Aos doa

[robtulipe]

It doesn't matter what you "feel". There is a contract in place and RCI met the terms of the contract. They did not OWE you anything, and yet they still made some good faith towards you with the onboard credit. In that regards you are lucky to have gotten anything because you certainly were not entitled to anything. Any other delays or issues arising from the delayed arrival of the ship to debark would be handled by trip insurance.

I agree that's what the contract terms are so why did the current AOS cruiser get so much more when they weren't really owed anything also. They boarded the ship on the day they should have, had a two days visit in SJ, a seaday, stops in Antigua, St. Lucia and St, Croix with likely a timely return to SJ so it's not too bad of a cruise.

Why do thay get so much less. It doesn't make last week cruiser feel like they were treated fairly.

[chengkp75]

I agree that's what the contract terms are so why did the current AOS cruiser get so much more when they weren't really owed anything also. They boarded the ship on the day they should have, had a two days visit in SJ, a seaday, stops in Antigua, St. Lucia and St, Croix with likely a timely return to SJ so it's not too bad of a cruise.

Why do thay get so much less. It doesn't make last week cruiser feel like they were treated fairly.

 

Agreed that it feels unfair. But as I've said, most likely RCI felt that a delayed departure (even though everyone was allowed onboard) was similar to what the "bill of rights" calls an early termination, and therefore due at least a partial refund. Also, while RCI did not know the pod was going to fail during the previous cruise, they knew there was a problem for the current cruise. In my personal opinion, and I'm not personally involved, RCI granted both cruises compensation that exceeded what was "required". While not equal, they are not obligated to treat everyone equally.

[LMaxwell]

I agree that's what the contract terms are so why did the current AOS cruiser get so much more when they weren't really owed anything also. They boarded the ship on the day they should have, had a two days visit in SJ, a seaday, stops in Antigua, St. Lucia and St, Croix with likely a timely return to SJ so it's not too bad of a cruise.

Why do thay get so much less. It doesn't make last week cruiser feel like they were treated fairly.

 

I understand and agree with you; I think RCI's hand was forced by the announcements Princess had made, which RCI followed suit on. Princess then reneged on their offer to huge backlash, so reinstated their offer. RCI looked like a champ. Then the howls from AOS started.

 

I'm not saying the March 16 and March 23 AOS cruisers were both treated equitably. I am saying they were both treated more than fairly though. March 23 got the better deal for sure. Both got more than they were owed.

[ValerieJo]

It doesn't matter what you "feel". There is a contract in place and RCI met the terms of the contract. They did not OWE you anything, and yet they still made some good faith towards you with the onboard credit. In that regards you are lucky to have gotten anything because you certainly were not entitled to anything. Any other delays or issues arising from the delayed arrival of the ship to debark would be handled by trip insurance.

 

I'm sure you would have a much different opinion had you been on our sailing. So, why did the March 23 sailing get so much more?

[LMaxwell]

I'm sure you would have a much different opinion had you been on our sailing. So, why did the March 23 sailing get so much more?

 

I've stated multiple times WHY I believe the March 23 sailing got more. I also stated that it was not equitable, but in both instances MORE than fair or what was owed.

 

Look, you've got every right to grind your axe if you wish. I don't believe you will get more from RCI; maybe a nominal amount to be used as a future cruise credit. But belaboring the point here certainly won't get you what you want. RCI contractually met their obligations. If you don't feel they went above and beyond enough to satisfy you in a situation out of the ordinary the answer is simple; don't give them any more money in the future! And if your travel arrangements got screwed up, well, that is why you purchased travel insurance, right?

 

Please tell me what you feel the cruisers from March 16th are owed and why. Accepting that ports may be missed or changed as needed, please clearly spell out what losses you suffered and should be remunerated for that insurance would not cover. Maybe March 23 PAX got a better deal than they should have. And you can be jealous over that, but please tell me why you feel you deserve that same compensation.

[go noles]

I've stated multiple times WHY I believe the March 23 sailing got more. I also stated that it was not equitable, but in both instances MORE than fair or what was owed.

 

Look, you've got every right to grind your axe if you wish. I don't believe you will get more from RCI; maybe a nominal amount to be used as a future cruise credit. But belaboring the point here certainly won't get you what you want. RCI contractually met their obligations. If you don't feel they went above and beyond enough to satisfy you in a situation out of the ordinary the answer is simple; don't give them any more money in the future! And if your travel arrangements got screwed up, well, that is why you purchased travel insurance, right?

