legal issues about floods/cruises

[pully8]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/couple-lead-class-action-against-australian-travel-company-scenic-tours-after-holiday-ruined-by-rain-20150405-1m7465.html news article today about issues faced when cruises are impacted by weather events. was topical a couple of years ago.

some companies handled things better than others as we know.

[Rosethorn40]

It would depend of course on the laws in Australia, but there are several parts of this article that give me pause.

 

1) David Moore and Janette Howell spent their life savings – $26,200 – on what they expected to be a relaxing river cruise through the picturesque French and German countryside. Who spends their life savings on one trip? Unless I am dying I only spend what I can afford.

 

2) Many chose to cruise because of limited mobility or other health problems. Everyone on my river cruise was fairly active. I can't image a river cruise being a good option for someone with very limited mobility.

 

3) The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and/or personal injury damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment One can sue if "Disappointed" Oh boy, won't that open the floodgates

 

Would trip insurance have covered what happened in 2013? (I thought it covered disruptions and such, but maybe not in this case) But if so, to spend one's life savings of $26,000 without insurance is just plain foolish. Of course I would be disappointed if my river cruise turned into a bus trip, and depending on when the cruise line(s) knew that they would not be able to offer a cruise they should have given people the opportunity to rebook. But in this particle case they were already several days into the cruise before the boat docked. Not sure what the cruise line was suppose to do at that point.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Rosethorn40
spelling

[pully8]

there was considerable discussion around those issues on here at the time. it was a terrible time for the local people impacted as well as travellers. it will be interesting to see how this pans out. these things are usually managed without court action.

 

as any consumer product rights/responsibilities are complex and differ globally.

 

we all need to chose carefully.

[Host Jazzbeau]

There was a lot of discussion about this at the time:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1892421

and also last year about the law firm trying to get the class action started:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2093475

Since then I don't recall seeing anything negative about Scenic (or anything at all about the subsidiary involved here, Evergreen).

[Ozjohnno]

It would depend of course on the laws in Australia, but there are several parts of this article that give me pause.

 

1) David Moore and Janette Howell spent their life savings – $26,200 – on what they expected to be a relaxing river cruise through the picturesque French and German countryside. Who spends their life savings on one trip? Unless I am dying I only spend what I can afford.

 

2) Many chose to cruise because of limited mobility or other health problems. Everyone on my river cruise was fairly active. I can't image a river cruise being a good option for someone with very limited mobility.

 

3) The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and/or personal injury damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment One can sue if "Disappointed" Oh boy, won't that open the floodgates

 

Would trip insurance have covered what happened in 2013? (I thought it covered disruptions and such, but maybe not in this case) But if so, to spend one's life savings of $26,000 without insurance is just plain foolish. Of course I would be disappointed if my river cruise turned into a bus trip, and depending on when the cruise line(s) knew that they would not be able to offer a cruise they should have given people the opportunity to rebook. But in this particle case they were already several days into the cruise before the boat docked. Not sure what the cruise line was suppose to do at that point.

 

Australian consumer laws are some of the best in the world. They were designed to protect the Australian consumer against just such actions by an Australian company. You would have noted that Scenic have tried to divert the action by stating ....

 

"Furthermore, it said the river cruises were not operated by it but by independent contractors, including Scenic Tours Europe AG, and any claim must be pursued against them."

 

A simple check finds that this and other companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Scenic and is just a ploy to drag things out.

 

I understand that you and other Americans may not be covered as well as us and whilst you may have pause I for one am glad our consumer laws are in place. At least we don't get inundated with 2 for 1 deals that aren't. They too are illegal down here.