RCCL Uses a Child to Slip Between the Horns & ROOK Thousands of Guests

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

My only question is are you qualified to make this statement? Do you have any access to the ships maintenance logs? Do you have any training in cruise ship navigation? I think not and will gladly apologize to you if I'm incorrect.

 

Yes.

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

I was on a cruise when a hurricane hit . We skipped two ports totally and stayed at one an extra day . The ride back was very scarey . Were we offered compensation ? No. Did anyone expect it ? No . This compensation thing has gotten out of hand with people demanding compensation for everything . If you went to an all inclusive and it rained all week and you could not use any of the facilities your compensation would be zero .

 

Zero for one, zero for all. I'm good with that.

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to side with RCCL/RCI/whatever we call it. I'm just saying that you get what you get. Yes, it sucked for the OP. I'm not saying to just be all rainbows and unicorns. But being eternally bitter only hurts you in the end. They don't care if you never cruise with them again. They will still make gazillions of dollars and forget about you. But if you keep carrying that around and harboring that anger, it's like acid in a vessel -- eating you up from the inside.

 

"eternally bitter"? WOW. I couldn't begin to imagine how that might feel...could you elaborate?

 

...and yes, I know they don't care. Their script land-side declares it.

[lalenalei]

"eternally bitter"? WOW. I couldn't begin to imagine how that might feel...could you elaborate?

 

...and yes, I know they don't care. Their script land-side declares it.

 

You know what I meant. And you obviously haven't let this go.

[Paulxyz2004]

My only question is are you qualified to make this statement? Do you have any access to the ships maintenance logs? Do you have any training in cruise ship navigation? I think not and will gladly apologize to you if I'm incorrect.

 

Yes.

 

 

ROTFLMAO! If you have all that insight, you should must be high enough up in the chain of RCI to know that they won´t give compensation to their employees:D:p

 

You just lost the last bit of credibility - not that there´s been any left anyway.

 

 

As it´s been mentioned before, the sick child has nothing to do with the compensation issue at all anyway. The other sailings got their information about compensation at the beginning of the cruise. So RCI made the decision to give no compensation to this cruise at a Point when they had no idea about a medical emergency during the cruise and any changes to the itinerary needed due to this.

From that Point it was a "regular sailling" for them. Now if there is a medical emergency on any cruise they won´t usually give compensation for this. So this is why they didn´t this time either.

[A&L_Ont]

Zero for one, zero for all. I'm good with that.

 

Zero is exactly what everyone got on your cruise. Everyone on your cruise was treated equally. As you state you are good with that.

 

Just because other sailings around yours received credit it doesn't mean that you can guarantee that you will. The only thing life can guarantee you is disappointment, especially if you are willing to look for it.

 

Alwaysacruiseinthequeue (for those that don't remember is the OP), perhaps it is time to get out of this past cruise queue and start to prepare for your next upcoming sailing. In all honesty I hope that one will be enjoyable for all the right reasons. :)

 

Smooth waters, good health for all, cold drinks, wonderful sunsets and wind at your back. Espically if that ship has mechanical problems, so hopefully got get to port on time. ;)

Edited January 3, 2015 by A&L_Ont

[papaflamingo]

With a fit ship the port would not have been missed. It's already been said that the child was well taken care of and the captain and his crew are to be commended.

 

It was ROYAL who USED the child to ditch responsibility for not maintaining the ship and being able to make the port IN SPITE of the emergency, as it WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to had the ship been PROPERLY MAINTAINED. :rolleyes:

 

Don't be so ridiculous. The ships are maintained very well. This was a major mechanical that required the removal of one of the propellers. The Nov. 29 cruise was a complete itinerary change from Eastern to Western with a 24 hour stop in Nassau to remove the propeller. That is why they were given large compensation. Have no idea about the other cruises. But the Dec. 7 cruise was no itinerary change with a minor adjustment of port times. The ship could only make 16 knots so that surely is the reason. But the idea that RCCL doesn't keep their equipment "properly maintained" is absurd. You don't just pull a cruise ship out of the water at a moments notice. Drydock space has to be scheduled well in advance. You don't cancel all the cruises because the port times are a bit adjusted, pulling a cruise ship out of service is massively expensive (just ask Carnival). These are machines that are used 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Sometimes things just happen.

