Nightmare Disney Cruise

[poolchairbob]

A Naples, Florida Family had their cruise ruined by Disney. It turned from a vacation into a NIGHTMARE!

 

NAPLES, Florida - The family cruise to the Bahamas was going great, until four members of the group were asked to pack up their things and disembark in Nassau.

 

North Naples resident Dave Berg boarded the Disney cruise ship out of Miami on Dec. 30 with 31 family members. Berg said his mother-in-law is sick with cancer and the cruise was part of her bucket list.

 

Everything was going well, Berg said, until Thursday morning, when his 4-month-old granddaughter began spitting up. Berg’s daughter Jennifer Moak brought the infant to the ship’s doctor, who gave her some medicine for seasickness. But just hours later, someone from the doctor’s office phoned Moak’s husband, saying they wanted to do another checkup on the baby.

 

Like us on Facebook

 

Instead of a checkup, the doctor then told the couple they would have to disembark, according to the family.

 

“He said because of her age, she wasn’t supposed to be on the ship and that they would be — I think the word that he used was ‘terminating’ our stay on the ship,” Moak said Monday.

 

The family said the medical staff cited the baby’s age and need for safety as reasons they could not keep her onboard.

 

Disney Cruise Line changed its policy on infant travel last summer. Previously, babies younger than 12 weeks were not permitted onboard, but starting Jan. 1, the cruise line increased the age requirement to 6 months old. A representative from the company said all parents who had existing reservations, like the Moaks, would not be affected.

 

 

 

At the doctor’s request, Berg, Moak and her husband packed up and got ready to leave, expecting that Disney would take care of the accommodations. But they say their experience was unsafe and not up to the standards of the $1,000 nightly rate they had paid to go on the cruise.

 

“I know that they thought that it was safer for her to be off the ship, and it could have been, if the situation was dealt with in the right way,” Moak said. “Her safety is my No. 1 priority, and they were saying her safety was their No. 1 priority, so we should have all been on the same page.”

 

Moak said she had to plead for a child car seat for the taxi ride to the hotel, which her father described as a “fleabag motel.” At the hotel, Moak said there was nowhere for her daughter to sleep except in the bed with her parents, which Moak realizes can be dangerous.

 

The family said Disney only offered to pay for the hotel and flights home after much back-and-forth. A port agent who was supposed to help with arrangements failed to connect with the family, Berg said, and after they returned home, he realized they’d been charged gratuities for three nights they were not on the ship.

 

Moak said her daughter was checked out at a Bahamian hospital, where staff said the baby just had gas. The bill was $1,200, Berg said.

 

“No one would care if they took us off the ship and we were in complete safety in comparable accommodations and brought home,” he said. “They were deceitful about it. No one can believe that Disney would send a 4-month-old baby off into the dark in a foreign country that they say in their brochures is dangerous.”

 

A Disney Cruise Line representative said the company could not comment specifically on the family’s case because of medical privacy reasons. In cases where guests are asked to disembark, the company’s policy is to have an agent help them through the process of getting home.

 

When the decision is made for medical reasons, a guest’s age and overall condition might play a factor if medical personnel on board do not feel they are equipped to handle the guest, the representative said.

 

Berg and his daughter say they just want the company to apologize and possibly find some way to make it up to them.

 

“I’m happy that nothing happened that’s going to permanently affect my family, but unhappy that Disney feels that they owe us nothing,” Moak said. “I will never be able to have the experience that I should have had with my family. My grandma and grandpa are both very ill and this was our only trip together, and that makes me very sad.”

 

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/local-news/disney-cruise-officials-say-4monthold-baby-was-too-young-to-be-on-ship_34565173

Edited January 6, 2015 by poolchairbob
updated to include article

[awaywego0000]

I don't think Disney owes them anything!

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

As with everything, there are two sides to every story Side A, Side B, and the truth, which is usually somewhere in between. Due to privacy restrictions, we will never hear Disney's side of the story. But a couple of points...

