Very much appreciate the counterpoint and -- for everyone else -- I'm back on the thread! [And prepare yourself for a long post, really do hope you read it all.] We've been enjoying the rough seas up through our docking in Southampton this evening, and I only thought to check the responses before I went to bed. I'd be a pretty poor lawyer if I shrunk from a legitimate and good-natured debate! I think it's fascinating reading the different perspectives on compensation when things unexpectedly 'go wrong' on a cruise.
For those not onboard but have a voyage booked on Sky Princess, rest assured: the ship is beautifully fitted, the crew very kind and accommodating, and the evening entertainment is some of the best we've experienced at sea (-- if you have a chance to hear Elaine Gray, get to the theater/club venue as soon as the doors open, she's brilliant). Even the food, which we've always considered Princess' weak spot, was better than expected and, in some cases, spectacular. Most importantly, the Caymus never ran out at Vines 😉 So we have no complaint with the voyage itself. As many of you have pointed out, though, travel is inherently unpredictable, particularly when you're traveling by sea during the winter and shoulder seasons. Got it. There's a reason why our contracts of carriage absolve the cruise operator for weather-related delays/inconveniences/disruptions. If I filed suit claiming otherwise, I'd be rightly laughed out of court. We all agreed to a one-sided contract. There's no arguing otherwise.
With that said, and I thought I articulated this in an earlier post....our complaint lies solely with Princess HQ/corporate. There are many ways a company can respond when things, like our voyage, 'go wrong', namely: (A) honoring a warranty or guarantee (for goods), (B) compensation (for experiences), and (C) sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing, knowing [or perhaps hoping] that the majority of its customers won't challenge their decision. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, so why would one bother? In a post-Covid world, when multibillion dollar companies post record profits yet continue to search for ways to nickel and dime their customers, I err on the side of questioning corporate decisionmaking. This is a Princess cruise forum. Aren't you a little peeved at Princess' continued cutbacks to our loyalty program, the hours-long wait to speak with a Princess representative on the phone, the degradation of the [fill in the blank] soft product you once valued, all in spite of Princess raising its fare prices? I sure am. The suits bank on our apathy. And you can bet the suits are taking such apathy into account when determining compensation amounts when things 'go wrong'. If the suits sense you'll be content with crumbs, crumbs you shall receive.
I've read some posts excusing, or perhaps justifying, Princess' $100 non-refundable OBC "gesture of goodwill" as reasonable because this was (A) a repositioning cruise and (B) (I assume?) the average cost per passenger was lower than a typical TA cruise. We booked this voyage quite early because I knew I needed to be in London for work and thought the "Moroccan Passage" advertised by Princess would be more enjoyable than taking yet another Club World flight with British Airways. Forgive me, and I do hate throwing out dollar amounts because they tend to skew an argument, but we paid over $20,000 for three suites onboard (inclusive of Princess Premier). So this wasn't exactly a bargain basement -discount voyage for us, although we certainly recognize the value we received by booking this particular cruise. But let's address money. We considered adding a fourth room at the end of February and saw that fares had dropped significantly. I vaguely remember interior rooms being marketed for <$600 and balcony rooms for <$1000 -- an almost too-good-to-be-true value for any cruise operator, much less for a line like Princess. If I paid $600 for a 14-day TA cruise and received $100 in compensation, I'd consider Princess' offer to be incredibly generous. For us, less so. We've experienced several cruises where ports were cancelled or our cruise was diverted early. For comparative data points, here's what we received as compensation:
(1) Regent - one missed port: $500 OBC
(2) Regent - one missed port: $500 future cruise credit
(3) Crystal [RIP] - one missed port: $270 OBC
(4) Cunard - one missed port: $100 OBC
(5) Celebrity - returned to end destination a day early due to a medical emergency: one night refunded (which we felt was incredibly generous)
(6) Seabourn - one missed port which was almost immediately substituted with an alternate port due to poor weather: $0 (no harm, no foul, and we enjoyed exploring the substitute port)
(7) Seabourn - two missed ports: $750 future cruise credit (which was subsequently increased to $1500 and $100 in OBC)
[(8) Princess - for a 14-day TA, two of three missed ports with no substitutions, diverting to destination 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities due to regulatory requirements: $100 non-refundable OBC]
Notice an outlier?
When your cruise operator cancels two of your three ports and diverts your 14-day cruise to return 1.5 days early, shutting down facilities you paid for and expected to use....you know, let's just say we were expecting more than $100 in non-refundable OBC. With our Princess Premier packages, we're struggling to figure out how we can spend the $100 tomorrow. The shops are now closed, the casino is closed. I suppose we can buy a bottle of wine? Or book a Princess excursion into Southampton when the storm we just escaped rolls ashore with 40 mph sustained winds? Tempting, tempting.
Which takes me back to my original point: When things go wrong, compensation reflects a company's empathy for their customers' frustrated experience. We lost two ports of call. We're sitting dockside in Southampton unable to leave with multiple ship facilities closed. Even more egregious, and I'm sure few passengers realize this, but Princess elected to charge every passenger the Southampton dockage fees and tax TWICE to account for us arriving on Thursday rather than Saturday. That's why your folio only reflects a refund of $25.29. Instead of bearing the cost of docking early, Princess decided to pass along the cost of the disruptions to us. Sure, it's a nominal amount. But Princess HQ/corporate's penny pinching doesn't exactly endear me to their business practices. I don't pretend to be someone special. I'm a nobody, as most of us are. Losing my business won't trouble any Princess executive. But if you're tired of being nickel and dimed at every possible turn, then we, as customers, should pay attention to how companies treat us nobodies when extraordinary circumstances come into play. For us, for my family, all we expected was a little empathy, an acknowledgement that our $20,000 cruise was materially disrupted. $100 in non-refundable OBC we can't spend wasn't it.
I suspect most of those responding in this forum can absorb a loss when their cruise 'goes wrong'. And you're not going to find me in the lobby of the Ritz Hotel tomorrow with a tin out asking for loose change, pleading for a handout. But for those onboard, those who saved and sacrificed to experience a once-in-a-lifetime TA crossing, the couple who are now sitting moored in Southampton 1.5 days early, being double charged for a port, without facilities they paid for, after missing two of the three ports they were looking forward to visiting? I dunno. We feel that Princess HQ/corporate could've been more understanding, more empathic for the disruptions we all experienced.
[And re: insurance claims, as so many of you have highlighted, neither of our two insurance policies covers missed ports. Perhaps a difference between U.S. and UK/European insurance packages? Regardless, an expectation for insurance -- something you contracted for and are legally entitled to --doesn't negate a cruise ship operator from recognizing an extraordinary disruption and offering its passengers an empathetic and fair token of goodwill.]
