Royal Caribbean Horrible Customer Service... leaves family stranded

[topnole]

11 minutes ago, Crazy planning mom said:

We sailed last month out of Greece on a different line.  Greece changed their protocols less than 2 weeks before our cruise.

Just curious.  What would’ve happened if you didn’t meet those protocols.  Example.  You needed a boosted 14 days prior or something like that ?   Do you know if they had a policy on refunds for those that couldn’t meet the new protocols less than 2 weeks in?

[topnole]

6 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

When the OP checked in for their cruise they had to check a box and acknowledge the protocols.

This is on the OP

I’m not saying it isn’t.  But perhaps the OP was confused (still their fault).   Actually, it has to be that way or it wouldn’t have happened.   I just don’t get the gleeful roasting by others.  It’s like they take joy in it the negative situation.  

[Crazy planning mom]

8 minutes ago, topnole said:

Just curious.  What would’ve happened if you didn’t meet those protocols.  Example.  You needed a boosted 14 days prior or something like that ?   Do you know if they had a policy on refunds for those that couldn’t meet the new protocols less than 2 weeks in?

Well, in ourcase the requirements were loosened less than 14 days out.  We were already boosted but as a result of the change, we didnt have to test.   Our cruise also stopped in Israel which also loosened requirements not long before our sailing.  Our cruise wasnt very crowded and I suspect that was due to the original requirements.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Crazy planning mom

[topnole]

29 minutes ago, StephPS79 said:

 

I mean, to me it is pretty clear.  Saying nothing about TAs out of the U.S. would indicate they aren't required, since it specifically states what IS required.  I'm sure they could not allow you to leave, based on the requirements, but again, that is the traveler's responsibility to be informed and act accordingly.

 

I think you are highlighting my point.  It does seem pretty clear.  But then again it is the traveler’s responsibility.  So shouldn’t Royal just make it explicit so there is no confusion among the masses.  For example, for TAs leaving from the US…..   We can all infer a meaning from the exceptions section, but it certainly isn’t explained as it forces one to use process of elimination to determine the situation.  Given EU departure TAs require vaccination, it makes one wonder why the other direction would be different.  Just way too much ambiguity for such an important aspect of preparation for passengers IMHO.   

[topnole]

14 minutes ago, Crazy planning mom said:

Well, in ourcase the requirements were loosened less than 14 days out.  We were already boosted but as a result of the change, we didnt have to test.   Our cruise also stopped in Israel which also loosened requirements not long before our sailing.  Our cruise wasnt very crowded and I suspect that was due to the original requirements.

Yeah.  Loosening is way more likely.  But I just realized my wife wouldn’t qualify for a Euro departing TA because she never had a booster.  Just the originals vaccination whereas I’ve had original and one booster over a year ago and would be eligible.  We would love to do one and I didn’t realize until this thread that boosters were required on TAs.  None of the requirements confuse me, but I could see a lot of people I know being totally lost trying to follow it all (the Euro required booster timing, original vax timing, etc.).  
 

Add to this the ridiculousness of it all.  My booster qualifies me even though it was over a year ago.  😂😂.  And I got Covid soon after that and yet again recently.  😂😂.  My wife will not get another shot and has plenty of immunity from two prior infections as well (all mild for both of us).  I won’t be getting another shot either.  So if they up the vaccination requirements, we would be SOL.  I though I was ready for a Euro TA, I guess I need to reconsider.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by topnole

[Starry Eyes]

20 minutes ago, topnole said:

I’m not saying it isn’t.  But perhaps the OP was confused (still their fault).   Actually, it has to be that way or it wouldn’t have happened.   I just don’t get the gleeful roasting by others.  It’s like they take joy in it the negative situation.  

Gleeful?  Joy?  
Emotions can be difficult to discern in written words.  I am not joyful or gleeful nor do I recall joy or glee in other posts.  It is a long thread; I suppose I could have missed some.  Or might you be misreading people’s emotions?

Edited November 18, 2022 by Starry Eyes

[StephPS79]

15 minutes ago, topnole said:

I think you are highlighting my point.  It does seem pretty clear.  But then again it is the traveler’s responsibility.  So shouldn’t Royal just make it explicit so there is no confusion among the masses.  For example, for TAs leaving from the US…..   We can all infer a meaning from the exceptions section, but it certainly isn’t explained as it forces one to use process of elimination to determine the situation.  Given EU departure TAs require vaccination, it makes one wonder why the other direction would be different.  Just way too much ambiguity for such an important aspect of preparation for passengers IMHO.   

