Veendam lanai bait and switch? - help, please

[Shmoo here]

On 12/23/2018 at 12:00 PM, iancal said:

It will be interesting to see what HAL offers or does.

If you read post #28, you'll see that HAL did give them OBC for the difference.

 

 

[oaktreerb]

59 minutes ago, iancal said:

.

 

What do you think HAL will do?   Fix the problem, ie repair the door to proper working condition?   Be proactive and let those people who are assigned to this cabin in the next few cruises know about the issue as well as try to move them, allow them to cancel, etc?   Or do you think HAL will do absolutely nothing, wait until they board the ship, are disappointed, and  possibly complain.?

 

 

HAL should fix the door.  If they can’t fix it then they should offer the room as an upgrade to a passenger who has already selected a guarantee of an ocean view or obstructed view stateroom on the promenade deck.   

[Hlitner]

Sigh!  Another example of HAL "deferred maintenance" which is very sad.  We just came back from a MSC cruise where a pipe developed a leak....probably caused by some rough seas.  We saw them place the usual bucket under the leak (have seen this on many HAL ships).  But what was surprising was that when we came buy that same area a few hours later the engineering staff was just finishing repairs...and it was outside of normal work hours.  On HAL they would have likely kept the buckets until the next dry dock.  There are many things we love about HAL, but their maintenance policies are low on the list.

 

As to financial remuneration,  a future OBC is just wrong!  You have a legal contract with HAL for that type of functional cabin.  HAL has knowingly breached the contract by providing you with a defective cabin for which they apparently have no intention of repairing on your cruise.  At the very least, you should be offered an immediate refund for the price difference between an Outside Cabin and your Lanai.  In addition, you should expect a generous OBC (now, not in the future) to alleviate your disappointment in not getting what you booked!  For those that would defend HAL, keep in mind that this is not about an Act of God, Force Majeure, etc.  This about a cruise line that wantonly takes the time to install a custom made wooden block (to completely disable a door) rather then spending the time and money to make the necessary repairs!  Not good!  and Not Acceptable.  But as long as HAL cheerleaders defend such awful maintenance practices, HAL will likely continue to take advantage of their loyal customers.

 

Hank

[iancal]

Which will get repaired first?  The sliding door or the elevator(s)?

[cruiserchuck]

So is HAL known for slow repairs?  We were on the Eurodam last week, and everything appeared to be in very good shape.  We did not notice anything that needed repair.

[avian777]

On 12/24/2018 at 3:21 PM, richstowe said:

The definition of B&S is: "the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods that are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods."  

 

Even though a guarantee is generally seen as a bargain, I doubt HAL had the intention back at the time of the OP's booking of putting them in a broken room.  Therefore, I don't think this is a B&S.

The problem with the above is that there was clearly a looong time problem with this sliding door.  If the door has  recently failed, that would be a different situation.  That block holding the door shut was NOT installed anytime in the last few months. Possibly years.

 

You are correct - this is not a B&S.  At very worst, IMO it's a case of poor customer relations, based on the very skimpy facts that are known.

Likewise, the length of time the sliding door problem has existed is, in and of itself, irrelevant because HAL Corporate is generally only responsible for those matters/issues about which it knows or reasonably should have known.  Thus, if HAL Corporate is aware of the sliding door problem, it should either  not book this stateroom or only book it after disclosing the defect and, possibly, discounting the fare.  However, I seriously doubt that HAL Corporate is made aware of each and every maintenance problem and, thus, do not feel HAL Corporate has culpability for this matter until/unless it is made aware of the problem.

Edited December 26, 2018 by avian777

[iancal]

I only see one HAL.  We do not distinguish between ship and head office on any cruise line.  Or any other business for that matter.  Nor did my customers when I was in business.

 

Does it matter who in HAL is responsible for this?  Why would the customer care?  All he or she cares is that they did not get what they paid for and were disappointed.  There is a big HAL logo on the funnel.

 

Instead of a customer adjustment in the form of a refund HAL copped out and gave them an OBC.  

 

On a previous forum a poster on this ship was told by the front desk that several of the elevators had been out of commission for WEEKS and the person had absolutely no idea when they would be repaired.  We always take the stairs.  But just think about how this would impact someone in a wheelchair, mobility scooter, walker, etc.   Especially at evening meal times when the elevators are crowded.

Edited December 26, 2018 by iancal

[terrydtx]

12 hours ago, cruiserchuck said:

So is HAL known for slow repairs?  We were on the Eurodam last week, and everything appeared to be in very good shape.  We did not notice anything that needed repair.

