Promises, promises ....

[bitob]

The op is also incorrect in stating that the only other perk is a "reduced booking fee"

 

That is not the only perk. There is a discount off the cruise price.

 

Apparently the op was dealing with the Oceania ambassador if she booked on board. They know their stuff. Seems like the op misunderstood the onboard booking benefits in more than one respect

[Travelcat2]

rallydave, it sounds like you are the only person that felt Oceania is wrong. How you would handle it? Sue them or ????? IMO, people that have posted on this thread know what they are talking about. It is unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding (and I did suggest that the OP double check their documents -- just to make certain that what they thought they heard was not part of the "contract").

 

This does not sound like a case that should be brought in front of a third party. It is logical that a "special offer" that is available on one cruise would not necessarily be available on another cruise. Are you upset with Oceania for some reason?

[rallydave]

rallydave, it sounds like you are the only person that felt Oceania is wrong. How you would handle it? Sue them or ????? IMO, people that have posted on this thread know what they are talking about. It is unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding (and I did suggest that the OP double check their documents -- just to make certain that what they thought they heard was not part of the "contract").

 

This does not sound like a case that should be brought in front of a third party. It is logical that a "special offer" that is available on one cruise would not necessarily be available on another cruise. Are you upset with Oceania for some reason?

 

tc, have absolutely no idea how you could think from what I wrote that I feel Oceania is wrong or right. Clearly said I wasn't on either side, that there are two possibilities and that without actually hearing the discussion, either possibility is equally possible. I tried very hard to explain that nobody who is on this board except the OP could possibly know who is right or who is wrong. I clearly said that one of two situations occurred, the OP misunderstood or the rep misstated and that people supporting either side are incorrect because they cannot know what transpired.

 

Yes, I did feel like too many people were taking one side when they are truly clueless as to which side was correct. As to the third party, oftentimes in court there are two completely different stories told by the two sides and the Judge in this case is the third party and can oftentimes determine who is telling the true story or not. Neither side in the dispute are able to do that as they are biased so you get an unbiased third party to make an unbiased decision unless the parties agree and then that's that. People on here do know the rules and policies but, do not know what they are talking about in this particular instance since they don't know what was said. To ask me what should be done and suggest suing is complete nonsense and I did suggest what should be done, talk to both parties who were there during the discussion plain and simple.

 

And, since obviously you didn't completely read my post, why in the blazes could you possibly say I am upset with Oceania. I do get upset with people who come to conclusions based on a loyalty to something or someone when they couldn't possibly know what was said. While it is obviously the cheerleaders duty to support who or what they are cheerleading, if they don't know what went down and don't know what was said, how can they defend EITHER side of a disagreement.

 

Just because there is a company policy does not mean that someone representing the company could not have make a misstatement. When something like this occurs, a he said, she said, and the decision maker doesn't hear both sides of the story rather than standing on what should have been said, that's not a good thing so I suggested the rep who sold the cruise be called on to give their side of the story. If that has already been done, sorry I suggested it.

 

I NOT IN THE LEAST UPSET WITH OCEANIA and only upset with cheerleders who defend someone or something based on no knowledge of what they are defending since they were not there and did not hear what was or wasn't actually said.

 

Please, please read what is actually written and don't let your beliefs state things and ask things that are completely untrue and totally not stated.

Edited February 19, 2015 by rallydave

[StanandJim]

Can we please try to have this discussion grounded in SOME sense of reality?

 

No business is going to trace an employee down, a full year after the fact, to inquire if they might have gone rogue.

 

This is not a court of law, and as important as you are to us, Dave, you don't have subpoena powers......yet. :p

 

[Travelcat2]

Very strange response to my post. He sure did sound upset with Oceania. Anyway, there seems to be some undercurrents that I don't need to be involved with. The bottom line is that the contract that the OP has either supports their position or not. "StanandJim" - once again, you are the voice of reason. :)

[hondorner]

...we attended an on-board presentation on future cruises. The audience was told that, if we booked on-board, we would get free gratuities and unlimited internet. We were also told that we could make one change and these benefits would be carried over to the new cruise....

 

...the sales representative suggested we book another just as a "place-holder"...<snip>...We asked specifically if the free internet and gratuities were transferable and she answered in the affirmative....

 

I'm confused -- did you hear the "promise" at the on-board presentation or at the time of the booking, or both?

