Fair Compensation for a missed disembarkation port?

[Calif. Cruisers]

We just got off the Statendam in Vancouver, Monday, with another 80-90 passengers who had all booked the Vancouver to San Francisco 3-day cruise, and wonder what people think of the compensation offered?

Due to storms on the North Pacific Coast, the captain and HAL (Holland America Line, Seattle) decided to stay in Vancouver (along with the Westendam) for an extra night- no problem there, safety is important. However, after the announcement was made that the ship would stay in port overnight (made right after the muster drill), the captain made the announcement that they would be skipping the stop in San Francisco and going directly to San Diego.

Please keep in mind that the San Francisco stop was not skipped because it was dangerous or out of the way to stop there- it was presumably to keep the rest of the cruise segments following this one on time.

The SF disembarking passengers were called to a meeting at 7:30 p.m. Sunday and given the opportunity to get off in Vancouver Monday morning and get a refund for the base price of the cruise plus airfare home OR stay on to San Diego and get flown home from there. (They would not agree to fly people to San Francisco unless this was their home. Many people were unhappy with this as they had made plans in San Francisco where they thought they were getting off- hotel rooms, tickets for tours, even cars left to be picked up there. There was quite a bit of discussion about this.) This information was delivered by Guest Relations Manager, Liesbeth Soors, to about 100 people affected. We were asked to make the decision as soon as possible but no later than the next morning. We were given a letter worded “If you are unable to continue to San Diego with us, we would like to offer you a full refund to disembark in Vancouver. We will also refund you for any non-refundable expenses due to this change. In addition we would like to extend you a Future Cruise Credit equal to 25% of the base cruise fare paid for your 3-day sailing.” “We will reimburse you for any resulting travel change fees.” We were told HAL representatives would arrive about 8 a.m. the next morning and that the captain would make another announcement by 9 a.m.

We were allowed to make calls home and to work (however it is hard to call work on Sunday evening to check to see if we can take another few days off work) to help make our decision.

The next morning another announcement was made that passengers who were going to disembark in Vancouver needed to have their bags packed and in the meeting room by 10:30 ready to disembark. In addition another meeting was called at about 9:00 a.m. to make arrangements and to give out new information. We went immediately to the meeting room where 4 HAL representatives started meeting individually with passengers. However that was taking too long so they opened up discussion to the whole room and made a new announcement- that airfare was no longer included and would be deducted from the cruise refund. (When people complained about this we were basically told that it was a ‘he said/she said’ situation, and that it wouldn’t be paid.) By the time this meeting was over it was 10 a.m. and we rushed to pack our bags. All disembarking passengers were required to carry off their own bags (I noted that one elderly couple DID get help.)

When the passengers left the ship we were seated in the terminal for 4 hours while the HAL team made airplane arrangements for us. (They claimed that ‘computer problems’ were slowing the process of finding flights.) They called us into their office in small groups to give approval for the airfares that they had found for us (almost everyone was going to SF) ranging from $250/pp for the first group to almost $400pp for the later groups. (In the end as we were departing the terminal they announced that the cruise line would ‘pick up’ the difference between all of the various fares and that we would each pay the lowest fare quoted.) During the 4 hours in the terminal we were fed cookies, donut holes, bagels, coffee/water (keep in mind that some didn’t have breakfast in the rush off the ship and that we didn’t have a chance to eat again until we reached the airport at about 4:45. We couldn’t leave the terminal to get something on our own as the terminal was closed for the season.)

We left for the airport at 3 p.m.on a bus they provided, and the flights left at 7:30 and later (mostly two flights for all of us.)

What do you think? If you had paid to fly to Vancouver for this cruise and then got off again in Vancouver, would you consider this fair compensation? We paid to get to Vancouver, then had one night on board where we were basically in a muster drill, then a meeting, then debating our choices, then off in the morning. We then spent a whole day traveling back home. We might get about $70 pp back, and about $70 towards a future cruise (assuming we’d want to take one….) If you took vacation days off work to take this ‘failed’ trip would you be happy?

