Ocean View Guarantee Not Honored by RCCL

[Coralc]

Jerry: I don't understand. Do you have my reservation?

 

 

 

Rental Car Agent: We have your reservation, we just ran out of cars.

 

 

 

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.

 

 

 

Rental Car Agent: I think I know why we have reservations.

 

 

 

Jerry: I don't think you do. You see, you know how to *take* the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.

 

Really?

 

Our conversation went, "Do you want to pay a $100 more for the week, for an upgraded vehicle?"

 

Us, "No, we will just take the vehicle we reserved."

 

More clicking.

 

Agent: "Well, we have upgraded you to the better vehicle at no cost, because we are out of the one you reserved." :)

[Cindy]

I am missing nothing!

 

My thoughts are RCI need not compensate any more if OP does cruise with given compensation of OBC but that is just my thoughts and not fact.

 

I fully agree that RCI cannot provide a product they sold the OP so they are at fault 100% and I agree the OP is caught between a rock and a hard place, You and many others dont understand RCI stance in this case because you dont understand there is nobody at RCI during this long weekend that can attend to this matter before the sailing time putting those employees without authorisation also between a rock and a hard place!

 

If this was not a long weekend at the end of your summer or there was more time before sail day then I am sure somebody in authority at RCI would make a decision over the OP,s situation in the OP,s favour.

 

People are outraged and suggesting OP demands what has already been told to the OP is not possible with persons of authorisation not available.

 

I am not a cheerleader and far from it but I just see the situation as it is now.

 

RCI web site has just cancelled out my next booking for April 15 with loss of deposit but I cannot blame weekend call staff or expect them to fix RCI,s mistake if they cannot.

 

Sometime you just cannot strike while the iron is hot for a simple resolution and the OPs plight is one of them.

 

You're right...I don't understand why there isn't anybody at RCI who can help because of the holiday, nor do I believe it! They are a 24/7/365 business, and as such there has to be somebody there with the authority to help passengers on weekends/holidays.

[LMaxwell]

You're right...I don't understand why there isn't anybody at RCI who can help because of the holiday, nor do I believe it! They are a 24/7/365 business, and as such there has to be somebody there with the authority to help passengers on weekends/holidays.

 

No, no, no, it is a LONG holiday. :rolleyes:

[jmf123]

Royal Caribbean has a different definition of guarantee than Merriam-Webster? :rolleyes:

 

This is from the Glossary on RCI's website: :rolleyes:

 

GUARANTEE STATEROOM

 

An assurance that you will be assigned the stateroom category you select.

 

GUARANTEED LANGUAGE

 

The language you select a Shore Excursions to be conducted in.

 

GUARANTEES

 

The commitment that a stateroom in the same category as that purchased will be assigned. If one is not available, a stateroom in the next category of greater value will be assigned.

[caribill]

if the OP only paid $109 pp and would rather have a refund than a downgrade, then Royal Caribbean should just politely give them the refund with an apology if that is still what the OP prefers.

 

We do not know what the OP paid, but the OP has been offered $150 OBC and the cost for two people is $218 if booked at the mentioned rate.

 

So two people cruising for $68 total (plus the usual taxes and tips).

[caribill]

The next time you speak with someone at Royal Caribbean, you might mention "breach of contract" and see if that gets their attention.

 

Section 8e of the contract says

 

Carrier may also change accommodations......of any Passenger

[caribill]

So my question is, has anyone ever ready the fine print on the cruise contract to see if they can legally do this?

 

See my post just above this one.

[Viv0828]

Despite the fact that it looks like you were kinda screwed, go with the attitude that you will have a blast - and you most likely will.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[goodml]

I am missing nothing!

 

My thoughts are RCI need not compensate any more if OP does cruise with given compensation of OBC but that is just my thoughts and not fact.

 

I fully agree that RCI cannot provide a product they sold the OP so they are at fault 100% and I agree the OP is caught between a rock and a hard place, You and many others dont understand RCI stance in this case because you dont understand there is nobody at RCI during this long weekend that can attend to this matter before the sailing time putting those employees without authorisation also between a rock and a hard place!

