One of the many reasons I won't bother with cruises. Between the gouging on board to the 'the hell with you' attitudes the companies have for their customers, it's not worth it.

I understand *why* they won't be going to Mexico, but you'd think at the very least they'd offer a voucher for a different cruise good for a year and cancel the trip.

You can reschedule. Carnival's web site says:

"Guests who do not wish to sail on a modified itinerary may opt to receive a refund in the form of a future cruise credit equal to the full amount paid for the voyage."

[www.carnival.com]

This blows, hard. I'm supposed to be leaving on a cruise that was supposed to go from Tampa to Grand Cayman and then Cozumel, and I'm very concerned that they're going to hold us hostage for a 'fun day at sea' instead of changing the Cozumel stop to Roatan or Belize.

C'mon, Carnival, there are eight of us in my family taking this trip, and while I know that our travel insurance won't cover this (we checked), it'd be nice for you to do right by us. I mean, after all, you DO want us to take a cruise with you again, right?

If any cruise lines DO help out their customers because of these changes, PLEASE report it. I need to know which to choose, should I ever take a cruise.

I'm taking Carnival next week, but I had the good sense to book Alaska this time around.

If you're pending a carnival cruise the proposed new itineraries are posted here.

[www.carnival.com]

And: Guests who do not wish to sail on a modified itinerary may opt to receive a refund in the form of a future cruise credit equal to the full amount paid for the voyage. The credit may be applied to an alternate sailing departing through the end of 2010. Compensation for missed ports/altered itineraries (where applicable) for guests who sail varies by itinerary. With four and five-day cruises from Galveston and New Orleans that are being converted to seven-day voyages, those guests may opt to receive their refund in the form of a future cruise credit or money back.

[www.carnival.com]

FWIW- I hated Cozumel, I'd go to Belize in a second.

Charge back time indeed. It's the only alternative.. next to taking them to court and suing them for the refund PLUS attorney fees and court costs and I'm sure you could toss in some kind of emotional distress hightened even worse that a vacation was supposed to cure in the first place.

I can't remember the exact details, but I believe that if ships are going to all US ports, they have to be flagged in the US. Foreign flagging is how shipping companies avoid paying US wages to officers, which are outlined by the Jones Act. Does this apply to rerouting like this? I'm curious.

Don't the cruises have to be international in order to do things not otherwise allowed on domestic-only intineraries? For example, gambling and a foreign-flagged vessel (most of the cruise ships fly Flags of Convenience from countries like Panama and Liberia). How do they get around these laws on an LA to SF cruise?

I agree that the passengers are entitled to a refund but definitely not a FULL refund

after all they did use the ships resources, eat the ship food, have their rooms cleaned, watched shows, etc.

I had more fun on the ship itself rather than the destinations on my first cruise last summer so I wouldn't care either way but these people should be taking into account what they DID get before whining and complaining

@runchadrun:
how do they do that on cruises to nowhere?

@allstarecho: Says the lawyer. Oh wait...

Talk to a professional before you waste your time in court.

I've cruised with Carnival before and this type of thing is clearly stated in their policies.

Carnival certainly doesn't want to change their itinerary, but there is no way they can risk infection. As a passenger who books a trip... it's a slim chance you have to take when booking a vacation.

Oh, and if you think you are sick with an infectious illness... if you go to the ship doctor, they *will* take you off the boat before allowing you to infect other people on board. I've heard angry stories about that in the past.... but a cruise line must be incredibly careful carrying so many passengers that remain in close proximity.

It sucks for people being rerouted and I don't work for a cruise line... but this sounds like the right thing to me.

Royal Caribbean is working with passengers on Mexican Rivera cruises. They are providing on board credits, discounts on future cruises and re booking. They have established a special help desk to assist these guests. The toll-free is: 1-800-327-6700.

Cruise Critic is doing regular update on the situation and compensation [www.cruisecritic.com]

Cruises are for suckers.

It's not exactly a full refund, but as of today they are offering a 50% credit on future travel to affected travelers.

A California Riveria cruise now and 50% off a cruise later might not be so bad.

We live right near the new location for cruise ship dockings in Seattle. Give us a call and we can take you to the best places in town for tequila.

@wolftrouble:

Why?

