Bait and Switch with Cruise Itineraries

[Hlitner]

We have noticed a disturbing trend, with multiple cruise lines, to announce cruise itineraries, accept bookings, and later make major modifications to the itinerary with no explanation to those already booked.  In some cases, the changes might even happen after final payment, and inside penalty periods.  The cruise lines can fallback to their "Terms and Conditions" which give the lines the right to change itineraries at their whim, with little or no opportunity for booked cruisers to cancel.   Just this past year, on our own bookings, we have run into major changes on Seabourn and Oceania.  Others have recently posted about changes (the last-minute elimination of the Alaskan Inside Passage route) in a HAL cruise.  Sometimes the cruise lines will offer compensation (because of changes) and other times cruisers get nothing but a sour taste in their mouths.  

 

For many years, I have talked about some kind of "Passenger Bill of Rights" that would shift some rights from the cruise lines to the customers/passengers.  While itinerary changes will often happen for very good reasons (bad weather, wars, etc) there now seems to be many times that it seems like the cruise lines must be aware of changes long before they are announced to cruisers.  Some recent examples involve ports such as Key West and Bora Bora, which have adopted cruise ship restrictions.  Certain cruise line's will keep these ports (and others) on their itinerary until late in the booking process, or even after embarkation, and then make a change/cancellation like this is unavoidable!  

 

As a frequent cruiser who has run into this problem on an increasingly common basis, I think it is a topic worthy of constructive discussion (and perhaps some investigation by the CC editors with the goal of posting an article about the subject).  Let us all try to keep this topic. civil, and not turn it into a rant about this subject.  What do you think?

 

Hank

[CDNPolar]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

We have noticed a disturbing trend, with multiple cruise lines, to announce cruise itineraries, accept bookings, and later make major modifications to the itinerary with no explanation to those already booked.  In some cases, the changes might even happen after final payment, and inside penalty periods.  The cruise lines can fallback to their "Terms and Conditions" which give the lines the right to change itineraries at their whim, with little or no opportunity for booked cruisers to cancel.   Just this past year, on our own bookings, we have run into major changes on Seabourn and Oceania.  Others have recently posted about changes (the last-minute elimination of the Alaskan Inside Passage route) in a HAL cruise.  Sometimes the cruise lines will offer compensation (because of changes) and other times cruisers get nothing but a sour taste in their mouths.  

 

For many years, I have talked about some kind of "Passenger Bill of Rights" that would shift some rights from the cruise lines to the customers/passengers.  While itinerary changes will often happen for very good reasons (bad weather, wars, etc) there now seems to be many times that it seems like the cruise lines must be aware of changes long before they are announced to cruisers.  Some recent examples involve ports such as Key West and Bora Bora, which have adopted cruise ship restrictions.  Certain cruise line's will keep these ports (and others) on their itinerary until late in the booking process, or even after embarkation, and then make a change/cancellation like this is unavoidable!  

 

As a frequent cruiser who has run into this problem on an increasingly common basis, I think it is a topic worthy of constructive discussion (and perhaps some investigation by the CC editors with the goal of posting an article about the subject).  Let us all try to keep this topic. civil, and not turn it into a rant about this subject.  What do you think?

 

Hank

 

Hank,

 

I agree with you.

 

We have only experienced this in two ways - one was the Ukraine war that took Estonia, Russia, and Finland off our itinerary, but the cruise line (Viking) notified us early and gave us an onboard credit for the trouble.  Welcomed but not necessary because of the situation.  They also offered us to cancel for full refund.

 

The other was the notorious Key West.  It was on the itinerary, the shore excursions were even listed, but every one was showing sold out.  We did not find out we were not stopping their until the day we were supposed to dock.  This was only day 2 of the cruise.

 

I have read many situations of what you are talking about.  

 

How does a cruise line know that perhaps the main or the only reason I am booking this cruise was for that port?  They don't.

 

We struggled with St. Petersburg Russia being removed as BEFORE THE WAR, this was one main reason for booking this itinerary.  We finally decided to go anyway.  I would never expect compensation for this because the cruise line is looking out for the safety of their crew and guests.

 

I do believe that a passenger bill of rights is a great idea, but it would have to encompass all ships globally.

