Another reason why cruise cancellation policies need to change

[Gailerina]

[quote name='mitsguy2001']Just out of curiosity, does that mean that the company gets to choose 3 days each year to close for all employees? Or does it mean that each individual employee get to choose 3 days each year to stay home due to inclement weather? Either way, what happens if fewer than 3 days are used? Also, wouldn't it be better to just give 3 extra vacation days?[/QUOTE]

We have 3 special days for inclement weather. If they are not use then o well. We get between 18 and 25 some vaca days a year. Hours up to 300 till over each year also.


Sent from the awesome Gailerina using my iPhone!

[Gailerina]

[quote name='songbird1329']Just to underscore the issue...Chuck Schumer just sent a letter to the cruise line association and the airline association asking them to have special consideration for families in the northeast who have to cancel February break vacations.[/QUOTE]

There is a history of the week being taken away...it's the risk Teacher's and parents take booming during the school year.


Sent from the awesome Gailerina using my iPhone!

[dread_pirate]

[quote name='mitsguy2001']I have posted in the past about why I feel cruise lines need to change their cancellation policies, but unfortunately, nobody here seems to agree with me. I will start this post off saying that I do NOT currently have any children, and I am NOT a teacher or staff member at a school, nor do I have any currently active teachers in my family. Therefore, I am posting a completely unbiased opinion, and I do not have anything to gain.

I live on Long Island, which was recently devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Because of Sandy, most school districts lost more than a week of school. Because of that, the schools are opening during February break (schools in New York usuallly close for a week in mid-February) to make up the lost days.

I will say that I COMPLETELY agree with the school districts making that time up. The students are expected to be in school for 180 days per year, and teachers are expected to work for 180 days per year. So, if school is lost, it is completely reasonable to have to make that time up.

The problem, however, is that many people have non-refundable vacations booked[B] during that week in February. [/B]There have been many letters to the editor in our local newspaper (so I am NOT simply making up theories) from people who had non-refundable vacations booked that week. They already suffered losses due to the hurricane, and now they are foced to lose money that they worked hard for and spent on a vacation. Their other choice is to miss a full week of school. That is a lot of school to miss, especially during an already severely interrupted school year. And, teachers and staff do not have the option of just missing a full week of school. One of the letters to the editor was by a school nurse who had a non-refundable vacation booked that week.

I should mention that insurance does NOT cover cancellation in this case. Also, the school calendar marks several days (during spring break in March / April) as makeup days, but it does NOT list any part of February break as makeup days. The school is reasonable to avoid using the makeup days in March / April in case there are days lost due to snow during the winter. I am not fauling the school district for that, but I am just saying that parents would have had no indication that days during February break would ever be used as makeup days.

The last time that a significant number of school days was lost before the winter was due to Hurricane Gloria in 1985, and even then, although the lost days were made up, they did not use February break as a makeup. Even if someone booked cancel for any reason insurance, that only covers a percentage of the cost, so they will still lose a percentage of the fare (between 10% and 25%) and the cost of the insurance (which is not cheap), which is a lot of money to lose on a vacation that you don't get to go on, especially when you suffered other losses due to the Hurricane.

Given the severity of the situation and the unprecedented nature of this storm and the makeup during February break, I think that cruise lines (as well as airlines, and others in the travel industry) should have a heart, and allow cancellation with no penalty for travel booked during the February break. People can very easily prove that school will be open that week. This is not the case of someone wanting to cancel at the last minute since the predicted weather is bad or because they had second thoughts about the cruise.

[B]Other than the cruise lines (and airlines), it seems that all other companies went above and beyond in their response to the storm.[/B] For example:

1. The company that I worked for gave everyone 2 extra paid days off, on Monday and Tuesday Oct. 29 and 30, because of the storm.

2. Our local cable company is offering credit for any days where we were unable to use our service, even if it was due to a power outage that was no fault of their own.

3. My health insurance company normally requires 50 gym visits per 6 month period in order to qualify for a gym reimbursement. They agreed to reduce the number of gym visits needed this period, due to the storm.

