Princess pulled the bait and switch on our beverage package. Do I have any recourse?

[SharkieRools]

Both my 28 day cruise last October and the 14 day cruise last March were originally the AIBP. Both were changed to the PBP. Not an issue for us. Yes, we felt it was unfair to change what was promised. It really didn't affect us negatively at all.

 

We booked under Sip and Sail for our upcoming November cruise which was changed from AIBP to the PBP as well. The only issue I see is we used to like ordering a large Pellegrino with dinner, now we'll just keep ordering small ones as needed.

[justafem]

I copied this entire post, does that make you feel better?

 

They DID receive what they paid for under the original agreement which states: "Terms and conditions of the All-Inclusive Beverage Package are subject to change."

 

Keep spouting nonsense, that'll make you right.

 

 

 

I know credit card rules and if the OP decides to do a chargeback, they will win. It has nothing to do with princesses terms, it's all about credit card acceptance and the change to the terms after accepting payment.

 

Consumers should know their rights and this is definitely one of the times the customer is right. What they choose to do with that information is their choice.

 

Princess has in their contract that they can do whatever they want (see my example of the food). Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair and doesn't make it unchallengeable.

 

The same argument can be made for the coffee cards!

 

These posts are going to disappear soon. I'm out.

[SharkieRools]

I know credit card rules and if the OP decides to do a chargeback, they will win. It has nothing to do with princesses terms, it's all about credit card acceptance and the change to the terms after accepting payment.

 

Consumers should know their rights and this is definitely one of the times the customer is right. What they choose to do with that information is their choice.

 

Princess has in their contract that they can do whatever they want (see my example of the food). Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair and doesn't make it unchallengeable.

 

The same argument can be made for the coffee cards!

 

These posts are going to disappear soon. I'm out.

 

Yes, we've seen a plethora of posts of how successful everyone has been challenging the change from AIBP to PBP :rolleyes:

 

In any case - it looks like the OP real complaint is about the miscommunication from the front desk that the package was limited to 15 total alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks a day and the apparent enforcement of these limitations. Still would be interesting to know which ship/sailing this occurred on.

[Bill B]

I find it difficult to believe the bartenders enforced a 15 per day limit on all drinks: non-alcohol and alcohol. If they had, would there not be a huge outcry from almost all pax with the beverage package?

[USCcruisecrazy]

I copied this entire post, does that make you feel better?

 

They DID receive what they paid for under the original agreement which states: "Terms and conditions of the All-Inclusive Beverage Package are subject to change."

 

Keep spouting nonsense, that'll make you right.

 

You are exactly right. It's called Terms and Conditions and there is no semantics issue involved. If someone doesn't read the small print and still signs the paper, they are responsible for the outcome. Princess could have maybe done more to those effected by the change, but it was not an obligation on their part. Arguing with faulty logic (like they may limit you to 2 meals) is hilarious. No where in the contract does it state Princess may at any time limit your meals...but it did specifically state the drink package may be changed.

 

I would still like to know if the OP was actually turned away trying to order a drink when they had less than 15 alcoholic drinks or if they just assumed they couldn't have another. It just seems sort of strange.

[memoak]

I have been getting the AIBP or PBP either through a sip and sail promo or by buying the package on numerous ships. I average about 8 - 10 drinks a day plus at least 3 bottles of water, at least 3 mochas and several diet cokes.. I have never hit my limit on any ship even when I am in the casino till closing. I have trouble believing that only on this ship to these particular cabins had this issue.

[bemis12]

I have been getting the AIBP or PBP either through a sip and sail promo or by buying the package on numerous ships. I average about 8 - 10 drinks a day plus at least 3 bottles of water, at least 3 mochas and several diet cokes.. I have never hit my limit on any ship even when I am in the casino till closing. I have trouble believing that only on this ship to these particular cabins had this issue.

 

And yet, people that aren't you DO reach the limit, as evidenced by the fact that Princess felt the need to put in a limit.

[Cruiser411]

And yet, people that aren't you DO reach the limit, as evidenced by the fact that Princess felt the need to put in a limit.

