Catch -22 with Celebrity

[twodox]

I am a long-time fan of Celebrity, but they really dropped the ball this time.

 

We booked a May 28th cruise to Maine and Maritime Canada.  Yesterday we were notified that, because of government regulations, the itinerary was changed.  They dropped the Canadian ports and added Nassau, plus two additional days at sea, making 5 of 9 for the cruise.  This in not what we paid for and have no desire to visit Nassau again.

 

Furthermore, were we to attempt to board, we would be denied by their new policy, because we are both over 70 and have some chronic health issues.  To my mind, Celebrity has effectively canceled the cruise for us.

 

Despite several attempts, we were unable to get a full cash refund, but were only offered a credit for another cruise in 2020-21.  Given the uncertain length of their age restrictions, this credit is essentially useless.

 

We have two choices:

 

1. Cancel now and lose a part of our fare.
2. Wait and hope that they eventually cancel, at which time we would be eligible for a useless 125% credit or a 100% cash refund.  The problem is that the longer we wait, the smaller will be our refund.

 

This is truly a Catch-22 situation.

 

I was told that senior management cannot be reached.  We met President Lisa Lutoff-Perlo on the President's Cruise a few years ago.  I hope someone on her staff monitors this site and can do something to fix this problem.

 

We hope and expect to resume cruising once the crisis is over, but unless this situation is resolved satisfactorily, it won't be on Celebrity!

[Fouremco]

Granted, the cruise contract allows Celebrity to make port changes. However, at a certain point, they are no longer offering what they were selling as they have substantially changed the cruise. A Canada-New England cruise is not a Bahamas-New England cruise. These changes and the imposition of the health check for those 70 and older after you had paid in full nullify the contract in my view. The changes are understandable give the situation, but are nevertheless not what was agreed to under the contract. I doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see a court case to decide if Celebrity can carry on in this manner. Maybe it's time for passenger rights legislation for cruises, not just airlines.

[jelayne]

 

While I feel bad that your cruise is not what you hoped.   We  along with most who cruise frequently have had ports cancelled and replaced with different ports or sea days,  including the ports that were the ones we booked the cruise to see.   The change was certainly not one caused by Celebrity and  one well within the terms of the contract we all agree to when we book.

 

If the FCC isn't  a viable option for you do you have travel insurance that would cover the amount you would be out if you cancel?

[az_tchr]

29 minutes ago, twodox said:

I am a long-time fan of Celebrity, but they really dropped the ball this time.

 

We booked a May 28th cruise to Maine and Maritime Canada.  Yesterday we were notified that, because of government regulations, the itinerary was changed.  They dropped the Canadian ports and added Nassau, plus two additional days at sea, making 5 of 9 for the cruise.  This in not what we paid for and have no desire to visit Nassau again.

 

Furthermore, were we to attempt to board, we would be denied by their new policy, because we are both over 70 and have some chronic health issues.  To my mind, Celebrity has effectively canceled the cruise for us.

 

Despite several attempts, we were unable to get a full cash refund, but were only offered a credit for another cruise in 2020-21.  Given the uncertain length of their age restrictions, this credit is essentially useless.

 

We have two choices:

 

1. Cancel now and lose a part of our fare.
2. Wait and hope that they eventually cancel, at which time we would be eligible for a useless 125% credit or a 100% cash refund.  The problem is that the longer we wait, the smaller will be our refund.

 

This is truly a Catch-22 situation.

 

I was told that senior management cannot be reached.  We met President Lisa Lutoff-Perlo on the President's Cruise a few years ago.  I hope someone on her staff monitors this site and can do something to fix this problem.

 

We hope and expect to resume cruising once the crisis is over, but unless this situation is resolved satisfactorily, it won't be on Celebrity!

Suggest that you take your FCC and a 50% refund if the stress of uncertainty is too much.  Plan on booking a cruise next year when things have returned to normal.  If you cancel today you lose nothing.

The doctor's certification is that you are healthy enough to cruise.  The doctor's note is almost certainly going to be dropped when X resumes cruising.  Seems like a catch 22 but long term what do you think?  If everyone with asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes etc was not allowed to cruise then Celebrity would have ships half full.  Celebrity right now is not likely to cruise anywhere until COVID is done!  When that happens a doctor would sign a note saying you are healthy enough to cruise.  You should be able to cruise without a note by 2021.

