Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Jobeth66

Members
  • Content Count

    1,120
  • Joined

About Jobeth66

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Burlington NJ US

Recent Profile Visitors

151 profile views
  1. Yes. Now that COVID is going to be 24-7 top of the news, will the task force change their stance on allowing the CDC recommendations to be followed - that's my musing.
  2. Please. It's fallen off the front pages, it's hardly 'in the news' the way it was earlier in the outbreak. Now it's back to 24/7 coverage and it'll remain at the top of the news cycle for a little while, at least.
  3. Why? It's possible that the task force position changes and allows the CDC to delay the restart now that it's more 'in the news'.
  4. Now I'm wondering if Trump being positive will change the landscape at all.
  5. Refunds go back to your original method of payment - if you don't carry a balance on the credit card, your card company will mail you a check after the refund is processed. If you carry a balance, they'll just apply it up until the balance is paid off and send a check for the difference, or just credit the entire amount against any balance that exceeds it.
  6. I had my TA file for my refund, and kept a record of our conversations via email (and any conversations we had by phone I memorialized in email immediately following). However, when I asked her for a copy of the confirmation from NCL she advised there was none - she got no email or anything else, just the confirmation of submission screen after she filed. NCL failed, and failed badly on this. I also filed a charge back after it took entirely too long to refund, and my credit card company (AMEX) refunded and finalized in my favor pretty quickly. File a dispute along with a copy of the contract showing you are owed a refund. The BS that the default is a future cruise credit is just that. You paid for a service for a date certain. They failed to provide what you paid for or a reasonable substitute. You should get your money back.
  7. Yeah, it doesn't work that way generally - the hacker rooted their software into the system a LONG time ago, and just activated it. Wipe & restore from backup? They'll just re-activate it, and raise the demand.
  8. I completely understand that (I do this for a living, so I really mean it when I say I understand that) but if the cost of protection would put a company out of business, then the company's business model may not be viable. Unless they want to self-insure for the exposure, then they should hope that their risk is low enough that they will not be put out of business by a suit against them for injury. In other words, if your business model is such that the inherent risk of operation would cause the company to fold if they had to pay for an injury the business caused or contributed to and they can't afford to transfer that risk to a 3rd party (by purchase of insurance or otherwise) then the business model is not actually workable. I think costs of insurance will come down as the world gets a handle on what the actual exposures are.
  9. I don't think businesses should be given blanket immunity from suit if their action (or inaction) results in injury or death to someone. That's a matter for a jury to decide. If the company has done nothing wrong, they won't have to pay. If they have violated rules (ie - mask requirements) which results in injury or death to an employee or customer? Darn right they should pay. Just like if a restaurant doesn't require employees to wash their hands after using the washroom. Or doesn't require employees to wear gloves. Or serves contaminated food. Why should a company be protected in one case and not the other? It's all public health.
  10. Yeah. Completely worth the paper it's printed on. No guarantee you won't be exposed - but there's nothing keeping the person so exposed from seeking recourse in the courts for said exposure, and if it turns out that the theme park was aware that an employee (for example) was positive and still allowed guests to enter the premises, a good lawyer will have that tossed immediately. And still not valid for a minor in most places, so, meh. I don't see this sort of thing making a material difference to the suits at the CDC.
  11. I keep seeing this 'waiver' thing popping up from multiple people and I'm just curious - what 'waivers' do you suppose the cruise lines could have passengers sign, and what would they entail? Passengers can't sue if they get sick on the ship? Who would be protected from suit? The ship? The crew? Other passengers? The cruise line? The parent company? do the passengers agree not to seek treatment in a hospital where they disembark? Do they agree to pay in advance for any treatment they might receive? Are they guaranteed to be accepted by these hospitals if they must be taken there? Do the waivers require the ships to provide medical treatment and housing at no cost to the passengers in the event they are restricted from commercial travel? And what about minors? Minors are generally not bound by the terms of a waiver signed by a parent/guardian - in most jurisdictions, the statute of limitations is tolled for a minor until after they reach the age of majority or emancipation - which means (for example) if the statute of limitations is 2 years, most minors would have until they are 20 years old to seek recompense for an injury that occurred before they were 18. A waiver is, quite honestly, worth the paper it's printed on in most cases. I'm not sure what people think it will prevent. If someone gets sick on the ship, they're going to use up resources and it's going to result in others being quarantined, potentially made ill, and potentially dying. If it turns out the ship's crew didn't do enough (or knew about an ill passenger/crew member and didn't report it properly) that waiver is going to be null and void. I'm just really interested in how people think waivers work, and how one would be worded in such a way that the CDC would say 'oh, ok - if passengers sign this, you can sail even with the current risks'
  12. How is paying more - even if it's just one penny - NOT a loss? It's less of a loss than what someone else who got a refund in cash without the FCC would sustain, but it is absolutely 100% a loss. So the original comment was correct. Guaranteed loss.
  13. I get the work thing - for us, we had booked a textile Alaska cruisetour on NCL that was going to be 3 weeks out of work this June/July - no way I could do that and then do 2 weeks in February, my team would have mutinied for sure. 🙂 But yeah, I'm really glad it worked out the way it did. I'll let you know about SRR! We might be going up Sunday for the day but it's hard to say, the weather is not looking promising. I DO like the new hot tub, for all that it stole "my" hill space - I always got there early and parked up on the hill. 🙂 Sad about Irv's, but it'll be interesting to see how they rebuild it.
  14. Completely agree - a FCC that has zero cash redemption options and an expiration date is NOT 'more value' than a 100% cash refund, no matter HOW much that FCC is for. I'm 100% positive they do it to confuse people, nothing arguable about it.
  15. Are you on the BNB? We didn't book that one for 2021, and now I'm kind of glad we didn't - I don't know if I'd go even if it is still sailing. 😞 We have gone to Sunny Rest the last 2 weekends, though, that's been kind of nice - everyone doing well with social distancing (except in the pool) and wearing masks, but the amount of people there has been significantly down.
×
×
  • Create New...