 

I think the limit on alcoholic beverages is more to discourage sharing with the added benefit that a person probably won't be able to drink themselves to death.

[skennedy25]

The OP did not receive the drink package for free, it was PART of their cruise fare, and princess changed the terms after they accepted the OP's money. Which is all that's needed for a legitimate credit card chargeback.

 

Let's put this in different terms. You book a cruise and you're supposed to have unlimited food. But the cruise line changes their rules and suddenly says, you can ONLY have 2 meals a day, tracked by your card, included in your fare. All other food will be charged a la carte. You find this out after you've already gotten on the ship.

 

Now under those circumstances, would the pax be justified in "whining" (as other posters have stated) and doing a chargeback?

 

YES they did receive it for free an no it is not included in their cruise fare. If it is in luded in the cruise fare. Then it is on every cruise which it is not. I can tell you first hand, that 99.9% chance it isnt. Now if you want to see a cruiseline that charges when they have their promotions that in offer free stuff, look at RCL and Celebrity. They raise the cruise fare if you take the promo, princess doesnt.

 

The credit card doesn't come first. Did the customer take the cruise, yes. Did the customer use the beverage package, yes. Like any contract, you agreed to it before you pay for it. People need to read the fine print

[justafem]

YES they did receive it for free an no it is not included in their cruise fare. If it is in luded in the cruise fare. Then it is on every cruise which it is not. I can tell you first hand, that 99.9% chance it isnt. Now if you want to see a cruiseline that charges when they have their promotions that in offer free stuff, look at RCL and Celebrity. They raise the cruise fare if you take the promo, princess doesnt.

 

The credit card doesn't come first. Did the customer take the cruise, yes. Did the customer use the beverage package, yes. Like any contract, you agreed to it before you pay for it. People need to read the fine print

 

 

And in the small print, it says princess can change the terms at any point, for ANYTHING. So please re-read your contract.

 

I'm not going to change people's minds, but the all inclusive drink package was included in the total cruise fare, you can brand it however you see it, but it was PART of the price paid. Princess is notorious for raising the prices based on the "sale" that's offered. That change is enough to do a valid credit card chargeback. Any change is enough to warrant a chargeback. And they WILL win.

[jennybenny]

Hi Everyone, my family of 8 just recently sailed with Princess for the second time. Our cruise was last month and when we got our deposit confirmation, we had, in writing, that we had the SIP and SAIL promotion that came with an option of the "free all inclusive beverage package." This was July 4th, 2017 and our sail date was August 11, 2018. When we got on the boat, we were told by Reception that our "Free all inclusive beverage package" was now a "Premium" beverage package with drinks being capped at 15 per day. We were told this included coffee, water and soft drinks. I really feel this is a bait and switch. Members of my family hit their drink limit every day. I feel selling someone an "unlimited" drink package and then once on the boat, switching the package is a case of fraud. Do you think I have any recourse in this situation? During the cruise, I complained to reception but it did not get me anywhere. I didn't even think to show them the printed out deposit we had stating that we had the unlimited drink package. I also wrote to customer service through the online survey post cruise and have not heard anything. We will probably not sail Princess again. Any words of encouragement? Or is this just a lesson learned?

 

Sorry you feel it was bait n switch. A part of me does think they should have honored all bookings of the AIBP that were booked that way or prepaid that way, but I suspect it would have been a logistical nightmare. As it is, we had a cruise that they incorrectly counted our drinks. We suspected the error came when the bartender looked up our account by memory, he'd cancel, but I think it locked it up as a counted alcoholic beverage. We noticed right away and made sure we communicated the error to Princess. The first day we paid for our extra drinks, the second and third time, we did not. It did leave a sour taste in our mouth and DH is considering not getting the PBP on our next cruise, which will be a first. We complained on our survey as well and no one contacted us. I just figured they were getting bombarded by the same complaint last year.

My displeasure with the current PBP is not enough to make me leave Princess. It's the cruise lines that works best for our family, but I can understand your frustration.

The specialty coffee (non alcoholic), and small bottled water, both still and sparkling, should have been included. The large bottles, which were previously included with the AIBP were no longer included with the PBP. I feel the PBP is a much less attractive package now, but we enjoy treating our holiday as close to an all inclusive vacation as possible. We prepay everything we can, gratuity, drink packages for everyone, specialty dining, all with consideration to how much OBC we have. We will likely take on good wine on our next cruise, pay corkage fees and like I said, still on the fence with the PBP.

Don't let this one back experience keep you from Princess if you like everything else about it.

[HBCcruiser]

Current terms for PBP.

Clearly state that non-alcoholic drinks do not count toward the 15 limit count. Strange!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Expat Cruise]

Current terms for PBP.

Clearly state that non-alcoholic drinks do not count toward the 15 limit count. Strange!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

This whole line of posting is not on point for the OP question but if you want to bring new factors in we can.

 

Not really strange at all, the rules the OP booked under are not the same as the rules now. And if you want to talk about the rules now, it has a 15 drink limit not counting non alcoholic drinks. That is what the company says but in practice it seems some crew members do not know the rules or make up their own rules. Really very simple poor training by the company.

[julie3fan]

And in the small print, it says princess can change the terms at any point, for ANYTHING. So please re-read your contract.

 

I'm not going to change people's minds, but the all inclusive drink package was included in the total cruise fare, you can brand it however you see it, but it was PART of the price paid. Princess is notorious for raising the prices based on the "sale" that's offered. That change is enough to do a valid credit card chargeback. Any change is enough to warrant a chargeback. And they WILL win.

 

Justafem, I am in no way disputing what you're saying. I'm truly curious what your background is that lets you speak so surely about the chargeback being a sure thing. Do you work for a credit card company?

[caribill]

But many seem to be missing the point here. Doesn't matter if it is 15 drinks total, 15 alcohol alcohol drinks, or to many drinks, to little dinks, etc. The OP purchased a package that did not have a limit, Princess Cruise Lines changed it after the purchase from a unlimited package. This is deceptive advertising and or bait and switch which is not allowed under the rules from the credit card processing services.

 

And since the order is credit card processing rules first, cruise contract second, the cruise line is not allowed to do this. Not debating if 15 drinks is to many or not enough, just what Princess did.

 

The cruise contract also says that no port is guaranteed. According to your logic, if the ship misses a port or changes the itinerary to a different port the passenger can get a refund from the credit card company. I sincerely doubt that is possible.

[Expat Cruise]

The cruise contract also says that no port is guaranteed. According to your logic, if the ship misses a port or changes the itinerary to a different port the passenger can get a refund from the credit card company. I sincerely doubt that is possible.

 

Clearly you have not read through this thread. I did get a refund for a change of ports so I absolutely know it is possible and it has happen. The information is posted above.

[EastBay Cruisers]

Clearly you have not read through this thread. I did get a refund for a change of ports so I absolutely know it is possible and it has happen. The information is posted above.

 

Did you tell your credit card company that you wanted a charge back ( refund) for the entire price of the cruise because the shore excursion was cancelled?

 

 

If the port was changed, and no one could go on the shore excursion at the port, why didn't Princess give on board credit OBC to all the passengers booked for that shore excursion?

[Expat Cruise]

Did you tell your credit card company that you wanted a charge back ( refund) for the entire price of the cruise because the shore excursion was cancelled?

 

 

If the port was changed, and no one could go on the shore excursion at the port, why didn't Princess give on board credit OBC to all the passengers booked for that shore excursion?

 

As I already said here a few pages back. It was my credit card provider that said to dispute the whole cruise. It was not about cancelled shore excursions, it was about the fact that my wife did not have the needed visas to go ashore and was restricted to the ship while in port.

 

We had all the correct and needed visas for the cruise we booked, the line changed the ports while on the cruise and therefore we did not get the cruise we paid for.

[justafem]

Justafem, I am in no way disputing what you're saying. I'm truly curious what your background is that lets you speak so surely about the chargeback being a sure thing. Do you work for a credit card company?

