Europe River Cruising WORST EVER company

[nana541]

Not really.

 

They can put what they like in the contract terms but that doesn't mean they will stand up in court.

 

It all depends on local consumer law of course, but terms that allow a completely different holiday to be delivered without compensation are often considered 'unfair' and hence not enforceable.

 

Oh my, you took the words right out of my mouth! In fact companies who put that type of terms in their contracts are banking you will read it and figure they are just out of luck!

[Marty156]

Not really.

 

They can put what they like in the contract terms but that doesn't mean they will stand up in court.

 

It all depends on local consumer law of course, but terms that allow a completely different holiday to be delivered without compensation are often considered 'unfair' and hence not enforceable.

 

Exactly my thoughts Mart_T, and one that requires further persuing!

 

The questions also arise if a "Trip" is equal to a "Cruise"

or if 'swapping ships' (READ as different non-moving hotels) means the same as '..substituting another vessel....', '...for all or part of the itinerary...'

[Ozjohnno]

Exactly my thoughts Mart_T, and one that requires further persuing!

 

The questions also arise if a "Trip" is equal to a "Cruise"

or if 'swapping ships' (READ as different non-moving hotels) means the same as '..substituting another vessel....', '...for all or part of the itinerary...'

 

Under our Trades and Practices Act here I think you'll find that you have a case. Just another Queenslander's opinion.

[Marty156]

Under our Trades and Practices Act here I think you'll find that you have a case. Just another Queenslander's opinion.

 

To Ozjohno and Nana541

 

There is the 'Unfair Clause' component but only a Court can decide this.

It exists under the ACCC and also under NSW and Qld Fair Trading

 

Justice grinds along very slowly in the Sunshine State!

[Ozjohnno]

To Ozjohno and Nana541

 

There is the 'Unfair Clause' component but only a Court can decide this.

It exists under the ACCC and also under NSW and Qld Fair Trading

 

Justice grinds along very slowly in the Sunshine State!

 

I think you may find Sect:52 of the Act to be a starting point and yes unfortunately Justice does move slower than a sloth. I hope you are successful in the long run. History shows us that Scenic has been involved in a number of disputes in the past. I believe they settled when this was disclosed in 2010.....

[Nixmuts]

I'm just reading some interesting things in the T & C's that may or may not be relevant to some of the affected passengers.

 

2.17 What if I am unhappy with something on tour?

 

If You are unhappy with something that does not happen on Your tour, You must first use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate with Us in good faith to settle the dispute before commencing proceedings in any court or tribunal

[Marty156]

 

2.17 What if I am unhappy with something on tour?

 

If You are unhappy with something that does not happen on Your tour, You must first use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate with Us in good faith to settle the dispute before commencing proceedings in any court or tribunal

 

You think emails to the Swiss operations manager, to the Managing Director of the company and to the non-employee Cruise Director dated whilst still on the buscruise would suffice as "all reasonable endeavours to negotiate with Us in good faith" ?

[Nixmuts]

Probably Marty, I was just reading the T&C's and thought that it may interest some that were affected.

[Marty156]

Apologies Nixmuts, if my reply sounded harsh. Was not meant to be like that at all.

(That's the problem with non-verbal communication, one cannot see the expression on the speakers face to know it was meant with tongue in cheek.)

 

Any and all comments and suggestions are most welcome!

Companies should not be allowed to change the rules to suit them -without any options for the buyer.

 

I think that's known as an "Unfair Contract"

[agabbymama]

Apologies Nixmuts, if my reply sounded harsh. Was not meant to be like that at all.

(That's the problem with non-verbal communication, one cannot see the expression on the speakers face to know it was meant with tongue in cheek.)

 

Any and all comments and suggestions are most welcome!

Companies should not be allowed to change the rules to suit them -without any options for the buyer.

 

I think that's known as an "Unfair Contract"

 

Keep fighting Marty, don't give up until a Court hears the case.

