Cancellation of cruise in the Middle East

[shepherd really]

14 hours ago, kathy49 said:

They simply don't care...need to reposition the ship. I hope everyone on that ship files a cc dispute.

They have an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars to reposition.

Even assuming they don't care about a shipload of customers and crew (which I don't subscribe to), the idea that they don't care about the ship is ridiculous.

[kathy49]

11 hours ago, PhD-iva said:

I expect that anyone who sails on the itinerary cannot then file a dispute with their cc company. 

  I should have said "everyone that did NOT sail on that ship" . But those onboard are due some compensation too but not FCC as those chose to go. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by kathy49

[kathy49]

2 hours ago, shepherd really said:

They have an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars to reposition.

Even assuming they don't care about a shipload of customers and crew (which I don't subscribe to), the idea that they don't care about the ship is ridiculous.

They care about the ship but as long as their insurance will cover the journey from a $$ sense they need to reposition that ship.  If something were to happen lot less concern without passengers.

[Harters]

On 11/22/2023 at 5:49 PM, Harry Lake said:

Like NYC to UK???

Dangerous trip or what? Those Scilly Islanders, off the coast of Cornwall, are not to be tangled with. 

[Laura Macky]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:39 AM, shepherd really said:

They have an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars to reposition.

Even assuming they don't care about a shipload of customers and crew (which I don't subscribe to), the idea that they don't care about the ship is ridiculous.

The problem is going into a war area.  It would be ok if they sent the ship elsewhere but they’re going into the red sea where us warships are shooting down drones.  To me that's the issue.  

Edited November 26, 2023 by Laura Macky

[shepherd really]

41 minutes ago, Laura Macky said:

The problem is going into a war area.  It would be ok if they sent the ship elsewhere but they’re going into the red sea where us warships are shooting down drones.  To me that's the issue.  

I understand, it's a very tough situation for all involved. I wish the best possible outcome for everyone effected by this.

[Laura Macky]

 

1 hour ago, shepherd really said:

I understand, it's a very tough situation for all involved. I wish the best possible outcome for everyone effected by this.

I should say I do believe in trip insurance.  We always get it and it has come in handy twice.   Not sure if it would cover something like this or not, but it's a must when we travel.   I also hope the best for cruises sailing in this area.  

[PhD-iva]

3 hours ago, Laura Macky said:

 

I should say I do believe in trip insurance.  We always get it and it has come in handy twice.   Not sure if it would cover something like this or not, but it's a must when we travel.   I also hope the best for cruises sailing in this area.  

Good point, however, I think in this case that travel insurance would not reimburse a passenger that canceled due to the current situation.
Two reasons: 1, travel insurance does not cover war, declared or undeclared. And 2, this cruise has not been canceled.

unfortunately, my understanding is that is pretty standard for US travel insurance policies. 

[EJL2023]

1 hour ago, PhD-iva said:

Good point, however, I think in this case that travel insurance would not reimburse a passenger that canceled due to the current situation.
Two reasons: 1, travel insurance does not cover war, declared or undeclared. And 2, this cruise has not been canceled.

unfortunately, my understanding is that is pretty standard for US travel insurance policies. 

Unless you get Cancel for Any Reason. 

[GeezerCouple]

6 hours ago, Laura Macky said:

The problem is going into a war area.  It would be ok if they sent the ship elsewhere but they’re going into the red sea where us warships are shooting down drones.  To me that's the issue.  

 

42 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Good point, however, I think in this case that travel insurance would not reimburse a passenger that canceled due to the current situation.
Two reasons: 1, travel insurance does not cover war, declared or undeclared. And 2, this cruise has not been canceled.

unfortunately, my understanding is that is pretty standard for US travel insurance policies. 

I've already made it clear what we think of how Oceania has handled this unfortunate situation, so... moving right along...

THIS is an excellent example, albeit an unexpected one, of why we buy Cancel For Any Reason (CFAR) travel insurance from a third party.

We call it SWAN insurance (Sleep Well At Night).

 

We'd "only" get back 75%, but it would be in cash, and obviously with no limitations about where to apply it or by when.

 

In a case like this, 75% cash back would be sounding pretty darned good at this point!

