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

[ak1004]

3 minutes ago, Vallesan 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!

 

Here is the link - https://consumerrescue.org/cruise-fiascos/cruise-line-do-not-sail-list-banned-from-cruising/

Offered a full credit and refused. How stupid this is? No wonder NCL banned them.

 

And yes, it's much more clear with physical products. It's pretty easy to prove "no delivered or not as described". 

[kathy49]

In this case service has not been delivered and the customer had to decide to cancel the cruise and hope for a resolution. Given this unique situation (not just missing a port but change in focus of cruise and associated marketing) most cruise lines have come to a fair resolution with customers wishing to cancel...not because they had to but in the interest of customer loyality etc. If a cruise line refuses as a consumer I would not hesitate at all to file that dispute and could care less if they get rated poorly by CC company.  I have never ever filed such a claim against a small business (other than scams) as I acknowledge my experience could be a one off. Most of the time if you give them a deadline to refund what you feel you are due or you will file a dispute it never goes further. I would give the cruise line the same chance. No reply then it is filed. The cc company needs assurance and proof that you have tried.

[kathy49]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

Here is the link - https://consumerrescue.org/cruise-fiascos/cruise-line-do-not-sail-list-banned-from-cruising/

Offered a full credit and refused. How stupid this is? No wonder NCL banned them.

 

And yes, it's much more clear with physical products. It's pretty easy to prove "no delivered or not as described". 

this passenger was unreasonable and i don't blame NCL for putting her on the list. Some. people routinely buy and use goods and services and then file a dispute. They can play that game for some time but CC will ban them too!!!

[Vineyard View]

This still all goes back to the act of offering a FCC, rescinding it, and all the unethical events that have followed. 
Had that been me, damned straight I would dispute it on my CC. 

[roninman]

Just for clarification, the article says they asked for a $3000 cash refund to match the future credit offered because the company didn't honor the reservation of connecting cabins. (Note customer was not a FULL refund). This was a nice gesture by the company.  But the card issuer declined because cruise credit is not a cash equivalent, and there was therefore no basis for requesting a cash refund, so the dispute was declined.   The thrust of the article is not that there was a dispute, but that the pax were placed on a no cruise list.  

[Vallesan]

34 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

Here is the link - https://consumerrescue.org/cruise-fiascos/cruise-line-do-not-sail-list-banned-from-cruising/

Offered a full credit and refused. How stupid this is? No wonder NCL banned them.

 

And yes, it's much more clear with physical products. It's pretty easy to prove "no delivered or not as described". 

Amazing!

Having been involved in businesses all my life I guess I’m no longer at all surprised at people.

 

I can see how people are upset at Oceania’s treatment of them recently, despite the ‘legalities’ of the contracts. I can also see from Oceania’s point of view that refunds would have escalated out of control. The whole business is neither the fault of Oceania nor the passengers. Whichever way you look at it both Oceania and the passengers are ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’.
 

Looks like insurance won’t cover this situation in the majority of  cases. So, hard as it may seem, it looks like it’s cruise or lose your money! 
 

Oceania isn’t the only line to be taking what appears to be a hard line. At the end of the day the choice to cruise or not cruise with a line again I’d purely personal.

 

 

 

 

[ak1004]

56 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

This still all goes back to the act of offering a FCC, rescinding it, and all the unethical events that have followed. 
Had that been me, damned straight I would dispute it on my CC. 

 

What O did with the FCCs is inexcusable and non defendable. However, from a pure legal point of view, I doubt you would have a case. What would you claim? "Product not as described"? This would be very difficult to prove. They will just point to the contract that allows them unlimited changes.

[Doctorpee]

Agree that the Oceania contract allows them to do virtually ANYTHING to the cruise and passengers have no recourse.

[cruisemom42]

As has been pointed out (and demonstrated in other cases), just because a contract says something does not always mean it is enforceable when the contract is so one-sided as to be extremely punitive to one party for benefit of the other.

 

In terms of "product not delivered", I would assume that anyone who booked a cruise that had "Holy Land" or "Israel" etc. in its actual title, only to find after changes that there is neither, might have a valid argument.

