Royal Caribbean class action lawsuit

[Ocean Boy]

If they win, which is debateable, the lawyers will win millions and the dumb class people will win a voucher good for $25 if they meet several conditions...

 

JC

Condition #1... must be used toward another RCI cruise, booked within the next 30 days, and taken within the next year.

[Ocean Boy]

Your friend should sue his lawyer. My brother in law is a lawyer in the midwest and he charges 35% of the award, in lawsuits, and that includes expenses. If he doesn't win, he gets nothing so he only takes ones he's confident he can win. I was just on a jury and this past Wednesday we ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case, It took over three years to get to trial but we awarded well into seven figures in damages. They will probably appeal it but, we were told afterwords that the damages was right in line with awards in similar circumstances. Remember, you might be going against a huge corporation but the decision is made by twelve of the plaintiffs and defendants peers.

The defendants peers? That is a load of garbage. How many physicians were on that jury of yours in that malpractice case?

[DirtyDawg]

No, they DON'T LOSE.

 

Either their insurance pays, and they raise fares to cover the higher price of insurance.

 

Or, they self insure, and they pay, and the raise fares a LOT to cover the cost.

 

Or if the judgement is high enough, RCI goes out of business, and then where are we?????

 

WE LOSE.

 

As for your last point, if RCI goes out of business it is the shareholders who loose. The bond holders will likely loose some of their capital also . Some employees might loose out also if they are laid off/fired. WE DO NOT LOOSE. The assets would be sold to other investors and the New Royal will reemerge, likely with the same operational management team in place, and most of the same ship's personnel. You can still buy GM cars and fly on American Airlines, both emerged from bankruptcy.

[nealstuber]

The original plaintiff, flew down two days prior, how far out should a cruise line be expected to predict the weather and make a call?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[nealstuber]

Carnival passengers on Freedom and Valor has about the same notice as LOTs Pax and Dream Pax only got more notice because Carnival planned to push her embark a day due to Freedom and Valor being a day late and taking her spot.

 

All this talk about insurance, and no mention of using air to sea. If these Pax had booked there air that way, it all would have been taken care of.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Cruzaholic41]

But Royal still loses, and hopefully learns a lesson. It was really irresponsible to draw people into a hurricane zone when the city officials were asking people to evacuate.

 

Royal, like any large corporation, is insured for things like this. If you think they're going to lose money, you're just as naive as those thinking they're going to make $$$ by filing a class action.

[LMaxwell]

Royal, like any large corporation, is insured for things like this. If you think they're going to lose money, you're just as naive as those thinking they're going to make $$$ by filing a class action.

 

Royal has publicly stated they self-insure.

[steamboats]

Sorry when looking for information on the Port of Galveston, I don't go to Cruise Critic, FB or twitter. The place that I went to was the Port of Galveston website where I Read on Thursday night due to the Hurricane the port of Galveston would be closed till Tuesday( it ended up being Thursday)

 

Curtis, I got the information from the official Facebook account of the Port of Galveston. I can´t find anything on their website anymore. And I wonder why the information given by the port on Facebook should differ from what they give on their website. And by the posts on Facebook it was not clear on Thursday that the port will be closed for cruise ships til Tuesday.

 

steamboats

[ColoradoGurl]

The thing is, I think that number's pretty high. Look at the Disney parks (and Disney cruise line, for that matter). I used to be a once-a-year Disney go'er, but then I looked at how much it cost to take my family of four there for 4-5 days, and felt sick. I haven't been back in 4 years. It's not even the cost of food or lodging that gets me, but the admission charge. Disney raises its prices (and even charges a premium to "hop" between parks) and people eat it up - they buy the whole experience; many families go more than once a year.

 

 

 

The same goes for suite categories on some lines - the prices keep creeping up, but people can't get enough of the "suite life", and they always seem to be booked up. I've traveled in several suite levels, but when the price comes out at over $10,000 for my family of 4 (without airfare), I have to say "uncle". No problem though, there's a line of people behind me willing to pay that.

 

 

 

My point being that like Disney, I believe the cruise industry prices can continue to creep up, and people will still pay the prices - especially if they roll the UBP into some kind of "free" promo. "Free" unlimited alcohol is a big motivator :D

 

 

The issue with Disney isn't that they charge too much money, but that your particular family doesn't have enough money to go there (at least not as often as you used to). If they are able to fill their parks and hotels, then they aren't charging too much, it's just that their target market has changed to a higher income bracket than it used to be.

