Jump to content

libertyelle

Members
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  1. Beginning in mid-December through mid-February, Anthem has a series of longer sailings of 9 - 12 nights from Bayonne to the Eastern and Southern Caribbean (with the exception of the 7-night Bahamas sailing over Christmas). With the present trend of stricter cruise ship requirements from those islands, along with the current limit on sailings longer than 7 nights (which may or may not be extended past the fall expiration of the CSO), I'm wondering if RCL won't just throw their hands up and switch those sailings over to the more predictable 7-night CocoCay / Nassau runs instead.
  2. I think that's allowed. The new cruise we shifted to didn't show up as Kids Sail Free, and we were able to move it and keep our original pricing.
  3. We were in the same situation, with my son turning 13 in January 2021. We were able to lift and shift our fall 2020 cruise to fall 2021 and keep the same overall price that we'd had with the Kids Sail Free promo.
  4. Exactly. We chose to book our Alaska cruise based on an advertising sheet with a giant heading reading "GLACIER BAY". If they hadn't finalized those contracts and it was subject to change, they should have not chosen to market specifically for that single port, or disclosed that it would be subject to change. Had I had that information up front, I would have booked a different sailing. I've been on cruises that changed ports for a variety of reasons, so I know how it works. But I think in these kind of blatant bait and switch situations created by Royal Caribbean, not some unavoidable circumstance, that it's not too much to ask for a little consideration on their part. It's not like waiving a change fee a year out is going to hurt their bottom line, but affected customers will remember their greed when shopping for future cruises for years to come.
  5. OP does need to escalate with RC, but there is value in having a discussion about their customer service practices. As Tatka mentioned, it raises awareness that these contracts can be used to shield bait and switch advertising practices and not just unanticipated itinerary changes due to weather or mechanical issues. And what incentive does RC have to address these issues if they aren't publicly known?
  6. I think the OP is trying to express that this is a situation in which some leeway is warranted from a customer service standpoint, not that it is required under the contract. For example, when all port stops to Cuba were cancelled, Royal gave a variety of options to affected customers on those sailings, including refunds, although it was a situation outside their control and they had no legal obligation to do so. So there is a precedent for providing compensation for cancelled port stops in the interest of customer service. But there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to how they make these customer service decisions, as evidenced by their handling of other similar situations.
  7. We had this issue with our upcoming Alaska cruise, which we booked based on RC's advertising for the port stop at Glacier Bay (which was a new stop for RC, so they were promoting it heavily with a one-sheet ad just for those sailings). They opted not to finalize their contract with the National Parks Service and cancelled the port stop for Glacier Bay instead. I wrote emails to everyone up the customer service chain of command asking to have the $100 per person change fee waived so we could switch to a more suitable Alaska itinerary, but they refused to do anything. I wouldn't expect any nice gestures or sympathy on their part.
  8. Any word on when the new app will add texting on Anthem? (IIRC, only two ships have it as an option at present.)
  9. While this scenario may be covered by the ticket contract, it's a terrible look for Royal Caribbean from a customer service perspective. For example, when the Cuba cruises were rerouted to alternative Caribbean ports earlier in the year (a situation totally outside of the company's control, unlike their decision not to finalize the NPS contract), they gave guests the option to cancel for a full refund or keep their bookings and receive a 50% refund. Yet in this situation they refuse to even waive the change fees? It's bizarre how they have no consistency in how they approach things from a customer service perspective, particularly considering this whole bait-and-switch vibe is a much harder sell than a change in government policy or a hurricane.
  10. Oh, we booked when it was still Glacier Bay, before the itinerary change, so I'm not worried about the typos defense in our case. But I am concerned for people who may be in the process of booking and not aware of what they are getting. The entire situation is just being handled very ineptly by Royal.
  11. Our sailing is even worse- both summaries still show Glacier Bay. That was part of the motivation for writing them, in addition to seeking a more fair resolution- it's indefensible to still be accepting bookings for this sailing while presenting customers with false information.
  12. Unfortunately, our sailing is still showing as available for booking on the RC website with Glacier Bay on the itinerary, three days after the cancellation email was sent out. They also still have the sales flyer promoting these sailings specifically for Glacier Bay (http://www.creative.rccl.com/Sales/Royal/Alaska/19069206_GlacierBay_Flyer.pdf). The fact that they targeted their marketing toward this one specific port proves the point that this is a significant itinerary change for folks who booked these sailings based on that advertising push. We sent an e-mail to the senior manager of guest experience, Carlos Jimenez - carlosjimenez@rccl.com, to request a more satisfactory resolution to this issue, and I urge everyone else affected to take a few moments to do the same.
  13. Exactly. We have sailed with Royal twice before and our itinerary changed significantly both times, but I didn't have a problem with it- stuff happens. This situation is entirely different. Based on the evasive response I received from customer service when I asked them point-blank why the change was made, I'm assuming there was some sort of failure to plan on their end. They shouldn't have marketed cruises as going to Glacier Bay (and sell them at a premium) if they didn't have a reasonable certainty that it would happen. (And it is still available for sale on the website!) Bad weather, mechanical issues- fine. But this was avoidable - at the bare minimum, the possibility that Glacier Bay port stops would be subject to the whims of another cruise line should have been disclosed up front. So why should only the customers bear any of the inconvenience and/or added costs that resulted from Royal's decision, while the cruise line itself entirely avoids any consequences? All I requested was a waiver of the change fee so I can switch to a cruise that is a better fit for my family. That doesn't seem unreasonable under the circumstances, but they prefer to hide behind the ticket contract rather than do what is fair. It's just lousy customer service.
  14. Unfortunately, their social media response wasn't particularly helpful. But perhaps others in the same boat (ship?) can add to the discussion and change their mind. 😉
  15. But when we booked our sailing, it had already changed from Skagway to Glacier Bay. So we made our initial decision to book this specific sailing based on the inclusion of Glacier Bay.
×
×
  • Create New...