roninman

Please report back once you hear.

No idea, just a guess: I'd assume Oceania was at a line of business or brand level, whereas NCL as the parent would be at the enterprise level.

Sounds like they are saying they knew in advance that there would be a ceiling on the number of credits issued. It also sounds like, when making the offer to customers, they must have deliberately chosen to not disclose any such limitation- at least according to posters here. Additionally, we don't know a reason for not disclosing that there was a secret ceiling, or what the secret ceiling was- 2 customers? 200? 2000? Deciding that there should be limitation after the fact, and then retroactively applying it, would be bad enough if that happened- but the alternative of planning the limitation ahead of time but failing to disclose it when making the offer would seem equally off-putting.

In a chargeback situation, the credit card issuer decides whether the goods or services were correctly delivered. If the merchant disagrees, the merchant can pursue collection or further court or arbitration action against the consumer. This is simply a part of the business environment the merchant agrees to when it decides to accept credit cards in the first place. Or as the pundits here like to say, "read the contract." In the link given, the card issuer disagreed with the consumer, and agreed with the merchant. So this is an example of the card company saying the charge was not justified. Really, though, the discussion wasn't about the link, but about the USA Today featured passengers, and their allegedly being banned for simply discussing the situation- I don't recall whether they had initiated a cc dispute?

If a merchant fails to deliver goods and services as described, and the merchant fails to in good faith attempt to negotiate a compromise, then why shouldn't the consumer have initiated the chargeback, as the US Congress allowed? If the card issuer then agrees with the consumer to issue a permanent credit for the transaction, it presumably found a lawful reason for so doing. Maybe the merchant should also refuse future business with the bank for agreeing with the consumer.

Please be advised that my understanding is that a company incurring a certain number of chargebacks can be penalized by the credit card company- the merchant may thereafter face higher fees and expenses, and be considered high risk. Not to mention, every consumer chargeback costs the merchant time and money, since Visa/Mastercard impose a nominal fee ($25-40?) per chargeback, that the merchant must pay the credit card company to research the dispute. A large number of chargebacks can really come back to bite a company, so keep that in mind and do not dispute lightly.

Sounds like they are well aware of and are attempting to come up with language to circumvent a credit card chargeback to confront the customer with. But the congressional laws and credit card company by-laws that actually govern credit card transactions simply say if a good or service is not as agreed upon, you may dispute. It doesn't go beyond that; I don't think a dispute will adjudicate a corporation/consumer contract- simply, did you get the purchased service as advertised, or not. If you indeed did not receive the goods or service, and can win such a dispute, and get the disputed amount back, of course the corporation can still later sue you (pursue arbitration against you?) for the balance back again, citing their contract. Note that I've never been in this situation, nor have ever tried it, nor have heard the results of anyone pursuing such a course, nor am a lawyer, but a consumer's relationship with his credit card issuer is different from his relationship with a cruise company.

Thanks for that clarification! 🙂 The cited Celebrity cruise embarks March 4 as I recall, so within 180 days from today.

I'm absolutely no expert for sure, but I haven't come across any cruise lines that offer 100% refund of deposit when pax cancelled- they usually keep some portion- so this was indeed nice of Celebrity. Will luxury lines Oceania or RSS grant 100% refund of deposits on their highly changed Holy Land itineraries next spring? No, per my travel agent. Hence my post. Beyond that, I clearly said it was refund of deposit, and even that according to people who posted and not on my own authority, so I don't believe I was being disingenuous at all. Whether Celebrity offers 100% refund on full payment- we won't know either way until it is reported.

Interesting the way some lines have responded. According to multiple posters over in the Africa & Middle East board, Celebrity passengers wishing to cancel received 100% of their deposit back from Near East cancellations. Whereas self-proclaimed luxury lines that boast about how much they care about and pamper cruisers, such as Oceania and RSS, have a much different approach.

Keep us posted!

Can't speak for Norwegian, but Regent Seven Seas is also part of that conglomerate, and there appears to be plenty of heartache in these forums about RSS's policies with regard to their reaction to the situation in the Near East, and their attention to their customer's- or lack thereof.

I'd pass up. Why deliberately choose to put myself or those I care about into a potential situation, however unlikely, with an entity that has already demonstrated a calculated disregard for consumers? Al Wilson had a song a number of years ago, and Aesop had a fable about a frog and a scorpion, about a mistaken expectation for a party to change character.

You bet! Please post back your own experiences!

Don't really know, but I'm thinking a few of the usual reasons corporate management is so frequently blundering these days. Arrogance. They have for so long been able to force one-sided contracts on their customers, the like of which is almost non-existent in any other industry (we don't deliver a promised and paid-for service? So what, give us the money), that they forget no consumer *needs* to go on cruises, while at the same time cruise companies *need* consumers to go on cruises. Out of touch. Once in the executive suites we know it all and don't really need to listen to customers anymore, let the phone answerers deal with them. And we really really understand how social media changes things; except we really really don't.

Something very bad is happening to innocent people somewhere. Therefore, the corporation gets to keep your money.

Again very true. But really irrelevant in the discussion between consumer and corporation, unless the intent is to guilt trip a consumer into silently accepting his unfortunate lot. That disappointed consumer giving his money to the corporation helps neither Israeli nor Palestinian, although it admittedly does help the corporation.

Those who are out a lot of money after saving years for bucket list stops are understandably concerned. When they see the concern is not shared, or is first shared and then snatched away, such folks are understandably upset. After all, they are the victims here. Their upset in part was spawned by the fact that clearly all were not all in this together, not the other way around. Other than that, I don't recall anyone calling the corporation who kept their money thieves and crooks, or throwing a tantrum. Or at least, not in this forum! 🙂

Very true. Nor did customers purchase the service from the corporation expecting the inconvenience. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the customer is the one inconvenienced. And the corporation is the one not inconvenienced. Hard to feel sorry for the party who keeps the money, and not for the party who is without it. If only there were some other way the corporation could have handled things. To maybe even kind of show hey we're all in this together.

Sounds like a worthwhile risk, given that contracts with customers are so strongly one-sided. Trade off a risk of not having a guaranteed cabin with the risk of not having one (or many!) guaranteed ports (or multiple extra days at sea). Since cruises are strongly advertised- and even named- by their itineraries, and since customers overwhemingly choose cruises based on advertised itinerary, the risk of missing ports without compensating credit or refund can be very troubling to those with limited funds. Customers waiting until the final weeks before sailing seems like a very viable strategy. If they miss the cruise, or fail to get the cabin, at least they're not out any money. And they can just catch the next cruise, or cruise line that comes along. Or not. Worst case, they pay more for last minute airfare, hopefully balanced by the last minute sailing discount.

Of course businesses and shipping lines can get insurance. The original Lloyds of London insurance company was formed way back in the 1600s precisely to insure shipping. Or businesses can simply self-insure against the real world risk of loss from untoward geopolitical events. But why would a corporation incur the cost of extra insurance, or the effect of placing claims, if it can pass on its own business risk to compliant customers, who can then be admonished to "read the contract!"

Good info, thanks for the update.

Why would we assume changes won't additionally be made within six weeks, not to mention six days? It was certainly done within that timeframe in recent Voyager sailings.

With a near 80% change in itinerary, passengers would likely prefer the option of refund or credit of any advance fares paid.

To be fair, something like the aforementioned 5/15 Voyager sailing, at least, apparently changes about 11 days out of 13, so it comes to a little bit more than every last itinerary or port change to bemoan.