I am aggravated with Carnival's booking policies

[loxley]

If the cost of the third person today is $400, then that is what you should pay. Not what the cost of three people would have been when you booked the cabin originally. And not the cost of three people today. First two are locked in, so if they gave you a discount now, it would blow the whole no decrease past final payment plan out the window.

 

You are wanting a the discount the first two people in the cabin get now. You are not entitled to it. I understand your reasoning and the new pricing scheme is pissing me off too, but that is how it is and I am actually glad they have started sticking to the rules even though I do not like them.

 

My next cruise is coming up in May, and it will probably be my last with Cruise for the same reason I will not fly anymore if I have to pay for it. ie, I buy today and then the price drops tomorrow, but it is too bad. Right or wrong, It always makes me feel like they stole money from me.

[airmj2123]

Very on point. I apologize to those who may be offended by a violation of the TOS (Twice).

 

It is actually very interesting to read all of the follow-ups to this thread. It seems to be pretty evenly split between those who think that I was demanding or insisting for some special treatment and those who think that I was actually commenting on the inflexibility of large corporations (I was).

 

You are correct in saying that there was and is no guarantee to them that I would spend any of the money as I say that I probably would (other than my spending history on previous cruises), but I think that somewhere in the deep recesses of their headquarters there is a business model which assumes some similar spending on a per customer basis.

 

I was not expecting any "special treatment". I was hoping that the company would be reasonable and want to come out ahead.

 

Others on here have implied that I waited until the last week before the cruise to try and add a third person to the cabin. Actually, what happened was we realized about two weeks ago that our son could go with us. So since we ALREADY were in a cabin configured for three we thought that maybe he could come along if the price were acceptable. We did not start out with some nefarious plans on how to get one over on the cruise line. Instead we thought (mistakenly) that the cruise line would want to generate as much revenue as it could. But then, as many on here seem to be happy about, we were taught a lesson - rules are rules!

 

The big problem with the case by case scenario is that a certain percentage are only trying to beat the system (I know that is not the case here.). CCL has decided they have a line and it is one that don't want to cross because it may lead to people taking advantage of it...

 

As a general rule (not intended for you, but anyone who gripes about prices dropping and different rate rules), all the different rates have advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't matter what your TA or PVP or Cruise Critic tells you, it is 100% your responsibility to understand the rate you are selecting. READ THE FINE PRINT!!! READ THE CONTRACT!!! People come on here and whine about prices changing but in reality the only person to blame is the one in the mirror.

[mzewe]

....No matter how many numbers you throw around, Carnival will make that somewhere else.

 

You are 100% correct - they will sail at or very near 100% capacity every cruise whether I am there or not. But someday, if there are enough people that become disenfranchised with them, that may not be the case. No, I am not advocating a boycott or anything like that. I am just saying that while losing one customer means nothing - if enough people become unhappy with them (for whatever reason) they will eventually notice. If that were ever to occur, it would probably be long after I am gone.

[truecruiser]

You're clearly not grasping the cancellation concept. Test the theory. Make them change it (i know you asked once).

 

In the end i bet you will find that they did you a favor by not changing it.

[drosphot]

I am just saying that while losing one customer means nothing - if enough people become unhappy with them (for whatever reason) they will eventually notice. If that were ever to occur, it would probably be long after I am gone.

 

CCL has long been targeting the first time cruiser and the repeat cruiser is not their tier 1 target. This has been pointed out on CC before and is pretty evident in the perks they give vs other cruise lines in the loyalty program.

 

You're clearly not grasping the cancellation concept. Test the theory. Tell them to change it.:rolleyes:

 

truecruiser is right. And getting CCL to be able to override sometime in their system is liking expecting a venison steak at a vegan restaurant... ;)

[tonit964]

I guess that the reason is this: When you go to an auction you know how much you are willing to spend on that Rembrandt right? If the bid goes higher than what you have determined is the correct price point you stop bidding. You don't just say oh, it is only another $200. The same thing happened here except that in my case there are no other bidders so the auction house will just not sell the item and they won't make anything on the deal because this item has an expiration date (can't sell it to another bidder next week).

 

But, you really want him to go, right?

Sometimes I budget for something but if I really want it, I will go higher.

 

At this point, Carnival couldn't care less about it, but you do.

