Reining in the Wild West of the travel industry

[pmacher61]

“Cruise ships, in large part operating outside the bounds of United States enforcement, have become the Wild West of the travel industry, and it's time to rein them in before anyone else gets hurt,” Schumer said in a statement. “This bill of rights, based on work we've done with the airline industry, will ensure that passengers aren't forced to live in third world conditions or put their lives at risk when they go on vacation.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/04/carnival-s-triumph-breaks-loose-from-its-dock-us-senator-calls-for-cruise-ship-passenger-bill-of-rights?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

 

Isn't it about time?

[Sinppu]

“Cruise ships, in large part operating outside the bounds of United States enforcement, have become the Wild West of the travel industry, and it's time to rein them in before anyone else gets hurt,” Schumer said in a statement. “This bill of rights, based on work we've done with the airline industry, will ensure that passengers aren't forced to live in third world conditions or put their lives at risk when they go on vacation.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/04/carnival-s-triumph-breaks-loose-from-its-dock-us-senator-calls-for-cruise-ship-passenger-bill-of-rights?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

 

Isn't it about time?

 

Cruise shipS?

As in all cruise ships?

Yup. They sure all are h***holes in which we are all FORCED to spend time... :rolleyes:

[Arusha]

First of all, the ship breaking its lines has nothing to do with Carnival Corp. malfeasance. That event, and the loss of the guard shack at the shipyard, was due to a storm. (An oil tanker broke its lines up here in New Hampshire a day or two before the Triumph unmooring, resulting in closing a bridge that connects NH and Maine. It happens! I'm not a CC cheerleader, have never cruised on CC, and have no intentions of ever doing so.)

 

Second of all, Chuck Schumer proposing a "Cruise Ship Passenger Bill of Rights”? LOL! He ought to spend his time defending the US Bill of Rights.

[Kamloops50]

“Cruise ships, in large part operating outside the bounds of United States enforcement, have become the Wild West of the travel industry, and it's time to rein them in before anyone else gets hurt,” Schumer said in a statement. “This bill of rights, based on work we've done with the airline industry, will ensure that passengers aren't forced to live in third world conditions or put their lives at risk when they go on vacation.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/04/carnival-s-triumph-breaks-loose-from-its-dock-us-senator-calls-for-cruise-ship-passenger-bill-of-rights?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

 

Isn't it about time?

 

Is he trying to force cruise lines to totally leave the US to other countries..Airlines are US companies because of the generous tax structure they have. Cruise lines are foreign owned and registered because of the requirements that the government and unions require . I'm not union basing but done't care for unions as a group. Government (Unions) will require wages be based on wages in the US and hours of work as well. If this happens cruising will become an elitist holiday not one for your average joe worker. Compare the cost of a POA cruise(without fees and taxes) verses an Alaska cruse and the you see the difference in cost

[pmacher61]

Is he trying to force cruise lines to totally leave the US to other countries..

I think the point Sen. Schumer is making is that because the cruise lines are organized outside the US, they are not subject to many US laws (including labor laws). I suspect (but do not know) the referenced passenger bill of rights has nothing to do with employment issues, but rather the safety of passengers and perhaps compensation in the event of mishaps for all ships sailing in US waters.

[klfrodo]

Shouldn't he spend more time working on a budget?

Then, when he has some free time, he can worry about the cruise industry.

[luddite]

Oh goody! Shumer is gonna solve a problem? Really? REALLY?!!

That's what we need, Shumer posturing for publicity.

[dwjoe]

This article is melodrama piled upon melodrama when you consider that Schumer made the statement in question before the Triumph mooring line incident.

[beachbum53]

“Cruise ships, in large part operating outside the bounds of United States enforcement, have become the Wild West of the travel industry, and it's time to rein them in before anyone else gets hurt,” Schumer said in a statement. “This bill of rights, based on work we've done with the airline industry, will ensure that passengers aren't forced to live in third world conditions or put their lives at risk when they go on vacation.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/04/carnival-s-triumph-breaks-loose-from-its-dock-us-senator-calls-for-cruise-ship-passenger-bill-of-rights?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

 

Isn't it about time?

 

I'm sure his remark about passengers being "forced to live in third world conditions" is in reference to the Triumph incident, but that was an unusual and most likely isolated incident. His statement that cruise ships have become the "Wild West of the travel industry" is totally absurd. I put my life at risk just driving to work and back each day. I feel very safe when cruising, and see no need for our government to step in and impose a bunch of bureaucratic b.s.

[i5trucker]

I don't need a civil servant watching out for me, I can take care of myself. If I feel I have been mistreated by a business, I will go to another business with my money.

