Booted Off The EDGE

[Ma Bell]

I didn't say anywhere that any court should force any cruise line to do anything.

 

You appear to be seeing things that aren't there...

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

 

In this particular case, which is what we are supposedly discussing, what course of action would the lawsuit entail?

[keesar]

I need to know what damages have been incurred. Maybe disappointment for some. Some need to move on. If they are that frustrated, then cruise on another line that week or take up Celebrity's offer.

[harz99]

In this particular case, which is what we are supposedly discussing, what course of action would the lawsuit entail?

Going to court?

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

[Ma Bell]

Going to court?

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

 

Pardon me, I was in a hurry and typed incorrectly. I meant cause of action. Here is the definition just in case.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cause+of+action

[Lastdance]

People love to put their own spin on things, as we all have our own filters. This thread has taken on a life of its own, but going to court is not something to take lightly. It takes time, energy and money, not to mention the fact that it just isn't worth it IMHO. Life is way too short...unless you are an attorney with nothing better to do...CC can be a very scary place to post one's feelings without the backlash of many who hide behind their words, but really enjoy getting a rise out of someone while baiting the hook!...just stating my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of other posters.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Lastdance

[harz99]

Pardon me, I was in a hurry and typed incorrectly. I meant cause of action. Here is the definition just in case.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cause+of+action

Being a North American I'm sure you'll know that better than I would.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

[Ma Bell]

People love to put their own spin on things, as we all have our own filters. This thread has taken on a life of its own, but going to court is not something to take lightly. It takes time, energy and money, not to mention the fact that it just isn't worth it IMHO. Life is way too short...unless you are an attorney with nothing better to do...CC can be a very scary place to post one's feelings without the backlash of many who hide behind their words, but really enjoy getting a rise out of someone while baiting the hook!

 

Very true. It's not something to take lightly and just a bit over the top to suggest. It's also not nice to scare other people by exaggerating.

 

The OP made his point and informed people of the possibility of things like this happening. He also said they were able to adjust their plans and got some on board credit. Some reasonable comments were made until the OP decided to turn this into a crusade of some kind. If this were about Celebrity canceling a cruise for a charter on short notice I could certainly understand the uproar he created. This poster was certainly not scared about anyone's posting here and no one was hiding. The only one scared was the poor person who was planning a cruise.

[Fish Lover]

Maybe not in the US, but in the rest of the world there are countries where unfair contracts can, and have been, successfully challenged in court. However it needs a group action due to the potential costs.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

 

This response is wrong on multiple levels. In order to involve the courts, you have to have a cause of action and be able to prove damages. You are referring to class actions suits. Multiple plaintiffs are joined together in order to consolidate damages and create a one time litigation. It has nothing whatever to do with costs because the litigation is always done on retainer (where the plaintiff pays nothing for legal fees unless they win, and then they are deducted from the award). Those type suits are known as torts. A contract action is absolutely baseless as no one is forced to accept a contract from Celebrity as they are not the only provider of similar services. If they were the only provider, maybe there could be a cause for an adhesion contract . There simply is no basis for that.

 

This is not the right forum for providing such off-base advise to anyone.

 

There is one issue, and only one issue, and that is whether Celebrity should be vilified for chartering a ship (two years out), after taking deposits from the general public and whether what they offer as compensation is fair.

 

Based on the replies, I would say the opinions are split and if anything favor Celebrity However, it s noted that some people feel quite differently.

[ChucktownSteve]

This response is wrong on multiple levels. In order to involve the courts, you have to have a cause of action and be able to prove damages. You are referring to class actions suits. Multiple plaintiffs are joined together in order to consolidate damages and create a one time litigation. It has nothing whatever to do with costs because the litigation is always done on retainer (where the plaintiff pays nothing for legal fees unless they win, and then they are deducted from the award). Those type suits are known as torts. A contract action is absolutely baseless as no one is forced to accept a contract from Celebrity as they are not the only provider of similar services. If they were the only provider, maybe there could be a cause for an adhesion contract . There simply is no basis for that.

 

This is not the right forum for providing such off-base advise to anyone.

 

There is one issue, and only one issue, and that is whether Celebrity should be vilified for chartering a ship (two years out), after taking deposits from the general public and whether what they offer as compensation is fair.

 

Based on the replies, I would say the opinions are split and if anything favor Celebrity However, it s noted that some people feel quite differently.

 

As much as I'm not used to agreeing with Fish Lover, they pretty well nailed it.

 

 

The thing I object to about class action suits is that the lawyers generally make millions of dollars while the plaintiffs comparatively make a few dollars. Thus IMHO there's only one real winner in that lawsuit; lawyers.

 

Based upon the way Celebrity's cruise contract is written, I find it hard to believe that plaintiffs would prevail for being bumped by a charter.

 

I empathized initially with the OP for being bumped. I found it laughable when one person hijacked the thread worrying and worrying about the possibility of being bumped with no evidence that it would be.

[harz99]

This response is wrong on multiple levels. In order to involve the courts, you have to have a cause of action and be able to prove damages. You are referring to class actions suits. Multiple plaintiffs are joined together in order to consolidate damages and create a one time litigation. It has nothing whatever to do with costs because the litigation is always done on retainer (where the plaintiff pays nothing for legal fees unless they win, and then they are deducted from the award). Those type suits are known as torts. A contract action is absolutely baseless as no one is forced to accept a contract from Celebrity as they are not the only provider of similar services. If they were the only provider, maybe there could be a cause for an adhesion contract . There simply is no basis for that.

