So frustrating

[ReneeFLL]

It's funny how everyone says RC reads these threads. If so, then they definitely ignore the ones about their horrendous IT department. They need to fire them all and hire some middle schoolers. They would probably do a better job.

[PhoenixCruiser]

It's funny how everyone says RC reads these threads. If so, then they definitely ignore the ones about their horrendous IT department. They need to fire them all and hire some middle schoolers. They would probably do a better job.

It has been years since I've read that Royal follows CruiseCritic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Clarea]

7 hours ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

It has been years since I've read that Royal follows CruiseCritic.

 

 

It was not that long ago that we had a poster named Royal Caribbean International (verified) posting, but that did not last long.  I suspect they got too many questions that the company really did not want to answer.

[mayleeman]

I seem to remember that some obscure part of the Cruise Contract gives RCI the right to add surcharges to the fare even after final payment (such as if a port fee has been increased, or unexpected fuel expenses are likely to be incurred). 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to me to be a reason to keep checking whether a balance is due even after it was presumably paid in full. You might find errors (as in the OP's experience) or perhaps a new charge has been levied?

Edited June 7, 2019 by mayleeman

[lonig]

I have had the same problem on two of my cruises that I have already paid in full.  My TA called and said it was paid in full but still got an invoice with money owing.  I have a copy that says it is paid so am not concerned, my edocs are in and everything is in order so I leave on Saturday, yeah!!!

[cgags47]

19 minutes ago, lonig said:

I have had the same problem on two of my cruises that I have already paid in full.  My TA called and said it was paid in full but still got an invoice with money owing.  I have a copy that says it is paid so am not concerned, my edocs are in and everything is in order so I leave on Saturday, yeah!!!

It's possible that if your TA is giving you money off on the price of the cruise, it would still show as a balance due, to cover the TA commission.  

 

For instance, if you cruise cost actually $1000, and the TA makes $100 commission, and the TA is only charging you $950, it might still show a $50 balance.  Maybe that's it?

[lonig]

38 minutes ago, cgags47 said:

It's possible that if your TA is giving you money off on the price of the cruise, it would still show as a balance due, to cover the TA commission.  

 

For instance, if you cruise cost actually $1000, and the TA makes $100 commission, and the TA is only charging you $950, it might still show a $50 balance.  Maybe that's it?

My TA is my sister so I know that is not the case, she was concerned about the balance due issue too as she is on the cruise with me.  

[cgags47]

1 minute ago, lonig said:

My TA is my sister so I know that is not the case, she was concerned about the balance due issue too as she is on the cruise with me.  

Hmmm, ok.  That's really annoying then.

[DISFANS3]

Could be a problem..

[cgags47]

8 minutes ago, DISFANS3 said:

Could be a problem..

Great contribution...

[HBE4]

On 6/7/2019 at 12:53 AM, PhoenixCruiser said:

On 6/7/2019 at 12:01 AM, ReneeFLL said:

It's funny how everyone says RC reads these threads.

 

It has been years since I've read that Royal follows CruiseCritic.

 

Usually it's whenever there is a post about "scamming the system" (i.e. Diamonds sharing HH drink coupons with non-diamond members or how to smuggle more than 2 bottles of wine on board) that people howl about how RC reads and reacts to what it sees on CC and will take away these benefits.

 

But when topics such as lousy IT, subpar corporate Customer Service, chair hogs, diminishing C&A benefits......it's crickets.

[HBE4]

duplicate

Edited June 11, 2019 by HBE4

[CruisinCrow]

On 6/6/2019 at 12:19 PM, parrotfeathers said:

At least they didn't say "you have no upcoming cruises."

 

I got that a few days before our last cruise.  Freaked me out!

[Milwaukee Eight]

On 6/5/2019 at 9:15 PM, perditax said:

Handling money transactions and record keeping is the first thing they should be aiming their (outsourced, I assume) coders at. Insane. I can’t really think of another billion dollar company where consumers would put up with it. 

You don’t, have to put up with it. 

[HBE4]

On 6/5/2019 at 9:15 PM, perditax said:

Handling money transactions and record keeping is the first thing they should be aiming their (outsourced, I assume) coders at. Insane. I can’t really think of another billion dollar company where consumers would put up with it. 

 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 11:22 PM, twangster said:

I have led IT organizations. 

 

There are companies that understand the value of IT and technology then there are those that don't.  When IT is viewed (and funded) as a negative cost center that will never contribute to revenue the result is what you see.  

 

When leadership understands the need to invest in the IT organization and can see the value the result is very different.  

 

Don't blame Royal IT.   This starts at the very top of the organization and that is exactly where the blame belongs.

 

It seems like Royal has several IT systems that don't talk to each other, hence are not synchronized which lead to the discrepancies.  Billing/Invoicing are basic money transactions that any 1960's/70's era computer system(s) should be able to handle flawlessly.  Such ongoing problems in the 21st century is unacceptable. I guess as long as there is not a high volume of customer complaints, and Royal is not losing money, then there is no reason to spend the $$$ to correct.

 

To put a positive spin on this, the less money spend on "back office" technology leaves more money to continuously improve the product for the customer...ships, excursions, dining....everything expect the website. 😄

 

[PlanetX]

16 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

To put a positive spin on this, the less money spend on "back office" technology leaves more money to continuously improve the product for the customer...

Or line the pockets of RCI execs and investors...

[twangster]

42 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

It seems like Royal has several IT systems that don't talk to each other, hence are not synchronized which lead to the discrepancies.  Billing/Invoicing are basic money transactions that any 1960's/70's era computer system(s) should be able to handle flawlessly.  Such ongoing problems in the 21st century is unacceptable. I guess as long as there is not a high volume of customer complaints, and Royal is not losing money, then there is no reason to spend the $$$ to correct.

 

 

It's hard to quantify loss due to poorly operating back end systems.  What does it cost for staff to expend countless hours keeping old technology running?   What new features and capabilities have to be postponed when you can't quickly adapt old technology to meet modern expectations?  What is the "brand damage" when customers are frustrated and unable to easily transact what they wish to? What is the security exposure when operating outdated technology? 

 

While Royal did put on a new front end website (and removed a lot of functionality in the process) the back end systems remain that old open source database technology close to the era you reference.  In other words... lipstick on a pig.    

 

42 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

the less money spend on "back office" technology leaves more money to continuously improve the product

 

This goes beyond the website.  Two plus years to roll out an app?  Most apps have outlived their life cycle in that time.

 

22 minutes ago, PlanetX said:

Or line the pockets of RCI execs and investors...

 

Modern companies seek operating efficiencies from technology that reduces OpEx in the long term.  Companies that are tech savvy have taken old technology that required row and rows of space in a data center and reduced to one cabinet of gear.  While that took a small capital investment the reduction in cooling, power consumption and human costs to keep all that old tech running typically pay for the investment in months.  

 

Shareholders should be holding executives accountable for operational inefficiency that is reducing dividends. 

 

Just think of the profit they could be making...

Edited June 11, 2019 by twangster