Cancellation of cruise in the Middle East

[Charlene Jones]

25 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

I sincerely hope that we have an opportunity to see first hand the reason this occurred when those affected return from their travels. 
 

After how Oceania has handled this entire situation, or not handled it, I am not in the skeptical camp. 
 

I also highly doubt that the people banned give two hoots after the whole debacle. I seriously doubt that they would want to set foot on an NCL ship again after being offered FCC only to have it rescinded and all that followed. 

You are correct.  The individuals involved would never sail on any NCL owned ship anyway.  So banning them was meaningless.  

[roninman]

6 minutes ago, MarianneBD said:

Because we knew that this would be a difficult change for our guests, we made an open-ended offer for Future Cruise Credits. This was offered on a first come basis.

 

Sounds like they are saying they knew in advance that there would be a ceiling on the number of credits issued.  It also sounds like, when making the offer to customers, they must have deliberately chosen to not disclose any such limitation- at least according to posters here.   Additionally, we don't know a reason for not disclosing that there was a secret ceiling, or what the secret ceiling was- 2 customers?  200?   2000?  

 

Deciding that there should be limitation after the fact, and then retroactively applying it, would be bad enough if that happened- but the alternative of planning the limitation ahead of time but failing to disclose it when making the offer would seem equally off-putting.

[roninman]

6 minutes ago, Jockocruiser said:

enterprise level?

Any idea?

No idea, just a guess:

I'd assume Oceania was at a line of business or brand level, whereas NCL as the parent would be at the enterprise level.

 

[Elless100]

1 hour ago, MarianneBD said:

After sending multiple emails to everyone I could think of, I got a response from the head of Guest Services after sending the article about the Navy destroyer shooting down the drone in the Red Sea. I am one of many who were offered an FCC that was rescinded. 
 

“We recognize that you are booked on an Oceania voyage whose itinerary has been altered due to the current crisis.  It is a very unsettling, destabilizing and time in our world today. 

 

The safety and security of our guests, crew, and the communities we visit remains paramount.  We have made the decision to cancel all calls to the area.  Because we knew that this would be a difficult change for our guests, we made an open-ended offer for Future Cruise Credits. This was offered on a first come basis. Unfortunately, this offer was oversubscribed, and a decision was made at the enterprise level to sunset the offer of FCC.

 

Please be advised that if you decide to cancel your upcoming voyage at this time, the standard penalties will apply. We are not offering any compensation or issuing any Future Cruise Credits for any reservations that are canceled.

 

We understand the frustration and hope you will decide to sail and we are confident that they will enjoy their voyage.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dayami Lazo / Senior Director, Guest Services

P: +1-800-531-5658 ext. 44893 / F: +1 305-514-2222

dlazo@oceaniacruises.com | www.oceaniacruises.com 

Oceania Cruises

7665 Corporate Center Drive | Miami FL 33126

 

­­­

I received the exact same letter.  Word for word 

[Harry Lake]

2 hours ago, MarianneBD said:

We understand the frustration and hope you will decide to sail and we are confident that they will enjoy their voyage.

 

Well, that's all I need. They said it and I've listened. I will also pay attention to what other cruise lines have to say. Our cruise history has been limited and perhaps that's it for us. Certainly WILL NOT cruise on Oceania - except for the one we have booked ..

[Harry Lake]

1 hour ago, roninman said:

Deciding that there should be limitation after the fact, and then retroactively applying it, would be bad enough if that happened- but the alternative of planning the limitation ahead of time but failing to disclose it when making the offer would seem equally off-putting.

Or perhaps they had NO idea of the 'success' of this offer. And woke up and said, "oh, ***** what the hell have we done?!?

[Vineyard View]

I am so truly sorry for all of you affected by this. It simply is not right, and quite honestly unethical IMO. 

[Harry Lake]

21 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

I am so truly sorry for all of you affected by this. It simply is not right, and quite honestly unethical IMO. 

I hope many who are effected will take my advice: don't get angry; get even.

[cruisemom42]

3 hours ago, MarianneBD said:

After sending multiple emails to everyone I could think of, I got a response from the head of Guest Services after sending the article about the Navy destroyer shooting down the drone in the Red Sea. I am one of many who were offered an FCC that was rescinded. 
 

“We recognize that you are booked on an Oceania voyage whose itinerary has been altered due to the current crisis.  It is a very unsettling, destabilizing and time in our world today. 