 

With anyone, repetitive throwing up results in dehydration. Infants who become dehydrated do so quickly and crash from it even more quickly. Given that they went BACK to the doctor because of the baby still spitting up, that is a very reasonable conclusion that the debarkation was in fact due to the ILLNESS combined with the AGE.

 

The fact that the DOCTOR is who asked them to prepare to leave further reinforces that conclusion. If it was a policy thing, it would have been the Captain or another high-ranking officer having the discussion with them.

 

As far as DCL paying for a hotel (they are frankly lucky anything was available anywhere in Nassau around NYC) and their airfare, that was completely unnecessary and why everyone should travel with travel insurance. Situations like this are exactly why there IS travel insurance. And the fact that this party was traveling with an infant AND someone with cancer means even more that they should have had insurance.

 

We will never know the entire story, but given what WAS written, it's definitely easy and safe to say that it goes much deeper than the article.

[moki'smommy]

Point one--isn't this what travel insurance is for? Why do they think that Disney should be responsible for the expenses associated with their child's illness?

 

Point 2--infants can go from "relatively stable" to "seriously ill" very quickly. I suspect that's part of why Disney raised the age requirement for infants on the ship. The ship's personnel are not really prepared to care for very young infants nor do they want the responsibility for doing so. Were they in the middle of the ocean, the child would likely have been observed until the next port. Since they were in port, the prudent thing (per the medical staff) was to have the child and parent(s) disembark where they could get care if needed.

 

If the child was "spitting up," that's normal for infants and not cause for a trip to the health center. That was the mom's decision to make. If the child was seriously vomiting...the ship is not the place for a serious illness.

 

And as usual, the press plays it up. $1000 per night? Yeah, that's possible on DCL but I suspect that is the tab for a family group of 4 in a very nice stateroom.

 

And sorry that on a New Year's cruise, there weren't hotel rooms available in Nassau to suit their standards. They were likely full! I'm sorry they got a crummy hotel. BUT that's not DCL's fault. And ultimately the baby was fine...good. But that wasn't a risk the doctor and or captain were willing to take.

[Loonbeam]

I suspect very much that as noted above, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. There were probably things that could have been handled better by the ship staff and port staff (there always are) and in a high stress situation people don't always hear things in the way intended.

 

Without knowing the actual medical details, there is no way to know what action was warranted. That said, I have to suspect the decision to disembark is never one taken lightly by a line.

 

I may be a cynic in that I am viewing this as an attempt to push Disney for compensation, if nothing else because if this happened only 6 days ago, or less, that's no time for any kind of resolution process to work.

 

At least it sounds like they had passports, and I do feel bad for them missing a significant family trip. Just not sure at this point in time, going to the news was the way to go.

[weberman]

Not a big Disney fan as it is more a family type of cruise line. The age of the (passenger) infant had to listed when the reservations were made so Disney had to know. Reservations made before the policy change were not suppose to be effected by the policy change.

 

If this was not the case why did Disney not notify them and worse let them board in the first place?

 

If the policy change actually did apply to them they should have been advised immediately and their money refunded, not allowed to board and then put off in a foreign country.

 

I say SHAME on Disney, as some of the Disney Cruise Lines organization screwed up very badly.

 

I for see a lot of bad PR for Disney in the way this was handled. There are good and bad ways to handle mistakes and in this case Disney failed.

[Ex techie]

Not a big Disney fan as it is more a family type of cruise line. The age of the (passenger) infant had to listed when the reservations were made so Disney had to know. Reservations made before the policy change were not suppose to be effected by the policy change.

 

If this was not the case why did Disney not notify them and worse let them board in the first place?

 

If the policy change actually did apply to them they should have been advised immediately and their money refunded, not allowed to board and then put off in a foreign country.

 

I say SHAME on Disney, as some of the Disney Cruise Lines organization screwed up very badly.

 

I for see a lot of bad PR for Disney in the way this was handled. There are good and bad ways to handle mistakes and in this case Disney failed.

 

If you have read the news report and chose to believe all that was written from one side then you have already made your mind as to who is to blame.

