Cruise Bill of Rights and/or Government Regulation

[GeezerCouple]

34 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

If a cruise line routinely does those things then why continue to sail with them? Vote with your dollars and cruise with another line.  

 

Exactly.  I think that's part of this topic!

 

There can be times that one wouldn't know "how" a situation would be handled IF it occurred... until it occurs.  So if one learns that a cruise line IS handling something in a way that one finds inappropriate, yup, make other choices.

 

The same "conditions" could be encountered by different ships/cruiselines, but passengers may not be able to determine in advance how the <whatever> would be handled.  Indeed, in some cases, some passengers may not even have thought about <whatever> happening... until it does.

 

There can be some ways that ships/cruiselines handle unexpected problems that give one a sense of how well they consider the passengers' experiences (including, but not restricted to, costs and safety) vs. their own bottom line.  Then one has that information for future decision making.

And over time, there may be some patterns that emerge...  That can be far more informative than single events.

 

GC

[sparks1093]

2 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

Exactly.  I think that's part of this topic!

 

There can be times that one wouldn't know "how" a situation would be handled IF it occurred... until it occurs.  So if one learns that a cruise line IS handling something in a way that one finds inappropriate, yup, make other choices.

 

The same "conditions" could be encountered by different ships/cruiselines, but passengers may not be able to determine in advance how the <whatever> would be handled.  Indeed, in some cases, some passengers may not even have thought about <whatever> happening... until it does.

 

There can be some ways that ships/cruiselines handle unexpected problems that give one a sense of how well they consider the passengers' experiences (including, but not restricted to, costs and safety) vs. their own bottom line.  Then one has that information for future decision making.

And over time, there may be some patterns that emerge...  That can be far more informative than single events.

 

GC

That's one of the beautiful things about Cruise Critic if one hangs out long enough. We see how the different cruise lines handle different scenarios. 

[ontheweb]

20 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

That's one of the beautiful things about Cruise Critic if one hangs out long enough. We see how the different cruise lines handle different scenarios. 

Yes, it is a good thing that people post their positive experiences, not just the things that go wrong. It is well known that people with a complaint are more likely to make it known than are people who are satisfied with their experience.

[BruceMuzz]

All passengers are liable to be rejected, who, upon examination, are found to be lunatic, idiot, deaf, dumb, blind, maimed, or infirm, or above the age of 60 years;

 

- White Star Line Passage Contract, 1892

[navybankerteacher]

While a “bill of rights” or some set of government regulations would, of course, offer protection to cruise passengers - much as various insurance plans do.   Such protections do not come without cost - as long as passengers are willing to pay for them, they are great;  but the fact that a number of UK citizens seem to prefer the lower prices which come by booking through a US site - or simply do not bother with cruise insurance - indicates that there is a reluctance to pay for such protection.

[sparks1093]

29 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, it is a good thing that people post their positive experiences, not just the things that go wrong. It is well known that people with a complaint are more likely to make it known than are people who are satisfied with their experience.

Well, in keeping with the spirit of this particular thread we want to know when a cruise line makes a change and doesn't do right by the passengers (and of course that, too, is something that will vary- some will find what the cruise line did to be acceptable and others not so much), i.e. knowing that a cruise will not be going to a particular port and leaving the port on the itinerary until the last minute. 

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, BruceMuzz said:

All passengers are liable to be rejected, who, upon examination, are found to be lunatic, idiot, deaf, dumb, blind, maimed, or infirm, or above the age of 60 years;

 

- White Star Line Passage Contract, 1892

Not surprising, but of course each of those terms had a specific definition. For instance, "'Idiot' was formerly a technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself(sic) against common physical dangers." 

[ilikeanswers]

I agree with a lot though I'm not sold on self regulation. Unless it is something like the entertainment industry that has a vocal court of public opinion my usual experience of self regulation is it takes one to flout it everyone sees them get away with it  and then everything just devolves into a feral who can get with the most situation. 

 

In Australia we had a class action launched against Scenic Cruises after the river cruises they sold turned into bus tours due to river levels in Europe being too low. Passengers had not been notified and they only found out on arrival. The passengers won that class action but it is not really a viable solution to have to go to court for every itinerary change😂 and too be fair they probably only won due how extreme this case was. 

Edited February 16 by ilikeanswers

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

I agree with a lot though I'm not sold on self regulation. Unless it is something like the entertainment industry that has a vocal court of public opinion my usual experience of self regulation is it takes one to flout it everyone sees them get away with it  and then everything just devolves into a feral who can get with the most situation. 