 

A few years ago I had a trip planned to New Orleans. Airfare bought and paid for (non-refundable). Hotels & tours booked (not paid for). Katrina hit, we cancelled tours & hotels. Could do nothing about the airfare, told we were just out the money if we didn't use them. Others were getting refunds from airlines, even non-refundable tickets, but I purchased through a third party not direct with airlines. I copied all I saw on the Internet. Thought I was out the $500 pp. Reports were saying it was unsafe and unhealthy in New Orleans. Still no refund.

 

Wow, then Ruby hit and the airport was totally closed to visitors. I was surprised when I contacted the third party and was issued a total refund. I didn't even have to use all the material I had gathered to prove my case.

 

You might want to find articles about what the other river companies did to recompense their passengers. Good Luck!

[cormike1]

Oh Marty I am so sorry about your river cruise. We have done 3, our 1st being on the Danube. We had to hussle one day to get under a couple of bridges due to high water but everything else went smoothly and we have taken 2 others and loved them all. All 3 have been with different companies, Viking, Avalon and AMA. We would do another one in a flash but hesitate because of high air fares overseas.

 

I have to tell you that we had booked a 3-week Egyptian tour with "Insight Tours" including land and river tours and had to cancel when the rioting first broke out a couple of years ago. We did have a TA who had worked with Insight to set up our specific trip. Even though each segment was booked separately, for example air with one company to get to Cairo, air with another company to get to Luxor, Nile river cruise company, etc. we went through Insight and only paid Insight. We got all our money back (minus our insurance $$) within 3 months. Of course the Canadian government were the ones that said "no travel to Egypt" so we had that as a backup.

 

That said, I would definitely be hesitant to book with Evergreen/Scenic.

 

Good luck getting compensation!!!!! You had a terrible trip and you should be compensated for it. We all look forward to our vacations and to have it ruined like you had is just not right!!!!

Edited August 9, 2013 by cormike1

[franski]

Evergreen Tours is a subsidiary of Scenic Tours, the (slightly) lower cost version. It does not include all the tours (optional) and does not include all drinks (except at dinner). They do not own the ships, but lease them from Luftner.

 

Did you book with Scenic - or with Evergreen?

 

Do Scenic and Evergreen share all back office functions? Or - just share some services? Or, does Evergreen run independently under the Scenic parent?

 

If they are fairly independent, it seems as if the issue is more with Evergreen and not Scenic.

 

I was curious about the company - as I hadn't heard about them until your original post - and anything that I can find on line (realizing I am not in Aus or NZ) doesn't identify them as anything but an independent company.

 

Fran

[Marty156]

Keep fighting Marty, don't give up until a Court hears the case.

.. .. ..

You might want to find articles about what the other river companies did to recompense their passengers. Good Luck!

 

Thanks agabbymama, for your encouragement!

 

We are not giving up!

There are a group of us that are not apathetic and we will not just 'lie down and take it'. Australians are known for their "She'll be right" attitude, but not this black duck!

 

Its a significant amount of life savings to be wasted on one company's greed! Think of the bad public relations they must be receiving?

 

A lot of material -from when other companies cancelled days ahead of ours- to photos of conditions and other evidence is all being collated.

Included are letters from the company stating that there will be a 'refund'.

An offer of $550 pp on an outlay of $16,000 for 50% of a missed cruise is just not acceptable.

[Marty156]

Did you book with Scenic - or with Evergreen?

 

Do Scenic and Evergreen share all back office functions? Or - just share some services? Or, does Evergreen run independently under the Scenic parent?

 

If they are fairly independent, it seems as if the issue is more with Evergreen and not Scenic.

 

I was curious about the company - as I hadn't heard about them until your original post - and anything that I can find on line (realizing I am not in Aus or NZ) doesn't identify them as anything but an independent company.

 

Fran

 

Hi Franski,

They share everything, offices, staff and are at the same address.

The main difference is that Evergreen is the budget version, and does not include all side trips, all day alcohol and (probably!) free water in the cabins!

Whereas Scenic appear to own ships, Evergreen leases theirs from Luftner.

