Appalling behavior by Oceania management

[Paulchili]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

No..it's not abominable, it's the choice the poster made and they're not entitled to a second bite of the apple because they now regret making the choice. I canceled a cruise and paid a monetary cancellation penalty because I didn't like the looks of what was reading at the beginning of the pandemic,  before the cruise lines had even initiated their first modifications to their cancellation penalties

Been there, done that....

[Kate-AHF]

9 hours ago, njhorseman said:

No..it's not abominable, it's the choice the poster made and they're not entitled to a second bite of the apple because they now regret making the choice. I canceled a cruise and paid a monetary cancellation penalty because I didn't like the looks of what was reading at the beginning of the pandemic,  before the cruise lines had even initiated their first modifications to their cancellation penalties. The cruise line (not Oceania by the way) eventually canceled my cruise. I'm not going back and complaining about the fact that I could have gotten 100% of my fare refunded if I had decided to wait out the situation. I made a choice that I decided was in my own best interests and knew full well that I would have to pay a cancellation penalty. I accepted that then, and I accept it now. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I'm the one responsible for the consequences of my decisions, not a cruise line nor any other person or organization.

 

You know I respect you, and I am a proponent and practitioner of personal responsibility,  That said, I have been wrestling with this particular situation.  A situation that is truly extraordinary and unprecedented. 

 

At the heart of it is the feeling that the implied "too bad, so sad - you made the decision that cruising was an unacceptable risk before we finally caved" is simply not that ethical.  I'm not saying that it's not their right to enforce their contract/policies... just that I'm thinking it not the right thing to do.  

[Dick Barton]

From Oceania's standpoint under today's financial nightmare they face, contract

conditions will trump 'ethical' considerations.

 

We have both a FCC to use----and a separate Deposit to be still refunded-----more than enough if combined to cover a late 2020 Canada/USA Cruise if we were so inclined--and if the border reopens.

 

But if we wanted a 'premium' suite----at a cost higher than the combined outstanding dollar amount---------Oceania requests yet another upfront cash deposit now--despite not yet having sent the Cash Refund--without having in place any Cancellation Guarantee for Sailings after Sept 30.

 

So no worth the gamble to book----will wait for the Cash Deposit Refund---and hope FCC

works in 2021

[Kate-AHF]

12 minutes ago, Dick Barton said:

....But if we wanted a 'premium' suite----at a cost higher than the combined outstanding dollar amount---------Oceania requests yet another upfront cash deposit now--despite not yet having sent the Cash Refund--without having in place any Cancellation Guarantee for Sailings after Sept 30.

 

So no worth the gamble to book----will wait for the Cash Deposit Refund---and hope FCC

works in 2021

 

Oh, that's VErY interesting.  I need to call my TA.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Kate-AHF said:

 

You know I respect you, and I am a proponent and practitioner of personal responsibility,  That said, I have been wrestling with this particular situation.  A situation that is truly extraordinary and unprecedented. 

 

At the heart of it is the feeling that the implied "too bad, so sad - you made the decision that cruising was an unacceptable risk before we finally caved" is simply not that ethical.  I'm not saying that it's not their right to enforce their contract/policies... just that I'm thinking it not the right thing to do.  

First, thank you for the compliment.

 

I first entered the corporate world more than 50 years ago and during my working life I was employed by big corporations and also owned a couple of small businesses. One of the first lessons I learned is that the primary goal of all businesses is to make money for their owners, whether they are the stockholders of a big publicly traded corporation or the owner of a one person small business. While benevolence may very well contribute to the success of  a business because reputation will likely build their customer base,  in the end nothing more is required of a business beyond adherence to its contractual and other legal obligations.

 

In this time of crisis, when the cruise lines are fighting for their very existence I think it's unrealistic to expect them to behave in a benevolent manner and make exceptions to the rules for customers who now regret the decisions they've made. Let's face it...even in good times the cruise lines almost never made those types of exceptions. Over the years I've seen countless complaints posted on Cruise Critic about cruise lines refusing to provide a refund or FCC to passengers who didn't have trip cancellation insurance and had suffered an illness or death in the family just prior to their cruise embarkation date. While I can empathize with people in that predicament I also can't criticize the cruise line for refusing to make an exception to their cancellation provisions. If you make an exception for one customer, how can you draw the line between exception/no exception for others in the same situation? 

[Kate-AHF]

I too was raised, schooled and inoculated on the bottom line as Master and Commander.  Capitalism=good.  Regulation=bad.  Then came Enron, Global Crossing and 2007, and I began to experience a crisis in faith, as it were.

