Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

ON cruiser

  • Content Count

  • Joined

About ON cruiser

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Toronto, Canada
  • Interests
    reading, dog-walking, community affairs
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Holland America
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In my view, Tom O., in his post # 66, said it very well. If the cruise line cancels on us, and/or if it is obvious that they should/must (such as when certain cruises cannot, by operation of law, proceed; such as cruises touching Canadian ports before July 1), a full refund should be forthcoming--the timing may be uncertain as many people are in the same boat, so to speak. Yet if the customer wants a refund instead of a FCC, that is the choice of the customer. As for the question posed by 0106 in post # 68, did you pay for the cruise by credit card? If so, I suggest you call the credit card and dispute the charge, if you can (depends on the rules of your credit card issuer/bank). Doing that may help get the refund moving, although as others have noted, it still may take some time due to the volume of refunds to be processed. If you have insurance--possibly as part of your credit card's benefits--you could also consider making a claim. Hopefully the cruise line companies remain solvent during the waiting period. That, to me, is the big worry.
  2. It usually is a mug's game trying to predict the future ("man plans, God laughs") but, since I am, despite being asymptomatic, staying indoors and following the directives to self-isolate on this lovely sunny Sunday afternoon, I might as well take a stab at it. It's my guess that cruise prices will be very low once (whenever) cruise lines begin operations. There will not be enough demand to fill the ships, keeping in mind new-builds coming on stream (some of which may be moth-balled, if doing that is viable). Right now, amongst the general public, and even amongst some former cruise enthusiasts (like my wife), cruising has developed a bad reputation. People see the headlines about the Zaandam, and the various Princess ships, and see cruise ships as floating petrie dishes. They will remember ports suddenly closing and, in some cases (on HAL's and other world cruises) elderly passengers having to get off a long way from home, being subjected to long flights. This is all the antithesis of good publicity. My take is that many people will, for a while until the industry demonstrates concrete steps which reassure, avoid cruising as a holiday of choice--even assuming that people can afford a holiday, given so many have lost their employment or a significant portion of their savings in the market collapse. Many will thus feel "less rich". Now, things may come roaring back, and I sure hope they do (as I look away from my stock market losses--"I don't see you!") but, as Oscar Wilde once said, "a pessimist is seldom disappointed". Truthfully, once all the quarantines are lifted, I think it will be a slow road back to normalcy. All this will lead, when cruise lines begin operations, to some fantastic discounts--just as there were after past crises (9/11; the market collapse of 2008-09), etc. Anyway, that is my prediction, for what it may be worth (precious little, possibly).
  3. Responding to gatour above, I was mainly discussing that the cruise lines should be cancelling cruises which clearly have no hope of going. To that point I relied on post # 5 above to the effect that some other (non-CCL) companies had done exactly that. HAL and Seabourn, amongst the CCL companies, have so far not done so--many have speculated that is because they prefer the customer to initiate the cancellation. In that case, the cruise line seems to take the position that the customer is only eligible for FCC and not a refund. Yet, if it is the cruise line that initiates the cancellation of the cruise then a refund is ordinarily offered, along with, perhaps, the option of FCC. That may be why the delay in some of the lines cancelling what they know must be cancelled, while others have acknowledged this reality more promptly. From what you note, however, the length of time to process a refund is equally long amongst all the cruise lines--albeit on another thread, one poster noted that Disney processed their refund very efficiently. Again, for those who made final payment on a cruise that is now impossible due to government regulations/orders, and who face a lengthy (and uncertain) wait for a refund, assuming that is what one wants, consider talking to your credit card issuer, if you paid for the cruise by credit card.
  4. First, Az tchr, I am very sorry that you have to file for Unemployment. May your time on benefits be brief, and may you be re-employed swiftly--and I wish that to all impacted by this miserable virus! While CCL raised significant funds, it is likely their goal to preserve this cash for operational needs, to get them through these hard times, rather than to (easily) hand it out. All I am urging is that those would-be passengers explore their options to preserve, or reclaim, their cash. It is likely that many people who have a cruise that is not going would like to have at least the option of a cash refund. Again, if other lines are able to do this, then why would CCL companies not have that same capability?