 

The UK has protections for consumers in place to deal with just these sorts of shenanigans. Wish they were universal.

 

(And before someone mentions it, I am fine if that increases the fare. In fact, that is a solution I suggested early on in this crisis. Ships should have some sort of insurance against situations like these so that they can make passengers whole. If it raises the cost, it is what it is and people already pay a premium for travel to these often troubled destinations. Either that, or passengers should be offered the chance to purchase special insurance that would cover them in the eventuality of major changes/port cancellations with the caveat that if they choose not to purchase it, they are aware of the consequences.)

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by cruisemom42

[roninman]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

What O did with the FCCs is inexcusable and non defendable. However, from a pure legal point of view, I doubt you would have a case. What would you claim? "Product not as described"? This would be very difficult to prove. They will just point to the contract that allows them unlimited changes.

 

Again, credit card companies will not read or enforce contracts- they aren't lawyers.  From a legal point of view, they are obliged to follow the FCRA and credit card company by-laws, which indicate among other reasons that if goods or services vary significantly from the advertised products, there is a legitimate justification for logging a dispute.  It's up to the consumer to provide web or brochure pages to show, for example, that this service was advertised and represented as a Holy Land tour with these number of port stops etc, and that the consumer made an honest attempt to resolve differences with the merchant.

 

All that is being contested in a dispute is the payment transaction.  If the consumer wins the cc dispute, the merchant can still sue or arbitrate or enter collections against the consumer.  If the consumer loses, he can still enter action against the merchants.   Under these after-the-dispute circumstances the actual language of the contract will determine the outcome.  

 

Would be curious if any pax pursuing this route would report back what happened!

[Jancruz]

1 hour ago, Doctorpee said:

Agree that the Oceania contract allows them to do virtually ANYTHING to the cruise and passengers have no recourse.

And you should know that before you book a cruise

Jancruz1

[Gordino]

I disputed with Capital One and got FCC two days later.

[Vineyard View]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

What O did with the FCCs is inexcusable and non defendable. However, from a pure legal point of view, I doubt you would have a case. What would you claim? "Product not as described"? This would be very difficult to prove. They will just point to the contract that allows them unlimited changes.

That very well could have been the outcome, but I wouldn’t have let this go lightly nor quietly. Disputing with my Cc would have been only one avenue I would have pursued. I applaud those who went to the NYT. As you say, it is inexcusable and indefensible- as well as completely unethical. 

[joanne Cottell]

Good for you. What is NYT?? 
thanks. 

[oskidunker]

New york times, I guess. People love abbreviations. I hate them.

[Vineyard View]

Sorry. It was used previously and I agree. It can be confusing with abbreviations. 

[PhD-iva]

7 hours ago, Gordino said:

I disputed with Capital One and got FCC two days later.

Good for you! Let us know if NCL bans you from cruising on their ships, thx!

[Nuka]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:17 PM, golferpcc said:

we managed to get the FCC. TA got it about 2 hours before the iffr was rescinded but I have to say the info we were given was so mixed up. Result was cruise fare only, no air reimbursement,  taxes and shore excursions reimbursed. However, paid $3300 for excursions but till O massaged the numbers we got $1300. And they won't explain how they got the numbers. I am writing FMC (federal maritime commission) they jy congress person to get answers. Last O cruise we will take

Call your State's Attorney if you live in the US.  Good luck

[kathy49]

On 11/17/2023 at 9:49 PM, PhD-iva said:

Good for you! Let us know if NCL bans you from cruising on their ships, thx!

I could care less...if I have to file a dispute to get fcc they would be hard pressed to not let you use it. That would just be another dispute!!! I that is just a rumor...there are some passengers banned but probably for other reasons.

[Subub]

Oceania should have handled the Middle East tragedy as they did COVID, where they greatly altered  our 77 day cruise in 2022, due to closed countries, and offered three options:  1) A Full Cash Refund, 2) A FCC worth 125% of the original cruise, with no limitations, 3) Sail and receive a 25% Cash Refund.  With over 240 Cruise Nights on Oceania we HAD considered them our Go-To Cruise Line, their on-ship staff being great.  BUUUUTTTT,  Corporate has totally mishandled the Middle East cruises on the Riviera and Nautica ships.  While I understand that they need to get both ships into the Pacific for the Winter, 2024 Season, their twice on again, off again restrictive FCC has shown how desperate they are, thereby causing a PR debacle, which will sting for many years to come, if they survive it, instead of following their COVID strategy and "doing the right thing".