 

The safety and security of our guests, crew, and the communities we visit remains paramount.  We have made the decision to cancel all calls to the area.  Because we knew that this would be a difficult change for our guests, we made an open-ended offer for Future Cruise Credits. This was offered on a first come basis. Unfortunately, this offer was oversubscribed, and a decision was made at the enterprise level to sunset the offer of FCC.

 

Please be advised that if you decide to cancel your upcoming voyage at this time, the standard penalties will apply. We are not offering any compensation or issuing any Future Cruise Credits for any reservations that are canceled.

 

We understand the frustration and hope you will decide to sail and we are confident that they will enjoy their voyage.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dayami Lazo / Senior Director, Guest Services

P: +1-800-531-5658 ext. 44893 / F: +1 305-514-2222

dlazo@oceaniacruises.com | www.oceaniacruises.com 

Oceania Cruises

7665 Corporate Center Drive | Miami FL 33126

 

­­­

 

So, cutting to the chase, the message is:

 

Oceania cares about the safety and security of those aboard our ships transiting through an area that we acknowledge to be "unsettling and destabilizing" -- but only those of you who took our FCC offer that was quickly rescinded with no notice.

 

The rest of you are on your own as regards your safety and security.

[CurlerRob]

7 hours ago, MarianneBD said:

After sending multiple emails to everyone I could think of, I got a response from the head of Guest Services after sending the article about the Navy destroyer shooting down the drone in the Red Sea. I am one of many who were offered an FCC that was rescinded. 
 

“We recognize that you are booked on an Oceania voyage whose itinerary has been altered due to the current crisis.  It is a very unsettling, destabilizing and time in our world today. 

 

The safety and security of our guests, crew, and the communities we visit remains paramount.  We have made the decision to cancel all calls to the area.  Because we knew that this would be a difficult change for our guests, we made an open-ended offer for Future Cruise Credits. This was offered on a first come basis. Unfortunately, this offer was oversubscribed, and a decision was made at the enterprise level to sunset the offer of FCC.

 

Please be advised that if you decide to cancel your upcoming voyage at this time, the standard penalties will apply. We are not offering any compensation or issuing any Future Cruise Credits for any reservations that are canceled.

 

We understand the frustration and hope you will decide to sail and we are confident that they will enjoy their voyage.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dayami Lazo / Senior Director, Guest Services

P: +1-800-531-5658 ext. 44893 / F: +1 305-514-2222

dlazo@oceaniacruises.com | www.oceaniacruises.com 

Oceania Cruises

7665 Corporate Center Drive | Miami FL 33126

 

­­­

 

Thank you for posting this. Fortunately, I have no dog in this hunt, but a couple of observations ...

 

The phrase "open ended offer" indicates a lack of any time limitation, inconsistent with the withdrawal of the offer.

 

The phrase "first come basis" (which I presume was intended to mean first come, first served) speaks to the order of processing of the requests, not any cap on availability.

 

The phrase "oversubscribed" indicates a predetermined level of availability, inconsistent with both offers above.

 

If it were me and I chose not to sail, I would dispute the CC charges and advise O that they had 30 days to pony up the FCC first offered. If they refused, I'd take the story to any and all media that would accept it. I could care less if they refused me future passage - who would want to do business with a company who acts this way?

 

If I chose to sail so as not to potentially lose the fare, I would write again, requesting at least some degree of compensation (even if I would never use it should they provide FCC). Failing that, I'd still try on the media approach after the cruise.

 

The letter you received makes it clear that Oceania offered, then arbitrarily rescinded FCC, acting both unethically and in bad faith. I cannot comprehend the thinking of an organization that would act this way. 

 

Best of luck. 🍺🥌

[Mary229]

20 hours ago, roninman said:

If a merchant fails to deliver goods and services as described, and the merchant fails to in good faith attempt to negotiate a compromise, then why shouldn't the consumer have initiated the chargeback, as the US Congress allowed?  If the card issuer then agrees with the consumer to issue a permanent credit for the transaction, it presumably found a lawful reason for so doing.   Maybe the merchant should also refuse future business with the bank for agreeing with the consumer.  

 

 

When you or your agent clicks that little buy button it includes a contract not a product.   That contract is heavily in favor of the cruise line and includes war, civil unrest and change of itineraries.  In this case I think the biggest complaint is the uneven and perhaps unethical handling of FCCs and cancellation requests.  Most of the cruisers affected acknowledge the contract but were originally offered some compensation later withdrawn.  They also lost hotel and airfare which should be refunded, there is absolutely no reason those can’t be at least partially refunded.  

