Sky Princess Arriving Early in Southampton

[HaroldLeslie]

1 minute ago, Lady Arwen said:

This is usually the case, but there are times when a deviation of the norm is allowed.  The current scenario is certainly not what would be considered normal.  

HMRC can be an awkward bunch. There is the question of VAT on all purchases and a gambling licence for the casino. The cross channel ships all have to close their offerings.

[texasjones]

14 minutes ago, HaroldLeslie said:

There are people who might be considering a cruise and are comparing experiences on various cruise lines. From the point of view of the cruise company you would prefer to attract as many customers as possible and some would be put off by stories such as these.

 

As a service provider they level of ‘compensation’ needs to be set at a level that keeps the majority of its customers happy. There will always be a few who will complain about the slightest inconvenience but if there is significant discontent then the payment is probably too low.

Very much appreciate the counterpoint and -- for everyone else -- I'm back on the thread! [And prepare yourself for a long post, really do hope you read it all.] We've been enjoying the rough seas up through our docking in Southampton this evening, and I only thought to check the responses before I went to bed. I'd be a pretty poor lawyer if I shrunk from a legitimate and good-natured debate! I think it's fascinating reading the different perspectives on compensation when things unexpectedly 'go wrong' on a cruise. 

For those not onboard but have a voyage booked on Sky Princess, rest assured: the ship is beautifully fitted, the crew very kind and accommodating, and the evening entertainment is some of the best we've experienced at sea (-- if you have a chance to hear Elaine Gray, get to the theater/club venue as soon as the doors open, she's brilliant). Even the food, which we've always considered Princess' weak spot, was better than expected and, in some cases, spectacular. Most importantly, the Caymus never ran out at Vines 😉 So we have no complaint with the voyage itself. As many of you have pointed out, though, travel is inherently unpredictable, particularly when you're traveling by sea during the winter and shoulder seasons. Got it. There's a reason why our contracts of carriage absolve the cruise operator for weather-related delays/inconveniences/disruptions. If I filed suit claiming otherwise, I'd be rightly laughed out of court. We all agreed to a one-sided contract. There's no arguing otherwise. 

With that said, and I thought I articulated this in an earlier post....our complaint lies solely with Princess HQ/corporate. There are many ways a company can respond when things, like our voyage, 'go wrong', namely: (A) honoring a warranty or guarantee (for goods), (B) compensation (for experiences), and (C) sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing, knowing [or perhaps hoping] that the majority of its customers won't challenge their decision. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, so why would one bother? In a post-Covid world, when multibillion dollar companies post record profits yet continue to search for ways to nickel and dime their customers, I err on the side of questioning corporate decisionmaking. This is a Princess cruise forum. Aren't you a little peeved at Princess' continued cutbacks to our loyalty program, the hours-long wait to speak with a Princess representative on the phone, the degradation of the [fill in the blank] soft product you once valued, all in spite of Princess raising its fare prices? I sure am. The suits bank on our apathy. And you can bet the suits are taking such apathy into account when determining compensation amounts when things 'go wrong'. If the suits sense you'll be content with crumbs, crumbs you shall receive. 

I've read some posts excusing, or perhaps justifying, Princess' $100 non-refundable OBC "gesture of goodwill" as reasonable because this was (A) a repositioning cruise and (B) (I assume?) the average cost per passenger was lower than a typical TA cruise. We booked this voyage quite early because I knew I needed to be in London for work and thought the "Moroccan Passage" advertised by Princess would be more enjoyable than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways. Forgive me, and I do hate throwing out dollar amounts because they tend to skew an argument, but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard (inclusive of Princess Premier). So this wasn't exactly a bargain basement -discount voyage for us, although we certainly recognize the value we received by booking this particular cruise. But let's address money. We considered adding a fourth room at the end of February and saw that fares had dropped significantly. I vaguely remember interior rooms being marketed for <$600 and balcony rooms for <$1000 -- an almost too-good-to-be-true value for any cruise operator, much less for a line like Princess. If I paid $600 for a 14-day TA cruise and received $100 in compensation, I'd consider Princess' offer to be incredibly generous. For us, less so. We've experienced several cruises where ports were cancelled or our cruise was diverted early. For comparative data points, here's what we received as compensation:

(1) Regent - one missed port: $500 OBC 

(2) Regent - one missed port: $500 future cruise credit 

(3) Crystal [RIP] - one missed port: $270 OBC 

(4) Cunard - one missed port: $100 OBC 

(5) Celebrity - returned to end destination a day early due to a medical emergency: one night refunded (which we felt was incredibly generous)

(6) Seabourn - one missed port which was almost immediately substituted with an alternate port due to poor weather: $0 (no harm, no foul, and we enjoyed exploring the substitute port) 

(7) Seabourn - two missed ports: $750 future cruise credit (which was subsequently increased to $1500 and $100 in OBC)

[(8) Princess - for a 14-day TA, two of three missed ports with no substitutions, diverting to destination 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities due to regulatory requirements: $100 non-refundable OBC] 

 

Notice an outlier? 