[leaveitallbehind]

While I don't disagree with the context of your concerns regarding late or unclarified changes in itineraries, IMO using the term "bait and switch" in describing the action implies, at least to me, an intent to lure one into one into an itinerary with a designed plan to later change that itinerary once one is committed to a booking.

 

With itineraries planed typically 18 months or more in advance many things can happen that could not be predicted that over time could legitimately result in a change in itinerary.  IMO to say that any given cruise line intentionally would plan to change a given itinerary with its' publication is questionable.  What would be the benefit to the cruise line in doing so?  With bookings as high as they are today I don't see a favorable motivation.  And while there certainly have been a number of itineraries in recent years that have been changed late in the booking cycle or without clear explanation, the percentage in comparison to all itineraries booked is very small.  

 

Again, I don't take issue with your opinion regarding your concerns, only the use of the what IMO is provocative wording in your thread's title.  I also don't take issue in theory with your position on an improvement in a customer's rights.  You have discussed that before and I respect your opinion regarding that.

Edited May 17 by leaveitallbehind

[AKJonesy]

I was one of those on the Westerdam crossing from Tokyo and we missed the Inside Passage.  We were compensated fairly well, so I was happy about that PLUS we lucked out on the outside of the passage with "fairly" calm waters.  If anyone has traveled up the coast, you know it can get rough.  I was a bit suspicious about the whole thing because in the morning, I went up to get coffee in Crow's Nest at Explorations Cafe and noticed on the monitor we were heading to the OUTSIDE of the island. Many hours later, we were somewhat along the outside of the island and the Captain made an announcement around 2pm that we would NOT be going on the inside passage.  What?  They didn't know we were coming?  LOL.  OK so jk but the reasoning sounded strange and I did think "bait and switch" also but was happy we were compensated.  I had been on the inside passage before, so for me it wasn't a huge deal.  Yes, I agree there seems to be more and more itinerary changes.  We also missed Key West, Barbados, St. Kitts on other recent sailings.  These WERE NOT due to medical emergencies.  What I don't like is the standard, "operational reasons" excuse.  It's a good thing we are pretty low key cruisers, but it "seems" there is something more going on.  IMHO.  

[StollyBolly]

We had an interesting one recently with Silversea.  We must have received 3 emails with itinerary port changes.   Then 3+ weeks out we get a call from our TA with a heads up that due to the Jones Act the cruise would end in Vancouver not SF.   They offered a full refund, discounted fare or 10% up on future booking.   Very strange the line did not know the reprieve of the Jones Act had expired.  We opted to cancel, it worked best for us.   
 

 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, leaveitallbehind said:

While I don't disagree with the context of your concerns regarding late or unclarified changes in itineraries, IMO using the term "bait and switch" in describing the action implies, at least to me, an intent to lure one into one into an itinerary with a designed plan to later change that itinerary once one is committed to a booking.

 

With itineraries planed typically 18 months or more in advance many things can happen that could not be predicted that over time could legitimately result in a change in itinerary.  IMO to say that any given cruise line intentionally would plan to change a given itinerary with its' publication is questionable.  What would be the benefit to the cruise line in doing so?  With bookings as high as they are today I don't see a favorable motivation.  And while there certainly have been a number of itineraries in recent years that have been changed late in the booking cycle or without clear explanation, the percentage in comparison to all itineraries booked is very small.  

 

Again, I don't take issue with your opinion regarding your concerns, only the use of the what IMO is provocative wording in your thread's title.  I also don't take issue in theory with your position on an improvement in a customer's rights.  You have discussed that before and I respect your opinion regarding that.

 

When the cruise line knows that it will not being doing the advertised itinerary but still sells tickets then I would call it deceptive.   

[leaveitallbehind]

15 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

When the cruise line knows that it will not being doing the advertised itinerary but still sells tickets then I would call it deceptive.   

I don't disagree but IMO it also depends on when they understand that and how it is handled with the passengers. Most itinerary changes occur well into the selling cycle, and most IMO for valid reasons at the time. When this occurs, what is being offered instead and how is it being communicated?

 

My point is with intent, and that B & S implies the intent to change to something different when initially offered for sale.  Again I'm not disputing that changes occur that can be poorly managed for the customer.  Just with the terminology of B & S that implies that an itinerary change was the intent all along.

 

JMO and not arguing in the least.

