Do not accept a Viking Voucher

[jonthomas]

Good to know. Guess they are making it up as they go along. I am trying to find some small print that confirms things one way or the other. 

[Heidi13]

51 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Good to know. Guess they are making it up as they go along. I am trying to find some small print that confirms things one way or the other. 

 

Should have mentioned this was back in Feb 2020 and the terms & conditions of FCV's have changed considerably since then.

[jonthomas]

yes things change very rapidly all to benefit the cruise lines...

 

but today I heard that Royal Carib is now changing their FCVs to non expiry....

[Mpc524]

19 hours ago, jonthomas said:

We are now being told by Viking that we cant turn our cruise over to our agent since we used FCVs and they will not pay commission.

 

Has anyone else experienced this?

We had no problem with this. Ask your TA, not Viking. You can’t trust some of these Viking reps….

[jonthomas]

yes booked with viking and within the 60 days...agent called viking and was told they no longer pay commission on FCVs...

 

have written to Hagen and sent emails to all the viking sources I could find...

 

awful....

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, jonthomas said:

yes booked with viking and within the 60 days...agent called viking and was told they no longer pay commission on FCVs...

 

have written to Hagen and sent emails to all the viking sources I could find...

 

awful....

Brutal truth time. Its not about if the small print says commission is not payable, it's about if it says it is. The vouchers are not the same as cash, the time to query this was before you accepted them in lieu of cash or an insurance claim. 

Viking have your booking, why would they split their profit with somebody who had no part in said booking? Particularly if you have not booked Viking via that agent before.

You have the cruise for the amount quoted (which was covered by your vouchers) so Viking are not at fault. 

Any OBC are perks of a booking, and are just that, perks. Not a right. 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by KBs mum

[jonthomas]

some fcvs were with an agent, that cruise was cancelled mid Atlantic, some FCVs were directly with Viking....we had no option of refund or FCV....obviously would have taken the refund....

 

you are right in what you say, why should they do anything..fine print or no fine print..bottom line is no matter what I feel is right, they will do what is right for them...

 

we are in a climate now of YOU cruise YOU lose...that is how I feel....time to buy that off grid log cabin and have nothing more to do with cruise lines ....yeah that is how I feel .....

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, jonthomas said:

some fcvs were with an agent, that cruise was cancelled mid Atlantic, some FCVs were directly with Viking....we had no option of refund or FCV....obviously would have taken the refund....

 

you are right in what you say, why should they do anything..fine print or no fine print..bottom line is no matter what I feel is right, they will do what is right for them...

 

we are in a climate now of YOU cruise YOU lose...that is how I feel....time to buy that off grid log cabin and have nothing more to do with cruise lines ....yeah that is how I feel .....

 

Probably time to move on to another cruise line, as Viking clearly doesn't work for you.

[Gatorzzzz]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:17 PM, JKCRUISES said:

When I accepted the FCC vaccines were not required let alone Boosters. I got the vaccine and I had a personal medical issue with the vaccine that prevents me from getting the booster. So how is that MY fault? I understand Viking wants to protect the crew and guests and they should but I also must protect myself and since I am unable to meet their current requirements, which were not a requirement when I accepted the FCC I should receive a refund or a medical waiver,  Viking has stated to me they will not accept a medical waiver and they will not give me a refund . I do find this unacceptable. All other cruise lines I have dealt with, when changing original booking terms have offered refunds.  I would 100% go on this trip if the booster was not required by Viking  The booster is not required in the country we are going to,  Going on a USA River cruise is not an option since Viking is requiring a booster on all their cruises currently.

JK, I called Viking and told them that the FDA advises certain people to NOT a vaccination or booster. Their response:  we don’t care what the FDA says, we are following the CDC guidelines (which, based on history, will change multiple times over the next 30 days). 
I’m with you on this one. Very frustrating. 
 

