Consumer advocate article: "This is what happens when you're kicked off your cruise"

[sail7seas]

May I suggest one area of disagreement?

 

 

 

While Captain has absolute authority on the ship, Captains do answer to their 'home office, ship's owner and Coast Guard, Ship's doctor may be one who has standing to 'advise' captain what is in best interest of an ill or injured person

 

 

 

 

While cpatain makes decsion as to diverting ship, evaucation at sea and the like, doctor says what is best choice.

[Sea girl 23]

I am curious, SeaGirl 23.

 

I see you are fairly new on CC (nothing wrong with that).

 

What is your cruising experience? Have you ever cruised? Have you ever cruised on HAL or have a HAL cruise booked?

 

You offer many opinions, but are any actually based on actual experience?

 

Are you a trained worker in any medical field dealing with mental health and personality traits or or your assessment of poster personalities on various threads just gratuitous comments?

 

Please let us know more about you so we can perhaps give you the information you might be here for.

 

1) I do NOT have a cruise booked.(why that matters I have no idea.Anyone who is fighting back against some of the personalities here(more about that in a minute!) is suspect.Riiiiight.

 

2)I have been cruising with HAL since 2008.Probably not nearly as long as some here who go on and on about "the good old days" of HAL.:rolleyes:

 

3)So..I've been here long enough that I can recognise certain..types of people(not referring to the person thrown off the ship here).They certainly..make themselves known..that is for sure.

[OlsSalt]

1) I do NOT have a cruise booked.(why that matters I have no idea.Anyone who is fighting back against some of the personalities here(more about that in a minute!) is suspect.Riiiiight.

 

2)I have been cruising with HAL since 2008.Probably not nearly as long as some here who go on and on about "the good old days" of HAL.:rolleyes:

 

3)So..I've been here long enough that I can recognise certain..types of people(not referring to the person thrown off the ship here).They certainly..make themselves known..that is for sure.

 

Of course, this was just one old dead white dude, but what he said remains valid:

Mark Twain quote, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

Your penance shall be to read Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Another old, dead white dude, but still a good classic for situations like you find yourself in ...constantly.

[Homosassa]

1) I do NOT have a cruise booked.(why that matters I have no idea.Anyone who is fighting back against some of the personalities here(more about that in a minute!) is suspect.Riiiiight.

 

2)I have been cruising with HAL since 2008.Probably not nearly as long as some here who go on and on about "the good old days" of HAL.:rolleyes:

 

3)So..I've been here long enough that I can recognise certain..types of people(not referring to the person thrown off the ship here).They certainly..make themselves known..that is for sure.

 

Thank you.

 

Some of us now how the information needed to assess your contributions to the forum.

[Aquahound]

An important lesson for everyone to learn, the Captain is the Judge and Jury of all issues. Good or bad, he or she doesn't have to answer to anyone and their decisions are final.

...

One needs to remember that once you walk onto a cruise ship, the "innocent until proven guilty" is not in effect, you are under the command of the Captain and the rules of the US do not apply.

 

That is not totally accurate in the cruise industry. The Captain is master of a ship operated by a passenger revenue generating corporation. Maritime crime is my field of work and I have worked directly with every major cruise line. In every case I've been involved, by internal policy, the Captain gained concurrence from the head office prior to removing persons from the ship.

 

One another thing. This isn't so much on European cruises, but on cruises that begin and end in the US, there are many US laws that can apply.

[Etta1213]

I wonder if both would have been forced off the ship if, for example, two friends, not a "couple," had simply shared a cabin. Is the person not accused of any wrongdoing forced off routinely?? If simply cruising buddies avoiding high single supplement expenses? Should the innocent party, at least, receive a refund?? Or would refund imply blame on the part of the cruise line?

If wife had believed husband had acted assaultively and was fed up with his behavior, wanting to finish the cruise, would she have been forced off??

[sail7seas]

I wonder if both would have been forced off the ship if, for example, two friends, not a "couple," had simply shared a cabin. Is the person not accused of any wrongdoing forced off routinely?? If simply cruising buddies avoiding high single supplement expenses? Should the innocent party, at least, receive a refund?? Or would refund imply blame on the part of the cruise line?

If wife had believed husband had acted assaultively and was fed up with his behavior, wanting to finish the cruise, would she have been forced off??

 

 

 

Hypotheticals have too many possi ble variables for us to do anything but guess, as to your question.