 

If this was not a long weekend at the end of your summer or there was more time before sail day then I am sure somebody in authority at RCI would make a decision over the OP,s situation in the OP,s favour.

 

People are outraged and suggesting OP demands what has already been told to the OP is not possible with persons of authorisation not available.

 

I am not a cheerleader and far from it but I just see the situation as it is now.

 

RCI web site has just cancelled out my next booking for April 15 with loss of deposit but I cannot blame weekend call staff or expect them to fix RCI,s mistake if they cannot.

 

Sometime you just cannot strike while the iron is hot for a simple resolution and the OPs plight is one of them.

 

Perhaps the fact that you live on another continent on the other side of the world in some way affects your view of what is acceptable in terms of compensation. Your ideas simply don't apply here in North America although you seem bound and bent to convince us that you somehow are the authority on this. Let's put this very simply. OP paid for something promised. The promise was not delivered. The substitution delivered was less than promised. The compensation offered is not acceptable. Doesn't matter what they paid. Past precedent dictates that should the OP choose not to sail they will be considered a no-show and still have no guarantee of a resolution after the fact. They most definitely should sail, (and have a wonderful time) but continue to press for an acceptable solution.

 

This is an epic fail on the part of RCI and it's not encouraging to note that this appears to NOT be an isolated incident of late.

[orville99]

Section 8e of the contract says

 

Carrier may also change accommodations......of any Passenger

 

You've taken those words out of context. They are specifically related to the section of the contract that deals with the guest conduct policy.

 

The section you want is:

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

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.

[Starry Eyes]

We do not know what the OP paid, but the OP has been offered $150 OBC and the cost for two people is $218 if booked at the mentioned rate.

 

So two people cruising for $68 total (plus the usual taxes and tips).

 

If those were the numbers and if it were me, I'd take the deal. I have not sailed in an inside for years, but I'd try it for four days. I could spend the $150 in four days, especially if gratuities were not prepaid.

 

But that's me. this is about the OP. It is not a bargain if it is not what the customer wants! When the OP got OBC offer, the OP said he/she would rather have a refund than sail in the inside cabin on those terms. Or the OP would be willing to wait a week. Those are both entirely reasonable proposals to solve Royal Caribbean's problem. the OP did not cause the problem and yet seemed to accept either of two solutions. the cruiseline, which is responsible for the problem, did not work with the OP.

 

To me, the only reason price is relevant is that, if the price was low, the decision to refund the money rather than damaging the brand is so, so easy. Preserving the company's reputation is worth more than the cost of refunding an OV gty price on a short cruise. brain dead decision.

 

on a side note, a few weeks ago, another posters referred to the staff of the revenue department as "trolls". At the time, calling revenue staff an unattractive name bothered me. Now, afte rthe way revenue treated this poster, I am inclined to think "troll" was too kind. (Prof, please accept my apology for thinking the term too harse; I see your point more clearly today). The person in revenue who refused to refund the cruise when the cruiseline could not meet its gty obligation should be canned...or perhaps re-assigned to cleaning the can.

[goodml]

Despite the fact that it looks like you were kinda screwed, go with the attitude that you will have a blast - and you most likely will.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I actually love this post.:D

[goodml]

Unless the definition of Guarantee has been changed to Possibility, then RCI needs to make this right. They sold a guarantee.

 

And this one. Love.:D

[BlueRiband]

This is from the Glossary on RCI's website:

 

GUARANTEE STATEROOM

An assurance that you will be assigned the stateroom category you select.

 

GUARANTEED LANGUAGE

The language you select a Shore Excursions to be conducted in.

 

GUARANTEES

The commitment that a stateroom in the same category as that purchased will be assigned. If one is not available, a stateroom in the next category of greater value will be assigned.

 

Makes no difference whether the OP paid $109ppd or $1.09ppd. RCI sold this as an OV guarantee and isn't honoring their own contract language. There are no circumstances where I would want to stay in an inside and would have wanted a 100% fare refund.

