Was She Treated Fairly?

[BigHouseFootball]

What about everyone else? I think they gave her good customer service. She either didn't pay for an insurance policy, and saved that premium cost, or she did pay for insurance, and they won't pay her either, because the hazard didn't happen.

 

Zika is a special circumstance that's unlike anything recently. Special circumstances call for special reactions. Like another poster said if they just would of refunded her then it's a non-story. But now RC looks bad. You're not going to win a public opinion war by going up against a pregnant woman trying to ensure the safety of her unborn child. That's a public relations nightmare. And the company comes off looking like the bad guy.

[John&LaLa]

I'm guessing you are not pregnant!

 

Nope, but apparently everyone is taking 7 month old babies aboard

[Chip and Dale]

Look through some insurance policies. I don't think I have ever seen one that covers 'complications of pregnancy'. Even a third-party 'cancel for any reason' policy will only reimburse 50-75% of non-refundable expenses.

 

She is asking for special treatment. It would be nice if she got it, but I don't think it is wrong if she doesn't.

 

This is not a complication of pregnancy it is a warning issued by the CDC! Why do you think Royal sent out emails warning of the potential for exposure.

 

We don't have cancel for any reason travel insurance in Canada. I think any pregnant woman submitting proof of pregnancy with appropriate documentation should be given the choice of a FCC or a refund.

[marci22]

This is not a complication of pregnancy it is a warning issued by the CDC! Why do you think Royal sent out emails warning of the potential for exposure.

 

We don't have cancel for any reason travel insurance in Canada. I think any pregnant woman submitting proof of pregnancy with appropriate documentation should be given the choice of a FCC or a refund.

 

Tell that to Royal. Why are you telling it to me?

[Eslader]

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

 

She has a legitimate claim for not going on the cruise while pregnant, absolutely. She has the option of rescheduling to go on the cruise after the kid is born, but is refusing. That's not reasonable.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

She has a legitimate claim for not going on the cruise while pregnant, absolutely. She has the option of rescheduling to go on the cruise after the kid is born, but is refusing. That's not reasonable.

 

 

This! They are offering her an option and she is refusing it. Because "she is not a cruise person".

 

As for the people who have given their children cruises - my guess is your children like cruising. I don't get giving someone something you know they won't like.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[Biker19]

It's the parents' fault - they knew she's not a cruise person but bought it anyway.:p

[cruisinfanatic]

I am in a very different position than most on this thread. I am in the insurance industry in Canada and at the present time I have a child who is newly pregnant. I have received numerous notices from Insurers over the past year stating emphatically that anyone who is pregnant OR believes that they will become pregnant in the near future SHOULD NOT travel to specific countries where the Zika virus is known to exist. When I sell travel insurance one of the first questions that I ask is whether or not a female is pregnant, or is considering a pregnancy in the near future. In the event that the answer is yes, then I strongly urge the client NOT to travel to areas where the Zika virus has been documented. It simply is not worth the risk!

 

We frequently purchase cruises/trips for our adult children as Christmas gifts or wedding gifts. When the gift is given it belongs to whichever child we have given it to. Due to the Zika warning we have been adamant with our children about NOT traveling to areas where the virus has been documented. In the event that one of them had become pregnant we would have wanted the refund to go to our child quite gladly since it was a gift and we were going to receive the gift of a grandchild!

 

The parents, by what I saw in the video, gave the family a trip at Christmas time, so I am assuming it was a Christmas gift. The video also said that they had Royal's cruise insurance, however, it did not cover pregnancy. Therefore, the insurance would not pay out. The Zika virus is an unprecedented situation and possibly so was the lady's pregnancy. This is not a pregnancy cancellation, this is a health warning cancellation and she has been instructed by a physician.

 

If this was my child, I would definitely want her to receive a refund after documentation from her physician is submitted to prove the pregnancy and the reason being the risk of the Zika virus for cancellation of the cruise. No one knows what will happen within the 2 year time limit if they receive a FCC. I believe that RCI should refund the price of the cruise, whether to the original credit card or the lady in question, but definitely they should be providing a refund.

 

I am quite disappointed in RCI's lack of compassion and poor handling of this situation. I don't believe she is a whiner, I do believe that she has a legitimate claim.

