ANOTHER BIG CLASS ACTION - Bus tour not 5* river cruise

[GUT2407]

With all the current floods in France and Germany I wonder what will happen this year?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

 

Might be some more class actions:D;)

[MicCanberra]

With all the current floods in France and Germany I wonder what will happen this year?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

 

I predict the river levels will rise and the water flow will be faster.:p

[MicCanberra]

Might be some more class actions:D;)

 

I think that will depend on if the cruises are cancelled or if they bodgy their way through the itineraries on Buses instead.

[Pushka]

I think that will depend on if the cruises are cancelled or if they bodgy their way through the itineraries on Buses instead.

 

 

There is no way I could accept a long journey on a bus anymore for health reasons.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[MicCanberra]

There is no way I could accept a long journey on a bus anymore for health reasons.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

 

If I book a cruise, I expect a cruise, if I had wanted a bus tour, I would have booked one. I know things happen and they try and make the best of it but if the cruise cannot go ahead and it hadn't started yet, I would expect a full refund at the very least.

[The_Big_M]

If I book a cruise, I expect a cruise, if I had wanted a bus tour, I would have booked one. I know things happen and they try and make the best of it but if the cruise cannot go ahead and it hadn't started yet, I would expect a full refund at the very least.

 

Which would be just as disappointing for some to go all that way, and then get told they're on their own.

 

And they weren't running entire replacement bus tours by preference, only where there was no transport possible by ship. For many there was only a day or few days' alteration. Cancelling is overkill.

[Pushka]

I would be extremely disappointed if it was cancelled but even a couple of days on the bus would cause issues for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[Kiwi Kruzer]

Which would be just as disappointing for some to go all that way, and then get told they're on their own.

 

And they weren't running entire replacement bus tours by preference, only where there was no transport possible by ship. For many there was only a day or few days' alteration. Cancelling is overkill.

 

In some cases buses have not been available. I recall one year reading about a river cruise that was stranded by flooding and they had to stay put. Unfortunately, so did all the other river boats and they ran out of room and had to dock at an industrial site miles away for a few days . I believe there was a court case over that as well.

Next they will be suing God for making it rain and spoiling their holiday.:eek:

[MicCanberra]

Which would be just as disappointing for some to go all that way, and then get told they're on their own.

 

And they weren't running entire replacement bus tours by preference, only where there was no transport possible by ship. For many there was only a day or few days' alteration. Cancelling is overkill.

 

But the option should be provided to the passengers.

[MicCanberra]

In some cases buses have not been available. I recall one year reading about a river cruise that was stranded by flooding and they had to stay put. Unfortunately, so did all the other river boats and they ran out of room and had to dock at an industrial site miles away for a few days . I believe there was a court case over that as well.

Next they will be suing God for making it rain and spoiling their holiday.:eek:

 

I wish them luck with that.:rolleyes:

[NSWP]

With all the current floods in France and Germany I wonder what will happen this year?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

On news this morning saw a couple of large river boats stuck in the Sienne, just out of Paris. Looked to be no more than 4 metre clearance under one bridge. Some unhappy cruisers no doubt, such is life on the river.

[dougo in oz]

If they want to claim that Scenic should respond in a specific way that they expect in that situation, then they should be able to establish that that would have been the appropriate way to react.

 

 

 

I don't believe it's as simple as that. A number of other cruise companies also ran amended tours, and also did not cancel. Some that had some cancellations also ran amended tours.

 

It probably comes down to the specifics of where ships were at the time, their upcoming itineraries and possibly other variations, plus each company's assessment of the situation. Also, different companies have different numbers of ships so the timing and assessment will vary day by day.

 

 

 

It comes down to what the merits of the case are.

 

It sure does come down to the merits of the case.

 

I heard first hand from one of the witnesses for the defence that EG / ST's legal eagle attempted to demonstrate that people enjoyed their meals and the sites they saw in particular cities...therefore they enjoyed their cruise and got what they paid for.