[Heidi13]

48 minutes ago, Gatorzzzz said:

JK, I called Viking and told them that the FDA advises certain people to NOT a vaccination or booster. Their response:  we don’t care what the FDA says, we are following the CDC guidelines (which, based on history, will change multiple times over the next 30 days). 
I’m with you on this one. Very frustrating. 
 

 

I'm having difficulty understanding why you would even think that a Cruise Line with an HQ in Basle, Switzerland, operating ships that are flagged in Norway, would need to consider the FDA, which I assume is based in the USA.

 

I note that while Viking consider the US CDC guidelines, along with the EU Equivalent body and all the countries they visit, they do NOT follow the US CDC guidelines, as the Viking standards are considerably higher.

[KBs mum]

4 hours ago, Gatorzzzz said:

JK, I called Viking and told them that the FDA advises certain people to NOT a vaccination or booster. Their response:  we don’t care what the FDA says, we are following the CDC guidelines (which, based on history, will change multiple times over the next 30 days). 
I’m with you on this one. Very frustrating. 
 

Most countries require visitors to be vaccinated and boosted for entry without quarantine, so even if allowed on the ship you wouldn't be able to visit anywhere

[Gatorzzzz]

9 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

I'm having difficulty understanding why you would even think that a Cruise Line with an HQ in Basle, Switzerland, operating ships that are flagged in Norway, would need to consider the FDA, which I assume is based in the USA.

 

I note that while Viking consider the US CDC guidelines, along with the EU Equivalent body and all the countries they visit, they do NOT follow the US CDC guidelines, as the Viking standards are considerably higher.

With all due respect, I believe you are misinformed, in part and correct in part. Here is a quote from an email I received from Viking: “This policy update is aligned with current CDC guidelines and means that to sail with Viking, guests will need to provide proof of up to date immunization against COVID-19 at least 14 days prior to travel.”  However, the CDC has recommended that Americans not cruise and of course Viking is ignoring that recommendation. My quoted sentence includes a direct link to the CDC website explaining boosters. 

Plus, European countries have adopted a 270 day rule. 

 

Finally, when I spoke to Viking I asked the exact question about Viking, Norway, and flying under the Swiss flag. Their response was that Viking flies under multiple flags. 
 

I have a long post about my call with Viking in the Rhine 2022 Roll Call thread. 

 

[Gatorzzzz]

6 hours ago, KBs mum said:

Most countries require visitors to be vaccinated and boosted for entry without quarantine, so even if allowed on the ship you wouldn't be able to visit anywhere

Some countries, yes.  But I believe that most of Europe has adopted a 270-day rule. 

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, Gatorzzzz said:

Some countries, yes.  But I believe that most of Europe has adopted a 270-day rule. 

Yes some but not all, the 270 day and other 'number of days' rules are the maximum number of days entry can be allowed after the initial doses, and then a booster is required, which again must have been less than 270 days before. 

Israel was on 180 days at one point

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, Gatorzzzz said:

With all due respect, I believe you are misinformed, in part and correct in part. Here is a quote from an email I received from Viking: “This policy update is aligned with current CDC guidelines and means that to sail with Viking, guests will need to provide proof of up to date immunization against COVID-19 at least 14 days prior to travel.”  However, the CDC has recommended that Americans not cruise and of course Viking is ignoring that recommendation. My quoted sentence includes a direct link to the CDC website explaining boosters. 

 

Viking ships are flagged in lots of countries, only the mississippi ships are US. 

In the rest of the world, unless the ship is in US waters, the CDC is a source of information to take into consideration, and has no more standing than their equivilents in other countries. The  CDC ban on cruising has no bearing in other countries. 

The same applies to the FDA.

Viking's policies are designed to meet  the various requirements of the countries the ship will likely visit. They work on the principle that complying with the strictest covers the less strict. 

[Gatorzzzz]

3 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

Viking ships are flagged in lots of countries, only the mississippi ships are US. 

In the rest of the world, unless the ship is in US waters, the CDC is a source of information to take into consideration, and has no more standing than their equivilents in other countries. The  CDC ban on cruising has no bearing in other countries. 