 

While that might suck for the average family, or for someone like you who has money for vacations but chooses to pick a vacation where your money goes further, it doesn't make the prices "too high" to stay in business. It's not their job to be affordable to everyone, it's their job to provide a product or service that their market is willing and able to pay for.

 

Same with Suites. Despite what we read on Cruise Critic, most cruisers could care less about Suites. Or, at least are happy enough to sail in smaller rooms with less perks if the suites are booked. If Royal could fill a ship full of nothing but Suites and charge $10,000 for all the rooms, then they would find a way to build a "Suites only" ship.

 

I go into every cruise with a $10,000 budget (for just the 2 of us, and I generally only spend half of that), but guess what, I sail in Promenades and Insides. If the price keeps going up (which it has in the 13 years I've been cruising), I will continue to pay it for quite some time, because I have a lot of room in my budget and I'm happy to sail in smaller and cheaper rooms so my money goes farther. I think most cruisers are the same way. We don't all refuse to sail unless we have the "suite life."

 

The problems you're referring to don't really have anything to do with businesses charging too much money. It's just that they're charging too much money for you and your budget, or contrarily, you had a bigger family than you can afford to do the things you want to do...for (is that the right way to structure that sentence? Haha).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited October 1, 2017 by ColoradoGurl

[ColoradoGurl]

As for your last point, if RCI goes out of business it is the shareholders who loose. The bond holders will likely loose some of their capital also . Some employees might loose out also if they are laid off/fired. WE DO NOT LOOSE. The assets would be sold to other investors and the New Royal will reemerge, likely with the same operational management team in place, and most of the same ship's personnel. You can still buy GM cars and fly on American Airlines, both emerged from bankruptcy.

 

 

When companies are publicly owned, they start cutting a lot of corners in order to decrease expenses and provide shareholders with larger dividends, and customers start to notice and get unhappy, until it reaches a breaking point.

 

In this scenario, I think Royal was trying too hard to please the shareholders by not giving people refunds, and ended up potentially costing themselves a lot more money in a class action suit.

 

Heck I'm surprised the state of Texas didn't sue them for encouraging so many people to come to their state and stressing out their emergency services, food and water supplies, and evacuation shelters. What if Texas did sue? Do they also get a cruise credit? Haha!

 

I understood the argument that people had during that week, that it wouldn't be fair for those who chose not to buy insurance to be made whole with refunds, while those who paid more money and were responsible and purchased insurance were left wondering why they bothered shelling out the extra cash. But there were too many instances of people who did have insurance getting screwed over because their policies only cashed out if there was trip interruption, and for some reason, because Royal chose to simply change the day of the cruise, the cruise wasn't considered interrupted.

 

I also think the more important thing here was that Royal was telling people that it was perfectly safe to fly into a hurricane zone, which was contrary to evacuation orders from the state.

 

To me, it's not about whether the plaintiffs get millions, it's about Royal having to own up to their bad judgments and the danger they put their customers in.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Ocean Boy]

The problems you're referring to don't really have anything to do with businesses charging too much money. It's just that they're charging too much money for you and your budget, or contrarily, you had a bigger family than you can afford to do the things you want to do...for (is that the right way to structure that sentence? Haha).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

OR they are charging more than the poster feels the product is worth. I can afford things but don't buy them because I don't feel the value is there for what I would have to spend.

[ColoradoGurl]

OR they are charging more than the poster feels the product is worth. I can afford things but don't buy them because I don't feel the value is there for what I would have to spend.

 

 

Yes, true, I included that reason in my post, just not that particular paragraph that you quoted. I mentioned in my first couple paragraphs that the Disney prices weren't something she was willing to pay as often as she used to, or that she's chosen a different kind of vacation where her money goes further. I also cited the example of my own vacation budget where I choose to sail in the smaller cheaper rooms even though my budget is large enough for the bigger ones (because I also don't find value in the Suites, even though I can afford them).

 

The poster I was replying to didn't say she didn't find value in it though, I read it as she felt it was too expensive for her (because it made her feel sick and they went from going once a year to once every 4 years, she obviously can afford vacations for her family, just not as often as she wants to be able to go). But I do see your point (as I referenced that possibility in the rest of my post). My last paragraph was just an example of how, when arguments pop up about it being "too expensive," that sometimes it's really just that those people can't afford the lifestyle they want for the size of family they chose to have.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited October 1, 2017 by ColoradoGurl

[tugboat]

Curtis, I got the information from the official Facebook account of the Port of Galveston. I can´t find anything on their website anymore. And I wonder why the information given by the port on Facebook should differ from what they give on their website. And by the posts on Facebook it was not clear on Thursday that the port will be closed for cruise ships til Tuesday.