Then they would have to specifically call out everything, rather than calling out the very few exceptions.  Why not list just the exceptions and move on.  I find this to be much less ambiguous.  The direction matters because the travel requirements to enter the U.S. are different than the requirements to enter Europe, which is that all the protocols are centered around.

[kirtihk]

On 11/16/2022 at 7:59 AM, Ret MP said:

I too am a Royal Fan.  However, I KNOW that relying on the "PHONE ANSWERERS" at the Mother Ship is precarious at best.  That'  s not to lay blame at the feet of the Guests/Customers.  Just a well known fact!  I would never rely on the answers of great importance that I get from the "PHONE ANSWERERS"  I always go to their website FAQs and other OFFICIAL sources.  For example:  I take my drone with me on all my sailings, I take a copy of Royal's FAQ about drones (and it's good I do), and I make sure I check the websites of the countries I visit.  But, at the end of the day, it is the Cruiser's responsibility to follow ALL rules/regulations/policies/laws.  

sure... the same as it is a taxpayer's responsibility to follow ALL blah, blah, blah...  they create chaos (not cruise lines, of course)... and wash their hands... "this is how we do it..."

 

Hoping at the end, not "ending up" as a guy from end of the voyage below...

 

https://youtu.be/sM2ZhByFcDk

 

Voyage, Voyage!!!

Edited November 18, 2022 by kirtihk

[topnole]

1 minute ago, StephPS79 said:

Then they would have to specifically call out everything, rather than calling out the very few exceptions.  Why not list just the exceptions and move on.  I find this to be much less ambiguous.  The direction matters because the travel requirements to enter the U.S. are different than the requirements to enter Europe, which is that all the protocols are centered around.

Interesting.  I had no idea the US required folks coming from Europe on a TA to be vaccinated.  I wouldn’t guessed

the other way around.  That’s why I second guess the current protocol as it is stated on the website.  

[Ret MP]

3 minutes ago, kirtihk said:

sure... the same as it is a taxpayer's responsibility to follow ALL blah, blah, blah...  they create chaos... and wash their hands... "this is how we do it..."

No matter how you feel about it, it doesn't change the fact that it is the Cruiser's responsibility to follow ALL rules/regulations/policies/laws.  Why?  Because it is the Cruiser that ultimately pays the price for their actions or lack thereof.  

[gumshoe958]

3 minutes ago, topnole said:

Interesting.  I had no idea the US required folks coming from Europe on a TA to be vaccinated.  I wouldn’t guessed

the other way around.  That’s why I second guess the current protocol as it is stated on the website.  

The US requires all non-residents/non-citizens to be vaccinated as a condition of entry, whether cruising or flying. It’s one of the last major western countries to do so.

[kirtihk]

9 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

No matter how you feel about it, it doesn't change the fact that it is the Cruiser's responsibility to follow ALL rules/regulations/policies/laws.  Why?  Because it is the Cruiser that ultimately pays the price for their actions or lack thereof.  

it is the Cruiser that ultimately pays the price.

 

I'm good, and I'm feeling alright...

Edited November 18, 2022 by kirtihk

[Starry Eyes]

17 minutes ago, gumshoe958 said:

The US requires all non-residents/non-citizens to be vaccinated as a condition of entry, whether cruising or flying. It’s one of the last major western countries to do so.

There are exceptions.  Specifically, I do not think that requirement applies to children under 18, so the US entry requirement was probably not the reason Royal made the change for children 5-11.  They had their own reasons. 

 

“Categories of noncitizen nonimmigrants that meet the criteria for an exception under the Proclamation and CDC’s Amended Order include:

• Persons on diplomatic or official foreign government travel
• Children under 18 years of age
• Persons with documented medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine…” etc for multiple additional exceptions 

[taglovestocruise]

1 hour ago, topnole said:

Actually they haven’t really changed at the speed of light.  In fact far from it.  
 

Actually they have changed at the blink of a eye.  We sailed Seattle to Vancouver at the end of Sep. We needed a proctored test before we sailed. 7 days later arriving in Vancouver we needed the Proctored test to be able to board in Vancouver going to Hawaii.  We were in line waiting to take the proctored test that was available in the Pan Pacific Hotel at a cost of $70 per person. While sitting and waiting for our test time my wife received a email from Royal that a proctored test was no longer needed and a picture of a home test was all that was needed for our sailing two days away.  Luckily we had a couple of the free tests that came from the US post office, took a quick picture and all was good. On the day we arrived in Vancouver masks were required in all public transportation and inside the terminals, two days later no masks required anywhere.  First two days on the ship headed to Hawaii masks were required for the crew, starting on day three the mask requirement was dropped and 90% of the crew were maskless.   We have found Royal to be very quick at updating all protocols. 