 

But getting back to O, I'm not sure you can conflate trying to get a last-minute refund in normal times... outside of the stated contract... with making a decision only to have the company move the goalpost 48 hours later.  I do get the bottom line/keeping afloat piece being the overriding concern for any company decisions these days.  I remain conflicted.

[Paulchili]

3 hours ago, Kate-AHF said:

 

You know I respect you, and I am a proponent and practitioner of personal responsibility,  That said, I have been wrestling with this particular situation.  A situation that is truly extraordinary and unprecedented. 

 

At the heart of it is the feeling that the implied "too bad, so sad - you made the decision that cruising was an unacceptable risk before we finally caved" is simply not that ethical.  I'm not saying that it's not their right to enforce their contract/policies... just that I'm thinking it not the right thing to do.  

Kate, I understand your sentiment, especially as I too am a "victim" of such a decision (different cruise line).

Under different circumstances and in more limited numbers, cruise lines might have shown goodwill but the odds of survival are greatly against them and they are fighting for their lives - literally. Cash is king and they can't hand it out as goodwill.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Paulchili

[Hanoverian]

Dick Barton,  I do not know who told you that a booking for a new cruise with a higher suite category means additional deposit money is required, but I would seriously question the validity of that premise.  I looked at our cruise cancellation letter from Oceania and no such condition appears in the letter.  In fact, the letter does not at all state that "additional terms and conditions apply" to the offer that Oceania made.  You made a "reasonable man" interpretation of the offer, an interpretation that anyone could reasonably have been expected to make based on how the offer was stated.  To now state that there terms related to that offer and you were not made aware of those terms by the party making that offer is dirty pool.  A party cannot in all fairness make an offer, withhold disclosure of qualifying terms or conditions, allow you to accept the offer (in effect, creating a contract), and then invoke those hidden terms and conditions when things are not going the offeror's way.  That creates an unlevel playing field.  We made end up in the same situation as you, but as I have had a career in contracts and our TA is also a lawyer, so we will make as much of a fuss over all of this as we can.   

[Fam_Cruise]

I think Dick Barton was referring to  'premium' suites, for which standard terms dictate that OC, VS and OS require a 20% deposit.  I am also under the impression from previous anecdotal cases reported here on CC that any reservation made with a FCC still requires a cash deposit if the FCC does not cover the full amount of the newly booked cruise, but I will let others who have actually done that share first hand info. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Fam_Cruise

[Dick Barton]

Fam_Cruise

 

Yes------Oceania requires a 20pct Deposit for e.g Vista level Cruise more than 120 days ahead if FCC value would not cover 100pct of Cruise Cost------but if at the same time they still hold e.g $10K unrefunded Deposit for another Cruise would have expected Oceania to combine both amounts to offset the need for any 2nd Cash Deposit.

 

That is not their Policy.

 

More importantly without any Cancellation Guarantee for sailings after Sept 30 any bookings for Oct/Dec Sailings at the moment seem a big gamble.  

 

[Hanoverian]

An unfortunate way to uncover this arcane policy, Dick Barton.  And certainly not very customer friendly.  IMO, these are the kind of policies that should be disclosed at the time that the refund and FCC offers are made.  Especially since such little time is given to decide if a refund is in one's best interest.  We were given two weeks to make a refund decision, which is what I am certain is the same amount of time that everyone is given.  Without a disclosure of the FCC offer terms and conditions, the customer may make an assumption which they may think is logical and fair to the customer only to find out things don't work that way after the refund window closes.  Certainly, one would think that reference could be made as to where these terms and conditions would be listed as they might be condensed into a page or two but, apparently, that is not how the game is played.  Again, not a level playing field as the one making the offer holds superior knowledge.  I am just glad that you found out in time to make the decisions that are best for you and thank you for sharing your findings with the rest of us.  

[clo]

12 hours ago, Kate-AHF said:

I too was raised, schooled and inoculated on the bottom line as Master and Commander.  Capitalism=good.  Regulation=bad.  Then came Enron, Global Crossing and 2007, and I began to experience a crisis in faith, as it were.

 

But getting back to O, I'm not sure you can conflate trying to get a last-minute refund in normal times... outside of the stated contract... with making a decision only to have the company move the goalpost 48 hours later.  I do get the bottom line/keeping afloat piece being the overriding concern for any company decisions these days.  I remain conflicted.

Very eloquent. Thank you.

[Mura]

Regarding premium suites, for our November 2017 cruise on Marina (Rome to Barcelona) our deposit for an OC was $4K.  I was thinking that we also had an earlier final payment date but in looking at our invoice that does not appear to be the case.  Still the deposit is significantly more than for lower cabins.

