Greedy People

[espmass]

This is just my opinion and I'm sure there will be people who disagree but it seems some people have been getting awfully greedy regarding wanting compensation for "ruined" cruises. There was a report on the news this morning that passengers were asking for monetary compensation for getting stuck for a day on a sandbar while on the Norwegian Crown. Was their trip "ruined"? If you rent a place at the shore and it rains all week do you get compensation? If you go to a resort for a week and a beach you want to go to is closed for some reason, do you get compensation? I understand there was some fear and confusion when they were stuck in the sandbar, but to ask for monetary compensation sounds awfully greedy to me.

[rjg41]

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[C 2 C]

If the incompetence of a captain or cruise line caused me to miss a port I would want a portion of my cruise fee returned. An "act of god" is totally different. I don't know if any ports were missed as a result but port fees are often part of the cruise cost.

 

For me just park the ship away from the dock and I'll be happy. For some others, who book a trip to go to a specific place and don't have the good fortune or time to return, I could imagine the disappointment.

 

Perhaps the cruiseline should just have provided a free bar while pax were forced to stay parked on a sandbar.

[BaltiGator]

IMO the cruise line should provide some sort of compensation in cases such as this. This is more than just missing a port due to bad weather. I don't think this is pax being "greedy." Why are so many presumably ordinary American citizens on this board so inclined to defend large corporations? When I was growing up, it was corporations that were often "greedy" in their behaviors and it was the right and duty of citizens to be vigilant against that. I don't think that's changed in our world at all. If anything, the corporations are larger and more powerful nowadays and there is more need than ever for consumers to be vigilant and act together.

 

I'm not saying the compensation should be anything major for spending on a day on a sandbar. The above suggestion - open bar for the day - is a good one, though there would have to be some alternative for people who don't care to partake of alcohol. Maybe offer each pax one free night in an alternative restaurant (not all the same night, of course!). Little things like that. It's all about letting the customers know their loyalty is important to the cruise line, that the cruise line recognizes something about the cruise has gone unusually wrong, and offering a simple apology *whether it's the cruise line's fault or not* and an appropriate level of compensation depending on how bad things went. What's so wrong with this concept???

[mmp13]

Actually as I read the story and also listened to the local reporters when the ship returned to Philly ( we are 20 minutes outside city so it was big news here) Passengers were still able to tender into bermuda. Unfortunately it was a miserable day in Bermuda. The port was not really missed. The only real change I could see was that they had to tender as do many passengers when they arrive in Bermuda. some people did miss Their shore excursions and their money was refunded. Tenders are inconvenient so maybe some free drinks or a small credit to the room would have been a gesture of good will but I wonder if the passengers would have been as annoyed if it had been a beautiful day. I read that many tendered in to the island but returned to the ship due to the inclement weather. My personal opinion Whic I realize counts for nothing is that the cruise was not really affected by the sandbar as much as it was affected by the rain, but I was not there. Bottom line is that we do live in a very litiginous society. A lot of people do have a sense of entitlement. I too get tired of reading all the posts from people that want compensation.

[Susan-M]

If it is a problem that is within the control of the cruise line/ship, then it is not unreasonable to expect appropriate compensation. Weather problems are quite different from pilot error or ongoing mechanican problems. (I'm not sure what caused the Norwegian Crown grounding.) I don't think that people have become more 'greedy' than previously, but that it may seem that way because of forums like this and media attention.

[mmp13]

Susan,

 

You are probably right. Sometimes it is hard to remember that maybe only 5 to 10 percent of the people on any given cruise post on this forum or any forum and we all know that the new agencies seek out the more disgruntled people to inteview. It's just the way of the world. The squeaky wheel and all that! Why post unless something unusual occurs. Thanks for putting it back in perspective. HOpefully new cruisers planning their first cruise won't be discouraged by some of the negative vibes. For the money I think cruising is still one of the best alternatives.!

[dogsrule]

:( Its that old "sense of entitlement" attitude....JMHO Lots of those around too. Sad that we have arrived at this.

[Leela]

Good lord. They got stuck on a sandbar in tendering distance of their port. It's not like they got hit by an iceberg. Moving in and out of Hamilton, the ship has to use a local pilot, so it wouldn't even be the cruise line's fault, would it?

