Jump to content

likeadisguise

Members
  • Posts

    612
  • Joined

Posts posted by likeadisguise

  1. The point I was making is that, even with easier, princess was trying to deny us Transportation. I had to prove to them that I had the easier. I shouldn't have had to do that. And I shouldn't have lost two full days in Paris because of their incompetence.

     

    Except you were in a different situation than the rest of the people who booked their cruise to end in Le Havre:

     

     

    "In September 2017, we were granted a Route Sector DeviationApproval to disembark in Le Havre."

    When you're approved for a Route Sector Deviation, they tell you straight out on the confirmation that if for some reason you miss the port where you're schedued to leave, you're completely responsible for your own arrangements and Princess has no liability.

  2. Regardless of the fine print, that Princess thinks it is acceptable to disembark passengers in a different country with no obligation to get them to their destination seems immoral.

    I have just been reading the passage contract that Princess issues here in the UK and it seems to be different to the US. Princess are legally required to comply with the Package Tour Regulations 1992 which has provision for the obligations of the provider when a significant change occurs - even if that change is as a result of force majeure. In such circumstances, ‘the provider will provide equivalent transport back to the place of departure or to another place to which the passenger has agreed......

    Obviously, the passenger must be reasonable in their demands but to ask to be taken to the contracted port of disembarkation seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. As usual, what is reasonable is determined by the courts.

     

     

    You need to take that paragraph in full, though:

     

    38. After departure, Princess does not guarantee that the ship will call at every port on the itinerary or follow every part of the advertised route or schedule or that every part of the Package will be provided. Princess reserves the absolute right to decide whether or not to omit any such port(s) and/or to call at additional ports and/or to change the advertised route, schedule or Package. If Princess is unable to provide a significant proportion of the Package, it will make suitable alternative arrangements, at no extra cost to the Passenger, for the continuation of the Package. If the Passenger does not accept them, for good reasons, or, if it is impossible to make suitable alternative arrangements Princess will, where appropriate, provide the Passenger with transport back to the place of departure or to another place to which Princess and the Passenger have agreed. In both cases Princess will, where appropriate, compensate the Passenger. Please note that compensation will not be payable if an alteration is minor or if Princess is not able to provide a significant proportion of the Package due to force majeure.

    Since weather is considered a force majeure, Princess didn't have a legal obligation to compensate. Whether they had a MORAL obligation is a whole other question....

  3. If the ship was chartered, the charter group has 100% of the ship and all bookings would have to be made through the charter group. The group that has done the charter owns the ship for the entire cruise and is responsible for all cabin sales.Therefore, it can not have been chartered. This is a fundamental misuse of the word "charter".

     

    Now it is possible that a group or perhaps several groups have booked a large number of cabins and it is difficult to find out if this is the case but it definitely has not been "chartered".

     

    DON

    If an outside group arranged for a full ship charter, then they'd cancel all the existing bookings.
×
×
  • Create New...