Edited May 17 by leaveitallbehind

[ldubs]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

We have noticed a disturbing trend, with multiple cruise lines, to announce cruise itineraries, accept bookings, and later make major modifications to the itinerary with no explanation to those already booked.  In some cases, the changes might even happen after final payment, and inside penalty periods.  The cruise lines can fallback to their "Terms and Conditions" which give the lines the right to change itineraries at their whim, with little or no opportunity for booked cruisers to cancel.   Just this past year, on our own bookings, we have run into major changes on Seabourn and Oceania.  Others have recently posted about changes (the last-minute elimination of the Alaskan Inside Passage route) in a HAL cruise.  Sometimes the cruise lines will offer compensation (because of changes) and other times cruisers get nothing but a sour taste in their mouths.  

 

For many years, I have talked about some kind of "Passenger Bill of Rights" that would shift some rights from the cruise lines to the customers/passengers.  While itinerary changes will often happen for very good reasons (bad weather, wars, etc) there now seems to be many times that it seems like the cruise lines must be aware of changes long before they are announced to cruisers.  Some recent examples involve ports such as Key West and Bora Bora, which have adopted cruise ship restrictions.  Certain cruise line's will keep these ports (and others) on their itinerary until late in the booking process, or even after embarkation, and then make a change/cancellation like this is unavoidable!  

 

As a frequent cruiser who has run into this problem on an increasingly common basis, I think it is a topic worthy of constructive discussion (and perhaps some investigation by the CC editors with the goal of posting an article about the subject).  Let us all try to keep this topic. civil, and not turn it into a rant about this subject.  What do you think?

 

Hank

 

 If the cruise line knows ahead of time, the itinerary change should be communicated as soon as it is known.   I think basic customer service would include providing the reason for the change.  

 

So other than timely notification, what would be included in a Passenger Bill of Rights?  Refund regardless of timing for changes without good reason?   Will need to fully define good reason.   

 

I have some hesitancy about this if it would result in any pressure to not make safety the #1 priority.   A passenger bill of right should have the same priority.  

Edited May 17 by ldubs

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, StollyBolly said:

Very strange the line did not know the reprieve of the Jones Act had expired.

No stranger than the cruise line or travel agent not knowing the Jones Act had nothing to do with it. The Jones Act applies to the shipment of cargo, not to transporting passengers.  The law governing the transportation of passengers is the Passenger Vessel Services Act. (PVSA).

[ldubs]

4 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

I don't disagree but IMO it also depends on when they understand that and how it is handled with the passengers. Most itinerary changes occur well into the selling cycle, and most IMO for valid reasons at the time. When this occurs, what is being offered instead and how is it being communicated?

 

My point is with intent, and that B & S implies the intent to change to something different when initially offered for sale.  Again I'm not disputing that changes occur that can be poorly managed for the customer.  Just with the terminology of B & S that implies that an itinerary change was the intent all along.

 

And not arguing in the least.

 

It doesn't matter if the reason is valid.  If the cruise line withholds notification of the change, then they are being dishonest.  The longer they withhold material changes it is likely fewer people will cancel.  Intentionally withholding past the final payment date is incredibly dishonest.   

 

I agree with your point and it appears that is exactly what some lines are doing.  If they know ahead of time but continue to collect fares for an itinerary they know they won't do, then they do have the intent to change to something different -- bait and switch.      

[leaveitallbehind]

14 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

It doesn't matter if the reason is valid.  If the cruise line withholds notification of the change, then they are being dishonest.  The longer they withhold material changes it is likely fewer people will cancel.  Intentionally withholding past the final payment date is incredibly dishonest.   

 

I agree with your point and it appears that is exactly what some lines are doing.  If they know ahead of time but continue to collect fares for an itinerary they know they won't do, then they do have the intent to change to something different -- bait and switch.      

I respect your perspective on many of your posts and agree with most of what you say here.  My only contention is that I don't believe that cruise lines deliberately initially offer itineraries on which they have no intention to deliver. I see no point to that. To me, that is bait and switch. How they manage changes that unintentionally subsequently occur is IMO the point, to which I am in agreement.

