I'm Thankful for RCCL's Commitmen to Safety!

[yogimax]

Check out Anderson Cooper's story tonight of the new evidence regarding the Carnival Triumph.

 

Thank you RCCL for building ships with redundancy and making safety a primary concern!

Edited December 17, 2013 by yogimax

[yogimax]

Here's the link...

 

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/16/could-carnival-have-avoided-the-triumph-cruise-nightmare/

[Hoopster95]

Here's the link...

 

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/16/could-carnival-have-avoided-the-triumph-cruise-nightmare/

 

W O W !!!! :eek:

Especially approx 5:40 and onward... is there anything like this in the fine print of RCL's cruise contracts?:(:confused::(:confused::(

 

I've been considering perhaps trying a Carnival Cruise, especially since they've had (maybe will have more?) a 0% supplement sale for solos, but no way in hell after seeing this.

[ahecht]

P

W O W !!!!

Especially approx 5:40 and onward... is there anything like this in the fine print of RCL's cruise contracts?

 

I've been considering perhaps trying a Carnival Cruise, especially since they've had (maybe will have more?) a 0% supplement sale for solos, but no way in hell after seeing this.

 

I was just going to ask the same thing. That's pretty outrageous.

Closest thing I could find in the RCI contract was that they don't take responsibility for the suitability or safety of shore excursions they sell that are operated by third parties. Nothing about the sea worthiness or sanitation and safety of the ships.

Edited December 17, 2013 by ahecht

[sandy toes]

Have sailed with CCL in the past and did have some good times but after the last few major issues they have had, decided to redirect family/friends. After reading this, WOW!!!! How can a company operate with this type of PR? Glad for Royal and Celebrity!!!!!!

[Desert Cruizers]

That is unbelievable. Have never sailed Carnival and never will.

[Paulxyz2004]

P

 

I was just going to ask the same thing. That's pretty outrageous.

Closest thing I could find in the RCI contract was that they don't take responsibility for the suitability or safety of shore excursions they sell that are operated by third parties. Nothing about the sea worthiness or sanitation and safety of the ships.

 

Not sure about the actual version of the contract but I know the same phrase used to be in the RCI contract.

[cruzeluver]

Saw the story last night as well. Most damning was that the information came from Carnival's own They lost us as customers years ago and this just reinforces that we made the right decision.

[Ocean Boy]

P

 

I was just going to ask the same thing. That's pretty outrageous.

Closest thing I could find in the RCI contract was that they don't take responsibility for the suitability or safety of shore excursions they sell that are operated by third parties. Nothing about the sea worthiness or sanitation and safety of the ships.

 

RCI's contract used to say almost exaclty the same thing including that they made no warrenty as to the sea worthiness of their vessels.

[Daghis]

The only thing I can see in the ticket contract now that's close to this is this paragraph:

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

a) Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

 

I interpret this to mean that they can do whatever they want to the sailing or itinerary, including canceling it entirely, and the passenger is entitled to nothing.

 

Now, on the other hand, the recently adopted Passenger Bill of Rights does include:

2. The right to a full refund for a trip that is canceled due to mechanical failures, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Daghis

[Dave85]

Just outrageous... And it's all from Carnival's own records divulged in litigation, no grounds to claim they did not know. Wow is all I have to say, and not the good WOW Royal Caribbean advertises.

[Barb Nahoumi]

My first cruise was aboard the Triumph, but it was fairly new at the time.

[Cruising89143]

I saw this last night on CNN. I guess more will come out once this goes to court unless Carnival settles before then but IMHO the damage is done.

 

I said after the Triumph incident that Carnival needed to make sweeping changes with their upper management starting with Gerry Cahill. This has been a PR nightmare for them and it's not getting any better. This will now drag along in the news and it not only hurts Carnival but the entire industry. I think just about all cruise lines have near the same policy that Carnival has but using it in a situation like this just adds fuel to the fire with no pun intended. That was a stupid move on their part.

 

I was reading this thread last night about Carnival's new so called upgrade to the dining experience. Doesn't sound like anything that I would enjoy.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1956362

 

It will be interesting to see what happens but there is currently a thread on the Carnival board about last nights report and of course the defenders for Carnival are out in full force. Time will tell if this hurts their bookings even further.

 

Here is the link from RCI's website on the Passenger Cruise Contract.

 

http://media.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/cruise_ticket_contract_3.28.11.pdf

Edited December 17, 2013 by cruisingator2

[Aquahound]

I said after the Triumph incident that Carnival needed to make sweeping changes with their upper management starting with Gerry Cahill. This has been a PR nightmare for them and it's not getting any better. This will now drag along in the news and it not only hurts Carnival but the entire industry. I think just about all cruise lines have near the same policy that Carnival has but using it in a situation like this just adds fuel to the fire with no pun intended. That was a stupid move on their part.

 

You are exactly right. This is a black eye on the cruise industry. People who don't know one cruise company from another...which is most people...see this as a fault with cruising, not just the misdoings of Carnival.

