09/02 Legend not so Greenland cruise

[wxtrix]

4 hours ago, Pyxie said:

I'm booked on this cruise next year and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit nervous now.

 

I'm booked on one of them next year, and knew going in that the ship might not call at Greenland in the end. it happens all the time, regardless of cruise line. you’re going to a remote location which is subject to extreme weather.

[wxtrix]

46 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

I think if people had received a 30 percent FCC and alternative ports, they would have been a heck of a lot happier than a pittance of $200 per person OBC.

 

 

Halifax was added to that itinerary.

 

 

[crazycatlady82]

14 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

I think if people had received a 30 percent FCC and alternative ports, they would have been a heck of a lot happier than a pittance of $200 per person OBC.

 

Actually, I was in that social media group for that sailing and people were NOT happy, as they signed up for a Greenland cruise, not a Norway cruise. 

[Eli_6]

2 hours ago, crazycatlady82 said:

Actually, I was in that social media group for that sailing and people were NOT happy, as they signed up for a Greenland cruise, not a Norway cruise. 

Then how much more upset do the people on this cruise have a right to be because they didn't get Greenland or Norway or a 30 percent FCC???  

 

[jsglow]

So here's the bottom line as I see it.  Things like Greenland/Iceland itineraries can be a bit risky and one needs to factor that into their calculus.  We were fortunate to be able to hit 3 out of 4 Iceland ports in late August with one eliminated by fog and rough seas.  I suspect both those Greenland ports are similar to the two smallest Iceland stops where the ONLY transportation method to shore is via lifeboat tender. That makes a huge difference and significantly increases one's chance that it'll be missed because of weather. As I said, we made 3 of 4; probably about par for the course.

 

Here's the lesson I'll take. I'm personally not going to pay a huge premium for a Greenland cruise that has a measurably high probability of not being able to get there. 10 days at sea in the north Atlantic at 10 knots doesn't sound fun at all. Hard pass.

 

That said, this was a weather related port issue and Carnival needs to be careful about handing out too much.  Next time, folks will want the same comp for Grand Cayman. For the record, in Iceland we got nothing for the single missed port.  

[Eli_6]

My take away from this thread is that I'm not booking a cruise to Greenland...at least not with Carnival. 

 

And missing a single port is not the same as missing the entire country. It would be like taking a cruise to Alaska and not going to Alaska.  Or taking a cruise to Hawaii and just floating around in the Pacific Ocean and then turning back to California. 

[jsglow]

Just now, Eli_6 said:

My take away from this thread is that I'm not booking a cruise to Greenland...at least not with Carnival. 

 

And missing a single port is not the same as missing the entire country. It would be like taking a cruise to Alaska and not going to Alaska.  Or taking a cruise to Hawaii and just floating around in the Pacific Ocean and then turning back to California. 

I think the lesson @Eli_6 is that we're blessed 'locally' with the greatest cruising grounds in the entire world (Caribbean) and that to expect the same elsewhere on the globe might be a bit unrealistic.  You know those tiny ports up in Iceland as well as I do. Those are challenging to say the least. Even Alaska is totally blessed by having very predictable cruising grounds.  We're all really fortunate.

 

I'd be a bit miffed too.  But then I'd ask myself if my expectations might have been a bit unrealistic.  They were dodging a 'super storm' so there can be little doubt it was a prudent decision.  It just sucked.

 

As I said, we're not booking Greenland.

 

You know who else hates it? Carnival.  The shine is off that one for lots of knowledgeable cruisers.

[MsTabbyKats]

11 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

My take away from this thread is that I'm not booking a cruise to Greenland...at least not with Carnival. 

 

And missing a single port is not the same as missing the entire country. It would be like taking a cruise to Alaska and not going to Alaska.  Or taking a cruise to Hawaii and just floating around in the Pacific Ocean and then turning back to California. 

Do you think another cruiseline would have "sailed thru the storm"?

Ports are not guaranteed.  Period.  If you want "a port"....book a land vacation.

 

It's just luck.  We were on NCL Escape 9/3 to Canada...it was like cruising in the Caribbean; perfect weather.  The next week, same ship, same itinerary....missed 2 ports and floated off the coast of NYC for 2 additional sea days.

[jsglow]

1 minute ago, MsTabbyKats said:

Do you think another cruiseline would have "sailed thru the storm"?

Ports are not guaranteed.  Period.  If you want "a port"....book a land vacation.