 

steamboats

I sorry you miss the post on the Port of Galveston website. My sister lives on Galveston. her neighbors work at the port they were told Thursday the port would be closed till Tuesday. if you want to believe FB go for it.

[ducklite]

Force majeure anyone?

 

Had Royal acted responsibly and cancelled the cruise instead of relying in their hack meteorologist who got it 1000% wrong and demanding their customers travel into an area , force majeure would have applied if they were trying to collect from the cruise line for "loss of enjoyment" of the cruise, or even prepaid hotel charges. Had Royal cancelled in a reasonable amount of time, people would have been able to collect against their travel insurance for out of pocket expenses--had they booked that insurance independently.

 

I'd also point out that chances are that it wasn't that they couldn't collect because the travel insurance cancelled when the cruise cancelled, but rather the policy booked directly through the cruise line ONLY covered the cruise fare and incidents that occurred after embarkation. This is why it's so important to buy a stand alone policy from a provider like insuremytrip, as that coverage will typically start as soon as travel commences, and not end until you return home.

 

Force majeure won't apply in this case as Royal acted egregiously and without conscious when applying the reasonable man standard.

[DirtyDawg]

When companies are publicly owned, they start cutting a lot of corners in order to decrease expenses and provide shareholders with larger dividends, and customers start to notice and get unhappy, until it reaches a breaking point.

 

In this scenario, I think Royal was trying too hard to please the shareholders by not giving people refunds, and ended up potentially costing themselves a lot more money in a class action suit.

 

Heck I'm surprised the state of Texas didn't sue them for encouraging so many people to come to their state and stressing out their emergency services, food and water supplies, and evacuation shelters. What if Texas did sue? Do they also get a cruise credit? Haha!

 

I understood the argument that people had during that week, that it wouldn't be fair for those who chose not to buy insurance to be made whole with refunds, while those who paid more money and were responsible and purchased insurance were left wondering why they bothered shelling out the extra cash. But there were too many instances of people who did have insurance getting screwed over because their policies only cashed out if there was trip interruption, and for some reason, because Royal chose to simply change the day of the cruise, the cruise wasn't considered interrupted.

 

I also think the more important thing here was that Royal was telling people that it was perfectly safe to fly into a hurricane zone, which was contrary to evacuation orders from the state.

 

To me, it's not about whether the plaintiffs get millions, it's about Royal having to own up to their bad judgments and the danger they put their customers in.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

The only thing Idisagree with you is that some, perhaps even a slight a majority of 'publicly traded companies start cutting a lot of corners in order to decrease expenses andprovide shareholders with larger dividends', not all. A lot of publicly traded companies have very high customer satisfaction ratings along with high returns for their shareholders.

 

As for Royal, I don't know what the culture is, or the actual reasons they did what they did. I could very well be pressure to increase shareholder returns or it could have been they were simply asleep at the switch. Sadly, I've seen a lot of the latter in middle and upper management of publicly traded companies over the years.

[xpcdoojk]

If Carnival bought out RC, and raised the prices to a monopoly amount of money, I would just stop cruising, as would lots of other people. That decrease in demand would force Carnival to drop prices. It's not like cruises are a necessity (though some might disagree), so there's only so high they can price it til the market stops buying.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Yeah... that is how th economy works.....:eek:. Sure.... :evilsmile:

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

No, they DON'T LOSE.

 

Either their insurance pays, and they raise fares to cover the higher price of insurance.

 

Or, they self insure, and they pay, and the raise fares a LOT to cover the cost.

 

Or if the judgement is high enough, RCI goes out of business, and then where are we?????

 

WE LOSE.

 

good luck teaching the people who think money is just available to pay for anything... cause they are making so much and I don't have any....:eek:

 

JC

[momofmab]

The issue with Disney isn't that they charge too much money, but that your particular family doesn't have enough money to go there (at least not as often as you used to). If they are able to fill their parks and hotels, then they aren't charging too much, it's just that their target market has changed to a higher income bracket than it used to be.

 

While that might suck for the average family, or for someone like you who has money for vacations but chooses to pick a vacation where your money goes further, it doesn't make the prices "too high" to stay in business. It's not their job to be affordable to everyone, it's their job to provide a product or service that their market is willing and able to pay for.

