Denied boarding

[RocketMan275]

3 hours ago, ducklite said:

Probably less than the bad press being generated.  Several other lines are covering these types of situations.  X is cutting off their not to spite their face.

Easy to say when it isn't  your money.

[ducklite]

Just now, RocketMan275 said:

Easy to say when it isn't  your money.

If they aren't insured for things like this, shame on them.  

 

That said, I'd be getting in touch with Elliott.  He loves things like this.  He helped me resolve an issue with an airline years ago after being involuntarily downgraded and being out over $600 in taxes.  It took him about two weeks and I had my refund.  Many people read his site and column and it's a real black eye on a travel provider when they do something either flat out illegal (as was in my case) or ethically wrong and he publicly calls them out on it.

[Elaine5715]

52 minutes ago, ducklite said:

No but they should make whole those who they arbitrarily decide can't sail with them even though they aren't ill or give them notice in a timely manner that they won't be allowed to board for a random reason made up on the fly.

Then here's everyone's notice....influenza is worldwide including here in the US.  Thousands have died.  Who is gonna cancel?  The answer, no one unless they, themselves are stricken and can't get themselves to port.  The point?  They will eventually develop a vax for this virus and people will refuse to get it and still sail, infecting others like they do with the flu.  When they find Patient Zero on board, should they be held responsible for compensating others who were affected?  Should we all have to submit to a complete health screening before boarding?  It is public health of our governments restricting travel.   

Edited February 8, 2020 by Elaine5715

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Then here's everyone's notice....influenza is worldwide including here in the US.  Thousands have died.  Who is gonna cancel?  The answer, no one unless they, themselves are stricken and can't get themselves to port.  The point?  They will eventually develop a vax for this virus and people will refuse to get it and still sail, infecting others like they do with the flu.  When they find Patient Zero on board, should they be held responsible for compensating others who were affected?  Should we all have to submit to a complete health screening before boarding?  It is public health of our governments restricting travel.   

 

All these hypothetical have nothing to do with the OPs situation.

[Elaine5715]

47 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

All these hypothetical have nothing to do with the OPs situation.

Practice sets precedent.. Do it for one, do it for all

[slidergirl]

I did want to respond to the OP's assertion that they were "booted" from their hotel.  Most hotels in busy places are not going to let you stay longer than your scheduled departure time because you have a late flight.  Your room is needed for someone else.  Your unfortunate experience doesn't give you a reason to get the hotel room for free.  Most places will charge a full day if you want a late checkout past 4pm (unless you are an elite in their Frequent Guest program) because it is too late to turnover the room for an arrival.  Did you offer to pay for the additional day?  

 

I am sorry that your travels were discombobulated by the virus outbreak.  It's one of those things that you have to think about when you travel anywhere, hope it doesn't happen, have adequate CFAR insurance, and have a plan B.  Unfortunately, due to your plane transfer in Hong Kong, your likely only alternative was to fly home.  I don't know if another country in the region would have accepted you with that 14-day restriction in place...

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Practice sets precedent.. Do it for one, do it for all

 

Still don't see what any of your hypotheticals have to do with the OP.  It has nothing to do with passengers refusing to vaccinate, that is something the cruise line has no control over so they cannot be held accountable for something they have no control of over. But to not accept passengers who layover in HK was a cruise line created rule and they could have chosen to expempt the passengers who were already in Singapore and therefore could not change their circumstances or at the very least send passengers a warning letter earlier that this is something they are considering doing so passengers could have an opportunity to change their flights.

[RocketMan275]

5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Still don't see what any of your hypotheticals have to do with the OP.  It has nothing to do with passengers refusing to vaccinate, that is something the cruise line has no control over so they cannot be held accountable for something they have no control of over. But to not accept passengers who layover in HK was a cruise line created rule and they could have chosen to expempt the passengers who were already in Singapore and therefore could not change their circumstances or at the very least send passengers a warning letter earlier that this is something they are considering doing so passengers could have an opportunity to change their flights.