 

It's just luck.  We were on NCL Escape 9/3 to Canada...it was like cruising in the Caribbean; perfect weather.  The next week, same ship, same itinerary....missed 2 ports and floated off the coast of NYC for 2 additional sea days.

@Eli_6can correct me if I'm wrong but I read her comment as relating to compensation, not that the ports were missed.

[MsTabbyKats]

52 minutes ago, jsglow said:

@Eli_6can correct me if I'm wrong but I read her comment as relating to compensation, not that the ports were missed.

Even so....the cruise line really owes you nothing,   Historically, I've found Carnival to be more generous than other cruiselines.

[Eli_6]

1 hour ago, MsTabbyKats said:

Even so....the cruise line really owes you nothing,   Historically, I've found Carnival to be more generous than other cruiselines.

So if you paid $8k+ (which is what the rooms were running for a balcony) for a Greenland cruise on an old boat about to go into dry dock in order to go to Greenland (on a cruise that was billed as a Greenland cruise and had a price to match) and then did not go to Greenland, you would feel that $200 on board credit was adequate compensation? I find that VERY hard to believe.

 

 

[Eli_6]

2 hours ago, jsglow said:

@Eli_6can correct me if I'm wrong but I read her comment as relating to compensation, not that the ports were missed.

You are correct. I don't expect them to sail through a hurricane. I do think they should have given the customers some sort of FCC that would at least have given them a head start towards taking another cruise. The cruise was undoubtedly billed and advertised as a cruise to Greenland. The prices on those Greenland sailings were literally running $7k-8k for a balcony when I priced them.  $200 per person of OBC is downright insulting. 

 

A 25 or 30 percent FCC (like what NCL did in the same situation) is more in line with what should have been done in this situation.  In fact, it was what WAS done when the initial Mardi Gras TA sailing was canceled...and it was even canceled a year-and-a-half out!  (Guests were given a full refund and 25 percent FCC to use on a future sailing.) When we had a Vista sailing canceled because of propulsion issues, we got a 100 FCC (plus full refund of cruise.) I don't expect them to do that, but something like what they did with the Mardi Gras delay would have been appropriate. Presumptively the difference between then and now is Carnival was in a better financial situation back then because that was pre-Covid. 

 

However, I don't think they are going to get back to being solvent by screwing over their best customers...and I guarantee the people on a Greenland cruise are generally speaking the people with the money and time to cruise frequently and not the blue cards who are cruising because they got a $99 deal for an inside cabin.  It seems like Carnival is more worried about just getting new cruisers in the door with super low rates who will probably never cruise again than keeping their current loyal customers and treating them well.  This Greenland cruise is just another example in a long line of examples. 

[Eli_6]

1 hour ago, MsTabbyKats said:

Even so....the cruise line really owes you nothing,   Historically, I've found Carnival to be more generous than other cruiselines.

As an aside, I agree with you on this last statement.  That does seem to have been the situation before Covid.  But things seem to be different now.  I am sure it is because they are strapped for cash, but I think in this situation they are being penny wise and pound foolish.   

[MadManOfBethesda]

2 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

My take away from this thread is that I'm not booking a cruise to Greenland...at least not with Carnival. 

 

And missing a single port is not the same as missing the entire country. It would be like taking a cruise to Alaska and not going to Alaska.  Or taking a cruise to Hawaii and just floating around in the Pacific Ocean and then turning back to California. 

You're comparing apples to cats.  Cruises to Alaska and Hawaii spend the majority of their time at those two destinations. This was a 14-day cruise in which a grand total of two days were to be spent in Greenland.  And one of those days was at a tiny village with hardly anything to do other than to be able to say that you set foot in Greenland.  Now if people wanted to spend $8k-$10k in order to do so, that's on them. But it certainly isn't Carnival's fault that they couldn't make it to these two tender ports. If missing Greenland was the result of ship propulsion or other problems, then I could see where remuneration would be warranted. But every seasoned cruiser knows that when you take a cruise, the passenger contract clearly states that the specific port stops are not guaranteed. 

 

Full disclosure: I was on the Legend's cruise to Greenland & Newfoundland last month, which I had only booked a little more than a month earlier at a heavily discounted casino rate. Had we missed the Greenland ports due to weather, I would have been disappointed, but I would not have expected any remuneration from Carnival. I would have considered $400 credit for something that wasn't in Carnival's control more than adequate. But then again, I would never have spent $8k-$10k to go on this cruise in the first place.

