Passenger Bill of Rights

[Responder]

Just ran across the following article...about time....

 

 

Cruise industry announces passenger bill of rights

 

Cruise industry association announces member companies adopting passenger bill of rights

 

By Beth j. Harpaz, AP Travel Editor | Associated Press – 23 mins ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- The cruise industry said Wednesday that it's adopting a passenger bill of rights that guarantees the "safety, comfort and care" of guests.

The bill of rights promises, among other things, full refunds for trips that are canceled due to mechanical failure, and a backup power source on every ship to keep emergency systems running in the event of a main generator failure.

The announcement by the Cruise Lines International Association, which represents 25 major companies including Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, Holland America and Cunard, comes in the aftermath of the Carnival Triumph debacle. The ship drifted for several days earlier this year without power as passengers endured filthy conditions.

Christine Duffy, president and CEO of CLIA, said the idea for the bill of rights came about in response to demands from U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that the industry guarantee passengers minimum standards and protections while on a ship, including sanitary conditions, back-up power, medical care and refunds in the event of a power failure.

Asked to comment on the industry announcement, Schumer called the passenger bill of rights "a step in the right direction towards increased accountability for the cruise industry and ensuring the safety and well-being of its passengers."

But he added, in an emailed response, that he still has "many remaining questions, both on the content and how the bill of rights will be enforced. I will be asking the industry to respond to a set of detailed questions, and will continue to insist on changes to ensure the safety and well-being of their passengers."

In a phone interview, Duffy acknowledged that many of the steps outlined in the bill of rights are already standard practice for most major cruise lines — such as providing refunds for trips disrupted by mechanical failure and equipping ships with backup power for emergency systems like lighting.

But she added that while "some of our members are already doing these things, a big part of the bill of rights is being consistent across the cruise industry, making these things transparent so that they do become part of the contractual agreement between the passenger and the cruise lines."

CLIA said the bill of rights would be effective immediately for U.S. passengers who purchase their cruise in North America on CLIA's North American member cruise lines. The association also said that it had submitted the bill of rights to the International Maritime Organization, "requesting formal global recognition and applicability."

The bill also gives passengers the right to disembark a docked ship if "essential provisions such as food, water, restroom facilities and access to medical care cannot adequately be provided onboard," subject to safety, security and local customs and immigration laws.

In addition to a full refund for trips cancelled due to mechanical failure, the bill guarantees partial refunds for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures.

The bill also guarantees "the right to transportation" to the ship's scheduled final port or the passenger's home city in the event the trip is terminated early due to mechanical failures.

[orchestrapal]

Rights are nice but prices will immediately go up to cover these costs to the industry.

[UUNetBill]

Rights are nice but prices will immediately go up to cover these costs to the industry.

 

Yes, this. Whenever the government starts poking in, things get expensive. I mean, I'd sure love to have guarantees in all things in life, but the reality is that life comes with risks.

 

We'll wait and see, I guess. :rolleyes:

[Responder]

Not to start a political battle, but do some of you think that for what we pay to Regent and other lines, that we aren't entitled to this kind of consideration? I think this as well as others should have been there from day one. To get any kind of relief at present, we must buy terribly expensive travel insurance to obtain some coverage.

 

If you ever look at the contracts you sign when you cruise with anyone, you virtually have no rights.

 

In addition to that, if all the rest of the regulations went away, where would we be?

 

It's bad enough that cruise lines, among other corporations virtually pay no taxes in the US. Do we need complete dismemberment from all regulations that just might give the consumer a bit of protection?

[pingpong1]

Responder - I agree with you. Just as you are when onboard a commercial flight, you are a complete "captive" onboard a cruise ship at sea. You have virtually no control over anything. When that cruiseline takes you onboard and "checks and scans your person and your luggage" to make sure you have no personal means of self-defense :eek:, you are completely at their mercy and under their care to protect you. The captain and crew - by international law - have complete control and authority over you. They have taken on the de facto responsibility for ensuring your safety - to the best and most reasonable (I don't mean economically - I mean life protection) extent they can. That means they should be providing back-up systems for electricity, adequate medical facilities, safe food, clean water, and sanitary waste disposal. We're not talking about a back-up system to make sure the swimming pool temperature stays at 88 degrees. I'm talking about emergency generators to keep the water pressure up so that toilets continue to flush and so that restrooms remain sanitary!