 

Just a thought. :)

[mzewe]

You're clearly not grasping the cancellation concept. Test the theory. Tell them to change it.:rolleyes:

 

You are right - I don't get it - I did not want to cancel. I wanted to add.

[che5904]

You are 100% correct - they will sail at or very near 100% capacity every cruise whether I am there or not. But someday, if there are enough people that become disenfranchised with them, that may not be the case. No, I am not advocating a boycott or anything like that. I am just saying that while losing one customer means nothing - if enough people become unhappy with them (for whatever reason) they will eventually notice. If that were ever to occur, it would probably be long after I am gone.

 

You missed the point of that post. Not everyone gets "disenfranchised" because they were told no to an already existing rule. They may be elated when someone bends the rules and/or understood their argument. But do not get bent out of shape if someone or some company actually stuck to their rules.

[cruisinfanatic]

You are 100% correct - they will sail at or very near 100% capacity every cruise whether I am there or not. But someday, if there are enough people that become disenfranchised with them, that may not be the case. No, I am not advocating a boycott or anything like that. I am just saying that while losing one customer means nothing - if enough people become unhappy with them (for whatever reason) they will eventually notice. If that were ever to occur, it would probably be long after I am gone.

So I'm correct. You want the current price of passenger 1 and 2 plus the cost of the 3rd. If they give it to you, they have to give it to everyone regardless of the rate code they're booked under. What's the point of booking under the "early saver" rate?

If you were booked under early saver, you probably would get your son booked for the $200 you figure.

The rules are for a reason

[bucks724]

For every one lost, they'll gain five. Good luck adding your son, but honestly, it's not worth the trouble griping about it for an extra $200 or so. How about you pay the amount you want to pay and i'll pay the difference and go with you? It's not full fare, be happy about that and just pay it or leave him at home. No big deal.

[drosphot]

You are right - I don't get it - I did not want to cancel. I wanted to add.

 

You still aren't understanding what she is telling you.

 

RIGHT NOW, if you want to add to your cabin the system will require the agent to CANCEL your current reservation and create a NEW booking. Getting the front line agent to be able to handle that is not realistic. They will rebook you at the only rate they can, which is the one they are quoting you. You can call them and try to get to a supervisor that can possibly do what you want.

[truecruiser]

You still aren't understanding what she is telling you.

 

RIGHT NOW, if you want to add to your cabin the system will require the agent to CANCEL your current reservation and create a NEW booking. Getting the front line agent to be able to handle that is not realistic. They will rebook you at the only rate they can, which is the one they are quoting you. You can call them and try to get to a supervisor that can possibly do what you want.

 

oh thank god for you, lol :p

 

AND OP, assuming they will cancel and re-book you to get what you want (which they won't, but let's play devil's advocate and say they will), this series of actions will result in you LOSING 100% of your cruise fare already paid because it is a technical CANCELLATION of your booking LESS than 14 days from sailing.

 

so could you get the price you want? yes, but by paying for it all NEW (pax 1,2 and 3), bc the $ you paid before the cancellation date? well, that's gone if you do it.

 

THIS is why I'm saying in a twisted sort of way, that agent just may have been doing you a FAVOR. see?

[cruzincritter]

My wife and I are currently booked on the Conquest leaving out of New Orleans on February 10th. The cruise has of course passed the final payment date. I have been calling for the past several weeks to see just how much it would cost to add my son to the booking. It has been, and remains, quite expensive in my opinion. I was on Carnivals website checking pricing today, and noticed that today the price for the three of us would only be about $200 more than my original price that has been paid in full. Do you think that Carnival would let me pay the additional $200 and add him to the cabin that I am in which is already configured for three people? No. Instead, they want to charge me over $400 to add him. They say that I can’t pay the lower rate because that would require them to change the rate code on my booking – something that they will not do this close to sailing. It did not matter that we were all Platinum guests or that they would actually make more money on the deal.

 

I find it interesting that they are so inflexible. I did not ask for an OBC or any money back. All I asked was to be allowed to pay them more money and they said no, not enough.