[crzndeb]

1 hour ago, topnole said:

But I just realized my wife wouldn’t qualify for a Euro departing TA because she never had a booster.  Just the originals vaccination whereas I’ve had original and one booster over a year ago and would be eligible.

It’s not a cruise line requirement. It’s the country requirement. Spain was still on 270 rule, so I got my first booster to sail TA. Italy did not require a booster. 

[suzyluvs2cruise]

3 hours ago, topnole said:

The page states the requirements and then the exceptions like for Australia and including the TAs departing from Europe.  So that implies US departing TAs do not require the same vaccine status.  For example, you must be boosted after full vaccination at any prior time (or vaccinated within the past 270s as

I recall).  But that requirement doesn’t seem to apply to TAs leaving out of the US.  
 

You’d think they might just spell it out that US departing TAs do not fall under that requirement (assuming that is indeed true).  My guess is things will losses more than tighten (as has been the strong trend around the globe, but either way Royal should just be explicit on the current protocols vs having one determine it by process of elimination.  

Implying and assuming don't come into play now. As others have said protocols are fluid and changing. 

[Another_Critic]

If you're concerned about the protocols, the safe bet is to assume everyone needs to be vaccinated, boosted (within 270 days), monitored test, and masked.  And buy cancel for any reason insurance.

[not-enough-cruising]

2 hours ago, topnole said:

I’m not saying it isn’t.  But perhaps the OP was confused (still their fault).   Actually, it has to be that way or it wouldn’t have happened.   I just don’t get the gleeful roasting by others.  It’s like they take joy in it the negative situation.  

I agree. Some reactions on this board are pathologic 

[ssb]

There is no excuse for RCL .

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.

Edited November 18, 2022 by ssb

[Ret MP]

7 minutes ago, ssb said:

There is no excuse for RCL .  I didn't read anywhere, and no I didn't read every post on every page, where anybody gave RCL a pass on anything.

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.  How do you know that for sure?  

 

[StephPS79]

23 minutes ago, ssb said:

There is no excuse for RCL .

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.

 

You mean that OP that made that 1 post and then vanished?...

[Starry Eyes]

8 minutes ago, ssb said:

There is no excuse for RCL .

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.

Maybe, maybe not.  You did not hear the calls, so you really do not know.  Nor do I.  We know what the OP wrote in that one post. If you did not hear both sides of those calls yourself, you do not know if the calls were made or what exactly was said.  I think Royal should review the calls.

Of course there are phone reps taking calls as people plan for cruises.  They answer questions everyday from people who do not have reservation numbers.  

[not-enough-cruising]

34 minutes ago, ssb said:

There is no excuse for RCL .

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.

I can call CS and ask "What is the current protocols for "XXXX" and they will tell me.

There isn't always a need nor a request for reservation number nor personal information; if there had been, then the CS agent would read off the same script that we all see on the website.

[fenton04]

25 minutes ago, ssb said:

There is no excuse for RCL .

 

When one calls , the representative always starts out with asking for reservation #,

and will not go forward with out knowing all about specific cruise and you !!!!!!!!!!

 

Therefore, the three representatives had to know the cruise was a transatlantic.

And the three should have only communicated transatlantic information to passenger .

This is regardless of what passenger told three representatives.

 

RCL representatives  gave out false information to OP.

When you call a business and in the greeting says “this call MAY be recorded.  I was a customer service rep for a large national reference lab.  I am here to tell you the calls are all recorded.  In my twelve years in customer service I had 5 complaints lodge against me.  When the call ended I knew the sales rep was going to get a call.  This then escalated to my supervisor who forwarded the recorded conversation plus the alleged transgressions.  When I conferenced with my supervisor the claimed transgressions were proved false.  If any of the allegations would have been true I would have been terminated.  All customer service reps know this.  I guess you know where I am going with the assertion “false information”.  Every case of the call escalations.was the customer hearing what they wanted to hear.

[kirtihk]

2 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

If you're concerned about the protocols, the safe bet is to assume everyone needs to be vaccinated, boosted (within 270 days), monitored test, and masked.  And buy cancel for any reason insurance.

Wow!!! Bravo!!! Sounds like a comedy line.