Fair Compensation for a missed disembarkation port?

[voyageur9]

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?

 

No need to 'bring suit.'

 

A letter clearly setting out that you know what you were offered and you know that the offer was made by someone authorized to speak on behalf of HAL will bring results.

 

Of course, looking for an excuse to roll over and take it is always easier

[startwin]

 

<snip>

 

 

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.

 

 

Deleted

[geoherb]

I'd be mad about the change in offer. Even the original offer wouldn't fit my ideal. I'd rather have HAL cover a few nights in Vancouver and then arrange for the flight to San Francisco.

[whogo]

As I read the Holland America cruise contract, all HAL has to do is get you to a port from which you can return home. In this instance, they got you to Vancouver, the rest is at the cruiser's expense, if HAL so chooses.

 

"© If the Cruise or Cruisetour or a Land Trip is cancelled, we may disembark you at any port or terminate your travel at any location, and transship and forward (at our expense, but at your risk) you and your property to or toward a port or location from which you may return home or to the Ship, as appropriate."

http://www.hollandamerica.com/legalAndPrivacy/Main.action

[Taxguy77]

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.

 

 

Yes: but they were promised something and chose that way. The promise was ignored by HAL.

[CowPrincess]

Personally I think you should have gotten your cruise price back, your cost of airfare to YVR, and the cost of airfare to get to San Francisco. If you'd decided to stay on board to San Diego, airfare to SF, and expenses incurred changing your flights from SF. To me, trying to reimburse you your actual losses would be more important than some sucky "future cruise credit", y'know?

 

The fact that you were given an offer, and based your choices on that offer, and THEN found out they'd changed the offer, is what really gripes me on your behalf.

 

As for "ship happens", sorry, it is an enormous leap to say this is "ship happens". This is "poor customer service/poor customer relations" much more than "ship happens" IMHO.

 

I wonder if you were "held" in the terminal because Customs/Immigration didn't have staff? That'd be my suspicion -- maybe the law is that you had left the country (by boarding the ship) and needed to "clear" into Canada again? Not sure but I bet someone on CC would know the answer to that.

[peaches from georgia]

What I don't understand is why when HAL was going to provide the airfare they stipulated that the pax leaving from Vancouver could not fly to SanFran, but had to fly home (unless of course SF was their home). It would make more sense if HAL had said they had to fly to SF since that was to have been their original disembarkation port off the ship. Everyone would have already made their travel plans out of SF before they sailed, so it is logical that is where you would think HAL would return them by ship or by air. Why insist no one could go to SF and had to go directly home even if they didn't want to? :confused:

[sail7seas]

Some of this is confusing me.

I think I'll go look for the roll call and see if there are comments there.

[CI66774]

What I don't understand is why when HAL was going to provide the airfare they stipulated that the pax leaving from Vancouver could not fly to SanFran, but had to fly home (unless of course SF was their home). It would make more sense if HAL had said they had to fly to SF since that was to have been their original disembarkation port off the ship. Everyone would have already made their travel plans out of SF before they sailed, so it is logical that is where you would think HAL would return them by ship or by air. Why insist no one could go to SF and had to go directly home even if they didn't want to? :confused:

 

I think HAL agreed to fly people (at HAL's expense) back to SFO if that was their home. However, quite a few people who didn't call SFO home had, nevertheless, made additional vacation plans there, and then they would fly home later. HAL told those paxs - no - you have to fly back to your home if you want us to pay but if you want to go, instead, to SFO - it's on your dime. That's how I understand it.

[ScriptOhio]

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?

 

And I'm sure Holland America knows that too. Under the terms of the typical Holland America Line cruise line contract, lawsuits against Holland America Line must be brought in Seattle within one year of your injury/problem.

[peaches from georgia]

I think HAL agreed to fly people (at HAL's expense) back to SFO if that was their home. However, quite a few people who didn't call SFO home had, nevertheless, made additional vacation plans there, and then they would fly home later. HAL told those paxs - no - you have to fly back to your home if you want us to pay but if you want to go, instead, to SFO - it's on your dime. That's how I understand it.

Yes, that's exactly how I understood it from OP's post and what I said when I questioned why HAL wouldn't fly them to SFO if they didn't want to go directly home.

 

Then they could continue with their previously made plans to get home at their own expense. It made no sense to me that HAL wouldn't fly them to SFO if they wanted to go there as planned on their cruise itinerary. HAL would only be paying for one flight- to home or SFO. It would make even more sense if HAL said they would only pay to get them to SFO like the ship would have done.