Not my cup of tea. I am not exactly fond of water which is too deep for me to touch the bottom and keep my head above water... but too each their own.

Back to my question. Why are cruises for suckers?

@allstarecho: Where did you get your law degree again?

@AppleAlex: I don't believe they've actually gone on the cruises yet.

I'm booked on a cruise on Carnival to the Mexican Riviera for May 31, a 7-day voyage.

And no, I don't want to go to San Francisco/Seattle/Canada. Hopefully I can rebook to a later date.

And seeing how Royal Caribbean is treating their guests, maybe I should travel on their cruise line in the future.

The only problem is, they don't have free frozen yogurt on board, and Carnival does :-/

IANAL, but you should check with a lawyer and see to what extent that term is enforceable, and in fact, whether there has been a valid acceptance of the contract terms. You can approach this from two bases:

First, depending on the factual circumstance. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg and Judge Easterbrook mis-relying on Carnival Cruiselines to claim that you can reject additional rider terms on a ticket if the terms are unknown to you at the time you purchase. ProCD is a case where contract terms were not part of the original purchase but were held to be enforceable later based on an acceptance of a "click wrap" agreement. If the tickets in this case were sold through a travel agent without their full terms and conditions, then their assent to the terms on the back of the ticket might arguably not be assented to prior to boarding or other act on the part of the consumer.

Second, although, yes, it says any reason, but if Mexico ports specifically were advertised and used to induce people to purchase, then it could be a material part of the contract for which there needs to be a commercially reasonable substitution. If the ports of call in Mexico are clearly the big thing, then perhaps not all changes to the itinerary are permissible. That is, perhaps they couldn't be selling an equator cruise and then arbitrarily change it to the north pole. Although the specific port city may change, the essence of it may not be so easy.

Examples of things that are likely not enforceable even though people "claim" they are:

1. Website contracts that claim that viewing a website constitutes acceptance of this contract and any future changes where the website will provide no notice in a change of terms. That probably isn't enforceable.
2. Or a claim that you're selling land to B but B cannot sell or transfer the land. That's not enforceable either.
3. I promise you that I will give you $10 and you promise to give me a book, but if I breach then you also promise you will not sue me for that breach.

Depending on your jurisdiction, choice of law, facts:

You can say a lot and do say a lot of things in a contract that don't hold weight.

@The Queen of Everything:
well might as well suck it up and just deal with what you get

Chargeback? Services provided different from those ordered?

@feralparakeet: My friend just took that same cruise, and they did indeed skip Cozumel for a "fun day at sea". Hopefully by the time you depart, Carnival will have arranged for a different port to visit.

@mcmunchkin: We were on a Norwegian (not NCL America) cruise in Hawai'i a few years back, and it was supposed to go touch Fanning Island to keep the Jones act happy. However, one of the propulsion pods went out, so they ended up skipping a foreign port of call...they ended up paying a $250,000 fine for that.

Wow, this is an eye-opener. I certainly won't be wasting my money on cruise ships in the future, after the the way they've mishandled this fiasco, that's for sure.

Thanks for the info, Consumerist!

@feralparakeet: I'm leaving May 9th for this exact trip and I would be pissed if we got stuck with a "fun day" at sea.

my girlfriend and I did NOT pay 700 dollars to sit on a boat for 3 days.

Cruises are such bullshit. I will NEVER take one. Clauses like Carnival's are bullshit too. They basically reserve the right to take your money & do whatever they want in return. "We reserve the right to advertise one thing & provide something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT after you've already paid, and provide no refunds. Don't like it? Tough titties, we already got your money!"

@AppleAlex: International waters? Not sure.

As the H1N1 virus spreads to more countries, are all the cruise ships going to become floating hotels? There won't be any safe ports of call left to go to. Seems like the cruise industry might be needing the next big government bail out.

@RimkaIzumo: missdonna posted the link to Carnival's changed itineraries a couple of posts down. Looks like they are switching to a second day in Belize or Grand Caymen ilo going to Cozumel for the next couple of sailings out of Tampa. Your cruise is not yet listed.

It must be a nightmare for the cruise lines to find a different port of call on such short notice - many docks can only hold one or two cruise ships, and they are generally booked pretty tightly.