 

Please tell me what you feel the cruisers from March 16th are owed and why. Accepting that ports may be missed or changed as needed, please clearly spell out what losses you suffered and should be remunerated for that insurance would not cover. Maybe March 23 PAX got a better deal than they should have. And you can be jealous over that, but please tell me why you feel you deserve that same compensation.

 

Dude, please send me your address so I can send you a new set of navy and white pom-poms. You have worn your current set out.

[reallyitsmema]

I'm sure you would have a much different opinion had you been on our sailing. So, why did the March 23 sailing get so much more?

I understand your disappointment but the two weeks were very different. The current sailing was only getting OBC offers in the beginning but their compensation changed once a full refund was offered to those on Navigator.

 

I would write a letter to corporate, explaining your concerns, calmly and directly. I wouldn't make any demands but I would be firm in my disappointment with the difference in the compensation that was offered to these two sailings of AOS.

 

I would then just let it go. If you decide that you can't cruise RCI again because of it, so be it, my Mom has moved on to Princess and is very happy. If you decide that you want to stay with RCI, good for you for being able to move on and enjoy your vacations.

 

Either way, it is all just going to live on and on here on cruise critic so if that keeps you happy, go for it!;):)

[robtulipe]

Agreed that it feels unfair. But as I've said, most likely RCI felt that a delayed departure (even though everyone was allowed onboard) was similar to what the "bill of rights" calls an early termination, and therefore due at least a partial refund. Also, while RCI did not know the pod was going to fail during the previous cruise, they knew there was a problem for the current cruise. In my personal opinion, and I'm not personally involved, RCI granted both cruises compensation that exceeded what was "required". While not equal, they are not obligated to treat everyone equally.

The full fare and 50% fare future credit compensation the current passengers got was so much more for, IMO, a better cruise as it doesn't appear the current cruise will have the stress and problems associated with a delayed return to SJ that the last cruise had along with a better itinerary. It certainly does makes for bad feeling or feeling they were being had by the previous cruise passengers if RCI thinking was to over compensate both group for what they had to put up with.:rolleyes:

Concerning your comment "while RCI did not know the pod was going to fail during the previous cruise" you must admit, with your expertise, that there were very good indications over the last several cruises that there was a problem with this unit and RCI was hoping the center pod that broke down would last until the soon to be dry dock.:eek:

Edited March 27, 2014 by robtulipe

[LMaxwell]

Dude, please send me your address so I can send you a new set of navy and white pom-poms. You have worn your current set out.

 

I'm telling people they signed a contract and BOTH got more than they were owed. I don't go on other forums when another ship has an issue and make grade school moron comments there; just like I don't feel RCI can do no wrong. Read any of my reviews and you'll find plenty of mention of what went right and what went wrong and how RCI handled it.

 

Someone keeps whining that they want more. MORE! (stamp feet) MORE! (stamp feet) MORE!. "What is that would make you happy?" MORE! MORE! MORE!. Well...why??? What did you lose out on that the cruiseline has to try to make whole on beyond their contracts?

 

It might shock you but I try to engage in conversation with people on here. You can do the same if you want, or you can be the peanut gallery.

 

P.S. - Thank you but I get plenty of junkmail now, so no thanks. :cool:

[clojacks]

Dude, please send me your address so I can send you a new set of navy and white pom-poms. You have worn your current set out.

 

I don't see the poster as a cheerleader at all, but rather as a particularly well informed observer who more than likely has a legal background in contract law. I agree 1000% with him in regards to RCI's "Obligation" AND in regard to RCI's offer actually probably being way more generous than required. Which in my mind was a very good PR move on their part. I must be missing something that so many of you seem to view this so differently than the Maxwell poster. But, then I'm not viewing this from the emotionally charged position of having experienced it either.

