Brenda and Gerald Moran are what you might call “regulars” on Royal Caribbean — or they were — until they were banned for life after they complained too loudly on a cruise website. For the past 3 years, they took two cruises a year with Royal Caribbean, but according to the cruise line, they complained about almost all of them. Finally, after stirring up too much controversy on a popular cruise site, the company banned the Morans for life.
Last September, Brenda and Gerald got stuck with a stinky, sewage soaked stateroom on their 14- night Alaskan cruise. The cruise line refused to move them into another room, but offered a 20% discount on their next cruise. They felt this was fair compensation and decided to book their next cruise on Royal Caribbean.
After the cruise, Brenda logged on to Cruise Critic and posted a review of her trip as well as a few comments on their forums, says MSNBC. A few weeks later she got a call from Royal Caribbean offering her an additional $500 credit for her trouble. Brenda was happy with this offer and again posted the details to Cruise Critic. This is apparently when everything went wrong.
Some board members felt the Morans had complained their way to an unfair discount and posted their displeasure. They felt that the Morans were teaching others how to “scam” Royal Caribbean. Some went so far as to contact Royal Caribbean’s president and chief executive, Adam Goldstein to complain about the Morans getting any compensation at all.
A few weeks later the Morans received a phone call from a man named Sebastian who identified himself as Bill Weeks’ boss. Sebastian was unhappy that Brenda had posted a negative review and had shared the compensation information on Cruise Critic’s boards. He asked Brenda to take down her review “at once.” Brenda refused and cited her right to free speech.
The following day the Morans received another phone call from Sebastian stating the couple was banned forever from the cruise line.
The Morans received a $500 check along with a letter explaining that they were, indeed, banned. Royal Carribbean’s spokesperson told MSNBC:
“On all but one of those sailing the Morans felt there were a variety of service failures they experienced,” he said. “In a small number of cases we agreed and compensated them appropriately. In most cases, however, we disagreed. Having concluded that we are unable to meet the expectations of the Morans, we have told them that they would be best served by sailing with another company.”
Harsh! Do you think Royal Caribbean should have listened to the people complaining that the Morans were scammers? Is the ban too harsh? Or just practical?
Complaining couple banned from cruise line [MSNBC](Thanks, Cherise!)
(Photo: physis3141 )
More From Consumerist
-
Royal Caribbean Passenger Says Crew Wouldn’t Let Her Leave Her Cabin After Daughter Fell Overboard
-
Royal Caribbean Cruise Ship Catches Fire, Toilets Continue To Work
-
Royal Caribbean Ship Returns To Port Because Floating Around With 108 Sick People On Board Is Not A Vacation
-
Woman Told She Was Too Fat To Tan Given Refund, Free Tanning Elsewhere
-
Californians Chowing Down On Foie Gras As Statewide Ban Begins This Weekend
Not having read the article, I wonder what the other complaints were. Was the sewage the worst?
If a company cant handle negative criticism without some hard looks at itself, perhaps it needs new public relations people.
I doubt it had much, if anything, to do with the review. Cruise Critic has much more scathing reviews of Royal Caribbean ships/voyages posted, those writers have never been banned or contacted by the cruise line with a demand to remove the review under threat of ban. The Morans apparently have a history going back twelve-plus years to Usenet of being thoroughly unpleasant people and chronic complainers.
Baning them is cheeper than fixing what ever problems that the couple complained about. After all what a bit of sewer gas between friends. Remember the cruse line is into making money not friends.
@lawstud: “That is not constructive eviction. Constructive eviction is when something is substantially preventing one from using the property for its intended purpose.”
Respectfully, I and my attorney disagree with you. Using the method above, I ‘constructively evicted’ two tenants from a rental property a couple of years ago. They were no longer on a fixed-length lease and so the termination of an existing rental contract was not an issue.
IIRC, state law required me to give them a minimum of 90 days to vacate the property (in the absence of a fixed-length lease ). I gave them a copy of the state law in writing, and also offered in writing to refund their last two months’ rent if they would vacate within 60 days. My attorney was quite clear in calling this method “constructive eviction.”
The tenants accepted the offer and vacated, but left the house sorely in need of repairs. I refunded their two months’ rent, as agreed, but retained their deposit and sent them copies of the repair bills along with a letter of explanation. Frankly, the house was worth more for sale than it was for rent, and the tenants either weren’t interested in buying or didn’t think they could get a mortgage.
As I said, what RC did to the Morans sounds like constructive eviction to me.
I worked in a restaurant where we eventually asked a continually complaining regular customer not to come back.
Some people just can’t be satisfied, and are always looking for a special deal for their ‘troubles’.
We eventually let him come back after a couple years, and guess what? He wasn’t a douchebag anymore.
@bbagdan: Perhaps said customer finally read the “Please Check Your Douchebaggery At The Door” sign.
@TheAlphateam: Damn right. They’ll start using another company, complain after every cruise to try to get something free, and get banned by them, too. I bet they’re lots of fun to take plane trips with, too.
@doug77: You clearly don’t understand how much elite cachet there is in going on extended rides in ginormous, feces-and-gin soaked yachts. People will pay any amount and endure barrels upon barrels of sewage-based indignity just so they can brag that they went on a cruise. To be a “regular” and/or a member of one of the upper-level cruise classes is so much the better for the anally expulsive arriviste. The Morans are upset because they’ve been kicked out of the club, not because they can’t go on any more giant gondola rides down the sewer Styx.
“But mom, all my friends will be there. And they’re in the Diamond Club.“