Is it time for cruisers to speak out?

How would Regent determine that the person has or doesn't have outside insurance covering a cancellation? How can you prove it? I think this could open a can of worms. There are many unscrupulous people out there. This could become a scam and folks could collect twice.

I don't think the cruise companies need to rethink their policies. I do think insurance companies do. That's the ripoff. But a necessary evil to cover unexpected tragedies.

Jackie, I think it is great that you started this thread. It is always good to talk all of these items out and there isn't always a right or wrong.

Best to you.

Keith

I have just finished reading both of these threads, and clearly come down on the side that passengers are responsible for protecting themselves. I think the argument that cruise lines enrich themselves by reselling a sold/abandoned cabin is weak. In some of the examples on the threads, the cancellations happen within a week or so of the departure, allowing no real opportunity to market these cabins. In fact, it is my understanding that post 911, manifests must be locked down within a time period that would restrict this opportunity. Even at that, cruise lines, hotels, airlines and others in the travel industry operate in a business model that assumes no shows, cancellations, and other events that leave empty seats/rooms. Yield management software puts these statistics into their calculations to produce pricing.

I insure my cruises. Sometimes I buy insurance on first class airline tickets and sometimes I don't. I almost never insure a coach ticker. As another poster noted, when I do not buy insurance, I am by default "self-insured". I would also note that insurance companies set their prices on two factors, their cost which is based on their claims paid and the profit they are expected to return to their owner's. Insurance is expensive and it is always a gamble. We take that gamble on our health, our property and our vacations. Why someone would not buy insurance on a $20,000 vacation, but insure a $5000 diamond ring is odd to me, but it is their choice.

I would also like to state my displeasure with the comments that imply that insurance companies are somehow less than honorable. They are a business. They have owners and investors that put capital at risk to protect us and our assets. Sometimes they are protecting you and other times they seem to be fighting you. However, to imply that their only purpose is to screw people, accuses thousands of hard working people of being nothing more than criminals and thieves. My wife was an actuary for life insurance and pension companies for 30 years, she is also the most honest and caring person I know. The work she did, set the rates for the products her companies sold. I can assure you it was never her intention to steal from people.

So back to the point of these two threads, people should be responsible for their own actions and circumstances. The current world has an option of buying insurance or self-insuring; pick one and accept the consequences. Should the cruise lines be more generous? It would not save us money. If they loosen their rules, the pricing model will just include the same costs that you pay for outside insurance in the price of your cabin. Some people don't like included excursions, airfare or liquor. What will they think about included insurance?

Just my opinion. Thanks for listening.

TW

How would Regent determine that the person has or doesn't have outside insurance covering a cancellation? How can you prove it? I think this could open a can of worms. There are many unscrupulous people out there. This could become a scam and folks could collect twice.

I don't think the cruise companies need to rethink their policies. I do think insurance companies do. That's the ripoff. But a necessary evil to cover unexpected tragedies.

I'm not even reading the other posts on this thread anymore (except for Keith's) as most people simply did not understand my point (based on the responses that were trying to convince people to buy insurance -- obviously I never suggested that people not buy insurance). You have me thinking about the horrendous insurance industry which, as mentioned, I worked with (not for) for many years.

Regent and other cruise lines do have their own insurance (likely contracted). They could start the ball rolling by offering reasonable travel insurance that actually pay for things that they advertise are covered. Just a thought!

I have just finished reading both of these threads, and clearly come down on the side that passengers are responsible for protecting themselves. I think the argument that cruise lines enrich themselves by reselling a sold/abandoned cabin is weak. In some of the examples on the threads, the cancellations happen within a week or so of the departure, allowing no real opportunity to market these cabins. In fact, it is my understanding that post 911, manifests must be locked down within a time period that would restrict this opportunity. Even at that, cruise lines, hotels, airlines and others in the travel industry operate in a business model that assumes no shows, cancellations, and other events that leave empty seats/rooms. Yield management software puts these statistics into their calculations to produce pricing.

 

I insure my cruises. Sometimes I buy insurance on first class airline tickets and sometimes I don't. I almost never insure a coach ticker. As another poster noted, when I do not buy insurance, I am by default "self-insured". I would also note that insurance companies set their prices on two factors, their cost which is based on their claims paid and the profit they are expected to return to their owner's. Insurance is expensive and it is always a gamble. We take that gamble on our health, our property and our vacations. Why someone would not buy insurance on a $20,000 vacation, but insure a $5000 diamond ring is odd to me, but it is their choice.