  5. Sorry to be cynical, but I do not understand how cancelling cruises that are clearly not able to happen--because of orders from the state of Alaska, and also the government of Canada precluding those cruises touching a Canadian port--would make any more of a mess for HAL and other CCL companies, when seemingly RCCI and other lines have managed to handle it. Me thinks that some companies do not want to process refunds (rather than FCC), so are delaying this for cash-flow purposes, instead of being upfront and just acknowledging that certain cruises just cannot happen, so a refund or FCC (customer choice) is offered. If people paid by credit card, as I have posted elsewhere, consider disputing the charge with your credit card issuer. It is at least worth a phone call (you will likely be on hold. But, given many are at home anyway, what else is there to do? ) .
  6. There are a number of different threads, including "future cruise credit", where this issue is also discussed. In that thread, I raised as a possible option taking the issue up with your credit card issuer. If you made final payment for a cruise that clearly has become impossible (for example, because of government travel bans, Alaska or others with Canadian ports before July 1), yet that payment has not yet been made to the credit card as you have not yet reached your payment due date, you can explore disputing the charge with your credit card issuer. Heck, even if you paid your credit card bill, you can still ask (never hurts to ask, does it?) your credit card issuer what options you may have to dispute a charge. Interesting that Disney would process such a substantial refund so quickly while those of us on a luxury cruise line are expected to wait first for their decision to cancel, and then have an additional wait for the refund. Going forward, once the covid situation is hopefully in the rear-view mirror, customers will likely remember which lines served them well, and which did not.
  7. One would think, in these unprecedented circumstances that all cruise lines, which belong to the Cruise Line Industry Association (or a name close to that) would coordinate such measures through their association, including issues of refunds, FCC, etc. They should all be on the same page. Certainly, the lines that in this situation offer less options than others will have to wear it with the consumer, going forward.
  8. With regard to the new announcement by Seabourn to pause operations for a further 30 days (until May 14), a little comparison is apt. I checked the Royal Caribbean International ("RCI") website. That line proposes the same pause, and same choice of full refund or enhanced (125%) FCC. Yet RCI makes it clear that, in addition to the pause until May 14, other cruises beyond that date, such as those going to Singapore and Canada, are also cancelled as of now. The same option of a FCC or refund applies to those, even to those beyond the May 14th date. Seabourn still lists on its website various Alaska cruises that, as these involve Canadian ports before July 1 (the date until which such cruises are banned by the Canadian federal government), are just as impossible as the RCI cruises. Yet Seabourn has not yet acknowledged that these cruises too must be and actually de facto are cancelled, with the option of FCC or refund equally applying. Seabourn needs to get on with it, in my opinion, and not trail but at least match, if not lead, the industry in "doing the right thing". As to earlier comments by Rols, I believe it is up to us to be informed consumers and to insist, politely, on our rights as consumers. That means not accepting the "first answer" unless it is one which satisfies. Good luck, all.
  9. Yes, Cruiseej, if I cancel then that is one thing. But, in these circumstances, I am not cancelling; it is not my initiative or decision---rather, Seabourn is being forced to cancel the cruise due to government edicts. Those edicts make my cruise, and likely the cruise of others to various places that are now "no-go" zones, impossible. In such circumstances, I believe I am entitled to a refund or can choose to accept (or reject) any FCC offer that a cruise line wishes to propose. Anyway, let us see how the cruise lines handle this. Smart companies will handle this well and earn plaudits. My fallback will be trip cancellation insurance that covers due to the government travel advisories, etc.
  10. Responding to both PaulChilli and Rols, thanks for your comments. I am not certain what position my bank/credit card issuer would take if Seabourn insisted on only offering FCC. I know that I would argue strenuously, both with Seabourn and with my bank, that this is not equivalent or acceptable for reasons I stated in my original post above. If need be, the matter could be pursued legally. As for Seabourn taking the purchased Alaska cruise, departing from and returning to Vancouver, and twisting it all out of shape into something else entirely, to me that would be unacceptable. We had Seabourn air on this cruise because of the air subsidy offered, and a key reason, for us, are the many non-stop flights daily (during normal times) between Vancouver and Toronto. Moving the cruise to Seattle, a Covid hot-spot, is clearly not on. Moving it out of Alaska, when that is what we wanted and booked, is also not on. Moving it to something that requires longer and connecting flights, also not on. Frankly, I am not as cynical as Rols in the above post. Substituting a port(s) does not mean entirely changing the product purchased into something not recognizable. I doubt that Seabourn would insist on that. They may offer it, they may try to make it enticing, but I doubt that, even with the most favourable contractual terms re substituting ports, etc., they can change any cruise that fundamentally, insist that it is "their way or the highway", and make it stick. Moreover, if Seabourn does that, so the cruise ends up being something that "isn't to anyone's liking", as Rols described, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. Right now, the industry needs to build goodwill with existing customers, not alienate them so even if those customers are compelled to take a vastly different cruise from what they booked, they leave the ship saying, "never again". All cruise lines also will, once the crisis has past, need to re-start trying to persuade all those who have been thinking of a cruise, but who have not yet gone. This situation has, in my view, set the entire industry back by at least 5 years, in terms of outreach to monied potential clients who enjoy luxury yet who have not cruised yet, but were considering it. Those people are likely considering it an awful lot less, currently, if even those of us who enjoy cruising are hesitant. And many regular cruisers are, with good reason, hesitant. The sooner the cruise lines (all of them) accept this, and treat customers fairly, the sooner that goodwill starts to be re-built. Moreover, if other CCL brands, and other brands (RCCI for example) are being more flexible to and respectful of customers, then why would Seabourn treat its customers any differently, and offer less choice? That would be simply not acceptable, at least not to me. In recent years, higher end cruising has been something of a sellers market, even with Ritz coming on stream. Capacity has been limited and the cruise lines, Seabourn and Regent in particular, can "name the tune". Yet, the combination of lots of capacity on lots of ships, including the new-builds coming on stream, coupled with much hesitation amongst existing customers to want to cruise ("will it be safe?", "will we be stuck somewhere?") let alone nervous newbies, along with people suffering from the economic impact so turning to less expensive holidays, all will turn cruising generally, and higher end cruising specifically, into a buyers market. If the lines want to fill their ships, not just once but ongoing, they will need to woo their potential customers, not alienate them. That includes treating customers well, shoreside and on the ship. Hopefully most cruise line executives will soon realize that they are living in and must adapt to this paradigm shift. Of course, business school is full of case-studies of companies and executives who just "didn't get it". Time will tell...