 

Same with Suites. Despite what we read on Cruise Critic, most cruisers could care less about Suites. Or, at least are happy enough to sail in smaller rooms with less perks if the suites are booked. If Royal could fill a ship full of nothing but Suites and charge $10,000 for all the rooms, then they would find a way to build a "Suites only" ship.

 

I go into every cruise with a $10,000 budget (for just the 2 of us, and I generally only spend half of that), but guess what, I sail in Promenades and Insides. If the price keeps going up (which it has in the 13 years I've been cruising), I will continue to pay it for quite some time, because I have a lot of room in my budget and I'm happy to sail in smaller and cheaper rooms so my money goes farther. I think most cruisers are the same way. We don't all refuse to sail unless we have the "suite life."

 

The problems you're referring to don't really have anything to do with businesses charging too much money. It's just that they're charging too much money for you and your budget, or contrarily, you had a bigger family than you can afford to do the things you want to do...for (is that the right way to structure that sentence? Haha).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Well you're way off there :')

 

My husband and I are just very smart with our money and choose carefully where to spend it. We live within a reasonable driving distance from Disney and have been numerous times (including on our honeymoon 27 years ago when we barely had $100 between us), so I don't agree that the only people going to Disney are the 1%ers, but we can agree to disagree on that.

 

My point wasn't that people are refusing to sail if they can't sail in suites - but that the prices (for suites and other catagories) are continuing to creep up, and people continue to pay. I have no doubt, actually, that a suite-only ship would fill up, however it would likely not be cost effective for the cruise line that makes its money by cramming the most cabins and passengers possible onto a ship plan.

[SRF]

I have no doubt, actually, that a suite-only ship would fill up, however it would likely not be cost effective for the cruise line that makes its money by cramming the most cabins and passengers possible onto a ship plan.

 

Yes, they do. They are called the luxury cruise lines. Look at Seaborne, Regent Seven Seas and others.

 

But be sitting down when you price them. :)

[Milwaukee Eight]

Yes, they do. They are called the luxury cruise lines. Look at Seaborne, Regent Seven Seas and others.

 

But be sitting down when you price them. :)

 

 

 

Silversea too...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ColoradoGurl]

Well you're way off there :')

 

 

 

My husband and I are just very smart with our money and choose carefully where to spend it. We live within a reasonable driving distance from Disney and have been numerous times (including on our honeymoon 27 years ago when we barely had $100 between us), so I don't agree that the only people going to Disney are the 1%ers, but we can agree to disagree on that.

 

 

 

My point wasn't that people are refusing to sail if they can't sail in suites - but that the prices (for suites and other catagories) are continuing to creep up, and people continue to pay. I have no doubt, actually, that a suite-only ship would fill up, however it would likely not be cost effective for the cruise line that makes its money by cramming the most cabins and passengers possible onto a ship plan.

 

 

Well, my original point was that businesses are going to charge as much money as their market will pay. While it may end up being too expensive for some, whether it's because they simply don't have that much money, or because they cap their vacation budgets at some amount they find reasonable, it's not RC or Carnival or Disney's job to care that they've left those people behind with their price hikes.

 

Your reply, I thought, was trying to say that it isn't fair when they raise their prices so high because it prices out families who used to frequent those vacation options. And my reply was that it didn't matter, because there were still enough people to fill the ships and hotels at higher prices, but that there was only so high they could go before they lose their ability to continue raising prices and still have enough customers.

 

Someone else had made the argument earlier that if RC lost this lawsuit, it would just make them raise prices, or would make them bankrupt, and then Carnival would buy them out and have a monopoly where they could charge exorbitant amounts. I was saying that wouldn't happen because a business can only charge what their market can bear.

 

But as you did say, that amount is pretty high. And I agree, it is high. But just because it might price some of us out at some point, that doesn't make them wrong, and it isn't a bad business decision as long as there's still a big enough market willing to pay that amount. I think a lot of people would be shocked to find out how much most of us spend on travel per year, as it's not really something people with average budgets can swing so often or so easily. A cruise or Disney vacation to some, seems unattainable at any current price, but we're all still here paying it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[rukkian]

When companies are publicly owned, they start cutting a lot of corners in order to decrease expenses and provide shareholders with larger dividends, and customers start to notice and get unhappy, until it reaches a breaking point.

 

In this scenario, I think Royal was trying too hard to please the shareholders by not giving people refunds, and ended up potentially costing themselves a lot more money in a class action suit.

