Queen Mary 2 Nightmare

[pb82]

Loss of revenue? Loss of goodwill? Setting a precedent? I don't see why Cunard should be held responsible for actions well beyond its control.

 

I'm not holding Cunard responsible, even though the unfortunate claims that he booked his flight through Cunard. I'm just suggesting that they can afford to be charitable in this extraordinary (we pray) case. They would lose revenue sure, but wouldn't they gain goodwill?

 

Perhaps Cunard should just add the cost of travel insurance to all flights they book, unless the passenger declines it in writing.

[patwell]

I know of people who have refused travel insurance because "nothing ever happens and why waste the money"...then when it does they blame everyone else but themselves. I'm sorry, but I don't see it as Cunard's responsibility, or any other carrier, to insist we take travel insurance....it's available, and if you chose to decline it then don't expect someone to step up to the plate in the name of good-will.

 

I'm truly sorry that people missed the ship...after all the planning and anticipating it had to be terribly disappointing. And then to have to wait to fly home under the travel circumstances at the time had to be very nerve-wracking. BUT...it was not Cunard's fault!!! Doesn't matter who arranged the flights...it was NOT their fault.

Cheers, Penny

[smeyer418]

At this point I for one don't know how many people missed the ship. I could see given a credit towards a future cruise but not a refund. I do think insurance should be mandatory so that we all would have coverage but you can bet that some exception would apply(note that most terriorism coverage wouldn't cover this as there was no attack)...Should Cunard be charitable. Why doesn't the original poster set a charity ask for donations and pay for it out of that or contribute part of any legal fees recieved to the poor stranded ones. Maybe Hazbollah would send them money if asked....

[Mixed Up]

It appears to me that Cunard DOES mandate that passengers have travelling insurance - at least that's how it is on one side of the pond. I therefore think those affected should take it up with their insurers and start a thread <insurance company name> Nightmare if they don't pay up!

[pnhmrk]

I don't see it as Cunard's responsibility, or any other carrier, to insist we take travel insurance

 

It is on this side of the pond.

 

"It is a condition of the contract that every guest must have travel insurance in force for the entire duration of their holiday. If such insurance is not obtained through Cunard, details of suitable alternative insurance (which must as a minimum include medical and repatriation coverage for not less than £2 million) must be provided at the time of booking or as soon as practicable thereafter" - From Cunard's Booking Conditions (These may be Cunard's but any tour operator in the UK will be similar).

[mufi]

It is on this side of the pond.

 

"It is a condition of the contract that every guest must have travel insurance in force for the entire duration of their holiday. .

 

But would Cunard insurance only cover the cruise/crossing and not an independently bought flight?

 

David.

[pnhmrk]

But would Cunard insurance only cover the cruise/crossing and not an independently bought flight?

 

David.

 

Yes, but the missed departure clause of the cruise insurance would cover the costs of the cruise - and as you hadn't actually left your departure point you wouldn't need cover for the cost of the flight home. The only bit you'd be out of pocket on would be the cost of the outward flight.

 

(Remember I am not an insurance agent - this is only what I think could happen. We had our passports stolen a few years ago; I thought our insurance would cover the cost of emergency passports - it didn't, only any extra costs involved if you had to stay longer:mad: )

[Bramcruiser]

It is on this side of the pond.

 

"It is a condition of the contract that every guest must have travel insurance in force for the entire duration of their holiday.

 

Yeah I've been noticing that about the UK and its a question that came up a lot when I've been doing my research on it for next year's trip. In North America, Canada included, I believe insurance is always optional and something that is the responsibility of the traveller. So if a traveller is uninsured against missed connections or far worse then its the price you pay. Personally its always wise that one obtain it but I am not so sure we must legislate it as a must. Strange I am saying this as I am far from a libertarian and am more of a big government type.

 

And yes, my QE2 trip from the UK is insured.

 

And no Penny! I haven't left for the weekend trip yet. But I am doing the laundry as I write this.

[pb82]

I'd like to see us all have at least three travel insurance options (to be purchased singly or in any combination):

 

First, full refund if you can't go because of a medical emergency to yourself or a close family member, or because of an accident such as your house burning down.

 

Second, ditto if you missed the ship because of extraordinary circumstances. Last week's airport delays should qualify; a flat tire shouldn't, a collision that totalled the car you were in should. Rates would increase in proportion to the number of air links in your itinerary, and decrease in proportion to how early you planned to arrive in port.

 

Third, to cover emergency medical evacuation from the ship or a foreign port. (No charge and no coverage in mid-Atlantic when you're on your own.)