[RocketMan275]

First of all, I want to assure everyone that I fully support the OP and believe RCI should have been much more generous.

 

That said, here's a couple of points:

 

Can anyone show me the specific clause in the contract between RCI and poster that was violated?

 

Can anyone show me where the contract would prohibit RCI from treating the OP differently had he booked a non-guarantee cabin, ie, suppose he'd booked a mini-suite, what prevents RCI from moving him down to balcony?

 

Here's a link to the contract.

 

http://media.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/RoyalCaribbean_Cruise_Ticket_Contract_013114.pdf

[orville99]

The section you want is:

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

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.

 

First of all, I want to assure everyone that I fully support the OP and believe RCI should have been much more generous.

 

That said, here's a couple of points:

 

Can anyone show me the specific clause in the contract between RCI and poster that was violated?

 

Can anyone show me where the contract would prohibit RCI from treating the OP differently had he booked a non-guarantee cabin, ie, suppose he'd booked a mini-suite, what prevents RCI from moving him down to balcony?

 

Here's a link to the contract.

 

http://media.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/RoyalCaribbean_Cruise_Ticket_Contract_013114.pdf

 

I believe the section I quoted above is the applicable language that RCL would fall back on, if challenged.

[marci22]

I believe the section I quoted above is the applicable language that RCL would fall back on, if challenged.

 

It might be in their contract that they are able to change accommodations to a lower class, but it would be disastrous for business if they were to do it.

 

Imagine if customers saw people booking guarantees and being given lower categories than what were promised. The bottom would fall out of their guarantee business.

 

Anyway, when you are booking the guarantee, it states something like 'this category or higher'. Says nothing about possibly getting a lower category.

 

I think OP is just talking to people who aren't capable. You would think that someone would always be available to take care of problems like this.

Edited August 31, 2014 by marci22

[Beachammo]

A lot of great suggestions.....

 

Where is the OP?

[RocketMan275]

I believe the section I quoted above is the applicable language that RCL would fall back on, if challenged.

 

Which says (using contract lingo). We sort of promise to take you somewhere, sometime on some ship leaving from some port and returning to some port which may not be the same port on some date more or less maybe. We can change anything we want to and we're not liable for any changes we decide to make. We may offer compensation of an amount we determine but we're not obligated to do so. You can't sue us except for injury/illness/death. You give up all your rights and your only recourse is to appeal to the arbitrators we choose.

[iancal]

The best company that I ever worked for had lots of contracts. Contracts for technology, for IP, for everything.

 

Six months after starting we had an issue with a customer. A senior exec (to me at that time) joined the discussion as to what the solution should be, company liability, etc. Several participants talked contract.

 

Finally, this senior VP turned to me and said...you are the closest person to the customer-what is the RIGHT thing to do. And that is what we did...the right thing. Never bothered with the contract. It is how this company became successful.

Edited August 31, 2014 by iancal

[RocketMan275]

It might be in their contract that they are able to change accommodations to a lower class, but it would be disastrous for business if they were to do it.

 

Imagine if customers saw people booking guarantees and being given lower categories than what were promised. The bottom would fall out of their guarantee business.

 

Anyway, when you are booking the guarantee, it states something like 'this category or higher'. Says nothing about possibly getting a lower category.

 

I think OP is just talking to people who aren't capable. You would think that someone would always be available to take care of problems like this.

 

It is only disastrous if the cruise line doesn't offer fair and reasonable compensation. While we don't have all the details some have provided some numbers that imply the actual on-board costs of this cruise to the OP approached zero.

 

I don't think you saw my other point that this doesn't have a thing to do with guarantees. If the OP had booked an Ocean-view, not an Ocean-view guarantee but an Ocean-view, there is nothing in the contract that would have prevented RCI from moving him to an inside. They would have to adjust the price but that is about all that would be required.

 

It really doesn't matter what the booking says (or the cruise glossary) since those are not part of the contract. The booking process does refer you to the contract to which you must agree.

