Allure OTS: 3 year old child denied boarding due to Influenza.

[lbjen]

7 minutes ago, brillohead said:

 

 

 

The "for any reason" part would not apply, but the "someone got sick and can't go" part of the policy would still be in full force.

 

For all the griping and complaining in this thread, the fact of the matter is that Royal did their job by preventing a sick person from boarding.  The sick person's family has travel insurance to get their money back from, which is what they need to be doing -- not dunning Royal for "denial of boarding" paperwork or for refunds for people who weren't denied boarding.

It's NOT ROYAL'S JOB to insure everyone's trips.  We see it over and over and over again on this forum!  Someone has a death in the family  -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance.  Someone has gall bladder surgery -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance.  Someone fell down the stairs and broke their leg and can't travel -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance. 

 

Now it's someone got the flu -- but all of a sudden it's Royal's job to refund the trip, even though you actually have trip insurance?

And no, I don't work for the cruise line -- I'm just an intelligent, rational, logical person who can understand how businesses work and what personal responsibility is. 

 

It's not Royal's fault that some idiot held his granddaughter up to an open window and dropped her 100+ feet, and it's not Royal's fault that someone wanted to take their sick and contagious child on a cruise.  Personal responsibility, folks.  

Buy travel insurance and file a claim -- it's not Royal's job to refund the trip.

 

The point you are missing is that Royal would not deny you boarding for a funeral, gall bladder surgery or a broken leg. They wouldn’t ordinarily deny you boarding for the flu. But right now they are, and saying you will get a full refund if they do. Nobody is asking Royal to insure their trips. They’re asking them to deliver on their promise. 

[Mapleleafforever]

1 minute ago, lbjen said:

 

The point you are missing is that Royal would not deny you boarding for a funeral, gall bladder surgery or a broken leg. They wouldn’t ordinarily deny you boarding for the flu. But right now they are, and saying you will get a full refund if they do. Nobody is asking Royal to insure their trips. They’re asking them to deliver on their promise. 

Bingo. Not too much to ask for in my opinion. 

[brillohead]

Just now, lbjen said:

 

The point you are missing is that Royal would not deny you boarding for a funeral, gall bladder surgery or a broken leg. They wouldn’t ordinarily deny you boarding for the flu. But right now they are, and saying you will get a full refund if they do. Nobody is asking Royal to insure their trips. They’re asking them to deliver on their promise. 

YES, THEY WOULD DENY BOARDING FOR THE FLU ORDINARILY!!!!

This is nothing new, people.  If you've been feverish or puking/pooping your guts out or otherwise sickly, you're sent for secondary medical screening.  If it's determined you're contagious (or likely to be contagious), you're denied boarding. 

That's been the case for ages and ages.  This isn't a coronavirus thing -- it's a contagious illness thing.

 

[brillohead]

1 minute ago, Mapleleafforever said:

Bingo. Not too much to ask for in my opinion. 

 

So if you are sick the day before the cruise and can't fly to the port, Royal owes you nothing, but if you get sick on the day of the cruise, Royal owes you a full refund? 

How does that seem fair?

[lbjen]

Just now, brillohead said:

YES, THEY WOULD DENY BOARDING FOR THE FLU ORDINARILY!!!!

This is nothing new, people.  If you've been feverish or puking/pooping your guts out or otherwise sickly, you're sent for secondary medical screening.  If it's determined you're contagious (or likely to be contagious), you're denied boarding. 

That's been the case for ages and ages.  This isn't a coronavirus thing -- it's a contagious illness thing.

 

If they can’t tell by looking at you that you’re contagious, they don’t. And if you’re hopped up on Tylenol and tamiflu, you probably don’t look contagious. 

[brillohead]

1 minute ago, lbjen said:

If they can’t tell by looking at you that you’re contagious, they don’t. And if you’re hopped up on Tylenol and tamiflu, you probably don’t look contagious. 

Then that's on the cruiser for not telling the truth when asked a direct question, which is asked of everyone at boarding check-in.

 

But it still doesn't change the facts of this case.  Cruiser and family tried to get on board even knowing they had a contagious, sick child.... if they had just gone home and contacted their insurance company instead, they wouldn't have had to worry about retrieving their luggage, etc., and they wouldn't have been here complaining about getting a refund -- heck, they'd probably already have the check on its way in the mail by now!

[MoniMommy]

5 minutes ago, brillohead said:

 

So if you are sick the day before the cruise and can't fly to the port, Royal owes you nothing, but if you get sick on the day of the cruise, Royal owes you a full refund? 

How does that seem fair?

That is Royals stated policy. Why shouldn't they follow it.

 

Guests presenting with fever or low blood oximetry in the specialized health screenings will be denied boarding.

All guests who are denied boarding due to these restrictions will receive full refunds.

 

[lbjen]

Just now, brillohead said:

 

So if you are sick the day before the cruise and can't fly to the port, Royal owes you nothing, but if you get sick on the day of the cruise, Royal owes you a full refund? 

How does that seem fair?