 

Do you believe that the ships doctors were the ones who ultimately made the decision that they could not care for a 4 month old baby who was sickly and wanted the child disembarked or the Purser, or the Captain?

Or do you believe that DCL wanted to make a point to emphasis the new (as of last summer) policy of no under 6 months old, knowing that they would most likely go to the press?

 

ex techie

[moki'smommy]

The child was not put off the ship because he/she was 4 months old. He was removed from the ship because he had a medical condition that the ship's medical personnel was not sure could be handled on board. True, the age was a factor in the condition, but without the illness the child would not have been removed.

 

Any time a passenger develops a medical condition that may endanger himself or others by remaining on the ship (based on the determination of the ship's doctor), that person is removed from the ship or isolated from others. That may be a 60 year old with chest pain, a teen with a broken leg (and we've seen both of these) or an infant with vomiting. It is the determination of the medical staff whether they should be air lifted from the ship, put off at the next port, or can continue to cruise until the home port is reached. The main concern is the continued safety of the ill passenger.

[weberman]

If you have read the news report and chose to believe all that was written from one side then you have already made your mind as to who is to blame.

 

Do you believe that the ships doctors were the ones who ultimately made the decision that they could not care for a 4 month old baby who was sickly and wanted the child disembarked or the Purser, or the Captain?

Or do you believe that DCL wanted to make a point to emphasis the new (as of last summer) policy of no under 6 months old, knowing that they would most likely go to the press?

ex techie

 

I have not made up mind about anything! We will never know the true story as DISNEY will not tell us. Why doesn't the family sign a release so DISNEY can then give us their side of the story and not hide behind the medical privacy aspect.

 

And the doctors (from my experience) on cruise lines are for the most part a bunch of clowns with degrees and experiencefrom who knows where.

 

It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that the Medical Personnel are not cruise line employees but a sub-contractor. So I doubt if they have the power to kick someone off the ship. In most cases that power is reserved to the Captain or his immediate subordinate.

[Ex techie]

I have not made up mind about anything! We will never know the true story as DISNEY will not tell us. Why doesn't the family sign a release so DISNEY can then give us their side of the story and not hide behind the medical privacy aspect.

 

And the doctors (from my experience) on cruise lines are for the most part a bunch of clowns with degrees and experiencefrom who knows where.

 

It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that the Medical Personnel are not cruise line employees but a sub-contractor. So I doubt if they have the power to kick someone off the ship. In most cases that power is reserved to the Captain or his immediate subordinate.

 

Why doesn't the family sign a release so DISNEY can then give us their side of the story and not hide behind the medical privacy aspect.

That is a good reason matey.

Have you asked the family that before you make judgement that DCL should be Shamed?

 

And you get an extra point for knowing that almost all cruise lines use a third party vendor to provide medical services. Vanter Health Care AFAIK still provide medical personnel to DCL ships. And as I've said in the past, they are OK with Guests, but have treated the crew like they animals!

 

The third part of your post is related to the second and you get a demerit point for the third.

Yep they are the vendor and they accept liability on DCL's behalf for the medical care of Guest's onboard DCL ships.

The Captain and Staff Captain and everyone on the bridge team is trained in many many things about commanding a vessel, running it, overseeing a crew of !000>1500 or more depending on the ship and line.

They are NOT doctors.

They will take the advice of the medical team and disembark anyone who the medical team deem to not be able to care for.

He or She will not overrule them because the line then becomes liable. And that negates the reason to have a vendor provide the medical services in the first place, nor are they capable of making that decision.

The Captain will do everything they can to get to the next available port that can provide better medical help, call for a helo, coast guard ship etc etc.

But they take advice from a trained medical professional.

 

Now if your being an ass on the ship and causing problems, assaulting people, returning late, yep he or she will say get the hell off my ship and have the final say. Guest or crew.

But the Captain and those shoreside will agree with the Doc on the ship to get the Guest with a (deemed by the medical staff) medical emergency off ASAP.