 

BTW, almost all cruise line contracts are written in pretty much the same manner. The cruise lines have been doing this for a very long time and they know how to write contracts that protect themselves.

 

Just as a side note, a couple of months after I booked a suite on another cruise line (not RCI), I found that the cruise line had sold the entire cruise to a 100% charter. For several weeks this other cruise line sold cruises to the general public for the same date, the same itinerary, and the same ship when that other cruise line had already agreed to charter.

[RocketMan275]

The best company that I ever worked for had lots of contracts. Contracts for technology, for IP, for everything.

 

Six months after starting we had an issue with a customer. A senior exec (to me at that time) joined the discussion as to what the solution should be, company liability, etc. Several participants talked contract.

 

Finally, this senior VP turned to me and said...you are the closest person to the customer-what is the RIGHT thing to do. And that is what we did...the right thing. Never bothered with the contract. It is how this company became successful.

 

I agree completely. I was not in any manner defending RCI. I was only pointing out in response to many who had made claims about 'the contract' that 'the contract' did not obligate RCI to do any of the things they thought it did. My point was you do need to read the contract.

 

The senior VP was really talking about compensation to avoid losing a valued customer or to avoid damages to the companies reputation. We don't know the particulars of this case or whether RCI ultimately made the OP happy. However, in this case giving the OP an Ocean-view would have meant taking an Ocean-view from another passenger. What is the right thing?

[orville99]

It might be in their contract that they are able to change accommodations to a lower class, but it would be disastrous for business if they were to do it.

 

Imagine if customers saw people booking guarantees and being given lower categories than what were promised. The bottom would fall out of their guarantee business.

 

Anyway, when you are booking the guarantee, it states something like 'this category or higher'. Says nothing about possibly getting a lower category.

 

I think OP is just talking to people who aren't capable. You would think that someone would always be available to take care of problems like this.

 

Agree. But then, RCL hasn't shown itself to be a bastion of competence lately, so nothing that they do surprises me anymore.;)

 

Which says (using contract lingo). We sort of promise to take you somewhere, sometime on some ship leaving from some port and returning to some port which may not be the same port on some date more or less maybe. We can change anything we want to and we're not liable for any changes we decide to make. We may offer compensation of an amount we determine but we're not obligated to do so. You can't sue us except for injury/illness/death. You give up all your rights and your only recourse is to appeal to the arbitrators we choose.

 

In a word, Yes;)

 

BTW, you'll find similar wording in virtually every hotel contract (other than the ship and port stuff) that gives the hotel the right to "walk" you if they overbook - but then no one reads those contracts either.

[marci22]

It is only disastrous if the cruise line doesn't offer fair and reasonable compensation. While we don't have all the details some have provided some numbers that imply the actual on-board costs of this cruise to the OP approached zero.

 

I don't think you saw my other point that this doesn't have a thing to do with guarantees. If the OP had booked an Ocean-view, not an Ocean-view guarantee but an Ocean-view, there is nothing in the contract that would have prevented RCI from moving him to an inside. They would have to adjust the price but that is about all that would be required.

 

It really doesn't matter what the booking says (or the cruise glossary) since those are not part of the contract. The booking process does refer you to the contract to which you must agree.

 

BTW, almost all cruise line contracts are written in pretty much the same manner. The cruise lines have been doing this for a very long time and they know how to write contracts that protect themselves.

 

Just as a side note, a couple of months after I booked a suite on another cruise line (not RCI), I found that the cruise line had sold the entire cruise to a 100% charter. For several weeks this other cruise line sold cruises to the general public for the same date, the same itinerary, and the same ship when that other cruise line had already agreed to charter.

 

If OP doesn't want it, it's not 'fair and reasonable'. He should be allowed to cancel with no penalties if he doesn't agree to their 'deal', as they are not able to provide him with his promised category of cabin.

[marci22]

However, in this case giving the OP an Ocean-view would have meant taking an Ocean-view from another passenger. What is the right thing?

 

OP requested a refund or a future cruise in his category. Seems simple enough.