 

In Australia we had a class action launched against Scenic Cruises after the river cruises they sold turned into bus tours due to river levels in Europe being too low. Passengers had not been notified and they only found out on arrival. The passengers won that class action but it is not really a viable solution to have to go to court for every itinerary change😂 and too be fair they probably only won due how extreme this case was. 

We have a river cruise booked and there is a disclaimer that if the water levels are too low, busses will be substituted. I think this is a standard disclaimer. How are ships supposed to sail if the water level is too low? 

[d9704011]

25 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

We have a river cruise booked and there is a disclaimer that if the water levels are too low, busses will be substituted. I think this is a standard disclaimer. How are ships supposed to sail if the water level is too low? 

I believe the class action was actually based on a couple of thousand people being bused around because of high water levels.  In any event, I think the judgement was more about Scenic's failure to deliver on a luxury cruise experience and their unwillingness to compensate passengers.  Really, would you sanguinely accept being bused around with no hint of compensation, disclaimers or not?

Edited February 16 by d9704011

[*Miss G*]

31 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

We have a river cruise booked and there is a disclaimer that if the water levels are too low, busses will be substituted. I think this is a standard disclaimer. How are ships supposed to sail if the water level is too low? 

 

13 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

I believe the class action was actually based on a couple of thousand people being bused around because of high water levels.  In any event, I think the judgement was more about Scenic's failure to deliver on a luxury cruise experience and their unwillingness to compensate passengers.  Really, would you sanguinely accept being bused around with no hint of compensation, disclaimers or not?

 

 

I think it had more to do with this statement:

 

8 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Passengers had not been notified and they only found out on arrival. 

 

 

 

In other words, the extreme conditions and changes to itinerary were known well in advance but the cruise line chose not to inform the passengers.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

We have a river cruise booked and there is a disclaimer that if the water levels are too low, busses will be substituted. I think this is a standard disclaimer. How are ships supposed to sail if the water level is too low? 

 

If you book a cruise and it turns into a bus tour you should be notified in advanced and given the option to withdraw your participation with a refund. IMO if the cruise cannot run they just should cancel as I don't feel a bus tour is a substitute for a cruise experience. I should probably add that Scenic Cruises is an ultra luxury cruise company. People paid a lot of money for this experience and however you cut it no bus tour is going adequately substitute that level of luxury and that was one of the points the passengers won on in their case that the offered bus tour did not meet the same value as the cruise they paid for. 

Edited February 16 by ilikeanswers

[cruisemom42]

If people continue to uncritically accept the actions of the cruise lines simply by virtue of "well, the contract says....", keep in mind what one poster expressively said on the NCL forum regrading the whole "Antarctic cruise changes" issue (paraphrased):  Imagine you get on a cruise and they only serve you bread and water, with no compensation. Well...they only promise to serve you meals -- they don't say what those meals will be."  😒

 

Also, I think cruisers tend to have too much of a sense of fatalism about these issues. Past legal experts have said that depending on the facts of case, courts have intervened to invalidated unconscionable contracts which are unfair or unreasonable to a weaker party having unequal bargaining power or the terms which are against the public policy. 

 

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

If you book a cruise and it turns into a bus tour you should be notified in advanced and given the option to withdraw your participation with a refund. IMO if the cruise cannot run they just should cancel as I don't feel a bus tour is a substitute for a cruise experience. I should probably add that Scenic Cruises is an ultra luxury cruise company. People paid a lot of money for this experience and however you cut it no bus tour is going adequately substitute that level of luxury and that was one of the points the passengers won on in their case that the offered bus tour did not meet the same value as the cruise they paid for. 

We will be going on our first river cruise, but we actually had one booked a long time ago. (It was over the Christmas/New Year's break in I think 2003/2004 or possibly the next year) And we were worried about low water levels because we had been reading of them prior to the cruise. But then that became superfluous as the river cruise line chartered the ship out. (This was well after we made final payment.)

 

Yes, a bus tour would have been disappointing, but at least we would have got to see the ports, ports that we wanted to experience.

[*Miss G*]

57 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, a bus tour would have been disappointing, but at least we would have got to see the ports, ports that we wanted to experience.