 

By the way, both companies behaved in the same manner, forcing people on busses instead of cancelling. Even knowing that the rivers would be impassable for weeks.

[Brisbanelionsfan]

Hi Marty,

 

Firstly let me say that I'm very sorry to hear about your trip from hell, I know my husband and I would have been very angry indeed if we had a trip like yours, I think the company should have cancelled.

We have just finished our Scenic cruise on the Jewel and we were the first cruise to go smoothly for a long time, firstly with the flooding and then the lock strikes. I have to say it's one of the best holidays we have ever been on. I have a feeling if everything goes smoothly then the company is amazing.

Don't give up trying to get some compensation for your very expensive bus tour.:)

[Osnab]

Marty:

First, and most importantly, I want to tell you that I feel for you and your partner and anyone else on your cruise that experienced what you did.

 

Second, I am going to be the Cheese Stands Alone in my comments, which are more of a "devil's advocate" than trying to blast you (except for my last paragraph).

 

You had absolutely nothing positive to say about this experience. I believe it was a bad time, but surely there had to be something good. Travel is not necessarily supposed to be easy (it comes from the French word meaning "to work", after all).

 

But when I continually read over and over your complaints, frankly, they lost a little credibility. My unsolicited advice is that if you do pursue this in court, you lay off the little points of irritation. Having no fish on a flight is hardly the end of the world.

 

You stated at the beginning, something about how the tone was set. I knew right then that your approach and attitude were going to be completely negative.

 

You said that your partner left a comment on Facebook and there was a "hidden message" to not say anything controversial. Not necessarily. Maybe the company was encouraging you to contact them to work it out instead of bad-mouthing them (correct facts or not) in the public. I'm of a strong opinion that differences should be worked out privately if at all possible.

 

Miss Evergreen - you said she was on a fam trip; therefore, since her trip was free or grossly reduced, it would help her bias. Not necessarily true. I used to be a travel agent - 100 yrs ago - and I did get a lot of free trips, but it never made me sell the company when I returned. The purpose is to get you familiarized with the hotel, the tour company, the restaurant, etc. But the decision to sell the company providing the fam trip would be the travel agent's upon their return. Miss Evergreen would have no reason to sell those already sold.

 

She also did raise a valid point. I'm not familiar with the Terms & Conditions of this company, but doesn't it state that they are not responsible for acts of God?

 

You said the company refused to consider anything that would enable anyone to claim against their own travel insurance. There is an option on most insurance policies you can purchase for "cancel for any reason". I could get a hangnail and decide to cancel, and if I have purchased that, I don't have to provide a "valid" reason.

 

You wrote "Did that excuse of a cruise direction mention it would be a very long bus trip?" Maybe I missed out on this, but don't people know how long the distance is between where you were going? And had the CD mentioned it, I suspect you would have still griped, because your issue is the bus itself.

 

I totally understand that you did not pay for the bus, you paid for a cruise that actually sailed, not sat in dock. And again, I'm "the cheese stands alone", but why is it the fault of the company that you and 100s of others were not allowed to sail in rough conditions? It sucks, sure, but it is not their fault. Some companies chose to refund those who canceled, but yours did not. That's probably in those pesky terms and conditions.

 

Not being able to communicate with the 4 bus drivers.........that's not good. But I understand this, because bus tours is not what they do for a living. Getting the passengers somewhere was thrown upon them at the last minute. I imagine it could have been better, but "stuff" happens.

 

The comment about the passwords being difficult for WiFi...well, the tragedy of this rates as high as not having fish on the plane.

 

I did not understand your comment about how you couldn't use it (sporadically) but the employees could, and that you thought it was set up that way deliberately so pax coudl not communicate with the outside world. I agree that's weird, but I doubt this is even do-able from a technological standpoint.

 

I think by this point in time, you're pissed about the whole thing, so even if the sun was shining, it would be too bright, or if your meal was perfect, then you gained 1/2 lb.

 

"We will sail tonite" - did they say this or "We hope to sail tonite."