 

This is not the right forum for providing such off-base advise to anyone.

 

There is one issue, and only one issue, and that is whether Celebrity should be vilified for chartering a ship (two years out), after taking deposits from the general public and whether what they offer as compensation is fair.

 

Based on the replies, I would say the opinions are split and if anything favor Celebrity However, it s noted that some people feel quite differently.

Firstly I'm not giving advise to anyone, secondly as I indicated in the post you quoted I was not talking about what happens in the US.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

[latserrof]

Just to point out, not all countries have that option. For me personally, another reason for booking via the US.

 

Just curious -- what determines your booking terms, passport? address? TA? website? thx

[Jade13]

. Hopefully I answered your inquiry about my life Jade.

 

 

Yes, thank you.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jade13]

 

 

 

There is one issue, and only one issue, and that is whether Celebrity should be vilified for chartering a ship (two years out), after taking deposits from the general public and whether what they offer as compensation is fair.

.

 

 

Agree.

 

Also, my opinion is that the cruise lines should make any charter decisions not later than 12 months before the departure date since that is when airlines bookings start becoming available. What the cruise lines typically offer are to pay for change fees for nonrefundable flights, and that assumes that the passenger is agreeable to switching to another cruise.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Ma Bell]

Agree.

 

Also, my opinion is that the cruise lines should make any charter decisions not later than 12 months before the departure date since that is when airlines bookings start becoming available. What the cruise lines typically offer are to pay for change fees for nonrefundable flights, and that assumes that the passenger is agreeable to switching to another cruise.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

That seems fair to me too. Companies should be making their decisions and signing a contract by then.

[caribill]

Agree.

 

What the cruise lines typically offer are to pay for change fees for nonrefundable flights, and that assumes that the passenger is agreeable to switching to another cruise.

 

Several problems with this:

a) Even changeable flights must be completed within one year of the date the flights were originally booked. Thus the alternative cruise with Celebrity must end by that date or the entire fare is lost.

b) The alternative cruise may not be where the original airline can fly you. For example, if you had original flights on Nippon Airways for a cruise that was in Asia and your substitute cruise is in Alaska or the Med, the Nippon Airways ticket is 100% useless. Thus your alternative cruise must be in an area that the original airline can fly you to.

c) Some airlines now have their lowest fares being 100% non-refundable and non-changeable. Thus your alternative cruise must be the exact same date with the same starting and ending port.

[hubofhockey]

Going to court?

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Forums mobile app

Going to court to get what? In an unfair contract, OP, at best, would be granted the right to rescind. That means it would be able to get out of its cruise contract with Celebrity. Celebrity already let them out be cancelling the itinerary. If OP had detrimentally relied on Celebrity in paying for non-refundable flights or making other reasonable expenditures in reliance of a cruise two years out, a court might award those costs as well.

 

In this case, Celebrity acted reasonably in providing timely notice of a cancellation of an itinerary giving OP plenty of time to find a replacement cruise. The only damages here are to the OP's feelings. He believed that because he is "elite" that Celebrity owed him more loyalty.

 

I thought the original intent for this long discussion thread was for the OP to blow off some steam because he was blindsided by an unfortunate chartering which interfered with a nice vacation planned with some friends. Everyone is sympathetic with that. It's unfortunate. These things happen. My only problem was OP believing he was entitled to more than the non-elite folks who also put down a deposit.

[Ma Bell]

Several problems with this:

a) Even changeable flights must be completed within one year of the date the flights were originally booked. Thus the alternative cruise with Celebrity must end by that date or the entire fare is lost.

b) The alternative cruise may not be where the original airline can fly you. For example, if you had original flights on Nippon Airways for a cruise that was in Asia and your substitute cruise is in Alaska or the Med, the Nippon Airways ticket is 100% useless. Thus your alternative cruise must be in an area that the original airline can fly you to.

c) Some airlines now have their lowest fares being 100% non-refundable and non-changeable. Thus your alternative cruise must be the exact same date with the same starting and ending port.

 

I would hope that most people would take the possibility of something interfering with plans into consideration when choosing the airline and fare they purchase. Considering that there are all kinds of reasons a plan might need to be changed it would seem to me that most people wouldn't be so foolish as to purchase a ticket like that.

 

Most airlines at the least belong to a partner alliance of some kind. Buying a ticket like you describe is like putting a bet on a craps table. The purchaser takes the risk and should certainly be prepared to lose the bet.

[proshopred]

We had had our March 19 cruise "cancelled" by Celebrity.....We are considering our options.....We are disappointed, but realistic - we know we are just "one customer" & big companies cater to other big companies in their pursuit of the almighty dollar.....It's the same situation when you get involuntarily bumped from a flight.....only the compensation for that is generally higher.....Good luck & safe travels...

[proshopred]

Whoops.....meant to write March 17

[Gonzo70]

We had had our March 19 cruise "cancelled" by Celebrity.....We are considering our options.....We are disappointed, but realistic - we know we are just "one customer" & big companies cater to other big companies in their pursuit of the almighty dollar.....It's the same situation when you get involuntarily bumped from a flight.....only the compensation for that is generally higher.....Good luck & safe travels...

 

Not quite the same; being bumped off a flight happens minutes before the flight is scheduled to depart. A cruise being cancelled because of a charter usually happens a year or more in advance.