OCEANIA CRUISES HAS DONE THE PASSENGERS OF RIVIERA AND NAUTICA VERY TERRIBLE IN CHANGING CRUISES FOR iSTANBUL TO DABAI

[roninman]

7 minutes ago, Damicom said:

Irrelevant? Listen to yourself. It’s the crux of this issue. Thank you for making my point.

 

Something very bad is happening to innocent people somewhere.   Therefore, the corporation gets to keep your money.

 

[cruisemom42]

9 minutes ago, Damicom said:

Irrelevant? Listen to yourself. It’s the crux of this issue. Thank you for making my point.

 

Surprisingly, human beings are very complex emotionally. 

 

It is very possible -- in fact, it's probably healthy -- to be able to simultaneously feel intense sorrow, fear and trepidation about the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the human costs involved, and at the same time feel very upset that the vacation one has likely planned as a special one-off trip is completely changed in scope, presents possible risks one might be unwilling to take, and with no chance of recouping a quite substantial expense.

 

 

[Vineyard View]

1 hour ago, Damicom said:

You’re unfair making assumptions about me. I am directly affected. I’m boarding the Riviera on Dec 29 in Abu Dhabi. Also, I’m Jewish.

I do think that Oceania should allow people who feel uncomfortable about the 11/29 cruise to reschedule .  If was offered to me as an option I might take it.  However, I can’t wholly blame Oceania for the situation.  They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They did not go to Israel  and start a war intending to inconvenience passengers and keep their money. I do believe they’re struggling to find the right solution but the situation in the Middle East is day by day. I don’t believe Oceania is anymore evil or money grubbing than any other large business and in fact, in my experience they’ve been more generous than some other cruise lines. I’m offended by the insults being hurled at them and don’t believe it’s productive.

I travel quite a bit and I know that the world is unpredictable. That’s why I buy insurance, get vaccinations and do what I can to feel comfortably safe. I also take responsibility for my own decisions. I booked the cruise. Read the contract. Agreed to the contract.
When the war broke out my husband and I agreed that if we were uncomfortable, we’d walk away from the cruise. It would be an unpleasant financial hit but possibly better than the alternative.

In looking back over these postings, initially when the war broke out, most posts were still about finding  bridge partners and other cruise related activities. It was only when ports got cancelled that people got upset. So, it the problem really the war and safety or the disappointment in the itinerary?
Now, I’ve been on cruises where ports that were special to me were cancelled. some in advance of the cruise. Some on the day off. I certainly understand that it’s very disappointing. I’ve been on tropical vacations where it’s rained every day. I’ve been on ski vacations where there’s been no snow. I’ve had theater tickets and come down with a fever. Nobody owed me a refund for these things. I’m a grownup and can accept disappointment and responsibility. 
The temper tantrums and mudslinging we’re seeing here are not the route to problem solving. If I were Oceania I’d have stopped listening by now……and in fact….I’m tired of it and will be signing off too. 

 

 

No personal judgement meant. Also no inference to any religion. No mudslinging.
My position is, and always has been, that Oceania is handling the specific cruise on Nautica with less than admirable actions. In fact, they are quite disgusting. My point was that specific cruise, on that specific ship was offered FCC, it was rescinded, and now some people are being compensated while others are being ignored. My point was that if you had been offered FCC, then it was rescinded, or others received it and you can’t even get someone to respond with anything but a hard “no”, how would you feel.
To my knowledge, Oceania did or has not offered a graceful alternative as those on the Nautica were. If you are okay with your cruise, and not being given any alternatives, that is terrific. I hope you have a wonderful trip. But please do not confuse the statements I have made in this specific situation with any other trip. 

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, Damicom said:

Irrelevant? Listen to yourself. It’s the crux of this issue. Thank you for making my point.

 

Not at this point. This issue has well evolved from the fact that Oceania had a cruise to a country that is now in a war and choosing how to most fairly re-route/compensate the passengers. Agreed, that is a very hard decision and a shared issue with no real "fair" outcome.

 

The problem is that they created a whole new issue by offering a solution (FCC) to many passengers, and then refused to honor that offer. That is a bad faith business practice and has nothing really to do with the current conflict. It has everything to do with the trustworthiness and integrity of the business. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by sanger727

[Harry Lake]

38 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

It has everything to do with the trustworthiness and integrity of the business. 

And why would anyone think they would do differently going forward?

[Doctorpee]

On 11/6/2023 at 2:24 PM, Damicom said:

I never said I think Oceania is right in not allowing FCC. I said I think they should. I also think there is a shared responsibility. When passengers are calling them crooks and thieves, the “we’re all in this together” argument doesn’t hold up. I just think there are more mature and successful ways of dealing with adversity than throwing a tantrum

People get desperate when they are being stonewalled. Oceania's lack of communication with passengers is abhorrent and their rigid stance is all about their bottom line. Maybe there are people who are OK with the itinerary being forced upon us, but this is NOT the cruise we were sold, and NOT the cruise we paid for. Oceania is dead to me. I would NEVER consider them again and will tell everyone I know to avoid them.

[Harry Lake]

40 minutes ago, Doctorpee said:

and will tell everyone I know to avoid them.

And that can be the real death knell.

[Gordino]

After Oceania cancelled several ports (the first time), I emailed them and requested either future cruise credit (FCC) or a refund.  The same day they responded and offered FCC but I had to rebook by November 30.  I proceeded to cancel air, private excursions, hotel and transfers.  Then, six days later I received a message that they were no longer offering FCC.  I sent several emails to the agent and then to Carlos Ortega, the VP of Global Guest Services.  He was not pleasant and wrote that I would lose everything if I cancelled.  So, I decided to pursue litigation.  While doing so, I saw a Cruise Critic post about disputing the charges with your credit card company. I disputed the deposit and final payment charges with Capital One based on not getting what I paid for.  Capital One was great.  I received a call from Oceania two days later offering FCC.  What a coincidence!  I thought about turning it down as I was confident that I would prevail with the dispute or the cruise would be cancelled and I would receive a refund.  In a weak moment, however, I held my nose and accepted the offer.  The rebooked cruise will be my last with Oceania and with the Norwegian group.  Filing a dispute worked for me and it may work for others as well.

[kathy49]

21 minutes ago, Gordino said:

After Oceania cancelled several ports (the first time), I emailed them and requested either future cruise credit (FCC) or a refund.  The same day they responded and offered FCC but I had to rebook by November 30.  I proceeded to cancel air, private excursions, hotel and transfers.  Then, six days later I received a message that they were no longer offering FCC.  I sent several emails to the agent and then to Carlos Ortega, the VP of Global Guest Services.  He was not pleasant and wrote that I would lose everything if I cancelled.  So, I decided to pursue litigation.  While doing so, I saw a Cruise Critic post about disputing the charges with your credit card company. I disputed the deposit and final payment charges with Capital One based on not getting what I paid for.  Capital One was great.  I received a call from Oceania two days later offering FCC.  What a coincidence!  I thought about turning it down as I was confident that I would prevail with the dispute or the cruise would be cancelled and I would receive a refund.  In a weak moment, however, I held my nose and accepted the offer.  The rebooked cruise will be my last with Oceania and with the Norwegian group.  Filing a dispute worked for me and it may work for others as well.

There have been enough suggestions on here now and reports that CC disputes work and apparently the people at Oceania that get the communication from CC companies are authorized to reach out and offer FCC.  Gordino you did the right thing as they have a contract that says they don't really HAVE to do anything. The dispute would not have been in your favor if you turned down the FCC.  At this point those going must want to go and those that want FCC should be in the process of CC dispute. Thanks for the report and confirmation that this process can work.

[roninman]

Please be advised that my understanding is that a company incurring a certain number of chargebacks can be penalized by the credit card company- the merchant may thereafter face higher fees and expenses, and be considered high risk.  Not to mention, every consumer chargeback costs the merchant time and money, since Visa/Mastercard impose a nominal fee ($25-40?) per chargeback, that the merchant must pay the credit card company to research the dispute.  A large number of chargebacks can really come back to bite a company, so keep that in mind and do not dispute lightly.