[chengkp75]

The full fare and 50% fare future credit compensation the current passengers got was so much more for, IMO, a better cruise as it doesn't appear the current cruise will have the stress and problems associated with a delayed return to SJ that the last cruise had along with a better itinerary. It certainly does makes for bad feeling or feeling they were being had by the previous cruise passengers if RCI thinking was to over compensate both group for what they had to put up with.:rolleyes:

Concerning your comment "while RCI did not know the pod was going to fail during the previous cruise" you must admit, with your expertise, that there were very good indications over the last several cruises that there was a problem with this unit and RCI was hoping the center pod that broke down would last until the soon to be dry dock.:eek:

 

While there might have been, and probably were, indications that the pod bearings were deteriorating, that's different from saying that they were "hoping" it would last. If they felt that the pod's bearings were in any way close to failure, they would have just shut the pod down, and adjusted itineraries, as was done with the Allure. What has now happened to the pod on Adventure will likely cost more to repair than the cost of some credits for changed itinerary (add in Miami Divers in San Juan for 3 days, I know they ain't cheap). Condition monitoring of bearings like the ones in the pod tend to travel along for quite a lot of time at nearly the same level of "noise" (vibration) in the bearing, and will then suddenly turn the corner of a parabolic curve, and fail catastrophically. Not an apologist for RCI or any line, but without seeing their maintenance history, I have to assume that their data supported the decision to keep the pod in service.

Edited March 27, 2014 by chengkp75

[LMaxwell]

But, then I'm not viewing this from the emotionally charged position of having experienced it either.

 

I try to remove emotion from my viewpoints. And I also feel like many people on here are approaching topics from an emotional state. What I have learned over time is that emotion almost always leads to either an irrational decision or demand, an impossible decision or demand, or an extremely difficult to support decision or demand. When I do try to analyze something subjective I still try to support my opinions with evidence or description.

 

That said, I can't accurately gauge the tone of every single responder. Some are obvious, others are not. It's also certainly easy to believe that my tone is not always received as intended, or that by engaging in a conversation where one party is emotionally charged and I am not that I may appear to be argumentative. For anyone reading this, that is also not ever the case, although sometimes when a fly lands on your nose the best course of action is to flick it off.

 

I enjoy learning and sharing with CC and have met many wonderful forum members on board ships, just as I will in the future. I appreciate that you were able to understand and interpret my message(s) as intended.

[go noles]

There is no question that RCI met their legal obligation to their customers. However, many times companies offer more than their legal obligation for goodwill and PR purposes as RCI did in this case.

 

The issue here is some on the voyage feel the goodwill is inadequate for what they missed. Reality is the ship was late and people missed flight and it was not Force majeure. No amount of travel insurance is going to concoct a time machine so this is additional inconvenience.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To one person the compensation may be adequate to another it is not. That is why I don't understand the defending of the company. If someone feels it is inadequate who are we to say they are wrong.

[LMaxwell]

Once an obligation is met, what amount of goodwill "feels" right? MORE! NOW! isn't a real answer that will yield results. And as others have stated; whoever was on that cruise and feels they deserve more needs to calm down, write a well thought out factual letter to the cruise line, send it to them and wait to see if there is any additional resolution. Like I said, I'm of the opinion that doing so may yield a future cruise credit. If someone is STILL unhappy at that point, well, gotta vote with your wallet and take business elsewhere.

 

With ANY, and I do mean ANY, travel plans, if you can't get your mindset to "go with the flow" at least a little bit and are going to be stressed or angry over any and everything, don't travel. I didn't say don't cruise. I mean don't travel.

 

I think we also all agree that what people on Navigator and Adventure got this week is a fantastic offering. But that won't stop someone being unhappy and demanding more; even though obligations were met and goodwill was offered.

[rum & monkey]

I agree that's what the contract terms are so why did the current AOS cruiser get so much more when they weren't really owed anything also. They boarded the ship on the day they should have, had a two days visit in SJ, a seaday, stops in Antigua, St. Lucia and St, Croix with likely a timely return to SJ so it's not too bad of a cruise.

Why do thay get so much less. It doesn't make last week cruiser feel like they were treated fairly.

 

I'll probably get flamed for this but what you don't seem to understand is that San Juan is not a port of call it is a port of departure. The current sailing was a 7 day and they did not depart until day 4 the now day 1 missing 3 full days. The previous cruise was out for the full # of days. The cruise lines retain the right to change itineraries as they see needed. It was needed, no breach of any contract. Current cruise there was a breach in contract in the # of days, your cruise does not begin until you depart.

 

The need of they got that so I should to is nothing more than the act of entitlement. Guess what everything in life is not equal. There are some that are just angry that those on the current sailing received more compensation. There was no way to for see the outcome of the March 16th sailing, they knew they had problems mid week before the March 23rd, they did not warn those pax nor did they fulfill their contract with them. They should most definitely be compensated more.

 

If you do not like the possibility of a changed itinerary then stick to a land vacation but be careful because even the airlines change itineraries (they even will sell you a seat they don't have). Because of this very thing with airlines we NEVER fly on the same day that we cruise.