[Hlitner]

Well, we can make a few statements with absolute certainty. Any involvement of the US Government will increase the cost to everyone! Any involvement of the US government will also probably increase inconvenience to the passengers (a good example is the Passenger Services Vessel Act (PVSA)). And finally, if there is too much US government interference the cruise lines will simply use non-US ports for their embarkation points. One example already happening is the Port of Vancouver which gets many ships that do not use Seattle because of the PVSA. Another current example are the ships that use Monterrey, Mexico to avoid the problems inherent when using CA ports (such as PVSA, Longshoreman Union, CA Low Sulphur Fuel requirements, etc).

 

So let us look at what our government has done for the cruise industry. No cruise ships are built at US Ship yards. Very few ship officers are American (although we know of a few exceptions). The PVSA prevents what could be some great coastal cruises (along both the East Coast and West Coast). New CA fuel rules have driven some ships away from the CA ports (it costs more money to switch over to the low sulphur fuels). There are very few US Flagged passenger vessels because of our taxes and labor rules. So, by not building ships in the US, using more US ports, using more US crew, etc. our wonderful government has simply cost us many jobs and additional economic benefits that would be derived from additional cruise business.

 

Hank

[kingoftheicedragons]

He wants a cruise passenger bill of rights just like they have for airlines.....I'm sorry, being stuck on an airplane on a tarmac for three hours is a lot different than being stuck on a cruise ship. You are almost like a prisoner if you're stuck on an airplane that's out on the tarmac, and confined to your seat. They don't even want you standing up to stretch if they can help it. Yes, I was stuck on the tarmac for three hours prior to a cruise vacation one year. Granted, I've never been on a ship like Splendor or Triumph that had serious issues, but unless they tell you to sit down in a long metal tube and not move until the problem is resolved, it's not as bad as being stuck on an airplane. I'm not saying that being stuck on the Triumph would be a pleasant experience, but ship does happen, and you still have a lot of positive things going for you. I don't think the government should be interfering in the cruise industry any more than it already has.

[smeyer418]

The chicken littles among you saying that they will leave the US are just that chicken littles. US nationals make up 60% or more of the cruisers world wide. 30% of those don't have passports. Do you really think that some increased costs will drive the ships from the US?

The cost of everything Schumer suggests- which won't become law any way- is miniscule.

Its just one of his every week Sunday news conferences.

The PVSA goes back to the 1880's. It was meant to protect the US ship building industry. The Cruise lines are happy with the PVSA as it exists now. They are concerned that the cost of relaxing it will be labor changes and taxing requirements(particularly gambling revenue). So be careful what you ask for.

[Hlitner]

The chicken littles among you saying that they will leave the US are just that chicken littles. US nationals make up 60% or more of the cruisers world wide. 30% of those don't have passports. Do you really think that some increased costs will drive the ships from the US?

The cost of everything Schumer suggests- which won't become law any way- is miniscule.

Its just one of his every week Sunday news conferences.

The PVSA goes back to the 1880's. It was meant to protect the US ship building industry. The Cruise lines are happy with the PVSA as it exists now. They are concerned that the cost of relaxing it will be labor changes and taxing requirements(particularly gambling revenue). So be careful what you ask for.

 

It has already happened. One reason why so many Alaskan cruises depart from Vancouver, instead of Seattle, is that the cruise lines use the Canadian port to avoid the PVSA restrictions (and fines) that would result in many itineraries departing between Seattle and Alaska. Do you think the cruise lines bus passengers from the Seattle Airport up to Vancouver because its fun? You could also wonder why there are no cruises that might go from San Diego, to LA to San Francisco to Seattle, etc. Because its a violation of the PVSA (a 19th century law). And why can't we have a nice cruise from Boston, to a few New England Ports, down to NYC, them perhaps Norfolk, Savanna, Miami at Key West. Because its a violation of law. And you might want to ask why most ships have pulled out of the Mexican Riviera market? Part of the reason are the new low sulphur fuel requirements that only apply to CA ports. The Brits already have cruises that use Barbados as their home port in order to avoid having to deal with the US Customs and Immigration hassles not to mention some Visa requirements that would apply to some of their passengers. So what I am saying is open your eyes! Our laws and regulations have already had an impact. More laws and regulations will have further impacts.

 

Hank

[Sea Hag]

Is this Schummer turkey up for re-election this year? Looks to me like he's trying to garner support by promising to fix something that isn't broken. Any sane person who cruises ought to realize that things can happen.

[OVgirl]

Perhaps he should look after the working conditions of some of his own government employees. I'm sure the immigration and custom agents at the cruise terminals are working their butts off, when there are only 3 of them debarking a huge ship. Ask them if they are stressed and underpaid. As passengers, we are upset about the long waits that some are experiencing in ports like FLL, but it can't be fun for the agents either.

 

Always good to look in your own house before trying to fix the neighbours.

[tulsacubfan]

first of all, the ship breaking its lines has nothing to do with carnival corp. Malfeasance. That event, and the loss of the guard shack at the shipyard, was due to a storm. (an oil tanker broke its lines up here in new hampshire a day or two before the triumph unmooring, resulting in closing a bridge that connects nh and maine. It happens! I'm not a cc cheerleader, have never cruised on cc, and have no intentions of ever doing so.)

