A FEW days ago, a post on one of the several cruise-oriented FB Pages I frequently read caught my attention. On a recent Alaska cruise (the post was made while the cruise was still under way), a medical emergency caused the ship captain to make a decision to sail to the nearest port with quality medical facilities, taking the cruise partly out of its planned itinerary - including missing a day cruising near a glacier. The question was posed to passengers currently onboard, and asked whether they were satisfied with the handling and response of the captain and cruise line.
I am not one who thinks the cruise lines automatically owe us compensation every time something changes. But I do think they owe us a (plausible) explanation
AS MIGHT be expected, the question stimulated a number of (often opinionated) responses. Some were from the target audience, but perhaps most were from posters not even onboard. The OP did not offer an opinion - just asked the question. It got me thinking (I didn't participate in the discussion) that maybe a post about why things don't always go according to plan might be timely. I think it is important to bring some context to this conversation. Cruise ship travel and vacation is unlike any other kind of travel. To be sure, there are things that can disrupt travel by airline and trains, and destination resort travel. They are - though - by and large, more predictable and less variable. With cruises, we are on the sea. There are no "lanes," or highways, and travel is comparatively less (physically) regulated. For most cruises, the plan is to make multiple stops at different places in the world. Each of these stops has its own logistics. More than any other venue, the weather at sea can be at its most violent and unpredictable. If there are issues, there are not places where the ship can pull over and park. Nor can a passenger just get off the ship, except at designated places. The geopolitical divisions at sea are very different than those of land borders. It is a set of very complex conditions which - even in the face of a very sophisticated planning and logistics algorithm, is fraught with more potential for negatives than any other kind of public transit that I know of.
Cruise ship travel and vacation is unlike any other kind of travel
THERE ARE many reasons why a cruise itinerary might be deviated from. There are also many different responses a cruise line might make to these situations. In the previous blog entry, I engaged in a long and rather critical post involving an NCL ship that left some late passengers in port. While that is a very different situation from what I am writing about here, it raised the same issue: whether the cruise line ever owes a "duty" to its passengers beyond their safety while on board; and if so, under what conditions.
it does seem to me, though, that transparency would go a long way toward customer trust and loyalty
PROBABLY THE first place to start is the contract you agree to when you book a cruise. Most people don't read it. It is very long, and in very fine print, and contains its share of what we often referred to in my career as "legalese." I won't go into a long analysis here, but I will tell you (thanks, "captain obvious" 😎) that they are not written with your rights in mind. 😏 Nobody likes all that "fine print" and legal mumbo-jumbo (not even me - and I was a lawyer by career for 40-plus years). We see it constantly, every time we sign up for an online experience, book a trip on an airline or other transit, and of course, on cruises. Most of the time most of us skip it. If you are a frequent cruiser, though, I strongly recommend that you read through one - at least one time. You will find it very "educational." It will answer some of your long-term "burning" questions. It will also probably raise a bunch more of them.
LIKE ANY other business. The first objective of the cruise line (in fairness, like any other business in the history of the world) is to make a profit. A corollary objective is do not have any lost revenue. With that in mind, much of the contract, as well as actions of the cruise line is focused on making and not losing money. I have always been a "free market," person. We could spend an awful lot of time debating what a true free market is. In my opinion, we don't really have that working for us here in the U.S., and it is both conservatives and liberals who have perverted that concept - but I have vowed not to get "political" here on my blogs, so I will leave it at that. Because of my philosophy, I do not begrudge the cruise lines' seeking profit. Most of us have done that personally over the years. The question might better be: how much?
Pretty shocking to me that these attitudes [regarding health emergencies] exist
SOMETHING TO keep in mind when reading the contract - particularly if you are a U.S. citizen (and I suspect most of the readers here are) - is that though we are used to thinking about things under American law, the cruise ships are mostly not bound by U.S. laws. Of course, if they dock in an American port, they must follow U.S. law. It may surprise many people that even though most of the biggest cruise lines are American Corporations (notably NCL and Carnival - who also operate HAL and Princess - and Royal Caribbean - who operates Celebrity). Even though they are U.S. corporations, nearly all of their ships are registered outside the U.S., usually in a small (mostly Caribbean) country whose laws are much more favorable to the business owner than they are to the customer. What that means is that the cruise contract you agree to is not governed by U.S. laws. Nor is the contract or the ship subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If you have a "beef," by contract you agree that legal proceedings will be in some other jurisdiction. As black and white as that seems, it is not. Legal proceedings and rights and responsibilities involving the seas and shipping come under what is known as maritime law and it is very complex. Well beyond the scope this post, though I did blog in slightly more detail in "The Law of the Sea," back in April 2023. These legal complexities, however, often shape the actions of the cruise lines - including changes in ports.
