Ukrainian Unrest - Black Sea Cruise April 25, 2014

[bohaiboy]

My understanding is for Trabzon, Constanta, and Nessebar, one day is more than enough.

 

As far as Noram Cancellation, after tomorrow, you would lose 75% of you full fare. If you booked air thru SS, you lose all of that (1--%)

[GatorGal]

Well, we're going with the flow, wherever that takes us. It will be an adventure, I'm sure!

[bohaiboy]

I agree, just hope we go somewhere exciting.

[Mysticalmother]

We are also on the April 25 Black Sea cruise. Perhaps SS will contact us soon with their plans.

 

Have you any update on your cruise yet? Surely SS will be making some hard decisions now? :confused:

[bohaiboy]

Dont bet on SS making any decisions until the cancellation penalty is full forfeiture of fare unless you have cancel for any reason. I have CSA insurance and even CSA is very evasive about the situation in saying that I will have to file a claim in order for an adjuster to make a decision. They will not verify my current insurance would be covered in event of war. A cheap ass company in my opinion truing there best to avoid a mass exit fro the area with insurance claims. I WIL NEVER BUY CSA TRIP INSURANCE AGAIN

[GatorGal]

Have you any update on your cruise yet? Surely SS will be making some hard decisions now? :confused:

Not a peep. My travel agent has called them too, and nothing to report as of today. But we did get our tickets and luggage tags this week with no mention of Putin's unpleasantness.

[alexandra cruiser]

because I m on a river cruise to area(Constanta ,on Black Sea).

 

Not ocean cruise,I know,but heard Viking cancelled their April Ukraine cruise.

 

Will be interested if Ss,or other lines ,follows or changes ports,etc.

 

Upset to hear about CSA ins.since I just bought it for my June cruise.The cancel for any reason is VERY expensive,and must be bought when you BOOK.Or I would have taken that.

[bogey]

I talked with my Travel Agent today. She reports that no cruise lines have announced any changes for Black Sea itineraries.

[bohaiboy]

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

 

Events in Ukraine

 

MARCH 14, 2014

 

The Department of State alerts U.S. citizens in Russia to the ongoing tensions in Ukraine and the potential for increased public demonstrations and anti-American actions in Russia in connection with Russian actions in the Crimea. The Department of State also alerts U.S. citizens in Russia to the heightened military presence and on-going military exercises of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation along the border region with Ukraine. This Travel Alert expires on June 13, 2014. The Department of State strongly recommends that all U.S. citizens residing or traveling abroad enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) in order to receive pertinent safety and security information.

 

 

 

The U.S. government currently has no information concerning active military conflict inside Russia as a result of regional tensions or of any threat specific to U.S. citizens. However, all U.S. citizens located in or considering travel to the border region, specifically the regions bordering Ukraine in Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh, and Rostov Oblasts and Krasnodar Krai, should be aware of the potential for escalation of tensions, military clashes (either accidental or intentional), or other violence, and the potential for threats to safety and security. Media accounts note there has been a sizable Russian military build-up in those regions and there are reports of an increased presence of Russian neo-**** and radical nationalist and extremist groups in those regions.

 

 

 

U.S. citizens considering travel to Russia should evaluate their personal security situation in light of current political tensions and the possibility of violence or anti-U.S. actions directed against U.S. citizens or U.S. interests.

 

 

 

The Department of State advises that U.S. citizens should avoid all public demonstrations, whether properly authorized by local officials or not, and avoid any large crowds and public gatherings that lack enhanced security measures. Demonstrations related to the conflict may appear anywhere throughout Russia, at any time. These demonstrations may increase the possibility of confrontation and violence. Review your personal security plans, remain aware of your surroundings, including local events, and monitor local news stations for updates. Maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Those in the UK may recall that unfair charges are imho unenforceable. This opinion has recently been proved correct as a case has finally got to court.