Why should the cruise line exempt those who've traveled through Hong Kong?  Does not the cruise line have a responsibility to protect passengers?  If the cruise line had exempted someone from HK and that person infected the cruise, there would be many irate posters claiming the cruise line was at fault.

[ilikeanswers]

15 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Why should the cruise line exempt those who've traveled through Hong Kong?  Does not the cruise line have a responsibility to protect passengers?  If the cruise line had exempted someone from HK and that person infected the cruise, there would be many irate posters claiming the cruise line was at fault.

 

I'm not saying they need to expempt those with a layover in HK. That is their perogative but they should have realised that the timing of their implementation of this rule would have an immediate impact on people who had no way to comply with this new rule as they were already at the destination port ready to board. Those particular people were given no fore warning that the company was even contemplating this move so passengers could make adjustments accordingly. At the end of the day this was a rule the cruise line implemented out of their own will so they have complete control over the situation, they can't pass the buck on to someone else.

[Elaine5715]

6 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Still don't see what any of your hypotheticals have to do with the OP.  It has nothing to do with passengers refusing to vaccinate, that is something the cruise line has no control over so they cannot be held accountable for something they have no control of over. But to not accept passengers who layover in HK was a cruise line created rule and they could have chosen to expempt the passengers who were already in Singapore and therefore could not change their circumstances or at the very least send passengers a warning letter earlier that this is something they are considering doing so passengers could have an opportunity to change their flights.

 

23 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I'm not saying they need to expempt those with a layover in HK. That is their perogative but they should have realised that the timing of their implementation of this rule would have an immediate impact on people who had no way to comply with this new rule as they were already at the destination port ready to board. Those particular people were given no fore warning that the company was even contemplating this move so passengers could make adjustments accordingly. At the end of the day this was a rule the cruise line implemented out of their own will so they have complete control over the situation, they can't pass the buck on to someone else.

Cruise lines had no idea that would happen.  They are working under direction from each countries Public Health and Border Protection.  Cruise lines are not making money sitting outside ports with quarantined guests. 

Not hypothetical since the RC ship that was quarantined outside New York turned out to be four passengers with the flu.  Those folks didn't vaccinate and caused considerable distress.  Is the cruise line responsible to compensate those with and without trip interruption insurance?  

 

[ilikeanswers]

9 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

Cruise lines had no idea that would happen.  They are working under direction from each countries Public Health and Border Protection.  Cruise lines are not making money sitting outside ports with quarantined guests. 

Not hypothetical since the RC ship that was quarantined outside New York turned out to be four passengers with the flu.  Those folks didn't vaccinate and caused considerable distress.  Is the cruise line responsible to compensate those with and without trip interruption insurance? 

 

I already knew about the coronavirus begining of January and would be very surprised if cruiselines were not following the story and considering there are still flights between Singapore and Hong Kong it seems unlikely it was at Singapore's suggestion to not allow the embarkation of passengers with layover in HK. Again people not vaccinating is out of the control of the cruise line. The cruise line made a choice to deny boarding of those who have layovered in HK, that is what the want to do that is fine but there are consequences to that decision and the fact is there were people ready to board who had already made it to Singapore by the time they were advised of the rule change. If the cruise line had at least given some warning that the decision was on the table before they boarded their flight then passengers could have made arrangements to comply with the rules. But they didn't give them the option and they had already put time and resources into the trip. It seems fair to compensate them for the very last minute rule change to these particular passengers in this particular circumstance. Other cruiselines have offered compensation to cancelled cruises within the region despite the cancellations being more than 24hs before boarding and that is for a whole ship of passengers. This particular cruise would have only been a fraction of passengers.

[JMorris271]

On 2/4/2020 at 2:06 PM, mom says said:

Missed port= increased fuel costs, loss of revenue from shore excursions, increased costs for food and other consumables, possible supply problems. Loss of profits.

All losses offset by a tremendous  increase in liquor sales.