  As to resuming cruises?  Do you think that can happen by May?  Not likely.

I think you are taking the policies of today as permanent.  They are not.  Cruiseline all have similar contracts and passengers have few rights.  The terms are similar for all CLIA members. 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by az_tchr

[Denny01]

I don’t track your two choices. I personally disagree with the 125% FCC being ‘useless’ considering that the age issue wouldn’t go beyond the current crisis and a Dr’s note should allow you unless your underlying is pretty major, but that’s just another opinion based on assumptions just as yours, and your statement that waiting means a refund would be ‘less’ doesn't seem to track. Why do you think a refund would be less. It’s a refund of what you paid, as others have reported receiving. I’m receiving a full refund from a RCL-related cruise line, and it’s RCL that decides this, not each Line under their control. Each Line decides what to do with their itineraries, but not business decisions such as this. So customers of RCL, Silverseas and Celebrity are reporting full refunds, whether it’s a month away or shorter times. 

 

And referring to Catch-22, watch out for those cats that want to sleep on your face!!!

 

Den

Edited March 25, 2020 by Denny01

[hcat]

I'd take the FCC.   Many think the med letter won't always be req or so stringent in the future.

 

What port is this supposed to leave from?   So many may still be closed by then.. but I'd go for most you can get now.. once done  less stress

[gerelmx]

June cruises changed Canada to Overnight in Bermudas

[Fouremco]

7 minutes ago, jelayne said:

 

We  along with most who cruise frequently have had ports cancelled and replaced with different ports or sea days,  including the ports that were the ones we booked the cruise to see.   The change was certainly not one caused by Celebrity and  one well within the terms of the contract we all agree to when we book.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. A port change is one thing, but changing your destination to another country over 2000km away is a very different thing. If you booked a Hawaiian cruise and they changed your destination to Anchorage, would you view it as being well within the terms of the contract? 

[twodox]

Thank you all for you helpful suggestions. Some responses:

 

• The cruise leaves from Port Liberty, NJ
• Our cancellation insurance only applies if we are too sick to travel.  Close call in this case.
• I am not as optimistic as some of you about the listing of the age/health restriction.
• I am still fairly certain that the cruise will be canceled, in which case the issue is moot.  They have canceled all cruises through May 11 and, despite what the president says, the situation is unlikely to improve.

Once again, thanks for your constructive replies.

[jelayne]

4 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. A port change is one thing, but changing your destination to another country over 2000km away is a very different thing. If you booked a Hawaiian cruise and they changed your destination to Anchorage, would you view it as being well within the terms of the contract? 

I might not like it but  yes  I would view it as being within the terms of the contract.  Also the change is not a change caused by X,  ships are not allowed to go to Canada

[RICCruisers]

Agree with Fouremco. Definitely not the cruise you paid for. Changing one Caribbean island for a different one or having a sea day because high winds don’t allow the ship to dock is totally understandable. Even a change of ports on a Mediterranean cruise is fine to me. Sailing to Nassau from New England and the back is absolutely wrong. 

 

You should be be able to cancel with no penalty. It’s not X’s fault but it’s not your fault either. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by RICCruisers

[Denny01]

Oh, I don’t know about being a very different itinerary.....Nassau is such a great place! Much more interesting than those same ole same ole dumb New Egland/Canadian ports!! I mean, wow, who wants to dine on lobster in pretty much every form and meal (yeah, I have lobster omelette, lobster sub followed by a full lobster for dinner!!), see beautiful forests and fantastic quaint villages on beautiful little islands.....that gets sooo boring. In Nassau, you get to dine at Jose Frogs and shop at some very exclusive Diamond store and get to see those 8 other 5,000+ passenger ships tied up next to you....I mean come on. 

 

Den

[omeinv]

24 minutes ago, RICCruisers said:

Agree with Fouremco. Definitely not the cruise you paid for. Changing one Caribbean island for a different one or having a sea day because high winds don’t allow the ship to dock is totally understandable. Even a change of ports on a Mediterranean cruise is fine to me. Sailing to Nassau from New England and the back is absolutely wrong. 