Edited May 17 by leaveitallbehind

[ldubs]

23 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

I respect your perspective on many of your posts and agree with most of what you say here.  My only contention is that I don't believe that cruise lines deliberately initially offer itineraries on which they have no intention to deliver. I see no point to that. To me, that is bait and switch. How they manage changes that unintentionally subsequently occur is IMO the point, to which I am in agreement.

 

Might not have been initially deliberate, but is that a criteria?   It is deliberate the minute they know they are offering a thing with the intention of not providing it.  It is incredibly intentional.  I have no need to sugar coat shady business practices.  

Edited May 17 by ldubs

[Mike981]

I do like the idea, since there is little help for the passengers and they are basically at the mercy of the cruise lines. But my question is, who is the judge and jury on who did the passengers wrong?

[clo]

6 hours ago, ldubs said:

Refund regardless of timing for changes without good reason?   Will need to fully define good reason.

I think the Red Sea brouhaha is the extreme example that everyone should remember.

[clo]

5 hours ago, ldubs said:

Might not have been initially deliberate, but is that a criteria?   It is deliberate the minute they know they are offering a thing with the intention of not providing it.  It is incredibly intentional.  I have no need to sugar coat shady business practices.  

Thumbs up.

I was raised in the Catholic church and they had "sins of commission" and "sins of omission." IIRC one was just as bad as the other. Or should be.

[navybankerteacher]

I agree that cruise lines failing to notify booked (and prospective) passengers promptly about itinerary changes is deceptive at best.

 

However any proposed “Passenger Bill of Rights” would be almost certain to result in an increase in fares - any action which might limit the line’s revenue stream would have to be offset.

 

There is no free lunch (except, perhaps, on the Lido deck).

[clo]

28 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

However any proposed “Passenger Bill of Rights” would be almost certain to result in an increase in fares - any action which might limit the line’s revenue stream would have to be offset.

 

I hear you and don't dispute you but are you saying that no one should do anything?

[Hlitner]

51 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I agree that cruise lines failing to notify booked (and prospective) passengers promptly about itinerary changes is deceptive at best.

 

However any proposed “Passenger Bill of Rights” would be almost certain to result in an increase in fares - any action which might limit the line’s revenue stream would have to be offset.

 

There is no free lunch (except, perhaps, on the Lido deck).

I want to note that I never mentioned compensation as a remedy (although there are times when that might be appropriate).   A good start is to ask for a higher degree of transparency.  I also think there are times when the cruise line's should waive their cancellation penalties, when they make significant last minute changes of itinerary.  Once upon a time we had booked an Oceania Marina 18 day voyaged that was to end in Lima, Peru.  Less than 3 weeks prior to the cruise, the line changed part of their itinerary and moved the final port (disembarkation) about 1500 miles to Santiago, Chile!  This put many cruisers (including me) who had booked their own air in a bad place.  Since it was also near the Christmas holiday, there were additional issues related in air travel at a very busy time of the year.  The cruise line did their best to resist refunds, although they were open to the idea of a cancellation along with a future cruise credit.  We ultimately were able to get a 100% refund, but this took a personal message to the CEO by both ourself and our influential high volume cruise agency (who was part of one of the largest travel consortiums).  

 

Over our 50+ years of extensive cruising, we have had very few major glitches, but it has happened.  Because we book through reputable high volume cruise agencies, we have been able to leverage their influence and our own persistence to get favorable outcomes.  In fact, we have often suggested, here on CC, that one reason to use a decent high volume cruise agency is that they have more leverage, when dealing with problems, than a lone cruiser.  

 

We do think that most cruise lines generally "do the right thing" when pushed by knowledgeable cruisers/cruise agents.  But in chats with other cruisers, some of whom lacked a lot of cruise/travel experience, it has occurred to me that those who are somewhat naive/innocent do sometimes get the shaft (I cannot think of a better term).  

 

Part of the problem is that the cruise contracts and/or "terms and conditions" are very one-sided.  The cruise lines can quickly fall back on their legal language (which they have authored) and the consumer capitulates or quickly finds themselves in a tough situation.  

 

We have all met cruisers who "demand compensation" for everything from a lousy excursion to rough seas (I kid you not).  In more than 50 years of extensive cruising (worldwide) we have never asked for any compensation.  At times we have asked for an accommodation (such as a cabin change when our cabin was flooded).  On one cruise, where our cabin (and some others) was filled with paint fumes (they were painting near an outside air intake) we "demanded" they either stop, or pay for us to fly home from the next port (they did stop and apologize).  In that case, multiple complaints (by an entire group of cruisers and even some crew) went unanswered until we finally made a demand (fix the issue or we leave).  That particular issue turned out to create an internal disagreement between the Hotel Manager and Chief Engineer (I kid you not).  

