3 out of 5 ports cancelled. What compensation can we expect?

[bUU]

Under UK law (Sale of Goods Act etc) they have a duty to provide what they've sold as long as its within their power, and I strongly suspect there's similar legislation in the US,.

The laws of the United States and the United Kingdom differ greatly, especially as it pertains to consumer protection. This is one reason why it matters how you book your cruise, if you have an option to choose between making a booking domiciled in the US versus domiciled in the UK (or elsewhere for that matter).

 

Consumer protection actually varies from state to state in the United States, though for cruises, generally the laws of a specific state is indicated as that which will prevail regardless of where the passenger lives.

 

And terms & conditions can't contract you out of your legal rights under a contract made in the UK - again I strongly believe it's the same in the US.

The scope of the legal rights, themselves, are what varies. So, for example, in this case, the specific ports-of-call are explicitly excluded in the terms and conditions as component parts of the promise made within the agreement, and that's sufficient according to US law in most, if not all, states to leave no viable course of action in the case of cancellation or replacement of port calls (beyond reimbursement of port fees). From what you're saying, that kind of exculpatory clauses are not permitted by UK consumer protection law. That demonstrates this very significant difference.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I successfully claimed decent compensation for just one missed port due to ship's mechanical failure, though it took a great deal of effort and if the cruise line hadn't capitulated it actually wouldn't have been worth the cost vs benefit of testing it in a Court of Law.

It is important to note that your experience is not evidence of what you have claimed about UK law (though what you claimed may still be the case - I'm just saying that your experience isn't evidence of it, for the reasons I list next). The cruise line does the same analysis as you just did: What is worth the cost vs benefit of offering some compensation versus no compensation? Very often, even the United States, companies will offer compensation when they are not legally required to provide any. They do so in the interest of guest recovery, public relations, and the costs of dealing with disputes. I'm sure companies in the UK care about guest satisfaction, publicity, and operating costs as well.

[Nic6318]

Hi

 

As mentioned the compensation offered is likely as much as will be received, especially since they continue to sell the same itinerary without a resolution of the issue.

 

I do sympathize for any new cruiser, who like myself many years ago, would not likely be familiar with the fine print and may actually have expected be delivered the product they thought they paid for. After the first time and feeling screwed, I still continue to cruise, with a better understanding. Most of the time, reading about "complications" (usually on this site) I feel that the cruise lines do try to be fair in their compensation but I also realize that trying to get more is often not worth the effort.

 

It always starts with their absolute need to maximize profits. They won't cancel a cruise unless they have to. They may or may not change ports as they see fit, but that supposes that it is possible and the cost to do so is not too great.

 

Looking at the scenario in this thread, I think of how many people this past summer were complaining about how affected cruise lines were not cancelling cruises that were going to be impacted by oncoming hurricanes. Their flights were cancelled but their cruise wasn't. The cruise lines waited till the last possible minute. People on this site were saying that the cruise lines were forcing them to travel to areas that were being evacuated...come on people. People have to make their own rational decisions even if it costs them money.

 

The bottom line is that you are the customer, but there is an agreement in place that favors the cruise line in cases like these. As the customer the strongest statement that you can make if totally dissatisfied is to not purchase their product again. There are cruise lines that provide a "vacation guarantee"...they allow you a refund before first port, but that doesn't help your ruined vacation. Luckily there are many cruise lines, if you are not happy with one, find one that you are happy with.

[bUU]

Luckily there are many cruise lines, if you are not happy with one, find one that you are happy with.

Of course, that often just results in jumping from frying pan into the fire.

 

 

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

[Nic6318]

Of course, that often just results in jumping from frying pan into the fire.

 

 

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

 

 

hi

 

Well...looking at it an other way, how many times would you patronize a business that you didn't feel treated you right? Personally, I don't give too many second chances, unless there is a good history.

[bUU]

hi

 

Well...looking at it an other way, how many times would you patronize a business that you didn't feel treated you right? Personally, I don't give too many second chances, unless there is a good history.