I completely agree that this is a drastic alteration.  However, the contract is 100% clear that no itinerary is promised.  I've seen it explained best on the Elliott Advocacy website:

 

"The problem, of course, is that cruises are unusual creatures. When you pay to take a cruise, you’re paying for a cabin on a ship, not a destination. This reality is true across the cruise industry around the world."

 

Fouremco's post above raises the idea of a court case, in which the huge change could be examined.  Alas, there would be a number of hurdles to clear, including the cost of filing the case in the court of jurisdiction )also agreed to when the customer enters into the contract.  For the sake of argument, if those hurdles were cleared, then the court looks at the party's behavior, judged against the "reasonable behavior" standard, and then decides based on the "totality of the circumstances".  If Celebrity decided on a change like this due to something like an increase in Canadian port fees, it MIGHT be deemed unreasonable.  In this case, Celebrity would have an almost ironclad defense, in the "Impossibility doctrine".  Canada has closed ports.  Celebrity is not choosing not to sail the planned itinerary, they're legally barred from doing so.  The deviation would thus almost certainly be deemed "reasonable".  Add to this that the totality of the circumstances in this case is the backdrop of the COVID-19 outbreak, that is affecting pretty much every aspect of daily life, and there's almost no hope the plaintiff would prevail. 

 

It's unfortunate, but this is a case where what we wish isn't going to help.  The fact is Celebrity has changed the itinerary, and would argue they're offering the most similar cruise they can given the circumstances.  While the original poster may wish the cruise would be cancelled, there are certainly other booked passengers that want the cruise to go forward, even with the different itinerary. 

 

Given the unfortunate position in which the original poster is in, it seems they have a decision between the two less than desirable options.  While others would certainly disagree, I rather expect this cruise will go forward with the altered itinerary.  Given the poster's aversion to accepting a future cruise credit, I'd suggest the partial loss now, with attempts to recoup any additional amounts from insurance, would likely be the best route.

 

Harris

Denver, CO

Edited March 25, 2020 by omeinv

[joeysmom220]

Since they’ve changed east coast ports from Nova Scotia Canada to Bermuda or Nassau, why didn’t they change Alaska ports to Mexico? Alaska cruises are just cancelled. The same should happen to Nova Scotia ports. It’s a whole different itinerary, not just a small change in ports!!  X dropped the ball here!  

[farawayatsea]

I wouldn't take FCC.  Strong likelihood that there will be bankruptcies in the cruise lines making the credit worthless.  Anyway the whole future of cruising as a vacation is in doubt.  I think it will take about 2 years before most people can be encouraged back on to a cruise ship. We have 10 cruises done we wouldn't consider cruising now.  More than likely your cruise in May will  be cancelled anyway - even if not very view will get on that ship. 

[hcat]

1 hour ago, twodox said:

Thank you all for you helpful suggestions. Some responses:

 

• The cruise leaves from Port Liberty, NJ
• Our cancellation insurance only applies if we are too sick to travel.  Close call in this case.
• I am not as optimistic as some of you about the listing of the age/health restriction.
• I am still fairly certain that the cruise will be canceled, in which case the issue is moot.  They have canceled all cruises through May 11 and, despite what the president says, the situation is unlikely to improve.

Once again, thanks for your constructive replies.

 

  A May 28th cruise from Port Liberty may or may not be a go.  Our Summit Mother's day cruise was recently  added to the cancelled list. If you feel it will be cancelled you can hang in for awhile like many on our roll call did,  They were rewarded with a refund!

 

 Much depends on how things are going in New Jersey which right now is under very strict rules...maybe X knows something we don't b/c I wonder why they would go to all this trouble to shift around ports???

 

Nassau is one of our least fav  ports but not the worst,..

[pumpkin 11]

34 minutes ago, farawayatsea said:

I wouldn't take FCC.  Strong likelihood that there will be bankruptcies in the cruise lines making the credit worthless.  Anyway the whole future of cruising as a vacation is in doubt.  I think it will take about 2 years before most people can be encouraged back on to a cruise ship. We have 10 cruises done we wouldn't consider cruising now.  More than likely your cruise in May will  be cancelled anyway - even if not very view will get on that ship. 

You could be right, or you could be wrong. Let me know when you can predict the future accurately and we’ll all come find you.
 