  11. If and when I am given the choice between a FCC and a monetary refund, I will select the refund. A Seabourn cruise, for me, is expensive (and generally, worth it), so the loss of $15,000 is more than an inconvenience for me. Respectfully, comparing this to "life and death" ala surviving the death camps, pursuant to post # 7 above, is in my view very much of a false equivalence to which I am entirely unable to relate. The loss of much monies to many people can have devastating consequences on its own. It is likely more than a mere inconvenience to many. It sure is to me. My cruise to Alaska was to leave at the end of May, from Vancouver (roundtrip). Given the Canadian governments' prohibition on cruise ships until July, and also given that Alaska is requiring a 14 day quarantine period, clearly, our cruise will not be taking place. Yet, puzzlingly, it has not yet been cancelled. It should be, as should be any others that are obviously not able to proceed. This is not about fault or blame. Nobody that I know of is asserting that the cruise lines caused this horrific virus. Yet, in my view, it is the obligation of the cruise lines to admit defeat when certain itineraries are just not workable, and offer their customers on such cruises a refund and, if they wish to extend a FCC in addition to or instead of a refund, to do that. Others in the CCL family of brands are doing just that: Princess, for cruises which it cancels, is offering a 100% refund or a 125% FCC. Seabourn should be doing that, and doing it promptly. For those who urge "patience", having not yet made final payment, I disagree. It is those who made payment who are potentially out lots of monies, at a time when portfolios are plunging and many are facing uncertain employment. If the cruise is clearly not to happen, no doubt many people would find a monetary refund (or on the credit card, etc.) helpful. Moreover, again, if Seabourn is unable to deliver the promised product, in that case a refund must be offered. It is not for the customer to share in the sorrow, or about being responsible, etc., as a poster above suggests. My deal with the cruise line was for a certain product. If it cannot be delivered, then, as the customer, I am entitled to a refund, full stop. As for me, having made final payment on my credit card, I was not eager to pay my credit card on the impending due date and see the large price of my cruise, which is obviously not going ahead, leave my bank account. Then I would have to wait, and possibly fight, to get the refund to which I am indisputably entitled (as are any others similarly situated). Happily, my credit card issuer was more than willing to offer me a satisfactory solution: do not pay the amount charged for the cruise until my June statement without any interest charged for that amount (and pay the rest of my balance as usual)--and by June either Seabourn will have processed the refund or, if for some strange reason not, I can then dispute the charge through my credit card. This solution may not work for everyone, depending on your relationship with your credit card issuer (in my case, my long-time bank). But it may be worth asking. Don't get me wrong. I hope that Seabourn and all the cruise lines come through this, as we will cruise again. Yet, pursuant to a thread on the HAL board entitled "Solvency of Cruise lines", things are up in the air ("under water" a better analogy for cruise lines?) at this time. Who knows which entity may have to avail itself of US bankruptcy protection proceedings (Chapter 11). Hopefully this is not the case, but the last thing I want is to have to fight to get my refund from a trustee, or find I have FCC certificates that would be lovely wall-paper, like the Eastern Airlines Stock certificates. Hopefully, better times soon prevail for all. I hope to see that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel (and also hope that it is not an oncoming train).
  12. Hoping that Bill & Mary Ann made it home safely and are just catching up on laundry and other house chores, rather than being stuck in Sydney airport where their story last left off. Feel like this is a "cliff-hanger"! Eagerly awaiting the next installment--of course, when you are recovered from jet lag, etc.
  13. It is a little rich for those who have not yet made final payment to urge "patience" to those who already have, and who, like Dave34 above noted, shelled out $12 grand and, understandably, since his cruise is clearly not going, wants it back. The myriad of excuses offered for the cruise-line (they are busy, they have other tasks, etc.) fall flat when a competitor, RCI, no doubt equally busy and having to juggle the same balls in the air, comes out with a policy that is fair, and which will also go a long way to preserve customer good-will. Not only Alaska but RCI has extended their overall cancellation--sensible in the circumstances. Its not whether the Alaska season is at risk of not happening, or at least a large part of it. For those who have made final payment for cruises leaving during the absolute ban, there should be no doubt nor hesitation: offer our money back. If you want to offer whatever incentive you wish to include to get us back another time, that is the decision of the cruise-line. Yet only silence to those who have made their payment, when they now know they cannot go and who, now, may also be facing financial challenges given the stock market, job market, etc. (almost 1 million claims for Employment Insurance in Canada so far this month!) is not treating your customers well. I am by no means a HAL-basher, by the way. I am a five star mariner who also sails Seabourn, and who is awaiting Seabourn's formal cancellation of our Alaska cruise that, because of the Canadian ban and Alaska ban, is not possible. So yes, I have skin in the game, just as does Dave34.
  14. Fingers crossed that Copper can help them get on a plane, any plane, heading to Florida. Look forward to reading of the successful outcome (and, second all the thanks to Copper and Ccole. "Goodness against the gloom").
  15. Glad to hear that your journey home has begun. Hope you get well rested in the hotel and have a relaxing day. Look forward to reading of your successful (ultimately, despite any "hiccups" which are now common) travels home.
  • Create New...