My point is that switching to another supplier that treats you the same way is counterproductive: The distinction is between a supplier that truly doesn't "treat you right" and one that you "feel" doesn't. There is a difference between changing suppliers (a) when you determine that one supplier is qualitatively inferior to the one you would switch to, and (b) when you are upset with a situation that would be the same regardless of supplier. If you don't take the extra step to differentiate between (a) and (b) then you are as likely as not just setting yourself up for disappointment over and over again as you engage with the marketplace.

 

If you react to disappointment, i.e., scenario (b), rather than respond to a determination, i.e., scenario (a), then are better off sticking with the same provider gaining familiarity and the benefits of loyalty. The reality is that a whole class of cruise lines are qualitatively inferior, in terms of what we're taking about on this thread. To respond to this with integrity, one would want to switch to a different (and yes surely more expensive) class of cruise line.

 

 

 

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

[maryann2]

Actually John, we are over 65 and over 70 and have not experienced anything like the increase you experienced, and we have been with them for at least 5 years. One of the advantages they have over other companies, is that they will exclude some pre-existing medical conditions, which helps keep their premiums [in my opinion] quite reasonable. For our latest renewal, for example, their premium was half that of the quote provided by Avanti.

Why would you take the risk of having pre-existing medical conditions excluded ?

[maryann2]

Given the nature of the plague risk, it seems ridiculous for any line to still sell itineraries stopping in Madagascar in December. It is bad enough that upcoming Caribbean itineraries still include ports which are likely to remain unavailable at time of sailing due to slow recovery from storm --- but when a world health crisis is in the cards, "business as usual" just does not cut it.

Although the website includes Madagascar as a port if one tries to book it as such "error" appears so obviously not being sold.

[jlp20]

Hi. jlp,

 

Yes, the cruise lines do their damnest to cover their backside in their terms & conditions, much as in a lot of other industries.

 

But, with respect, you've perhaps fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the book .

Many terms and conditions are actually unenforceable, & put there simply to dissuade folk from pursuing a claim.

Under UK law (Sale of Goods Act etc) they have a duty to provide what they've sold as long as its within their power, and I strongly suspect there's similar legislation in the US,. And terms & conditions can't contract you out of your legal rights under a contract made in the UK - again I strongly believe it's the same in the US.

Appreciated that you've given a hypothetical example, but if the ship stays put for a week the cruise line isn't meeting their end of the deal and is gonna have to come up with a damned good excuse.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I successfully claimed decent compensation for just one missed port due to ship's mechanical failure, though it took a great deal of effort and if the cruise line hadn't capitulated it actually wouldn't have been worth the cost vs benefit of testing it in a Court of Law.

And had the port been missed due to something like health issues (the core of this thread) or local political instability or weather or other factors outside the cruise line's control, I'm pretty certain the cruise line's terms & conditions would be valid.

 

JB :)

(Barrack-room lawyer ;))

 

US laws here. Any legal action has to be done in country of ship registry. So if I want to sue Princess, I have to go to Bermuda to follow through. From just posts on these boards I recall 15-20 posts where legal actions were shut down long before they started

[bUU]

US laws here. Any legal action has to be done in country of ship registry. So if I want to sue Princess, I have to go to Bermuda to follow through. From just posts on these boards I recall 15-20 posts where legal actions were shut down long before they started

Princess' contract for US booked voyages disagrees: "the resolution of any and all disputes between Carrier and any Guest shall be governed exclusively and in every respect by the general maritime law of the United States without regard to its choice of law principles, except in cases involving death arising outside the United States which shall be governed exclusively by the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30301,*et seq. You agree this choice of law provision replaces, supersedes and preempts any provision of law of any state or nation to the contrary."

 

I suppose if the ship collides with your yacht in the open ocean perhaps the laws of the Bahamas would apply. Otherwise the laws of the venue of the cruise contract apply. When you book a cruise you are booking in accordance with a specific legal venue. For American passengers booking US-based cruise Lines the venue is generally the US.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[dsrdsrdsr]

US laws here. Any legal action has to be done in country of ship registry. So if I want to sue Princess, I have to go to Bermuda to follow through. From just posts on these boards I recall 15-20 posts where legal actions were shut down long before they started

Doesn't apply in the UK. If you sell something in the UK, you can't exclude UK laws.