 

ex techie

[Loonbeam]

Not Disney specific, but will relate the short versions of a convo from the CMO on a Princess ship, I expect things are similar on Disney.

 

In port, the CMO has the say on passengers remaining on board, since there is no operational impact. They are reviewed after the incident as part of the contract.

 

At sea, the CMO makes a request to the Captain for a medical reroute or evacuation, and the Captain has the say based on available options, but the Captain is expected to accede unless there are other more pressing concerns (like having to sail through a storm to get to the nearest port).

 

(If you ever have the chance, pay for the Ultimate Ship's tour on Princess. The officers will answer almost any question you can think of about how their departments work. - Pondering - wondering how big the morgue is on a Disney ship...)

 

I have not made up mind about anything! We will never know the true story as DISNEY will not tell us. Why doesn't the family sign a release so DISNEY can then give us their side of the story and not hide behind the medical privacy aspect.

 

And the doctors (from my experience) on cruise lines are for the most part a bunch of clowns with degrees and experiencefrom who knows where.

 

It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that the Medical Personnel are not cruise line employees but a sub-contractor. So I doubt if they have the power to kick someone off the ship. In most cases that power is reserved to the Captain or his immediate subordinate.

[meatloafsfan]

If you have read the news report and chose to believe all that was written from one side then you have already made your mind as to who is to blame.

 

Do you believe that the ships doctors were the ones who ultimately made the decision that they could not care for a 4 month old baby who was sickly and wanted the child disembarked or the Purser, or the Captain?

Or do you believe that DCL wanted to make a point to emphasis the new (as of last summer) policy of no under 6 months old, knowing that they would most likely go to the press?

 

ex techie

 

You chastise the one poster who takes the side of the family - so DCL doesn't have to say anything and they are automatically in the right.

 

I forgot, on this board, Disney can do no wrong.

[Ex techie]

If the news reports are to be believed to be 100% correct, DCL provided emergency accommodation, at their cost and flights back home for this family, and made provision for the child to seek better care on land than they could provide on the ship.

 

Misdiagnoses's happen all the time.

Was it sea sickness, a virus, or other conditions the child may have?

Who knows? The child is well again and that is really all that matters!

 

What is telling is the family spoke to the press, and if you believe the press reports they want DCL to make it right somehow.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

You chastise the one poster who takes the side of the family - so DCL doesn't have to say anything and they are automatically in the right.

 

I forgot, on this board, Disney can do no wrong.

 

Please read my subsequent posts.

 

ex techie

[meatloafsfan]

As with everything, there are two sides to every story Side A, Side B, and the truth, which is usually somewhere in between. Due to privacy restrictions, we will never hear Disney's side of the story. But a couple of points...

 

With anyone, repetitive throwing up results in dehydration. Infants who become dehydrated do so quickly and crash from it even more quickly. Given that they went BACK to the doctor because of the baby still spitting up, that is a very reasonable conclusion that the debarkation was in fact due to the ILLNESS combined with the AGE.

 

The fact that the DOCTOR is who asked them to prepare to leave further reinforces that conclusion. If it was a policy thing, it would have been the Captain or another high-ranking officer having the discussion with them.

 

As far as DCL paying for a hotel (they are frankly lucky anything was available anywhere in Nassau around NYC) and their airfare, that was completely unnecessary and why everyone should travel with travel insurance. Situations like this are exactly why there IS travel insurance. And the fact that this party was traveling with an infant AND someone with cancer means even more that they should have had insurance.

 

We will never know the entire story, but given what WAS written, it's definitely easy and safe to say that it goes much deeper than the article.

 

They didn't choose to GO BACK to the doctor for another check up - they were asked to return to the medical clinic after a diagnosis of seasickness where they were informed they would have to disembark.

 

How exactly does it go from "it's seasickness - you can return to your cabin" to "This situation is too dangerous and the child must be disembarked" without a further check up?

 

And no where does the article state whether or not the couple had insurance. Most travel insurance requires payment up front to be reimbursed - maybe after spending so much on the cruise, they didn't have the money just sitting around to pay for hotels, flights, etc.