 

When your cruise operator cancels two of your three ports and diverts your 14-day cruise to return 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities you paid for and expected to use....you know, let's just say we were expecting more than $100 in non-refundable OBC. With our Princess Premier packages, we're struggling to figure out how we can spend the $100 tomorrow. The shops are now closed, the casino is closed. I suppose we can buy a bottle of wine? Or book a Princess excursion into Southampton when the storm we just escaped rolls ashore with 40 mph sustained winds? Tempting, tempting. 

Which takes me back to my original point: When things go wrong, compensation reflects a company's empathy for their customers' frustrated experience. We lost two ports of call. We're sitting dockside in Southampton unable to leave with multiple ship facilities closed. Even more egregious, and I'm sure few passengers realize this, but Princess elected to charge every passenger the Southampton dockage fees and tax TWICE to account for us arriving on Thursday rather than Saturday. That's why your folio only reflects a refund of $25.29. Instead of bearing the cost of docking early, Princess decided to pass along the cost of the disruptions to us. Sure, it's a nominal amount. But Princess HQ/corporate's penny pinching doesn't exactly endear me to their business practices. I don't pretend to be someone special. I'm a nobody, as most of us are. Losing my business won't trouble any Princess executive. But if you're tired of being nickel and dimed at every possible turn, then we, as customers, should pay attention to how companies treat us nobodies when extraordinary circumstances come into play. For us, for my family, all we expected was a little empathy, an acknowledgement that our $20,000 cruise was materially disrupted. $100 in non-refundable OBC we can't spend wasn't it. 

I suspect most of those responding in this forum can absorb a loss when their cruise 'goes wrong'. And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out asking for loose change, pleading for a handout. But for those onboard, those who saved and sacrificed to experience a once-in-a-lifetime TA crossing, the couple who are now sitting moored in Southampton 1.5 days early, being double charged for a port, without facilities they paid for, after missing two of the three ports they were looking forward to visiting? I dunno. We feel that Princess HQ/corporate could've been more understanding, more empathic for the disruptions we all experienced. 

[And re: insurance claims, as so many of you have highlighted, neither of our two insurance policies covers missed ports. Perhaps a difference between U.S. and UK/European insurance packages? Regardless, an expectation for insurance -- something you contracted for and are legally entitled to --doesn't negate a cruise ship operator from recognizing an extraordinary disruption and offering its passengers an empathetic and fair token of goodwill.]

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, texasjones said:

than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways.

 

3 hours ago, texasjones said:

but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard

 

3 hours ago, texasjones said:

And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out

 

3 hours ago, texasjones said:

I'm a nobody

To be honest, it looks very much as if you are trying very hard to tell us that you certainly are not a nobody ! 

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by wowzz

[HaroldLeslie]

All fair points especially the bit about charging extra fees for the extended stay in Southampton. If it were purely a question of safety then the ship could have sheltered at anchor off the east coast of the Isle of Wight.

 

There are plenty of other ships travelling through the Western Channel including the Irish ferry W.B. Yeats. Indeed, Iona is at present rounding the north west corner of Spain. Something doesn’t quite ring true to me but I’m not onboard so I’m not too bothered about it but from my experience $100 that you can’t easily spend does seem rather light.

 

[Ron the Rev]

4 hours ago, texasjones said:

Very much appreciate the counterpoint and -- for everyone else -- I'm back on the thread! [And prepare yourself for a long post, really do hope you read it all.] We've been enjoying the rough seas up through our docking in Southampton this evening, and I only thought to check the responses before I went to bed. I'd be a pretty poor lawyer if I shrunk from a legitimate and good-natured debate! I think it's fascinating reading the different perspectives on compensation when things unexpectedly 'go wrong' on a cruise. 

For those not onboard but have a voyage booked on Sky Princess, rest assured: the ship is beautifully fitted, the crew very kind and accommodating, and the evening entertainment is some of the best we've experienced at sea (-- if you have a chance to hear Elaine Gray, get to the theater/club venue as soon as the doors open, she's brilliant). Even the food, which we've always considered Princess' weak spot, was better than expected and, in some cases, spectacular. Most importantly, the Caymus never ran out at Vines 😉 So we have no complaint with the voyage itself. As many of you have pointed out, though, travel is inherently unpredictable, particularly when you're traveling by sea during the winter and shoulder seasons. Got it. There's a reason why our contracts of carriage absolve the cruise operator for weather-related delays/inconveniences/disruptions. If I filed suit claiming otherwise, I'd be rightly laughed out of court. We all agreed to a one-sided contract. There's no arguing otherwise. 