 

second of all, chuck schumer proposing a "cruise ship passenger bill of rights”? Lol! He ought to spend his time defending the us bill of rights.

 

amen!!!!!!!!!!

[greatam]

Oh goody! Shumer is gonna solve a problem? Really? REALLY?!!

That's what we need, Shumer posturing for publicity.

 

Why work on something THAT MATTERS? Because it takes too much work.

 

He should start with the illegals they all saw crossing the border right before their eyes last week. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mccain-s-witnesses-mexican-immigrant-climbing-border-fence-article-1.1301151

[pmacher61]

Does anyone else share my opinion that the penalties for cancellations in ship cruise contracts is unfair? Isn't that something that could be brought more into line with the airline industry? What about the strict limits on liability, forum and venue selection? Abbreviated statutes of limitations? One-sided right to cancel cruise for any reason (including more profitable charter) with no consequences?

[Kamloops50]

Penalties make some sense. In Canada you pay for All Inclusive resorts in full when booked . The only refund would be thru your travel insurance company.

[smeyer418]

Does anyone else share my opinion that the penalties for cancellations in ship cruise contracts is unfair? Isn't that something that could be brought more into line with the airline industry? What about the strict limits on liability, forum and venue selection? Abbreviated statutes of limitations? One-sided right to cancel cruise for any reason (including more profitable charter) with no consequences?

 

actually a cruise that leaves, returns or stops in the US has NO limit on liability for a physical injury caused by a cruise lines or its employees or agents negligence. Its only when they are totally out of the US that the limitations of international treaties and local laws apply.

The limitation is only for non-physical injuries.

as for forum and venue, the chances of getting a change through either the House or non-filibuster proof Senate is between nil and none.

Abbreviated statute of limitations of at least one year have been upheld by the US courts in many contracts.

No chance of a change in a corporation dominated Congress.

[pmacher61]

actually a cruise that leaves, returns or stops in the US has NO limit on liability for a physical injury caused by a cruise lines or its employees or agents negligence. Its only when they are totally out of the US that the limitations of international treaties and local laws apply.

The limitation is only for non-physical injuries.

as for forum and venue, the chances of getting a change through either the House or non-filibuster proof Senate is between nil and none.

Abbreviated statute of limitations of at least one year have been upheld by the US courts in many contracts.

No chance of a change in a corporation dominated Congress.

I don't disagree. Do you think the cancellation penalties are fair?

[RoofingPrincess]

Does anyone else share my opinion that the penalties for cancellations in ship cruise contracts is unfair? Isn't that something that could be brought more into line with the airline industry?

They'd be unfair if they were a surprise, but they're clearly stated on the cruise lines' websites as well as other places. Failure to do due diligence should not be protected by legislation.

They're actually a lot more fair than the airlines' policies - which amount to total forfeiture in many cases when you've purchased the cheapest classes of fare.

[pmacher61]

They'd be unfair if they were a surprise, but they're clearly stated on the cruise lines' websites as well as other places. Failure to do due diligence should not be protected by legislation.

They're actually a lot more fair than the airlines' policies - which amount to total forfeiture in many cases when you've purchased the cheapest classes of fare.

Suppose it was "disclosed" on the adhesion cruise contract (i.e., take it or leave it) that if you cancel, the cruise co is entitled to enslave your first born son in the galley of its ships until his 25th birthday or for a period of 10 years whichever is longer. Or you had to pay a $1,000 additional penalty. Would those terms be fine with you because they were disclosed?

The airlines give you a choice with respect to non-refundability. I dont think the analogy holds. There is no choice offered with differential pricing by cruise lines.

Severe penalties for breach of a contract are typically limited by the common law of UK and US. So-called liquidated damages (agreed upon in advance) have to bear some relationship to the actual damage to be sustained by the non-breaching party. Moreover, that party is obligated to take reasonable steps to minimize its damages for the breach. So, for example, if the cruise line could run a special and fill the cabin that was cancelled it would only legally be entitled to the difference between the price you agreed to pay and the price it actually received together with some reasonable expenses incurred in selling the room a second time.

 

Currently the cancelling party loses 100% of his payment often the full price of the cruise and has no other recourse, not even a credit towards another cruise. I think that is unfair and I wonder if it has ever been challenged in court as an illegal liquidated damage provision.

[Warm Breezes]

Does anyone else share my opinion that the penalties for cancellations in ship cruise contracts is unfair? Isn't that something that could be brought more into line with the airline industry? What about the strict limits on liability, forum and venue selection? Abbreviated statutes of limitations? One-sided right to cancel cruise for any reason (including more profitable charter) with no consequences?

 

That's what travel insurance is for....and if you don't like the contract you are agreeing to then you can always choose another form of vacation. Nobody is twisting your arm to cruise.