4. Our local transit agency allowed people to use an October monthly pass for the first few days of November, and allowed a full refund with no penalty for tickets that were purchased for use on Oct. 29, 30, or 31, but were not used due to the storm.

5. My bank is waiving fees and late charges that were incurred due to the storm.

6. The place where I rented a DVD from waived the late fees that I would have had to pay when I was unable to return the disk due to the storm.

If everyone else went above and beyond for people impacted by the storm, why shouldn't cruise lines do the same?

Again, I am posting an unbiased opinion. I do not have any kids yet, I am not a teacher, and I do not have a cruise booked that week (nor any week currently), so I have nothing to gain or lose either way. Just posting an unbiased opinion.[/quote]

My bolding -
The problem with your examples is that all these businesses gave consideration to those people who could not conduct business AS A DIRECT RESULT and PROXIMATE TO the storm.

Your business did not give you 2 days off that you could take in February; they gave you the two days off that you couldn't get to work [I]during the storm[/I]. Transit allowed you to use your October pass in November. They didn't allow you to use your October pass in December. Your health insurance reduced the number of visits you had to have to the gym during the period including and following the storm, not in July.

The cruise lines did, in fact, go "above and beyond" for their passanegers affected directly by Sandy. They allowed those passengers to cancel/reschedule; they cancelled cruises and refunded moneys if they couldn't sail safely; they refunded moneys or allowed rescheduling to those people who couldn't reach the departure port due to the storm.

What you are asking, however, is to excuse people affected by a storm in October for a trip scheduled for February. That is not a direct result of the [I]storm[/I]. It is a result of decisions made by school systems and by those who are at the mercy of school systems. None of the businesses you mentioned above would do that, nor would any airline or other business.

Your analogies are flawed.

[broberts]

[quote name='klfrodo']:eek: OMG
Well that changes EVERYTHING. If Chuck Schumer said it, then it must be golden.

:rolleyes::confused::rolleyes:

Whatever[/quote]

Schumer is just doing his job.

[GORDONCHICK]

[quote name='broberts']Schumer is just doing his job.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he's just making it look good.

[broberts]

[quote name='GORDONCHICK']Actually, he's just making it look good.[/quote]

What I said. :D

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='songbird1329']Just to underscore the issue...Chuck Schumer just sent a letter to the cruise line association and the airline association asking them to have special consideration for families in the northeast who have to cancel February break vacations.[/quote]

And if the cruise lines refuse to cooperate, then maybe Schumer will propose laws that take away a lot of the freedom that cruise lines have to screw their customers. Sometimes, it is best to give in on something small (refund a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event) rather than risk permanently losing your freedom. Personally, I'd rather see the cruise lines just offer the refunds as a gesture of goodwill, rather than to see more laws and regulations put in place. Laws often have unintended consequences, and businesses often find ways around the law.

[Warm Breezes]

[quote name='mitsguy2001']And if the cruise lines refuse to cooperate, then maybe Schumer will propose laws that take away a lot of the freedom that cruise lines have to screw their customers. Sometimes, it is best to give in on something small ([COLOR=red]refund a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event[/COLOR]) rather than risk permanently losing your freedom. Personally, I'd rather see the cruise lines just offer the refunds as a gesture of goodwill, rather than to see more laws and regulations put in place. Laws often have unintended consequences, and businesses often find ways around the law.[/quote]

This is where your thinking is wrong. This is not a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event. Hurricanes happen every year and affect many people who cruise. Cruiselines are not obligated to do anything but refund for ports/days actually missed by the ship...Not the days missed that the ship made it but the customer couldn't make after booking. Anything more given by the cruiseline is not required and is a bonus. The customer chooses when they cruise. They are responsible for insuring themselves against any disruptions that timing will cause. The issue with the teachers/students was not directly caused by the hurricane but by decision of school board members and they had time to change their cruises. Not the cruiselines responsibility. No laws are needed.