 

 

 

 

[Doctorpee]

Oceania deserves all the negative publicity they get. They should have done the right thing like some other cruise lines, and offered refund or FCC as soon as they realized they would have to make huge itinerary changes. This ship will not be "The Love Boat!" 

[geoacs]

Dies anyone know if Canadians will be allowed to disembark at the ports in India on the Barcelona to Singapore cruise? We got our visas in July before the Indian government stopped issuing visas. They have restarted issuing business visas, but haven’t been able to discover if we’ll be allowed to get off. 

[kathy49]

1 hour ago, roninman said:

Please be advised that my understanding is that a company incurring a certain number of chargebacks can be penalized by the credit card company- the merchant may thereafter face higher fees and expenses, and be considered high risk.  Not to mention, every consumer chargeback costs the merchant time and money, since Visa/Mastercard impose a nominal fee ($25-40?) per chargeback, that the merchant must pay the credit card company to research the dispute.  A large number of chargebacks can really come back to bite a company, so keep that in mind and do not dispute lightly.

 

 

 

 

This is exactly the reason that the cc dispute process (or chargeback) gets the attention of the vendor....they want to settle it immediately to avoid  an extensive back and forth and investigation and having to provide the required data etc.  If I did not want to go on the cruise thanks to the drastic changes I would not hesitate to follow this process. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by kathy49

[CraigM]

5 hours ago, geoacs said:

Dies anyone know if Canadians will be allowed to disembark at the ports in India on the Barcelona to Singapore cruise? We got our visas in July before the Indian government stopped issuing visas. They have restarted issuing business visas, but haven’t been able to discover if we’ll be allowed to get off. 

I know someone who already had a business visa, and he believes that it would still be valid. I can try to check to see if he knows anything further.

[geoacs]

Thank you. It would be great to know that Canadians are actually landing in Indian ports. 

[CraigM]

15 hours ago, geoacs said:

Thank you. It would be great to know that Canadians are actually landing in Indian ports. 

So his visa is business, which has been restored, in any case, but while he *believes* that existing visas should still be valid, he suggested to be safe, perhaps a call to the India consulate to see whether they could clarify (I did have a look at their web pages, and did not see anything addressing this, sorry).

[geoacs]

Thank you for your help.  We leave for our cruise in 48 hours, so 'whatever will be, will be' and at this point there is nothing we can do to change the outcome.  So we will enjoy regardless of whether we are allowed off the ship or not.

[CraigM]

1 hour ago, geoacs said:

Thank you for your help.  We leave for our cruise in 48 hours, so 'whatever will be, will be' and at this point there is nothing we can do to change the outcome.  So we will enjoy regardless of whether we are allowed off the ship or not.

Enjoy your trip, and I hope India works out for you.

[ak1004]

On 11/13/2023 at 4:19 PM, roninman said:

Please be advised that my understanding is that a company incurring a certain number of chargebacks can be penalized by the credit card company- the merchant may thereafter face higher fees and expenses, and be considered high risk.  Not to mention, every consumer chargeback costs the merchant time and money, since Visa/Mastercard impose a nominal fee ($25-40?) per chargeback, that the merchant must pay the credit card company to research the dispute.  A large number of chargebacks can really come back to bite a company, so keep that in mind and do not dispute lightly.

 

 

 

 

 

As a business owner myself, I can confirm that this is 100% true.

 

This is why everyone who files a chargeback or a PayPal dispute is automatically banned from using our services for life. 

[Vallesan]

3 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

As a business owner myself, I can confirm that this is 100% true.

 

This is why everyone who files a chargeback or a PayPal dispute is automatically banned from using our services for life. 

Even if their claim is legitimate?

[ak1004]

5 minutes ago, Vallesan said:

Even if their claim is legitimate?

 

My business is an online trading subscription service. There is a very clear and detailed description of the service. Once they sign up, they get access to the service. Nothing is promised or guaranteed, except for access to the content.

 

In which scenario requesting a refund can be considered legitimate? It's like requesting a refund from Netflix because you didn't like their content.

 

It's pretty much the same with the cruises. You buy their service and in return, they guarantee to bring you from A to B. Nothing else is promised or guaranteed. 