We were booked on the Summit May 2nd ( canceled). Now booked on the Equinox in June. We’ll just keep compounding the 125%. If they cancel again, we’ll book again. BTW the cruise lines are not going to be bankrupt with a 2.2 billion loan. Good talk fellow, your word is as good as anyone’s which means it’s worthless.

Edited March 25, 2020 by pumpkin 11

[RICCruisers]

Harris Omeinv - 

 

You May certainly be right about X’s legal argument and that some or many cruisers would prefer X to sail simply because any cruise is better than no cruise. 

 

I was thinking back back to an Intro to Law class I took about 35 years ago where the Reasonably Man Theory was applied. In my world a reasonable man would agree that the cruise X has designed is not close to what I purchased. If they added additional ports in New England or even the Mid Atlantic it would be closer to what I was expecting. The Straw Market and Diamonds International in Nassau does not compare to the quaint streets in Quebec City. 

 

Why not not give the guests the choice of a refund, FCC or taking the totally new itinerary. To me that is the way a company that values their customers would react as opposed to what X is proposing. But, I didn’t just take out a new 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR LOAN that put Celebrity and its ships up as collateral for the loan. 

 

PS - I was glad to see they have reopened the liquor stores an cannabis shops in Colorado. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by RICCruisers

[Bo1953]

3 hours ago, twodox said:

I am a long-time fan of Celebrity, but they really dropped the ball this time.

 

We booked a May 28th cruise to Maine and Maritime Canada.  Yesterday we were notified that, because of government regulations, the itinerary was changed.  They dropped the Canadian ports and added Nassau, plus two additional days at sea, making 5 of 9 for the cruise.  This in not what we paid for and have no desire to visit Nassau again.

 

Furthermore, were we to attempt to board, we would be denied by their new policy, because we are both over 70 and have some chronic health issues.  To my mind, Celebrity has effectively canceled the cruise for us.

 

Despite several attempts, we were unable to get a full cash refund, but were only offered a credit for another cruise in 2020-21.  Given the uncertain length of their age restrictions, this credit is essentially useless.

 

We have two choices:

 

1. Cancel now and lose a part of our fare.
2. Wait and hope that they eventually cancel, at which time we would be eligible for a useless 125% credit or a 100% cash refund.  The problem is that the longer we wait, the smaller will be our refund.

 

This is truly a Catch-22 situation.

 

I was told that senior management cannot be reached.  We met President Lisa Lutoff-Perlo on the President's Cruise a few years ago.  I hope someone on her staff monitors this site and can do something to fix this problem.

 

We hope and expect to resume cruising once the crisis is over, but unless this situation is resolved satisfactorily, it won't be on Celebrity!

Actually there is a third (3rd) choice:

 

#3) reach out to your 3rd party travel insurance company and explain the situation to see if they can assist in terms of getting money back from your policy, pending on when you choose or forced to or X cancels the sailing.

 

I Am sorry for the dilemma, not too good to be sure especially if the revised itinerary is not to your liking.

 

Good luck, in health and bon voyage

[Bo1953]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Granted, the cruise contract allows Celebrity to make port changes. However, at a certain point, they are no longer offering what they were selling as they have substantially changed the cruise. A Canada-New England cruise is not a Bahamas-New England cruise. These changes and the imposition of the health check for those 70 and older after you had paid in full nullify the contract in my view. The changes are understandable give the situation, but are nevertheless not what was agreed to under the contract. I doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see a court case to decide if Celebrity can carry on in this manner. Maybe it's time for passenger rights legislation for cruises, not just airlines.

As much as we like to exclaim that this is not what I paid for by contract, it is, as X and all other cruise lines in N.A. reserve the right to change, cancel or modify ports without notice or compensation, unfortunately.

 

After all, as much as one may not like it when it happens and it does, it is allowed and forms a part of the 'disclosed' COC and T&C's which we agree to upon sending in that initial and final payment....

 

bon voyage

[omeinv]

17 minutes ago, RICCruisers said:

Harris Omeinv - 

 

You May certainly be right about X’s legal argument and that some or many cruisers would prefer X to sail simply because any cruise is better than no cruise. 