The same applies to the FDA.

Viking's policies are designed to meet  the various requirements of the countries the ship will likely visit. They work on the principle that complying with the strictest covers the less strict. 

My telephone conversation with Viking specifically dealt with the Rhine River, for which all ships are flying under the Swiss flag.  My point, as explained in my post in another thread, was that the Viking rep did not respond to my comment as to why a Norwegian business sailing under Swiss flags was being guided by a US government agency; he was non-responsive.

 

The current CDC "ban" is not a ban.  Just like the "wear a mask in the airport law" is not a law.  The "ban" is a recommendation, just like the booster "requirement."  Yet, Viking is making a booster required and citing the CDC guidelines,  So, I am supposed to cruise in Europe, and yet I am being guided by rules which only apply in the US (unless, of course, a private business adopts those rules as their own e.g., Viking).  So, if Viking says that they are following CDC guidelines and they issues policies in lockstep with CDC guidelines, I think that the facts bear out that Viking is following CDC guidelines even if the world isn't (and frankly, shouldn't).

 

Like many people with FCCs, the contract when a FCC was accepted said nothing about vaccines, masks, boosters, mandates, etc.  If one party can unilaterally change a contract then maybe the other should be able to cancel, of course in his situation, the one party holds all the cards (i.e., the money) so FCC holders are stuck with dictatorial mandates.

 

FWIW, the UK Health Security Agency has stated “If you had serious side effects after any previous dose you may be advised to avoid or delay further vaccination. You should discuss this with your doctor or specialist.”  Of course, the UK Health Security Agency has no authority outside the UK just like the CDC has not authority outside the US, but JK’s original issue surrounded his medical advice to NOT take the booster.  I would suspect that every country in which Viking makes a port call has issued similar warnings, but Viking doesn’t care about those warnings.

 

[KBs mum]

40 minutes ago, Gatorzzzz said:

My telephone conversation with Viking specifically dealt with the Rhine River, for which all ships are flying under the Swiss flag.  My point, as explained in my post in another thread, was that the Viking rep did not respond to my comment as to why a Norwegian business sailing under Swiss flags was being guided by a US government agency; he was non-responsive.

 

The current CDC "ban" is not a ban.  Just like the "wear a mask in the airport law" is not a law.  The "ban" is a recommendation, just like the booster "requirement."  Yet, Viking is making a booster required and citing the CDC guidelines,  So, I am supposed to cruise in Europe, and yet I am being guided by rules which only apply in the US (unless, of course, a private business adopts those rules as their own e.g., Viking).  So, if Viking says that they are following CDC guidelines and they issues policies in lockstep with CDC guidelines, I think that the facts bear out that Viking is following CDC guidelines even if the world isn't (and frankly, shouldn't).

 

Like many people with FCCs, the contract when a FCC was accepted said nothing about vaccines, masks, boosters, mandates, etc.  If one party can unilaterally change a contract then maybe the other should be able to cancel, of course in his situation, the one party holds all the cards (i.e., the money) so FCC holders are stuck with dictatorial mandates.

 

FWIW, the UK Health Security Agency has stated “If you had serious side effects after any previous dose you may be advised to avoid or delay further vaccination. You should discuss this with your doctor or specialist.”  Of course, the UK Health Security Agency has no authority outside the UK just like the CDC has not authority outside the US, but JK’s original issue surrounded his medical advice to NOT take the booster.  I would suspect that every country in which Viking makes a port call has issued similar warnings, but Viking doesn’t care about those warnings.

 

Your argument is going round in circles. 

Let's try this, 

1. Most countries require visitors to be vaccinated and to have had a booster within a certain number of days. 

2. Viking reflect this and other regulations/guidance for entry the countries may have in their policies. 

3. If a person has not had the required jabs for whatever reason they cannot travel. Either on a Viking ship or to most countries. 

4. This is where good travel insurance kicks in, and why the voucher terms and conditions should be read and understood before accepting them. 

