Airport Closures & Stranded Travelers: What Should the Cruise Lines Do?

[navybankerteacher]

Without wishing to be argumentative, all the people on this thread who keep saying travellers should buy insurance are not paying attention. From a British point of view, almost all the Brits would have bought travel insurance (because we have to) but the insurance companies are NOT PAYING. Many familes are stranded, they have prepared for the worst by taking a credit card and are now very worried as they have run up £1000s of debt.

 

If your government requires you to buy insurance but do not require the insurance companies to pay out, it is time for you to change either your insurance company or your government.

[Britchic4]

If your government requires you to buy insurance but do not require the insurance companies to pay out, it is time for you to change either your insurance company or your government.

 

We are about to change our goverment - or at least get the vote to change it - in May, but I don't suppose the new government will be much better, LOL!

[davecttr]

In the UK having insurance for a cruise holiday is compulsory, they won't let you on the ship without it. The basic choice here is to buy a cruise package including flights/hotels and transfers or go cruise only and arrange everything else yourself.

 

If you have a package the cruise line has to provide the cruise or full compensation and is obliged in law to get you home at the end. For example, Thomson changing the itinery of Island Escape to bring people home from Maderia was a no brainer, they had to get them home somehow. Incidentally they are now offering a 13 night cruise back to the med at really low prices!.

 

Of course cruise only may be cheaper which is why a lot of people go for it. I book packages and can be assured that I will get my holiday and get back home. For me the insurance is mainly for medical emergencies for example if they have to fly you home in a air ambulance etc. It is also a good idea to get a free European Health Insurance Card which entitles you to treatment under each countries national medical provisions. Depending on which country you are in it might be better (and cheaper) to get the ambulance to take you to the public hospital rather than the private clinic.

[SantaFeFan]

Well done those cruiselines which helped stranded travellers, esp Carnival whose ship was happily available & in the right place.

 

John Bull

 

Just to set things straight, it's Celebrity with their new ship Eclipse which has not yet gone into revenue service, not Carnival. The stranded passengers will be tranferred at no cost - Celebrity is giving them a free ride home to help them out after spending thousands on extra hotel expenses while they were stranded. Celebrity will not make a penny on this.

 

Carnival owns Cunnard, which, after many complaints from customers, is finally allowing credit for future cruises to passengers who can't make the ship, but are charging full fare to wait listed stranded passengers who take those empty rooms, which is twice what was being charged just before the disruption. Cunnard will make money on this.

[Hornet84]

You can't hand this around Cunard's neck. QM2 has been booked for months on revenue producing voyages and they cannot be expected to do much of anything. The PR is not good for them, but NCL and RCCL have the same policies in place. Cunard made the right move in easing the cancellation policy for the 4/22/10 voyage. Buy cruise insurance is the message here. I applaud Celebrity for pitching in and helping, but I doubt they would have done it if Eclipse was on a revenue producing schedule.

 

Mike

[cherylandtk]

Trying to be as un-biased on this issue as possible (since I was directly affected by the cancellation of my flight), I feel the cruise lines will need to take a hard look at this issue....

 

... (Normal cancellation is NO REFUND on cruise fare portion).

....A couple of posts mention "act of God". That is correct, and that is what the travel insurance policy companies are claiming and therefore it is NOT covered.

...While I will always advocate travel insurance as a neccesity, it did not and does not cover "acts of God" as this has been determined, it is more in line for travel disruptions and personal cancellations, not weather, war, or self-induced causes.

 

Soapbox rant over. :).

If you purchased one of the major third party US trip insurance plans, they are all covering this event, they do not exclude Act of God, this is a weather event.

 

It seems only the cruiseline sponsored plans exclude Act of God, BUT they all provide for a cruise credit regardless of reason for cancellation, so if you purchased insurance, as you advocate, I suspect you are covered one way or the other.

 

What policy did you purchase?

[SantaFeFan]

I applaud Celebrity for pitching in and helping, but I doubt they would have done it if Eclipse was on a revenue producing schedule.

 

Mike

 

I agree. Helping out when the ship is not yet in service but ready to go is one thing, but canceling a cruise to run a 'rescue' mission is another. It's one of those "just in the right place at the right time" situations. As for Cunnard, I can see finally providing the cruise credits as good customer service, but to charge desparate passengers full fare is a bit like gouging. What would be fair would be to charge the same fare as those passengers who had to be rescheduled. Then, all things would be even.

[John Bull]

If your government requires you to buy insurance but do not require the insurance companies to pay out, it is time for you to change either your insurance company or your government.

 

Not a government requirement, NBT, but a requirement of many cruise lines, tour operators etc.

Doesn't alter the fact that we need to change politicians & insurance companies - they've both overtaken bankers and lawyers as Britain's most hated professions :D

 

SantaFeFan - thanks for the correction, I wrote "Celebrity" but it came out as "Carnival". Honest :rolleyes:

[Brook5324]

I can see that the cruise lines do not want to lose money, but if they have waiting lists for your cabin that they are reselling at full price then they should reimburse or allow you to rebook. I do not see why they should make double profit on a cabin because of circumstances out of everyone control.

If they cannot rebook your cabin then I guess you have to take the loss.

[jocap]

 

i am thrilled that celebrity at their own cost is going to Spain to help people to get home. makes me want to keep sailing with them.

I thought that Thomson and Thomas Cook had chartered Celebrity Eclipse to rescue their own passengers from land-based and Thomson cruises?

Jo.

Edit: I see from the home page that it's also First Choice and the Cooperative TG who have chartered this ship. Are they all part of TUI? And how much have they paid, or is it generosity from Celebrity.....?

Jo.

[Dorset Cruiser]

If your government requires you to buy insurance but do not require the insurance companies to pay out, it is time for you to change either your insurance company or your government.

 

 

Oh believe me we are going to:mad:

[Dorset Cruiser]

I thought that Thomson and Thomas Cook had chartered Celebrity Eclipse to rescue their own passengers from land-based and Thomson cruises?

Jo.

Edit: I see from the home page that it's also First Choice and the Cooperative TG who have chartered this ship. Are they all part of TUI? And how much have they paid, or is it generosity from Celebrity.....?

Jo.

 

 

I don't think they will charge them Jo but it is mighty good publicity:D

[taschr]

In the wake of Iceland's volcanic eruption and widespread airport closures in the U.K. and Europe, cruise lines have taken a variety of actions. Celebrity has canceled a preview cruise to bring stranded holidaymakers from Spain back to Europe. Thomson Cruises is altering Island Escape's itinerary to drop British guests off in Falmouth. Cunard is offering future cruise credit for passengers who can't make its April 22 transatlantic crossing, while NCL and Royal Caribbean are holding cruise-only guests to standard cancellation penalties.

 

We want to know: How do you think cruise lines should be accommodating passengers who can't make their cruises because of airport closures or who are stranded because they can't fly home?

 

Never mind how they are accomodating stranded passengers, the public should be made aware of how each cruise line acted and book their future cruises accordingly. Any cruise line that didn't give a FCC to someone who couldn't get overseas should be basically boycotted by everyone who cruises. There are too many ships and too many lines out there to give any business to any company that acts in that cavalier a way. I certainly have no intention of booking with Cunard, RCCL or NCL because of their policies.

[davecttr]

I don't think they will charge them Jo but it is mighty good publicity:D

 

I would expect the ship to be chartered and some money to change hands, after all you don't give your profits to competitors do you!

[firefly333]

I am not as happy that RCCL (as of yet) has not expanded their policy to encompass their passengers much the way the others have. :).

 

I was on Conquest when Ike hit, and they dropped us off at a different port than we left from, with no help or compensation. I never saw my car again, and the contents were not covered, lost all my CDs etc.

 

I think this is similar and I haven't trusted Carnival again or felt the same way toward them. They only helped those who booked air through Carnival.