 

Even if they did "enjoy" parts of the holiday, it does not mean they got what they paid for in terms of a cruise ... being bussed for 8 out of 15 days is not what they expected nor wanted. At that time, you could do a 15 day coach holiday in Europe for a fraction of the cost of a "cruise" which in the case of many did not happen until day 8 or 9 !

 

If you read Marty's original post which CC in their wisdom decided to close, you will read that he and others paid for upgraded accommodation and did not get it.

 

There's the issue about contracts and consumer guarantees which all passengers are entitled too. And thank goodness for that !

 

Why should big businesses who rely on consumer's money treat them like idiots and ignore their issues ? It speaks volumes about their so called customer service in my opinion.

 

... and let's not forget ST's so called new "insurances" - well that's a joke in my opinion and certainly for those caught in the floods of 2013, it won't mean a darned thing to them at all ! But there will be babe's in the wood that will fall for them and their advertising ... all very well and good until something such as the floods of 2013 when you REALLY get to see and understand what customer service means to the company and the passengers.

 

The fact that there are some 1,200 passengers involved in the class action - and possibly more - speaks volumes about people's anger over this situation. Some people were lucky enough to get a full refund through Fair Trading. Some - but not Aussies - were offered refunds too I believe.

 

The amount allegedly offered to some was a slap in the face IMO - around $250 pp if I recall correctly which was minuscule compared to the cost of their holiday.

 

Regardless of whether people were on Evergreen or Scenic Tours, let's face it - the cost of a European River cruise is nothing like a 15 day jaunt around the South Pacific on P&O ... or the cost of a coach trip for that matter !!

 

I'm would be surprised if EG / ST does not want to settle. IMO, I think they were trying it on to see what the other side have.

[dougo in oz]

Next they will be suing God for making it rain and spoiling their holiday.:eek:

 

David I usually have a lot of respect for your posts, but that comment is uncalled for IMO.

 

I was in Europe at the time of those floods and saw nightly news of what was happening. The ferocity of the Danube in particular was frightening and for any person who had a cruise booked on the Danube and other European waterways at that time, I can only imagine what was going through their head at that time ... which was according to Marty's original ... alarm and great concern for many passengers on those cruises.

 

In fact at least 1200 joined the class action....quite a lot of people concerned wouldn't you say? And none of them "suing God for making it rain and spoiling their holiday", but they are suing the company who decided not to cancel the cruise in extenuating circumstances.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

David I usually have a lot of respect for your posts, but that comment is uncalled for IMO.

 

I was in Europe at the time of those floods and saw nightly news of what was happening. The ferocity of the Danube in particular was frightening and for any person who had a cruise booked on the Danube and other European waterways at that time, I can only imagine what was going through their head at that time ... which was according to Marty's original ... alarm and great concern for many passengers on those cruises.

 

In fact at least 1200 joined the class action....quite a lot of people concerned wouldn't you say? And none of them "suing God for making it rain and spoiling their holiday", but they are suing the company who decided not to cancel the cruise in extenuating circumstances.

 

And if the company had cancelled the cruise who would they turn to and sue then? The passengers would have been left stranded.

The reference was to the the fact that we were once on a cruise that missed several ports because of hurricanes. The Captain described it as an act of God and this really annoyed all the Australians on board , as being an act of God ruled out any Insurance claims. It almost descended into a riot and was not pleasant being on board.

Things happen and we just have to get on with life.

[dougo in oz]

And if the company had cancelled the cruise who would they turn to and sue then? The passengers would have been left stranded.

The reference was to the the fact that we were once on a cruise that missed several ports because of hurricanes. The Captain described it as an act of God and this really annoyed all the Australians on board , as being an act of God ruled out any Insurance claims. It almost descended into a riot and was not pleasant being on board.

Things happen and we just have to get on with life.

 

 

I'm sure Marty mentions in his original post that if the company had said it was "Force majeure" - a concept related to a State of Emergency which many at the time said it was given that it was a 1:500 year flood.

 

Had the company declared that, then claims could have been made on insurance. No "riot" would have happened, saddened passengers but happy in the knowledge that they would have been able to claim in insurance ... instead of going down a lengthy and costly legal battle or being insulted with a pittance of an amount not to mention long hours on a bus for more than half the "cruise".