 

I was on a cruise in Japan when the tsunami/earthquake occurred - talk about a major, quick change of plans! I didn't hear anyone gripe that we didn't get to finish the rest of Japan. Everyone was more saddened by the destruction and death of innocent people. But I've heard nothing but gripes about people's cruises being ruined because of this natural disaster. I think you and everyone else griping that your vacation was ruined should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Sincerely,

The Cheese Stands Alone,

Felicia

[Mark_T]

You said the company refused to consider anything that would enable anyone to claim against their own travel insurance. There is an option on most insurance policies you can purchase for "cancel for any reason". I could get a hangnail and decide to cancel, and if I have purchased that, I don't have to provide a "valid" reason.

 

If we ignore for the moment all the other terms and conditions around such policies, isn't there also a requirement to cancel at least 2 days before the departure date on almost all such policies?

 

I did not understand your comment about how you couldn't use it (sporadically) but the employees could, and that you thought it was set up that way deliberately so pax coudl not communicate with the outside world. I agree that's weird, but I doubt this is even do-able from a technological standpoint.

 

Not only do-able but actually trivial to arrange if that is what they wanted to do. I'm not suggesting they actually did this, but there is nothing technically difficult about allowing a known set of devices to use the internet connection while denying service to all others, or even restricting the available bandwidth to the point where the service was effectively worthless.

 

I do get where you are coming from with your comments though as it is true that some will view adversity as a challenge to be experienced and overcome while others just complain, but in this case there is such an overwhelming degree of failure to deliver what was paid for that I can understand why the comments are all essentially negative.

[MMDown Under]

What an unnecessarily unsympathetic response, Osnab.

 

"Cancel for Any Reason" is not an insurance option available widely worldwide.

[Nixmuts]

We were lucky to have completed our trip using 2 ships. It was a small inconvenience for us and I know we were so lucky to have avoided the lock strikes as well.

 

My heart did go out to the communities along the rivers, I know exactly how they felt as we lost everything in the 2011 floods in Brisbane.

[Marty156]

Marty:

 

Second, I am going to be the Cheese Stands Alone in my comments, which are more of a "devil's advocate" than trying to blast you (except for my last paragraph).

<snip> <snip>

I totally understand that you did not pay for the bus, you paid for a cruise that actually sailed, not sat in dock. "We will sail tonite" - did they say this or "We hope to sail tonite."

<snip><snip

 

Sincerely,

The Cheese Stands Alone,

Felicia

 

 

Hi there Cheese who stands alone, (Osnab)

There always is a contrarian view, and I do not have any issue with that.

However,

We were in Europe for a total of 7 weeks, the middle two were supposed to be a rest 'n recreation on a calm, 'unpack once' glide up the rivers.

So, we already knew the extent of the damage, the loss of life and other issues a week prior. As did the company!

 

Taking your points in order, having no fish is not the issue, the issue is the lack of such a meal on a business class fare (purchased through the same company).

 

We would love to have such an option in this country as "Cancel for any Reason". There isn't. In fact our travel policies are more like "YOU cannot cancel no matter what -without total loss of your payment."

 

When around 50% of the guests (some having just arrived only a few hours earlier after around 20 hours of flying) are being told that the only options are to

1) Walk away -go home and lose your $16,000 approx or

2) Be in hotel for a couple of nights then a bus ride ....perhaps...maybe...we should be....ship....

 

Not being told the full story, being given misinformation and fed little bits day by day in tiny nibbles is not ethical, nor is it morally fair.

Yes, of course this fractures the group!

 

Which brings me to the next point, perhaps you might know how far it is between Oodnadatta and Nar Nar Goon North, but us from 'Down under' do not know Europe's distances, nor were we informed that being on two different 'ships' for 5 nights meant that they were stuck and did not move!

 

"Swapping" ships normally means that both ships go as far as they can towards each other and then turn about. So that people can swap over and sail. Not in our case! And this was well known to the company, as they had been playing the same "Shell" game for other bookings, not just ours, and for weeks!