[sail7seas]

I wonder if both would have been forced off the ship if, for example, two friends, not a "couple," had simply shared a cabin. Is the person not accused of any wrongdoing forced off routinely?? If simply cruising buddies avoiding high single supplement expenses? Should the innocent party, at least, receive a refund?? Or would refund imply blame on the part of the cruise line? If wife had believed husband had acted assaultively and was fed up with his behavior, wanting to finish the cruise, would she have been forced off??

Hypotheticals have too many possi ble variables for us to do anything but guess, as to your question.

[Leejnd4]

For the record - if you read the article fully, the wife clearly states that it was not them involved in the incident, and that her husband was misidentified.

 

Obviously none of us know for sure if that's true or not, but given how hard the couple is working to clear his name, and how they are begging to be shown the video and have even offered to take a lie detector test, it seems to me their claim is quite believable.

 

I'm shocked and saddened to see so many people in here automatically assuming that HAL is in the right and the couple is lying. How would YOU feel if you weren't involved in an incident, were misidentified as being involved, and then tossed off your cruise? Because there appears to be a very strong possibility that's exactly what happened.

[Aquahound]

Because there appears to be a very strong possibility that's exactly what happened.

 

It'll take a lot more than this one account from a person who was not even present for the incident to get me across the threshold of "strong possibility" it happened.

[Leejnd4]

It'll take a lot more than this one account from a person who was not even present for the incident to get me across the threshold of "strong possibility" it happened.

 

So "common sense" doesn't qualify? How about the fact that the couple are actively seeking the video from which he was supposedly identified? Wouldn't that seem to indicate they are pretty darn sure it will exonerate him? :rolleyes:

[sail7seas]

By the time the story is repeated dozens of tmes, veRY few accurate facts remain unchanged.

[Fouremco]

For the record - if you read the article fully, the wife clearly states that it was not them involved in the incident, and that her husband was misidentified.

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013. Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 were on probation or on parole. Any bets on how many of them claimed to be innocent too?

 

Given the gravity of the decision and the probability that Mrs. Chan's husband would have been given the benefit of the doubt had the investigation, witness accounts and available evidence been inconclusive, I'm more inclined to go with the Captain's conclusion.

[Leejnd4]

By the time the story is repeated dozens of tmes, veRY few accurate facts remain unchanged.

 

It wasn't "repeated dozens of times". It was written about by a consumer advocate and journalist who clearly reported the story exactly as it was told by those who were involved. But you do whatever you have to do to believe that HAL is right and the couple is lying. Par for the course.

 

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013. Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 were on probation or on parole. Any bets on how many of them claimed to be innocent too?

 

Given the gravity of the decision and the probability that Mrs. Chan's husband would have been given the benefit of the doubt had the investigation, witness accounts and available evidence been inconclusive, I'm more inclined to go with the Captain's conclusion.

 

Of course you're going to say that. I would expect nothing less. Cruise Critic Cruise-Line Die Hards will always take the side of the cruise line, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

 

I tend to take a more balanced viewpoint - I see no reason to give HAL's word more weight than the couple. But you do you.

[bEwAbG]

So "common sense" doesn't qualify? How about the fact that the couple are actively seeking the video from which he was supposedly identified? Wouldn't that seem to indicate they are pretty darn sure it will exonerate him? :rolleyes:

 

When you've been on the other side of these types of situations (knowing the truth but having someone deny it with a straight face), I think it's easier to side with the company. Most companies go through a very deliberative process before taking any action that might gain press attention.

[chengkp75]

That is not totally accurate in the cruise industry. The Captain is master of a ship operated by a passenger revenue generating corporation. Maritime crime is my field of work and I have worked directly with every major cruise line. In every case I've been involved, by internal policy, the Captain gained concurrence from the head office prior to removing persons from the ship.

 

One another thing. This isn't so much on European cruises, but on cruises that begin and end in the US, there are many US laws that can apply.

 

Not only the cruise industry, Paul, but all ships, as I feel you know. The Master's "overriding authority" only pertains to the safety of the vessel and the environment. Removal of a passenger for violation of a corporate policy would be covered under the ISM Code, and as you say, this would normally require approval from corporate, written into the ISM.

[Homosassa]

For the record - if you read the article fully, the wife clearly states that it was not them involved in the incident, and that her husband was misidentified.

 

Obviously none of us know for sure if that's true or not, but given how hard the couple is working to clear his name, and how they are begging to be shown the video and have even offered to take a lie detector test, it seems to me their claim is quite believable.

 

I'm shocked and saddened to see so many people in here automatically assuming that HAL is in the right and the couple is lying. How would YOU feel if you weren't involved in an incident, were misidentified as being involved, and then tossed off your cruise? Because there appears to be a very strong possibility that's exactly what happened.