Losing 25% (max, if no other reimbursement ever arrived) would seem one of the better "deals" ever.

(No, the "reasons" don't matter.  CFAR really means "Cancel For NO Reason At All".  Who can read our minds when/if we say something like, "Oh, A just can't get away from work after all", or "B has to babysit the grands part of that time... what a darned shame the timing is interferring with this wonderful cruise..." or such.)

 

As an aside, although we always get CFAR, we've had quite a few travel insurance claims (unfortunately), and none of them has involved CFAR.  There were a couple of times we thought about it, such as when an un-named storm was intensifying as it seemed to be approaching what our path was going to be...

Also, CFAR now includes "Interrupt For Any Reason", too, another nice backup plan "just in case".

 

GC

 

[edgee]

8 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

I've already made it clear what we think of how Oceania has handled this unfortunate situation, so... moving right along...

THIS is an excellent example, albeit an unexpected one, of why we buy Cancel For Any Reason (CFAR) travel insurance from a third party.

We call it SWAN insurance (Sleep Well At Night).

 

We'd "only" get back 75%, but it would be in cash, and obviously with no limitations about where to apply it or by when.

 

In a case like this, 75% cash back would be sounding pretty darned good at this point!

Losing 25% (max, if no other reimbursement ever arrived) would seem one of the better "deals" ever.

(No, the "reasons" don't matter.  CFAR really means "Cancel For NO Reason At All".  Who can read our minds when/if we say something like, "Oh, A just can't get away from work after all", or "B has to babysit the grands part of that time... what a darned shame the timing is interferring with this wonderful cruise..." or such.)

 

As an aside, although we always get CFAR, we've had quite a few travel insurance claims (unfortunately), and none of them has involved CFAR.  There were a couple of times we thought about it, such as when an un-named storm was intensifying as it seemed to be approaching what our path was going to be...

Also, CFAR now includes "Interrupt For Any Reason", too, another nice backup plan "just in case".

 

GC

 

And some of us do not have the option to purchase CFAR...thank you NY Insurance regulators 🙄

[GeezerCouple]

23 minutes ago, edgee said:

And some of us do not have the option to purchase CFAR...thank you NY Insurance regulators 🙄

 

Yeah, that is tough, for sure.

I wonder what the actual "thinking" (if it is indeed "thinking"!?? 😠) is behind that...

I know they (the powers that be, etc.) are trying to "protect" consumers/citizens.  And I think NY isn't the only state to be, uh, "extra protective", but at some point, it becomes burdensome and restrictive" instead.

 

I thought that in some cases (?), some of these "restrictions" could be avoided by not calling a service "insurance", if it doesn't strictly fit the definition of insurance (and that's certainly fair enough).  I think some policies (not called "insurance"!) do call some features "protection plans" instead of insurance for this reason.  But at least, in those cases, the "coverage" is available!

 

GC

[edgee]

9 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

Yeah, that is tough, for sure.

I wonder what the actual "thinking" (if it is indeed "thinking"!?? 😠) is behind that...

I know they (the powers that be, etc.) are trying to "protect" consumers/citizens.  And I think NY isn't the only state to be, uh, "extra protective", but at some point, it becomes burdensome and restrictive" instead.

 

I thought that in some cases (?), some of these "restrictions" could be avoided by not calling a service "insurance", if it doesn't strictly fit the definition of insurance (and that's certainly fair enough).  I think some policies (not called "insurance"!) do call some features "protection plans" instead of insurance for this reason.  But at least, in those cases, the "coverage" is available!

 

GC

I believe they do not consider it an insurable risk since a claim is initiated by choice, not an insurable event. 

[GeezerCouple]

6 minutes ago, edgee said:

I believe they do not consider it an insurable risk since a claim is initiated by choice, not an insurable event. 

 

20 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

Yeah, that is tough, for sure.

I wonder what the actual "thinking" (if it is indeed "thinking"!?? 😠) is behind that...

I know they (the powers that be, etc.) are trying to "protect" consumers/citizens.  And I think NY isn't the only state to be, uh, "extra protective", but at some point, it becomes burdensome and restrictive" instead.