With that said, and I thought I articulated this in an earlier post....our complaint lies solely with Princess HQ/corporate. There are many ways a company can respond when things, like our voyage, 'go wrong', namely: (A) honoring a warranty or guarantee (for goods), (B) compensation (for experiences), and (C) sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing, knowing [or perhaps hoping] that the majority of its customers won't challenge their decision. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, so why would one bother? In a post-Covid world, when multibillion dollar companies post record profits yet continue to search for ways to nickel and dime their customers, I err on the side of questioning corporate decisionmaking. This is a Princess cruise forum. Aren't you a little peeved at Princess' continued cutbacks to our loyalty program, the hours-long wait to speak with a Princess representative on the phone, the degradation of the [fill in the blank] soft product you once valued, all in spite of Princess raising its fare prices? I sure am. The suits bank on our apathy. And you can bet the suits are taking such apathy into account when determining compensation amounts when things 'go wrong'. If the suits sense you'll be content with crumbs, crumbs you shall receive. 

I've read some posts excusing, or perhaps justifying, Princess' $100 non-refundable OBC "gesture of goodwill" as reasonable because this was (A) a repositioning cruise and (B) (I assume?) the average cost per passenger was lower than a typical TA cruise. We booked this voyage quite early because I knew I needed to be in London for work and thought the "Moroccan Passage" advertised by Princess would be more enjoyable than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways. Forgive me, and I do hate throwing out dollar amounts because they tend to skew an argument, but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard (inclusive of Princess Premier). So this wasn't exactly a bargain basement -discount voyage for us, although we certainly recognize the value we received by booking this particular cruise. But let's address money. We considered adding a fourth room at the end of February and saw that fares had dropped significantly. I vaguely remember interior rooms being marketed for <$600 and balcony rooms for <$1000 -- an almost too-good-to-be-true value for any cruise operator, much less for a line like Princess. If I paid $600 for a 14-day TA cruise and received $100 in compensation, I'd consider Princess' offer to be incredibly generous. For us, less so. We've experienced several cruises where ports were cancelled or our cruise was diverted early. For comparative data points, here's what we received as compensation:

(1) Regent - one missed port: $500 OBC 

(2) Regent - one missed port: $500 future cruise credit 

(3) Crystal [RIP] - one missed port: $270 OBC 

(4) Cunard - one missed port: $100 OBC 

(5) Celebrity - returned to end destination a day early due to a medical emergency: one night refunded (which we felt was incredibly generous)

(6) Seabourn - one missed port which was almost immediately substituted with an alternate port due to poor weather: $0 (no harm, no foul, and we enjoyed exploring the substitute port) 

(7) Seabourn - two missed ports: $750 future cruise credit (which was subsequently increased to $1500 and $100 in OBC)

[(8) Princess - for a 14-day TA, two of three missed ports with no substitutions, diverting to destination 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities due to regulatory requirements: $100 non-refundable OBC] 

 

Notice an outlier? 

 

When your cruise operator cancels two of your three ports and diverts your 14-day cruise to return 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities you paid for and expected to use....you know, let's just say we were expecting more than $100 in non-refundable OBC. With our Princess Premier packages, we're struggling to figure out how we can spend the $100 tomorrow. The shops are now closed, the casino is closed. I suppose we can buy a bottle of wine? Or book a Princess excursion into Southampton when the storm we just escaped rolls ashore with 40 mph sustained winds? Tempting, tempting. 

Which takes me back to my original point: When things go wrong, compensation reflects a company's empathy for their customers' frustrated experience. We lost two ports of call. We're sitting dockside in Southampton unable to leave with multiple ship facilities closed. Even more egregious, and I'm sure few passengers realize this, but Princess elected to charge every passenger the Southampton dockage fees and tax TWICE to account for us arriving on Thursday rather than Saturday. That's why your folio only reflects a refund of $25.29. Instead of bearing the cost of docking early, Princess decided to pass along the cost of the disruptions to us. Sure, it's a nominal amount. But Princess HQ/corporate's penny pinching doesn't exactly endear me to their business practices. I don't pretend to be someone special. I'm a nobody, as most of us are. Losing my business won't trouble any Princess executive. But if you're tired of being nickel and dimed at every possible turn, then we, as customers, should pay attention to how companies treat us nobodies when extraordinary circumstances come into play. For us, for my family, all we expected was a little empathy, an acknowledgement that our $20,000 cruise was materially disrupted. $100 in non-refundable OBC we can't spend wasn't it. 

