Force Majeure: will it be more common with Royal?

[PWP-001]

For years airlines, as a practice, have cited force majeure as to why they provided zero compensation for delays and cancellations due to weather or Air Traffic Control, while mechanical issues with aircraft at a legacy carrier that resulted in delays usually included compensation.

 

Pre-COVID, cruise lines were known for their practice of reducing fares, providing FCC, or even offering other freebies when there was any type of disruption.   

 

Post-COVID, based upon reports of how passengers are being treated in Italy who are disembarking at a cargo port due to severe flooding, it sure doesn't sound like Royal is as generous as they guard their purse.

 

Has anyone else experienced this?

[Lane Hog]

Just curious as to what you expect Royal or any cruise line to do if a port isn't available. Safety has to come first.

[Ret MP]

Cruise protection/insurance!  My final answer!

[Another_Critic]

4 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

My final answer!

That's open for debate.  😄

[Ret MP]

38 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

That's open for debate.  😄

True!

[JupiterTwo]

5 hours ago, Lane Hog said:

Just curious as to what you expect Royal or any cruise line to do if a port isn't available. Safety has to come first.

I think the question is what should they do when the final destination changes?

 

What about the people who have flights out of destination airport but now find themselves in a city many miles away, with many suitcases, and little local currency?

 

If an airline diverts to another city, do they just strand their passengers in that city and make them find they own way to their final destination?

[twangster]

I would think the cruise line should be responsible to move outgoing and incoming guests between the ports involved, as best as they can.  

 

That begs the question was is the best alternative?

 

Years ago when I was a Carnival cruiser Long Beach became unavailable for our return due to weather.   Instead they used San Diego which at the time was not a home port for any Carnival ship.  Carnival supplied buses to move disembarking guests from San Diego to Long Beach and those same buses were then used to move embarking guests from Long Beach to San Diego. 

 

As it turns out I was B2B and I was the only consecutive cruiser on that occasion.   With the extended bus ride for incoming guests I had the ship to myself for much of the day.  That was bizarre and something I'm unlikely to ever encounter again.   

 

While the unplanned bus ride for both debarking and embarking guests was not great, it was the best solution given the unexpected change in ports.   

 

In the current situation where parts of Ravenna are impacted by flooding the logistics are more difficult since the port in Ravenna is unavailable to be used as Carnival was able to still use the Long Beach terminal in my example. 

 

It seems to me that the cruise line should be responsible to make the best solution available and I don't perceive the Trieste train station to be the best that could have been done for the Explorer diversion occuring right now.

 

It will be interesting to see if the situation going on right will cause any guests to miss embarking today.  Royal has offered some compensation to debarking guests but it may take a day or two to understand if that was adequate to cover debarking guests and missed flights that may occur from this change.   

 

When a port is closed it is closed.  That is beyond a cruise lines control.  Yet they can't simply say we have changed embarkation port and it's on the guests to get to the new port with no compensation or refund offered for guests that are unable to make it.   

 

Time will tell how this works.  

[papaflamingo]

5 hours ago, JupiterTwo said:

I think the question is what should they do when the final destination changes?

 

What about the people who have flights out of destination airport but now find themselves in a city many miles away, with many suitcases, and little local currency?

 

If an airline diverts to another city, do they just strand their passengers in that city and make them find they own way to their final destination?

If you booked your flight independent of the cruise line then why would the cruise line be expected to be responsible for any flight issues?  

The airlines (I'm a retired pilot) is only going to take you to the destination airport. That's where their responsibility ends.  Example.... in 1998 we cruised out of Miami.  A flight of 30 or more passengers inbound for the cruise had to divert to Fort Lauderdale. They were stuck for a couple hours waiting for the weather to clear so they could fly to Miami.  A number of cruise passengers wanted the airlines to charter a bus and take them the last few miles to Miami. Nope.  The airline's only responsibility was to get them to Miami so they waited out the storms and finished the flight.  

My guess is the only real responsibility of the cruise line is to get you to the destination port.  After that, you're on your own to get to the airport. 

[PWP-001]

From the CRUISE TICKET CONTRACT that governs passengers who reside in the USA (I started with this one and will look at others.):

 

7. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

a. Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Except as provided in Section 7.e below, Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

 

e. In the event that a Cruise (or the cruise component of a CruiseTour) is canceled or terminated early due to mechanical failures:  (7e. is posted so you can see it's mechanical.)