[roninman]

You know, taking a step back, you really gotta admire the business model:

 

 

1) Charge consumers full price, in some cases several months before a single service is offered.

2) Unilaterally radically change the described and advertised service offering and letting the consumer know in no uncertain terms that they have no say or recourse.

3) While the corporation can at its whim change the service offering without compensation, the consumer has no such corresponding capability.

4) Ignoring or being snooty if consumers question business decisions of the corporation.

5) Finally offering sincere goodwill compensation to consumers for a certain time period.  Then capriciously snatching away that compensation without notice or explanation.

6) Ignoring or being snooty when consumers question why the promise of future credit was broken, instead blaming consumers for not taking the offer immediately.

7) Retaliating against consumers who complain or seek redress by banning them forever.

😎 Maintain a loyal body of dedicated social media sycophants who will readily blame the consumer for being concerned

 

... all while offering lovely brochures and web pages advising how customers are treated like family, are pampered, and are given every luxury.

 

 

No other industry comes to mind who could get off behaving in such a one-sided manner.    It's a real tribute to cruise companies that they have convinced customers they must accept this arrangement, and I mean this sincerely.

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, roninman said:

You know, taking a step back, you really gotta admire the business model:

 

 

1) Charge consumers full price, in some cases several months before a single service is offered.

2) Unilaterally radically change the described and advertised service offering and letting the consumer know in no uncertain terms that they have no say or recourse.

3) While the corporation can at its whim change the service offering without compensation, the consumer has no such corresponding capability.

4) Ignoring or being snooty if consumers question business decisions of the corporation.

5) Finally offering sincere goodwill compensation to consumers for a certain time period.  Then capriciously snatching away that compensation without notice or explanation.

6) Ignoring or being snooty when consumers question why the promise of future credit was broken, instead blaming consumers for not taking the offer immediately.

7) Retaliating against consumers who complain or seek redress by banning them forever.

😎 Maintain a loyal body of dedicated social media sycophants who will readily blame the consumer for being concerned

 

... all while offering lovely brochures and web pages advising how customers are treated like family, are pampered, and are given every luxury.

 

 

No other industry comes to mind who could get off behaving in such a one-sided manner.    It's a real tribute to cruise companies that they have convinced customers they must accept this arrangement, and I mean this sincerely.

I did not mean to quote you above, sorry.  There was another post a few pages back and obviously a glitch happening on cruise critic.

[ak1004]

11 hours ago, CurlerRob said:

 

Thank you for posting this. Fortunately, I have no dog in this hunt, but a couple of observations ...

 

The phrase "open ended offer" indicates a lack of any time limitation, inconsistent with the withdrawal of the offer.

 

The phrase "first come basis" (which I presume was intended to mean first come, first served) speaks to the order of processing of the requests, not any cap on availability.

 

The phrase "oversubscribed" indicates a predetermined level of availability, inconsistent with both offers above.

 

If it were me and I chose not to sail, I would dispute the CC charges and advise O that they had 30 days to pony up the FCC first offered. If they refused, I'd take the story to any and all media that would accept it. I could care less if they refused me future passage - who would want to do business with a company who acts this way?

 

If I chose to sail so as not to potentially lose the fare, I would write again, requesting at least some degree of compensation (even if I would never use it should they provide FCC). Failing that, I'd still try on the media approach after the cruise.

 

The letter you received makes it clear that Oceania offered, then arbitrarily rescinded FCC, acting both unethically and in bad faith. I cannot comprehend the thinking of an organization that would act this way. 

 

Best of luck. 🍺🥌

 

The letter basically confirms what some people posted here about the FCC offer. It is clear that O really screwed up and provided very poor customer service. It was perfectly fine not to offer any compensation as this is really terrible situation. But to offer FCC and then change their mind after a day or two is not defendable. I don't know what they were thinking.

[roninman]

36 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

When you or your agent clicks that little buy button it includes a contract not a product.   That contract is heavily in favor of the cruise line and includes war, civil unrest and change of itineraries.   

 

The discussion was with regard to credit card chargebacks, and that a card issuing bank has a different standard than the cruise company.  To the cruise company it's a contract.   To the bank it's a financial transaction, in which consumer funds via the credit card are exchanged for goods or services, which are product offerings of a merchant.

 

US Congress has laid out laws such that if, among other reasons, the bank finds that goods or services are not as described, the card issuer may issue a permanent credit to the consumer's account.  This effectively reverses the financial transaction portion of the button press.

 

It however does not address any contract portion of the button press.  And that's why a merchant may still have recourse, in the form of lawsuit or arbitration, and collection, against the consumer.