Forcing concerned clients to resort to their Credit Card Companies, the Media, Government Agencies, Social Media, etc. for resolution does not paint a pretty picture of a company that I would be willing to do business with. RIP Oceania.

[ORV]

20 minutes ago, Subub said:

Oceania should have handled the Middle East tragedy as they did COVID, where they greatly altered  our 77 day cruise in 2022, due to closed countries, and offered three options:  1) A Full Cash Refund, 2) A FCC worth 125% of the original cruise, with no limitations, 3) Sail and receive a 25% Cash Refund.  With over 240 Cruise Nights on Oceania we HAD considered them our Go-To Cruise Line, their on-ship staff being great.  BUUUUTTTT,  Corporate has totally mishandled the Middle East cruises on the Riviera and Nautica ships.  While I understand that they need to get both ships into the Pacific for the Winter, 2024 Season, their twice on again, off again restrictive FCC has shown how desperate they are, thereby causing a PR debacle, which will sting for many years to come, if they survive it, instead of following their COVID strategy and "doing the right thing".

Forcing concerned clients to resort to their Credit Card Companies, the Media, Government Agencies, Social Media, etc. for resolution does not paint a pretty picture of a company that I would be willing to do business with. RIP Oceania.

I'm not defending them and have tried to stay out of this as I have no dog in the hunt, but that was then, this is now. Apples and oranges. While I certainly would hate to be in the position that these folks on these cruises are in, I would have never booked a cruise to this part of the world in the first place, at least for the last 10 years or so, or maybe the last 50 years, or 2000 years, or 5000 years. Just my point of view, we all have to do what works for us.  Book a cruise to a powder keg region and accept the consequences of what occurs. It's not all on the cruise line. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by ORV

[EJL2023]

24 minutes ago, Subub said:

Oceania should have handled the Middle East tragedy as they did COVID, where they greatly altered  our 77 day cruise in 2022, due to closed countries, and offered three options:  1) A Full Cash Refund, 2) A FCC worth 125% of the original cruise, with no limitations, 3) Sail and receive a 25% Cash Refund.  With over 240 Cruise Nights on Oceania we HAD considered them our Go-To Cruise Line, their on-ship staff being great.  BUUUUTTTT,  Corporate has totally mishandled the Middle East cruises on the Riviera and Nautica ships.  While I understand that they need to get both ships into the Pacific for the Winter, 2024 Season, their twice on again, off again restrictive FCC has shown how desperate they are, thereby causing a PR debacle, which will sting for many years to come, if they survive it, instead of following their COVID strategy and "doing the right thing".

Forcing concerned clients to resort to their Credit Card Companies, the Media, Government Agencies, Social Media, etc. for resolution does not paint a pretty picture of a company that I would be willing to do business with. RIP Oceania.

Well I’ll continue to cruise with them, so not is all doom and gloom as you proclaim.  Vive le Oceania! 

[jazznruby]

35 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

Well I’ll continue to cruise with them, so not is all doom and gloom as you proclaim.  Vive le Oceania! 

PLUS 1! (actually PLUS 2! Better half gets to go too.)

[Harry Lake]

1 hour ago, ORV said:

Just my point of view

And thank you.

 

Oceania's side is abhorrent to me. BUT. We went to Turkey and Israel (G1 trips) about ten years ago and they were fantastic. Since then we've said, due to current issues, we would never go back there again. And there are certainly other parts of the world - for instance, a cruise that included two days in St. Petersburg (after Ukraine blew up) which got canceled.  We've seen more of this world, I'm guessing, than most people. But we don't need to see all the rest. 

 

Anyway, thank you.

[Harry Lake]

35 minutes ago, jazznruby said:

PLUS 1! (actually PLUS 2! Better half gets to go too.)

Curious if "PLUS 2" is required to go on O also?