 

But that said, we all have our favorite lines and we all know there are a lot of people on CC who are narcisistic and have insecurity issues. Even those people have to, at some point, realize their favorite cruise line made a mistake....a BIG mistake. Granted, this is a CNN report which we should all know by now is probably sensationalized, but there are facts included that cannot be denied. Carnival screwed up. Plain and simple.

[tahqa]

I don't know when the contract changed, but the statement noted by CNN is NOT in the current Carnival Cruise Lines ticket contract. :rolleyes:

 

http://www.carnival.com/cms/static_templates/ticket_contract.aspx

Edited December 17, 2013 by tahqa

[dixieva]

So what we have here is this- both RCI and Carnival used to have this statement in their contract but now they don't.

[tahqa]

So what we have here is this- both RCI and Carnival used to have this statement in their contract but now they don't.

 

This appears to be an accurate statement.

[Dave85]

You are exactly right. This is a black eye on the cruise industry. People who don't know one cruise company from another...which is most people...see this as a fault with cruising, not just the misdoings of Carnival.

 

 

True story. This sentiment comes up all the time when I discuss cruising with professional colleagues who are otherwise intelligent and worldly but haven't cruised. Sad.

[Ocean Boy]

So what we have here is this- both RCI and Carnival used to have this statement in their contract but now they don't.

 

This appears to be an accurate statement.

 

At least RCI was smart enough to change the wording in the contract. It does not make for a good company image to have something go wrong with a ship and then have a document with that wording flashed across the various media outlets.

[tahqa]

At least RCI was smart enough to change the wording in the contract. It does not make for a good company image to have something go wrong with a ship and then have a document with that wording flashed across the various media outlets.

 

Again, that wording that CNN showed does not appear in Carnival's current ticket contract. Watching the video it appears that they were quoting a Carnival lawyer, and if so that shame on him, but that was not taken from their current contract.

 

It's entirely possible that the phrase was in the contract that was valid at the time of the Triumph incident but I don't have access to the older contracts. So, we don't know when Carnival changed their contract and we don't know when Royal changed their contract. They may have been concurrent.

 

I don't like Carnival and I don't see myself ever cruising with them, so I'm not blindly defending them, but I think CNN is doing their usual stellar job of reporting the facts. :rolleyes:

Edited December 17, 2013 by tahqa

[ahecht]

RCI's contract used to say almost exaclty the same thing including that they made no warrenty as to the sea worthiness of their vessels.

 

But Carnival is claiming that their contract included that language as of the Triumph incident, which was in February of this year (2013). It was only changed as a result of the Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights which was adopted in May as a result of the Triumph incident. The Royal Caribbean contract from March 2011 didn't include such language, and that was long before the CPBoR.

[Ocean Boy]

Again, that wording that CNN showed does not appear in Carnival's current ticket contract. Watching the video it appears that they were quoting a Carnival lawyer, and if so that shame on him, but that was not taken from their current contract.

 

It's entirely possible that the phrase was in the contract that was valid at the time of the Triumph incident but I don't have access to the older contracts. So, we don't know when Carnival changed their contract and we don't know when Royal changed their contract. They may have been concurrent.

 

I don't like Carnival and I don't see myself ever cruising with them, so I'm not blindly defending them, but I think CNN is doing their usual stellar job of reporting the facts. :rolleyes:

 

My point was that RCI did have that wording in their contract and I am glad they were bright enough to get it out. I no nothing about Carvinal contracts past or present as I have never sailed with them and have never read any of their contracts.

[Ocean Boy]

But Carnival is claiming that their contract included that language as of the Triumph incident, which was in February of this year (2013). It was only changed as a result of the Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights which was adopted in May as a result of the Triumph incident. The Royal Caribbean contract from March 2011 didn't include such language, and that was long before the CPBoR.

 

I understand your point. Apparently the folks at Carnival had no understanding of what a public relations disaster wording like that could be. I guess they were more concerned with making sure that their butts were covered in case of an incident. And RCI used to use that same wording to cover their butts too.

[Dave85]

But Carnival is claiming that their contract included that language as of the Triumph incident, which was in February of this year (2013). It was only changed as a result of the Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights which was adopted in May as a result of the Triumph incident. The Royal Caribbean contract from March 2011 didn't include such language, and that was long before the CPBoR.

 

I suspect someone at Carnival with a shred of foresight and PR savvy looked at that language prior to enacting their contractual changes, felt a cold shiver down their spine, and made sure it was changed going forward.

 

Some on the CCL board said NCL is still using similar language. I haven't independently verified but, if true, I suspect it'll be gone in short order.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Dave85

[Familygoboston]

Id love to hear form a lawyer about whether any business can make an indemnifying statement like this and have it stand. This would be like me as a preschool teacher saying; "I can't guarantee that your 4 yo child will be watched, fed or allowed to use the bathroom, and if they wander off or are injured by any items at our school, we are not responsible." :eek: When people pay for child care, they expect to receive childcare, not a disclaimer saying we can't guarantee to provide child care.:rolleyes:

 

I would imagine it's the same with any business, but maybe a lawyer would know better if this has held up, but nothing would surprise me!