[navybankerteacher]

Why would you take the risk of having pre-existing medical conditions excluded ?

 

If you are in generally good health, you are extremely unlikely to have unknown pre-existing medical conditions. So why pay significantly higher premiums to insure against a risk which is virtually certain to be non-existent?

[maryann2]

If you are in generally good health, you are extremely unlikely to have unknown pre-existing medical conditions. So why pay significantly higher premiums to insure against a risk which is virtually certain to be non-existent?

Of course I am not talking about unknown pre-existing but known conditions which have purposely not been insured for. Seems the company mentioned has a lower price for not including these.

[bUU]

Doesn't apply in the UK. If you sell something in the UK, you can't exclude UK laws.

However, UK residents can choose to purchase things outside of the UK if they wish. Some do so to capitalize on lower fares available to US purchases.

 

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

[4cornwall]

So what did the cruise ship do instead of visiting Madagascar - did it just circle around the ocean?

[4cornwall]

There is already a short thread about this on the Costa board. EM

 

Hi - what is the URL for the Costa board?

[Go-Bucks!]

"Full compensation" as in a full refund of your cruise fare? Ain't going to happen, no way, no how. The ship consumed fuel, fed you, entertained you.

Not necessarily.

 

In 2015, our ship (Grand Princess) had an engine fire that knocked out half of the engines and we missed 3 ports (Hawaii, Maui and Kauai). Puttered into Honolulu and stayed 2 days while they tried to fix the engines but to no avail. They offered 2 options: 1) Stay on the ship heading back to Ensenada, then to San Francisco - getting cruise fare fully returned, a 50% of fare as a cruise credit and $200 refundable OBC on the current cruise. Or: 2) Princess would fly you back to SF at no charge, fully return cruise fare, give a 25% cruise credit and the $200 OBC. A very generous offer!

We chose to stay on the cruise and had a great time with fabulous weather. Our compensation got us 2 cruises in full suites!

 

I'm not saying what Costa should do, just that it's not true that "ain't going to happen, no way, no how." ;)

[Travel mad]

So what did the cruise ship do instead of visiting Madagascar - did it just circle around the ocean?

They gave us an extra day in Seychelles and Reunion plus another sea day. . Some passengers managed to get compensation . I've had nothing but a lame apology.Costa are still advertising this cruise on some of their websites knowing full well that they are not going to Madagascar. Also heard that the itinerary we eventually did is now offered at a much lower rate. I don't have a problem with price reductions as I accept that when I book, it's at a price I am happy to pay however when I book for 5 stops and get 2 I do feel short changed. I fully appreciate the fact that many contributors to this blog find this acceptable but that doesn't mean it's A-ok for me right now.

[ontheweb]

Not necessarily.

 

In 2015, our ship (Grand Princess) had an engine fire that knocked out half of the engines and we missed 3 ports (Hawaii, Maui and Kauai). Puttered into Honolulu and stayed 2 days while they tried to fix the engines but to no avail. They offered 2 options: 1) Stay on the ship heading back to Ensenada, then to San Francisco - getting cruise fare fully returned, a 50% of fare as a cruise credit and $200 refundable OBC on the current cruise. Or: 2) Princess would fly you back to SF at no charge, fully return cruise fare, give a 25% cruise credit and the $200 OBC. A very generous offer!

We chose to stay on the cruise and had a great time with fabulous weather. Our compensation got us 2 cruises in full suites!

 

I'm not saying what Costa should do, just that it's not true that "ain't going to happen, no way, no how." ;)

 

There is a large difference between it is their fault (a problem with the ship), and not their fault (an outbreak of the plague in the advertised port). That would account for the difference in compensation.)

[John Bull]

There is a large difference between it is their fault (a problem with the ship), and not their fault (an outbreak of the plague in the advertised port). That would account for the difference in compensation.)