 

I have provided for such emergency systems at my own mountain-top house in West Virginia. Yes, it would cost more for a cruiseship, but I think Regent also has quite a bit more financial resources at it's disposal than I do, as well. :)

 

UUNetBill/Orchestrapal - I agree that life is not without risk. I don't expect a comprehensive risk-free guarantee for "all things in life". Passengers accept a "certain amount" of risk when they take a cruise, or when they drive to the grocery store, for that matter. But the way current "contracts of carriage" are written for the cruise industry - the cruiselines essentially endemnify themselves against responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happens! Whether they could have reasonably prevented it or not. They're asking the passengers to accept ALL of the risk - for everything - even if it's well beyond the passsenger's control! To the cruiselines, every mishap is an "act of God".

 

For a passenger to intelligently accept a particular risk (of cruising), they must have some means for evaluating and accepting the risk. Since most of us are not experts on operating a cruiseline or a passenger ship, we should be able to reference some type of generally recognized and followed "standard". Passengers should have some kind of assurance that the cruiseline is in compliance with those set of standards with respect to responsible facility investments, having provided for certain critical back-up systems, has properly trained their crews, and has contingency procedures and adequate resources in place to mitigate the risks which passengers are "blindly" asked/forced to accept (or take on faith) if they want to cruise, in return for themselves placing their safety and lives in the hands of Regent (or any other cruiseline).

 

How can a passenger intelligently "accept" (or take on) his part of the "risk equation" if he doesn't even know what potential risks are "out there", or what equipment/procedures the carrier has put in place, and doesn't even know what official level of performance or standard the cruiseline is being officially held to? At the moment, there are very few standards that the cruiselines must meet. Yes, ships have "X number" of life preservers and "X number" of lifeboats, but do they have the means for keeping "X number" of toilets properly flushing if the main water pump generator goes out and the ship is 3 days sailing from the nearest friendly port?

 

Obviously, Regent (or any other cruiseline) cannot prevent (or be held liable for) a meteor falling from the sky, hitting the Voyager, and taking it to the bottom of the ocean with great loss of life. As a passenger, I'm willing to take/accept that risk. But they should have back-up systems and procedures on their ships for the items I mention above (safe food, delivery of potable water, sanitary waste disposal, medical supplies, properly trained staff, and emergency power systems) to prevent a powerless ship (like Carnival) from floating around in the middle of the water with hundreds/thousands of passengers onboard, for several days, with no food, safe water, medical care, or functioning and sanitary waste systems (flushable toilets). Even if the "main" generator goes down, it should not be necessary for passengers to "relieve themselves" in shower stalls or remote passageways. The cruiseline should also have pre-clearances, logistic arrangements, and resources in place to pull into the closest and most immediate "safe port" - not Mogidishu - necessary to get the passengers safely off of the disabled ship. At that point, financial loss to the cruiseline should not even be on the "list" of important things to consider.

 

A lot of People like Carnival because they are cheap - Oops, I mean economical! And those cruises are marketed that way, "4-night cruise for $500!" Regent never has/never will advertise themselves to be the "cheapest cruise around". And I don't want them to! I am assuming that for the considerable fares that they're already charging, that they would have "no problem" (or certainly shouldn't) in complying/conforming with the new "Bill of Rights" that have been published, without increasing their prices as a direct result of these new performance standards. However, with most things like this, you never know what the capabilities and contingency plans are, or how they'll work, until they're actually needed. And then it's too late if they're not adequate. I wouldn't like to operate in an environment where it is left up to individual companies to determine what is in their customers' "best interests" when it comes to safety.

 

I'm glad this Passenger Bill of Rights has been implimented. I think it's a good "start" not an "end".

[Travelcat2]

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was an issue that occurred only 2-3 years ago when Regent decided not to go forward with the cruise because of mechanical issues. The passengers were on board -- muster had been completed and the cruise was cancelled. Although I was not on the ship at the time, stories were posted of passengers being able to remain on board the ship while arrangements were being made for them to return home or to another destination. Food and beverages continued as if the ship were at sea (or docked In port). When the ship had to depart to the port where the issues would be remedied, passengers were put in hotels at Regent's cost.