5. Viking are basing their policies on what epidemiologists and health departments from lots of countries are saying, most are saying something similar, there isn't one that has more precedence than any other, unless the ship is in their waters. 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by KBs mum

[KBs mum]

46 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

I thought this topic was about FCVs?

It is, we veered off into a voucher refund question, how much CDC advice has a bearing on being able to use vouchers. I think. I've lost track. Will head off to a silver spirits package thread for a much needed drink! 

[jonthomas]

I can no longer keep up with all the rules, regulations and changes. Nor do I want a PHd in this field.   Many can now make a career out of creating   rules as fast as they can and get paid good salaries for it. A new field in the job market. Rules development, rules adjustment, rules interpretation, rules enforcing, rules changing. Im sure many  here could apply for these positions. 

 

Crazy. No way to enjoy travel or the simple life. Ha simple life, what is that?

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, Gatorzzzz said:

With all due respect, I believe you are misinformed, in part and correct in part. Here is a quote from an email I received from Viking: “This policy update is aligned with current CDC guidelines and means that to sail with Viking, guests will need to provide proof of up to date immunization against COVID-19 at least 14 days prior to travel.”  However, the CDC has recommended that Americans not cruise and of course Viking is ignoring that recommendation. My quoted sentence includes a direct link to the CDC website explaining boosters. 

Plus, European countries have adopted a 270 day rule. 

 

Finally, when I spoke to Viking I asked the exact question about Viking, Norway, and flying under the Swiss flag. Their response was that Viking flies under multiple flags. 
 

I have a long post about my call with Viking in the Rhine 2022 Roll Call thread. 

 

 

Personally, I don't believe all that I receive from the Viking Sales Office in Los Angeles, unless it was received from multiple sources.

 

The sales persons can state that Viking is aligned with the US CDC, but in actual fact, Viking operates at a significantly higher standard than required of other cruise lines that operate at the minimum US CDC standard. Some specific areas where Viking operate at a higher standard

• Viking mandate boosters are required, but with US CDC it is only a recommendation
• Viking requires ALL pax be fully vaccinated, the US CDC does not
• Viking require daily onboard PCR testing, which is not even mentioned by the US CDC
• Viking pax carry contact tracing devices, which again is not a US CDC requirement

 

This Board is dedicated to Viking Ocean and all those ships, including the Expedition ships, operate under the Norwegian Flag, on the NIS Register. The river ships have different ports of registry, but they are not discussed on this Board.

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

2 hours ago, jonthomas said:

I can no longer keep up with all the rules, regulations and changes. Nor do I want a PHd in this field.   Many can now make a career out of creating   rules as fast as they can and get paid good salaries for it. A new field in the job market. Rules development, rules adjustment, rules interpretation, rules enforcing, rules changing. Im sure many  here could apply for these positions. 

 

Crazy. No way to enjoy travel or the simple life. Ha simple life, what is that?

Couldn’t agree more. We booked our first Viking cruise a couple years back for a September 2021 cruise, which Viking canceled. We really wanted to try Viking and accepted the 125% voucher. We are now sailing in September 2022. Until I read this post I had absolutely no idea that if something changed and we couldn’t travel for health issues, our Trip Mate insurance would be worthless. This is one of those major issues that should be made very clear at the time when vouchers are offered. At our ages we never book any cruise without buying insurance. Essentially, this is what we have done by accepting the vouchers. I don’t care if every cruise line does this. It still stinks. I would assume that 125% vouchers probably don’t really cost Viking anything. There’s going to be some passengers like the OP who will never be able to use them with no recourse for a refund. There will be many, like us, who have excess money remaining on our voucher that won’t be used up since they can’t be converted to OBC. 
 

Maybe Viking and other cruise lines don’t care how this looks. But it’s things like this along with Viking wanting all the fares up front that could eventually turn customers off. Don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to our first Viking adventure. I just hope we don’t get sick ahead of time.