 

 

I am self employed, have been for over 15 years. I sell both B&M and online and have several merchant accounts. I deal with chargebacks on a weekly basis (only from online sales), very few are valid (from my perspective), but 99% are won by the cust. The only times I've ever won is when the cust admitted their own wrongdoing and even then...they still mostly win.

 

The payee only gets to state what they feel happened. They have no part in the decision. It's all up to the credit card issuer, who has a single motive. Keep THEIR cust happy and charging on their card. You're credit card doesn't care about a disclaimer (which are mostly unenforceable and some illegal), they only care that you (as their customer) received exactly what you paid for.

 

I have a bit of a story. I ordered a 2.3 oz product (along with several other products that were received as ordered), but received a 6 oz product. While most people would be thrilled to get extra, I was traveling. We all know what the oz limit for liquids in your carry-on is. So the 6 oz product was completely useless to me. Long story short, the seller refused to refund (I was only asking for the 2.3 oz product to be refunded) and I did a chargeback ONLY for the switched product price. 13 days later, I received a credit for the entire purchase amount.

 

Any change in what you agreed on vs what you received is considered to be a valid reason to the card processor. Princess knows this, but is counting on consumers not being aware of their rights, not wanting to cause a scene or that such a small percentage will actually go through with the chargeback, it makes financial sense to change the contract. Heck, some of you are even defending them!

 

Another story, this time about Princess. While on one of our cruises, several staterooms were flooded due to a pipe breaking in the ceiling. I'm talking ankle deep water in some of the rooms. It happened on a port day, so wasn't discovered until late afternoon. One of the cruisers, was a young man on his first cruise. His clothing was saturated (and smelled), electronics ruined as were all the cigarettes he'd brought and for the rest of the cruise, the room never completely dried. At my prodding, he asked for his clothing to be cleaned, that took 3 trips before they agreed. That his electronics be replaced (they told him that it would be decided by the insurance company after the cruise) and that he receive some sort of compensation just for the ordeal. It took several more visits to the service desk to even get the insurance ppwk for the damaged items (he WAS compensated 3 weeks after the cruise, but no one else was because, get this, they didn't fill out the ppwk on the ship!). He (finally) received a minimal $100 onboard credit because I went with him the last time.

 

The other pax? Well, they washed their own clothing and waited to be denied payment for their lost items.

 

It's like the *****. Only pax who called received onboard credit.

 

Princess could have (not so) easily done this differently, announced the change and given people a choice, keep the new PBP or receive a refund (even if included in the fare because of a sale). Or for those that did receive the AIBP before the change, they could have comped (as onboard credit. dollar for dollar as charged) anything above the newly imposed limits.

 

This is just me rambling, voicing an opinion that I'm almost certain I'm correct about due to a long time playing the credit card game. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But credit cards are black or white.

[skennedy25]

And in the small print, it says princess can change the terms at any point, for ANYTHING. So please re-read your contract.

 

I'm not going to change people's minds, but the all inclusive drink package was included in the total cruise fare, you can brand it however you see it, but it was PART of the price paid. Princess is notorious for raising the prices based on the "sale" that's offered. That change is enough to do a valid credit card chargeback. Any change is enough to warrant a chargeback. And they WILL win.

 

 

Sorry, but you just proved my point. I can tell you it isn't included, first hand, cant say more. If you have proof showing the same cruise with one using the promo and one without and there is a price difference, then princess is doing the same thing.

Edited September 21, 2018 by skennedy25

[Bill B]

U.S. consumer protection laws are exceptionally weak compared to the U.K. That's why there's a difference in pricing if a Princess cruise is booked through the U.K. Princess site or a U.K. travel agent.

 

I believe it's fundamentally wrong to sell someone something... and not deliver based on "the fine print". Americans and their courts disagree... of course half the friggin' country is illiterate. You're going to have to sue in the State of California. Good luck. :rolleyes:

[julie3fan]

Thanks for the explanation, justafem. That makes sense that the CC companies want to keep their customers happy.

[rbt001]

I am self employed, have been for over 15 years. I sell both B&M and online and have several merchant accounts. I deal with chargebacks on a weekly basis (only from online sales), very few are valid (from my perspective), but 99% are won by the cust. The only times I've ever won is when the cust admitted their own wrongdoing and even then...they still mostly win.