No, you can't do a chargeback (well, you can, but the cruise lines will win that argument 99 percent of the time when ports change). It happens all the time in the Caribbean, during hurricane season. You paid for a cruise, you got a cruise.

Yes, I know, it sucks. But if your heart is set on going to a particular port, hie thee to a travel website of preference and book airline and hotel to that destination.

@allstarecho: There's a reason the first words out of an attorney's mouth to a potential client with this issue would be "We'll need a $20,000 retainer to handle this".

Do you know why?

@Trickery: Was there a post deleted here? Because your reply has nothing to do with what was posted. He wanted to know which cruise lines behave well with this, not whether he should waste time in court or not.

@maztec:

Trickery meant to reply to the post two down from this one, started by allstarecho.

I don't understand how any of you think this is acceptable. It's one thing to book a cruise that goes to several tropical locations and, due to the reasons stated above, reroute to OTHER tropical locations.

It is another thing entirely to charge out the ass for a cruise to tropical locations in foreign countries and then switch to non-tropical locations in your own country.

Corollary...here in Germany there are blind bookings on Germanwings where you pay a set amount to go to any of, say, five cities for a weekend. You don't know exactly where it's going to be, but for instance the offerings might include Majorca, Santorini, and Nice--basically, touristy places with pleasant weather and beaches. They can't advertise a beach vacation package and then dump you in Trenton, NJ for three days.

Offering a credit for the amount paid is a nice gesture, but it's not that easy for people to rearrange their lives to take a cruise at a later date (especially since the credit has an expiration date). They need to also offer a full refund.

@dantsea: Wow, okay allstarecho is off base but really the flames? Come on.

If you are going to flame someone by saying, "Where did you get your law degree?" You people really need to be able to back it up, with more than flaming.

First, the relevant question is: "Where did you get your bar license, a cracker-jack box?" I know that dates me, but that also shows a touch more knowledge about the law. They cannot give legal advice without a bar license. Several states still allow you to get a license without getting a law degree.

Second, the next relevant question is: "Oh, have a bar license do we, what state(s) are you licensed in?" Because that is even more relevant than them having a license. Did you know most states will fry the attorney for giving legal advice without a license in that state? Funny how that works.

Now, third, any decent attorney would not say "Oh, we need a $20,000 retainer to handle this." Welcome to Lala land for that. Any attorney that says that does not deserve your time, business, or money. They really should show a lot more tact.

Fourth, what an attorney would most likely actually say in an instance like this:

"Hello Mr. Jones, yes, I can give you a basic consultation on this issue. However, if you desire actual legal advice on how to proceed there will be a one time consultation fee of [$300-$500]."

Most decent attorneys, especially with the current business climate, will even give a free up-front consultation where they will say, "Okay, no legal advice, but no I will not or yes I will take that case." Then they will offer a consultation for a fee, if you want it.

Then, if the person pays up, they will proceed to advice. Most likely advice in a situation like this?
"Yes, you see Mr. Jones, they are within the contract you signed with them. Additionally, the contract contains an arbitration clause. Even if the remainder of the contract is invalid, the arbitration clause will most likely survive - the only time an arbitration clause will die is if it was fraudulent, unconscionable, or illusory, which are all exceedingly rare for an arbitration clause. Now, while arbitration is cheaper than litigation, it is still a long process and is typically in favor of the corporation. Really, your best bet here would be negotiation and mediation with them. Now, it is up to you what route you want to go and I may be able to be of service, but if you continue with me there will be fees associated."

Now, if someone really was interested in having the attorney help. Typically because they do not want to deal with the stressful negotiations themselves. Then the attorney would start to quote fees.

If the attorney believes there is a high chance that the case will win (which seems unlikely in this scenario), then the attorney will often put someone on a fee agreement for a percentage return. Often it is something like: 10-15% initial negotiation, 15-20% initial mediation, 20-25% full-on mediation, 25-30% arbitration, 40-60% litigation. Then, even if he wins litigation, and it is unlikely in a case like this the attorney would win attorney fees unless there was abuse by the cruise lines attorney, then he has to get payment which would typically cost another 10-15%. Talk about stabbed, and that isn't even counting the costs that expert witnesses/etc will take out.