 

 

So it seems to me as a layperson and not an attorney,  for USA residents, impacted by flooding, ANYTHING Royal decides to do is purely a gesture of goodwill, as they are under no obligation to do anything.  But I could be wrong.

Edited May 21, 2023 by PWP-001

[JupiterTwo]

4 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

If you booked your flight independent of the cruise line then why would the cruise line be expected to be responsible for any flight issues?  

The airlines (I'm a retired pilot) is only going to take you to the destination airport. That's where their responsibility ends.  Example.... in 1998 we cruised out of Miami.  A flight of 30 or more passengers inbound for the cruise had to divert to Fort Lauderdale. They were stuck for a couple hours waiting for the weather to clear so they could fly to Miami.  A number of cruise passengers wanted the airlines to charter a bus and take them the last few miles to Miami. Nope.  The airline's only responsibility was to get them to Miami so they waited out the storms and finished the flight.  

My guess is the only real responsibility of the cruise line is to get you to the destination port.  After that, you're on your own to get to the airport. 

I think (and maybe it's just me) that with any mode of transportation for hire, the expectation is that the starting point and ending point be honored. That's why I hired the transportation in the first place.

 

My airline comparison was a separate example. If I booked a flight to take me from Los Angeles to Miami with a connection in Dallas, it won't matter if my connection is changed to Houston due to weather as long as the airline still delivers me to Miami. I wasn't expecting the cruise line to pay for my missed flight, but I was expecting the cruise line to deliver me to Miami as promised.

 

If I buy passage on a cruise ship from Los Angeles to Miami with stops along the way, and they decide to end the cruise in Tampa instead, shouldn't I expect them to provide the transportation to the final destination that I booked? It's less of an issue if they skipped Jamaica as long as I still end up in Miami as promised.

 

What if it's a round-trip cruise from Galveston and I parked my car at the terminal, and they divert me to New Orleans? Isn't the cruise line still responsible for delivering me back to Galveston? What about the people who are expecting to board; do they have travel to New Orleans at the last minute?

 

In summary, I think there is an expected obligation to honor the starting and ending locations, no matter what mode of extra transportation is required to deliver me there.

[firefly333]

6 hours ago, twangster said:

I would think the cruise line should be responsible to move outgoing and incoming guests between the ports involved, as best as they can.  

 

That begs the question was is the best alternative?

 

Years ago when I was a Carnival cruiser Long Beach became unavailable for our return due to weather.   Instead they used San Diego which at the time was not a home port for any Carnival ship.  Carnival supplied buses to move disembarking guests from San Diego to Long Beach and those same buses were then used to move embarking guests from Long Beach to San Diego. 

 

As it turns out I was B2B and I was the only consecutive cruiser on that occasion.   With the extended bus ride for incoming guests I had the ship to myself for much of the day.  That was bizarre and something I'm unlikely to ever encounter again.   

 

While the unplanned bus ride for both debarking and embarking guests was not great, it was the best solution given the unexpected change in ports.   

 

In the current situation where parts of Ravenna are impacted by flooding the logistics are more difficult since the port in Ravenna is unavailable to be used as Carnival was able to still use the Long Beach terminal in my example. 

 

It seems to me that the cruise line should be responsible to make the best solution available and I don't perceive the Trieste train station to be the best that could have been done for the Explorer diversion occuring right now.

 

It will be interesting to see if the situation going on right will cause any guests to miss embarking today.  Royal has offered some compensation to debarking guests but it may take a day or two to understand if that was adequate to cover debarking guests and missed flights that may occur from this change.   

 

When a port is closed it is closed.  That is beyond a cruise lines control.  Yet they can't simply say we have changed embarkation port and it's on the guests to get to the new port with no compensation or refund offered for guests that are unable to make it.   

 

Time will tell how this works.  

And I've had just the opposite with carnival.