 

I would also like to state my displeasure with the comments that imply that insurance companies are somehow less than honorable. They are a business. They have owners and investors that put capital at risk to protect us and our assets. Sometimes they are protecting you and other times they seem to be fighting you. However, to imply that their only purpose is to screw people, accuses thousands of hard working people of being nothing more than criminals and thieves. My wife was an actuary for life insurance and pension companies for 30 years, she is also the most honest and caring person I know. The work she did, set the rates for the products her companies sold. I can assure you it was never her intention to steal from people.

 

So back to the point of these two threads, people should be responsible for their own actions and circumstances. The current world has an option of buying insurance or self-insuring; pick one and accept the consequences. Should the cruise lines be more generous? It would not save us money. If they loosen their rules, the pricing model will just include the same costs that you pay for outside insurance in the price of your cabin. Some people don't like included excursions, airfare or liquor. What will they think about included insurance?

 

Just my opinion. Thanks for listening.

TW

+1

An excellent, logical and non-emotive post, which summarises the arguments perfectly.

Greetings, Everyone, from South Beach. Regarding cruise line's insurance, DH and I had a positive experience with Oceania's insurance. We were booked a cruise on Riviera that we were really anxious to take. Three weeks prior to sailing, DH unexpectedly developed serious symptoms that resulted in the immediate need for treatment. The treatment plan was extensive and would continue for several months. We had no choice but to cancel the cruise. From the beginning, people at the insurance company were very nice to us. Our claim was never denied. In fact, it was settled quickly.

As soon as DH got an OK from his doctor that he was free to travel again, we booked two cruises on Regent and one on Oceania. We insured them all with Company Insurance.

Mary

Moving back to the OPs issue, we will try to keep our opinion to a more legal point of view. Keep in mind that we are very frequent cruisers (far more then 1000 cruise days) who do not buy cancellation insurance. We figure that by not buying cancellation insurance (we do have excellent annual travel medical insurance) we are probably at least $100,000 ahead of the game....based on all the money we have saved by not buying insurance.

So, the issue is whether a cruise line should take some financial responsibility when a cruiser guesses wrong (does not buy insurance). Consider that many tragedies fall under the legal definition of Force Mejeure (kind of like Act of God). But why should a cruise line assume some liability...because the cruiser decided to save money by not insuring against cancellation issues (for any reason). It would be like somebody not bothering to buy auto insurance.,,,,but then asking the auto insurance industry to pay for the cost of an accident.,,,,or perhaps a car destroyed by a flood? That is just not the way our system works. You take the risk,,,,you take your chances.

Hank

IMO the only time that a cruise line could be considered to be 'profiting' from a cancellation charge is if the ship is 100% full at time of sailing.

In that case it could (morally) be argued that the cruise line has not suffered a financial loss due to the cancellation (with the exception of some admin costs)

The ship *might* have "sailed full", but that does not mean they collected the "full fare" of someone who cancelled.

The closer to sailing date there is a cancellation, the lower the probability that someone will come along to pay full fare for those same accommodations. That's why there are often "last minute lower cost offers".

Most people traveling on a multi-day trip (or multi-week!) need to make plans in advance, for work/vacations, house/pet-sitting, and to coordinate the schedule with others. And although they might be interested in a "last minute deal", that doesn't mean they want that "deal" for that particular destination on that particular ship, in that particular level of accommodation.

Usually, when planning a major trip, one has a choice, and chooses carefully from all of the assorted options.

And sure, there are many people who can travel on short notice, and we hear from many of them here on CC. But they are rarely interested in paying the same full fare. (If they were, most of those would have booked the cruise much earlier, when they'd have a choice of accommodations.)

So consider a policy where the cruise line does refund "whatever they could get" at the last minute (minus something for staff costs to arrange it or such).

I can hear it now: "Couldn't they have charged MORE and gotten ME more of MY money back!? I bet they never even tried to get more for me!"

It's not simple, by any means.

But... travel insurance takes care of all of this.

(Better yet, there is quite a variety of policy types, covering more or less of the price, with more or less in terms of "reasons" covered. Something for everyone... and some policies cost a lot, and some cost somewhat less...)

Or, as some have mentioned they do, someone could automatically squirrel away some percentage of every trip, and keep it in the "for cancellation" pot. Then, if/when you need to cancel and it's not refundable (or only partly refundable), you've actually got your little pot of money, rather than having never put aside the "premium".

Or... just take the risk, and be willing to lose the money if you choose not to get insurance. But as with other insurance (car collision, homeowner's fire coverage), just be aware of the choice you have made. No one forced you to make that choice.

GC