My best guess as to the additional revenue that they are missing out on is as follows:

 

What we would have spent

 

3rd person Ticket - $200.00

7 Day Soda Card - ($4.50 / day x 7 days - $31.50 + 15% Gratuity ) $36.23

1 Excursion Ticket - $50.00

1 Gratuities - $11.50 / Day $80.50

1 Assumed misc expenses (based upon my previous 7 cruises with him) $200.00

 

Total $566.73

 

What Carnival Wanted and is not getting:

 

3rd person Ticket - $400.00

 

The amount of additional revenue that Carnival could have had without creating any additional cabin space had they allowed me to pay the lower rate - $166.73.

 

That is just in DIRECT COSTS. Now I understand that $166 is not a large amount of money, but they actually could stand to lose more because now I am mad at them and will be MUCH less willing to splurge on any additional on-board expenses such as:

Bar Tab - $400

Jewelery - $150 - $200

Perfume - $200

Bingo - $10

 

All told, they could stand to lose an additional $810 in INDIRECT COSTS. Plus I may take my 1 or 2 cruises per year to Royal Caribbean (that is an unknown future loss).

 

Basically, they lost out on about $1,000 of additional on board revenue because they would not change a fare code on a booking. Oh yeah, I understand completely. I guess is probably a good thing that I sold my CCL stock last year as decisions like this don't seem to make much financial sense.

 

Oh, and for those of you who will flame me for taking my frustration out on the crew by not spending anything while on board - I FULLY INTEND TO PAY MY GRATUITIES, AND PROBABLY SOME MORE. The crew works entirely too hard for what little pay they receive.

 

 

mzewe,

 

Believe me....I see your point. Anyone who has cruised Carnival any length of time knows darn good and well that in these last few years, they have made too many changes to count. You can BET that it is ALWAYS to put more $$ in their bottom line and as a business it understandable up to a point. Let's not kid ourselves here....I know many a person who has left Carnival and some of these very people have gone on to other cruise lines. I know because at least 10 of them happen to be family. While this is my first official post to CruiseCritic, I am NO stranger to these boards and certainly NO stranger to Carnival's antics. After I read your post, I decided it was time to chime in.....

I agree that it is just the principle of the whole thing, which others seem to NOT get. If you are a platinum cruiser and you stated that you are, you must have seen the same changes taking place these last years and I, for one, think they STINK!!!! Just my opinion, but many of Carnival's stupid decisions will come back to bite them in the old keester and I, for one, will be among the first to say, "I told you so"!!!!

 

Good luck and hope you find a way to bring your son. As for me and my house....it is now RCI all the way baby!!

[sanmarcosman]

I think Carnival should explain in these situations the why of their business decision to the consumer. Sometimes in life we may not be happy with a decision but it often helps to know why the decision was made.

 

For instance your boss should explain why you didn't get the increase in salary you were expecting and what you need to do to justify an increase in the future. Merely telling a person "no, I can't do that" is bad business form. I was in a similar situation as the OP and when I asked why I was told that "it's our policy." That's no answer.

[MissMeggieMurphy]

the same old argument surfaces time and again. and what so many don't seem to grasp is that if carnival bends the rules for one customer they need to bend the rules for everyone. hundreds of passengers booked rooms for 3 the same time you did and they paid the booking rate if they filled that room with 3 people. now what's to prevent them from reading how you got a 3rd person on for $200 less because you waited to fill your room after final payment and the pack and go rates came into effect. wouldn't all of these people have a valid argument with carnival to get some money back for that third person booking. that's the bottom line, not whether the op can shame them into providing the booking amount he thinks he deserves.

 

and i find it laughable to read about how someone is going to jump ship because this type of thing would never happen on another cruise line. you better believe it would, they are, like carnival, in it to make money and they have just as many rates and rules and booking procedures and cancellation policies. besides, they charge a lot more out of the gate, too.

[Out to sea!]

Very on point. I apologize to those who may be offended by a violation of the TOS (Twice).

 

It is actually very interesting to read all of the follow-ups to this thread. It seems to be pretty evenly split between those who think that I was demanding or insisting for some special treatment and those who think that I was actually commenting on the inflexibility of large corporations (I was).

 

You are correct in saying that there was and is no guarantee to them that I would spend any of the money as I say that I probably would (other than my spending history on previous cruises), but I think that somewhere in the deep recesses of their headquarters there is a business model which assumes some similar spending on a per customer basis.

 

I was not expecting any "special treatment". I was hoping that the company would be reasonable and want to come out ahead.