 

If you are like me, you are going to have bad feelings toward RCL for years to come, probably forever. I personally think those cruiselines who helped, folks will be loyal to them for years to come. Those who did not help in any way (Carnival didn't help either) folks will have bad feelings toward and distrust.

 

I think they should have offered a future credit even if they couldnt allow you to cancel for a "act of god"

[greatam]

Never mind how they are accomodating stranded passengers, the public should be made aware of how each cruise line acted and book their future cruises accordingly. Any cruise line that didn't give a FCC to someone who couldn't get overseas should be basically boycotted by everyone who cruises. There are too many ships and too many lines out there to give any business to any company that acts in that cavalier a way. I certainly have no intention of booking with Cunard, RCCL or NCL because of their policies.

 

Pray tell-WHY should I EVER bother to get trip insurance IF the cruise line will take care of me if I miss the cruise due to an "act of God" or weather related event? Sounds like you have a great idea-save the money for trip insurance and BOYCOTT the cruise lines who don't pay me if I miss the cruise. I got it now!!!

[kamalani80]

If you purchased one of the major third party US trip insurance plans, they are all covering this event, they do not exclude Act of God, this is a weather event.

 

It seems only the cruiseline sponsored plans exclude Act of God, BUT they all provide for a cruise credit regardless of reason for cancellation, so if you purchased insurance, as you advocate, I suspect you are covered one way or the other.

 

What policy did you purchase?

 

None. I have trip interuption coverage from the credit card company. It did not cover this specific incident, due to the Act of God clause.

 

Travel insurance provides for reimbursement of money to the client. I was not asking for that. My primary argument was that my cruiseline refunded airfare and compensated with a 100% future cruise certificate ALL their pax who booked with them on an Air/Sea package. They then dealt their cruise only pax with the fatal blow that they would not be compensated at all, because this was an Act of God and an unfortunate situation. My airfare was refunded by the airline, my travel agent waived their cancellation fees that they customarily charge, but the cruise line kept ALL my money, and then at the end of their denial letter printed "have a wonderful day!" :D I am sure it has been as hectic for them, as it has been frustrating for us.

[paul929207]

Never mind how they are accomodating stranded passengers, the public should be made aware of how each cruise line acted and book their future cruises accordingly. Any cruise line that didn't give a FCC to someone who couldn't get overseas should be basically boycotted by everyone who cruises. There are too many ships and too many lines out there to give any business to any company that acts in that cavalier a way. I certainly have no intention of booking with Cunard, RCCL or NCL because of their policies.

So let me make sure I get this. The cruise lines and others offer travel insurance. The cruise lines recommend you take it. They make clear that they will not refund your money after a given date. You pass on the insurance and now expect the cruise line to refund your money?

[kamalani80]

Pray tell-WHY should I EVER bother to get trip insurance IF the cruise line will take care of me if I miss the cruise due to an "act of God" or weather related event? Sounds like you have a great idea-save the money for trip insurance and BOYCOTT the cruise lines who don't pay me if I miss the cruise. I got it now!!!

 

Again, trip insurance reimburses the individual for lost money. The fact remains that certain cruise lines chose to treat their customers differently. On RCCL (according to their "important information" policy statement) they are refunding the airfare (which really isn't theirs to refund, because the airlines already did that) AND they are issuing 100% FCC's to ONLY those pax who booked using their Air/Sea packages. If you were a cruise only pax, you are being told that because this is an Act of God incident, then normal cancellation policies are in effect. For those of us on cruise departures of April 17-19, that means ZERO credit back, and the cruise line kept all the money. Not exactly a good faith effort to win over your existing customers.

 

I plan to review and purchace travel insurance policies in the future. Lesson learned. But I will not be mocked by a cruise line because I chose to plan my own air arrangements instead of capitulating to their packaging of Air/Sea packages. Shame on them for not treating their passengers the same.

[kamalani80]

And that is a 100% future cruise credit if they booked an Air/Sea Package, even if they had travel protection policies or if they didn't have it. The difference is they are not treating their cruise-only pax the same.

[kamalani80]

One word: "insurance" says it all. If people want to be protected from the effects of unexpected events, they should arrange for such protection. To the extent cruise lines have made accomodations, they should be applauded.