[broberts]

[quote name='mitsguy2001']And if the cruise lines refuse to cooperate, then maybe Schumer will propose laws that take away a lot of the freedom that cruise lines have to screw their customers. Sometimes, it is best to give in on something small (refund a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event) rather than risk permanently losing your freedom. Personally, I'd rather see the cruise lines just offer the refunds as a gesture of goodwill, rather than to see more laws and regulations put in place. Laws often have unintended consequences, and businesses often find ways around the law.[/quote]

I don't see why a refund is necessary. I do think a happy compromise would be for the cruise line to allow a voyage change for a (small) fee. Many airlines offer something like this.

[blondietink]

OK, so what if you force the cruise lines to refund for this "once in a lifetime event"? What happens when the next once in a lifetime event occurs, such as the next F-5 tornado, the next blizzard, the next earthquake, the next flood, the next ice storm or the next hurricaine? Because you know, any or all of those events could occur within the next year.

Suck it up people, you just should have purchased cancel for any reason insurance! And quit whining to Senator Chuck Schumer... I live in NYS too and we were not affected by Sandy at all, so why should he be focusing on just those people in Sandy's path? What about the rest of us who are going to pay through the nose here in NYS for those people who chose to live on the coast? Just sayin'.

[Charles4515]

[quote name='mitsguy2001']And if the cruise lines refuse to cooperate, then maybe Schumer will propose laws that take away a lot of the freedom that cruise lines have to screw their customers. Sometimes, it is best to give in on something small (refund a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event) rather than risk permanently losing your freedom. Personally, I'd rather see the cruise lines just offer the refunds as a gesture of goodwill, rather than to see more laws and regulations put in place. Laws often have unintended consequences, and businesses often find ways around the law.[/QUOTE]

Such a law is very unlikely.

[songbird1329]

[quote name='Charles4515']Such a law is very unlikely.[/QUOTE]

True.

But the cruise industry lobbied long and hard for the "closed loop cruise" exception to the current passport regulations. Judging by the moaning and groaning I see on this board, how many people wouldn't cruise if they had to spend the money on a passport? That exception could easily disappear . . .

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[nitro2448]

[quote name='songbird1329']True.

But the cruise industry lobbied long and hard for the "closed loop cruise" exception to the current passport regulations. Judging by the moaning and groaning I see on this board, how many people wouldn't cruise if they had to spend the money on a passport? That exception could easily disappear . . .

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

A passport has more uses. When the passports were required, for one year, I went and got 3 of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[songbird1329]

[quote name='nitro2448']A passport has more uses. When the passports were required, for one year, I went and got 3 of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't travel without one.

But three?

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[nitro2448]

[quote name='songbird1329']I wouldn't travel without one.

But three?

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

Yep, me my wife and my daughter. But I do have two, one civilian one military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[songbird1329]

[quote name='nitro2448']Yep, me my wife and my daughter. But I do have two, one civilian one military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

We got passports when we went on our cruise three years ago. The following year we decided to do a land based vacation. We wound up in Niagara Falls, where our passports came in very handy for our day on the Canadian side.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[nitro2448]

[quote name='songbird1329']OK, thanks for clearing that up.

We got passports when we went on our cruise three years ago. The following year we decided to do a land based vacation. We wound up in Niagara Falls, where our passports came in very handy for our day on the Canadian side.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I guess I didn't think you would have thought I got 3 for myself. Even tho they are not required for cruising, you are still better off having them. You never know what might happen and you need one, like miss the ship at a port :( even an emergency that requires you to fly home from a port. They really are not that expensive, about $12 a year average


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SuzanneSLO]

[quote name='kitty9']With research, smart cruisers know NEVER purchase a cruise line's insurance. I've never understood why anyone would purchase travel insurance directly from the cruise line. I've had to cancel more than a few cruises, some at the last minute, and my cruise insurance has ALWAYS reimbursed me for everything. Once, I had to join a cruise late and the insurance paid for the pre-cruise hotel in Singapore, paid for the upgrade in airline because only first class was available and they reimbursed me for the days lost on the cruise---8 days was paid back to me. And all because I had a flooded basement. So, you see, if these angry travelers do their research, they may find they can get a refund, maybe not all, but at least some.