 

Hope that helps!

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by roninman

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, roninman said:

 

The discussion was with regard to credit card chargebacks, and that a card issuing bank has a different standard than the cruise company.  To the cruise company it's a contract.   To the bank it's a financial transaction, in which consumer funds via the credit card are exchanged for goods or services, which are product offerings of a merchant.

 

US Congress has laid out laws such that if, among other reasons, the bank finds that goods or services are not as described, the card issuer may issue a permanent credit to the consumer's account.  This effectively reverses the financial transaction portion of the button press.

 

It however does not address any contract portion of the button press.  And that's why a merchant may still have recourse, in the form of lawsuit or arbitration, and collection, against the consumer.

 

 

 

I have had many merchant accounts and merchant accounts are tailored to the industry.  The credit card company will back contractual terms of the merchant if the merchant is using the proper merchant account, which I am sure NCLH has.   Anyway, again I did not mean to quote you. I am sorry for that mistake

Edited November 17, 2023 by Mary229

[roninman]

1 minute ago, Mary229 said:

I have had many merchant accounts and merchant account are tailored to the industry.  The credit card company will back contractual terms of the merchant if the merchant is using the proper merchant account, which I am sure NCLH has.   Anyway, again I did not mean to quote you. I am sorry for that mistake

No worries!

 

We really never know how these disputes will go.  Sometimes I think it's a flip of a coin...

[Mary229]

Just now, roninman said:

No worries!

 

We really never know how these disputes will go.  Sometimes I think it's a flip of a coin...

They actually do honor the terms.  Since I had in person and internet sales there were two separate provisions for each case and disputes were handled accordingly.  Think about it this way - no cruise line or car dealership would allow credit cards if those institutions did not back their contracts and the credit card companies most definitely want their business.

[roninman]

9 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

They actually do honor the terms.  Since I had in person and internet sales there were two separate provisions for each case and disputes were handled accordingly.  Think about it this way - no cruise line or car dealership would allow credit cards if those institutions did not back their contracts and the credit card companies most definitely want their business.

 

Could well be, but I haven't seen it in my dealings, nor in review of the legislation or the Visa Core Rules.  Their question is mainly whether the language of the Act is met.   I've dealt with major banks with consumer credit cards, and the "adjudication" of disputes is handled by a dedicated team of bank dispute analysts.  Never seen them hand it off to the bank's in house legal department or contracted lawyers- even assuming they staffed industry specific expertise- to review contract language.  Not saying it doesn't happen, and I have no experience with commercial procurement card accounts, but since the expense would be great, I have to wonder. 

 

In any event, my opinion doesn't matter, we'll see how things turn out if any people here that have gone that route report back.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by roninman

[Mary229]

9 minutes ago, roninman said:

 

Could well be, but I haven't seen it in my dealings, nor in review of the legislation or the Visa Core Rules.  Their question is mainly whether the language of the Act is met.   I've dealt with major banks with consumer credit cards, and the "adjudication" of disputes is handled by a dedicated team of bank dispute analysts.  Never seen them hand it off to the bank's in house legal department or contracted lawyers- even assuming they staffed industry specific expertise- to review contract language.  Not saying it doesn't happen, and I have no experience with commercial procurement card accounts, but since the expense would be great, I have to wonder. 

 

In any event, my opinion doesn't matter, we'll see how things turn out if any people here that have gone that route report back.  

Regardless it is a sorry state of affairs for these cruisers.  I have been away for a while, is it known the current status of this original cruise, is it sailing and if so, where 

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, roninman said:

You know, taking a step back, you really gotta admire the business model:

 

 

1) Charge consumers full price, in some cases several months before a single service is offered.

2) Unilaterally radically change the described and advertised service offering and letting the consumer know in no uncertain terms that they have no say or recourse.

3) While the corporation can at its whim change the service offering without compensation, the consumer has no such corresponding capability.

4) Ignoring or being snooty if consumers question business decisions of the corporation.

5) Finally offering sincere goodwill compensation to consumers for a certain time period.  Then capriciously snatching away that compensation without notice or explanation.

6) Ignoring or being snooty when consumers question why the promise of future credit was broken, instead blaming consumers for not taking the offer immediately.

7) Retaliating against consumers who complain or seek redress by banning them forever.

😎 Maintain a loyal body of dedicated social media sycophants who will readily blame the consumer for being concerned

 

... all while offering lovely brochures and web pages advising how customers are treated like family, are pampered, and are given every luxury.