 

I thought that in some cases (?), some of these "restrictions" could be avoided by not calling a service "insurance", if it doesn't strictly fit the definition of insurance (and that's certainly fair enough).  I think some policies (not called "insurance"!) do call some features "protection plans" instead of insurance for this reason.  But at least, in those cases, the "coverage" is available!

 

GC

 

Right.

That's why I wrote the second paragraph part, above, about calling some of the "protections" to be "protection plans" and not calling them "insurance".

I mean, if the contract "covers" the event in a similar fashion, why can't or won't they allow it as a different kind of benefit or arrangement or whatever the proper rubric is?

 

That just seems to be overly parentalistic... 😡

 

Or is there some legal reason why this couldn't be a "protection plan", perhaps something like the way one can get a "protection plan" for something like a TV.  Is there something inherent in a cruise not being a specific "consumer physical item" that makes this impossible?

Or do the powers that be simply not like/approve of such a "plan" under any heading?

True, it would no longer be regulated by the state Insurance Commissioner's Office, but, um, isn't that the point in this cas?? 😉 

 

GC

[babysteps]

NY residents can't get CFAAR but we can get what I call CFAAR - cancel for *almost* any reason. We got such a policy when we were concerned about my MIL's health. Any turn for the worse and we could have cancelled and been covered. My bigger complaint is NYS residents can't get the annual travel health policies... 

[edgee]

6 minutes ago, babysteps said:

My bigger complaint is NYS residents can't get the annual travel health policies... 

I was going to mention that. I am two for two in the loss category on that one, having moved to NY from Maryland where annual policies like Geo Blue are also not permitted. Narrow thinking insurance regulators think all health policies need to fit into their narrow version of what benefits all health coverage must contain...annual travel health policies do not fit...so they are not allowed for state residents.

Edited November 27, 2023 by edgee

[PhD-iva]

4 hours ago, EJL2023 said:

Unless you get Cancel for Any Reason. 

True!

[CraigM]

14 hours ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

Yeah, that is tough, for sure.

I wonder what the actual "thinking" (if it is indeed "thinking"!?? 😠) is behind that...

I know they (the powers that be, etc.) are trying to "protect" consumers/citizens.  And I think NY isn't the only state to be, uh, "extra protective", but at some point, it becomes burdensome and restrictive" instead.

 

I thought that in some cases (?), some of these "restrictions" could be avoided by not calling a service "insurance", if it doesn't strictly fit the definition of insurance (and that's certainly fair enough).  I think some policies (not called "insurance"!) do call some features "protection plans" instead of insurance for this reason.  But at least, in those cases, the "coverage" is available!

 

GC

Yes, I am not certain whether CFAR is available at all in our jurisdiction. It must be quite expensive, though - the premium as a % of the cost insured?

[GeezerCouple]

5 minutes ago, CraigM said:

Yes, I am not certain whether CFAR is available at all in our jurisdiction. It must be quite expensive, though - the premium as a % of the cost insured?

For our policies, the additional premium to add the CFAR coverage rider is a percentage of the regular premium without the CFAR.

So, I don't know for sure how that plain vanilla premium is calculated.  There might be separate parts for the "cost of the trip", for the "medical coverage", and also for age, etc.

 

For example, the first payment, for the initial coverage, even if it's just the deposit, is disproportionately high, because in addition to what might be a small deposit, is the medical coverage also.  So adding more to the trip cost payments doesn't add to the medical coverage; that's already there.

(This is why some people who want medical coverage only get "trip cost coverage" for a minimal $500 or such.  They've then got the medical.  This doesn't work for policies where ALL non-refundable costs must be included in the insurance coverage, but only some policies have that requirement.)

 

"It's complicated" certainly applies!

 

GC

[roninman]

13 minutes ago, CraigM said:

Yes, I am not certain whether CFAR is available at all in our jurisdiction. It must be quite expensive, though - the premium as a % of the cost insured?

 

There are online applications and calculators that can give you costs for premium.  I looked up a cruise with a $22,000 fare, and the premium was $5,000.  If you don't use it, you are out $5000.  If you use it, you are still out the $5000 premium, and also out the $5500 that represents the 25% of the cruise fare the insurance does not cover.  So if say I did pull the trigger on that insurance, I would be out the equivalent of about half the original cruise fare.   This is just one example I looked up, and doesn't necessarily represent anyone else's premium, but this type of insurance certainly isn't a panacea, just a help to at least recoup something.