Dee

Royal's cancel for any reason would have given them 75% towards another cruise within a year

As far as Zika claims, Royal gives a credit for a future cruise within 2 years. This rule has been in effect for many months now. They do not refund the cruise cost just because a lawyer makes a stink about it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by cruisinfanatic

[crusinthrough]

I really like how at first she says that she is not a cruise person so the voucher would be no good to her. However, after RCI caved in & refunded her fare & gave her the voucher, she isn't satisfied that the voucher doesn't cover the entire cost of a cruise.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.

[Cindy]

She was offered what is clearly stated in RCI's policy on pregnancy/Zika virus. She wants more. I say she should take what is allowable in the RCI policy, or go home and keep her mouth shut. Greedy, greedy, greedy.

 

She doesn't want to take the voucher because the rest of the family already cruised. I wish Royal Caribbean hadn't caved in...I think that sets a terrible precedent.

 

Technically, she's not due a darn thing...she's already gotten more than most people.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Cindy

[robandana]

Royal's cancel for any reason would have given them 75% towards another cruise within a year

As far as Zika claims, Royal gives a credit for a future cruise within 2 years. This rule has been in effect for many months now. They do not refund the cruise cost just because a lawyer makes a stink about it.

 

Yet as soon as she went to the news they changed there policy....

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

She was offered what is clearly stated in RCI's policy on pregnancy/Zika virus. She wants more. I say she should take what is allowable in the RCI policy, or go home and keep her mouth shut. Greedy, greedy, greedy.

 

 

 

She doesn't want to take the voucher because the rest of the family already cruised. I wish Royal Caribbean hadn't caved in...I think that sets a terrible precedent.

 

 

 

Technically, she's not due a darn thing...she's already gotten more than most people.

 

 

She didn't want the voucher because she never wanted the cruise in the first place. She "lucked out" that zika suddenly after years of existence has apparently gotten worse and there was a kind of out. But she decided to kick up a fuss because while she couldn't whine and fuss and get the money back while her parents were going she suddenly had what she saw as a golden opportunity to get the money back for the gift she never wanted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[lemansz20]

Really? Do you know of ANY business that NEVER makes an exception to ANY of their policies, regardless of the situation?

 

Heck, even RCI makes exceptions on a fairly regular basis.

 

Apparently her parents are not "Loyal to Royal" because by sticking to their policy guns after she was told verbally the a refund was not a problem they risked losing a loyal customer.

 

Besides, by quietly giving the refund she was "promised" over the phone (even if the CS rep overstepped) then this would never had made the news. Now, by attempting to put their foot down then caving after the news story, everyone knows they caved and now they risk more people asking for refunds.

 

What you sound like to me, is the person that cancels 15 days before the cruise and then goes haywire b/c their money isnt refundable. Their are many business's that stick to their policies and thats that. All the people saying their getting bad press, are the same people that will keep traveling with the cruise line. I mean Carnival had a sister company ship sink and they were all over the news, and now you cant book a cruise a month in.

 

Sorry, but they did it out of being nice. The fact that she wasnt happy from the outcome is just ridiculous.

[cruisinfanatic]

Yet as soon as she went to the news they changed there policy....

How did they change they're policy? Person still didn't get a refund or they wouldn't be whining to the news

[Mickeygrl71]

She was treated more than fairly. This is what travel insurance is for, if you don't buy the insurance then you have to suck it up if you cancel.

 

I'm also peeved that the cruise was a gift and she wants a refund instead of a voucher because she's not a cruise person. Give her parents the voucher instead, they paid for the cruise, she doesn't deserve jack s:eek:

 

 

 

Right on! Obviously, they are cruise people. Her parents can use the voucher. Done.

[John&LaLa]

Right on! Obviously, they are cruise people. Her parents can use the voucher. Done.

 

I doubt the voucher is transferable

[robandana]

How did they change they're policy? Person still didn't get a refund or they wouldn't be whining to the news

 

There ZIKA policy is future cruise voucher valid for 2 years....they gave her a partial refund and a voucher for the rest....that's how they changed the policy.

 

The point I was getting at is if in the end they were going to change there policy due to bad press...wouldn't it have been much better for the company to have just offered a full refund and no one would have even known about it.