 

Hurricane ike came thru on a friday night. We were supposed to dock in Galveston saturday but spent Friday night in cozumel overnight. They then took us to new orleans. Gave us one phone call pp from guest services. Too many people wanted to call for the number of phone lines. I had 2 HC women with me, never again. One her walker had gears and woukdnt fold up much so I couldn't rent a compact car, had to find a mid sized rental. ..the phone call was all I got and first place didnt have mid sized so I had to stand in line for hours for a 2nd call.i

 

They said those who wanted to could reboard after going thru customs in new orleans. About 3 days later they got permission to dock at the new port in houston. I wrote and they said since eventually they docked in houston that was a round trip so they owed no obc. We got nothing! No sleep. I swore I'd never cruise with them again it was handled so horrible. Please no one pretend carnival handles emergencies better. Rcl has almost always been better when side by side emergencies. 

[PWP-001]

15 hours ago, firefly333 said:

And I've had just the opposite with carnival.

 

Hurricane ike came thru on a friday night. We were supposed to dock in Galveston saturday but spent Friday night in cozumel overnight. They then took us to new orleans. Gave us one phone call pp from guest services. Too many people wanted to call for the number of phone lines. I had 2 HC women with me, never again. One her walker had gears and woukdnt fold up much so I couldn't rent a compact car, had to find a mid sized rental. ..the phone call was all I got and first place didnt have mid sized so I had to stand in line for hours for a 2nd call.i

 

They said those who wanted to could reboard after going thru customs in new orleans. About 3 days later they got permission to dock at the new port in houston. I wrote and they said since eventually they docked in houston that was a round trip so they owed no obc. We got nothing! No sleep. I swore I'd never cruise with them again it was handled so horrible. Please no one pretend carnival handles emergencies better. Rcl has almost always been better when side by side emergencies. 

 

It sounds like this happened pre-COVID, as you mentioned Ike, correct?

[gumshoe958]

22 hours ago, twangster said:

I would think the cruise line should be responsible to move outgoing and incoming guests between the ports involved, as best as they can.  

 

That begs the question was is the best alternative?

 

Years ago when I was a Carnival cruiser Long Beach became unavailable for our return due to weather.   Instead they used San Diego which at the time was not a home port for any Carnival ship.  Carnival supplied buses to move disembarking guests from San Diego to Long Beach and those same buses were then used to move embarking guests from Long Beach to San Diego. 

 

As it turns out I was B2B and I was the only consecutive cruiser on that occasion.   With the extended bus ride for incoming guests I had the ship to myself for much of the day.  That was bizarre and something I'm unlikely to ever encounter again.   

 

While the unplanned bus ride for both debarking and embarking guests was not great, it was the best solution given the unexpected change in ports.   

 

In the current situation where parts of Ravenna are impacted by flooding the logistics are more difficult since the port in Ravenna is unavailable to be used as Carnival was able to still use the Long Beach terminal in my example. 

 

It seems to me that the cruise line should be responsible to make the best solution available and I don't perceive the Trieste train station to be the best that could have been done for the Explorer diversion occuring right now.

 

It will be interesting to see if the situation going on right will cause any guests to miss embarking today.  Royal has offered some compensation to debarking guests but it may take a day or two to understand if that was adequate to cover debarking guests and missed flights that may occur from this change.   

 

When a port is closed it is closed.  That is beyond a cruise lines control.  Yet they can't simply say we have changed embarkation port and it's on the guests to get to the new port with no compensation or refund offered for guests that are unable to make it.   

 

Time will tell how this works.  

Seems to me, if this post on the other thread is correct, that Royal has done its very best for Explorer passengers in fast-moving, challenging circumstances.
 

Obviously there’ll be those for whom the best is never good enough and who’ll demand compensation even though they haven’t actually lost anything, but it sounds like transfers were laid on to get people to their required airport in good time for their flights.

 

 

[PWP-001]

22 minutes ago, gumshoe958 said:

Seems to me, if this post on the other thread is correct, that Royal has done its very best for Explorer passengers in fast-moving, challenging circumstances.
 

Obviously there’ll be those for whom the best is never good enough and who’ll demand compensation even though they haven’t actually lost anything, but it sounds like transfers were laid on to get people to their required airport in good time for their flights.

 

 

You're so right!

 

One disembarking passenger has posted how hard the crew worked and how relatively smooth the process was for them.  