 

Sandbars shift with tides, currents, and weather. Accidents do happen. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to make sure there wasn't some stupid problem like impairment of someone on the job, but sometimes an accident is just an accident.

[C 2 C]

I blame it on the pax. As I posted elsewhere:

 

perhaps a few too many cheese steak sandwiches by the pax prior to boarding caused the ship to ride a little bit lower than normal..:confused::rolleyes:

[Leela]

Hahhahaha, C 2 C, especially if the ship was coming from Philly (cheesestake capital of the world).

[mmp13]

C2C.. So you have been to Philly. Some of the best cheesesteaks in the world are sold not to far from the port...You could be on to something...They did say they had to take some weight off the ship to get it off the sandbar!?!:D

[Susan-M]

sometimes an accident is just an accident.

 

But even though they aren't planned, there is always a reason for an accident.

One of the definitions of an accident, from M.Webster on line: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought." I guess the perceived loss is what differs from person to person and why some are content to let it go, while others seek compensation. I find it hard to judge who's right or wrong .... unless you've been there, it's hard to know the full story.

[C 2 C]

They did say they had to take some weight off the ship to get it off the sandbar!?!:D

 

Did they just flush the system? The standing CD joke was about 1000 cabins flushing at the same time... just like a jetski..:eek:

[flagger]

An open bar means nothing to those who do not drink or to any minors aboard. Also I do hope if you cruise on a ship that has a broken AC and toilets that do not work in the rooms but do elsewhere around the ship, you will not complain nor seek compensation. After all nowhere in the contract does it say you will get either of those once on board.

[espmass]

Just got home from work and read some of your comments. Maybe some did not realize that no ports were missed and other than some roughness of the water, there was no effect on the passengers. They were offerred tendering to and from the port (Bermuda) although some said the times of the tenders weren't satisfactory. I was in no way defending big corporations Baltigator but no pax was forced to miss anything and since they were able to tender to shore, they weren't forced to spend a day on a sandbar. Heck, I'd be happy to be anchored to a sandbar if it meant sitting poolside, relaxing, and eating all day.

[woodofpine]

But even though they aren't planned, there is always a reason for an accident.

One of the definitions of an accident, from M.Webster on line: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought."

 

That definition is so wrong legally speaking that I had to follow Sue's lead and actually see it online for myself; yep, it's there!

 

Notwithstanding an insurance contract or government entitlement... which the definition doesn't state or imply (does it... I don't think "legal relief" infers that...) legal relief or "liability" absolutely requires a reasonably foreseeable loss caused by the violation of a standard of conduct or care (ie. fault or misconduct)...

 

M. Webster definition would not result is affirmative "legal relief" in a court of law.

[BaltiGator]

Just got home from work and read some of your comments. Maybe some did not realize that no ports were missed and other than some roughness of the water, there was no effect on the passengers. They were offerred tendering to and from the port (Bermuda) although some said the times of the tenders weren't satisfactory. I was in no way defending big corporations Baltigator but no pax was forced to miss anything and since they were able to tender to shore, they weren't forced to spend a day on a sandbar. Heck, I'd be happy to be anchored to a sandbar if it meant sitting poolside, relaxing, and eating all day.

 

Fair enough. This may indeed have been a cruise in which nothing serious enough went wrong to warrant compensation. I admit not knowing much about what happened other than the pictures I saw.

 

But I stand by my general point (it was intended generally, not specific to this cruise). Occasionally enough does go wrong on a cruise. (Sometimes affecting all pax, sometimes affecting only a few - the example someone gave above about loss of electricity or in-cabin plumbing is a good one.) IMO, in those cases the cruise line OUGHT to make some effort at compensation or reconciliation or pacification if you want to call it that, even if it's NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED and even if it's NOT AT FAULT.

 

I'm talking about good customer service. Apart from the "cheerleader" fans of each cruise line on a forum like this (and I mean "cheerleader" in the nicest way possible, I really do) most people who cruise would be very unhappy when these types of things go wrong, and they might never sail on that cruise line again (or any cruise line, in some cases) if they feel like the line made no effort to appease them. I agree, one or two missed ports is fairly commonplace and not in and of itself worth compensating. But we've read about a few other recent cruises where things went MORE wrong than that, and yet many people around here criticized those who felt some compensation was in order.

 

My feeling is, why side with the corporation instead of your fellow cruisers? I agree that people can sometimes get too greedy or develop an overblown sense of entitlement. But most of the time, a simple "We're sorry this happened, and we're going to do something to make you feel better about it" from the cruise line would go such a long, long way.

[Steamboatin]

Have a simple question. I do not know the answer.

 

Question: Was there a local harbor pilot on board?

 

If so than it was the local harbor pilot's error and not the ship's Captain or staff.

 

Thus, sue the durn harbor pilot and not the cruise line if you are so durn intent on suing someone. Therefore if you are inclined to sue somebody than sue the harbor pilot's insurance carrier.

 

If there was a local harbor pilot on board than the cruise line is not at fault.

[espmass]

I absolutely do feel the corporations should compensate pax when things go wrong that actually effect the trip in a bad way. And it's also possible that some details were ommitted from the news story. However, from what I understood, the ship was stuck in Bermuda and everyone who has been to Bermuda knows you may change ports while there but everything is taxi accessible from any port so nothing was ruined or missed. I was merely trying to criticize that people were aking for compensation when as far as I know, nothing was ruined in any way.

[woodofpine]

CC's report was that the harbor pilot was in command... and botched it... and a couple hours later the ship had its tenders deployed...

 

I considered a Bermuda cruise but not too seriously because of the disproportionate amount of "cruise" over a week for the time actually in the one port/destination (especially on the open Atlantic with a soft stomached DW). Bermuda's so tiny, what's with the change of harbors anyway?

 

My point is, on a Bermuda cruise the priority of the pax booking it is on ship board cruise rather than the port given the itinerary so given the tender deployment what's lost or involved - a couple hours inconvenience... aboard as was the priority anyway... Given that reality, and that the problem wasn't caused by X crew, how much should anyone expect from X - if I were X how much would I offer - 'nada much...

 

The foreseeable DQ of a two day highlite docking in St. Pete docking on a very port intense Baltic cruise... that would tick me off! But I doubt any money would change that dashed expectation... so...

[frosty52]

Perhaps the cruiseline should just have provided a free bar while pax were forced to stay parked on a sandbar.

 

But then again, a refund may be cheaper - lol

[cechase]

Wow! The OP had a reasonable point to make and expressed his opinion. All of a sudden, we hear about "greedy corporations" and "cheerleaders"!! Frankly, what does all of these side issues have to do with what he was expressing?

 

I can only speak from my own experiences as an attorney for 38 years before retirement. Based on my experience, Americans are particularly afflicted with what we in the legal profession call "compensation neurosis".

 

The one poster who was probably closest to how the situation might have occured was Leela. In my young years as a naval officer, I spent over two years on a fairly large ship [400 feet long with a 60 foot beam] much of the time in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Formosa, Okinawa, etc. [As well as Midway, Pearl Harbor, San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay]. Frankly, in almost every Asian harbor or port that we entered or left, the information on shifting sand bars and even shoals were limited, and certainly not like the charts and information that we had for US ports and harbors.

 

Now the real question is why would anyone want compensation for a port not lost, but required tendering? Come on people, let's get real. If you don't agree with me, then go and get a cup of coffee at McDonalds and then spill it on yourself and sue them :D

[hobbit81]

An open bar means nothing to those who do not drink or to any minors aboard. Also I do hope if you cruise on a ship that has a broken AC and toilets that do not work in the rooms but do elsewhere around the ship, you will not complain nor seek compensation. After all nowhere in the contract does it say you will get either of those once on board.

 

OK, I was with the majority until the "no AC or toilet" thing. I want to know upfront if I don't have AC! I'm from the south and we don't live without AC. (might could live without the toilet though:D - I know my hubby could)

 

With that being said remember, we are spending our hard earned money to choose cruising over land vacations. I don't feel that we should be compensated for every inconvience, but hey, give everyone a free drink! Or something similiar to acknowledge that they remember that we can choose other vacations. Now, in the case of fire or other major disasters, that's another matter.

[BaltiGator]

Wow! The OP had a reasonable point to make and expressed his opinion. All of a sudden, we hear about "greedy corporations" and "cheerleaders"!!

 

Uh, hello? The name of the thread is "Greedy People." I don't see how discussing "greedy corporations" herein is that much of a leap, unless you know of any corporations that are run by beings other than people. (Lawyers, perhaps? :eek: :D :D )

 

 

P.S. My profession? Wrong and wrong! Guess again! :D