 

Others on here have implied that I waited until the last week before the cruise to try and add a third person to the cabin. Actually, what happened was we realized about two weeks ago that our son could go with us. So since we ALREADY were in a cabin configured for three we thought that maybe he could come along if the price were acceptable. We did not start out with some nefarious plans on how to get one over on the cruise line. Instead we thought (mistakenly) that the cruise line would want to generate as much revenue as it could. But then, as many on here seem to be happy about, we were taught a lesson - rules are rules!

 

Good. Now we can have a civil conversation. I understand the disappointment in what you wanted versus what they offered, but you indeed expected (and maybe still do) preferential treatment (in otherwords, you believe they should go against their policy because of the expected increase in paid services onboard). If you had just not understood the higher cost prior to the request, most people would say that they now understand and just carried on as normal, but you implied in your OP that you were going to get payback, by purchasing less than you originally expected. While I agree, they probably do have a spending model based on average consumption per passenger, some go above that and some (like myself) are probably well below it and they have no way of knowing which type of person you are and I believe they made the right call by stating what the rule was and sticking to it. I truly hope you can get over the hurt you feel and end up enjoying your cruise and personally, I hope you decide to pay the $400 so your son can enjoy it with you.

[Cyn7]

I think Carnival should explain in these situations the why of their business decision to the consumer. Sometimes in life we may not be happy with a decision but it often helps to know why the decision was made.

 

For instance your boss should explain why you didn't get the increase in salary you were expecting and what you need to do to justify an increase in the future. Merely telling a person "no, I can't do that" is bad business form. I was in a similar situation as the OP and when I asked why I was told that "it's our policy." That's no answer.

 

Actually, this is covered in the Booking Terms and Conditions as well as the Cruise Contract. Since the OP is within 10 days of her sailing date any changes made to her booking is subject to those terms.

 

As others have stated, if you bend the rules for one person then you have to for everyone else.

[bplazo]

I would just suck it up and pay what they are asking. Spending time with your child is "priceless".

[2 cruzen]

We all have disappointments. I'm disappointed that I'm not getting an OBC of $170.00 since I decided not to book ES based on work circumstances at the time. Later, when we booked additional cabins, the ES rate was higher than we originally paid, so I left it, even though I probably should have switched but my PVP didn't suggest it. I have to add, my husband usually books our cruises, but I did this one. Weak moment when the PVP called. Anyway, my fault.

When OP states they don't want any preferential treatment, it indeed sounds like they do. Then to state, they are going to take business elsewhere...sounds like the kid on the playground that's going to take his ball and go elsewhere. Again, their choice. As several people have stated, if you do for one, then you do for all. They HAVE to make money....otherwise, we wouldn't have a ship to sail on and enjoy.

[T. Advisor King]

oh thank god for you, lol :p

 

AND OP, assuming they will cancel and re-book you to get what you want (which they won't, but let's play devil's advocate and say they will), this series of actions will result in you LOSING 100% of your cruise fare already paid because it is a technical CANCELLATION of your booking LESS than 14 days from sailing.

 

so could you get the price you want? yes, but by paying for it all NEW (pax 1,2 and 3), bc the $ you paid before the cancellation date? well, that's gone if you do it.

 

THIS is why I'm saying in a twisted sort of way, that agent just may have been doing you a FAVOR. see?

 

TrueC,

 

I think it may be that you're so knowledgable about the mechanics that you may have missed the OP's point. I don't think he's suggesting they make a specific entry or post a specific transaction, he's just focussed on the outcome. He doesn't care how they do it or what the cancellation or refund or booking date is. What he is commenting on is CCL's policy.

 

I think your comments have been focused on what would come up on a customer service rep's booking screen if the rep tried to post the change that the OP wants. And I'm sure you're absolutely right -- you sound like you know what you're talking about.

 

But the OP doesn't care what comes up on the screen or what the customer service rep would be authorized to do in CCL's computerized booking system. He (she?) is just saying that Carnival should be able to recognize that adding an extra passenger at the price he proposes would be in their best interest and from a policy perspective, they should have the ability to make it happen.

 

All that said, I've posted above why I think CCL's decision probably already reflects a very careful calculation of what's in its best interest, but I understand why the OP might be a little frustrated by the repeated explanation of whether a particular screen entry might represent a "CANCELLATION" (your block caps) when he wants to make an argument about principles and outcomes.