 

Yet, as the situation was unfolding, it seemed some felt Royal, single handedly, was responsible for destroying their cruise as they demanded answers and looked for solutions.  While it seemed others just went with the flow (pun intended, it was a flood after all that caused this diversion,) as they were determined not to let a change ruin their plans.  Ironically, the poster who seemed most upset-- isn't even sailing until the 28th, when it's estimated things are back to normal!

 

 

[pstone1]

When traveling anywhere by any mode of transport, I think it’s very important to realize that unexpected issues can arise.  Most times, they are beyond anyone’s control.

 

Flexibility is essential!  No one likes their carefully made plans to change, but sometimes changes are unavoidable.  

[PWP-001]

7 minutes ago, pstone1 said:

When traveling anywhere by any mode of transport, I think it’s very important to realize that unexpected issues can arise.  Most times, they are beyond anyone’s control.

 

Flexibility is essential!  No one likes their carefully made plans to change, but sometimes changes are unavoidable.  

 

You are correct.  A few decades ago when I travelled regularly for work, I always made myself aware of alternative routings in case my original itinerary was a no go.  Flexibility and remaining calm were key.

 

As small of a thing as it sounds, let me share my "ah-ha" moment when I realized that getting angry won't make things easier:  probably 25 years ago now, my upgrade to biz class on a 3-class wide-body transcon lunch flight was confirmed several days in advance.  But upon check-in, I learned the flight was cancelled.  I had been rebooked in first class on the red-eye 13 hours later.  The other option was to have my ticket transferred to the other carrier that operated the same type of wide-body flight.  But my seat was in coach.  That's the option I chose and I raced across the airport to make that flight.  Back then on a flight like this every passenger --even coach-- received a meal, so there wasn't a thought to stop for food.

 

Once airborne, a flight attendant asked everyone from the cancelled flight that was transferred over to this flight to ring their call button and identify ourselves.  Their easily were 50 of us.  My initial though was that the carrier with the cancelled flight had arranged for us each to have a complimentary cocktail.  I swear to you:  that was my thought.  Again remember this was at least 25 years ago when airline travel was a little different.  After the flight attendants had recorded all of our seat numbers, they personally went back to each of us and informed us one-by-one that the captain had decided NOT to wait for catering to bring more food for the extra passengers, so we would not be eating.  I was hungry.  But in those few seconds of silence after she delivered the news, as I looked up at her, I realized that on my part there was nothing I could say, there was nothing I could do, and there was nothing that the crew could do.  So why get angry?  So I just shook my shoulders as a response.  As it turned out, I was served the First Officer's entree Chef Salad (the label with position was on the cover), and others probably got the sides.  The crew gave up their meals, and some passengers as is the norm were "refusals" so their meals were available.  Later they passed out the unserved desserts from First & Biz class, as well as served half glasses of wine from the open bottles of wine near the end of the flight.  The crew did everything in their power to make the best of the situation.  To this day I still will remember that situation any time the unforeseen presents itself to change plans.   It's a reminder that calmer heads will prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crewsweeper]

Based on my experiences many years ago, I'd rather dock in Trieste and Ravenna.  Better city and the train to Venice ran more frequently.

 

.

[papaflamingo]

19 hours ago, JupiterTwo said:

I think (and maybe it's just me) that with any mode of transportation for hire, the expectation is that the starting point and ending point be honored. That's why I hired the transportation in the first place.

 

My airline comparison was a separate example. If I booked a flight to take me from Los Angeles to Miami with a connection in Dallas, it won't matter if my connection is changed to Houston due to weather as long as the airline still delivers me to Miami. I wasn't expecting the cruise line to pay for my missed flight, but I was expecting the cruise line to deliver me to Miami as promised.

 

If I buy passage on a cruise ship from Los Angeles to Miami with stops along the way, and they decide to end the cruise in Tampa instead, shouldn't I expect them to provide the transportation to the final destination that I booked? It's less of an issue if they skipped Jamaica as long as I still end up in Miami as promised.

 

What if it's a round-trip cruise from Galveston and I parked my car at the terminal, and they divert me to New Orleans? Isn't the cruise line still responsible for delivering me back to Galveston? What about the people who are expecting to board; do they have travel to New Orleans at the last minute?