[MsTabbyKats]

31 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

So if you paid $8k+ (which is what the rooms were running for a balcony) for a Greenland cruise on an old boat about to go into dry dock in order to go to Greenland (on a cruise that was billed as a Greenland cruise and had a price to match) and then did not go to Greenland, you would feel that $200 on board credit was adequate compensation? I find that VERY hard to believe.

 

 

Well...I personally would have done my research and found out that I booked an old boat that was about to go into dry dock....going to Greenland, and I would have not booked the cruise.

 

It's called "personal responsibiltiy" and I'd be angry at myself...for being stupid.

[mjkacmom]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

So if you paid $8k+ (which is what the rooms were running for a balcony) for a Greenland cruise on an old boat about to go into dry dock in order to go to Greenland (on a cruise that was billed as a Greenland cruise and had a price to match) and then did not go to Greenland, you would feel that $200 on board credit was adequate compensation? I find that VERY hard to believe.

 

 

If I was spending a lot of money on a cabin on an old ship to sail harder to reach ports during hurricane season I’d probably look into travel insurance that would give monetary compensation for missed ports.

[Eli_6]

I am not continuing to argue with yall. I wasn't on the ship and I have no dog in this fight. I don't agree with you on the reasonableness of a piddly $200 pittance as recompense for not going to Greenland on a cruise that Carnival undoubtedly advertised as a Greenland cruise and charged "Greenland" prices for.  Despite what the cruise contract says, there are still consumer laws which prevent a cruise company from advertising one thing and delivering another.  Carnival may have an out with the reason for not going being an act of God/the weather.  But as a general rule, Carnival absolutely does have a duty to deliver what they advertise and sell...as does any business.  Not to mention the fact it is just bad business. I am willing to bet a lot of the people on that Greenland cruise will never cruise with Carnival again.  If they had given them even a small FCC, that story might be different. It is easier to keep a customer than gain a new one.

 

 

 

  

Edited September 20, 2023 by Eli_6

[jimbo5544]

41 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

I am not continuing to argue with yall. I wasn't on the ship and I have no dog in this fight. I don't agree with you on the reasonableness of a piddly $200 pittance as recompense for not going to Greenland on a cruise that Carnival undoubtedly advertised as a Greenland cruise and charged "Greenland" prices for.  Despite what the cruise contract says, there are still consumer laws which prevent a cruise company from advertising one thing and delivering another.  Carnival may have an out with the reason for not going being an act of God/the weather.  But as a general rule, Carnival absolutely does have a duty to deliver what they advertise and sell...as does any business.  Not to mention the fact it is just bad business. I am willing to bet a lot of the people on that Greenland cruise will never cruise with Carnival again.  If they had given them even a small FCC, that story might be different. It is easier to keep a customer than gain a new one.

 

 

 

  

I was on the cruise.  Doubt the “consumer laws” thought holds water (no pun intended).  I agree with the last line.

[Eli_6]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

I was on the cruise.  Doubt the “consumer laws” thought holds water (no pun intended).  I agree with the last line.

If they sold a cruise to Greenland and just decided not to go to Greenland, Carnival absolutely could have a DTPA claim brought against them.  In this instance, they would have an "Act of God" defense since a hurricane prevented them from going; but as a general rule, businesses cannot advertise one thing and deliver a significantly different or inferior product without reason or excuse.  

Edited September 20, 2023 by Eli_6

[jsglow]

11 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

If they sold a cruise to Greenland and just decided not to go to Greenland, Carnival absolutely could have a DTPA claim brought against them.  In this instance, they would have an "Act of God" defense. But as a general rule, businesses cannot advertise one thing and deliver a significantly different or inferior product without reason or excuse.  

 

I feel pretty confident in saying that given I have been licensed to practice law for fifteen years and practiced commercial litigation handling multi-million dollar cases for over a decade, I know more about the law than those whose only legal knowledge comes from Google. 

But that's not what happened and you know that counsel. Summary judgment; case dismissed. By contract they owed exactly zero. And you know that too. Now we can all debate the merits of the $200 pp credit but that ground was already covered.