 

In our case, we wanted to experience a river cruise.  I’ve been on a bus!  😂

[ldubs]

On 2/15/2024 at 4:59 AM, navybankerteacher said:

While a “bill of rights” or some set of government regulations would, of course, offer protection to cruise passengers - much as various insurance plans do.   Such protections do not come without cost - as long as passengers are willing to pay for them, they are great;  but the fact that a number of UK citizens seem to prefer the lower prices which come by booking through a US site - or simply do not bother with cruise insurance - indicates that there is a reluctance to pay for such protection.

 

This is very true.  In my opinion the extra cost is preferable over a company being allowed to generate revenues from shady, arguably unethical, and certainly unfair practices. 

 

Cruise insurance, unless cancel for any reason, is not going to help if the cruise line hides undesirable itinerary changes until after the final payment date.   And even CFAR isn't going to help if material changes are not shared until after boarding.   

 

Book an advertised itinerary that includes ports in <filll in the blank>.  After booking, cruise company says "Oh, by the way the ship won't actually go to those ports because of <fill in the blank>"  There are too many times when what they don't say is "We knew that but wanted your money".     

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

If people continue to uncritically accept the actions of the cruise lines simply by virtue of "well, the contract says....", keep in mind what one poster expressively said on the NCL forum regrading the whole "Antarctic cruise changes" issue (paraphrased):  Imagine you get on a cruise and they only serve you bread and water, with no compensation. Well...they only promise to serve you meals -- they don't say what those meals will be."  😒

 

Also, I think cruisers tend to have too much of a sense of fatalism about these issues. Past legal experts have said that depending on the facts of case, courts have intervened to invalidated unconscionable contracts which are unfair or unreasonable to a weaker party having unequal bargaining power or the terms which are against the public policy. 

 

 

If negligence, wrongful actions, fraud, or intended chicanery (however you say that)  is  involved those adhesive contracts would likely not last a minute in court.  I actually suspect there are many settlements out of court we never hear about.  And if you read these forums "compensation" is wanted for just about anything that goes wrong.  If the cruise contract were that tight, it would not be given.  But it is given.   

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, *Miss G* said:

 

In our case, we wanted to experience a river cruise.  I’ve been on a bus!  😂

 

It would need to be a party bus closely followed by a food truck.  😀

Edited February 16 by ldubs

[njhorseman]

30 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 And if you read these forums "compensation" is wanted for just about anything that goes wrong.  If the cruise contract were that tight, it would not be given.  But it is given.

 

I don't attribute most of the compensation to how 'tight" the contract might or might not be.

 

It's not uncommon for cruise lines to offer some minor compensation as a matter of customer goodwill, not legal necessity when something goes a bit sideways. Other businesses do likewise. 

[clo]

On 2/15/2024 at 4:35 AM, ontheweb said:

It is well known that people with a complaint are more likely to make it known than are people who are satisfied with their experience.

Quick to criticize, slow to praise.

[clo]

5 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

This is very true.  In my opinion the extra cost is preferable over a company being allowed to generate revenues from shady, arguably unethical, and certainly unfair practices. 

 

Cruise insurance, unless cancel for any reason, is not going to help if the cruise line hides undesirable itinerary changes until after the final payment date.   And even CFAR isn't going to help if material changes are not shared until after boarding.   

 

Book an advertised itinerary that includes ports in <filll in the blank>.  After booking, cruise company says "Oh, by the way the ship won't actually go to those ports because of <fill in the blank>"  There are too many times when what they don't say is "We knew that but wanted your money".     

I just wonder if, going forward, if more people will use credit card disputes.

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

 

I don't attribute most of the compensation to how 'tight" the contract might or might not be.

 

It's not uncommon for cruise lines to offer some minor compensation as a matter of customer goodwill, not legal necessity when something goes a bit sideways. Other businesses do likewise. 

 

Yeah, I think I reached a little on that one.  I agree with you.  

[ldubs]

11 minutes ago, clo said:

I just wonder if, going forward, if more people will use credit card disputes.

 

I would not be surprised to see a growing trend in that direction & not just for cruise payments.  

 

It seems I read somewhere on these forums someone was unable to book a cruise because they had previously done a credit card dispute with the cruise line.  

[clo]

Just now, ldubs said:

It seems I read somewhere on these forums someone was unable to book a cruise because they had previously done a credit card dispute with the cruise line.  

And I would say to that cruise line "good riddance to bad rubbish." They've shown their bad side again. Buyer beware.

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, clo said:

And I would say to that cruise line "good riddance to bad rubbish." They've shown their bad side again. Buyer beware.

 

I guess it would depend on who was in the wrong.  I can't remember the details.   Though, if I understand, the credit card company gives the vendor an opportunity to respond with their side of things.