I don't know about the letters to the editor, but it seems to me that knowing the superstorm was in October, well before the Feb vacation season, those who had cruises booked very well could have cancelled before any penalty period. And, if they were land vacations, you can certainly cancel with a minimum penalty. Heck, I can't count the number of land vacations I've had to cancel, and always received a refund, minus the small deposit. Even the rough and tough Disney allowed me to cancel a trip (and believe me, Disney can be tough) when my mom got sick. All I lost was the deposit. So you see, it can be done with a little effort.

mitsguy, regardless of whether one gets a 100% refund with insurance or not, is it not better to get something back rather than lose every dime you paid? I know that if I paid $5000 for a cruise and had to cancel, I would be happy to get 75% or 80% refunded rather than losing the full $5000.[/quote]

Never say never.

While there are many less than perfect aspects of the Travel Protection Plan provided by Disney Cruise Lines, it does provide 100% credit of the fare toward a future crusie if you cancel for a non-covered reason. As a result, if may be helpful for some people in some situations. Like those who were planning to take their kids on a cruise in February and now find that school will be in session that week. -- Suzanne

[cruiseco]

[quote name='SuzanneSLO']Never say never.

While there are many less than perfect aspects of the Travel Protection Plan provided by Disney Cruise Lines, it does provide 100% credit of the fare toward a future cruise if you cancel for a non-covered reason. As a result, if may be helpful for some people in some situations. Like those who were planning to take their kids on a cruise in February and now find that school will be in session that week. -- Suzanne[/QUOTE]

Plus, for those in the upper age brackets it can be a huge savings since age isn't taken into account when determining the premiums. That whole "never buy the cruise line's plan" once was valid. Back when I was a TA a cruiser in the least expensive inside cabin on a Carnival Cruise paid exactly the same as one in a suite -- the only pricing factor was the length of the cruise so the poor folks subsidized the insurance cost of the suite passengers. Ridiculous. And it didn't have the "cancel for any reason and at least get a credit toward a future cruise" feature. It's true they still don't cover if the cruise line goes out of business but most of the financially-weak players have been weeded out over the last 20 years or so.

Like you said -- never say "never." It might not be the best choice for you but it never hurts to take a look at the cruise line's offering.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='Gailerina']We have 3 special days for inclement weather. If they are not use then o well. We get between 18 and 25 some vaca days a year. Hours up to 300 till over each year also.


Sent from the awesome Gailerina using my iPhone![/quote]

You didn't answer my question. Does the company choose which 3 days to close? Or do you choose which days you don't want to go to work?

As for inclement weather at my job (other than Hurricane Sandy), they have 2 rules that conflict with each other. They have a rule that you should never be forced to drive to work when you are not comfortable doing so, but that you have to use vacation time or personal time for the time that you miss. But there is also a rule that you can only use vacation time or personal time if it is pre-approved (which inclement weather would not be, since you wouldn't know far enough in advance) or if you are sick. I think they need to resolve those conflicting rules. Maybe ammend the vacation / personal time policy to say that it must be pre-approved, unless you are sick or not comfortable driving to work due to inclement weather.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='dread_pirate']My bolding -
The problem with your examples is that all these businesses gave consideration to those people who could not conduct business AS A DIRECT RESULT and PROXIMATE TO the storm.

Your business did not give you 2 days off that you could take in February; they gave you the two days off that you couldn't get to work [I]during the storm[/I].[/quote]

But by not having to use vacation time for those 2 days, that is 2 more vacation days that I can use some other time in the future, including February.

[quote] Transit allowed you to use your October pass in November. They didn't allow you to use your October pass in December. Your health insurance reduced the number of visits you had to have to the gym during the period including and following the storm, not in July.[/quote]

Actually, since the 6 month period is July 1 - Dec. 31, that does include July!

[quote]The cruise lines did, in fact, go "above and beyond" for their passanegers affected directly by Sandy. They allowed those passengers to cancel/reschedule; they cancelled cruises and refunded moneys if they couldn't sail safely; they refunded moneys or allowed rescheduling to those people who couldn't reach the departure port due to the storm.

