Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I object!

 

"Y'all are out order, this thread is out of order, everyone is out of order. I just completed my opening statement."

 

circa 1979, "And Justice for All", RedneckBob impersonating Al Pacino.

 

I like this one:

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Link to post
Share on other sites
So do I, especially an explanation as to why the individuals involved were not identified and detained at the time of the incident if it was significant enough to warrant a passenger being ejected from the cruise.

 

How do you know any of the follow-up details about this incident? A remote 3P news article is the sole source we are all arguing about right now.

 

You know the old saying, if you can't win on the facts, win on the law and if you can't win on the law discredit the evidence. And it you can't impugn the evidence then pound on the table and shout as loud as you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[/color][/i][/font]But that doesn't mean HAL isn't going to end up looking bad or in small claims court. United Airlines had every right to have Chicago Department of Aviation officers remove David Dao from Flight 3411, but look how that turned out.

Are you suggesting that the Chan's screamed as officers pulled them out of their cabin, hit their faces during the struggle, and that crew members then dragged them by their arms, apparently unconscious, down the gangplank past rows of onlooking passengers? According to passenger eyewitness accounts, did the crew members laugh as the Chan's were dragged off the ship?

 

If not, comparing the Dao case to that of the Chan's borders on the absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that the Chan's screamed as officers pulled them out of their cabin, hit their faces during the struggle, and that crew members then dragged them by their arms, apparently unconscious, down the gangplank past rows of onlooking passengers? According to passenger eyewitness accounts, did the crew members laugh as the Chan's were dragged off the ship?

 

If not, comparing the Dao case to that of the Chan's is borders on the absurd.

 

In some ways, there may be reasonable comparisons -- if you look at the evidence of drama that surrounded this incident. But that is cautionary opinion only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that the Chan's screamed as officers pulled them out of their cabin, hit their faces during the struggle, and that crew members then dragged them by their arms, apparently unconscious, down the gangplank past rows of onlooking passengers? According to passenger eyewitness accounts, did the crew members laugh as the Chan's were dragged off the ship?

 

If not, comparing the Dao case to that of the Chan's is borders on the absurd.

 

I didn't say the two were the same factually. I have no idea where you came up with that. My point, which it appears you chose to avoid, is that a company can do something that it is entitled to do, but ends up making it look bad in the long run. Is it your contention that is not true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know any of the follow-up details about this incident? A remote 3P news article is the sole source we are all arguing about right now.

 

You know the old saying, if you can't win on the facts, win on the law and if you can't win on the law discredit the evidence. And it you can't impugn the evidence then pound on the table and shout as loud as you can.

 

You're doing an excellent job of it. The difference is I realize what I am saying is opinion, but you seem to appear to believe what you are saying is fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say the two were the same factually. I have no idea where you came up with that. My point, which it appears you chose to avoid, is that a company can do something that it is entitled to do, but ends up making it look bad in the long run. Is it your contention that is not true?

 

Your contention is on point - just look at the New Coke analogy. Or even the new HAL website - they had right and perhaps even a duty to make the website more user friendly. Yet it made them look bad.

 

In this case however, not any evidence that HAL did not both do the right thing and it was the right thing even from a public relations standpoint. But that is only if they stay ahead of the ever-ready arm-chair lawyers who have already drawn and quartered them, in abstentia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say the two were the same factually. I have no idea where you came up with that. My point, which it appears you chose to avoid, is that a company can do something that it is entitled to do, but ends up making it look bad in the long run. Is it your contention that is not true?

Of course, but if you are going to cite a case for the sake of comparison, at least find one that is similar in nature. The one you chose had nothing to do with the justification for removal, which is the issue here, but with the violent nature the removal itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that HAL ships are flagged out of the Netherlands and come under Dutch maritime law. The incident occurred in Russia and could also come under Russian jurisdiction. Making a claim against HAL in the US for an incident on board in Russian waters is likely a non-starter. In addition, as many have stated, the Captain/Master has the last word on security on board the ship and can remove anyone he/she deems a security problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, but if you are going to cite a case for the sake of comparison, at least find one that is similar in nature. The one you chose had nothing to do with the justification for removal, which is the issue here, but with the violent nature the removal itself.

 

I chose one that was relatively recent and well publicized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're doing an excellent job of it. The difference is I realize what I am saying is opinion, but you seem to appear to believe what you are saying is fact.