 

I'm posting this because this case hasn't yet made it's way on to the forum but should be of interest to those interested in the imposition of "unfair contract terms" small print in consumer contracts and in particular with respect to holidays and travel cancellation charges in the UK. At last a case of an unfair charge being made for the cancellation of a holiday has been taken to court and the consumer has won.

 

Followers of this might recall that I have been hoping that the nature of unfair charges would be tested and at last one has made it's way the the "Small Claims Court". As I have continually predicted ( .... and been continually told that I do not know what I am talking about .. you know who you are .... ) it has been found in favour of the company imposing the charge needing to prove that they have made a "loss" that is equal or greater to the charge.

 

As I have said previously, companies have been unenthusiastic about letting these issues get to court because it is in their favour to preserve uncertainty in customers minds who then roll over and accept charges because they are in the contract small print. They make the incorrect but perfectly understandable presumption that the charges are enforceable. The principle in the judgement holds true for all penalty charges but is not yet a completely safe precedent until tested - if it will be - on appeal.

 

This will probably go to appeal and of course could be reversed but it is a good first sign. Thomsons may conclude unless they are very certain of success that they will be "better off" to answer this with a PR fudge response and not have a definitive judgment of an appeal court.

 

http://www.e-tid.com/ruling-could-be-significant-victory-for-consumers/95606/

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-advice/10662931/Thomson-case-could-spell-end-of-unfair-holiday-cancellation-charges.html

[sheltiezack]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cruiselog/2014/03/14/black-sea-cruise-ukraine/6410151/

 

This article on the internet show that cruise companies are now taking heed of the current situation in the Crimea and are thinking about contingency plans for upcoming Black Sea cruises. However, the way I read it is that they would leave until as late as possible?

[bogey]

Not going to go over "old ground" again, if you made your booking in some overseas territories including the UK and Oz "unfair" terms and conditions are unenforceable including this type of clause in this type of situation. In essence consumers can ignore any unfair clause and unfair in the UK is widely interpreted to be very genorously consumer biaiseds.

 

I guess I'm missing something. (Frequently the case.) I'm not sure I understand why a clause which says that a cruise ship is not required to go into a war zone is "unfair?" If I were on that ship, I'd applaud such a policy.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I guess I'm missing something. (Frequently the case.) I'm not sure I understand why a clause which says that a cruise ship is not required to go into a war zone is "unfair?" If I were on that ship, I'd applaud such a policy.

 

Yes, you are choosing the wrong clause for some reason I cannot understand. Very odd.:confused:

 

People make cruise choices often very largely for the ports that are beng visited. Sometimes cruise lines have to or wish to change ports. There is nothing wrong with that. The clauses that are unfair are clauses that entitle the line to make any changes to the cruise chosen that they wish to at any time but then to disallow cancelations. This clause in the UK would likely be deemed unfair for the same reason as if you had gone into a shop to buy a beige leather sofa and for reasons outside of their control - say the factory burned down - and they subsidised a cloth red one and forced you to accept a substitution. It is exactly the same principle. A substantial change for whatever reason must entitle the customer the option of penalty free reconsideration.

 

In the UK it goes even further. If the change had been made for say purely commercial reasons rather than reasons outside of the lines control then the customer might be entitled to additional compensation for inconvenience and disappointment and any incremental cost of booking a comparable alternative cruise elsewhere. This type of law encourages corporations to behave more fairly to their customers. Forcing customers to have to accept a product choice that has changed substantially since the choice was originally made seems obviously unfair to me and invoking cancellation penalties therefore also unfair.

 

I hope that helps you to understand which clauses are unfair in UK and some other places.

 

:)

[bogey]

Yes, you are choosing the wrong clause for some reason I cannot understand. Very odd.:confused: :)

 

Well, the reason I chose that clause is simple. It has to do with the evidentiary concept of relevance. It is that clause which was highlighted by the poster who quoted from the cruise contract. It is that clause which would be invoked by a cruise line (all cruise line contracts have similar provisions) if they decided it was necessary to alter an itinerary because of the Russian invasion of Crimea.