Edited January 7, 2015 by meatloafsfan

[Ex techie]

Not Disney specific, but will relate the short versions of a convo from the CMO on a Princess ship, I expect things are similar on Disney.

 

In port, the CMO has the say on passengers remaining on board, since there is no operational impact. They are reviewed after the incident as part of the contract.

 

At sea, the CMO makes a request to the Captain for a medical reroute or evacuation, and the Captain has the say based on available options, but the Captain is expected to accede unless there are other more pressing concerns (like having to sail through a storm to get to the nearest port).

 

You are absolutely 100% correct Loonbeam

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

unless you know more than the news reports than I do.

 

They didn't choose to GO BACK to the doctor for another check up - they were asked to return to the medical clinic after a diagnosis of seasickness where they were informed they would have to disembark.

 

They may have been asked to return for the results of blood tests or if the vomiting had continued for a certain period of time?

 

How exactly does it go from "it's seasickness - you can return to your cabin" to "This situation is too dangerous and the child must be disembarked" without a further check up?

 

See above. And unless you know the family, you are only regurgitating what the press said the family were told.

 

And no where does the article state whether or not the couple had insurance. Most travel insurance requires payment up front to be reimbursed - maybe after spending so much on the cruise, they didn't have the money just sitting around to pay for hotels, flights, etc.

 

Well. Thats a conundrum. When you book a cruise:

 

Do you take the DCL insurance and expect them to pay for everything upfront if the worst should happen? Hotel, accom, Health Care, travel?

 

Do you take other trip insurance and expect them to front the bill should the worst happen? Hotel, accom, Health Care, travel?

 

Would you take a cruise with a 4 month old and not have a large amount available credit on your credit card?

 

Would you take a cruise with a 4 month old and not have a large amount available from a relative who could pay for the hotels flights etc if the worst happened?

 

Do you think that should the worst happen, the cruise line will put you up in a $1000 a night hotel room on the nearest island near a hospital (deemed to be able to take better care of your 4 month old?

 

Or do you think that they maybe did a good job of making sure a child, a 4 month old child was taken to a proper hospital on land, they paid for them to have a roof over their head, a bed to sleep on? At the lines cost?

 

 

Dunno.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

law suits like this are only going to make the vendor medical companies even more anxious to get anyone that would have a serious injury, slip, trip or fall, known heart condition, cancer etc off the ships as soon as possible. (oh and in this case I think the Nurse screwed up big big time. If that report is also 100% true)

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/23/ruling-cruise-malpractice-lawsuits/20798131/?AID=10709313&PID=6146859&SID=1kuya1fgyaxfd

 

What the cruise lines SHOULD do is make full medical and trip insurance compulsory. Passports too. The closed loop cruise hole should be closed.

 

Then this expectation on the line wouldn't be there. Nor for free transportation and repatriation back to the US from the Coast Guard/Navy.

 

That would be on the insurers, and if the line did help and stepped up it would be deemed additional help, not expected.

 

ex techie

Edited January 7, 2015 by Ex techie

[moki'smommy]

Once again, we have a news story that contains an element of truth but probably not the whole truth. It is likely that this individual suffered a subdural hematoma. If that is true, it is a situation that is usually not obvious at the time of the injury. A small blood vessel inside the skull is broken and bleeding, but symptoms typically don't appear for several hours. They are notorious for killing people 24 or more hours after a seemingly minor injury.

 

If I assume 100% accuracy of the story, one could argue that the individual should have been observed in the medical center for 24 hours--largely ruining his vacation and that of his family for what could have been a minor bump...and the bill would have been substantial. There is also the issue of whether every person who presents to the medical center should be seen by a doctor. (in this case, the doc might have realized the potential for injury that the nurse didn't consider and suggest a period of observation in the medical facility). I see the biggest error in the fact that there was a delay in getting treatment after the family called (20 minutes to get a wheelchair, worrying about the credit card first). This part is inexcusable.