 

(Judge looks down at his clerk and says 'Next?') 🙂

Edited September 20, 2023 by jsglow

[wxtrix]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

I am not continuing to argue with yall. I wasn't on the ship and I have no dog in this fight. I don't agree with you on the reasonableness of a piddly $200 pittance as recompense for not going to Greenland on a cruise that Carnival undoubtedly advertised as a Greenland cruise and charged "Greenland" prices for.  Despite what the cruise contract says, there are still consumer laws which prevent a cruise company from advertising one thing and delivering another.  Carnival may have an out with the reason for not going being an act of God/the weather.  But as a general rule, Carnival absolutely does have a duty to deliver what they advertise and sell...as does any business.  Not to mention the fact it is just bad business. I am willing to bet a lot of the people on that Greenland cruise will never cruise with Carnival again.  If they had given them even a small FCC, that story might be different. It is easier to keep a customer than gain a new one.

 

 

 

  

 

i'm on the same itinerary next year and it was advertised as a Greenland and Canada Journeys cruise, with more ports in Canada than in Greenland. and as i understand it, Journeys cruises are usually more expensive because of the special programming.

[cyntil8ing]

7 hours ago, MsTabbyKats said:

It's just luck.  We were on NCL Escape 9/3 to Canada...it was like cruising in the Caribbean; perfect weather.  The next week, same ship, same itinerary....missed 2 ports and floated off the coast of NYC for 2 additional sea days.

We are booked for Greenland next August and I am half-heartedly thinking of canceling. After ten years of August cruises with only one weather-related itinerary change, our last two cruises had them.
 

We were on the 9/10 Escape cruise that missed Bar Harbor and Halifax. We got $100 non-refundable OBC and a 10% FCC from NCL.

 

We were also on the 8/27 Magic cruise that missed Bermuda. We got $200 OBC from Carnival.

 

I am feeling pretty unlucky right now, almost afraid to step foot on board!

[Eli_6]

@jsglowThat's why I said "in this instance they have an Act of God defense."

 

My original point was not to argue anyone had a claim against Ccl in this instance.  It was to address the armchair lawyers suggesting the cruise contract gives the line free reign to skip ports as they please and the consumer has no recourse.  Albeit,  I concede I may have not communicated this point well.  

 

My main point was I feel for these people.  Especially the ones who paid the full rates and weren't on a casino rate.  If that had been my family and I and we had dropped 12k to 15k for 2 rooms, pulled the kids from school for two weeks (which means no more vaca until next summer because they can only miss so many days) and lost tens of thousands in revenue with my husband being away from his business and not gotten to see Greenland,  we would have been devastated!  And  whatever some piddly insurance paid out for a missed port would not come CLOSE to touching the real loss in either money or frustration. 

 

Ccl should have done what ncl did in the same situation when a Greenland cruise could not dock at Greenland: Offered a 25 or 30 percent FCC.  That would make the consumer happier and pretty much guarantee they would be back and spend more $$$.  It may not have fully compensated everyone,  but it at least makes it seem like ccl cares...

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Eli_6
Word deletion

[MsTabbyKats]

@Eli_6I will admit....Carnival messed up on a good pr opportunity.  Offer a generous FCC...(raise the prices of course)....and people won't want to miss out on using a credit.

[young_k92]

8 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

You are correct. I don't expect them to sail through a hurricane. I do think they should have given the customers some sort of FCC that would at least have given them a head start towards taking another cruise. The cruise was undoubtedly billed and advertised as a cruise to Greenland. The prices on those Greenland sailings were literally running $7k-8k for a balcony when I priced them.  $200 per person of OBC is downright insulting. 

 

A 25 or 30 percent FCC (like what NCL did in the same situation) is more in line with what should have been done in this situation.  In fact, it was what WAS done when the initial Mardi Gras TA sailing was canceled...and it was even canceled a year-and-a-half out!  (Guests were given a full refund and 25 percent FCC to use on a future sailing.) When we had a Vista sailing canceled because of propulsion issues, we got a 100 FCC (plus full refund of cruise.) I don't expect them to do that, but something like what they did with the Mardi Gras delay would have been appropriate. Presumptively the difference between then and now is Carnival was in a better financial situation back then because that was pre-Covid. 

 

However, I don't think they are going to get back to being solvent by screwing over their best customers...and I guarantee the people on a Greenland cruise are generally speaking the people with the money and time to cruise frequently and not the blue cards who are cruising because they got a $99 deal for an inside cabin.  It seems like Carnival is more worried about just getting new cruisers in the door with super low rates who will probably never cruise again than keeping their current loyal customers and treating them well.  This Greenland cruise is just another example in a long line of examples. 

" It seems like Carnival is more worried about just getting new cruisers in the door with super low rates who will probably never cruise again than keeping their current loyal customers and treating them well.  This Greenland cruise is just another example in a long line of examples."

 

💯!!!