[arewethereyet]

This just looks to me like HAL dropped the PR ball once again. Maybe I'm way off base, but it seems like HAl, and any other cruise line, must have defined scenarios for almost any event, and how they would handle them. It's not like they are new at this, or only have a few sailings per year. But, this makes it sound like anything that happens causes Seattle to collectively scratch their heads.

 

I don't understand their thinking.

[Tampa Girl]

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?

 

No need to 'bring suit.'

 

A letter clearly setting out that you know what you were offered and you know that the offer was made by someone authorized to speak on behalf of HAL will bring results.

 

Of course, looking for an excuse to roll over and take it is always easier

 

"No need to 'bring suit''? And when HAL declines the demand, what then? File suit? Hardly! As an attorney, I would strongly recommend against throwing good money after bad.

[RJ2002]

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.

 

 

"Independent" and "unexpectant" do not necessarily go hand in hand. We are independent as well, but under these circumstances, I think most people would expect HAL to keep them whole - especially considering they never left the embarkation port.

[tangerinebunny]

I doubt that anyone 'lied.' Rather, Seattle okayed the initial offer, then someone further up the food chain decided that saving a few dollars was worth the loss of customer respect.

 

We started sailing with HAL because they had a reputation for handling bad situations well. Let's see how things go with the next 'crisis.' It may be time to move on....

[sail7seas]

It would seem HAL has conditioned me well. :)

 

We've never been ones to seek or expect compensation and in all our cruises, we've accepted whatever it was everyone 'got' for whatever was the existing circumstance.

 

I am uncomfortable and feel like 'begging' when expecting payment for disappointments whether cruise line's fault or questionably so.

It most assuredly is not because we haven't worked hard for whatever funds we have and spend on travel as it all has come the 'old fashioned way' through hard work but we don't dwell on expecting someone to make up to us for each event that might be less than we expected.

 

Certainly in a case where the ship doesn't sail, we would expect money back but whatever was the offer is what we would accept. We have never once sought 'special compensation' from HAL and likely never will. And, yes....... we have had our fair share of upsets, disappointments and missed days on board.

 

HAL has trained me well. :)

As usual for me, I truly don't expect anyone need agree with me. :o :eek:

 

[CI66774]

Yes, that's exactly how I understood it from OP's post and what I said when I questioned why HAL wouldn't fly them to SFO if they didn't want to go directly home.

 

Then they could continue with their previously made plans to get home at their own expense. It made no sense to me that HAL wouldn't fly them to SFO if they wanted to go there as planned on their cruise itinerary. HAL would only be paying for one flight- to home or SFO. It would make even more sense if HAL said they would only pay to get them to SFO like the ship would have done.

 

I agree. The company would have to pay for a flight anyway. HAL could have said we'll fly you to SFO but if you reschedule your flight from SFO to you home, etc., you're own your own - or something like that. That would have been reasonable and fair.

[arewethereyet]

I agree. The company would have to pay for a flight anyway. HAL could have said we'll fly you to SFO but if you reschedule your flight from SFO to you home, etc., you're own your own - or something like that. That would have been reasonable and fair.

Yes. This ^^^

[Wakepatrol]

I'm not worthy of any response on this thread

But I truly feel badly all this happened to you.

 

Hope your next cruise is stress free

[BrightyB]

It looks like it would take approx. 16 hours to go by bus from Van. to SFO. Just wondering if HAL offered that as an alternative-or- possibly a train. Last winter when the N. Amsterdam was repositioning to Ft. Laud. from New York she docked in Jacksonville because of an impending hurricane.

Approx. 1000 guests were bussed from Ft. Laud. , roughly an 8-10 hour trip, to board the ship there. Conversely, guests returning to Ft. Laud. were bussed there. Not a great solution for anyone but at least all the guests were accomodated.

[startwin]

Well, back to the OP's question...... we can assume that like the vast majority of us on CC, you earned this trip, you worked for it, you did not inherit vast sums of money, and you are not begging for compensation. HAL made a decision that impacted negatively on a large number of passengers who went nowhere, and then changed their mind. You just feel that some compensation is in order. And yes, given the fact that you were promised one thing and then it was taken away - most definitely. We can also assume that you were pretty much locked in at the terminal due to the lack of customs officers - or at the very least, waiting and waiting and waiting for HAL to make some decisions, before hoofing it out of there to make your own way. So, I would add up all your expenses, and expect a full refund and some credit towards a future cruise. But the saddest part is - your opinion of HAL has gone totally down the drain, through no fault of your own.