 

I was thinking back back to an Intro to Law class I took about 35 years ago where the Reasonably Man Theory was applied. In my world a reasonable man would agree that the cruise X has designed is not close to what I purchased. If they added additional ports in New England or even the Mid Atlantic it would be closer to what I was expecting. The Straw Market and Diamonds International in Nassau does not compare to the quaint streets in Quebec City. 

 

Why not not give the guests the choice of a refund, FCC or taking the totally new itinerary. To me that is the way a company that values their customers would react as opposed to what X is proposing. But, I didn’t just take out a new 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR LOAN that put Celebrity and its ships up as collateral for the loan. 

 

PS - I was glad to see they have reopened the liquor stores an cannabis shops in Colorado. 

Well, again reasonableness is reviewed in light of the totality of the circumstances.  Hence my point about the reason for the deviation.   The cruise line has an objectively reasonable reason for the change.  The original itinerary is now not legally sailable.  This invokes the legal theory of the Doctrine of Impossibility.  Since the originally contracted action has become impossible, the cruise line has great latitude in amending the product. The fact that the new itinerary is worse (and I could not agree more that Nassau is a port to avoid) is irrelevant to the validity of the contract.

 

As above, I want to reiterate my understanding of the original poster's view that this is not fair.  However, contracts don't get reviewed for fairness at the time something is no longer desired by either party, but instead for legality at the time it was entered into. 

 

Harris

Denver, CO

Edited March 26, 2020 by omeinv

[RICCruisers]

Harris - You are totally correct in your legal interpretation of the contract.  

 

My point is that X is totally within their rights to make an offer in this highly unusual situation where at least 50% of the world is closed to cruise ships that gives their customers an option that meets their needs.  

 

But then I tend to live in a world with several shades of grey or is it gray rather than simply black and white. 

 

 

[joeysmom220]

Since they’ve changed east coast ports from Nova Scotia Canada to Bermuda or Nassau, why didn’t they change Alaska ports to Mexico? Alaska cruises are just cancelled. The same should happen to Nova Scotia ports. It’s a whole different itinerary, not just a small change in ports!!  They are treating each coat differently and that is unfair. I’m going 700 miles south on the right coast when I booked 700 miles north. Explain why if I leave from the left coast to go 1000 miles north it was right for X to cancel rather than go 1000 miles south. I just want to be treated the same. 

[omeinv]

19 minutes ago, RICCruisers said:

Harris - You are totally correct in your legal interpretation of the contract.  

 

My point is that X is totally within their rights to make an offer in this highly unusual situation where at least 50% of the world is closed to cruise ships that gives their customers an option that meets their needs.  

 

But then I tend to live in a world with several shades of grey or is it gray rather than simply black and white. 

 

 

Indeed, it would be lovely if they did.  I suspect they're having to look at a macro view of what's going on with all of the ships under the RCL umbrella, and that an offer like you suggest would be untenable from a financial point of view, when multiplied times the number of bookings involved. 

 

Harris

Denver, CO

[omeinv]

23 minutes ago, joeysmom220 said:

Since they’ve changed east coast ports from Nova Scotia Canada to Bermuda or Nassau, why didn’t they change Alaska ports to Mexico? Alaska cruises are just cancelled. The same should happen to Nova Scotia ports. It’s a whole different itinerary, not just a small change in ports!!  They are treating each coat differently and that is unfair. I’m going 700 miles south on the right coast when I booked 700 miles north. Explain why if I leave from the left coast to go 1000 miles north it was right for X to cancel rather than go 1000 miles south. I just want to be treated the same. 

You're right.  It is unfair. 

 

The cruise line is going to do all they can to salvage revenue from each booking.  This means reviewing each sailing in that light.

 

You want to be treated the same, but you won't be.  That is unfair. 

 

Again, contracts aren't required to be fair.  You entered the agreement without any inkling there would be a pandemic.  So did the cruise line.  The pandemic is not fair.  The contract isn't "fair" but it lays out what each party's obligations are.  The cruise line sees altering an itinerary as a way to salvage something from their unfair predicament.  You have several options, none of which appeal to you as much as the original cruise itinerary.  The original itinerary is no longer an option, and cancellation is not an option - at least at this moment. 

 

Which of the options that exist - not the options you wish existed - do you find the least distasteful?  None of them are fair.  Not to you and not to the cruise line.

 

Harris

Denver, CO

Edited March 26, 2020 by omeinv