There has been debate in past forums about missed ports and compensation, but usually it isn’t a disembarkation port (and usually it is because there was a safety issue to go to that port.) Many people had made plans to fly from San Francisco to Las Vegas (or other destinations) after a few days stay in SF(based on their Weds arrival date.) All who flew to SF arrived two days early and had to make interim hotel arrangements until their pre-made reservations kicked in. There were presumably other passengers who planned to board in San Francisco who were also inconvenienced by this decision (and probably had to fly to San Diego on their own dollar.)

Why wouldn’t HAL have just made their stop in SF shorter, saving all of us this grief. The time probably could have been made up in sailing time (since the ship made it to the SF Bay area by mid-day Weds.) They probably would have made it to the next port in San Diego pretty close to schedule.

Most of the people getting off the ship said they would never cruise HAL again. I especially felt bad for the wedding party of about 15-20 whose plans were ruined (they did get married onboard however- congrats!), and those who had taken this as their first cruise (because they may never find out how wonderful a cruise CAN be.) There were also many onboard who were continuing on the cruise who expressed their unhappiness to not get to sail under the Golden Gate Bridge (something on many of their ‘bucket lists’.)

What would you have considered to be fair compensation??? Would you sail HAL again if this happened to you?

[MTVanc]

I know someone who lost two days on a cruise due to hurricane Isaac last year.

Look at what RCI gave in compensation. Different circumstances but its the only comparision I know about

 

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/27/royal-caribbeans-compensation-package-for-storm-shortened-cruise/

[sail7seas]

Years ago, we had plans to fly to FLL to board Volendam for ten day cruise.

Hurricane Wilma came along, Port Everglades and Miami and FLL airports were closed, and HAL brought the ship to Canaveral.

 

We all had pre-cruise hotel reservations and air to FLL/Miami.

It was not HAL's fault there was a Hurricane and they could not get to FLL.

It was our responsibility to get to the ship and we did. We had independently booked our air and hotel and it was our problem to rearrange our plans and our responsibility to pay for it.

 

HAL does not control weather.

We expected no compensation, asked for none and never felt we were owed anything.

The best plans can go awry and if one is going to travel, IMO, one needs to be prepared to be flexible. No one likes their plans to be upended but there are lots of snags in the paths of our lives. We have to deal with them.

 

IMO

 

To answer your question, Yes, we would and have sailed HAL again after having lost three ports and two and a half days of a cruise three years ago on a Canada/NE cruise. Again, weather issues.

 

 

'Ship happens' and HAL has lots of considerations in making their alternative arrangements and we do not know all the ins and outs. There are numerous reasons the decisions are made as they are and some of them are not in favor of the guest. Many times they favor the needs of the cruise line. We have learned to accept we don't always get everything we want from any business and we've come to accept when things are less than perfect.

 

Each has to decide their own boundaries and limits. It took me a lot of years to learn 'my world isn't perfect' and not everyone owes me when something goes wrong.

 

[mamaofami]

What would have bothered me the most would have been the long wait in the terminal before departing.

 

We were once on an Air France flight to Paris to celebrate our 40th anniversary. The plane taxied down the runway and never took off. We sat on the tarmac with no food or beverage service for several hours and then the plane went back to the terminal.

 

It was very late at night, nothing was open in the terminal, and we chose to drive an hour back home. Next morning, we tried to get on another flight to Paris but couldn't. We had family plans less than 10 days later and couldn't find any arrangements to get to Paris that would help us.

 

We were very lucky to have the hotel understand and refund our money. Naturally, since the airline couldn't accommodate us, we received a refund.

 

All the money didn't make up for the fact that our 40th anniversary trip was ruined. But, just as ship happens, so does airplane. That's why we always fly to our cruise port several days early.

[RuthC]

This one is a toughie, and there is probably no "one size fits all" solution. That makes it very tricky.