I strongly recommend that you read through one (a contract) at least one time
THE PROFIT-seeking mission permeates different levels. For example, many (if not most) cruise lines compensate the ship captain based on his/her efficiency, including such factors as fuel consumption, time schedule, and other things. At sea, the ship Captain has ultimate say in all decisions aboard the ship. That means if the ship is running late, the captain alone makes the decision whether to try to make up that time. Usually, to make up time, they go faster and consume more fuel, cutting into their profits (and hence, the captain's profit/bonus). Interesting that there is so much discretion given to what really probably should be a business/policy decision. But it underscores the profit-focus of the company - sometimes (in my view) to the disadvantage of the customer.
GIVEN THIS background, there are certainly a lot of variables outside of the control of the ship officers and/or the company management. Most of the time it is these factors beyond their control that account for why things don't always go according to plan. As noted in the beginning, perhaps one of the most compelling and sometimes vexing issues is a passenger health emergency. For me, it goes without saying that a life-threatening emergency trumps any other decision or course of action at sea. It seems like the majority of responses echoed this sentiment and suggested that it is part of the nature of the cruise industry and that passengers needed to just "roll with it." I was indeed surprised that anybody felt differently, but there were a handful of seemingly callous commentors that said the cruise line should either compensate them for their "losses," or not make the decision to divert to the closest medical facility. Pretty shocking to me that these attitudes exist. I get that it may have been a once-in-a-lifetime event for some passengers. The irony is that somebody may be ending their lifetime. In the words of the Rolling Stones song, "you don't always get what you want." We have had a ship either divert or turn around at least two times in the last couple years. In one case, they were able to (mostly) make up the time. In the other case, we missed most of our day at one of our stops. On the other hand, it was in the Caribbean, and we got another nice sea day during the month of February. The closest viable port on that cruise was Nassau, Bahamas. Nassau was not on the itinerary (it was a southern Caribbean run), but I remember thinking that if I had to go to a Caribbean hospital, Nassau, or San Juan would be my first choice as a U.S. citizen. I don't think anybody I knew on board gave the idea of inconvenience a second thought. It just "is."
a life-threatening emergency trumps any other decision or course of action at sea
THERE ARE other events beyond the control of the ship or cruise lines that disrupt a cruise itinerary. Weather is another pretty significant factor. In a number of ports throughout the world, there are not sufficient deepwater facilities to dock a ship on a pier in the port. These places require the ship to anchor out and be "tendered" to shore. Sometimes the wind or other weather conditions simply make tendering unsafe. On a couple of cruises, we have had this experience and have simply been unable to visit the port that was scheduled. We also have had late departures and/or arrivals because of weather conditions. Other than possibly a refund of some port fees, cruise line contracts note that this is a risk of the cruise and do not make any other compensation to passengers. If you read it, that is right there in your contract. And really, it makes sense. We are talking about ships at sea here, and weather is - for most people in this day and age - a known risk. Why should the cruise line bear that risk? As disappointing as it sometimes is, we look at it philosophically, and think of it as perhaps another reason to revisit an itinerary.
THERE IS, however, a circumstance where that balance shifts in my view. In 2023, we cruised on the Oceania Nautica, around South Africa. Besides my admonition that South Africa is not really a very good cruise trip in general, weather was a significant factor in this cruise. I have come to the conclusion that the seas around many parts of that country are consistently rough - particularly down around - and south of -the cape. We left our berth in Cape Town several hours late due to strong winds, which blew directly onto the pier. Ultimately the ship (small by most standards) had to be laterally towed away from the pier and turned, even after the winds died down significantly (one unexpected benefit was to some friends who we met on board who had a luggage issue and the several hours late departure was the only reason they got it before we left 😅). The weather delay was - in my view - completely justified for safety (we learned later that another incoming ship had to "cruise around" outside the port for several hours - again - for safety reasons before docking). Cape Town is the major port in the country. Just a day or two later, we encountered another late arrival - to Durban - due to weather conditions. We were there on a pretty much timely basis, but winds kept us from coming into the port and we sat offshore for a few hours. Again, ship and passenger safety should take precedence over schedule. No reasonable person would doubt that. Then we ran into a windy weather situation again, this time for our final port before returning to Cape Town: Mossel Bay - directly south of the Cape. We were given a "heads up" long before (at least 24 hours) that we would not be stopping, due to heavy winds and waves. This port was also a tender-port. There was a difference, though, with this one and I couldn't (cannot) help thinking this one is on Oceania. Why? During the days following this announcement, we heard a number of times from a number of different onboard crew members that this was a frequent occurrence. At least one crew - who had been on the ship for several cruises - said they had never stopped while he was on - in spite of the fact that it was always on the itinerary. Does there come a point where, as a matter of policy, the cruise line determines that a port is just not viable to maintain on the itinerary? I think so, and I think based on my very small sampling, Mossel Bay is probably one of them.
