Consumer advocate article: "This is what happens when you're kicked off your cruise"

Thanks Foremco and cruisemom42! Senior moment I guess... ;)

We Seniors have to stick together! :halo:

Note that the article mentions that the couple that was removed from the ship mentioned taking legal action in one of their early letters to the cruise line. As the article also mentions, anytime you mention potential legal action the case will get referred to and taken over by the legal department, not customer service and any kind response pretty much comes to a halt.

As far as providing access to the videos, it is not in the interest of the cruise line to do so, unless required as part of a legal process. The cruise lines approach is pretty much we know what you did, you know what you did, so why should we show you our proof of what you did. Doing so just increases the possibility of legal action if they don't show detail.

So if someone really thinks that they were targeted incorrectly then sue and gain access as part of legal discovery.

I wouldn't get stuck on the fact that HAL supposedly provided airfare home for the couple.

If they had cruise air as part of the ship, flights home would be part of the package.

Is it usual for the cruise line to pay for the passenger/s to get home?

No, it is not.

Better title would have been: This is how you can get kicked off a cruise ship.

We were once witness to a guest being escorted off a ship by local police. My dh had seen the event that necessitated that action

We we re told he would be escorted to the airport but would be pay ing for the ticket from his own funds..

There's a lot here that doesn't make sense. Why would HAL wait two days from the time of the incident before kicking them off the ship? Why wouldn't some type of action have been taken at the time of the incident? Why wouldn't HAL just clear the whole mess up by showing the video, if it existed? Why would HAL invite them back on another cruise?

I can see not disembarking them in Saint Petersburg, as they would have no visa to remain in the country and the Russians might insist they be taken away with the ship. I cannot see the harm in showing them the video, if there was one. I am a lawyer and the barriers to successfully suing the cruise line are formidable. Showing them the video might put an end to things a lot more quickly, if only to prove that they do have the goods on them (or him, I suppose). People are a lot less likely to make noise when the response could be release of a video that will not help their reputation.

As I mentioned above.... My dh saw an incident that resuted in a guest being re moved from the ship. The next day at the pool, the gossip mill was at work and we were told so many versjons of tthe 'incident, it was laughable, When my dh corfrected a few gossipers clearly stating he had been present, , no one accepted the 'real story, as seen by a credible 'witness. . IHis was a little less 'juicy . :D Security, knew for sure dh's version was in agreement of crew who called security at the point they were needed.

There's a lot here that doesn't make sense. Why would HAL wait two days from the time of the incident before kicking them off the ship? Why wouldn't some type of action have been taken at the time of the incident? Why wouldn't HAL just clear the whole mess up by showing the video, if it existed? Why would HAL invite them back on another cruise?

There is a lot more that does make sense. Waiting until there was thorough review by Seattle is very appropriate. Be glad they waited. How do you know there was no action taken at the time of the incident - the crew member needed to seek medical attention and how many security forces are present at disembarkation, along with ship card ID checking?

There was no reason to assume this was still a "mess" that required passenger review of any corroborating evidence by the time HAL took action. Do accused people lie and exaggerate and play drama queen - answer that only after watching the recent soccer World Cup matches. Do people get falsely accused - yes, that too so care and caution is always in good order before taking anyone's side without consideration of what you also do not know.

The throw away line in the final notice was gratuitous and stupid. However, HAL did not invite them back; they just wished they would continue to consider Holland America in any future cruise plans. This has the ring of thoughtless boiler-plate under the circumstances that needs to be better worded. You can be sure HAL legal is agonizing over that throw away line.

What makes the most sense is anyone with a history of being on HAL ships knows HAL does not act arbitrarily or capriciously ....without sufficient cause. Plus I am sure they are still badly reverberating from that incident a few years ago when a crew member did assault a passenger on a charter cruise, after that passenger verbally and profanely assaulted a hyper-sensitized crew member.

I really hate the culture of “I’m owed compensation!” I’m sure the captain and security reviewed the video and that’s why it took a day to two. Go ahead and file the claim if you’re sure it’s not you but don’t jump right to the, “it’s because I’m Asian!” card, which I see she did in reading the comments. Sometimes I think not enough people are kicked off cruise ships

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I wouldn't get stuck on the fact that HAL supposedly provided airfare home for the couple.

 

If they had cruise air as part of the ship, flights home would be part of the package.

That's what I was thinking.

I really hate the culture of “I’m owed compensation!” I’m sure the captain and security reviewed the video and that’s why it took a day to two. Go ahead and file the claim if you’re sure it’s not you but don’t jump right to the, “it’s because I’m Asian!” card, which I see she did in reading the comments. Sometimes I think not enough people are kicked off cruise ships

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

You might want to re-read the article. At no point does it say that she suggested that the treatment had anything to do with his ethnicity. That was purely the speculation of a number people posting in the comments section.

One of those posters, who has actually cruised on HAL, pointed out that "The crew on HAL ships are almost entirely Indonesian and Filipino, so the idea that there is some bias against Asians is dubious." I suspect that Mrs. CHAN would know better than to try this particular ploy.