[Vallesan]

14 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

My business is an online trading subscription service. There is a very clear and detailed description of the service. Once they sign up, they get access to the service. Nothing is promised or guaranteed, except for access to the content.

 

In which scenario requesting a refund can be considered legitimate? It's like requesting a refund from Netflix because you didn't like their content.

 

It's pretty much the same with the cruises. You buy their service and in return, they guarantee to bring you from A to B. Nothing else is promised or guaranteed. 

 
Ahh! I was making the assumption that ‘goods’ were involved rather than services.

 

As you say, with cruises you are buying a ‘service’ to get you from A to B, unfortunately the A and/or B can change as well!

 

I had never realised how insecure my cruise bookings were. Maybe because, so far,  I have always been transported from the stated A to the stated B!

[roninman]

22 minutes ago, kathy49 said:

Sounds like you have had lots of experience with disputes and many disgruntled customers. YOu may ban them but pretty sure they are not eager to sign up with you again. I seriously doubt if a cruise line has a passenger, say in one of these cases discussed here on CC, file a dispute and it was settled one way or another would BAN that passenger from booking again. I would have to hear that from a first hand experience. Usually major companies are smart enough to settle the dispute with customers long before it gets to that stage. The reason we pay cc fees and use cards for all major purchases is obviously convenience but the fact that they help you in cases like this. I am not sure I see the comparison between some online trading sub and a very expensive luxury cruise...guess I missed the logic.

 

I'm aware of situations where a frustrated consumer did not feel they were getting what was expected, and perceived the merchant as non-responsive, and so subsequently reluctantly filed a dispute.

 

Coincidentally or not, the merchant then contacts the consumer- communication is established, an understanding is agreed upon, and the consumer withdraws the dispute.  A recent poster in Cruise Critic has posted an example of this.

 

In this scenario, the dispute became an opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome, such that a consumer and the merchant can do mutually beneficial business together in the future.  No one got mad or sought retribution, it was just treated as an opportunity.  It's just business.

 

 

[ak1004]

24 minutes ago, kathy49 said:

Sounds like you have had lots of experience with disputes and many disgruntled customers. YOu may ban them but pretty sure they are not eager to sign up with you again. I seriously doubt if a cruise line has a passenger, say in one of these cases discussed here on CC, file a dispute and it was settled one way or another would BAN that passenger from booking again. I would have to hear that from a first hand experience. Usually major companies are smart enough to settle the dispute with customers long before it gets to that stage. The reason we pay cc fees and use cards for all major purchases is obviously convenience but the fact that they help you in cases like this. I am not sure I see the comparison between some online trading sub and a very expensive luxury cruise...guess I missed the logic.

 

My dispute rate is actually very low, but this is not the point. It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of principle. You buy a product or a service and sign a contract. You don't read the contract and file a dispute. Many times those disputes are completely illegitimate. But people still file them because they have nothing to lose. Worst case the dispute is rejected. But meanwhile the business suffers and can be punished if there are too many disputes, no matter if they are legitimate or not.

 

22 minutes ago, Vallesan said:

 
Ahh! I was making the assumption that ‘goods’ were involved rather than services.

 

As you say, with cruises you are buying a ‘service’ to get you from A to B, unfortunately the A and/or B can change as well!

 

I had never realised how insecure my cruise bookings were. Maybe because, so far,  I have always been transported from the stated A to the stated B!

 

The only difference is that deliver of goods is easier to prove. Delivery of service is more vague and can be easily disputed. You can claim basically anything. "Service was not as described because my two cabins did not have a connecting door. I want a full refund (true case)".

[Vallesan]

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

The only difference is that deliver of goods is easier to prove. Delivery of service is more vague and can be easily disputed. You can claim basically anything. "Service was not as described because my two cabins did not have a connecting door. I want a full refund (true case)".

 

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

No!!! Somebody actually tried to  claim a full refund for that. My guess is that they enjoyed the cruise before complaining!

 

I guess if you get sent the wrong item of it’s faulty when it arrives it’s relatively straight forward … everything else enters the world of murky waters!