An affected poster pointed this out a few weeks ago and the Royal fanboys threw him to the wolves. 

 

If you’re too physically sick to board a plane or drive a car, you’re too sick to be on a cruise. Too bad for you if you didn’t get insurance. If you’re not too physically sick to board a plane or drive a car or in fact board a cruise ship, but Royal’s new policy means you can’t board, you shouldn’t have to just suck that up. You can’t get insurance that covers you for having a fever high enough to deny you boarding but not high enough to disqualify you from traveling. That doesn’t exist. 

[brillohead]

2 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

That is Royals stated policy. Why shouldn't they follow it.

 

Guests presenting with fever or low blood oximetry in the specialized health screenings will be denied boarding.

All guests who are denied boarding due to these restrictions will receive full refunds.

 

They are following it -- they offered a refund to the child, who is the only one being denied boarding.  

The rest of the family members can get reimbursed through their travel insurance.  

 

[lbjen]

5 minutes ago, brillohead said:

Then that's on the cruiser for not telling the truth when asked a direct question, which is asked of everyone at boarding check-in.

 

But it still doesn't change the facts of this case.  Cruiser and family tried to get on board even knowing they had a contagious, sick child.... if they had just gone home and contacted their insurance company instead, they wouldn't have had to worry about retrieving their luggage, etc., and they wouldn't have been here complaining about getting a refund -- heck, they'd probably already have the check on its way in the mail by now!

Only if the nurse practitioner had been willing to certify the child as unable to travel, which might not have been the case.

[brillohead]

2 minutes ago, lbjen said:

An affected poster pointed this out a few weeks ago and the Royal fanboys threw him to the wolves. 

 

If you’re too physically sick to board a plane or drive a car, you’re too sick to be on a cruise. Too bad for you if you didn’t get insurance. If you’re not too physically sick to board a plane or drive a car or in fact board a cruise ship, but Royal’s new policy means you can’t board, you shouldn’t have to just suck that up. You can’t get insurance that covers you for having a fever high enough to deny you boarding but not high enough to disqualify you from traveling. That doesn’t exist. 

This is not a new policy.

If denied boarding for illness, travel insurance will cover it.  

What's the problem?

[brillohead]

1 minute ago, lbjen said:

Only if the nurse practitioner had been willing to certify the child as unable to travel, which might not have been the case.

A copy of the flu test that says "positive" should be all that is needed.  

[lbjen]

1 minute ago, brillohead said:

This is not a new policy.

If denied boarding for illness, travel insurance will cover it.  

What's the problem?

Allowing people to not board with a fever is new. Offering them a full refund because they’ve been denied boarding because of a fever is new. Have you been paying attention at all?

[lbjen]

1 minute ago, brillohead said:

A copy of the flu test that says "positive" should be all that is needed.  

Obviously you haven’t had to cancel any cruises and claim on your insurance recently. That’s not how it works, and I would know because I’m currently in the middle of doing it myself. 

[brillohead]

Just now, lbjen said:

If you deny a 3 year old child boarding, you can’t in good conscience say their parents have to sail without them. Get a grip. I know you’re probably terrified that Royal is going to raise your fares to cover all this but you’re losing sight of what’s right and wrong here.

I actually do agree that it would be good PR to offer at least FCCs to the traveling party.  

However, in this case, THEY HAVE TRAVEL INSURANCE.  The OP has decided to make this a big huge deal when it isn't.  

If they had stayed away from the terminal entirely, they would have had their luggage in their possession the entire time, and they already had the flu diagnosis in hand -- just go home and contact your insurance company. 

[Tree_skier]

23 minutes ago, brillohead said:

 

 

 

The "for any reason" part would not apply, but the "someone got sick and can't go" part of the policy would still be in full force.

 

For all the griping and complaining in this thread, the fact of the matter is that Royal did their job by preventing a sick person from boarding.  The sick person's family has travel insurance to get their money back from, which is what they need to be doing -- not dunning Royal for "denial of boarding" paperwork or for refunds for people who weren't denied boarding.

It's NOT ROYAL'S JOB to insure everyone's trips.  We see it over and over and over again on this forum!  Someone has a death in the family  -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance.  Someone has gall bladder surgery -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance.  Someone fell down the stairs and broke their leg and can't travel -- not Royal's job to refund the trip -- you should've had trip insurance. 

 

Now it's someone got the flu -- but all of a sudden it's Royal's job to refund the trip, even though you actually have trip insurance?

And no, I don't work for the cruise line -- I'm just an intelligent, rational, logical person who can understand how businesses work and what personal responsibility is. 

 

It's not Royal's fault that some idiot held his granddaughter up to an open window and dropped her 100+ feet, and it's not Royal's fault that someone wanted to take their sick and contagious child on a cruise.  Personal responsibility, folks.  

Buy travel insurance and file a claim -- it's not Royal's job to refund the trip.

Probably the most sensible post yet on this thread. 