 

This was a 14 day cruise.

 

Mura

 

 

[LHT28]

9 hours ago, Mura said:

Regarding premium suites, for our November 2017 cruise on Marina (Rome to Barcelona) our deposit for an OC was $4K.  I was thinking that we also had an earlier final payment date but in looking at our invoice that does not appear to be the case.  Still the deposit is significantly more than for lower cabins.

 

This was a 14 day cruise.

 

Mura

 

 

That  may have been to discourage people booking top suites   then cancelling  before final payment  so O would have to lower the price  to sell the suite

Same  concept  with adding the admin fee  if you cancel  in that time frame

A few years back there was a story on some booking the insides  & top cabins   then cancelling  & forcing a price drop

[LJRVancouver]

Maybe part of this cash flow crunch could also be attributed to the $1 billion stock buybacks since the the start of 2018

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

On 4/18/2020 at 7:18 AM, CaptainR said:

In anticipation of a possible additional inquiry I will affirm that I have absolutely no direct knowledge if a passenger was infected by COVID-19 when they where onboard the Riviera nor has Oceania provided any confirmation as to whether a passenger was infected during the February 26 cruise. Oceania only confirmed that CDC provided notification to Oceania that a passenger who sailed on the February 26 sailing has tested posted for COVID-19.

 

@CaptainRThanks for the Oceania e-mail as well as anticipating the possible additional inquiry.  Most helpful!

[clo]

12 hours ago, LJRVancouver said:

Maybe part of this cash flow crunch could also be attributed to the $1 billion stock buybacks since the the start of 2018

Interesting. Could you talk more about this please?

[LJRVancouver]

3 hours ago, clo said:

Interesting. Could you talk more about this please?

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-cruise-line-is-aggressively-buying-back-its-own-stock-175122342.html

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

18 hours ago, LJRVancouver said:

Maybe part of this cash flow crunch could also be attributed to the $1 billion stock buybacks since the the start of 2018

 

5 hours ago, clo said:

Interesting. Could you talk more about this please?

 

2 hours ago, LJRVancouver said:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-cruise-line-is-aggressively-buying-back-its-own-stock-175122342.html

 

 

 

It's a very common practice by companies of all types. It artificially raises the stock price. This primarily benefits the insiders...senior corporate executives whose compensation is often heavily dependent on stock options and bonuses, as well the large institutional investors like the investment banks .

 

During the 2008 financial crisis some companies used their government bailout money to buy back their stock rather than to support their operations and keep employees working. This time around the rescue bill passed by Congress doesn't permit companies to do that . The money has to be used to keep people employed .

[Paulchili]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

This time around the rescue bill passed by Congress doesn't permit companies to do that . The money has to be used to keep people employed .

Theoretically.

Just like it is not supposed to be for companies like Ruth Chris and yet they got a good chunk of it and I am certain that they are not the only ones that it was not intended for leaving lots of small companies, for whom this was intended,  empty handed.

The Inspector General that was to oversee these transactions was suddenly fired before the process started by guess who.

[LJRVancouver]

Looks Like NCL Holdings now looking for Private Equity financing. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/19/private-equity-is-reportedly-circling-norwegian-cr.aspx

 

[LHT28]

5 minutes ago, LJRVancouver said:

Looks Like NCL Holdings now looking for Private Equity financing. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/19/private-equity-is-reportedly-circling-norwegian-cr.aspx

 

Do you  think they are the only company trying to stay afloat?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/royal-caribbean-draws-down-revolving-credit-lines-due-to-coronavirus-pandemic.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/07/carnival-stock-soars-after-saudi-sovereign-wealth-fund-discloses-stake.html

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

4 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Do you  think they are the only company trying to stay afloat?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/royal-caribbean-draws-down-revolving-credit-lines-due-to-coronavirus-pandemic.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/07/carnival-stock-soars-after-saudi-sovereign-wealth-fund-discloses-stake.html

 

 

 

Right...they're all in the same boat...no pun intended.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Paulchili said:

Theoretically.

Just like it is not supposed to be for companies like Ruth Chris and yet they got a good chunk of it and I am certain that they are not the only ones that it was not intended for leaving lots of small companies, for whom this was intended,  empty handed.

The Inspector General that was to oversee these transactions was suddenly fired before the process started by guess who.

Please...don't get me started...It will be interesting to see how many of his business ventures manage to slip between the cracks and get aid despite provisions in the legislation that were supposed to disallow it.

[pingpong1]

You fellas simply can't resist, can you?

Edited April 21, 2020 by pingpong1