There is a lot more that does make sense. Waiting until there was thorough review by Seattle is very appropriate. Be glad they waited. How do you know there was no action taken at the time of the incident - the crew member needed to seek medical attention and how many security forces are present at disembarkation, along with ship card ID checking?

 

There was no reason to assume this was still a "mess" that required passenger review of any corroborating evidence by the time HAL took action. Do accused people lie and exaggerate and play drama queen - answer that only after watching the recent soccer World Cup matches. Do people get falsely accused - yes, that too so care and caution is always in good order before taking anyone's side without consideration of what you also do not know.

 

The throw away line in the final notice was gratuitous and stupid. However, HAL did not invite them back; they just wished they would continue to consider Holland America in any future cruise plans. This has the ring of thoughtless boiler-plate under the circumstances that needs to be better worded. You can be sure HAL legal is agonizing over that throw away line.

 

What makes the most sense is anyone with a history of being on HAL ships knows HAL does not act arbitrarily or capriciously ....without sufficient cause. Plus I am sure they are still badly reverberating from that incident a few years ago when a crew member did assault a passenger on a charter cruise, after that passenger verbally and profanely assaulted a hyper-sensitized crew member.

You seem to be under the impression that I was "taking a side" by asking those questions. **shrugs**

I was on a segment of the World Cruise this past spring, and I was told by several people of two passengers being escorted from the ship by police in Australia (before I embarked). I heard several versions and some disagreement as to whether it happened in Hobart or Adelaide.

Remember we are hearing only one side of the story, from someone who may have every incentive to shade things in his own favor.

I can see not disembarking them in Saint Petersburg, as they would have no visa to remain in the country and the Russians might insist they be taken away with the ship. I cannot see the harm in showing them the video, if there was one. I am a lawyer and the barriers to successfully suing the cruise line are formidable. Showing them the video might put an end to things a lot more quickly, if only to prove that they do have the goods on them (or him, I suppose). People are a lot less likely to make noise when the response could be release of a video that will not help their reputation.

In the article the Captain said he had been identified by the crew member. So if there was a video (which depending upon location may or may not exist), but it did not clearly show the face or some other identifying feature and you were the cruise line would you still show it to them? Instead that might tell them that the only thing the cruise line has is the crew members word and thus make an attorney more likely to take the case.

There's a lot here that doesn't make sense. Why would HAL wait two days from the time of the incident before kicking them off the ship? Why wouldn't some type of action have been taken at the time of the incident? Why wouldn't HAL just clear the whole mess up by showing the video, if it existed? Why would HAL invite them back on another cruise?

Port location, might not be able to in St Petersburg

Time for internal investigation

Agreement from home office

Could be a number of reasons

In the article the Captain said he had been identified by the crew member. So if there was a video (which depending upon location may or may not exist), but it did not clearly show the face or some other identifying feature and you were the cruise line would you still show it to them? Instead that might tell them that the only thing the cruise line has is the crew members word and thus make an attorney more likely to take the case.

All the crew has to do is scan the passenger card to identify the participants. This isn't something which is taken lightly with no forethought. It's a very serious decision.

Any area where people are screened for entry or exit from the ship is the perfect area for security cameras. There is definitely video.

All the crew has to do is scan the passenger card to identify the participants. This isn't something which is taken lightly with no forethought. It's a very serious decision.

My post was primarily in response to the fellow that posted that said as an attorney he would have provided access to the video.

Any area where people are screened for entry or exit from the ship is the perfect area for security cameras. There is definitely video.

Most of us would think that proba ble. IMO

This thread was fine until the few "my cousin's brother's stepbrother's experience.." posts.

This thread was fine until the few "my cousin's brother's stepbrother's experience.." posts.

Who is it that deems the thread no longer 'fine ?"

This thread was fine until the few "my cousin's brother's stepbrother's experience.." posts.

I am curious, SeaGirl 23.

I see you are fairly new on CC (nothing wrong with that).

What is your cruising experience? Have you ever cruised? Have you ever cruised on HAL or have a HAL cruise booked?

You offer many opinions, but are any actually based on actual experience?

Are you a trained worker in any medical field dealing with mental health and personality traits or or your assessment of poster personalities on various threads just gratuitous comments?

Please let us know more about you so we can perhaps give you the information you might be here for.

An important lesson for everyone to learn, the Captain is the Judge and Jury of all issues. Good or bad, he or she doesn't have to answer to anyone and their decisions are final. When you purchase the cruise and sign the contract, you agree to these terms. In this case, the traveler is seeking justice for claiming to be wrongly accused. Now, I don't know if they were or were not involved in the incident in question, but once the Captain made up his mind that they were, the justice is at his discretion.

I have been following the website that posted the article for years. It is a very credible consumer forum and one consistent message they tell everyone is not to involve any lawyer talk until all other avenues of redress are tried. Once she talked "lawyer", she was done.

One needs to remember that once you walk onto a cruise ship, the "innocent until proven guilty" is not in effect, you are under the command of the Captain and the rules of the US do not apply.

Dolby1000