 

In summary, I think there is an expected obligation to honor the starting and ending locations, no matter what mode of extra transportation is required to deliver me there.

Yes... that, exactly, was my point.  That the airlines responsibility is only to get you to the destination.  I agree that the cruise line also needs to get you to the destination port, and will.  

My comment was actually in answer to the question  "If an airline diverts to another city, do they just strand their passengers in that city and make them find they own way to their final destination?"

There are some comments that indicate people think that if a destination port is changed, like Venice was, that the cruise line is responsible to book new flights, get passengers to the airport, etc.  It's not.  They are only responsible to deliver you to the end point port, even if that means being bussed.  Getting to the airport is your problem if you booked independently.  Any additional costs, like flight changes, unexpected hotels, etc. are what cruise insurance is for. Now, if you booked as part of your cruise package then the cruise line now bears some responsibility.  

[HappyTexan44]

On 5/20/2023 at 9:51 PM, Ret MP said:

Cruise protection/insurance!  My final answer!

 

Travel insurance is a new thing for me.  I think I got it once before.   I was under the impression that if you got on the cruise and had no medical problems, that was it for the insurance.  

It sounds like you are saying if the cruise dumps you in a completely different place, the insurance covers costs to make things right?   Please excuse my ignorance.  

I bought Royal's travel insurance.  

 

[Ret MP]

During my pre-Royal days on Rustbucket Cruise Lines (nothing to do with rust), we had a cruise out of Canaveral on the Drean it Freedin.  That was at the time that Hurricane Sandy, Oct 2012, skirted Florida's east coast and the ship couldn't come into port because the hurricane was there and heading north.  The port closed and the debarkation/embarkation was delayed by a day.  We were not notified until the late afternoon or early evening the night before as we had already checked into our hotel in Cocoa Beach.  We weren't happy but we couldn't find fault, at all, with the cruise line.  Because of the delay, we had to miss a port of call.  The cruise line did refund, via OBC, the port charges/taxes and company-purchased excursions (that's one of a few reasons I purchase only cruise line excursions).  Our trip insurance reimbursed us for the extra night in the hotel and meals.   The remainder of the cruise went fine!
 

 

 

 

[Ret MP]

10 minutes ago, HappyTexan44 said:

 

Travel insurance is a new thing for me.  I think I got it once before.   I was under the impression that if you got on the cruise and had no medical problems, that was it for the insurance.  

It sounds like you are saying if the cruise dumps you in a completely different place, the insurance covers costs to make things right?   Please excuse my ignorance.  

I bought Royal's travel insurance.  

 

A lot of it depends on what/where travel insurance you purchased.  I can only speak to what I've experienced, so far.  See post #20.  I believe there are some travel insurance folks on the board who may be able to give you a much better/more complete answer than I can.  

 

BTW:  I always purchase "trip insurance" either from the Cruise Line or from out TA.  But, I'm aways open for other options.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Ret MP

[topnole]

20 hours ago, JupiterTwo said:

I think (and maybe it's just me) that with any mode of transportation for hire, the expectation is that the starting point and ending point be honored. That's why I hired the transportation in the first place.

 

My airline comparison was a separate example. If I booked a flight to take me from Los Angeles to Miami with a connection in Dallas, it won't matter if my connection is changed to Houston due to weather as long as the airline still delivers me to Miami. I wasn't expecting the cruise line to pay for my missed flight, but I was expecting the cruise line to deliver me to Miami as promised.

 

If I buy passage on a cruise ship from Los Angeles to Miami with stops along the way, and they decide to end the cruise in Tampa instead, shouldn't I expect them to provide the transportation to the final destination that I booked? It's less of an issue if they skipped Jamaica as long as I still end up in Miami as promised.

 

What if it's a round-trip cruise from Galveston and I parked my car at the terminal, and they divert me to New Orleans? Isn't the cruise line still responsible for delivering me back to Galveston? What about the people who are expecting to board; do they have travel to New Orleans at the last minute?

 

In summary, I think there is an expected obligation to honor the starting and ending locations, no matter what mode of extra transportation is required to deliver me there.

The expectations should be whatever is provided in the contract.   That is what they promise to do at a minimum.  
 