[The_Big_M]

But the option should be provided to the passengers.

 

I can't see why they'd automatically offer a full refund just for moving one day on a bus. That hasn't been practice with anyone to date.

 

And remember at the beginning they don't know how long/how many days will need to be substituted.

[Marty156]

...moving one day on a bus...?

I'd accept that. As we did when we missed Carbo San Lucas and again missed Kona iskand due to hurricanes.

BUT missing 8 days ir over 50% of a gery expensive cruise when it was KNOWN it was impossible to start the cruise is a little different don't you think??

[The_Big_M]

I'm sure Marty mentions in his original post that if the company had said it was "Force majeure" - a concept related to a State of Emergency which many at the time said it was given that it was a 1:500 year flood.

 

Had the company declared that, then claims could have been made on insurance. No "riot" would have happened, saddened passengers but happy in the knowledge that they would have been able to claim in insurance ... instead of going down a lengthy and costly legal battle or being insulted with a pittance of an amount not to mention long hours on a bus for more than half the "cruise".

 

I was also in Europe at the time - in fact was on a train riding beside that river that very same morning the flooding happened - and thinking isn't this river a lot higher than it should be!

 

It's all well and good looking at things after the event, but as it happened they were not calling it a 1 in 500 year flood. That came a day or so in... and they can't just hold on to passengers in the meantime. And even when called, what does that mean for impact? There aren't a lot of records for "1 in 500 year" events. As with all the other city works, they put in place substitution plans immediately, and act on them. I was so impressed with how the floods are generally handled there, compared to how they are handled here. We're way behind the times.

 

However, in each city, day by day people would be looking for updates. You never knew what would be open, or operating, until each day arose. And they tried to get things back to normal as quickly as possible. That same dynamic situation affected the river cruise operators. On the morning of day 1, if God told them the rivers would be this high for x days, and they could plan on that, I'm sure they would have cancelled and permitted refunds on certain cruises.

 

But when you are just planning day by day as everyone along those cities were doing, expecting the river cruise operators to be somehow better and more knowledgeable than everyone else in the countries - and then blaming them because they weren't - just doesn't make sense.

[NSWP]

I could do a river cruise in my street, 150 mm of rain down here overnight.

[Marty156]

On the morning of day 1, if God told them the rivers would be this high for x days, and they could plan on that, I'm sure they would have cancelled and permitted refunds on certain cruises.

 

It was a little different than what you think. I know. I was there. And they SHOULD have refunded at the time!

 

The docks in Budapest were underwater many days prior to sailing time.

Should this perhaps have given the operator a sense of angst, that the cruise could not possibly commence?

 

Neither were there any other ships available, sometimes referred to as "ship swaps", which in our case meant a non-moving floating-hotel-in-a-backwater, to save Scenic/Evergreen the cost of on-shore accommodation for those guests that had paid for a cruise, but could not possible commence one for over 50% of their holiday!

 

Stuck against a muddy bank not moving for many days is not an ideal cruise!

[The_Big_M]

It was a little different than what you think. I know. I was there.

 

It's not what I think. As said, I was there as well.

 

We both have an opinion on the situation. However, all the cruise lines have dealt with rising waters before, and they still sail/get around it, not cancel and refund as a matter of course. Nothing in the days leading up to it gave any indication that it would be as rapid as it was.

[dougo in oz]

It was a little different than what you think. I know. I was there. And they SHOULD have refunded at the time!

 

The docks in Budapest were underwater many days prior to sailing time.

Should this perhaps have given the operator a sense of angst, that the cruise could not possibly commence?

 

Neither were there any other ships available, sometimes referred to as "ship swaps", which in our case meant a non-moving floating-hotel-in-a-backwater, to save Scenic/Evergreen the cost of on-shore accommodation for those guests that had paid for a cruise, but could not possible commence one for over 50% of their holiday!

 

Stuck against a muddy bank not moving for many days is not an ideal cruise!

 

Marty, what evidence came out in the case - that you can tell us about ?

 

Did ST know that the flood was not at its peak when it decided to go ahead with the "cruise"?