 

[CurlerRob]

13 hours ago, CraigM said:

Yes, I am not certain whether CFAR is available at all in our jurisdiction. It must be quite expensive, though - the premium as a % of the cost insured?

 

CFAR is available in Ontario - however, the offering underwriters have quite different approaches than you may see here, especially compared to the US.

 

The two companies I'm aware of that offer CFAR (there may be others) both require that you purchase the cancellation/interruption insurance within 72 hours of booking the trip, or prior to the start of ANY penalties (this includes even a trivial "administrative fee" of $150 or so). So, as most lines have some degree of holdback once booked, to qualify for CFAR you generally must initiate the policy immediately after booking.

 

Both companies will only cover up to 50% of the insured amount under CFAR, although one will go up to 75% if you use them as your TA. You are able to "start small" by just insuring your deposit and later upping the coverage amount - your CFAR will stay in place.

 

On the more positive side, there is no difference in the premium from these two companies whether you qualify for the CFAR or not - the CFAR is essentially an enticement to buy your insurance with them immediately. I have found cancel/interrupt insurance premiums  to generally run about 6-9% of the insured amount.

 

I use the technique of booking the minimum policy size immediately at cruise booking to secure the CFAR benefit, then increasing the coverage amount as I reach penalty or PIF dates - but that takes some care and management. 🍺🥌

[LHT28]

14 hours ago, CurlerRob said:

 

CFAR is available in Ontario - however, the offering underwriters have quite different approaches than you may see here, especially compared to the US.

 

The two companies I'm aware of that offer CFAR (there may be others) both require that you purchase the cancellation/interruption insurance within 72 hours of booking the trip,

Can you  tell us the insurance companies  that have CFAR in Ontario?

 

 For trip cancellation/interuption we have always had to book  ins  withing a few days of booking a trip IME

[susiesan]

The US is warning of evolving threats to ships sailing in the Red Sea

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-warns-evolving-threats-ships-112754658.html

[CurlerRob]

2 hours ago, LHT28 said:

Can you  tell us the insurance companies  that have CFAR in Ontario?

 

 For trip cancellation/interruption we have always had to book  ins  within a few days of booking a trip IME

Think that's OK on the boards - Manulife and CAA (underwritten by Orion). Below is the relevant page from the CAA/Orion policy - I just confirmed this with Orion this week. Please note that if even a modest cancellation fee is applicable once booked (even if it's given back as a FCC), then it's treated as a cancellation penalty and the 72-hour rule takes over. You must be able to recover all of your deposit to qualify under the "before penalty" clause. 🍺🥌

 

BENEFITS

1. TRIP CANCELLATION (before departure)
In the event of a Trip Cancellation please advise your CAA Travel
Consultant (if travel arrangements were booked through CAA) or your
travel agent or your travel supplier on the day the insured risk occurs
or on the next business day after the insured risk occurs prior to the
departure date. Only the sums that are nonrefundable on the day the
insured risk occurs shall be considered for the purpose of the claim.
In the event you must cancel your trip, the following benefits will apply to you and
to your travel companion(s) named as Insured(s), subject to the Sum Insured and to
all terms and conditions of this policy:

Important Restriction to Trip Cancellation benefits a. and b.:

Cancel for Any Other Reason benefit(s) a. and b. are covered only if you
purchase your policy within 72 hours of booking your travel arrangements
or before cancellation penalties come into effect. Subject only to the General
Exclusions and Conditions described on page 5 and 6.

a. reimbursement of 75% of the nonrefundable portion of your fully prepaid
travel arrangements booked through CAA (Canadian Automobile Association),
if you elect to cancel your trip 3 hours or more prior to the scheduled departure
date and time for any other reason; or

b. reimbursement of 50% of the nonrefundable portion of your fully prepaid
travel arrangements, if you elect to cancel your trip 3 hours or more prior to the
scheduled departure date and time for any other reason; or ...

 

[labonnevie]

On 11/17/2023 at 12:34 AM, Jockocruiser said:

enterprise level?

Any idea?

Enterprise level = Corporate