However, in a situation like this where it is unlikely the person would win, a decent attorney would offer to do initial negotiation with optional continuation dependent on if the client is willing to pay. Many law offices will make a basic contact or send a letter on behalf of someone for $500-$2500. If actual negotiations start to occur it goes up to $1000-$10,000. If you are expecting litigation, it can go through the roof and the attorney won't even take it unless you foot the majority of the bill upfront (except $50,000-$100,000) -- which is where dantsea is trying to argue, but skips to the end.

Now, most companies will probably go, "ahh, crap, you hired an attorney" and will do anything to work with you and not the attorney to get it fixed.

I can see if someone has a whole family going - 8 to 10 people - paying a basic rate to an attorney ($1000-$2000) to get negotiations opened up and the dates changed.

----------

[sorry for the caps, they are to pull words out only, not shout]
Finally, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? On a thing like this? First, it has to be INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Get it? INTENTIONAL, a bit of MENS REA there. Which happens to be a tort damned near impossible to win on unless you win everything else. Plus the conduct has to be EXTREME or OUTRAGEOUS. Please, tell me what judge or jury is going to find a cruise line changing destinations because of an international health concern - well recognized by the WHO. I will tell you who, nobody. That is not extreme or outrageous activity, that is perfectly reasonable and down-right expected activity. So no, there is no emotional distress "heightened" or anything else like it to go with it. Especially for a missed vacation.

Right, that's all.

@krista: No. They will stop running, because if it becomes a serious pandemic then the cruise lines will be known as "floating deathships". Stuck on a ship with 4000 other people? There have been several cruises in the last few years were nasty diseases have spread through and they have had to turn back to port because of it. In fact, I think a few have been mentioned here on Consumerist.

This is totally reasonable behavior on the Cruiselines behalf, "We don't want to get sued for reckless behavior by taking you to Mexico so you can get swine flu, which is a recognized problem, and die."

On the other hand, they should be able to negotiate with them - stick to their guns - and politely get them to change the dates of their cruise. Unlikely to get a refund, but they should be able to get bumped to next year when swine flu is a thing of the past.

I would not doubt that there is a binding arbitration agreement in there somewhere.

@allstarecho: Any good attorney could win this case. Many a case has been won for far worse, including cases against forced arbitration.

@menty666: Aren't most cruise ships built outside the US? If that is the case with THIS ship, then it is illegal for them to visit multiple US ports without visiting a foreign port. This is a law to protect the us ship building business.

Perhaps the authors should point that out to their cruise lines.

In the early 90s our Celebrity cruise to Bermuda was changed to the Bahamas (yuck) after the port was closed due to a hurricane. Several other lines went to Canada! The port wasn't changed until we'd already left port in NYC, so the Canadian bound groups didn't have proper clothing. This is standard practice in the industry and has been for DECADES.

The port was closed, however. The ship couldn't go there. Mexico is effectively shutting down its economy for the next 5-days. So, while I'm not positive, isn't it likely not letting the ports open?

However, the cruise liners ought to offer those who are not interested in the alternative itinerary a refund, UNLESS the ships are already underway.

@RimkaIzumo: Hey, we'll be on the same trip, cool!

@AppleAlex:

This is the Consumerist.com, if that type of attitude that this site is about then there really is no need to even have the Consumerist any longer.

Another reason I don't get the appeal of a cruise. Call me old fashioned but I like my vacations done out of a backpack with a little bit of spontaneity. Not, we're taking you on cruise back to your hometown spontaneity though.

@menty666: I wonder when the airlines will catch on to this trick. "Well, we know you thought you were buying a ticket to Paris, but you're going to Newark -- now shut up, sit down and buckle up."

Or maybe GM. "Sir, I know you thought you were buying a Corvette, but if you look in the fine print of your contract you can see we are perfectly within our rights to substitute a Cobalt".

P.T.wheatstraw:

Where do you expect these mexican riveria cruises to go that leave from california, if they can't go to Mexico? Carnival and Royal Caribbean are allowing cancellations and giving credit.

In the caribbean they can easily avoid Mexico, but not in on the west coast. There are some that will go, just to enjoy the cruise wherever it goes, I know that I would, heck if you read cruise critic there are many who are jumping at the great deals that are coming from these cancellations.

This can't be legal. Any lawyer/law firm with a bit initiative could easily set up a class action and take them to court.