I won't quibble with the decision to skip San Francisco. As it turned out, perhaps it would have been possible to make a short (probably a few hours) stop to drop off/pick up passengers, but there was no guarantee it would have worked out that way when the decision was made.

So, once that decision was made, there was the question of what to do for the impacted passengers.

 

First, refunding the price of the cruise was absolutely necessary; offering a %-age off the next cruise was more than fair. It's only when you get to the flights that the picture becomes murky.

I am not at all pleased with an offer to pay for flights home, then rescind the offer. But what to do about the flights?

 

Since it can be presumed that passengers had flights home from San Francisco, it would seem to me that it was HAL's responsibility to get them there. It's only when that was not the preferred solution that it becomes an "individual basis" situation, and there is no way to cover all those bases here. The ultimate goal, imo, is that the passengers be "made whole"---i.e., they not lose any money on the deal, nor profit from it.

 

It was a difficult situation for all, and there can be no happy ending for those who missed their short cruise. The best that can be expected is that there is no financial loss to them, and they put it behind them possible to try again next year! :)

[agabbymama]

What sounds reasonable to us (someone reading on a chat board) may not be reasonable to someone on-board the ship anticipating a cruise that didn't happen.

 

I did believe HAL was reasonable, UNTIL YOU STATED THE AIRFARE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE DEAL. If you got back what you paid for the cruise, non-reimburseable money spent, change fees and 25% off a future cruise, that sounds about right to me, but they should have paid the airfare too.

 

I've never been in this situation, the closest was missing Mykonos on our Med cruise because of high winds. We got OBC for $25 for port fees and slowly sailed on to Athens. Nothing else was offered.

 

It's been a number of years ago now, but there was news of a big class action lawsuit against RCCL for a cruise to the Caribbean that was changed at the pier, to a cruise to New England/Canada. No refunds, you go or you lose. Never did hear the outcome of that lawsuit though.

 

If you read the contract, it gives the cruiseline the right to change just about anything they want to for just about any reason, and you agree to it when you pay the fare. Could have happened on any cruiseline.

 

Hope you have better luck on your next cruise!

[kazu]

I have to say I agree with the others. This is a toughie!!!

 

HAL does not control the weather and they had to make decisions based on the information they had at the time.

 

The refund for your cruise was a must and the future cruise credit seems to be fair.

 

The only part that concerns me was the offer to pay for flights and then the decision not to.

 

We are kind of principled people and would not be happy if a promise or offer were rescinded. That in itself would probably disturb us more than anything.

 

If I didn't get satisfaction on board or from the staff I would write Seattle. (only because of the airfare promise) Depending upon their reply we would then decide whether to sail HAL or take a break and go on a different line.

 

Sorry to hear of your cruise experience

[startwin]

I agree with what Ruth said - and it was HAL's responsibility to get everyone to San Fran, especially as it was HAL's decision (not weather-related) to skip an embarkation/disembarkation port. The sudden change in compensating air fare is puzzling, and it looks like the suits over-ruled the ship officer. Whatever, HAL does not look good in this. As for fair monetary compensation - I have no idea what would be deemed fair in this. I can imagine it must have been awful to be stuck for hours in a closed terminal with the city and restaurants right above you. I think I would have opted to just leave and make my own way.

[Cindy]

I do not think it's fair that HAL is deducting the cost of your flights to get to SF...to me this is different than a missed port.

I have read a post from someone who was due to embark in San Francisco that HAL paid their airfare and associated costs to get to San Diego. Why should you not be afforded the same courtesy and financial consideration as the passengers who were scheduled to embark?

[iancal]

I think it would depend on whether you are the person who missed the ports, what ports you missed, and how important they were to you versus someone removed from the situation.

[ScriptOhio]

The SF disembarking passengers were called to a meeting at 7:30 p.m. Sunday and given the opportunity to get off in Vancouver Monday morning and get a refund for the base price of the cruise plus airfare home OR stay on to San Diego and get flown home from there.