The Eurodam is much newer, but many maintenance and repair needs are not necessarily visible to all passengers. In the  OP’s case only passengers in that particular cabin would know about this maintenance issue.  Ellevator issues like on the Veendam may something that only a drydock can repair. The door lock not working in a cabin should be something that could be done at anytime while the ship is at sea. Look at this from the standpoint if this cabin had been yours on that cruise, would you have been justified in being upset? If it was me no OBC would have satisfied me.  I can’t believe how some have posted in this thread that it’s not really HAL Corporate’s fault, it’s their ship and their company and they should be held accountable.

[Aquahound]

11 hours ago, avian777 said:

However, I seriously doubt that HAL Corporate is made aware of each and every maintenance problem and, thus, do not feel HAL Corporate has culpability for this matter until/unless it is made aware of the problem.

 

Respectfully, I do disagree with you on this one.  HAL is totally culpable for this matter because it is a HAL ship.  Whether HQ or the ship, it is still HAL.  If HAL didn't give OBC and the OP sued, they wouldn't sue the Veendam; they would sue HAL.  

Edited December 26, 2018 by Aquahound

[Hlitner]

There is simply no excuse for this issue.  The Chief Engineer is obviously aware of the problem because he would have authorized the installation of the wooden block.   The fact that this door is out of operation should be relayed back to Seattle in regular maintenance reports.  If HAL chooses to book this cabin as a Lanai cabin then HAL is knowingly committing a fraud since they are selling something that does not function. 

 

Hank

[avian777]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Respectfully, I do disagree with you on this one.  HAL is totally culpable for this matter because it is a HAL ship.  Whether HQ or the ship, it is still HAL.  If HAL didn't give OBC and the OP sued, they wouldn't sue the Veendam; they would sue HAL.  

 

HAL could be held liable for personal injuries or property damage caused by the faulty door, whether or not HAL HQ was actually aware of the problem.  However, the same would not be true in a B&S or breach of contract action unless HAL HQ was actually aware of the problem and continued to "sell" the stateroom without informing the customer of the defect.  But don't take my word on this matter.  however, before you get too far out on a limb, I suggest you obtain (and pay for) a legal opinion from your own attorney. 

[avian777]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

There is simply no excuse for this issue.  The Chief Engineer is obviously aware of the problem because he would have authorized the installation of the wooden block.   The fact that this door is out of operation should be relayed back to Seattle in regular maintenance reports.  If HAL chooses to book this cabin as a Lanai cabin then HAL is knowingly committing a fraud since they are selling something that does not function. 

 

Hank

 

HAL would be "knowingly committing a fraud" ONLY IF HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door but chose to represent (explicitly or by implication) that the door was fully functional.  However, there is nothing in this Thread to suggest that HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door before "selling" OP the lanai stateroom in question.

Hint:  When practicing law (even as a non-licensed attorney), it is always a good idea to have all the relevant facts before jumping to conclusions.

Edited December 26, 2018 by avian777

[taxmantoo]

22 minutes ago, avian777 said:

 

HAL would be "knowingly committing a fraud" ONLY IF HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door but chose to represent (explicitly or by implication) that the door was fully functional.  However, there is nothing in this Thread to suggest that HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door before "selling" OP the lanai stateroom in question.

Hint:  When practicing law (even as a non-licensed attorney), it is always a good idea to have all the relevant facts before jumping to conclusions.

HINT : If HAL did not know the door was faulty, why did HAL put a wood block there???  The employees are all representatives of the company and one has to agree that when one employee is aware (i.e. maintenance person or Chief Engineer, or any one else for that matter) then the company is aware. 

 

p.s.  I you don't believe me, maybe you could call Guest Services. I do believe you have them on your speed dial 😉

Edited December 26, 2018 by taxmantoo

[Copper10-8]

4 minutes ago, taxmantoo said:

HINT : If HAL did not know the door was faulty, why did HAL put a wood block there.  The employees are all representatives of the company and one has to agree that when one employee is aware (i.e. maintenance person or Chief Engineer, or any one else for that matter) then the company is aware. 

 

p.s.  I you don't believe me, maybe you could call Guest Services. I do believe you have them on your speed dial 😉

 

 

FYI; The person responsible for a non-functioning/faulty door on Veendam would be the ship's facilities manager. Every ship has one 

[Cruzaholic41]

1 hour ago, avian777 said:

 

HAL would be "knowingly committing a fraud" ONLY IF HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door but chose to represent (explicitly or by implication) that the door was fully functional.  However, there is nothing in this Thread to suggest that HAL HQ HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the faulty door before "selling" OP the lanai stateroom in question.

Hint:  When practicing law (even as a non-licensed attorney), it is always a good idea to have all the relevant facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

Sorry, but you are way off on your line of thinking. HAL is HAL. Why you think HQ is somehow separate from their assets is beyond me. Someone working for HAL knew of this problem. Therefore HAL knew of this problem. Again, HAL is HAL. 