 

The payee only gets to state what they feel happened. They have no part in the decision. It's all up to the credit card issuer, who has a single motive. Keep THEIR cust happy and charging on their card. You're credit card doesn't care about a disclaimer (which are mostly unenforceable and some illegal), they only care that you (as their customer) received exactly what you paid for.

 

I have a bit of a story. I ordered a 2.3 oz product (along with several other products that were received as ordered), but received a 6 oz product. While most people would be thrilled to get extra, I was traveling. We all know what the oz limit for liquids in your carry-on is. So the 6 oz product was completely useless to me. Long story short, the seller refused to refund (I was only asking for the 2.3 oz product to be refunded) and I did a chargeback ONLY for the switched product price. 13 days later, I received a credit for the entire purchase amount.

 

Any change in what you agreed on vs what you received is considered to be a valid reason to the card processor. Princess knows this, but is counting on consumers not being aware of their rights, not wanting to cause a scene or that such a small percentage will actually go through with the chargeback, it makes financial sense to change the contract. Heck, some of you are even defending them!

 

Another story, this time about Princess. While on one of our cruises, several staterooms were flooded due to a pipe breaking in the ceiling. I'm talking ankle deep water in some of the rooms. It happened on a port day, so wasn't discovered until late afternoon. One of the cruisers, was a young man on his first cruise. His clothing was saturated (and smelled), electronics ruined as were all the cigarettes he'd brought and for the rest of the cruise, the room never completely dried. At my prodding, he asked for his clothing to be cleaned, that took 3 trips before they agreed. That his electronics be replaced (they told him that it would be decided by the insurance company after the cruise) and that he receive some sort of compensation just for the ordeal. It took several more visits to the service desk to even get the insurance ppwk for the damaged items (he WAS compensated 3 weeks after the cruise, but no one else was because, get this, they didn't fill out the ppwk on the ship!). He (finally) received a minimal $100 onboard credit because I went with him the last time.

 

The other pax? Well, they washed their own clothing and waited to be denied payment for their lost items.

 

It's like the *****. Only pax who called received onboard credit.

 

Princess could have (not so) easily done this differently, announced the change and given people a choice, keep the new PBP or receive a refund (even if included in the fare because of a sale). Or for those that did receive the AIBP before the change, they could have comped (as onboard credit. dollar for dollar as charged) anything above the newly imposed limits.

 

This is just me rambling, voicing an opinion that I'm almost certain I'm correct about due to a long time playing the credit card game. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But credit cards are black or white.

 

I hate to wade in this pool, but I think this one needs some balance.

 

I've been on both the consumer side and merchant side of credit cards for 37 years. There is a uniformity as to how chargebacks must be handled, and that's outlined in the franchise agreement from MasterCard or Visa, which banks agree to in order to become card issuers. A merchant may have applied through ABC Bank to accept and deposit card receipts from card holders with cards issued by XYZ or PDQ Banks. Every bank follows the same rules for chargebacks. American Express, Diners, & Discover issue their cards and deal directly with merchants and truly are right in the middle, seeing both sides, determining the outcome. While they model their own procedures, I do believe that all issuers must conform with The Fair Credit Billing Act.

 

One of the acceptable reasons for chargeback is: "Goods and/or Services not received as promised."

 

So as some have posted: OP paid and was promised unlimited, then was capped at 15, so he didn't receive what was promised.

 

But that is NOT ACCURATE.

 

The promise from Princess includes all the fine print, allowing them to miss ports or in this case alter the beverage package.

 

When a cardholder initiates a chargeback, the clock is ticking, as there are deadlines to be met. The burden falls on the merchant to respond timely and thoroughly proving they delivered as promised. Many times the merchant fails here in some way, and the chargeback is resolved in the customer's favor.

 

Take the example where you received the 6 oz vs 2.3 oz, charged the ticket back and received a full refund for everything, when you may have only been expecting a partial credit for the 2.3 oz item.

 

More likely than not, the merchant responded with: "here's proof I gave him more than he wanted with the 6 oz. case closed in my favor." Which it wasn't.