I suspect most of those responding in this forum can absorb a loss when their cruise 'goes wrong'. And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out asking for loose change, pleading for a handout. But for those onboard, those who saved and sacrificed to experience a once-in-a-lifetime TA crossing, the couple who are now sitting moored in Southampton 1.5 days early, being double charged for a port, without facilities they paid for, after missing two of the three ports they were looking forward to visiting? I dunno. We feel that Princess HQ/corporate could've been more understanding, more empathic for the disruptions we all experienced. 

[And re: insurance claims, as so many of you have highlighted, neither of our two insurance policies covers missed ports. Perhaps a difference between U.S. and UK/European insurance packages? Regardless, an expectation for insurance -- something you contracted for and are legally entitled to --doesn't negate a cruise ship operator from recognizing an extraordinary disruption and offering its passengers an empathetic and fair token of goodwill.]

 

4 hours ago, texasjones said:

Very much appreciate the counterpoint and -- for everyone else -- I'm back on the thread! [And prepare yourself for a long post, really do hope you read it all.] We've been enjoying the rough seas up through our docking in Southampton this evening, and I only thought to check the responses before I went to bed. I'd be a pretty poor lawyer if I shrunk from a legitimate and good-natured debate! I think it's fascinating reading the different perspectives on compensation when things unexpectedly 'go wrong' on a cruise. 

For those not onboard but have a voyage booked on Sky Princess, rest assured: the ship is beautifully fitted, the crew very kind and accommodating, and the evening entertainment is some of the best we've experienced at sea (-- if you have a chance to hear Elaine Gray, get to the theater/club venue as soon as the doors open, she's brilliant). Even the food, which we've always considered Princess' weak spot, was better than expected and, in some cases, spectacular. Most importantly, the Caymus never ran out at Vines 😉 So we have no complaint with the voyage itself. As many of you have pointed out, though, travel is inherently unpredictable, particularly when you're traveling by sea during the winter and shoulder seasons. Got it. There's a reason why our contracts of carriage absolve the cruise operator for weather-related delays/inconveniences/disruptions. If I filed suit claiming otherwise, I'd be rightly laughed out of court. We all agreed to a one-sided contract. There's no arguing otherwise. 

With that said, and I thought I articulated this in an earlier post....our complaint lies solely with Princess HQ/corporate. There are many ways a company can respond when things, like our voyage, 'go wrong', namely: (A) honoring a warranty or guarantee (for goods), (B) compensation (for experiences), and (C) sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing, knowing [or perhaps hoping] that the majority of its customers won't challenge their decision. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, so why would one bother? In a post-Covid world, when multibillion dollar companies post record profits yet continue to search for ways to nickel and dime their customers, I err on the side of questioning corporate decisionmaking. This is a Princess cruise forum. Aren't you a little peeved at Princess' continued cutbacks to our loyalty program, the hours-long wait to speak with a Princess representative on the phone, the degradation of the [fill in the blank] soft product you once valued, all in spite of Princess raising its fare prices? I sure am. The suits bank on our apathy. And you can bet the suits are taking such apathy into account when determining compensation amounts when things 'go wrong'. If the suits sense you'll be content with crumbs, crumbs you shall receive. 

I've read some posts excusing, or perhaps justifying, Princess' $100 non-refundable OBC "gesture of goodwill" as reasonable because this was (A) a repositioning cruise and (B) (I assume?) the average cost per passenger was lower than a typical TA cruise. We booked this voyage quite early because I knew I needed to be in London for work and thought the "Moroccan Passage" advertised by Princess would be more enjoyable than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways. Forgive me, and I do hate throwing out dollar amounts because they tend to skew an argument, but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard (inclusive of Princess Premier). So this wasn't exactly a bargain basement -discount voyage for us, although we certainly recognize the value we received by booking this particular cruise. But let's address money. We considered adding a fourth room at the end of February and saw that fares had dropped significantly. I vaguely remember interior rooms being marketed for <$600 and balcony rooms for <$1000 -- an almost too-good-to-be-true value for any cruise operator, much less for a line like Princess. If I paid $600 for a 14-day TA cruise and received $100 in compensation, I'd consider Princess' offer to be incredibly generous. For us, less so. We've experienced several cruises where ports were cancelled or our cruise was diverted early. For comparative data points, here's what we received as compensation:

(1) Regent - one missed port: $500 OBC 

(2) Regent - one missed port: $500 future cruise credit 

(3) Crystal [RIP] - one missed port: $270 OBC 

(4) Cunard - one missed port: $100 OBC 

(5) Celebrity - returned to end destination a day early due to a medical emergency: one night refunded (which we felt was incredibly generous)

(6) Seabourn - one missed port which was almost immediately substituted with an alternate port due to poor weather: $0 (no harm, no foul, and we enjoyed exploring the substitute port) 

(7) Seabourn - two missed ports: $750 future cruise credit (which was subsequently increased to $1500 and $100 in OBC)

[(8) Princess - for a 14-day TA, two of three missed ports with no substitutions, diverting to destination 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities due to regulatory requirements: $100 non-refundable OBC] 

 

Notice an outlier? 

 

When your cruise operator cancels two of your three ports and diverts your 14-day cruise to return 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities you paid for and expected to use....you know, let's just say we were expecting more than $100 in non-refundable OBC. With our Princess Premier packages, we're struggling to figure out how we can spend the $100 tomorrow. The shops are now closed, the casino is closed. I suppose we can buy a bottle of wine? Or book a Princess excursion into Southampton when the storm we just escaped rolls ashore with 40 mph sustained winds? Tempting, tempting. 

Which takes me back to my original point: When things go wrong, compensation reflects a company's empathy for their customers' frustrated experience. We lost two ports of call. We're sitting dockside in Southampton unable to leave with multiple ship facilities closed. Even more egregious, and I'm sure few passengers realize this, but Princess elected to charge every passenger the Southampton dockage fees and tax TWICE to account for us arriving on Thursday rather than Saturday. That's why your folio only reflects a refund of $25.29. Instead of bearing the cost of docking early, Princess decided to pass along the cost of the disruptions to us. Sure, it's a nominal amount. But Princess HQ/corporate's penny pinching doesn't exactly endear me to their business practices. I don't pretend to be someone special. I'm a nobody, as most of us are. Losing my business won't trouble any Princess executive. But if you're tired of being nickel and dimed at every possible turn, then we, as customers, should pay attention to how companies treat us nobodies when extraordinary circumstances come into play. For us, for my family, all we expected was a little empathy, an acknowledgement that our $20,000 cruise was materially disrupted. $100 in non-refundable OBC we can't spend wasn't it. 

I suspect most of those responding in this forum can absorb a loss when their cruise 'goes wrong'. And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out asking for loose change, pleading for a handout. But for those onboard, those who saved and sacrificed to experience a once-in-a-lifetime TA crossing, the couple who are now sitting moored in Southampton 1.5 days early, being double charged for a port, without facilities they paid for, after missing two of the three ports they were looking forward to visiting? I dunno. We feel that Princess HQ/corporate could've been more understanding, more empathic for the disruptions we all experienced. 

[And re: insurance claims, as so many of you have highlighted, neither of our two insurance policies covers missed ports. Perhaps a difference between U.S. and UK/European insurance packages? Regardless, an expectation for insurance -- something you contracted for and are legally entitled to --doesn't negate a cruise ship operator from recognizing an extraordinary disruption and offering its passengers an empathetic and fair token of goodwill.]

Well put, thank you.

[Bedruthen]

The reply from Texasjones has completely nailed everything which is wrong with the offer from Princess. As long as people believe that each soft lowering of the offering is acceptable, then Princess will continue to lower the boundaries as to what their customers will tolerate. The losers will ultimately be the people who defend them the strongest, as the rest of us will have already voted with our money and jumped. As for charging passengers for the additional dock charges for the night in Southampton, I am speechless. I only hope that it is an error. 

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, Bedruthen said:

As for charging passengers for the additional dock charges for the night in Southampton, I am speechless

On that I am totally in agreement. Very poor show. 

[lucas34]

When I first saw the 25.29USD refund in Casalanca and La Coruña port fees, I thought there is something strange here. And now we know, Princess postponed the additional time in the port of Southampton to be paid for by passengers.

 

Having followed the international cruise sector for over 30 years, a really wrong move by the cruise line.

 

During February-March, Princess ran a tough austerity program; tip increase, theme restaurant price increase, menu changes. And more to come...

 

Although the following matter does not apply to this Sky Princess's TA cruise, it is still current on many cruise lines.
Cruise ships' problems with the number of staff have been widely publicized. During the pandemic, it became very clear what the different cruise lines thought about their staff...those who could have corona were kept in the same cabin with a healthy colleague (and soon the cabin mate was also sick) or locked in a small inside cabin...so it's no wonder that many people's mental health was shaken and they didn't want to return to work on ships again.