We are talking about ships at sea here, and weather is - for most people in this day and age - a known risk
PORT CLOSURES are another factor that is mostly out of the cruise line's control, though it probably depends on the amount of lead time they have to react to such closures. Our own experience with it was in 2021, as we were just emerging from the worldwide pandemic. Even well after things began to open back up and cruising resumed, port closures were a serious issue. Our first cruise coming back after the pandemic included stops in the Isle of Guernsey, La Rochelle, France, and (notably) Bilbao Spain. Presumably all because of the pandemic, all three of these ports were changed. Guernsey was totally closed. They may have been one of the last to reopen after Covid. No explanation was ever given for why the other two ports were changed, but in particular, a cruiser would probably be looking forward to Bilbao. One of Spain's most popular cities, it houses the famous Gugenheim Museum, among other things. I am not one who thinks the cruise lines automatically owe us compensation every time something changes. But I do think they owe us a (plausible) explanation for why changes are made. It is natural for a passenger to want to know why changes were made, and it does seem to me that transparency would go a long way toward customer trust and loyalty.
AS I have written about in the past ("Are Cruises Becoming less "Port-Friendly?"), there are numerous factors that affect the use of ports by cruise ships, including port fees, deepwater availability, and the number of ships that can be accommodated. The many different services being provided (and paid for by the cruise line through port fees - and of course - passed on to the passengers) may well explain many of the port changes. Again, I believe the majority of passengers are understanding - given a little transparency - and given the opportunity to have a little insight, would go along and maybe even if given a choice, pay a bit more for the cruise. These things do happen and sometimes at very short notice.
learning to "roll with it," is probably the best approach. We are still awfully fortunate to be able to cruise at all
ANOTHER FACTOR that from time to time affects ports is world geopolitical conditions. We have personally experienced this phenom at least 3 times over the years. Our first was indirect - in 2015, in Turkey. The second was more recently in 2022 in the Baltic. There, it was - as everyone certainly remembers - the decision of cruise lines (and other travelers) to discontinue any visits to St. Petersburg, Russia. This one directly affected us, as the St. Petersburg overnight stop was probably the highlight of our much-anticipated Baltic Cruise. I call it "Putin's War." His unfathomable aggression against Ukraine made it unthinkable to go to Russia for any reason. We had originally had this cruise booked back before (or just as) the pandemic hit the world. When we finally were able to get back on track, we booked it again, and I was pretty excited about seeing the city. Along came "Putin's War," and crashed our hopes of that. Certainly, though, a prime example of conditions over which the cruise lines had no influence or control.
IN 2013, having dipped our toes in the water of cruising, first in Alaska and then two times in the Caribbean, we booked our first cruise in Europe on the Princess Royal Princess (some may remember that for us, this was the cruise of all cruises that didn't "go according to plan." - more on that later). One of the most memorable stops on that cruise was Istanbul, Turkey. During perhaps its most famous period, the city was "Constantinople," named after the Roman Emperor, Constantine. This amazing city was originally known as Byzantium, founded by the Greek ruler, Byzas, around the 657 B.C. Strategically located on the Bosphorus Strait, a passage between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, and separating two continents (Europe and Asia), Istanbul now occupies parts of both continents (it may be the only major city n the world that is situated in two continents; it certainly is the only such city I have visited). Commonly thought of as the place where western civilization began, the city was alternately controlled by the Greeks, Persians, Spartans and Macedonians. Sometime in the early 3rd Century, the Romans razed the city to the ground. Shortly afterward, however, they rebuilt it and much of it retained the earlier architecture, so that the city had many Greek and Roman "trappings." Around 300 A.D., the city was renamed Constantinople (by this time, the vast Roman Empire has divided into Western and Eastern empires, and the eastern empire continued to be known as the Byzantine Roman Empire).