 

Many years ago we were on a cruise (large mass market ship) where nearly half the ship was taken over by one large group.  That group took over multiple public venues (for many evenings) thus depriving the other passengers of several venues that should have been part of the voyage.  The cruise line knew, far in advance, they had booked space for a large group that would disadvantage other cruisers.  But not only did they not disclose this info, but they went to some length to keep the info from cruisers until after embarkation.  This is the kind of thing that can (and should be) covered by a bill of rights.  

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I hear you and don't dispute you but are you saying that no one should do anything?

Not at all - just saying that the overwhelming majority of cruise passengers strike me as preferring low costs to quality experiences.

 

Yes, something should be done — and consumers should be aware that consumer protections cost someone something - and if it doesn’t cost the consumers directly, it must cost the provider (the cruise line)  - and don’t you realize that any costs the cruise lines bear will be passed along to the passengers?

[ldubs]

16 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I want to note that I never mentioned compensation as a remedy (although there are times when that might be appropriate).   A good start is to ask for a higher degree of transparency.  I also think there are times when the cruise line's should waive their cancellation penalties, when they make significant last minute changes of itinerary.  Once upon a time we had booked an Oceania Marina 18 day voyaged that was to end in Lima, Peru.  Less than 3 weeks prior to the cruise, the line changed part of their itinerary and moved the final port (disembarkation) about 1500 miles to Santiago, Chile!  This put many cruisers (including me) who had booked their own air in a bad place.  Since it was also near the Christmas holiday, there were additional issues related in air travel at a very busy time of the year.  The cruise line did their best to resist refunds, although they were open to the idea of a cancellation along with a future cruise credit.  We ultimately were able to get a 100% refund, but this took a personal message to the CEO by both ourself and our influential high volume cruise agency (who was part of one of the largest travel consortiums).  

 

Over our 50+ years of extensive cruising, we have had very few major glitches, but it has happened.  Because we book through reputable high volume cruise agencies, we have been able to leverage their influence and our own persistence to get favorable outcomes.  In fact, we have often suggested, here on CC, that one reason to use a decent high volume cruise agency is that they have more leverage, when dealing with problems, than a lone cruiser.  

 

We do think that most cruise lines generally "do the right thing" when pushed by knowledgeable cruisers/cruise agents.  But in chats with other cruisers, some of whom lacked a lot of cruise/travel experience, it has occurred to me that those who are somewhat naive/innocent do sometimes get the shaft (I cannot think of a better term).  

 

Part of the problem is that the cruise contracts and/or "terms and conditions" are very one-sided.  The cruise lines can quickly fall back on their legal language (which they have authored) and the consumer capitulates or quickly finds themselves in a tough situation.  

 

We have all met cruisers who "demand compensation" for everything from a lousy excursion to rough seas (I kid you not).  In more than 50 years of extensive cruising (worldwide) we have never asked for any compensation.  At times we have asked for an accommodation (such as a cabin change when our cabin was flooded).  On one cruise, where our cabin (and some others) was filled with paint fumes (they were painting near an outside air intake) we "demanded" they either stop, or pay for us to fly home from the next port (they did stop and apologize).  In that case, multiple complaints (by an entire group of cruisers and even some crew) went unanswered until we finally made a demand (fix the issue or we leave).  That particular issue turned out to create an internal disagreement between the Hotel Manager and Chief Engineer (I kid you not).  

 

Many years ago we were on a cruise (large mass market ship) where nearly half the ship was taken over by one large group.  That group took over multiple public venues (for many evenings) thus depriving the other passengers of several venues that should have been part of the voyage.  The cruise line knew, far in advance, they had booked space for a large group that would disadvantage other cruisers.  But not only did they not disclose this info, but they went to some length to keep the info from cruisers until after embarkation.  This is the kind of thing that can (and should be) covered by a bill of rights.  

 

Hank

 

Well said Mr Hlitner!  That is a pretty good skeleton for a passenger bill of rights.