 

Our last cruise their were hundreds of people who missed their flight because customs was so slow yet no one was yelling about what CBP owed them because they chose to fly the same day. Recently there have been lots of sailings affected by fog and those that CHOSE to fly on the same day missed flights. If you book your flight on the same day you are sailing that was a risk you chose to take and no one owes you anything for that.

[ewenix]

Who did you have insurance with RC or another?

The responsibility to get you home is really down to the insurance company. Choice air can only get you on the next available flight they have access to. That's why I use a company that get me out ASAP (yes I have been stranded before due to flight cancellations so I understand the situation)

 

Unfortunately PR is not the easiest place to get flights in/out of.

 

I had insurance through TravelGuard. However, this goes back to the breakdown in communication from RC. The night before (saturday) when they were still managing decent communications we were told that we would be late. I called Choice Air from the ship and was told that they would be automatically rebooking me on the next available flight.

Later that evening we got a letter that stated Choice Air would rebook us automatically and our new travel arrangements would be delivered to our cabin. That letter was the last I heard before the breakdown in communication.

 

Nothing was ever delivered to our cabin regarding new travel arrangements.

There was a ridiculously long line at guest services all night and into the next morning. We waited until 9am sunday to get in the line since we had not heard anything, knowing that we were supposed to be taken care of already. Once at the desk I was given a printed copy of our new flight itinerary that left tuesday morning.

 

So what I take from your response is that I should not have trusted RC or Choice Air to rebook us and should've gone directly to TravelGuard for rebooking.

I do disagree with your statement that "the responsibility to get you home is really down to the insurance company." The only benefit to using Choice Air is they are responsible for getting me to the ship if my flights are late and I miss it, or rebooking if we're late getting back.

[Ocean Boy]

I'll probably get flamed for this but what you don't seem to understand is that San Juan is not a port of call it is a port of departure. The current sailing was a 7 day and they did not depart until day 4 the now day 1 missing 3 full days. The previous cruise was out for the full # of days. The cruise lines retain the right to change itineraries as they see needed. It was needed, no breach of any contract. Current cruise there was a breach in contract in the # of days, your cruise does not begin until you depart.

 

Apparently from RCI's viewpoint, when the gangways were retracted and then put back onto the ship and passengers allowed to get off San Juan became a port of call.;)

[waterbugohio]

OK, just a quick question. Where did the Adventure make it to yesterday or today?? And will it make it anywhere tomorrow?

[chengkp75]

OK, just a quick question. Where did the Adventure make it to yesterday or today?? And will it make it anywhere tomorrow?

 

It arrived in St John's Antigua around 0800 this morning, and is scheduled to go to St. Lucia tonight, arriving tomorrow, required speed about 15 knots.

[robtulipe]

I'll probably get flamed for this but what you don't seem to understand is that San Juan is not a port of call it is a port of departure.

RCI would likely go with Ocean Boy assessment above.

Besides that the current passengers were onboard being provided with accommodations, meals and other services. You're really being nit picky here. ;)

The current sailing was a 7 day and they did not depart until day 4 the now day 1 missing 3 full days.

The ship left yesterday morning so that was a sea day sailing so only two full days were spent in SJ.

The previous cruise was out for the full # of days. The cruise lines retain the right to change itineraries as they see needed. It was needed, no breach of any contract. I agree.:D

 

Current cruise there was a breach in contract in the # of days, your cruise does not begin until you depart.

I don't see this mention in the cruise contract clauses below so I'm guessing it's the same as the above.

 

The need of they got that so I should to is nothing more than the act of entitlement. Guess what everything in life is not equal. There are some that are just angry that those on the current sailing received more compensation. There was no way to for see the outcome of the March 16th sailing, they knew they had problems mid week before the March 23rd, they did not warn those pax nor did they fulfill their contract with them. They should most definitely be compensated more.

 

Here's what's in our Guest Ticket Booklet under the Cruise Ticket Contract for our Serenade cruise next month.