Maybe RCCL could have offered a $100 OBC for every cruise. But they weren't required to. To suggest that they are "scamming" is simply unrealistic. They don't need to "scam." You are entitled to no compensation and no "free cancellation." They don't have to "scam." They simply can hold you to the tenets of the contract you agreed to. They've actually been fairly upfront about the changes in port times. I checked. They were posted on the website. Sure, they made the Nov. 29 change last minute, but that was likely due to the ability to get a slot in Nassau to remove the propeller.

So, here's the thing. If you think that any incovenience to you is subject to "monetary compensation," you'll have a tough life. Airlines owe you nothing until they are more than 6 hours delayed. It's in the "contract." Cruise ships owe you nothing if the itinerary changes. It's in the contract. If your favorite wine is unavailable, or your desired entree sold out at a restaurant, you can get something else, or leave. But they won't compensate you.

Life is full of little disappointments. We had a number of friends on the Nov. 29 sailing, and although disappointed in the itinerary change, they had a fantastic time. The OBC was a complete surprise to them. None of them would have ever complained, they had a wonderful cruise.

Should RCCL be more consistent? Sure. But is a small OBC just because other cruises got it really that big a deal?

Edited January 3, 2015 by papaflamingo

[S.A.M.J.R.]

Following your line of logic, if we both enter a McDonalds...both order fries...get to our separate tables and realize we were served cold fries....both go back to the counter at the same time...and I receive a nice extra large size of hot fresh fries and you're told "no, you are out of luck"....that's ok, right?

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Let's change your example just a little bit... you and I both go to McDonalds. We both get fries that are cold and return to the counter. I get replacement fries (I paid for "hot" fries). You get also get replacement fries, but yours are "upsized" because of your "inconvenience". Is it fair? No. Is it worth getting all upset, complaining for the next month, saying "McDonald's scammed me!" and "I'm never eating at McD's again!"? No.

 

You claim no one is answering you with logic, so how about this... the cruises before you and after you were given OBC at boarding, right? So how did RCI know this child was going to get ill? They must have known when you boarded if that's their excuse for not giving you OBC.

 

So, one more time with feeling...

 

LIFE IS NOT FAIR!

[Starry Eyes]

Circular arguments all around, with NONE of the cheerleaders addressing the issue with any logic whatsoever. A contract is drawn with each guest to protect the guest and the cruise line. HOWEVER, when port changes are made or ports are missed...rather than stick to the contract FOR EVERYONE...they pick and choose whom they soothe and leave the rest to deal with it...

 

much like their separate spaces serving their caste system for guests on the ship...and even on the private islands. It's a culture I've never heard of on a cruise line before now.

Our argument is not circular. The point is simple. You just do not like it.

 

If the cruiseline follows the contract, they do not "owe" you any compensation; you got what was mutually agreed.

 

You perceive that somebody on some other cruise might have been treated better, as they got compensation. Well, life isn't fair, is it? yes, they can, indeed, choose to soothe some and not others. It may not be the best business practice, but it is allowed. just as I can buy a drink for one friend while letting another pay their own tab. it might irritate friend 2, but the deal between friend 1 and I does not obligate me to every other friend.

 

another poster says you originally left Cayman at 2:30, then returned for the child's sake, at left again at about 8:30. is that your recollection, too? if so the child's condition crated a 6 hour delay for you. Sadly for you, a six hour delay is enough for any ship, any condition to cancel a port stop. As the right thing happened for the child, get over yourself.

 

It is fine to ask for proportional compensation to other western Caribbean cruises, but loss the entitlement attititude. If compensation is offered, it is a kind business gesture by the cruise line, not an obligation.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

For those of you with the nautical background to do the math... let's say FOS had no propulsion issues.