Trip insurance most definite would cover any of the impacts of extra or missed travel.  So depending on terms and conditions of the cruise contract and the budget of the person traveling, insurance may be a wise idea.  If you can self

insure, no big deal or you should have insured it.  
 

[topnole]

On 5/20/2023 at 2:27 PM, PWP-001 said:

For years airlines, as a practice, have cited force majeure as to why they provided zero compensation for delays and cancellations due to weather or Air Traffic Control, while mechanical issues with aircraft at a legacy carrier that resulted in delays usually included compensation.

 

Pre-COVID, cruise lines were known for their practice of reducing fares, providing FCC, or even offering other freebies when there was any type of disruption.   

 

Post-COVID, based upon reports of how passengers are being treated in Italy who are disembarking at a cargo port due to severe flooding, it sure doesn't sound like Royal is as generous as they guard their purse.

 

Has anyone else experienced this?

Have you seen Royal’s balance sheet?  Much easier to be generous when you aren’t stuck under a mountain of debt.   People travel should be prepared for things.  
 

Anyone who has travel a lot (non cruising travel) has experienced severe delays or ended up in the wrong cities due to weather or other things unforeseen issues.  We all have to deal with it.  
 

Folks who cruise can plan so little relative to other forms of travel, I think they rarely, if ever, think of such a risk.  Modern cruising is such an easy form of travel it’s allowed everyone to become completely lazy in planning if they so choose.  But cruising still has risk of interruption and folks should realize this and at least imagine for a second how they might deal with it other than expect Royal to handle and pay for everything for them.  

[Ret MP]

31 minutes ago, topnole said:

Have you seen Royal’s balance sheet?  Much easier to be generous when you aren’t stuck under a mountain of debt.   People travel should be prepared for things.  
 

Anyone who has travel a lot (non cruising travel) has experienced severe delays or ended up in the wrong cities due to weather or other things unforeseen issues.  We all have to deal with it.  
 

Folks who cruise can plan so little relative to other forms of travel, I think they rarely, if ever, think of such a risk.  Modern cruising is such an easy form of travel it’s allowed everyone to become completely lazy in planning if they so choose.  But cruising still has risk of interruption and folks should realize this and at least imagine for a second how they might deal with it other than expect Royal to handle and pay for everything for them.  

Exactly!  I worked at FLL on 9-11.  All air travel was stopped and all aircraft were directed to the closest airport and the aircraft grounded until further notice.  Man, you should have seen people scrambling to get the Car Rental Companies.  FLL is a destination airport and not really considered a "HUB" but there are some continuation flights that go through. At least not when I worked there.  Man were people pissed and complaining about not being reimbursed for the flights.  I was the General Manager of the parking facilities and those people that made it back to Ft. Lauderdale area came to the airport to retrieve their vehicles.  The county only gave them credit for a week after the airport was open again for people to come and get their vehicles.  But, they still had to pay for the original time frame of the trip, had to show ticket(s), and any days parked after the week after the airport was open again.  We actually didn't have much of a problem with that, MOST people understood and complied.  Some had valid reasons for being beyond the time frame and they were considered. 

[PWP-001]

34 minutes ago, topnole said:

Have you seen Royal’s balance sheet?  Much easier to be generous when you aren’t stuck under a mountain of debt.   People travel should be prepared for things.  
 

Anyone who has travel a lot (non cruising travel) has experienced severe delays or ended up in the wrong cities due to weather or other things unforeseen issues.  We all have to deal with it.  
 

Folks who cruise can plan so little relative to other forms of travel, I think they rarely, if ever, think of such a risk.  Modern cruising is such an easy form of travel it’s allowed everyone to become completely lazy in planning if they so choose.  But cruising still has risk of interruption and folks should realize this and at least imagine for a second how they might deal with it other than expect Royal to handle and pay for everything for them.  

Bingo!  This was my point from the start.  Pre-COVID they may have been generous with OBC and FCC so they could be seen as the accommodating cruise line.  But for the short-term, I doubt they'll be so generous.

 

And yes, there is a balance:  They'd be a nuclear meltdown if a line cited the ticket contract as why they weren't doing anything for passengers they force to disembark in New York when the original itinerary stated Miami.  But I think we'll see that cruise lines have moved the needle as to what they decide is "fair".