Cunard Refunds 100%

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote


As far as Tom is concerned, he doesn't have a dog in this fight.

You don't have a dog in the fight either. Yet you don't have a problem
jumping in and belittling what I said.

This is
exactly the kind of cruise that he would never book but he uses phrases
like
"ruining the vacation of a lifetime" etc.

That phrase was in reference to my Norway sailing. At least make your
belittling attempts factual.

Tom likes to stir the pot and
unfortunately, his knee-jerk "anti-everything that is Carnival Corp"
attitude colors everything he writes.

And you're a Carnival apologist... we balance either other.

Doesn't mean we can't have a conversation or even a little "debate".

Thing is... I don't recall ever belittling you. Seems that's a one way
street.

--Tom

In article , George Leppla
wrote:

Looking at is as a pragmatic adult... I fail to see the negligence that
people are talking about or the damages to anyone's vacation to the extent
that a 100% refund is justified. What is next... refunds for missing ports
due to weather?

Well that accounts for some of our difference on this. I am not a
pragmatist.

You fail to see the damage to anyones vacation but many did see damage
including many on the said vacation and they raised a row about it. The
fact that Cunard is now giving the choice of a 100% refund plus air or
a 50% refund and a 75% future cruise validates those who objected to
original compensation whether you agree or not. I say hoorah to those
who had the spirit to fight for their rights. I think it sets a good
precedent for passenger's rights.

--
Charles

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article , George Leppla
wrote:

Looking at is as a pragmatic adult... I fail to see the negligence that
people are talking about or the damages to anyone's vacation to the
extent
that a 100% refund is justified. What is next... refunds for missing
ports
due to weather?

Well that accounts for some of our difference on this. I am not a
pragmatist.

You fail to see the damage to anyones vacation but many did see damage
including many on the said vacation and they raised a row about it.


No, read what I said again. I said I didn't see that anyone's vacation was
damaged "to the extent that a 100% refund was justified".

The
fact that Cunard is now giving the choice of a 100% refund plus air or
a 50% refund and a 75% future cruise validates those who objected to
original compensation whether you agree or not.

I disagree. This is like settling a lawsuit our of court because it would
cost less to settle than to have protracted litigation. My opinion is that
it is cheaper and easier for Cunard to throw money at the baby to make it
less annoying. If I were a Bean Counter at Cunard, I'd allocate this money
out of the Advertising Department's budget... it is more about public
perception than about redressing actual "damages".

I say hoorah to those
who had the spirit to fight for their rights. I think it sets a good
precedent for passenger's rights.

And I am saying that your rights should not include demanding a full refund
because the ships misses ports due to an accident or weather or any other
reason. Partial refund maybe... but a full refund... no way.

I once had a customer threaten to sue me because it rained 3 of the 4 days
of her cruise and she bought a "tropical cruise" and didn't get it....
spending all her cruise in a tiny cabin on the Big Red Boat with three
whining children. Her vacation was probably damaged more than the people on
the QM2.... should I have given her a 100% refund?


--
George Leppla http://www.countryside-travel.com

Cruise Specials BLOG http://www.countryside-travel.com/3834677_6105.htm
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

"Tom K" wrote

And you're a Carnival apologist... we balance either other.

Great! In the same discussion Charles has called me "sour" because I don't
agree with Cunard's decision and Tom calls me an "apologist".

I must be doing something right.

FWIW... in all the years I have been posting on r.t.c. there hasn't been
ANY travel agent who has been more critical of the cruise industry than I
have been and that includes Carnival Corp and all their brands.


--
George Leppla http://www.countryside-travel.com

Cruise Specials BLOG http://www.countryside-travel.com/3834677_6105.htm
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...
I once had a customer threaten to sue me because it rained 3 of the 4 days
of her cruise and she bought a "tropical cruise" and didn't get it....
spending all her cruise in a tiny cabin on the Big Red Boat with three
whining children. Her vacation was probably damaged more than the people
on
the QM2.... should I have given her a 100% refund?

Seriously? If this customer came in looking for a relaxing vacation, and
you steered her toward a cruise in a room that would obviously feel tiny if
all the people (and kids) were stuck in there during a season where it was
likely to rain, I'd say yes, you should give her a refund. On the other
hand, if she came in looking for a cruise on that itinerary(at least
implying she had done enough research to know about possible rain) with a
limited budget and she knew the cabin was small, well then, I'd say she
knowingly gambled and lost.

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"George Leppla" wrote in message
...
I once had a customer threaten to sue me because it rained 3 of the 4 days
of her cruise and she bought a "tropical cruise" and didn't get it....
spending all her cruise in a tiny cabin on the Big Red Boat with three
whining children. Her vacation was probably damaged more than the people
on
the QM2.... should I have given her a 100% refund?
Seriously? If this customer came in looking for a relaxing vacation, and
you steered her toward a cruise in a room that would obviously feel tiny if
all the people (and kids) were stuck in there during a season where it was
likely to rain, I'd say yes, you should give her a refund. On the other
hand, if she came in looking for a cruise on that itinerary(at least
implying she had done enough research to know about possible rain) with a
limited budget and she knew the cabin was small, well then, I'd say she
knowingly gambled and lost.