 

OP, I'm sorry your child is sick. Hopefully, he/she recovers quickly. However, at a time when a global pandemic is looming no precaution taken to ensure the health and safety of 5000 other passengers should be seen as extreme.  You knowingly took your child to the cruise terminal with the flu.  This is an inexplicable decision to me but I understand everyone has different problem solving processes. You have insurance, file the claim, get the reimbursement you are entitled to and consider it a lesson learned.  Screeching to Royal about the inconvenience of having wait around for your luggage when it never should have been handed to the porters in the first place isn't going to advance your cause.

[BillHana]

Royal Corporate and Insurance company processing takes time. It may take several weeks or more and may require followup documentation to get the compensation you are due. Folks with virus related issues have reported on Cruise Critic forums that they received their refund or FCC's or both but took some time. Have patience and it will happen.

[motopolitico]

2 hours ago, Starry Eyes said:

You seem to be the one asserting that Royal has not issued paperwork.  I am asserting that the OP is delaying the resolution by demanding the wrong party reimbursed them.  The OP seems to be demanding revised paperwork rather than filing insurance.  Unlikely Royal has not provided a statement... more likely they did not like the statement, though with guidance from TA and insurance co they should have been fine.  Why has their TA not been helping them !?!

I don’t have documentation of the cancellations of the rest of my party, and RCCL keeps feeding garbage reasons for why they can’t provide it. We’ve been kept in limbo for a week now. I explained most of this in my OP. My insurance won’t process the claim without documentation. RCCL not only won’t produce said documentation, they refuse to communicate with me or my TA. I only came to the forum after days of trying on my own. I have received potential channels to pursue. Hopefully I can get unstuck soon.

[Journey99999]

WOW............ this post got mean fast. 
OP.............. THANK YOU for being honest about your child's fever, a few would not.
How is your child doing now? I hope better! 
Did you eventually get your luggage back?
I would suggest contacting Royal via Facebook messenger (calmly) 
tell them it has been over a week and you need HELP FROM THEM to file your insurance claim. 
From your original post on page 1 >>>>       

1. We can’t even file a claim against our travel insurance until RCI communicates with us. Fortunately we appear to have a valid trip interruption claim.

2. Kid fell sick on the day of travel. No time to get a doc letter beforehand, and RCCL would never take our word for it.
I hope all goes well for you. It's a weird time to travel right now. 
 

 

[Starry Eyes]

13 minutes ago, motopolitico said:

I don’t have documentation of the cancellations of the rest of my party, and RCCL keeps feeding garbage reasons for why they can’t provide it. We’ve been kept in limbo for a week now. I explained most of this in my OP. My insurance won’t process the claim without documentation. RCCL not only won’t produce said documentation, they refuse to communicate with me or my TA. I only came to the forum after days of trying on my own. I have received potential channels to pursue. Hopefully I can get unstuck soon.

Yeah, you’d have been better off if you had called your travel insurance company (and your TA if you needed support) as soon as the child became ill, and certainly as soon as you knew it was the flu.  It all would have been so much simpler and cleaner if you had not tried to board the ship.  It turned a simple insurance claim into a confused mess...while stressing a sick child and possibly spreading the flu.  But what is done is done.   Live and learn.

 

If I understand correctly, one passenger was denied boarding.  You thought they they would refund all.  Then you were told only the child....Didn’t you or your TA get a paperwork with the $ for the cancellation with those terms? 

 

 

[brillohead]

27 minutes ago, motopolitico said:

My insurance won’t process the claim without documentation. RCCL not only won’t produce said documentation, they refuse to communicate with me or my TA.

Have you submitted documentation about YOUR CHILD BEING SICK to the insurance company, rather than denial of boarding documentation?

That's the documentation you need... sick traveler = cancelled trip = trip insurance reimbursement.

 

[motopolitico]

23 minutes ago, brillohead said:

Have you submitted documentation about YOUR CHILD BEING SICK to the insurance company, rather than denial of boarding documentation?

That's the documentation you need... sick traveler = cancelled trip = trip insurance reimbursement.

 

Ever hear of insurance fraud? The insurance company wants confirmation that none of us took the cruise prior to paying out. RCCL prevaricated repeatedly and frustrated our attempts to obtain this most rudimentary information. 

[cruisequeen4ever]

First of all, thank you for telling Royal the truth! I know it really sucks, but you did the right thing. Secondly, I do believe that they should refund your whole family, since it’s obvious a 3 year old can’t care for himself/herself. Good luck pursuing this; I think you’ll get the refund in the end.

[LMaxwell]

10 hours ago, Biker19 said:

But, that does not mean the extended party (who were not/would not be denied boarding) will also get a full refund.

 

Child is a minor in same cabin.  

[reallyitsmema]

37 minutes ago, motopolitico said:

Ever hear of insurance fraud? The insurance company wants confirmation that none of us took the cruise prior to paying out. RCCL prevaricated repeatedly and frustrated our attempts to obtain this most rudimentary information. 

 

Who is your insurance through?  When we have cancelled, the cruise line sent information directly to the insurance company saying we cancelled, we did not receive anything in writing from the cruise line at all.