When is compensation not compensation?

[FrankieSue]

We were travelling on the recent Zaandam cruise that had engine problems and we were bussed to Montreal from Quebec City as a result of this engine failure.  As I mentioned in a recent post, we were given some shipboard credits and offered a “compensation” equal to15% of the cruise base price paid, to be used within a year, on a future cruise.  To me “future cruise” means any cruise yet to come.  So this morning I called my cruise consultant to have this compensation applied to an upcoming cruise booked for the New Year.  I was quite surprised to be told that the compensation cannot be applied to our upcoming cruise because it was booked earlier than the cruise with the incident. (Final payment is not until November).. i am now questioning whether this compensation is really a compensation or if it is more a clever marketing strategy to get us to cruise again with Holland “give Holland another chance” ... what do you think? I think compensation should be compensation without any strings attached....

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, FrankieSue said:

We were travelling on the recent Zaandam cruise that had engine problems and we were bussed to Montreal from Quebec City as a result of this engine failure.  As I mentioned in a recent post, we were given some shipboard credits and offered a “compensation” equal to15% of the cruise base price paid, to be used within a year, on a future cruise.  To me “future cruise” means any cruise yet to come.  So this morning I called my cruise consultant to have this compensation applied to an upcoming cruise booked for the New Year.  I was quite surprised to be told that the compensation cannot be applied to our upcoming cruise because it was booked earlier than the cruise with the incident. (Final payment is not until November).. i am now questioning whether this compensation is really a compensation or if it is more a clever marketing strategy to get us to cruise again with Holland “give Holland another chance” ... what do you think? I think compensation should be compensation without any strings attached....

Cancel the cruise; then rebook it as a new cruise.

[DeeniEncinitas]

I was going to say the same thing!!!!!

Denise😊

[FrankieSue]

I would lose too many incentives.... i just feel that the compensation should be applied without any tricks or strings attached...

[canadianbear]

I’d escalate the request to a supervisor.  If they don’t allow this it would leave a sour taste in my mouth that’s for sure.  Good luck.  

[FrankieSue]

Thanks. I may take it further.

[taxmantoo]

Is "future cruise" not defined in the letter you received?  Impossible for anyone here to say either way without seeing the actual offer in writing.  All you will get here are people's assumptions, beliefs and guesses.

[FrankieSue]

No, it just says “future cruise”.  Plus, it would be as bad if Holland was playing “legality” of words.... compensation should be just that: to compensate you for an inconvenience, period... without any plays of words or strings.

[GeezerCouple]

This type of credit is really poor.  It *requires* that the customer repeat an experience with the vendor that may have seriously disappointed the customer. 

 

That might not be too bad if the next <whatever> is totally free, but to make the customer pay what is still a nice, tidy sum for that "privilege"...!??

 

In some cases:  "Such a deal"...!

😡

 

GC

Edited October 4, 2019 by GeezerCouple

[sail7seas]

I understand your point but do not think under the circumstances, HAL does  not  have   to compensate at all.   Is it HAL's fault the water level of the river made it impossible for the ship to safely sail beneath the bridge?  NO,  NOT their doing.       AT risk of being  told '   OH  Yah,    easy to say when it isn't you'   However, most here who have cruised a great deal through the years likely can tell a story of an incident when HAL provided us  a similar future cruise credit based  upon the amount of money we paid for the cruise during which the incident occurred .  My late DH and I always used those credits,  were more than satisfied and said  ' thank you' as we knew HAL did not have to  give anything and I truly  dislike and rarely use the word 'compensation.'

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by sail7seas

[sail7seas]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Cancel the cruise; then rebook it as a new cruise.

 

 

HAL is not 'stupid',  you do not think they may catch something of  the sort ?  You just might outsmart yourself and find you are  banned from booking future cruises.