[david63]

1 hour ago, Bedruthen said:

As for charging passengers for the additional dock charges for the night in Southampton, I am speechless

I would take a different view. On the basis that Princess refund port charges when a port is missed is not reasonable that when another port is added that passengers should be charged the additional port charges? You can't have it both ways.

[the penguins]

1 hour ago, Bedruthen said:

The reply from Texasjones has completely nailed everything which is wrong with the offer from Princess. As long as people believe that each soft lowering of the offering is acceptable, then Princess will continue to lower the boundaries as to what their customers will tolerate. The losers will ultimately be the people who defend them the strongest, as the rest of us will have already voted with our money and jumped. As for charging passengers for the additional dock charges for the night in Southampton, I am speechless. I only hope that it is an error. 

 

1 hour ago, Bedruthen said:

The reply from Texasjones has completely nailed everything which is wrong with the offer from Princess. As long as people believe that each soft lowering of the offering is acceptable, then Princess will continue to lower the boundaries as to what their customers will tolerate. The losers will ultimately be the people who defend them the strongest, as the rest of us will have already voted with our money and jumped. As for charging passengers for the additional dock charges for the night in Southampton, I am speechless. I only hope that it is an error. 

Has it?

we managed to spend our goodwill gesture payment without difficulty. It was made very clear when the shops and casino would be closed.

no one is trapped on the ship - Princess are providing a free all day shuttle service into the town.

Where is the evidence of the extra port tax?

Whatever price you paid we all suffered the same changes and received the same “gesture”. 
We have suffered no really bad weather and with exception of yesterday have used our balcony every day.

 

 

[david63]

11 hours ago, HaroldLeslie said:

There are people who might be considering a cruise and are comparing experiences on various cruise lines. From the point of view of the cruise company you would prefer to attract as many customers as possible and some would be put off by stories such as these.

But shouldn't potential cruise passengers be aware of all the possible scenarios?

[molly-patch]

5 hours ago, texasjones said:

Very much appreciate the counterpoint and -- for everyone else -- I'm back on the thread! [And prepare yourself for a long post, really do hope you read it all.] We've been enjoying the rough seas up through our docking in Southampton this evening, and I only thought to check the responses before I went to bed. I'd be a pretty poor lawyer if I shrunk from a legitimate and good-natured debate! I think it's fascinating reading the different perspectives on compensation when things unexpectedly 'go wrong' on a cruise. 

For those not onboard but have a voyage booked on Sky Princess, rest assured: the ship is beautifully fitted, the crew very kind and accommodating, and the evening entertainment is some of the best we've experienced at sea (-- if you have a chance to hear Elaine Gray, get to the theater/club venue as soon as the doors open, she's brilliant). Even the food, which we've always considered Princess' weak spot, was better than expected and, in some cases, spectacular. Most importantly, the Caymus never ran out at Vines 😉 So we have no complaint with the voyage itself. As many of you have pointed out, though, travel is inherently unpredictable, particularly when you're traveling by sea during the winter and shoulder seasons. Got it. There's a reason why our contracts of carriage absolve the cruise operator for weather-related delays/inconveniences/disruptions. If I filed suit claiming otherwise, I'd be rightly laughed out of court. We all agreed to a one-sided contract. There's no arguing otherwise. 

With that said, and I thought I articulated this in an earlier post....our complaint lies solely with Princess HQ/corporate. There are many ways a company can respond when things, like our voyage, 'go wrong', namely: (A) honoring a warranty or guarantee (for goods), (B) compensation (for experiences), and (C) sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing, knowing [or perhaps hoping] that the majority of its customers won't challenge their decision. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, so why would one bother? In a post-Covid world, when multibillion dollar companies post record profits yet continue to search for ways to nickel and dime their customers, I err on the side of questioning corporate decisionmaking. This is a Princess cruise forum. Aren't you a little peeved at Princess' continued cutbacks to our loyalty program, the hours-long wait to speak with a Princess representative on the phone, the degradation of the [fill in the blank] soft product you once valued, all in spite of Princess raising its fare prices? I sure am. The suits bank on our apathy. And you can bet the suits are taking such apathy into account when determining compensation amounts when things 'go wrong'. If the suits sense you'll be content with crumbs, crumbs you shall receive. 