[airmj2123]

I think Carnival should explain in these situations the why of their business decision to the consumer. Sometimes in life we may not be happy with a decision but it often helps to know why the decision was made.

 

For instance your boss should explain why you didn't get the increase in salary you were expecting and what you need to do to justify an increase in the future. Merely telling a person "no, I can't do that" is bad business form. I was in a similar situation as the OP and when I asked why I was told that "it's our policy." That's no answer.

 

Simple solution to wanting explanations on why a business decision is made, buy stock ask for explanation. This is gonna sound awful but as a customer your are not entitled to explanations about business decisions (shouldn't expect it). Employer/Employee relationship is entirely different than Provider/Customer. Delta doesn't provide me an explanation when they change routes, change hours, change policies, remove food options, increase drink prices...

[truecruiser]

TrueC,

 

I think it may be that you're so knowledgable about the mechanics that you may have missed the OP's point. I don't think he's suggesting they make a specific entry or post a specific transaction, he's just focussed on the outcome. He doesn't care how they do it or what the cancellation or refund or booking date is. What he is commenting on is CCL's policy.

 

I think your comments have been focused on what would come up on a customer service rep's booking screen if the rep tried to post the change that the OP wants. And I'm sure you're absolutely right -- you sound like you know what you're talking about.

 

But the OP doesn't care what comes up on the screen or what the customer service rep would be authorized to do in CCL's computerized booking system. He (she?) is just saying that Carnival should be able to recognize that adding an extra passenger at the price he proposes would be in their best interest and from a policy perspective, they should have the ability to make it happen.

 

All that said, I've posted above why I think CCL's decision probably already reflects a very careful calculation of what's in its best interest, but I understand why the OP might be a little frustrated by the repeated explanation of whether a particular screen entry might represent a "CANCELLATION" (your block caps) when he wants to make an argument about principles and outcomes.

 

 

I actually never intended to get technical. The first post I made was pretty short and clear-cut. I understand (and agree with) your point about the OP trying to convey a "principles and the right thing to do" theme, but I disagree as to the anger. I took the anger as being the product of his frustration and confusion as to "why" they wouldn't just do it for him.

 

So, I was trying to offer an explanation to maybe provide him some comfort and an idea for a possible solution (seek out someone higher).

 

I acknowledged that on some level, the OP makes 100% sense (see my post 18 where I say: “I see what you're saying -- you already have a triple, they're not out $, they only stand to gain it [because his cabin is off the market for all intents and purposes]. You would think there wld be a way to override the cancellation wiping you out.... and then I suggest he call someone higher, but he still didn't understand why, and he said as much in his reply post.

 

So I disagree with you that he only wanted to make a moral argument.

 

I do not believe he understood the issue with the rate code and how the PVP would likely have no choice but to switch the code (see my comment about the 3rd pax having to be linked to paxs 1 and 2), and even if the rate code could be switched, he clearly wasn't understanding the affect doing so would have on his entire booking.

 

I do not believe Carnival said "No" just to give him the shaft.

 

I believe they said no because it was past the time for him to make any rate changes to his booking and to do otherwise is a clear deviation from their rules.

 

So he can't (and shouldn't) expect a pvp to just willy-nilly do it. It would probably cost him or her their job, if caught.

 

OP - you can try to appeal to someone at a higher level (a regular PVP isn't going to risk this), but the bottom line is what others have said:

 

If they do this for one, how can they not do it for others? And then the problems will surely begin…

 

and the fact that they are allowing you to add him at the 3rd pax rate which was for your code with no other penalty or change fees to your booking isn't so bad.

[terryinal]

the same old argument surfaces time and again. and what so many don't seem to grasp is that if carnival bends the rules for one customer they need to bend the rules for everyone. hundreds of passengers booked rooms for 3 the same time you did and they paid the booking rate if they filled that room with 3 people. now what's to prevent them from reading how you got a 3rd person on for $200 less because you waited to fill your room after final payment and the pack and go rates came into effect. wouldn't all of these people have a valid argument with carnival to get some money back for that third person booking. that's the bottom line, not whether the op can shame them into providing the booking amount he thinks he deserves.