 

 

JMO

 

 

 

[sail7seas]

50 minutes ago, FrankieSue said:

No, it just says “future cruise”.  Plus, it would be as bad if Holland was playing “legality” of words.... compensation should be just that: to compensate you for an inconvenience, period... without any plays of words or strings.   How was that inconvenience caused?  Is that relevant?

In accord with that way of thinking..........  who compensated HAL because there was so much melting  winter snow and lots of spring rain   Who can they complain to: ?  Mother Nature?   I don't have that address, does anyone?  It was an ACT of nature.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by sail7seas

[AncientWanderer]

Wasn't it some kind of engine problem?  Propulsion?  

[3rdGenCunarder]

10 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

I understand your point but do not think under the circumstances, HAL HAS to compensate at all.   Is it HAL's fault the water level of the river made it impowible for the ship to safely said beneath the bridge?  NO,  NOT their doing.      AT risk of being  told '   OH  Ya,    easy to say when it isn't you'  However, most here who have cruised a great deal through the years likely can tell a story of an incident when HAL provided us  a similar future cruise credit based  upon the amount of money we paid for the cruise during which the incident occurred .  My late DH and I always used those credits,  were more than satisfied and said  ' thank you' as we knew HAL did not have to  give anything and I truly  dislike and rarely use the word 'compensation.'

 

 

 

In general, I'm inclined to agree with you. We've all seen too many angry posts saying I WANT COMPENSATION for a small inconvenience. 

 

But this poster isn't demanding compensation. HAL chose to give passengers the future credit. IMO, the credit isn't generous if it's so limited. It doesn't say "new bookings only" the way so many promos do, so why can't it be used on an existing booking that will take place in the future? "To be used within a year" does that mean a cruise that departs within a year? Or used as a deposit within a year on a cruise for some point in the future? 

 

I don't think it's a marketing strategy to get people to book another cruise. It's a gesture that looks good, but HAL knows not everyone will use it. If someone is thinking maybe, but was put off by the inconvenience of the port problem (even though it wasn't HAL's fault), this might be an incentive to book again. But I doubt a lot of people will book a cruise only because they have the future credit. 

 

[sail7seas]

6 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

Wasn't it some kind of engine problem?  Propulsion?  

No,

 

The water level on the river (St. Lawrence) made it impossible for the ship to safely sail beneath  the bridge.So much melting winter snow and heavy spring rains.

 

 

The ship could  NOT sail until the water level  naturally  lowered.

 

 

Too bad OP left out that pertinent information.  It gives a much  more fair representation of the circumstances

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by sail7seas

[SilvertoGold]

HAL offered this compensation, the poster did not ask for it.  It would be good business sense if HAL were to allow it to be used on an already booked cruise.  OP can cancel that cruise and go elsewhere.  Why risk that?  Compensation of this sort is goodwill, a means of saying, "sorry for your inconvenience": how about across the board?

Edited October 4, 2019 by SilvertoGold

[canadianbear]

OP-I just remembered that something similar happened a few years back when we were on the Zaandam.  All passengers were given a certain percentage of their base fare towards a future cruise to be used within a year.   When I phoned to ask about it we were told as long as we paid a deposit within the year this money would be applied to the cruise.  In other words we didn’t have to cruise within the year but say we wanted the money used towards a booked cruise within the year but we weren’t taking for another 6 months after that.  Does that make sense?  Not sure I’m explaining it well.

[sail7seas]

 Silver to Gold

 

Clearly, I disagree and have stated my reasons why.

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by sail7seas

[kazu]

OP, are you sure there isn’t some more info on the back of your letter?  I’m not doubting you but from experience:

 

We had such an offer on our Westerdam cruise (and believe me, we missed ports and had a lot of bad weather 😉 )

 

It was clear in our offer that it had to be new booking and done by x time.

 

If you didn’t flip the letter over, you wouldn’t have noticed it.

 

I went back to my LIVE thread to find it.

 

This was on the back:

 

 

This is what was on the front:

 

[SilvertoGold]

26 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

In accord with that way of thinking..........  who compensated HAL because there was so much melting  winter snow and lots of spring rain   Who can they complain to: ?  Mother Nature?   I don't have that address, does anyone?  It was an ACT of nature.