I've read some posts excusing, or perhaps justifying, Princess' $100 non-refundable OBC "gesture of goodwill" as reasonable because this was (A) a repositioning cruise and (B) (I assume?) the average cost per passenger was lower than a typical TA cruise. We booked this voyage quite early because I knew I needed to be in London for work and thought the "Moroccan Passage" advertised by Princess would be more enjoyable than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways. Forgive me, and I do hate throwing out dollar amounts because they tend to skew an argument, but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard (inclusive of Princess Premier). So this wasn't exactly a bargain basement -discount voyage for us, although we certainly recognize the value we received by booking this particular cruise. But let's address money. We considered adding a fourth room at the end of February and saw that fares had dropped significantly. I vaguely remember interior rooms being marketed for <$600 and balcony rooms for <$1000 -- an almost too-good-to-be-true value for any cruise operator, much less for a line like Princess. If I paid $600 for a 14-day TA cruise and received $100 in compensation, I'd consider Princess' offer to be incredibly generous. For us, less so. We've experienced several cruises where ports were cancelled or our cruise was diverted early. For comparative data points, here's what we received as compensation:

(1) Regent - one missed port: $500 OBC 

(2) Regent - one missed port: $500 future cruise credit 

(3) Crystal [RIP] - one missed port: $270 OBC 

(4) Cunard - one missed port: $100 OBC 

(5) Celebrity - returned to end destination a day early due to a medical emergency: one night refunded (which we felt was incredibly generous)

(6) Seabourn - one missed port which was almost immediately substituted with an alternate port due to poor weather: $0 (no harm, no foul, and we enjoyed exploring the substitute port) 

(7) Seabourn - two missed ports: $750 future cruise credit (which was subsequently increased to $1500 and $100 in OBC)

[(8) Princess - for a 14-day TA, two of three missed ports with no substitutions, diverting to destination 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities due to regulatory requirements: $100 non-refundable OBC] 

 

Notice an outlier? 

 

When your cruise operator cancels two of your three ports and diverts your 14-day cruise to return 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities you paid for and expected to use....you know, let's just say we were expecting more than $100 in non-refundable OBC. With our Princess Premier packages, we're struggling to figure out how we can spend the $100 tomorrow. The shops are now closed, the casino is closed. I suppose we can buy a bottle of wine? Or book a Princess excursion into Southampton when the storm we just escaped rolls ashore with 40 mph sustained winds? Tempting, tempting. 

Which takes me back to my original point: When things go wrong, compensation reflects a company's empathy for their customers' frustrated experience. We lost two ports of call. We're sitting dockside in Southampton unable to leave with multiple ship facilities closed. Even more egregious, and I'm sure few passengers realize this, but Princess elected to charge every passenger the Southampton dockage fees and tax TWICE to account for us arriving on Thursday rather than Saturday. That's why your folio only reflects a refund of $25.29. Instead of bearing the cost of docking early, Princess decided to pass along the cost of the disruptions to us. Sure, it's a nominal amount. But Princess HQ/corporate's penny pinching doesn't exactly endear me to their business practices. I don't pretend to be someone special. I'm a nobody, as most of us are. Losing my business won't trouble any Princess executive. But if you're tired of being nickel and dimed at every possible turn, then we, as customers, should pay attention to how companies treat us nobodies when extraordinary circumstances come into play. For us, for my family, all we expected was a little empathy, an acknowledgement that our $20,000 cruise was materially disrupted. $100 in non-refundable OBC we can't spend wasn't it. 

I suspect most of those responding in this forum can absorb a loss when their cruise 'goes wrong'. And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out asking for loose change, pleading for a handout. But for those onboard, those who saved and sacrificed to experience a once-in-a-lifetime TA crossing, the couple who are now sitting moored in Southampton 1.5 days early, being double charged for a port, without facilities they paid for, after missing two of the three ports they were looking forward to visiting? I dunno. We feel that Princess HQ/corporate could've been more understanding, more empathic for the disruptions we all experienced. 

[And re: insurance claims, as so many of you have highlighted, neither of our two insurance policies covers missed ports. Perhaps a difference between U.S. and UK/European insurance packages? Regardless, an expectation for insurance -- something you contracted for and are legally entitled to --doesn't negate a cruise ship operator from recognizing an extraordinary disruption and offering its passengers an empathetic and fair token of goodwill.]

The points you make are all relevant and very articulate.  I agreed with your original post, although some questioned why? as I wasn’t on the ship, and I thought the negative responses you received were very unfair, also from others that were not on the ship🤷‍♂️.  For this reason I decided to post a comment to support your view.  I was then asked how much I wanted in compensation and I even attracted negative comments on  the ships Roll Calls, which I find very distasteful and disappointing.  I support everything you have said, which has nothing to do with the Captains decision or the safety of the passengers.  No doubt he made the correct decision. The point was and is about the below par goodwill gesture from Princess, not for missing ports but for what you have lost by docking early.  I just hope you can enjoy the rest of your time on board whilst docked in Southampton.