 

Normal departure time from GC is 4pm, right? The ship turned around around 5p (ship left at 2:30p and turned around 2.5 hours later). So, if there was no propulsion problems, they would have been an hour out to sea when they turned around.

 

So they would have gotten back to around 6pm (maybe a little sooner). By the time they get the child off the ship and are ready to leave again, it's 7pm. What time would they have been in Cozumel (assuming no propulsion issues)?

[kjkrmk]

For those of you with the nautical background to do the math... let's say FOS had no propulsion issues.

 

Normal departure time from GC is 4pm, right? The ship turned around around 5p (ship left at 2:30p and turned around 2.5 hours later). So, if there was no propulsion problems, they would have been an hour out to sea when they turned around.

 

So they would have gotten back to around 6pm (maybe a little sooner). By the time they get the child off the ship and are ready to leave again, it's 7pm. What time would they have been in Cozumel (assuming no propulsion issues)?

 

The sailing distance from GrandCayman to Cozumel is about 350 nautical miles depending on the route. Given the ship sails at a lower speed for a bit at the beginning and the end of this trip, say average 10 knots, then sails at about 22 knots for the majority of the run, something like 19.5 knots average is a good guess for this exercise.

 

So, 350 nautical miles divided by 19.5 knots speed gets about 18 hrs time from anchor in Grand Cayman to docked in Cozumel. So, departing Cayman at 7pm, traveling at 22 knots for most of the way, the ship would arrive in Cozumel around 1pm the next day.

 

If you look at a future cruise western Itinerary for the Freedom, it shows departing Grand Cayman at 4pm and arriving in Cozumel at 10am. That is the same 18 hr travel time from port to port as shown in the above calculation. So, given the ship is supposed to arrive at the port at 10am, arriving at 1pm is 3 hours late.

[RocketMan275]

For those of you with the nautical background to do the math... let's say FOS had no propulsion issues.

 

Normal departure time from GC is 4pm, right? The ship turned around around 5p (ship left at 2:30p and turned around 2.5 hours later). So, if there was no propulsion problems, they would have been an hour out to sea when they turned around.

 

So they would have gotten back to around 6pm (maybe a little sooner). By the time they get the child off the ship and are ready to leave again, it's 7pm. What time would they have been in Cozumel (assuming no propulsion issues)?

 

The itinerary for Western Caribbean leaves GC at 1600 and arrives Coz at 1000. (The itinerary for FOS and IOS are the same so there has been no adjustment for propulsion problems with FOS.) Eighteen hours sailing time from GC to Coz. If the times posted in post #109 are correct, ie, left GC 2nd time at 2030, would have arrived in Coz at 1430 (2:30 PM). RCI normally departs Coz at 1900 so you would have had about 4.5 hours in Coz which would eliminate most excursions other than a short walk through the dock side stores.

 

Pretty much the same answer as kjkrmk. I used a slightly later departure time from GC.

Edited January 3, 2015 by RocketMan275

[Lazz]

a rook is a chess piece. I have never heard it used in the context of meaning to cheat.

 

I grew up in the 1960s Great Lakes region. "Rook" was used in that context quite a bit. We also used the term "Gip" in the same context.

 

"I was Rooked."

"I was Gipped."

[RocketMan275]

According to OP, the preceding and following cruise received compensation for a propulsion problem causing them to miss some port or ports or reduced their times in ports. The customers received their compensation at the dock prior to boarding the ship. OP reports a sick child causing a return to Grand Cayman and missing Cozumel. OP attributes bad faith to RCI for treating other cruises differently and failing to give compensation to his cruise. OP reports that RCI blames missing Cozumel on the sick child rather than known propulsion problems with Freedom.

 

Here's what bothers me: How did RCI know there was going to be a sick child in Grand Cayman?

 

OP is arguing that RCI is only using the sick child as an excuse not to pay the same compensation on his cruise. For OP's logic to be correct, RCI had to know prior to boarding that the child would become ill on the fourth day of the cruise in Grand Cayman. Otherwise, RCI would have treated all three cruises the same and awarded compensation to his cruise prior to boarding too.