What you are asking, however, is to excuse people affected by a storm in October for a trip scheduled for February. That is not a direct result of the [I]storm[/I]. It is a result of decisions made by school systems and by those who are at the mercy of school systems. None of the businesses you mentioned above would do that, nor would any airline or other business.

Your analogies are flawed.[/quote]

Your comments are too ridiculous for me to even respond to, to put it quite mildly.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='Warm Breezes']This is where your thinking is wrong. This is not a finite number of customers for a once in a lifetime event. Hurricanes happen every year and affect many people who cruise. Cruiselines are not obligated to do anything but refund for ports/days actually missed by the ship...Not the days missed that the ship made it but the customer couldn't make after booking. Anything more given by the cruiseline is not required and is a bonus. The customer chooses when they cruise. They are responsible for insuring themselves against any disruptions that timing will cause. The issue with the teachers/students was not directly caused by the hurricane but by decision of school board members and they had time to change their cruises. Not the cruiselines responsibility. No laws are needed.[/quote]

Again, that is so ridiculous I do not even know how to respond. Also, I am right that only a finite number of customers are affected. Cruises can only accommodate a finite number of passengers.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='broberts']I don't see why a refund is necessary. I do think a happy compromise would be for the cruise line to allow a voyage change for a (small) fee. Many airlines offer something like this.[/quote]

I agree.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='songbird1329']True.

But the cruise industry lobbied long and hard for the "closed loop cruise" exception to the current passport regulations. Judging by the moaning and groaning I see on this board, how many people wouldn't cruise if they had to spend the money on a passport? That exception could easily disappear . . .

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why it is to the cruise lines' advantage to give in on something small.

One thing that bugs me is the hipocricy of Crusie Critic members. They want cruise lines to stick tough to their cancellation policies. Even when a mother posted that her 17 year old son died suddenly a few weeks before a cruise, and she wanted a refund for him (not for anyone else travelling), everyone was flaming her and being a total jerk. However, Cruise Critic people seem to want exceptions to rules when it suits them. They want exceptions to their employers' vacation policies; they want their kids' teachers to make exceptions to the attendance policy; they want their kids to be able to attend a club that they don't meet the age requirements for.

[mitsguy2001]

[quote name='cruiseco']Plus, for those in the upper age brackets it can be a huge savings since age isn't taken into account when determining the premiums. That whole "never buy the cruise line's plan" once was valid. Back when I was a TA a cruiser in the least expensive inside cabin on a Carnival Cruise paid exactly the same as one in a suite -- the only pricing factor was the length of the cruise so the poor folks subsidized the insurance cost of the suite passengers. Ridiculous.[/quote]

Maybe the reason for that is that maybe (I haven't done any research, so I may be wrong) passengers who booked a suite are less likely to cancel than passengers boked in an inside room. So the higher cost of the suite maybe is offset by the suite passenger being less likely to cancel. A few possibilities why a suite passenger may be less likely to cancel than an inside passenger:

1. Suite passengers may be more likely to have an employee to delegate work to if things get too busy at work.

2. Suite passengers may be more likely to have jobs that allow working remotely.

3. A cruise booked in a suite may be a one-time or occasional splurge that one would be less willing to cancel.

4. Suite passengers may be more likely to be able to afford to pay someone to take care of an elderly relative at home.

5. Suite passengers may be more likely to have kids in a private school that will graduate the kids as long as they pay tuition and learn the material, regardless of how many classes they miss. Inside passengers may be more likely to have kids in public school where state aid is tied to attendance, and strict attendance policies may be enforced no matter how well the kid is doing in school.

6. Suite passengers may be more interested in enjoying their room, and less interested in "active" shore excursions, and thus less likely to want to cancel due to an injury or illness. I remember when I had to sign a waiver form for a snoreling excursion, and had to include our room number, I noticed that virtually everyone on my excursion was staying on either Deck 1 or 2, meaning they were staying in either an inside or oceanview room (that ship had only insides and oceanviews on Decks 1 and 2).