 

That is the relevant clause which would be considered by an American court handling a dispute over a cruise itinerary altered due to the type of unrest we are discussing. Since the American court system is based largely on the UK system, I would imagine that the courts in the UK have similar rules of relevance and germaneness.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Well, the reason I chose that clause is simple. It has to do with the evidentiary concept of relevance. It is that clause which was highlighted by the poster who quoted from the cruise contract. It is that clause which would be invoked by a cruise line (all cruise line contracts have similar provisions) if they decided it was necessary to alter an itinerary because of the Russian invasion of Crimea.

 

That is the relevant clause which would be considered by an American court handling a dispute over a cruise itinerary altered due to the type of unrest we are discussing. Since the American court system is based largely on the UK system, I would imagine that the courts in the UK have similar rules of relevance and germaneness.

 

 

I have explained to you how our system treats consumers when changes are made whether within or outside of control of the cruise line and if you don't believe me - fair enough. I even gave you an example which most people would understand.

 

What Americans -and to be fair many Brits - do not understand or accept is that our new system basically says that unfair consumer contract clauses are unenforceable. You can sign to agree to them but it doesn't matter. Full stop. I am unable to work out how to make this clearer. Just because in your view telling a customer that a complete change to the cruise ports he/ she chose means a loss of deposit does not work in the UK once challenged.

 

Anyway this isn't relevant to you as I presume you are not UK?

[Emtbsam]

In 1972, the 2-week cruise I took on the old Oriana was supposed to stop in Beruit, but due to the sad events at the Munich olympics, the call in Beruit was cancelled, and we went to Istanbul instead. I did not find out about the itinerary change until I got onboard. While I have long been sorry that I never did get to see Beruit before it was destroyed by terrible violence, I have always been very pleased that I got to see Istanbul. I never challenged the decision by a British company to alter the itinerary and always felt that they did what was in our best interests.

 

After all, travel is all about experiences - both planned and the unexpected.

[bohaiboy]

I am sure the alternatives will be nice. The point however is why doesn't SS advise us of their plans. I think they are worried about people cancelling and losing money, so keep everyone is suspense until you lose 100%, then they don't care. 30-0 days prior gets a 100% cancellation. That date is fast approaching so it will be interesting to see if SS announces after being in the 30 day window and how far in they will choose.

[bohaiboy]

According to a fellow passenger's TA, and I have confirmed as well, Windstar has cancelled the only Ukrainian visit it had scheduled, to Yalta, and has subbed Amasra as an alternate.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I am sure the alternatives will be nice. The point however is why doesn't SS advise us of their plans. I think they are worried about people cancelling and losing money, so keep everyone is suspense until you lose 100%, then they don't care. 30-0 days prior gets a 100% cancellation. That date is fast approaching so it will be interesting to see if SS announces after being in the 30 day window and how far in they will choose.

 

The point you make is the key one. Because (it seems) US citizens do not appear to have the same level of consumer protection, the customer in this situation doesn't appear to warrant even being given courtesy of the information so that they can make the choice. If a UK customer arrived at the cruise to find it had materially changed, and the cruise line hadn't informed the passenger as soon as they reasonably could then the size of a claim could rise quite dramatically and it could well include 100% of all cost and an element of disappointment and inconvenience.

 

This doesn't bother some, but for others the cruise they have booked could well be their one and only "trip of a lifetime" where they have carefully planned it for many years and carefully chosen the places they have always wanted to see and if those places are changed then they might wish to choose an alternative and not have a cruise they haven't chosen mandated on them.

 

The idea that you can have a contract that binds one side of it - a private individual - to the contract for ever unless a penalty is paid, but doesn't bind the other side - a powerful corporation - at all - and they can change whatever they want with impunity is one of the daftest ideas I have heard and I have no idea why any intelligent person would consider such a contract a fair one.