[awhcruiser]

Ship happens. .

Yes; but perhaps I need to read the contract of the itineraries that WERE COMPENSATED, where I might find the provision for their compensation as it differs from mine.

Edited January 3, 2015 by awhcruiser

[uksimonusa]

The cruise before and after the OPs cruise, were both Easterns, weren't they? so a lot further to travel and more loss of time on the islands

[Alwaysacruiseinthequeue]

Ship happens. .

 

LOL Now that's funny! :)

[aloha43]

YES our port fees were refunded. I cannot answer for excursions but I assume so.

 

Can we all please take the child out of this debate. I for one applaud what the Captain did in turning the ship around and returning to The Caymans. No one should question this when a child's life or any life for that matter may be at stake. Bottom line is that we had a shortened/adjusted itinerary as others did on boarding day and Royal decided to compensate some cruises and not others. Why not be consistent?

 

To clarify again this western sailing (December 7th) was the exact same sailing as December 21st the exact same ports and shortened time in port and they DID receive compensation and we did not.

 

BTW I still had a good cruise.....never been on a bad one. Any day at sea is still better than a day at work ��

 

How can you possibly suggest taking the "child" out of the debate? The sick child is the reason the ship was delayed. RCL amended the itinerary before the cruise, planned out the timing even with the propulsion issues and thought they would be on time....the sick child was the reason for the delay.....not the changed itinerary.

 

I have a hard time with whining after the fact. You all cruised, enjoyed your cruise, your room, the activities, the food, etc.....then come home and ask for more compensation for future cruises.

[Starry Eyes]

The cruise before and after the OPs cruise, were both Easterns, weren't they? so a lot further to travel and more loss of time on the islands

 

You are correct, of course. OP does not wish to acknowledge that fact. Nor does the OP wish to acknowledge that the time devoted to the sick child was approximately 6 hours; 6 hours that, by necessity, would have reduced the OP's potential shore time in Cozumel greatly, so greatly that a port stop was no longer workable. Those rescue hours were enormously important to one family, but caused the OP to stay on the ship (time on that ship, imagine the horror of being on that ship) rather than visit Cozumel.

 

That the OP is unhappy that other port stops were shortened is unsurprising. that the OP and others on that sailing might want a bit of compensation for the shortened port stops is unsurprising. That the OP stridently refuses to admit that a medical emergency was the major factor in missing Cozumel is odd, unbecoming and probably counterproductive.

[aloha43]

Wow, some of the posters on here are really rude and quite hateful! Those on the 12/7 sailing are entitled to our opinion, as you are entitled to yours. If you were one of the customers being shafted on the 12/7 sailing, you might feel differently. Taking the issue with the sick child out of the equation, the cruise vacation was no where near what was advertised. I'm well aware of the cruise contract I signed. A company like Royal Caribbean should have given cruisers on all sailings affected by the damaged propeller the option to cancel with full refund, or at the very least, the option to reschedule within a year. I would have been happy with these options.

 

The 11/30 sailing and all other sailings after ours (not 100% sure of the 12/28 sailing) were compensated. I don't see how that is equal treatment. I've never been treated so poorly by customer service in 26+ cruises. I'm not loyal to any cruise line and will be taking my vacation dollars elsewhere.

Bye, bye.....

[MADflyer]

I thought a timeline of events might clarify some of the points made in this thread for those that prefer to deal with facts. I think this represents a correct timeline of events related to Freedom of the Seas.

 

Freedom was given Explorer's dry-dock spot last March. Explorer's dry-dock was moved from December 22, 2014 to March/April 2015 as a part of the ship being re-deployed to Southampton via Cadiz, where Explorer will now be refurbished.

 

They cancelled three January, 2015 sailings for Freedom in April and then cancelled one more in May. In RCI recent fashion they have not specified exactly what the dry-dock would entail. The dry-dock was scheduled prior and not directly related to the current problem.

 

Freedom had already received the 'Every ship is our best ship' enhancements in 2011 along with a refresh, just as with Liberty.