 

The facilities on the DCL ships are impressive--they are better than what I've seen in some small hospitals. What the ships do not have is the staff to maintain a sophisticated level of care for any extended period of time. Thus their goal is to assess, stabilize, and transfer safely in the event of any serious condition. Minor issues are treated on the ship; anything major is gotten off as soon as safely possible. When in doubt, get them off the ship. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

As to the quality of the physicians on cruise ships....a lot has changed in the last 35 years. When I graduated, some of my classmates who had failed to match for residencies were opting to become docs on ships for a year. It paid well, the work was basically easy, and it sounded like fun. These people wouldn't even be considered for such a position today (nor should they be). Today's docs on a ship will have at least a 3 year residency, usually in either family practice or internal medicine. Most major cruise lines require that they have practice experience after residency as well as an excellent command of English. Most are trained in one of the northern European countries. They have met the requirements to practice in their home country, and while the exact pathway is a little different than in the US, the idea is the same--education and then work experience before they can get a job on the ship. True, they are employed by a third party (same as the spa, photographers, etc). But the cruise line can still set the standards. It doesn't have to accept "just anyone" who is hired by this third party.

 

I can't agree with the doc bashing in one of the above posts as it doesn't square with my personal experiences with 2 of the DCL docs. One, I spoke with as a colleague at a reception with the ship's officers (this MANY years ago). In the second situation, I was the mother of a patient being seen in the medical facility. In each case, I was very impressed by the education, training, and caring attitude. True, the doc did some things a bit differently than what I would have expected in the US, but he was kind, thorough, and gave her the medication that I knew was needed as well as some comfort measures that I hadn't requested. But I have very high standards when it comes to medical care for my family, and this guy met my standards.

 

The problem that the doc on the ship has is that if he/she recommends to the captain that a guest be evacuated or removed from the ship for treatment while in port, he is ruining someone's vacation. That's a bummer. However, if he fails to recommend them being removed from the ship, he's potentially risking their life. That's worse.

[Loonbeam]

I made my issues fairly clear.

 

Today is January 6th. The article was posted on the 5th. The incident happened on the 1st, plus I would assume it was at least the 2nd until they got home. With a weekend in there.

 

That means in 3 days they decided the best approach was to go to the press, in affect appealing for public sympathy. That's a fair approach to take when you have taken reasonable effort to resolve with the company. They took 1 business day, which is nowhere near enough time for Disney even to respond to an email forget do something like check with the staff on the ship.

 

It's entirely possible Disney did not handle parts of this properly. Relying on port agents is always a mistake in my book, I have always thought that cruise lines should keep one of their own staff in frequently visited ports to deal with issues, but that's a larger discussion.

 

By effectively calling them out in public, the family severely damaged their chance at an equitable resolution and honestly their credibility a little. Disney now cannot respond in any way that leaves them open to future issues like this, where if it was handled quietly, they could. I've dealt with Disney on a significant issue before, and they went above and beyond, on the condition we never discussed the specifics so that other people didn't have the same expectations of resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

You chastise the one poster who takes the side of the family - so DCL doesn't have to say anything and they are automatically in the right.

 

I forgot, on this board, Disney can do no wrong.

[Host Mick]

Knowing that we only have half of the story, Disney's response seems reasonable in that the MD determined that they didn't have the facilities to care for an infant in this condition.

The gap in guest service seems to be where the port agent didn't connect with the family being put ashore. This is very important when leaving a family behind in a strange foreign port. DCL should have left a CM behind to assist the family until they were connected to the port agent who knows the port and local facilities and can escort them around town to take care of the baby and themselves.

[justKirbo]

I don't know the whole story here, but I will say that we had amazing doctors on DCL during our 2013 Med cruise. My mother became seriously ill and had to be transferred off of the boat in Villefranche. The doctors and nurses were tremendous. I was traveling with my aunt and uncle as well and they are both doctors here in the states. They were very impressed with the facilities as well as the care my mother received.

 

I am so grateful we were traveling with insurance. It would have been far more hellish if we hadn't bought it for the trip.