What if the cruise is during a time when it would not normally rain, but throug
a freak of nature it does?

--
Julie
**********
Read my blog on the adventure of learning a second language as an adult at http://www.livejournal.com/users/zweisprachen
Web Page: http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

"Juliana L Holm" wrote in message
...
Cathy Kearns wrote:
"George Leppla" wrote in message
...
I once had a customer threaten to sue me because it rained 3 of the 4
days
of her cruise and she bought a "tropical cruise" and didn't get it....
spending all her cruise in a tiny cabin on the Big Red Boat with three
whining children. Her vacation was probably damaged more than the
people
on
the QM2.... should I have given her a 100% refund?
Seriously? If this customer came in looking for a relaxing vacation,
and
you steered her toward a cruise in a room that would obviously feel tiny
if
all the people (and kids) were stuck in there during a season where it
was
likely to rain, I'd say yes, you should give her a refund. On the other
hand, if she came in looking for a cruise on that itinerary(at least
implying she had done enough research to know about possible rain) with
a
limited budget and she knew the cabin was small, well then, I'd say she
knowingly gambled and lost.

What if the cruise is during a time when it would not normally rain, but
throug
a freak of nature it does?

So a non-tropical cruise? If she was an experienced cruiser, and understood
the limitations of the small room, and the limitations of cruising, in that
if you don't like your small room you can't just up and leave and head for
another hotel or even cut your loses and head to some place else entirely,
I'd say it's her fault. I think often on cruise people don't understand the
limitations of cruises: 1) they may or may not stick to their itinerary
(which, in the case of the QM2 meant they may turn a cruise into a crossing)
2) there are very limited options if you don't like your room, on full ships
you can't trade up if you booked a too small room 3)it is not easy to just
up and leave. If the ship has sailed with a norivirus going around, if
there is a huge group not to your liking that you don't want to spend the
week with, if the weather is depressing, you can't check out and head to
sunnier pastures. Normal land vacations have pretty much unlimited options.
Even land tours or all inclusives will allow you to just leave if you find
it's not for you. You may have to pay for a logding you didn't use, but you
aren't forced to stay. I think here is where travel agents are invaluable,
explaining to novice cruisers the downsides (and obviously the upsides), so
they know what to expect and not make those stupid "My spouse and two kids
ended up in a broom closet sized room under the anchor storage on a ship
with horrendous food with a group of 300 very evangelical accordian players
during a hurricane" mistakes newbies make while booking over the internet.

"Cathy Kearns" wrote

Seriously? If this customer came in looking for a relaxing vacation, and
you steered her toward a cruise in a room that would obviously feel tiny
if
all the people (and kids) were stuck in there during a season where it was
likely to rain, I'd say yes, you should give her a refund. On the other
hand, if she came in looking for a cruise on that itinerary(at least
implying she had done enough research to know about possible rain) with a
limited budget and she knew the cabin was small, well then, I'd say she
knowingly gambled and lost.

Seriously. FWIW, this lady came in to buy a cruise on the Big Red Boat and
I sold it to her. It wasn't something I suggested... in fact, I pointed out
to her that I could have put her and her kids on a Carnival ship for less
money but she was insistent on the BRB. Her exact words were "It's what
the kids want".

BTW - she called me from a pay-phone at the ship terminal after the
cruise.... collect... to let me know how mad she was.


--
George Leppla http://www.countryside-travel.com

Cruise Specials BLOG http://www.countryside-travel.com/3834677_6105.htm
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:38:25 -0500, George Leppla wrote:

FWIW... in all the years I have been posting on r.t.c. there hasn't been
ANY travel agent who has been more critical of the cruise industry than I
have been and that includes Carnival Corp and all their brands.

Uh, like hell.
--
http://www.punkvoter.com/anim/anim-idiot.html

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...

"Cathy Kearns" wrote

Seriously? If this customer came in looking for a relaxing vacation, and
you steered her toward a cruise in a room that would obviously feel tiny
if
all the people (and kids) were stuck in there during a season where it
was
likely to rain, I'd say yes, you should give her a refund. On the other
hand, if she came in looking for a cruise on that itinerary(at least
implying she had done enough research to know about possible rain) with a
limited budget and she knew the cabin was small, well then, I'd say she
knowingly gambled and lost.

Seriously. FWIW, this lady came in to buy a cruise on the Big Red Boat
and
I sold it to her. It wasn't something I suggested... in fact, I pointed
out
to her that I could have put her and her kids on a Carnival ship for less
money but she was insistent on the BRB. Her exact words were "It's what
the kids want".

BTW - she called me from a pay-phone at the ship terminal after the
cruise.... collect... to let me know how mad she was.



Think how much madder she'd have been if she went on the Carnival ship
VBG.