 

Did their operators in Europe advise against / for going ahead ?

 

It's not what I think. As said, I was there as well.

 

We both have an opinion on the situation. However, all the cruise lines have dealt with rising waters before, and they still sail/get around it, not cancel and refund as a matter of course. Nothing in the days leading up to it gave any indication that it would be as rapid as it was.

 

Big M

 

Have you actually read any of Marty's original post ? Or any of the court documents ?

 

It sounds to me from Marty's response above that if the company did not know that docks in Budapest were under water for days prior to the tour commencing and that the Danube was rising and the waters were very rapid, then why did they not know? Or if they did know, why ignore it and think it was ok to bus people for half their cruise? The whole situation was widely televised throughout Europe where their agents were stationed.

 

To "get around" a cruise by bussing may actually be not a valid or legal form of replacement transportation ... I think someone mentioned a couple of pages back that the Judge in this class action noted the T&C for ST and EG and said something to the effect that the operator's right to substitute a vessel basically meant another boat ... not a bus .... so if the waters are too dangerous to cruise on, a bus is not necessarily a suitable substitute.

 

I was in Europe too at that time and saw the reports on the news - it was devastating. I couldn't work out why any tour company thought they could still provide the same experience on a bus vs a cruise ... or for that matter, why they would proceed at all.

 

If you were a passenger with EG or ST, I expect you response would be similar to Marty's and the other 1200 + passengers involved in this class action.

Edited June 5, 2016 by dougo in oz

[Marty156]

It's not what I think. As said, I was there as well.

 

We both have an opinion on the situation. However, all the cruise lines have dealt with rising waters before, and they still sail/get around it, not cancel and refund as a matter of course. Nothing in the days leading up to it gave any indication that it would be as rapid as it was.

 

Were you really there Big-M?

 

So, which ship (of the 13 Scenic branded ships) were you on between May and June 2013?

which one of the 1200+ pasengers affected by more than 1 day lost sailings was you?

 

If not, then you have absolutely zero knowledge or authority -let alone any vestige of a smidgeon of credibility- in this matter. UNLESS you are one of the trolls that either received a free trip as certain travel agents did, or you are connected/involved with said company or their friends.

 

DougOz

I'm not sure what I can divulge re evidence at this stage. As it is still a matter in Court.

However, let me assure you that significant evidence was shown that Scenic KNEW all about the issues prior to pax leaving Australia and they refused to advise pax, refused to acknowledge that the rivers were closed for navigation and -refused to give Australian passengers the option to cancel!

 

Documentary evidence in Court demonstrated that Scenic knew about the river conditions prior to embarkation and there is evidence that they gave UK pax cancelation options, but stressed NOT to tell the Aussies.

 

Europe offices and their staff wanted the company to cancel, but SCENIC head office in Newcastle NSW refused to do so. Even knowing that it would be impossible to even perform 50% of a cruise.

 

Wonder why most other rivercruise companies not only gave a full refund, but also additional credit towards a future cruise. But Scenic did not. Only offered a measly $500 per person for something that cost around $10,000 per person. And only if you asked for it!

 

Letter sent to passengers from the managing director in Australia said that we would, and I quote,

"...receive a refund that we would be happy with..."

 

Really???

A 0.05% refund would make anyone happy???

 

Documentation of the Statement of Claim and the defence to it are public documents available on the Supreme Court website and I would encourage Big-M to read same to get the facts right.

 

http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/sco2_class_action/european_river_cruise.aspx

[The_Big_M]

Were you really there Big-M?

 

 

Yes, I already said where I was.

 

The flooding was not exclusively on the ship you were on. We're talking about conditions that affected multiple ships, on multiple lines, at multiple locations. As for the rest, the detailed evidence goes through the court, and the outcome is up to the judge to decide so I hardly expect either new evidence or a definitive outcome here. The only thing coming out is people's opinions - although some seem to want to shut down opinions that they don't agree with.

[NSWP]

I think the adverse publicity due to disruption because of river conditions is one of the primary reasons why the River Cruise Companies are offering half priced cruises and free airfares, currently. Potential pax need a real incentive to do them. My opinion anyway.