 

To criticize them for not accepting massive losses for the purpose of keeping customers happy is simply childish. Why not criticize the ailines for not arranging hotels for their stranded passengers? Why not criticize the airport authorities for not providing beds?

 

I agree. Insurance. I will make it a part of all my future plans.

 

That is not the argument though. The argument is that a cruise line has chosen to group their passengers into different classes. Those who booked through them and utilized all the services they offer, and those who went about it through travel agencies or on their own.

 

The lesson they are sending is clear. If you book directly through us and use our Air/Sea packages, we will take care of you! If, you choose to go it alone or through outside TA's, then you will not receive the level of service that we offer. They are rightfully trying to funnel people to book directly with them so they can recoup their investments in ChoiceAir, CruiseCare protection, and other high profit margin products that they offer.

 

They have made believers out of those they compensated, and they have made those that they didn't compensate....former passengers. My guess is that some bean counter figured this was a viable solution.

[cruiseco]

re: insurance required by UK cruisers.

 

One result of this policy is that as long as the insurers act in concert in deciding this is not a covered event they can screw over their clients without risking losing their business. Where else can they go for the required coverage?

 

In the US where travelers can make an independent decision whether to buy a policy or not, the insurers not only have to convince travelers that it's worth the cost but they also have to compete with other insurers partly on relative levels of customer service.

 

So you see UK-based insurers denying coverage (because they can with no repercussions) and US-based insurers providing coverage even though they have to defy all common sense and declare a volcano eruption a "weather event" in order to do so.

[davecttr]

re: insurance required by UK cruisers.

 

One result of this policy is that as long as the insurers act in concert in deciding this is not a covered event they can screw over their clients without risking losing their business. Where else can they go for the required coverage?

 

In the US where travelers can make an independent decision whether to buy a policy or not, the insurers not only have to convince travelers that it's worth the cost but they also have to compete with other insurers partly on relative levels of customer service.

 

So you see UK-based insurers denying coverage (because they can with no repercussions) and US-based insurers providing coverage even though they have to defy all common sense and declare a volcano eruption a "weather event" in order to do so.

 

Which is why the cautious cruiser books a package under british law bacause they have to give you your money back if they can't arrange a suitable alternative.

 

I checked out next January for Canaries cruises package versus cruise only and package was only slightly more expensive. This is little to pay for the peace of mind and confidence that you will get home.

 

Hopefully you are not suggesting the UK abandons its IMO better way of handling holiday insurance and adopts the free for all, devil take the hindmost US model.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

I have argued on all of the forums why I think the cruise lines should give a future cruise credit even if not required to do so. Why alienate thousands of your paying passengers on the one hand, but on the other hand, perform the publicity stunt of sending the Eclipse to "rescue" passengers from Spain.

 

However, that point is subjective and can be argued in either direction.

 

What cannot be argued is the application of the EU Package Travel Directive and individual member state laws to an air/sea package purchased directly from the cruiseline, or from an EU travel agency.

 

While RCCL is saying that for air/sea customers they will refund the airfare and offer a future cruise certificate (but no refund) for the cruise portion, this "offer" is illegal pursuant to the EU Package Travel Directive. According to EU law, RCCL or any other cruiseline must provide a full refund of the air and cruise package if the customer so requests, although the customer would be free to accept the offer of a future cruise certificate or better offer made by RCCL.

 

The cruiselines know very well what the laws are so, in my opinion, they should not try to take advantage of a customer's possible ignorance of the law and only offer a cruise certificate for a future cruise when they are legally required to provide a full refund if the passenger purchased an air/cruise package.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[FionaMG]

RCI don't even offer air-cruise packages here in Portugal as they work through a representative. All you get from RCI is the cruise. The other bits are put together either by the traveller, the travel agent or RCI's representative, but even when done by the latter it still doesn't count as a package, so we'd be right up the creek.

And because we live in Portugal and don't have a UK address, we can't make the booking through RCI's office in the UK...