[hondorner]

...Yes, I did feel like too many people were taking one side when they are truly clueless as to which side was correct...

DAve, I did not see anyone taking "sides". The OP asked if anyone else had encountered the situation, and everyone reported they had not, and added, on the basis of their experience or their factual knowledge, that such a thing was impossible unless either the OP or the representatives on the ship made an error. In my experience, the reps are very knowledgeable, and the most likely explanation is that either the OP misunderstood or the representative misunderstood the question they were asked.

 

Either is possible, but the overriding fact is however the OP formed their conclusion, it was the wrong conclusion and the cruise line has no obligation because the reality is that such a thing is not possible. Reality trumps all opinions.

 

In very reasonable tones, the OP has recognized this and has written it off to a hard lesson. In my opinion, the OP asked a reasonable question, has not been argumentative and showed class in their final comment. At the same time, I don't agree that anyone picked on the OP or did anything other than answer the original question.

[Paulchili]

Dave,

I have a lot of respect for you on these boards but, honestly, how could an employee that sees and talks to dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of people each cruise, be expected to remember exactly what she said to this one particular person well over a year ago?

In reality, only what is written can be "binding" in this case, IMO.

This is a lesson learned by OP (and the rest of us) to have these facts in writing or be prepared to be potentially disappointed. This is not calling the OP a liar but we have not heard the other side of this story either and we have to give each side the same respect (and not take only OP's story as a fact).

If there is no written support for OP's version of this, most likely OP will be out of luck - unless the powers that be at O decide to be generous (it would be a nice gesture, but not an obligation on their part)

Edited February 19, 2015 by Paulchili

[Emperor Norton]

…

I suspect you might have misunderstood or misinterpreted the offer. Please provide all specific info you were given (especially that which is in writing, not only in your memory).

 

I sincerely doubt that that was said in the future cruise presentation..you probably heard that when you went to book your cruise…Jancruz1

 

… You apparently misunderstood.

 

As others have stated, you misunderstood the terms of your on board booking.

 

 

DAve, I did not see anyone taking "sides"...

 

:rolleyes: ROFL. You can't be serious. At least 4 posters stating that its the OP that 'misunderstood' not one of them has given any credence to the possibility that the onboard sales consultant said something in error. I'd call that taking sides.

[Emperor Norton]

...

 

No business is going to trace an employee down, a full year after the fact, to inquire if they might have gone rogue.

 

...

 

 

True. However they may review the employees file and note whether or not there have been any previous issues with this reps bookings. A DB search like that takes only a few seconds.

[SellaVee]

We all need to be honest, only the OP of this thread and the Oceania Rep were there when whatever was said was said. None of us here know if the OP misunderstood what was said or the Rep made an erroneous comment.

 

Either is equally possible so people other than the OP taking either side have no idea what they are saying since they weren't there to hear what was said.

 

Absolutely true that the promise, if there was one should have been in writing but, here we have one word against the other. Don't understand why the OP doesn't request Oceania ask the Rep what was or wasn't said since we've only heard one side of the story so far.

 

While the OP doesn't have anything in writing, a verbal contract for most things is equally valid to one in writing. Only way to solve this is to talk to the Sales Rep and see what he/she does remember saying. Then, if he/she says one thing while the OP says the opposite it really gets down to who is determined to be telling the truth by an independent third party.

 

Seems any company would want to put this issue to bed by talking to the Sales Rep which we don't know if that has happened and good customer relations should come into the equation as well.

 

Bad publicity like what is being said on this thread isn't good for anyone and people denying that the OP could be correct is also not good for anyone either as they really don't know what was or wasn't said.

 

Not on either side as don't know what was or wasn't said and simply suggesting a method to get to the bottom of this issue and stop people from casting stones that have no validity.

 

I am with Dave on this and I see nothing in the above which suggests he is upset with Oceania.

 

To me this is a very well balanced summary that looks at the situation from both sides.

 

The OP wrote

 

We asked specifically if the free internet and gratuities were transferable and she answered in the affirmative. It was important for us to know because, without that, there wasn't much other advantage to booking onboard

 

Had I been told that I'd have trusted the sales rep. My dealings with Oceania so far have been satisfactory so I consider them to be a reputable company. Therefore, if I'd asked that question specifically and received that answer I'd have believed it.

[hondorner]

:rolleyes: ROFL. You can't be serious.

I really don't think you're qualified to tell me what I can or can't be...