 

Busses? They were booked and planned to be used by the company many days ahead. As I said, the company knew that conditions on the rivers would take a long time to normalise. (eg: End of July before the last lock was repaired enabling traffic in/out of Budapest)

 

As for WiFi, it is trivial to permit/deny access based on someone's login. It takes a couple of key clicks to do so. You might have picked up from re-reading my story that I am in the IT field?

 

I understand where you are coming from, and yes, our sympathy also went out to those that lost everything (we have many floods here also and I lost all in the 1974 floods) and know full well the devastation and loss of life that happens.

 

Having said that, we, the paying consumer, should not have to put up with such shoddy behaviour like this and that is why there are Consumer Laws to protect us from such behaviour.

 

Please take the time to re-read my tale of woe, it is not in the frame of mind of a 'lousy holiday'. In fact, the other 5 weeks we spent travelling around (Italy, Croatia, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria France) was absolutely fantastic!

 

Let me hasten to assure you, Cheese Who Stands Alone, that I believe your comments will stand alone, as most other responders have understood that it was not a gripe about a trip per se, but about an expensive non-cruise by a company that was exploiting their guests and deserves to be mentioned for their unsavioury practices.

 

All companies can appear to be good when things run smoothly, its what happens when they don't that make the odd ones stand out!

 

However, I thank you for your thoughts.

PS: They said "We will sail" more than once.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Marty156

[Osnab]

If we ignore for the moment all the other terms and conditions around such policies, isn't there also a requirement to cancel at least 2 days before the departure date on almost all such policies?

 

I don’t know the answer to that. With the company I use, there is not a 2 day limit. You can cancel the day of, if you choose that option.

 

 

Not only do-able but actually trivial to arrange if that is what they wanted to do. I'm not suggesting they actually did this, but there is nothing technically difficult about allowing a known set of devices to use the internet connection while denying service to all others, or even restricting the available bandwidth to the point where the service was effectively worthless.

Confused, but we don't need to get into the technical side of how the internet works, or I'll be showing my ignorance! I just thought it worked off the satellite.

 

So I would like to hear if there was anything positive on this cruise.

[Osnab]

What an unnecessarily unsympathetic response, Osnab.

 

"Cancel for Any Reason" is not an insurance option available widely worldwide.

 

I am generally a very sympathetic person, truly I am! I feel bad for Marty because of the terrible time on the trip. I'm just tired of reading all this drama from everyone because they could not take the trip they dreamed about due to a natural disaster. It's sad that they couldn't.

 

But where my strong sympathies lie are with those who suffered such a terrible loss. It just seems really pathetic that we are so spoiled that thousands are injured and lost their HOMES but boo hoo, we had to take a bus ride.

 

So if "cancel for any reason" isn't an option that the OP chose or had avbl, then make the best of it.

 

OTOH, I do feel that any cruise line should, for good PR, do the best they can do. But they are under no obligation.

Felicia

[Osnab]

Hi there Cheese who stands alone, (Osnab)

There always is a contrarian view, and I do not have any issue with that.

However,

We were in Europe for a total of 7 weeks, the middle two were supposed to be a rest 'n recreation on a calm, 'unpack once' glide up the rivers.

So, we already knew the extent of the damage, the loss of life and other issues a week prior. As did the company!

 

Taking your points in order, having no fish is not the issue, the issue is the lack of such a meal on a business class fare (purchased through the same company).

 

We would love to have such an option in this country as "Cancel for any Reason". There isn't. In fact our travel policies are more like "YOU cannot cancel no matter what -without total loss of your payment."

 

When around 50% of the guests (some having just arrived only a few hours earlier after around 20 hours of flying) are being told that the only options are to

1) Walk away -go home and lose your $16,000 approx or

2) Be in hotel for a couple of nights then a bus ride ....perhaps...maybe...we should be....ship....

 

Not being told the full story, being given misinformation and fed little bits day by day in tiny nibbles is not ethical, nor is it morally fair.

Yes, of course this fractures the group!