 

and i find it laughable to read about how someone is going to jump ship because this type of thing would never happen on another cruise line. you better believe it would, they are, like carnival, in it to make money and they have just as many rates and rules and booking procedures and cancellation policies. besides, they charge a lot more out of the gate, too.

 

I agree. Someone would want the same thing and it would never stop. Carnival has ticked me off in the last few yrs with the changes.But they don't care that I have been on 25 cranival cruises. So I guess I just have to live with it or jump ship. I have check other lines and I don't seem to do any better.

[T. Advisor King]

I actually never intended to get technical. The first post I made was pretty short and clear-cut. I understand (and agree with) your point about the OP trying to convey a "principles and the right thing to do" theme, but I disagree as to the anger. I took the anger as being the product of his frustration and confusion as to "why" they wouldn't just do it for him.

 

...

 

I acknowledged that on some level, the OP makes 100% sense ...

 

I do not believe he understood the issue with the rate code and how the PVP would likely have no choice but to switch the code (see my comment about the 3rd pax having to be linked to paxs 1 and 2), and even if the rate code could be switched, he clearly wasn't understanding the affect doing so would have on his entire booking.

 

I do not believe Carnival said "No" just to give him the shaft.

 

I believe they said no because it was past the time for him to make any rate changes to his booking and to do otherwise is a clear deviation from their rules.

 

So he can't (and shouldn't) expect a pvp to just willy-nilly do it. It would probably cost him or her their job, if caught.

 

OP - you can try to appeal to someone at a higher level (a regular PVP isn't going to risk this), but the bottom line is what others have said:

 

...

 

Yes, you've been more than fair and balanced in your response to the OP. Interestingly, I sensed frustration rather than anger from the OP.

 

However, when you mention the rate code and what the PVP can or can't do, I still think you may be missing the point. The OP doesn't care (nor should he need to) what the "rate code" is. If I go to a hardware store and I buy a box of screws and I come back the next day because I'm one screw short and ask them if they can throw in another screw, the answer should be either yes or no, but if it is no, the explanation shouldn't be, "no because if I did that I'd have to record the screw under a rate code that would require me to cancel your original transaction, process a refund and re-sell the original box plus one screw for the original price".

 

And I don't think the OP was suggesting that the PVP should try to do anything secretly for him that would be contrary to company policy and certainly not something "willy-nilly ... that would cost the PVP her job if she got caught". I think he would have hoped the PVP might have got authorization to make the change from the shift supervisor, or if the shift supervisor didn't have the authority to get the shift supervisor to get authority from the divisional manager and if he/she didn't have authority, to get approval from the regional manager, etc.

 

I have no doubt that CCL has some way to put you, me or a chimpanzee into their booking system and charge them $1, zero dollars, a million dollars or any other amount they want. Any booking system will have some sort of override, but I agree the PVP likely doesn't have authority to do it herself.

 

But I'll say again that I don't have a ton of sympathy for the OP's position. They have a rate structure and policy and they stick to it. But the reason they're sticking to it is a policy reason, not a mechanical excuse that the booking system is so inflexible that they couldn't possibly add another party without going through the mechanical exercise you focused on.

 

And don't take my reply as a criticism of your tone in dealing with the OP. You've been fair, pleasant and balanced.

[sparks1093]

Just a guess, but thinking about this logically, they probably can't give you the new 3rd person rate without changing the code, and they probably can't change the code bc you're only 10 days out, and if they change the code with you being only 10 days out, it's probably going to result in a cancellation of the old code and rebooking of the new code with the problem being you would lose 100% of your cruise fare in a cancellation at this date.

 

 

I see what you're saying -- you already have a triple, they're not out $, they only stand to gain it. You would think there wld be a way to override the cancellation wiping you out. You can try again, but if it doesn't work I vote to take your son anyway, lol! :)

 

do you have a specific pvp you always deal with (someone who knows you and for whom you have their 5 digit ext?) maybe they will be able to work some magic on a supervisor.

 

good luck

 

I haven't read all of the posts but I agree that the bolded language is very likely- the system would treat this as a cancel and re-book (and as I understand it the other cruise lines handle this the same way after final payment).

 

And there is a reason that the rule is in place- as someone else mentioned if they let a third passenger be added at the current price any time someone wanted to people would wait to book the third person until after the price went down.