Edited February 9, 2020 by JMorris271

[Elaine5715]

14 minutes ago, JMorris271 said:

All losses offset by a tremendous  increase in liquor sales.

No liquor sales on the quarantine ships.  Guests are confined to staterooms except for an hour each day.

[Elaine5715]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I already knew about the coronavirus begining of January and would be very surprised if cruiselines were not following the story and considering there are still flights between Singapore and Hong Kong it seems unlikely it was at Singapore's suggestion to not allow the embarkation of passengers with layover in HK. Again people not vaccinating is out of the control of the cruise line. The cruise line made a choice to deny boarding of those who have layovered in HK, that is what the want to do that is fine but there are consequences to that decision and the fact is there were people ready to board who had already made it to Singapore by the time they were advised of the rule change. If the cruise line had at least given some warning that the decision was on the table before they boarded their flight then passengers could have made arrangements to comply with the rules. But they didn't give them the option and they had already put time and resources into the trip. It seems fair to compensate them for the very last minute rule change to these particular passengers in this particular circumstance. Other cruiselines have offered compensation to cancelled cruises within the region despite the cancellations being more than 24hs before boarding and that is for a whole ship of passengers. This particular cruise would have only been a fraction of passengers.

  They allow people from flu, mumps, measles stricken countries to board knowing that it is highly contagious and there are odds that there will be unvaxed guests on board.  There was no reason to treat coronavirus differently.  The difference is China has been less than forthcoming about this from the start and the method of transmission was unknown.  

[JMorris271]

22 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

No liquor sales on the quarantine ships.  Guests are confined to staterooms except for an hour each day.

All guest or just those that are symptomatic?

[AF-1]

I feel sorry for those Diamond Princess Passengers

[That sinking feeling]

On 2/4/2020 at 6:34 AM, Toofarfromthesea said:

Insurance policies frequently have 'force majeure' or 'Act of God' exclusions that may come into play.

How can an act of god be a thing? Pretty sure I have read somewhere that some solicitor proved this to be invalid. Sure he proved that anyone using this as an excuse could just about use it for anything. And how can you deny a claim of someone that doesn't do god? 

 

So if weather is an act of god then so is a disease. 

[That sinking feeling]

Meaning therefore that everything is an act of god.

[That sinking feeling]

You cant use god as an excuse only when it suits you.

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 2/8/2020 at 6:45 AM, RocketMan275 said:

You really have no idea how many people would have similar claims.

 

People are always willing to throw other people's money around in Goodwill gestures.  That are rarely all that well received.

[RocketMan275]

4 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

People are always willing to throw other people's money around in Goodwill gestures.  That are rarely all that well received.

Well evident in all these threads.  As I've said, Goodwill is cheap when it's someone else's money.

[Toofarfromthesea]

1 hour ago, That sinking feeling said:

How can an act of god be a thing? Pretty sure I have read somewhere that some solicitor proved this to be invalid. Sure he proved that anyone using this as an excuse could just about use it for anything. And how can you deny a claim of someone that doesn't do god? 

 

So if weather is an act of god then so is a disease. 

 

Because 'Act of God' is a term of art, not literal.  Thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

[flyingron]

2 hours ago, That sinking feeling said:

You cant use god as an excuse only when it suits you.

 

In a legal sense "act of God" doesn't have much to do with a supreme being.   It just means an event that occurs because of an unforseeable event not attributed to any human action.   Alas, act of God usually excludes liability rather than creates it.    You being ill may be an act of God, but designating it eliminates the liability for the cruise line to refund you not mandating it.

[That sinking feeling]

Clearly not. 

[That sinking feeling]

Just now, flyingron said:

 

In a legal sense "act of God" doesn't have much to do with a supreme being.   It just means an event that occurs because of an unforseeable event not attributed to any human action.   Alas, act of God usually excludes liability rather than creates it.    You being ill may be an act of God, but designating it eliminates the liability for the cruise line to refund you not mandating it.

Except of course it is used by insurance companies to avoid pay outs. Or was.