 

The next morning another announcement ........However that was taking too long so they opened up discussion to the whole room and made a new announcement- that airfare was no longer included and would be deducted from the cruise refund. (When people complained about this we were basically told that it was a ‘he said/she said’ situation, and that it wouldn’t be paid.)

 

HAL should have honored their original offer for airfare and not reneged on it.

[hobo1937]

You may want to read and monitor this thread, as some folks who were to board the Statendam in SF for the next cruise were told HAL will pay to fly them to San Diego meet the ship. http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1924142

[Typhoon1]

If you read your cruise contract. HAL owes you nothing. As a measure of goodwill, some type of compensation will most likely be offered.

[gfsf]

I was on this cruise also and what makes me angry is that we were lied to and deceived. I attended the Sunday evening meeting hosted by Liisabeth who clearly stated our air fares to SFO would be paid for by HA as this question was asked during the meeting several times. I was not notified of the Monday 9am meeting. I only heard the announcement that all guests disembarking the ship to go to SF meet with all our luggage by 10:30am which we did. We were instructed to fill out a customs form and to sit and wait with no further info or instruction as it was a ball of confusion in that meeting room where we all gathered and it seemed their main priority was to just get us off the ship so they could sail away on time by noon. I had no idea they had reversed their decision to pay for our airfare until we were off the ship already. Had we have known this we may have opted to stay on the ship to San Diego. This kind of customer service is totally unacceptable. The fact that we were told one thing only for them to change their mind without telling us really irks me more then the $750 I spent to get us home to SF. I'm sure I will get over this soon enough but my next few cruises will be on Royal Caribbean or Celebrity.

[Omega1]

Outrageous behaviour on behalf of HAL not to honour their offer to pay for airfare to San Francisco.

Come on HAL, step up to the plate and do the decent thing and take responsibility for your decisions.

[CI66774]

If HAL told you it would pick up the airfare to SFO, then it should honor its promise.

[sail7seas]

I agree with what Ruth said - and it was HAL's responsibility to get everyone to San Fran, especially as it was HAL's decision (not weather-related) to skip an embarkation/disembarkation port. The sudden change in compensating air fare is puzzling, and it looks like the suits over-ruled the ship officer. Whatever, HAL does not look good in this. As for fair monetary compensation - I have no idea what would be deemed fair in this. I can imagine it must have been awful to be stuck for hours in a closed terminal with the city and restaurants right above you. I think I would have opted to just leave and make my own way.

 

 

I think you put your finger on the difference in some people's expectations/demands (if you will) vs. others.

 

We absolutely would have been out of the terminal and taken care of ourselves in San Francisco. Unless barred by Immigration/Customs Officials from leaving, DH and I would have been on our way and seen to our own needs.

 

I mean no disrespect or lack of courtesy to anyone else but some of us are more independent and unexpectant than other people. Just different personality types and styles.

 

[voyageur9]

Notwithstanding the CLs endless exhortations that those who believe they have been wronged by HAL should just forget it and be happy, the legal reality may be different.

 

If, in fact, a person in authority and with a mandate to speak on behalf of the company made an explicit offer then it's probably enforceable.

 

If HAL fails to deliver (or attempts to subsequently weasal out of) an explicit offer -- with no change in intervening circumstances -- then anyone denied the initial offer should be able to force the company to make good.

 

This isn't about the underlying contract. It's about whether a binding offer was clearly made by a company representative with authority to make it. If so, those offered a 'deal' have solid grounds to have HAL make good on it.

[serendipity1499]

So sorry that you had these problems..

You mention that the reason for skipping SFO was:

Quote Please keep in mind that the San Francisco stop was not skipped because it was dangerous or out of the way to stop there- it was presumably to keep the rest of the cruise segments following this one on time. Unquote

I agree that in the Transportation industry, this is always a concern & it was important that HAL try to keep the rest of the segments on time! Having been in the airline industry, we often had to make those types of decisions..