[RuthC]

It's corporate's (i.e. Seattle's) JOB to know what is going on in the layers of responsibility below them.

[iancal]

A dyed in the wool HAL cheerleader is welcome to our cabin on Veendam.

 

We have absolutely no intention of ever booking this ship regardless of the itinerary.  We have read too many reviews and too many posts  to take a chance when there are so many other great HAL (and other cruise lines) ships to choose from.  Why tempt fate?

Edited December 27, 2018 by iancal

[avian777]

19 hours ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

 

FYI; The person responsible for a non-functioning/faulty door on Veendam would be the ship's facilities manager. Every ship has one 

 

👍👍👍  Spot on, C10-8!  Thanks for adding some light to this discussion.

Here's wishing you and yours a Happy, Healthy & Prosperous New Year ...

[gphb]

Minor point relative to OP, but since we had ethics issue on same ship on same cruise on ms Veendam, with unethical business practices, thought I would mention it.

 

The menu of prices in Mix bar doesn't match what is charged... its only a $1 on some drinks and $0.50 on others, but I am sure it adds up over time.  We pointed this out when we noticed and the waiter promptly got a new check printed.   No problem;  but given that the new receipt didnt have any "override" or refund price, just same drinks listed at lower price, it seems they can pretty much enter whatever price they choose at the register.  They certainly are not updating the menus so are aware of the issue and continuing as is.

 

The real issue is that checking our onboard statement we found the waiter just decided to add a new check and not remove the old one.  The front desk didnt seem at all surprised but said they couldnt adjust it and the beverage manager was in a cellar masters meeting.  They called the beverage department who told the front desk it had to be handled via email, and the front desk said they had been informed they could not send any more emails so this wasnt going to work.   They finally said they would adjust it, but no apology at all, and no real concern expressed about this unethical business practice.

 

Won't put us off Veendam or HAL as its easy to watch for, but sad nonetheless that Carnival Corp resorts to these tactics.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by gphb

[sail7seas]

On 12/21/2018 at 11:38 PM, KAKcruiser said:

It seems to me that having direct access to the deck is what you are primarily paying for.  I would be at the front desk every day and filling out those comment cards every day.

 

 

I agree,,, it is about the easy access to the deck.      And having  the ability to get some fresh air into the cabin when entering and exiting  the outside deck.

 

 

[tregatti]

On 12/23/2018 at 1:21 PM, GUT2407 said:

But still not bait and switch.

OP here... Back home where I can reply to some of the concerns and provide more background without burning through the internet package. 

I intentionally put a question mark after "bait and switch" because I wasn't sure that was the legally appropriate term (I work at a law school). However, in the heat of the moment I wasn't sure what else to call a situation where you have paid for one thing but were given another. 

My biggest issue is "what did HAL know and when did they know it." Judging by the the state of the block holding the door closed, it looked like the door had been broken for a while (tho as someone noted it's possible the block had been used before and had only recently been put back).

I don't think I made 100% clear that as soon as we called about the broken door, the ship, there was a letter prepared and all ready to give to us offering the future cruise credit (which we then requested to be converted to OBC). The letter seemed to imply the issue had just happened... but the state of the door block seems to call that into question. I don't know who would have the authority to issue the letter, the ship itself or only corporate. All I can deduce is at some point before we boarded, someone knew the door was defective. Maybe the ship knew but didn't inform corporate until after the cabin was assigned. I'm no stranger to communications issues at work, and I can understand that happens. 

My main issues are 1) how far in advance corporate and/or the ship knew the cabin was defective (apparently far enough in advance to have time to prepare a letter) 2) that we weren't told about the state of the cabin prior to boarding and 3) being offered future cruise credit instead of immediately being offered OBC. (As I noted we had to ask for the OBC - and if I hadn't been reading CC for years, I probably wouldn't have known to even ask for it. What if this situation happened to first-time cruisers who didn't know any better? That's the part I found especially shabby.)

I do want to emphasize that apart from the door issue we really enjoyed this cruise and this ship. But I will convey to HAL that I don't believe our situation was handled optimally, that I'd like to know the reasons why that happened, and that I hope they will rectify how similar situations are handled in the future. 

 

[richstowe]

Thank you for coming back to report OP . You certainly seemed to handle this issue properly .

[RDC1]

On 12/22/2018 at 10:24 AM, iancal said:

It is so easy for the HAL boosters to pass this off with an air of nonchalonce or excuse.

 

I suspect that their attitude might be different if they reserved this category of cabin only to feel cheated and disappointed in being assigned to something far less.   Like buying a Lexus and having the dealer deliver a Llada in it's place.

More like buying a Lexus with a high end stereo, only to find that it was delivered with a basic AM/FM radio.  Most of what they purchased they received, however, it was still not what they booked and deserved compensation.