BETTER: "Here's proof we delivered all the items the customer ordered except the 2.3oz item. We have issued a customer credit of $x.xx for this one item on (date)" More likely than not, the full charge would have stayed and the chargeback resolved with the small credit.

 

Card issuers, more accurately, should be characterized as being most concerned with following the guidelines for chargebacks. While they care about their cardholders as you say, they are on one side of a dispute as a bank, with another bank who is out to protect their customer, the merchant.

 

I can see where the merchant side feels dumped on and without support of their bank. Cardholders don't incur a fee to dispute and chargeback while many merchant banks impose a chargeback fee for handling the dispute.

 

The whole process is a nuisance for all parties. I'm pretty sure that some large card issuers have made their own "customer friendly" policies. A number of years ago, all I remember of the circumstances was a charge that was possibly $18 more than it was supposed to be. I called to dispute, was walked through the uniform Q&A, and it was assigned a case number. In just a few days I got the "good news" notification that it was resolved in my favor. I'm sure the bank found it more cost effective to just eat it and not even move forward with the claim against the merchant bank. (I'm also certain, it happened this way since my only other disputes had been clearly fraudulent charges where my card number had been compromised.) American Express has been know to eat charges given circumstances and how they value the cardmember.

 

Now think of Princess and the high volume of credit card processing (and revenue) they provide for their merchant bank. I wouldn't be surprised if the merchant bank doesn't have a dedicated team to facilitate and defend Princess. When I was part of a group in the corporate office at a major hotel chain, if was a factor as we prepared recommendations on which credit card processor to use.

 

One more thing regarding the charge back process. The first question the card issuer asks the card holder: "Did you attempt to resolve the issue with the merchant first?" It takes a "Yes" answer to proceed, since that is the cardholders first responsibility.

 

As to the burst pipe and room flooding incident as you described it, I think that it's a terrible shame and embarrassment on Princess that the Hotel Manager wasn't pro-active and accommodating. Staff should have been there to take pictures and complete an incident report with the guest, providing any forms along with instructions if the guest has to make a written claim.

 

It points to selfishness on the part of senior officers who were more concerned about revenue goals for the voyage to make bonus in their personal paychecks.

 

That's why when I expected a full refund for a half day excursion, I didn't bother with anyone on board and waited until I returned home to call Princess. It was a black & white situation easy to charge back. To argue on board would be met with deaf ears as they focused on revenue goals. I doubt a chargeback counts against their voyage goal, since it's so far after the fact. So to them the chargeback fear has no meaning.

 

Princess listened, asked me to fax it in writing, and just took two days to respond that they processed the refund as requested.

 

 

As for this thread, hasn't the discussion for the past 30 to 40 posts, about the legality of the change made by Princess to the beverage offering already been discussed more than a year ago, when Princess announced the change? I never buy the package, yet I read all about it, including these same arguments.

 

As for the OP, I hope he decides to contact Princess for their consideration, but he's in Germany. It may have been easier and more relaxing to just visit his local pub for a few drinks and review future cruise offerings from the competition.

[RDC1]

And in the small print, it says princess can change the terms at any point, for ANYTHING. So please re-read your contract.

 

I'm not going to change people's minds, but the all inclusive drink package was included in the total cruise fare, you can brand it however you see it, but it was PART of the price paid. Princess is notorious for raising the prices based on the "sale" that's offered. That change is enough to do a valid credit card chargeback. Any change is enough to warrant a chargeback. And they WILL win.

Actually they won't. They might have if they had complained when they boarded and requested it be swapped for another benefit like paid gratuities, and Princess refused. Once they started to use the package, after being informed of the change they accepted the conditions.

[SharkieRools]

I don't think any credible person on these boards has mentioned they were able to get money back from either Princess or their card provider for the switch from AIBP to PBP (other than cancelling the package altogether if it was purchased separately.)

 

Here's a good take on the situation from a consumer advocate:

https://www.elliott.org/thats-ridiculous-2/help-being-limited-15-booze-drinks-day-princess-cruise/