 

I am pleased we enjoy a degree of consumer protection in the UK and feel saddened for those that do not.

Edited March 19, 2014 by UKCruiseJeff

[LarCar]

Returning to the thoughts of the original poster, there's a lot still unknown about the itinerary on upcoming Black Sea cruises. All of us that are planning visits to the area are hoping that itineraries will remain unchanged. Of course what happens in this regard totally rests with a combination of SilverSea management and the countries involved.

Given the most recent developments - Crimea being returned to Russia, my thoughts turn to the need for visas.

Ukraine has no visa requirement for US, EU or many other visitors. However, Russia does. Russia does allow tourists to visit for 72 hours, but only if part of an organized tour, and always in the company of the tour guide.

As I've mentioned previously, my wife and I will not be heading that way until our July 21st cruise on Spirit. I know those of you leaving in just over a month must be feeling a bit more anxiety than we are. I hope all works out well for you.

Finally, I'm not trying to be an alarmist by bringing up the visa matter. But since I thought about this as a potential roadblock, I thought I'd bring up the subject. It would be a true shame if the cruise itineraries remained unchanged, only to discover that those of us not on organized tours were confined to the ship.

Disclaimer: My comments on what is and is not required regarding visas is not to be taken as official. It just reflects what I've read as is concerns US and EU travelers.

Pleasant travels to all!

Larry

[Travel travel]

We are booked on SS in late June, it is a 7 day our of Stockholm. St Petersburg and Moscow are primary reasons we chose this itinerary. Does anyone have an idea what ports SS may choose as alternatives if a change due to the political unrest becomes necessary?

[bogey]

I just got off the phone with my TA who tells me that nothing has been heard from Silversea, but that Regent just announced major alterations to their Black Sea cruise departing from Athens on 8 August. I tried to take good notes, but I may not have the details exactly right. Here is the gist of the Regent announcement.

 

1. All Russian/Ukranian ports have been deleted. So, the planned stops in Sochi, Yalta, Sevastapol and Odessa are gone.

 

2. To make up for those changes a stop in Batumi, Georgia has been added as have overnights in Istanbul and Constanta -- which had previously been just single day visits.

 

I have no idea how this may relate to Silversea's plans, but it is good news that at least one line is announcing their plans well in advance. Hopefully Silversea will follow suit.

 

Larry, if Silversea takes similar action, your questions about Russian visas will be moot. If not, I can tell you that when we visited St. Petersburg last summer, individual visas were not required if you were on a tour with a licensed tour operator --- and you remained in the company of that operator. Some folks took advantage of this provision using the ship's shore excursions. Others did so by hiring private guide companies. I doubt that anybody can predict how these rules may change as tensions with Russia ebb and flow.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Is this the end of the story ... or the start of a bigger newer one?

 

Is it totally impossible that the US government bans Americans from all travel to Russia? Or Russia ban all Americans from travel to Russia?

Edited March 19, 2014 by UKCruiseJeff
spelling

[bogey]

I don't pretend to understand immigration law but common sees tells me that such travel restrictions are entirely possible. Example: Americans were forbidden (by America) from travel to Cuba during the Cold War. Those restrictions have been eased but not eliminated. I would think that Russia could exclude Americans (or any other nationality) by simply refusing to issue visas.

 

The stories we hear about the state of the Russian economy might, if accurate, cause them to hesitate to eliminate a source of foreign currency, but I think they have the power to do it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I don't pretend to understand immigration law but common sees tells me that such travel restrictions are entirely possible. Example: Americans were forbidden (by America) from travel to Cuba during the Cold War. Those restrictions have been eased but not eliminated. I would think that Russia could exclude Americans (or any other nationality) by simply refusing to issue visas.

 

The stories we hear about the state of the Russian economy might, if accurate, cause them to hesitate to eliminate a source of foreign currency, but I think they have the power to do it.

 

They simply withdraw protection from US citizens if they travel.