[molly-patch]

17 minutes ago, david63 said:

I would take a different view. On the basis that Princess refund port charges when a port is missed is not reasonable that when another port is added that passengers should be charged the additional port charges? You can't have it both ways.

I don’t think you pay for the disembarkation port, and this was not another port that was added to the cruise.

[david63]

2 minutes ago, molly-patch said:

I don’t think you pay for the disembarkation port, and this was not another port that was added to the cruise.

It was another day alongside which would incur port charges.

[lucas34]

5 minutes ago, molly-patch said:

I don’t think you pay for the disembarkation port, and this was not another port that was added to the cruise.

Cruise pax pay port taxes at the embarkation, ports-of-call as well as at disembarkation ports.

[molly-patch]

6 minutes ago, lucas34 said:

Cruise pax pay port taxes at the embarkation, ports-of-call as well as at disembarkation ports.

Thank you for clarifying 👍🏻

[lucas34]

8 minuuttia sitten molly-patch sanoi:

Kiitos selvenyksestä👍🏻

You are welcome. Port taxes are a whole "world of their own" in this business...to increase tourism, the destination can pay the cruise line x amount of money for each cruise passenger, in addition to this, the passengers naturally pay port fees for the destination in question...the port gives the ship the right to keep the Casino open, if the ship stays at the destination longer.. .even if the berth is available, the ship can remain at anchor, in which case passengers are transported ashore by lifeboats, and all this only because this is cheaper than lowering the gangway at the pier...

[Bedruthen]

1 hour ago, the penguins said:

 

Has it?

we managed to spend our goodwill gesture payment without difficulty. It was made very clear when the shops and casino would be closed.

no one is trapped on the ship - Princess are providing a free all day shuttle service into the town.

Where is the evidence of the extra port tax?

Whatever price you paid we all suffered the same changes and received the same “gesture”. 
We have suffered no really bad weather and with exception of yesterday have used our balcony every day.

 

 

Yes

[Bedruthen]

1 hour ago, david63 said:

I would take a different view. On the basis that Princess refund port charges when a port is missed is not reasonable that when another port is added that passengers should be charged the additional port charges? You can't have it both ways.

But of course, you can have it both ways! Princes did not have to give with one hand and take with another, they could have taken the pragmatic view that the passengers had already missed 2 out of 3 ports and that a bit of goodwill goes a long way. But no, the bean counters won the day

[HaroldLeslie]

1 hour ago, david63 said:

But shouldn't potential cruise passengers be aware of all the possible scenarios?

They should. But they could be excused for thinking that if any circumstances should upset their schedule they would be compensated in some way or other. This is what usually happens with most cruise lines. When they learn about the way that Princess has handled this situation they are of course entitled to take their custom elsewhere.

 

We have suffered many upsets from P&O and the list of ports that we shall never have the chance to visit is quite long. Any compensation was limited to the return of port fees and nothing more. That's the main reason that we don't cruise with P&O any more. Too many disappointments.

[david63]

2 minutes ago, HaroldLeslie said:

We have suffered many upsets from P&O and the list of ports that we shall never have the chance to visit is quite long. Any compensation was limited to the return of port fees and nothing more. That's the main reason that we don't cruise with P&O any more. Too many disappointments.

Never known P&O refund port fees in the 20+ years of cruising with them.

[roadster08]

1 hour ago, david63 said:

I would take a different view. On the basis that Princess refund port charges when a port is missed is not reasonable that when another port is added that passengers should be charged the additional port charges? You can't have it both ways.

And in the same view, cruisers that pay more for their cabins should be more generously credited for their loss when consideration is offered. 

[HaroldLeslie]

20 minutes ago, david63 said:

Never known P&O refund port fees in the 20+ years of cruising with them.

I have been looking back through my records which also date back over 20 years but were not as extensive in the early days as they are more recently. I can see various lump sum credits which were probably not specifically for port fees but were an overall gesture to help smooth the many disappointments, one or two of which were blamed on the weather..

 

As I said, such behaviour is a main reason why we have jumped ship from P&O.

[david63]

18 minutes ago, roadster08 said:

And in the same view, cruisers that pay more for their cabins should be more generously credited for their loss when consideration is offered.

It's a valid argument but does the price paid for a cabin have a direct correlation to the amount of loss incurred?

[HaroldLeslie]

2 minutes ago, david63 said:

It's a valid argument but does the price paid for a cabin have a direct correlation to the amount of loss incurred?

Oh absolutely.

 

But we're getting too pedantic here. From the business point of view you need to do enough to keep that customer's future business. This is not a court of law wherein an amount of damage has to be decided. You need to keep such customers happy, or at least not so unhappy that they will prefer to take their custom elsewhere.