening, with specific warnings being made, I think vessel operators in San Juan should have known early departure was not only possible, but likely. Mommabean has confirmed that announcements were being made on board Serenade as early as 11 a.m. Sunday. Even that is enough to convince me that failing to even try to notify passengers is inexcusable.

[Pushka]

Since when is their inconsistency news? Remember Explorer's sailing to nowhere last year? Corp said no we aren't compensating while they were mailing out FCCs and applying OBC.

 

So you are confirming that RCI pretty much suck at communication then, because in my book, inconsistency in communications can actually be worse than no communication at all. And as this thread is all about their lack of communication, then.........