[Calif. Cruisers]

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

 

We went through customs in Vancouver BEFORE getting on the ship, so that is one of the reasons they didn't want to let us get off the ship Sunday after they made the announcement that they were staying overnight. There wouldn't have been a need for Customs in SF (but we did have to go through customs again twice on Monday, once as we got off the ship back into Canada, and again at the airport back to the US- and even the customs person at the airport, who had checked passengers on to the Statendam on Sunday, felt bad for us.)

There WAS a ship in SF on Weds.- The NCL Pearl, but it was supposed to be there along with the Statendam (if it had made it.) There is room for 2 ships in SF, so space was not the problem. I would imagine all ports need to be somewhat prepared for delays of schedules. In most ports the ships arrive early in the day and leave again in the afternoon. There are usually workers there most of that time. I have been on over 20 cruises, and many in/out of SF so I am pretty familiar with the limitations in SF.

Really, having no one to help us get the luggage off the ship in SF would have been the same exact situation we faced in Vancouver. We would have just had to have done it ourselves. Those little details were irritating but not a deal breaker for me. I am capable of handling my own luggage so not a big deal for me, but you would like to think that a cruise line of HAL's caliber would try to do everything it could to assist passengers whom they are inconveniencing. I have different expectations/standards for different lines and always thought that HAL was a little higher quality than some of the others. I guess I was looking for evidence of this, and didn't see it as I expected I would. I was at least glad that the one couple who really looked like they needed assistance with their bags did get it.

I can't possibly know all of the conditions that led them to not go to SF- and I am not asking for some extravagant compensation (maybe it is the word I am using that is problematic)- I just would like to not have spent the price of a cruise (and airfare to get to it) on basically nothing. I would like to think that HAL would like to keep us as customers (and I actually am not ruling out future cruises with them altogether because we have had some good experiences with them too.)

I find it hard to believe that a few that have posted who were in our situation would just say 'Oh, well- that's too bad. I guess I'll just go home and take whatever they give me.' I am not interested in suing either. I paid for and expected a cruise. They couldn't fulfill the contract I made with them. I just want what they offered us on Sunday night- and I want it to be offered to everyone who got off the ship without having to make their cases individually to HAL. If HAL would contact all of us and apologize and say that they were going to reimburse us our airfare and cruise fare, and other non-reimbursable expenses as they originally promised- I would be happy. It was only after they changed their story that I became unhappy with them. Yes, it was disappointing not to get home the way I planned- after all I took this cruise because it was taking me home (so I wouldn't have to fly there.) If I was taking a cruise somewhere else other than my home port and was just going to fly home afterwards maybe I would have felt different, but I didn't get a cruise at all and it was basically like flying somewhere and coming back home while being trapped in limbo for two days.

[Boatdrill]

Would you sail HAL again if this happened to you?

 

Yes.

 

By the way, you told the story magnificently. Just the facts ! Thank you.

[UPNYGuy]

My wife and I were on the inside passage sailing right before this, and were slated to disembark in SFO. We stayed on and disembarked in San Diego. HAL paid for all travel arrangements and shuttle services that needed to be changed. We never even saw a bill.

 

Liesbeth was very clear how things worked in that meeting, and stated at least 5 times that airfare was to be to your home only, and she even worded it that HAL would not pay to send you to Hawaii and then back to SFO. I think she was bluntly clear on that point. I have sailed with her before, and think that she is outstanding.

 

And FWIW, I am *not* the HAL cheerleader I used to be... the change in my future bookings should show that ;)

[West Cruzer]

It looks like it would take approx. 16 hours to go by bus from Van. to SFO. .

 

Really? These people flew to Vancouver from SF to take a 3 day criuse back home, to SF. I don't think sitting on a bus for 16 hours would fore-fill their vacation.

---

Many people save for these vacations and do not have vacation time and funds to just write it off.

 

I looked at the ships tracking and saw they came into San Diego on time and it shows they had to "slow down" 11 to 12.3 knots, about half speed, miles away down the coast. I'm sure they are better with the navigation math, but I would estimate they would have had over 3-4hrs to pull into and then depart SF and stay on schedule for San Diego.

HAL would have saved grief of these 80-90 cruisers, and also picked up the people in SF port that were traveling south, which they had to fly to San Diego.

I read that they paid for the new SF embarking cruisers, airfare to San Diego and delay hotel. (perhaps until they get the bill?) Sound like it's a better deal getting on then getting off.

HAL needs to make thing right.