 

I find the article to be very carefully written. The only thing that the wife is trying to prove is that her husband did not push the crew member ("the incident").

 

Nowhere is it stated that the couple was not present and not part of a group that seemed to feel that they could bully their way off the ship.

[chengkp75]

So "common sense" doesn't qualify? How about the fact that the couple are actively seeking the video from which he was supposedly identified? Wouldn't that seem to indicate they are pretty darn sure it will exonerate him? :rolleyes:

 

Once a lawyer is involved, "common sense" is a non-starter. How about the lawyer wants the video to show that there is "reasonable doubt" that the person is the one accused. This is a tactic used in court hundreds of times every day. Not saying HAL is right without a doubt, but not saying these folks are right either. Since this incident happened in a foreign country's waters (ship was in port), US claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction does not apply (only for US citizens in international waters), so the investigation was performed per Dutch law (as the flag state), and no one here knows what the requirements of Dutch law are regarding disclosing evidence in an investigation like this. Obviously, HAL complied with their ISM Code, which is an international requirement for a code of policies that covers virtually every aspect of a shipping company's operation, before the decision was made to remove the couple. And, obviously, this section of the ISM Code has been vetted by HAL's legal department.

[Leejnd4]

I find the article to be very carefully written. The only thing that the wife is trying to prove is that her husband did not push the crew member ("the incident").

 

Nowhere is it stated that the couple was not present and not part of a group that seemed to feel that they could bully their way off the ship.

 

Regardless of how it's written, I still find it quite telling that the majority of commenters in here immediately jump to the conclusion that HAL was in the right and the couple is lying. But I do realize that's pretty standard in these parts. ;)

 

Once a lawyer is involved, "common sense" is a non-starter. How about the lawyer wants the video to show that there is "reasonable doubt" that the person is the one accused. This is a tactic used in court hundreds of times every day. Not saying HAL is right without a doubt, but not saying these folks are right either. Since this incident happened in a foreign country's waters (ship was in port), US claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction does not apply (only for US citizens in international waters), so the investigation was performed per Dutch law (as the flag state), and no one here knows what the requirements of Dutch law are regarding disclosing evidence in an investigation like this. Obviously, HAL complied with their ISM Code, which is an international requirement for a code of policies that covers virtually every aspect of a shipping company's operation, before the decision was made to remove the couple. And, obviously, this section of the ISM Code has been vetted by HAL's legal department.

 

Well at least you're among the few who is willing to acknowledge that it's entirely possible the couple isn't lying! So kudos to you for that.

 

That being said, the couple did try to resolve this without a lawyer first, and given that they asked for the video, that would seem to indicate that they felt pretty confident the video would exonerate them.

 

Bottom line: none of us know the truth. We can only speculate given what little information has been presented. I just find it interesting that in here, the evidence that would seem to indicate they are innocent was completely ignored, and the vast majority of commenters immediately assumed they are lying.

 

At first I was surprised, but upon reflection I'm not at all. It's long been my experience on Cruise Critic that woe be the person who deigns to criticize someone's beloved cruise line. I know because it's happened to me. ;p

[Leejnd4]

Nowhere is it stated that the couple was not present and not part of a group that seemed to feel that they could bully their way off the ship.

 

Oh, and one more comment.

 

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet this "incident" had to do with the cruise ship refusing to let passengers with private tours leave the ship in time to meet their tour guides.

 

This is an ugly practice that some cruise lines use to try to get more passengers to use their own overly-expensive excursions. I encountered this on my own Baltics cruise...which was not on HAL, but in my research I learned that pretty much all the cruise lines pull the same dirty tricks.

 

First they will lie to us, telling us that if we don't go on their high-priced tours, we will need to get an expensive, difficult-to-obtain Russian Visa or Russian checkpoint officials won't let us off the ship. This is, of course, bull - as long as your private tour guide is legally registered, all you need are your tour tickets and you can waltz right through the checkpoint.

 

Once we learn that we absolutely CAN book private tours, their next tactic is to force pax with private tours to wait for hours to exit the ship until all the pax on the ship tours are off. That is an ugly and totally unnecessary tactic, designed just to penalize those who didn't pay the jacked-up prices for the ship tours. There is no reason private-tour passengers can't be allowed off in St. Petersburg just as they are at many other ports worldwide. There's no tenders, and the checkpoints run smoothly.

 

On our Baltics cruise, we booked a private van with two other couples, in which we were able to set our own itinerary and visit twice the number of sites, with only six of us, compared to the ship tour which had dozens of pax crammed into huge buses and cost twice what we paid.