 

The fact is we are all using a 3P article as a launching pad for this discussion.. And apparently playing by Calvin Ball Rules as we discuss what did or not happen in this reported incident from that single source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is we are all using a 3P article as a launching pad for this discussion.. And apparently playing by Calvin Ball Rules as we discuss what did or not happen in this reported incident from that single source.
Right ... one very biased source.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case however, not any evidence that HAL did not both do the right thing and it was the right thing even from a public relations standpoint. But that is only if they stay ahead of the ever-ready arm-chair lawyers who have already drawn and quartered them, in abstentia.

 

That's fair. You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to HAL. I suspect the opposite is the case. Both of us are entitled to our opinion.

 

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." - Dr. Ian Macolm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crystal Pepsi?

 

LOL, forgot about that one. A new performing hall in Orange County once sold only clear-colored drinks during intermission because they did not want carpet stains. Crystal Pepsi was made to order for that criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fair. You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to HAL. I suspect the opposite is the case. Both of us are entitled to our opinion.

 

I think it all comes down to evidence -- if there is proof of wrongdoing, then why not produce it? Otherwise, the possibility of misidentification will serve to plant some lingering doubt. Surely every accused person should have that right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if there is proof of wrongdoing, then why not produce it?

 

If a video exists, then there are probably other pax visable on the tape. I feel that privacy laws would prohibit the release of the video, unless ordered by a court of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a video exists, then there are probably other pax visable on the tape. I feel that privacy laws would prohibit the release of the video, unless ordered by a court of law.

It's the ship's video. The only person they have to show to it is the judge, if the passenger actually sues them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it all comes down to evidence -- if there is proof of wrongdoing, then why not produce it? Otherwise, the possibility of misidentification will serve to plant some lingering doubt. Surely every accused person should have that right.

 

Agree, although unlike some on this blog we admit to having no clue to who is telling the truth. But we keep coming back to the fact that HAL is encouraging the OP to cruise on a future cruise. Why? If the story is as was related by HAL, we cannot accept that these folks would not banned from the cruise line.

 

Hank

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree, although unlike some on this blog we admit to having no clue to who is telling the truth. But we keep coming back to the fact that HAL is encouraging the OP to cruise on a future cruise. Why? If the story is as was related by HAL, we cannot accept that these folks would not banned from the cruise line.

 

Hank

We'll never know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that those two sentences were simply boilerplate text that HAL forgot to delete.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll never know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that those two sentences were simply boilerplate text that HAL forgot to delete.

 

It's just a guess on my part, but I do suspect you are correct ;)

 

A notification they are banned would have come separately - perhaps on board or when they got home. I doubt that the Chans would admit to that or submit it for publication - but, again, I am guessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a video exists, then there are probably other pax visable on the tape. I feel that privacy laws would prohibit the release of the video, unless ordered by a court of law.

 

 

Well presumably the Chans would have seen the other pax as they were disembarking, so I'm not sure how privacy enters into the equation. The video need not be released to the general public, but I still feel that the "accused" should be given the opportunity to view it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who thinks there isn’t a video, you’re fooling yourself. There are for sure multiple angles even. There are cameras all over that ship and especially where you get off or on. I would be a camera in each corner, and probably a couple others on top of that. About the only place with more camera coverage than that area of the ship is the casino. The chances this is a misidentification is so infinitesimally small as to approach zero.

 

Why isn’t HAL releasing the video? A better question is why would they? Ejecting a passenger is not something taken lightly and They are well aware this will in all likelihood end up in court. That’s when they will pull out the multiple videos that will clearly identify the people responsible. They do it there, the case gets dismissed with prejudice and the Chans can never refile again. There is nothing to be gained by releasing the video until they have to release the video. There is nothing to be gained by releasing the video until it can be used to maximum effect. This is what happens when you move from dealing with customer service to dealing with the legal department.

 

As for the letter, boilerplate. Nothing else. I’ve seen similar letter where there was so much disregard for really anything where there was still the open fields that the company failed to fill in from the mail merge.

 

But there is at least one video and probably more like 6 or 8 different views of the incident. Go to your local Walmart and just look around and it will surprise you how many cameras there are. And that’s just a Walmart. There are cameras almost everywhere on a ship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...