 

The first sailing affected by the propeller issue was the 23rd to 30th sailing and I do not believe they got anything for the delayed disembarkation.

 

The sailing on the 30th involved a complete change of itinerary and they were compensated. They had to overnight in Nassau while the propeller was removed. The sailing was heavily discounted per pricing history website.

 

The sailing on the 7th was scheduled with full itinerary and slightly limited port times. This sailing was pulled from the pricing history website, but per historical information from the previous season should have been heavily discounted.

 

The sailing on the 14th was an Eastern and had significant changes in port times and missed Coco Cay. This sailing was heavily discounted per pricing history website. Passengers were not fully informed in advance of exact itinerary change per reports.

 

The sailing on the 21st was a 'HOLIDAY cruise' and they had paid premium fares. Passengers and agents were told in advance of itinerary change.

 

The sailing on the 28th was a "HOLIDAY cruise' and they had paid a premium.

 

The 2 day sailing on the 4th of January was scheduled in August 2014 and was very heavily discounted.

 

Freedom will enter the scheduled dry-dock on January 6/7 for three full weeks.

 

A post dry-dock preview sailing for the fully revitalized Freedom is scheduled for January 30th, 2015.

[awhcruiser]

Exactly. It's MY vacation....

You are correct, of course. OP does not wish to acknowledge that fact. Nor does the OP wish to acknowledge that the time devoted to the sick child was approximately 6 hours; 6 hours that, by necessity, would have reduced the OP's potential shore time in Cozumel greatly, so greatly that a port stop was no longer workable. Those rescue hours were enormously important to one family, but caused the OP to stay on the ship (time on that ship, imagine the horror of being on that ship) rather than visit Cozumel.

 

That the OP is unhappy that other port stops were shortened is unsurprising. that the OP and others on that sailing might want a bit of compensation for the shortened port stops is unsurprising. That the OP stridently refuses to admit that a medical emergency was the major factor in missing Cozumel is odd, unbecoming and probably counterproductive.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

I thought the Horns and Rook was a new bar on the promenade.:rolleyes:

 

I did too, but you beat me to the post. I actually thought a child had gone unattended into a pub called Horn and Rook, something happened to the child as a result and all the passengers were blamed for the child's parents' negligence.

 

Now I understand what happened. Pretty frustrating, I agree. How much compensation does the OP feels he was "rooked" out of? When we missed Labadee one year on Mariner of the Seas, as I recall the compensation was only a few dollars, maybe twenty at the most and it was only one per cabin, not per passenger.

 

I hope that whatever cruise line the OP chooses next, he is never made to feel that he is being treated unfairly.

[sand and water]

I was also on this cruise. My 10th with Royal Caribbean. I did send a letter to corporate office why this sailing was the only one that did not receive compensation. Royal did a fine job concerning the ill child. We should have received at least an email about shortened itinerary. Knew nothing about the short times @ the ports until checking in. Does anyone have a phone number where our party of 6 can call? I do not think Royal Caribbean handled this situation (obc) with the integrity they are known for.

[fish6]

How can you possibly suggest taking the "child" out of the debate? The sick child is the reason the ship was delayed. RCL amended the itinerary before the cruise, planned out the timing even with the propulsion issues and thought they would be on time....the sick child was the reason for the delay.....not the changed itinerary.

 

I have a hard time with whining after the fact. You all cruised, enjoyed your cruise, your room, the activities, the food, etc.....then come home and ask for more compensation for future cruises.

Hello,

 

I said to take the sick child out of the equation as for most of us it was the shortened times in each of the ports that we are debating here and the lack of consistency displayed by RCI.

 

Our itinerary was changed on boarding day just like the itinerary on December 21st. We were both Western Itineraries. They were immediately offered OBC as some of the other sailings were that weren't Western. We were not. That's my point. I would have liked to see Royal treat all of their passengers the same....consistency.

 

BTW what delay are you referring to? We had no delays. We missed Cozumel and made it back to Port Canaveral with no delay.

 

Thank you,

Donna