 

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. Except as provided in Section 6(e) below, 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.

c) By way of example, and not limitation, Carrier may, without liability, (except

as provided in Section 6(e) with respect to mechanical failures only), deviate

from any scheduled sailing and may otherwise land Passenger and her property

at any port if Carrier believes that the voyage or any Passenger or property may

be hindered or adversely affected as a result of hostilities, blockages, prevailing

weather conditions, labor conflicts, strikes onboard or ashore, breakdown of

Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties, medical or life saving emergencies or any

other cause whatsoever.

e) In the event that a Cruise (or the cruise component of a CruiseTour) is canceledor terminated early due to mechanical failures:

i) Passenger shall have a right to a full refund of the Cruise Fare if the Cruise is

canceled in full, or a partial refund if the cruise is terminated early;

ii) Carrier may cover or reimburse Passenger for additional costs (e.g. airline

change fees) as deemed appropriate by the Carrier. Notice it states may not will

iii) If the passenger has travelled to the Vessel Passenger shall have a right to

transportation (by means selected by the Carrier to the Vessel’s scheduled port of

disembarkation or the Passenger’s home city; and

iv) Passenger shall have a right to lodging (selected by the Cruise Line) if

disembarkation and an overnight stay in an unscheduled port are required due

to the Cruise or cruise component of a CruiseTour being cancelled or terminated

early because of such mechanical failures.

 

Also if you check the CLIA passenger bill of rights neither this week's nor last required any obligation to be met by RCI with the possible exception of timely updates in the itinerary of the ship in the event of a mechanical failure or emergency as well as timely updates of the status of efforts to address mechanical failure and that right is very debateable here. Neither cruises were cancelled nor terminated early.

See http://media.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/bill_of_rights.pdf

So those who say the current cruise is more deserving of compensation than last weeks cruise because of the above are off base.

RCI may have exceeded their contractional obligation but failed miserably in their PR efforts with the compensation the previous cruisers got when compared to what was offered to this week’s passengers.

I imagine this week’s passengers are quite satisfied with their free cruise and 50% of fare future cruise credit. Last week’s passengers likely not so with the $300 OBC they received and only up to $150 in air flight change fees unless they had RC Choice Air.

Edited March 27, 2014 by robtulipe

[kahluatoo]

The amount of bickering and wannabe superiority attitude in this thread is getting quite annoying. Can we cut it out? If I'm getting annoyed by it and I'm probably one of the youngest users on this foum, then there is a problem.

 

Anyway, I am stoked they are still going to St Lucia. That is the one place I was the most jealous that my parents got to go to before me. Hopefully everyone on board is in a better mood now and having a great time.

[colesc15]

The amount of bickering and wannabe superiority attitude in this thread is getting quite annoying. Can we cut it out? If I'm getting annoyed by it and I'm probably one of the youngest users on this foum, then there is a problem.

 

Anyway, I am stoked they are still going to St Lucia. That is the one place I was the most jealous that my parents got to go to before me. Hopefully everyone on board is in a better mood now and having a great time.

 

Agreed and same here.. I'm only 25 and can see it

[peteukmcr]

The amount of bickering and wannabe superiority attitude in this thread is getting quite annoying. Can we cut it out? If I'm getting annoyed by it and I'm probably one of the youngest users on this foum, then there is a problem.

 

Anyway, I am stoked they are still going to St Lucia. That is the one place I was the most jealous that my parents got to go to before me. Hopefully everyone on board is in a better mood now and having a great time.

 

Agreed and same here.. I'm only 25 and can see it

Agreed and same here. However, I'm way over 25 :D But I've been following this thread with interest over the technical issues affecting Adventure as we are due to sail on the TA to bring her back to the UK.

 

Although I've given up now as this is no longer a thread about the issues as in more ways than one the 'ship has sailed' but as often happens on CC it has degenerated into an online slanging match.

 

Much more and the mods will close it.

[ValerieJo]

So those who say the current cruise is more deserving of compensation than last weeks cruise because of the above are off base.[/size]

RCI may have exceeded their contractional obligation but failed miserably in their PR efforts with the compensation the previous cruisers got when compared to what was offered to this week’s passengers.

I imagine this week’s passengers are quite satisfied with their free cruise and 50% of fare future cruise credit. Last week’s passengers likely not so with the $300 OBC they received and only up to $150 in air flight change fees unless they had RC Choice Air.

 

Yes, I think this is exactly the issue.

[bigeck]

Agreed and same here. However, I'm way over 25 :D But I've been following this thread with interest over the technical issues affecting Adventure as we are due to sail on the TA to bring her back to the UK.

 

Although I've given up now as this is no longer a thread about the issues as in more ways than one the 'ship has sailed' but as often happens on CC it has degenerated into an online slanging match.

 

Much more and the mods will close it.

 

I agree Pete. I already said too many with too much to say. Its getting that people will be scared to post