 

 

No other industry comes to mind who could get off behaving in such a one-sided manner.    It's a real tribute to cruise companies that they have convinced customers they must accept this arrangement, and I mean this sincerely.

 

My understand is that their business model doesn't force you to cruise. Don't like their rules - don't cruise.

 

And I don't think it's unique to the cruise industry. We had a non refundable hotel reservation on Expedia for May 2020. Obviously we had to cancel when Covid started. They refused to provide a refund, only credit, valid till end of 2022. We requested an extension and were refused. It expired and they just kept our money.

 

Our friends had a booking for a land tour with Trafalgar for 2020. Again, no refund, only future credit, and when they finally took the tours in 2023, they had to pay the current price which was 40% higher than what they paid.

 

Many airlines refused to provide refunds when flights were cancelled during Covid. And of course when rebooking later, customers had to pay much higher prices.

 

So lets stop the whining and enjoy life. 99% of people in the world would be very happy to have those "problems" - that means that they can afford to travel.

[roninman]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

My understand is that their business model doesn't force you to cruise. Don't like their rules - don't cruise.

 

And I don't think it's unique to the cruise industry. We had a non refundable hotel reservation on Expedia for May 2020. Obviously we had to cancel when Covid started. They refused to provide a refund, only credit, valid till end of 2022. We requested an extension and were refused. It expired and they just kept our money.

 

Many airlines refused to provide refunds when flights were cancelled during Covid. And of course when rebooking later, customers had to pay much higher prices.

 

So lets stop the whining and enjoy life. 99% of people in the world would be very happy to have those "problems" - that means that they can afford to travel.

 

If you had a hotel reservation in Dallas and you show up and the hotel says sorry, we're full, but we transferred your reservation to our sister property in Houston, you will get a refund.

 

If your airline ticket says you land in Atlanta and the airline says, no, we don't fly there anymore, you will get a refund.

 

The cruise customer must be still and just enjoy life, because reasons.  Meanwhile, the corporation keeps their money.   This is what I love about the unique cruising business model!

 

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, roninman said:

 

If you had a hotel reservation in Dallas and you show up and the hotel says sorry, we're full, but we transferred your reservation to our sister property in Houston, you will get a refund.

 

If your airline ticket says you land in Atlanta and the airline says, no, we don't fly there anymore, you will get a refund.

 

The cruise customer must be still and just enjoy life, because reasons.  Meanwhile, the corporation keeps their money.   This is what I love about the unique cruising business model!

 

 

Well, my experience says otherwise. I obviously could not show up in Barcelona in May 2020, and our friends could not take their land tour in Switzerland in 2020 - and still no refunds. And Expedia kept my money. No different. 

[Mary229]

3 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

My understand is that their business model doesn't force you to cruise. Don't like their rules - don't cruise.

 

And I don't think it's unique to the cruise industry. We had a non refundable hotel reservation on Expedia for May 2020. Obviously we had to cancel when Covid started. They refused to provide a refund, only credit, valid till end of 2022. We requested an extension and were refused. It expired and they just kept our money.

 

Our friends had a booking for a land tour with Trafalgar for 2020. Again, no refund, only future credit, and when they finally took the tours in 2023, they had to pay the current price which was 40% higher than what they paid.

 

Many airlines refused to provide refunds when flights were cancelled during Covid. And of course when rebooking later, customers had to pay much higher prices.

 

So lets stop the whining and enjoy life. 99% of people in the world would be very happy to have those "problems" - that means that they can afford to travel.

Airlines do now give credits for flights missed and hotels do also. I have a hotel reservation with a cruise line at this moment and am able to cancel up to 5 days prior to arrival.  I have an international flight through a cruise line that for a small fee with the airline I can receive a voucher for future travel.  A lot has changed in the past few years and the travel I du has become more forgiving.  
 

All of this aside the true issue comes down to broken promises, these people were promised an FCC and a few lucky passengers received them but most of the FCCs were removed.  

 

One of the cruisers mentioned they were losing $30,000 on this cruise, I know for some they may not seem significant but for me that would sting. 

[Harry Lake]

7 hours ago, roninman said:

No other industry comes to mind who could get off behaving in such a one-sided manner.    It's a real tribute to cruise companies that they have convinced customers they must accept this arrangement, and I mean this sincerely.

And I totally agree with you. We've only done handful of cruises over the years, two with O. I will not book another with them...and maybe not with any of the "big boys." Ever. I don't see anyone here, some with 10s of thousands of posts saying that.  What's the expression "Fool me oncee...."