 

 

Their insurance company?

[kazu]

3 minutes ago, canadianbear said:

OP-I just remembered that something similar happened a few years back when we were on the Zaandam.  All passengers were given a certain percentage of their base fare towards a future cruise to be used within a year.   When I phoned to ask about it we were told as long as we paid a deposit within the year this money would be applied to the cruise.  In other words we didn’t have to cruise within the year but say we wanted the money used towards a booked cruise within the year but we weren’t taking for another 6 months after that.  Does that make sense?  Not sure I’m explaining it well.

 

That was the case with us as well.  We just had to have it booked.  We didn’t have to sail by the deadline.

[sevenseasnomad]

24 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

Wasn't it some kind of engine problem?  Propulsion?  

Someone posted earlier that the engine was affected by a crab pot in Bar Harbor which later caused serious engine problems.

[GeorgeCharlie]

7 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

HAL is not 'stupid',  you do not think they may catch something of  the sort ?  You just might outsmart yourself and find you are  banned from booking future cruises.

 

 

JMO

 

 

 

 

Last year we had somewhat the same situation happen the us.

 

On a Zuiderdam cruise in Sept 2018, we also received a 15% FCC due to problems occurring on that cruise. As you can see in my review of that cruise (https://boards.cruisecritic.com.au/topic/2600192-review-of-visits-to-norwayicelandgreenland-on-fall-2018-cruise/?source=122648) (post #262), that I felt the problems were not the fault of HAL and that their offer of a 15% FCC credit was very generous. 

 

Like you, prior to departing on the 2018 cruise, we had already booked another cruise on the Zuiderdam for May of this year.

 

Like you - we wished to have the FFC applied to our already booked cruise and on our return, asked our PCC if it could be done without impacting any of the promotional extras we had received with our initial booking in May.

 

The PCC quickly "rebooked" (the booking number remained the same) using FCDs.

 

All of the previous extras remained, plus an added bonus of $300 OBC was added for booking a cruise after having recently returned from a cruise.

 

🙂 Overall, I found the whole transaction to be painless and fast - I had the revised booking confirmation within 15 minutes of making my request.

[SilvertoGold]

2 minutes ago, GeorgeCharlie said:

 

Last year we had somewhat the same situation happen the us.

 

On a Zuiderdam cruise in Sept 2018, we also received a 15% FCC due to problems occurring on that cruise. As you can see in my review of that cruise (https://boards.cruisecritic.com.au/topic/2600192-review-of-visits-to-norwayicelandgreenland-on-fall-2018-cruise/?source=122648) (post #262), that I felt the problems were not the fault of HAL and that their offer of a 15% FCC credit was very generous. 

 

Like you, prior to departing on the 2018 cruise, we had already booked another cruise on the Zuiderdam for May of this year.

 

Like you - we wished to have the FFC applied to our already booked cruise and on our return, asked our PCC if it could be done without impacting any of the promotional extras we had received with our initial booking in May.

 

The PCC quickly "rebooked" (the booking number remained the same) using FCDs.

 

All of the previous extras remained, plus an added bonus of $300 OBC was added for booking a cruise after having recently returned from a cruise.

 

🙂 Overall, I found the whole transaction to be painless and fast - I had the revised booking confirmation within 15 minutes of making my request.

Good for you being proactive about this! Great to have a good PCC, too.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, sail7seas said:

No,

 

The water level on the river (St. Lawrence) made it impossible for the ship to safely sail beneath  the bridge.So much melting winter snow and heavy spring rains.

 

 

The ship could  NOT sail until the water level  naturally  lowered.

 

 

Too bad OP left out that pertinent information.  It gives a much  more fair representation of the circumstances

 

 

 

The OP posted that it was due to engine problems on Zaandam, and this post seems to confirm it.

 

What is your source for saying that the water level caused the problem???