 

Was everything perfect? No....... some flights were horrendous -- long layovers, etc. However, it certainly proved to me that Regent will go above and beyond what is expected of them to assure that their passengers are safe.

 

Just wanted to make this posts for readers that may not have been reading the Regent board at the time this was going on.

[pingpong1]

Thanks TC - While I was writing my "trestise" (sorry for the length), I had no doubt that Regent was/is one of those cruiselines that already "doing the right thing", and would continue to do so for their customers. Regards.

[UUNetBill]

And I think that's my point - the free market will generally weed out incompetent or uncaring businesses. If they don't go under, they'll reduce their service and prices to a point that they can stay in business. Example - Regent cancels a cruise, they take care of their clientele. Everyone's happy (or as happy as they can be under the circumstances.) Mega Cruise Line Z cancels a cruise - they pretty much tell people they're on their own. No one's happy. BUT...Regent had 500-700 passengers who paid a high price and expected exceptional service. Line Z had 5,000+ passengers, many of whom paid bottom-feeder fares to be buried inboard below the waterline...and had lower expectations as a result.

 

If Regent were to ignore their passengers or not treat them right, their business would (rightly) suffer. It's a classic case of 'you get what you pay for'. But let's say that now ALL cruise lines need to change their way of doing business to meet government regulations...and ALL prices rise as a result. How is that fair to a company that already does the right thing and takes care of their passengers? Or how is it fair to the passengers who already pay a premium to be taken care of?

 

We could get into historical issues like the Titanic, the Hindenburg, etc. - but I don't want to hijack, nor politicize, this thread (any more than I already have, sorry.)

 

I'm sorry. I just think this world needs less regulation, not more. I realize that a lot of folks disagree with that, and that's fine. Just my opinion.

[newlondon]

I would like to point out that Regent refunded 50% of the fare on a recent Sydney-Singapore cruise that missed 3 ports and one day on Bali due to weather, mechanical issues and an on-board tragedy. Some people do it right with-out legislation.

I will say the mood on board was ugly until the resolution was announced, but, all's well that ends well:)

[Responder]

If Regent were to ignore their passengers or not treat them right, their business would (rightly) suffer. It's a classic case of 'you get what you pay for'. But let's say that now ALL cruise lines need to change their way of doing business to meet government regulations...and ALL prices rise as a result. How is that fair to a company that already does the right thing and takes care of their passengers? Or how is it fair to the passengers who already pay a premium to be taken care of?

 

 

The only ones affected by a rise in prices would be those lines that do not already offer this level of customer support. And, unless they're forced to do so, it is evident as to how they will behave.

 

Since Regent already does so, what would change for them?

[UUNetBill]

The only ones affected by a rise in prices would be those lines that do not already offer this level of customer support. And, unless they're forced to do so, it is evident as to how they will behave.

 

Since Regent already does so, what would change for them?

I can easily see a situation where, although Regent has adequate backup power or water or whatever to take care of their passengers, the government regulations would mandate a stricter standard, necessitating a refit of the existing ships to meet the new regulations. Happens all the time in the automotive and aircraft industries, causing a noticeable rise in costs. I don't see how the cruise industry would be any different.

 

Of course, not knowing what the proposed standards are, this is all conjecture at this point...

[HanaleiSailor]

Aloha All,

 

Perhaps ratifying this "Bill of Rights" was simply an exercise in damage control by the mass-market dominated cruise industry. Over the past few years, there have been several well-reported cases of disabled ships, fires and other mishaps at sea, which may have severe negative effects on selling new potential passengers. And there has also been a good deal of negative press concerning both working conditions aboard many ships and negative environmental impacts of the ships.

 

The Bill of Rights may just be the cheapest marketing measure that the industry could come up with; rather than spending millions on internet/newspaper/travel magazine ads promoting the relative safety of cruising, the industry gets a lot of free coverage out of this new policy, and it is something that TAs and in-house sales personnel can use to reassure prospective clients.

 

My two cents.

 

Aloha from Hanalei,

 

Mark