 

So I can certainly understand the frustration of passengers who paid for private excursions and are being "bullied" themselves into not being allowed to take them. Not that I would ever condone any kind of physical altercation, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that's what let to the incident. I can imagine that scores of private-tour pax were standing around, seeing that there were no lines in the checkpoints, and yet not being allowed off the ship. That would make me mad too. We were told that would happen to us on our cruise, but we were lucky enough to not be detained, and were allowed off at the same time as the ship tour pax.

[OlsSalt]

Oh, and one more comment.

 

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet this "incident" had to do with the cruise ship refusing to let passengers with private tours leave the ship in time to meet their tour guides.

 

This is an ugly practice that some cruise lines use to try to get more passengers to use their own overly-expensive excursions. I encountered this on my own Baltics cruise...which was not on HAL, but in my research I learned that pretty much all the cruise lines pull the same dirty tricks.

 

First they will lie to us, telling us that if we don't go on their high-priced tours, we will need to get an expensive, difficult-to-obtain Russian Visa or Russian checkpoint officials won't let us off the ship. This is, of course, bull - as long as your private tour guide is legally registered, all you need are your tour tickets and you can waltz right through the checkpoint.

 

Once we learn that we absolutely CAN book private tours, their next tactic is to force pax with private tours to wait for hours to exit the ship until all the pax on the ship tours are off. That is an ugly and totally unnecessary tactic, designed just to penalize those who didn't pay the jacked-up prices for the ship tours. There is no reason private-tour passengers can't be allowed off in St. Petersburg just as they are at many other ports worldwide. There's no tenders, and the checkpoints run smoothly.

 

On our Baltics cruise, we booked a private van with two other couples, in which we were able to set our own itinerary and visit twice the number of sites, with only six of us, compared to the ship tour which had dozens of pax crammed into huge buses and cost twice what we paid.

 

So I can certainly understand the frustration of passengers who paid for private excursions and are being "bullied" themselves into not being allowed to take them. Not that I would ever condone any kind of physical altercation, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that's what let to the incident. I can imagine that scores of private-tour pax were standing around, seeing that there were no lines in the checkpoints, and yet not being allowed off the ship. That would make me mad too. We were told that would happen to us on our cruise, but we were lucky enough to not be detained, and were allowed off at the same time as the ship tour pax.

 

You just jumped the shark. Thanks for sharing your insights. Hopefully you will find a more accommodating cruise line that, from your perspective, does not willfully abuse its passengers.

[sail7seas]

Oh Boy, Wow ! :)

[taxmantoo]

I'm just speculating here....

The only sentence in that post that actually made sense! All downhill after that ;)

[Fouremco]

It wasn't "repeated dozens of times". It was written about by a consumer advocate and journalist who clearly reported the story exactly as it was told by those who were involved. But you do whatever you have to do to believe that HAL is right and the couple is lying. Par for the course.

 

No, not as told by "those who were involved" but by the wife of one of several people involved in the incident. She has no idea what happened, other that what she has been told.

The author has also sensationalized the narrative rather than reporting objectively. For example, the written explanation provided to Mrs. Chan states "As a result, a staff member required medical attention." This medical attention could have been as simple as checking out a bump on the head or applying a Band-Aid to a minor cut, but the author chooses to employ a bit of hyperbole: "If Holland America believes that Chan’s husband injured a crew member so severely that he needed medical treatment..."

 

Of course you're going to say that. I would expect nothing less. Cruise Critic Cruise-Line Die Hards will always take the side of the cruise line, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

 

You clearly haven't read many of my posts, as I was also accused of being a HAL hater recently, when I criticized the cruise line. I simply call 'em as I see 'em, with no bias one way or the other.

 

I think we're all waiting to see any "evidence".

 

I tend to take a more balanced viewpoint - I see no reason to give HAL's word more weight than the couple. But you do you.

Yet you concluded in your initial post that "their claim is quite believable" and chastise those who believe the ship's Captain.

If you have this much distrust of HAL's captains and crews, you might want to cruise elsewhere.

[Leejnd4]

The only sentence in that post that actually made sense! All downhill after that ;)

 

My post makes perfect sense, for anyone who is willing and able to actually hear and recognize truth. Every sentence is grammatically correct, and the experiences I related did, in fact, occur exactly as I related them. (Although I do realize being willing to recognize and/or accept truth is a trait that is in short supply these days! LOL!)

 

If you have this much distrust of HAL's captains and crews, you might want to cruise elsewhere.

 

I do, but thanks. ;)