 

 

Yes, very much in line with my thoughts, and my previous post about missing a port due to mechanical issues - though in my case the cruise line didn't make a generous offer, it had to be squeezed out of them.

With the reason being plague at those ports, Costa are on much stronger ground.

 

4cornwall.

Welcome to Cruise Critic.

Costa forum at https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=138

You can see the long list of forums by clicking on the arrow at "Forum Jump" near the bottom of the page you're now on.

 

JB :)

[navybankerteacher]

Yes, very much in line with my thoughts, and my previous post about missing a port due to mechanical issues - though in my case the cruise line didn't make a generous offer, it had to be squeezed out of them.

With the reason being plague at those ports, Costa are on much stronger ground.

 

JB :)

 

Well put - considering phrasing ("Costa are" rather than "Costa is") as well as content.

[SRF]

There is a large difference between it is their fault (a problem with the ship), and not their fault (an outbreak of the plague in the advertised port). That would account for the difference in compensation.)

 

Similar to airlines. If the plane breaks or crew issues, they have to feed you, provide a place to stay, and onward travel, possibly on another airline.

 

If it is weather related, they have to eventually get you to your destination. NOTHING else.

[4cornwall]

They gave us an extra day in Seychelles and Reunion plus another sea day. . Some passengers managed to get compensation . I've had nothing but a lame apology.Costa are still advertising this cruise on some of their websites knowing full well that they are not going to Madagascar. Also heard that the itinerary we eventually did is now offered at a much lower rate. I don't have a problem with price reductions as I accept that when I book, it's at a price I am happy to pay however when I book for 5 stops and get 2 I do feel short changed. I fully appreciate the fact that many contributors to this blog find this acceptable but that doesn't mean it's A-ok for me right now.

 

Thank you Travel Mad, I am booked on the same cruise departing Mauritius 23 December so am interested to know if it will call into Madagascar. I booked well before the plague reached such proportions so I really don't have any recourse on refunds etc. However I have not had advice from either Costa or my travel agent on any changes. I have asked both via email for an update.

Thanks again

[bUU]

Similar to airlines. If the plane breaks or crew issues, they have to feed you, provide a place to stay, and onward travel, possibly on another airline.

To be clear, airlines only have to feed you and provide a place to stay if you are at connecting point in your itinerary, and even that is iffy.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[John Bull]

To be clear, airlines only have to feed you and provide a place to stay if you are at connecting point in your itinerary, and even that is iffy.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Hi bUU,

 

Presumably you're referring to flights within the US.

Are you 100% sure of your facts - even for flights within the US? :confused:

 

For most flights involving an EU airport, eg London, Paris etc to NYC, you're entitled to food and accommodation, regardless of the cause of the delay or cancellation. And the carrier doesn't always have to be an EU airline.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Your-rights/Your-rights-when-you-fly/

 

For flights elsewhere in the world, most airlines' terms comply with the rules of IATA.

Whilst IATA's own website is shy of telling you your rights (they're more interested in the rights of their members than those of the flying public), those rights are more-easily found on various websites such as

https://www.airfarewatchdog.co.uk/blog/18753748/guide-to-air-passenger-rights/?mcid=24290&source=52421&traqparam=12335034-8248024-68756X1559477X74b959bfb9d1d2c4672d43839928f1d2

https://www.tripsavvy.com/your-rights-if-flight-is-cancelled-3267546

 

Many airlines, like cruise lines, try to deny that they have legal obligations. Are you sure you're not adding to their myths?

If folk swallow those myths without their own research they won't give themselves a chance of redress.

I'm not saying that rights are as good as they should be, but I do have serious doubts about your assertion that passengers are only covered at connections.

 

JB :)

[SRF]

To be clear, airlines only have to feed you and provide a place to stay if you are at connecting point in your itinerary, and even that is iffy.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

I am not sure that is right. As they do not know if you are home, leaving, or heading back and therefore have no place to stay.

 

But the only time I had an issue, was returning home, but the cause was a weather delay, so they were off the hook any way.