 

Heck I'm surprised the state of Texas didn't sue them for encouraging so many people to come to their state and stressing out their emergency services, food and water supplies, and evacuation shelters. What if Texas did sue? Do they also get a cruise credit? Haha!

 

I understood the argument that people had during that week, that it wouldn't be fair for those who chose not to buy insurance to be made whole with refunds, while those who paid more money and were responsible and purchased insurance were left wondering why they bothered shelling out the extra cash. But there were too many instances of people who did have insurance getting screwed over because their policies only cashed out if there was trip interruption, and for some reason, because Royal chose to simply change the day of the cruise, the cruise wasn't considered interrupted.

 

I also think the more important thing here was that Royal was telling people that it was perfectly safe to fly into a hurricane zone, which was contrary to evacuation orders from the state.

 

To me, it's not about whether the plaintiffs get millions, it's about Royal having to own up to their bad judgments and the danger they put their customers in.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I agree that they could have handled it better, but the fact that some people under bought insurance (didn't have coverage for what they wanted) is not RCI's fault. Everybody has the opportunity to buy insurance that covers everything, but they made the choice (either through choosing a cheaper option, or just being ignorant of what they purchased) to buy insurance that did not include cancel for any reason.

 

We did not purchase cancel for any reason, and are willing to that that risk for our next cruise. If there were a hurricane coming (unlikely in March), we would not drive or fly into it, even if it meant loosing the money we spent, we have more common sense than that.

 

In the end, the only person that will win this is the lawyers, on both sides more than likely.

[nealstuber]

I also think the more important thing here was that Royal was telling people that it was perfectly safe to fly into a hurricane zone, which was contrary to evacuation orders ..

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

I don’t think RCCL told anybody to fly into an area that was a hurricane zone. They don’t do planes. Anybody who flew in to Galveston to catch the ship did so before it became a hurricane zone, because the people who do do planes don’t fly them in to hurricanes.

 

Plaintiffs travelled in 2 days before the cruise, nobody told them to do that. They were told the ship was still planning to be there on schedule and if they were not they would not get their money back. Seems to me the prudent thing for this plaintiff to do would have been to change flights so they were not coming in so far ahead of the ship. Or just to have booked air 2 sea in the first place.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SRF]

Well, my original point was that businesses are going to charge as much money as their market will pay. While it may end up being too expensive for some, whether it's because they simply don't have that much money, or because they cap their vacation budgets at some amount they find reasonable, it's not RC or Carnival or Disney's job to care that they've left those people behind with their price hikes.

 

Your reply, I thought, was trying to say that it isn't fair when they raise their prices so high because it prices out families who used to frequent those vacation options. And my reply was that it didn't matter, because there were still enough people to fill the ships and hotels at higher prices, but that there was only so high they could go before they lose their ability to continue raising prices and still have enough customers.

 

Someone else had made the argument earlier that if RC lost this lawsuit, it would just make them raise prices, or would make them bankrupt, and then Carnival would buy them out and have a monopoly where they could charge exorbitant amounts. I was saying that wouldn't happen because a business can only charge what their market can bear.

 

But as you did say, that amount is pretty high. And I agree, it is high. But just because it might price some of us out at some point, that doesn't make them wrong, and it isn't a bad business decision as long as there's still a big enough market willing to pay that amount. I think a lot of people would be shocked to find out how much most of us spend on travel per year, as it's not really something people with average budgets can swing so often or so easily. A cruise or Disney vacation to some, seems unattainable at any current price, but we're all still here paying it.

 

Basic free market economics.

 

And if they suffer large losses, they either have to charge more or lose money, which leads to going out of business.

 

Unlike governments, they cannot just print more money.

 

But as you said, there is room for RCI to raise prices and still fill ships. Or at least, make more per cruise (higher prices but less people also means less staff, less food, etc). And they will play with the equation until they make back their losses on the suit.

 

BUT, no matter what the result of the suit, we, the customers will pay.

[xpcdoojk]

Basic free market economics.

 

And if they suffer large losses, they either have to charge more or lose money, which leads to going out of business.

 

Unlike governments, they cannot just print more money.

 

But as you said, there is room for RCI to raise prices and still fill ships. Or at least, make more per cruise (higher prices but less people also means less staff, less food, etc). And they will play with the equation until they make back their losses on the suit.

 

BUT, no matter what the result of the suit, we, the customers will pay.

Yep, and the class portion of the lawsuit if they win (which I fully doubt) will get peanuts and the lawyer portion of both parties will make out like bandits.

 

JC