Also, How do you know if there was still space for a late arriving HAL ship in SFO?..Many things must be taken into consideration..A quick stop could very well entail local problems with baggage handlers, those who handle the ships lines when arriving & departing, customs/imigrations & many others... Perhaps they would have had to pay overtime to handle the late arriving SFO Psgrs? Do you know the answer to these questions?

However, I also believe that HAL was remiss in not keeping to the original promise of paying the airfare to SFO for all Psgrs who were impacted by the weather..

 

If you are not compensated for all your lost expenses, perhaps you should write a letter to Seattle requesting to be made whole, but don't discuss other Psgrs. problems in your letter..Also try to keep your letter brief..

If it was me, Yes I would sail HAL again as I know that weather can play havoc with all modes of transportation & it was not HAL's fault that your trip was impacted..

 

Betty

[arewethereyet]

What bothers me most in the OP is that HAL apparently changed the offer of compensation on the fly. The original offer sounded fair enough, although airfare to SF should have been included also. But, to back out of the commitment to cover the airfare just makes HAL look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight (again). This isn't just a missed port. It was a missed disembarkation port. I think that a very important distinction.

 

DW and I travel quite a bit, and this probably wouldn't have upset us all that much. However, if you can't get away for leisure travel that often, I can certainly understand how it would have a greater negative impact on a person. IMO, the OP is justified in their displeasure.

[chrispb]

I think you put your finger on the difference in some people's expectations/demands (if you will) vs. others.

 

We absolutely would have been out of the terminal and taken care of ourselves in San Francisco. Unless barred by Immigration/Customs Officials from leaving, DH and I would have been on our way and seen to our own needs.

 

I mean no disrespect or lack of courtesy to anyone else but some of us are more independent and unexpectant than other people. Just different personality types and styles.

 

According to how I read the post, they didn't get to San Fran - that was the point, I believe.

[RJ2002]

HAL should honor the original offer that they made to the passengers.

[startwin]

I think you put your finger on the difference in some people's expectations/demands (if you will) vs. others.

 

We absolutely would have been out of the terminal and taken care of ourselves in San Francisco. Unless barred by Immigration/Customs Officials from leaving, DH and I would have been on our way and seen to our own needs.

 

I mean no disrespect or lack of courtesy to anyone else but some of us are more independent and unexpectant than other people. Just different personality types and styles.

 

 

Sail, they weren't in San Francisco, they were in Vancouver, and having to get back to San Francisco.

[PathfinderEss]

Really sorry this happened to those cruising down to SF. So disappointing, I know I would be but these things do happen from time to time. It certainly would not deter me from sailing on Hal again.

[sail7seas]

Notwithstanding the CLs endless exhortations that those who believe they have been wronged by HAL should just forget it and be happy, the legal reality may be different.

 

If, in fact, a person in authority and with a mandate to speak on behalf of the company made an explicit offer then it's probably enforceable.

 

If HAL fails to deliver (or attempts to subsequently weasal out of) an explicit offer -- with no change in intervening circumstances -- then anyone denied the initial offer should be able to force the company to make good.

 

This isn't about the underlying contract. It's about whether a binding offer was clearly made by a company representative with authority to make it. If so, those offered a 'deal' have solid grounds to have HAL make good on it.

 

 

Wonder where they'd have to 'bring suit'.

Seattle? That might not be real convenient for someone from a distant location. They'd end up spending more in fees and costs than their suit is likely worth,,,,,,, perhaps?

 

 

 

[/b]

 

Sail, they weren't in San Francisco, they were in Vancouver, and having to get back to San Francisco.

 

 

 

 

My point is, in whichever port, had the local officials permitted exit, DH and I would have been out of that terminal and on our own. We would not have expected or depended upon anything from HAL. We would have made our own arrangements to meet our needs and comforts.

 

We are all different personality types and some of us don't need 'compensation' for most things. We accept 'ship happens' in travel and deal with it.