 

I'm glad the child from the OP is well now. Such an awful situation.

[Da-Painter]

I made my issues fairly clear.

 

Today is January 6th. The article was posted on the 5th. The incident happened on the 1st, plus I would assume it was at least the 2nd until they got home. With a weekend in there.

 

That means in 3 days they decided the best approach was to go to the press, in affect appealing for public sympathy. That's a fair approach to take when you have taken reasonable effort to resolve with the company. They took 1 business day, which is nowhere near enough time for Disney even to respond to an email forget do something like check with the staff on the ship.

 

It's entirely possible Disney did not handle parts of this properly. Relying on port agents is always a mistake in my book, I have always thought that cruise lines should keep one of their own staff in frequently visited ports to deal with issues, but that's a larger discussion.

 

By effectively calling them out in public, the family severely damaged their chance at an equitable resolution and honestly their credibility a little. Disney now cannot respond in any way that leaves them open to future issues like this, where if it was handled quietly, they could. I've dealt with Disney on a significant issue before, and they went above and beyond, on the condition we never discussed the specifics so that other people didn't have the same expectations of resolution.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation.

 

For those wishing to speculate and come up with answers, based upon an article without all there facts, there are a few airline crashes I am sure you have an explanation for as well.

[Ex techie]

[sNIP] It's entirely possible Disney did not handle parts of this properly. Relying on port agents is always a mistake in my book, I have always thought that cruise lines should keep one of their own staff in frequently visited ports to deal with issues, but that's a larger discussion. [sNIP]

 

I agree it would be nice, but thats a hell of a lot of cost for the cruise line to bear. Have DCL rep's in Caymen, Cozumel, Falmouth, St Maarten, St Thomas, St Juan, and Nassau with maybe only 1 ship in a week for some of them.

 

 

Knowing that we only have half of the story, Disney's response seems reasonable in that the MD determined that they didn't have the facilities to care for an infant in this condition.

The gap in guest service seems to be where the port agent didn't connect with the family being put ashore. This is very important when leaving a family behind in a strange foreign port. DCL should have left a CM behind to assist the family until they were connected to the port agent who knows the port and local facilities and can escort them around town to take care of the baby and themselves.

 

To me the second biggest complaint that has been published by the press is the families dislike of the hotel they were put up in. And most of that seems to be coming from the Grandfather in the videos. It is emergency accommodation and not pre booked in advance.

If DCL had left a CM in Nassau with the 3 adults and child, thats one more hotel room to find and another person to repatriate at the cruise lines cost.

Insurance hasn't been mentioned, so no one knows if they had it or not, but I doubt it would cover a CM's food, flights and lodging in Nassau and back in FL until they could rejoin the ship so more cost to the line.

 

I'm not sure what you mean connected to the port agent? They would have been introduced to and handed over to the agent in the port who would have arranged for the taxi's, accommodation etc. They weren't just dumped on the pier and told to wait till someone picks them up!

 

I feel for the family having their vacation ruined by a sickly child.

And from what I've read DCL paid for their accommodation, I thought I had read somewhere also their flights home but can't find that now? Even so, if DCL are putting their hand in the pocket to pay for this as a good will gesture, I think that's very good of them to have done that.

The Grandfather asking Disney to write a happy ending to the story sounds like he is asking for a new vacation to me.

 

ex techie

[Katgoesonholiday]

I feel sorry for the family having their holiday disrupted and cut short. But I've had a child a similar age who went from having a congested nose and spitting up to being severely dehydrated in less than 12 hours. We ended up in isolation at hospital with my son on oxygen and needing to be tube fed for five days.

 

This happened over 12 hours. And the culprit? RSV - a very common virus that most of us carry in our noses with little ill effect.

 

In retrospect (and without all the facts) we can say it was an over-reaction and the baby was fine. But can you imagine the fuss if the doctor had given the baby medicine for seasickness (which in that age can often be mildly sedating) and then the baby had deteriorated massively overnight? That would have been the doctor's fault for not being cautious and vigilant.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't!