 

Which brings me to the next point, perhaps you might know how far it is between Oodnadatta and Nar Nar Goon North, but us from 'Down under' do not know Europe's distances, nor were we informed that being on two different 'ships' for 5 nights meant that they were stuck and did not move!

 

"Swapping" ships normally means that both ships go as far as they can towards each other and then turn about. So that people can swap over and sail. Not in our case! And this was well known to the company, as they had been playing the same "Shell" game for other bookings, not just ours, and for weeks!

 

Busses? They were booked and planned to be used by the company many days ahead. As I said, the company knew that conditions on the rivers would take a long time to normalise. (eg: End of July before the last lock was repaired enabling traffic in/out of Budapest)

 

As for WiFi, it is trivial to permit/deny access based on someone's login. It takes a couple of key clicks to do so. You might have picked up from re-reading my story that I am in the IT field?

 

I understand where you are coming from, and yes, our sympathy also went out to those that lost everything (we have many floods here also and I lost all in the 1974 floods) and know full well the devastation and loss of life that happens.

 

Having said that, we, the paying consumer, should not have to put up with such shoddy behaviour like this and that is why there are Consumer Laws to protect us from such behaviour.

 

Please take the time to re-read my tale of woe, it is not in the frame of mind of a 'lousy holiday'. In fact, the other 5 weeks we spent travelling around (Italy, Croatia, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria France) was absolutely fantastic!

 

Let me hasten to assure you, Cheese Who Stands Alone, that I believe your comments will stand alone, as most other responders have understood that it was not a gripe about a trip per se, but about an expensive non-cruise by a company that was exploiting their guests and deserves to be mentioned for their unsavioury practices.

 

All companies can appear to be good when things run smoothly, its what happens when they don't that make the odd ones stand out!

 

However, I thank you for your thoughts.

PS: They said "We will sail" more than once.

 

I absolutely love the way you have responded. You didn't rehash the same thing you've already said; e.g., whining, but you did comment on my comments.

 

If everything you said is indeed correct (such as "we will sail", not "We will try to sail") and you are 100% sure you did not misunderstand, then you do have every reason to be upset.

 

I am glad the other 5 weeks were enjoyable to you.

 

No, I don't know the distance between those places. You got me there!

 

I've had bad things out of my control 3x on trips. I was on Greece on 9/11, I was in Japan during the recent tsunami/earthquake and my first time to China, our flight was delayed over 13 hrs in a teensy tiny airport. (Thru Viking).

 

So how would it sound if I complained about how my trip was ruined, but all these people died.

 

I do feel for you, I promise you! It's awful when a trip doesn't go well. I don't think Scenic is under any obligation to do anything other than what they did, but maybe they should have had more heart toward their customers.

 

Felicia

[Mark_T]

But where my strong sympathies lie are with those who suffered such a terrible loss. It just seems really pathetic that we are so spoiled that thousands are injured and lost their HOMES but boo hoo, we had to take a bus ride.

 

It is hardly 'pathetic' for people to be upset about having wasted thousands of $$ on a bus trip ...

 

You seem to imply that anyone who complains about their holiday has no sympathy for the locals who took the brunt of the damage and inconvenience, I'm sure that nothing could be further from the truth.

 

It is perfectly possible to have sympathy for the locals while still finding the performance of your holiday company to be inadequate.

 

The suffering of a group of people unrelated to the owners and managers of the cruise company does not excuse the treatment described here ...

[pully8]

poor and inadequate customer service is an entirely different and separate issue to discussions and reflections about human loss and suffering in disaster situations.

 

the treatment described by marty was appalling. he paid for a river cruise. the cruise company did little, it sounds to deliver the product he paid for and he is right to complain.

 

to compare his experience to that of the plight of human loss in natural disasters, is absurd.

 

we as consumers have lots of choices in who we travel with. different products suit different people. if we had received the treatment described we would also complain and tell others.

 

nothing is perfect in travel but when things go wrong, its how a company treats its paying guests that is important. we have seen evidence of that on here.