[Paulchili]

:rolleyes: ROFL.

 

I am trying to picture this and wondering if you are actually doing this.

If you are, please don't hurt yourself :D

[Emperor Norton]

I am trying to picture this and wondering if you are actually doing this.

If you are, please don't hurt yourself :D

 

Doing that is relatively safe. It's when you add MAO that you can end up with problems.

[Emperor Norton]

I am with Dave on this and I see nothing in the above which suggests he is upset with Oceania.

 

To me this is a very well balanced summary that looks at the situation from both sides.

 

The OP wrote

 

 

 

Had I been told that I'd have trusted the sales rep. My dealings with Oceania so far have been satisfactory so I consider them to be a reputable company. Therefore, if I'd asked that question specifically and received that answer I'd have believed it.

 

Too logical ;)

[ronrick1943]

I agree with you....people in sales always think the person buying didn't hear it right. That is why you should always get every benefit in writing. All sales people aren't trained the best and sometimes overstate what is right.

 

Rick

[PaulMCO]

I tend to believe the OP. Their presentations are very sales oriented. I always find the O Ambassadors trying to make a sale. They are just Sales people (note I can say this because I am one too) and their incentives are tied to $$$$. The idea of booking a holding cruise is rather stupid for anyone to do (the $100 OBC is not worth it).

 

I would rather pay a $1500 future cruise credit. You get the same discount and you can use it for up to two years and it is fully refundable. You also get the benefit of a one time swap. So you get to book the future cruise and have a chance to change your mind. You lose the one time real swap with the phoney booking.

Edited February 19, 2015 by PaulMCO

[hkjudy]

PaulMCO - did you get the $1500 future cruise credit onboard?? I haven't heard of doing that (or don't remember it being mentioned). That certainly does sound like a better deal. Of course....anything is better than what we ended up getting ;)

[hkjudy]

I'm confused -- did you hear the "promise" at the on-board presentation or at the time of the booking, or both?

Hondorner - sorry....this does seem confusing. We were assured by the sales representative after the presentation - we met with her in the sales office (can't remember the actual name they have for it).

[PaulMCO]

PaulMCO - did you get the $1500 future cruise credit onboard?? I haven't heard of doing that (or don't remember it being mentioned). That certainly does sound like a better deal. Of course....anything is better than what we ended up getting ;)

 

 

Yes the O Ambassador does them. It gives you FCC Number that you give to your travel agent when you are ready. It is used as your down payment, plus entitles you to the same cruise discount that you would get on board. Only difference is you do not get the $100 OBC on your current cruise.

 

All other promotions are as you have discovered are dependent on when you book and the cruise you have selected.

Edited February 19, 2015 by PaulMCO

[hktony]

I am the spouse of the OP who posted the first note that triggered this conversation - thank you all for your comments.

 

I know what we were told at the onboard presentation - firstly that if we booked another cruise onboard, we would get free gratuities and free internet. We did book onboard (as a place holder) and we received these benefits in writing. Secondly, the audience at the presentation was told that we could make one change in cruise and retain these benefits. This was confirmed to us in a subsequent one-on-one conversation with the onboard Oceania Ambassador. Now what we don't have in writing is that we could transfer the benefits (i.e. free gratuities and internet) to the new cruise - yes, caveat emptor ! We subsequently contacted Oceania, and they explained that the benefits do not carry over to the new cruise we selected - it's just too popular and gets booked up quickly. Still, we feel that Oceania has reneged on its onboard marketing promise -- ah well !!

[Emperor Norton]

I am the spouse of the OP who posted the first note that triggered this conversation - thank you all for your comments.

 

I know what we were told at the onboard presentation - firstly that if we booked another cruise onboard, we would get free gratuities and free internet. We did book onboard (as a place holder) and we received these benefits in writing. Secondly, the audience at the presentation was told that we could make one change in cruise and retain these benefits. This was confirmed to us in a subsequent one-on-one conversation with the onboard Oceania Ambassador. Now what we don't have in writing is that we could transfer the benefits (i.e. free gratuities and internet) to the new cruise - yes, caveat emptor ! We subsequently contacted Oceania, and they explained that the benefits do not carry over to the new cruise we selected - it's just too popular and gets booked up quickly. Still, we feel that Oceania has reneged on its onboard marketing promise -- ah well !!

 

Seabourn or perhaps Crystal probably has a lower per diem anyway;)