IN 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, who have controlled it ever since. The name was not changed to Istanbul, however, until the 20th Century (around 1928). The word, "Istanbul," in Turkish means (roughly) "into the city," and even though still formally Constantinople in the western world view, the Turkish people colloquially referred to it as Istanbul long before the official name change. Two continents. Incredible history, buildings, art, and architecture. A robust food culture. Who wouldn't see Istanbul as a highlight port? Yet a mere 2 years later, when we returned to the Mediterranean for the second time (this time on the Emerald Princess), cruise lines were no longer stopping in Istanbul because of political unrest, occasional violent outbreaks, and fear for the safety of visitors. At that time the U.S. Department of State was advising U.S. citizens against traveling there. Happily, today, it is back on the port list for most cruise lines, and if you have an opportunity to see it - do not miss it.
There are circumstances where it is just the right thing to do. There is also a line where a customer is just plain unreasonable
MOST RECENTLY (and again for us indirect) but certainly within our awareness, during our New Year's cruise in the Caribbean in January, was the decision of cruise ships to stop porting in Haiti due to the unrest there.
THERE IS one other area I can think of that can substantially disrupt a cruise itinerary: mechanical Issues. I have little doubt that the cruise lines and the onboard crews spend a lot of time in redundancy planning and exercises. There are no doubt backup mechanicals and plans. Cruise ships cost well over $500 million to as much as $2 billion to build. Redundancy systems add to that cost. I am equally sure that in some cases cruise lines decide not to spend the $ on those systems (or at least parts of them). Over the years, some things have been mandated. For example, after our own experience, my research uncovered that as a follow-up to the well-publicized breakdowns of a couple Carnival Cruise ships and the ordeal that followed for passengers before "rescue," new and refurbished builds are required to have an auxiliary power propulsion system, so the ships are always able to get back to a port under their own power. Our October 2013 Mediterranean Cruise was our first experience with significant mechanical issues. Ironically, it was aboard Princess' then newest and greatest ship - the "flagship" Royal Princess. Approximately half-way through the cruise, our ship had a substantial failure (having something to do with the ship's high-tech electronics and propulsion system). After working on it for about a 24-hour period, the captain ultimately concluded that they were not able to repair the systems and that we would have to terminate the cruise at the next port (Naples, Italy), where mechanical engineers from the shipbuilder would be brought in for ultimate diagnoses and repairs. Fortunately, we were able to move and navigate, albeit at a much slower speed, and we arrived in Naples a couple days late, where we would all ultimately disembark from the ship. From a passenger safety and comfort standpoint, there was really nothing else they could do.
In the end, we can always follow the old adage to "vote with our feet," if we are really unhappy
IT IS the only time I can remember in nearly 20 cruises that we have ever experienced anything like that. In spite of the substantial publicity these events often get, I believe major mechanical issues are not a common occurrence. For sure, there are minor inconveniences. Sometimes they can be pretty frustrating. We had an issue with our toilet not flushing on one of our cruises that took at least 3 days to fix. Not enough to destroy the cruise though, and as we have looked at it over the years, learning to "roll with it," is probably the best approach. We are still awfully fortunate to be able to cruise at all.
THIS IS a long way from our original question about when and under what circumstances a cruise line should "compensate" for mishaps aboard. I suppose a related question might also be what should be the magnitude of the compensation? I really think this is a judgment call. As a 40-plus year business owner myself, I know I normally leaned in the direction of over-compensating for things that went wrong. Sometimes I didn't have to, but I stepped up anyway. I also always tried to remember the old adage that the customer is always right (even when they weren't 😔). There are circumstances where it is just the right thing to do. There is also a line where a customer is just plain unreasonable.
THE WAY Princess handled our situation above is - in my view - an example of the way to address a large issue, and certainly leaned toward over and above. We got one-half a cruise out of it (essentially a full week). They could have reimbursed us for the missed half and probably walked away from it. That probably would have left a bad taste for many people. They didn't. Instead, they reimbursed 100% of the entire cruise fare, and offered a substantial discount on future cruises up to the same number of days, for a couple years into the future (we took advantage of it 2 years later). They also took care of every passenger's out-of-pocket costs for airfare home (they mostly arranged it - but in our case that didn't work and they reimbursed us100%). Did they "owe" us that? I don't know. They probably owed us something. That is a far cry, in my view, from some of the other things some customers complain about. I personally do not think they ever owe us for responding to a health or weather emergency. I do think that responding with some kind of meaningful "compensation" (it could be cruise fare, discounts, on board credits, upgrades, and/or reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses) goes a long way toward the customer satisfaction experience, but that should probably be balanced against the true inconvenience experienced by passengers. I don't have a measuring stick for that. Nobody does, really. It will be one of those things we will have to "measure" by our own visceral reactions. In the end, we can always follow the old adage to "vote with our feet," if we are really unhappy. In the meantime, we are cruising and our approach is to chill and enjoy as much as humanly possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment