One of the most common swine flu-related questions I’ve been getting relates to rescheduled cruises. Many cruise lines are diverted their ships to avoid Mexican ports.
What if you don’t want to go? Should you be able to get a refund? Or at least, to reschedule?
Common sense says: yes. You’re being offered a different product. It’s kind of like buying a gallon of nonfat milk but getting a container of whole milk.
But common sense doesn’t necessarily apply to this situation. For starters, there’s the cruise contract, which says ports can be changed for any time and for any reason. This cruise line policy is rigidly enforced — unless the courts get involved.
Now that swine flu is spooking every would-be visitor to Mexico, we’re seeing that policy tested again. Kathy Langley wrote to me yesterday with the following question:
I am scheduled, along with a friend, to leave Los Angeles May 2 for a seven-day cruise advertised on the Princess Web site as “Mexico-Riviera”. Due to the recent CDC warnings, they are now going to San Diego and Catalina.
They are sticking to their standard cancellation policy (no, we did not buy insurance) even though they are no longer going to “Mexico-Riviera”.
Any clue as to how I can get them to just let us change our dates to next fall or spring? We are not asking for a refund, just the ability to reschedule based on their availability.
I put the question to Princess. Here’s the answer from spokeswoman Julie Benson:
I fully appreciate the question. And just for clarification, instead of calling at Mexican ports, on the May 2 voyage Sapphire Princess is visiting Santa Barbara, San Diego and San Francisco (it’s a roundtrip LA cruise).
We can understand her disappointment, however we have a policy that we don’t provide refunds or allow changes to bookings for situations that are beyond our control (like swine flu).
The reason for this it’s simply not fair to the over 3/4 of our passengers that spend their money to purchase travel protection, to provide a benefit to passengers who choose not to purchase this.
For our passengers that did purchase Princess Vacation protection, they would be able to “cancel for any reason” and receive a 75% (or 100% depending on the package purchased) of their fare in a future cruise credit, meaning they could move to a different sailing.
I know this is not quite what Ms. Langley was hoping to hear, but I hope this at least provides you with our rationale.
So there you have it. If Langley had purchased vacation protection, she’d be able to cancel and receive credit. Princess believes offering her any kind of credit would be unfair to passengers who bought travel insurance.
I completely understand Princess’ argument, but I’m not sure its fairness to insured passengers is the issue here. It’s more the fact that the cruise line advertised a Mexico cruise, and that Langley booked a cruise with the expectation that she would actually cruise to Mexico — not San Francisco.
I think customers like Langley understand when a cruise line has to drop one port because of a propulsion problem or a virus outbreak. But heading north instead of south is completely different cruise.
Update (noon): Princess released the following statement.
In light of the travel warning by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommending against non-essential travel to Mexico because of concern over swine flu, Princess Cruises has modified its itineraries to suspend calls to Mexican ports through the few remaining voyages of the spring season, which concludes next month.
We are sorry that circumstances beyond our control have caused these itinerary changes, and we recognize that these modifications may cause some disappointment among our passengers. However we hope our passengers will also agree that adhering to the recommendations of the CDC is the best course of action for the safety of our passengers and crew.
Three of the seven affected cruises were sold as voyages exclusively to Mexico, and we therefore realize that these passengers are not receiving the cruise vacation they had anticipated. Therefore as a goodwill gesture we are offering these passengers a 50% future credit on their cruise fare paid, for any sailing through April 2011.
These sailings are:
Sapphire Princess H918 (departed April 25)
Star Princess 9910 (departed April 27)
Sapphire Princess H919 (departing May 2)
The other four cruises with modifications feature Mexico as a smaller portion of the itinerary, and these passengers will either visit alternative ports or spend an additional day at sea.
Our ships and medical staff are already well equipped to prevent and contain the spread of contagious diseases, including swine flu. Even though the risk of contracting this illness is very low, we will be taking extra precautions, and will be guided by advice from the CDC and other health authorities.
In an abundance of caution, some of the measures we are taking onboard all our ships worldwide include:
* We are enhancing our screening practices for passengers and crew embarking our ships.
* We are adhering to CDC guidelines for reporting and treatment of persons with suspect swine flu.
* We will isolate and treat passengers and crew with suspect swine flu. Anti-viral medications that effectively treat the swine flu are currently available onboard all Princess ships.
* We will continue our rigorous cleaning and sanitization of our ships to minimize the spread of any contagious disease. Our ships are routinely cleaned with a disinfectant proven to be highly effective against the flu.
* We are communicating to our passengers and crew that they should take extra care to practice healthy habits such as washing their hands often.
* We are asking passengers and crew to report to the medical center immediately if they exhibit any symptoms of flu.As always, we will continue to do everything possible to protect the health of our passengers and crew.
For US passenger inquiries, contact 1-800-PRINCESS.
For UK passenger queries, contact Reservations on 0845 3 555 800.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Chris…ask Langley her opinion if she took a cruise from New York scheduled to Bermuda. All of a sudden a hurricane formed and the storm was headed right to Bermuda. The cruise line decided to go north to New England and Canada. Woudl she prefer to head into harm’s way?
I do see PCL’s policy as being fair to others. Hopefully, Langley’s travel professional presented the option of travel insurance. Regardless, she declined. If she wrecks a car without insurance, does she expect someone else to foot the bill for repair or to loan her a different car till she can get hers fixed?
Consumers need to be aware that (as unfortunate as it may be) when traveling, shit happens! There was an option for her that could have prevented this truly unforeseeable issue, but she opted to not spend the $79 to protect her investment.
@ John F … Couldn’t have said it better myself!
I have said it before – under the express language of the cruise contract they could take you for a dingy ride in the port and they would satisfy their obligation to you.
The issue becomes one of the intent of the parties. If they advertised a warm weather Mexican cruise and you are getting a cold, cloudy California coastal cruise, then there was not a meeting of the minds on the purpose of the contract. Though the cruise company tries to disclaim that implied covenant wherever possible, some of it does exist in the dealings of the parties.
The problem here is the intervening event, a pandemic of a new strain of flu, is somewhat an unanticipated intervening cause. The borders are not closed, the cruise ports are not closed, there are no reports of swine flu in the coastal mexican ports of call, I think Princess loses this one. The PR response needs to be a full credit for a future cruise when this all shakes out. This preserves happy customers in a declining revenue environment. You anger someone who does sue you, and you lose, you are bound by that ruling in all your other California departures. \\
@John F. – the issue above is a temporary, one time, single event that is a risk to cruising at certain times of year. The issue here is one of knowing how long this will last and if and when you can go again. $79 non-insurance is not the way to go in this situaton since it really is not covered under the ‘insurance’ contract since its an act of God. Princess is using this as an excuse to market their cancellation ‘insurance,’ since it requires an interpretation that it is not at the convenience of the passenger . . . .
I totally understand their disappointment and John F makes a good correlation to the hurricane example. These things happen — both major and minor travel set backs. Even more the reason to look into insurance from travel insurance companies that offer cancel for any reason.
If I’m in Manhattan, and have pre-paid for limo service to JFK… that’s what I expect. I’m not going to let the driver get away with taking me to LGA just because “he doesn’t like the traffic at JFK” !!!!
Or, what if you bought a ticket to Rome, but the pilot decided he only wanted to fly to Toledo, Ohio … and you had to live with it (unless you bought the airlines “destination insurance”??
Well, that’s essentially what the cruise lines are trying to pull with their arbitrary “change of itinerary” clause.
PRINCESS SUCKS! (attention getter) This is typical Princess response to ANY problem. Too bad, so sad!!!
No matter what it is, Princess blows you off, even if its a problem of their making. Won’t bore you with the whole story but Princess moved us out or our “assigned at booking” room, to a untenable room under the buffet. Had carts noisly rolling over us all day & all night, preventing sleep even talking some times. THeir solution – SORRY ABOUT THAT!!
Just go on ANY OTHER cruise line. Paybacks a B…….
Travel insurance won’t cover a change of ports if the cruise still sails – unless you’ve got cancel for any reason insurance – so it wouldn’t have helped Ms. Langley.
RCCL and Carnival also completely changed their Mexican Riviera itineraries and are allowing passengers the opportunity to cancel or get onboard credit if you decide to sail after all.
@JohnF
I think the current situation and the one you presented are completely different. The cruise line decided to change the itinerary while the ports do not present a “risk” and the “risk” currently presented at these ports would not be as imminent as going into the eye of a hurricane!
I checked with my Pastor and yes, Hell has indeed frozen over asI find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Joe Farrell.
Under traditional contract language, the fact the the cruise ship was unable to deliver the promised product, or a substantialy similiar product would mean that it materially breached the contract and as such, must refund the trip. The fact that the cruise ship’s inability to deliver was not its fault is not a defense. For example, if I buy a movie ticket to see Star Trek next week, if the theatre is unable to show me Star Trek, then I get my money back, regardless of the contract language.
Unfortunately, since cruise ships are often registered outside of the US, the rules don’t always apply.
I’d sue in small claims court, particular in Los Angeles. Everyone in Los Angeles knows that Mexican Riviera cruise is far different from a San Diego/Catalina junket.
@Joe is absolutely right. This is total bullsh*t comming from PCL. I will NEVER cruise with them again and will recommend that no one else do so either.
If you have a flight to Texas or Florida and a hurricane is coming in, does the airline tell you, “Sorry, a storm has come into our original destination. So instead, we’re going to Nebraska.” HELL NO!! That is totally unacceptable. You delay or reschedule the flight. End of story.
Princes are asking for MAJOR wrath from their customers.
@ Joe Farrell – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Their supposed travel insurance really isn’t any sort of insurance at all since it only re-imburses you a percentage and it doesn’t gie you a refund, just travel credit. (according to the story) I would actually call it more of a warranty policy like the electronics stores try to sell all of us.
The cruise line needs to step up and hand out refunds. The cruise was advertised as Mexican… and she’s getting a California cruise in far different conditions. They could still cruise down to Mexico and enjoy the weather.
the analogy to the Bermuda trip is a fair one IMHO but if there was a hurricane heading to Bermuda then the cruise line shouldn’t sail. If they did then they should offer the passengers a chance to decide on cruising to the new destination or getting a full credit/refund.
A Mexican cruise that does not stop in Mexico is simply a misrepresentation! It is not what was purchased. The request to PCL was simple-we don’t want a refund, upgrade, cruise credit or any of the other things that many of their passengers demanded. We simply wanted the cruise to Mexico that we purchased at a time that was convenient for PCL to provide same…simple!
Does the above poster work for Travelguard?!
I think Joe Farrell’s analysis is very well stated. Yes, contract language does have meaning, purpose, and consequences. But, in the realm of consumer protection, contract language is only a starting point. There is well established body of laws and regulations regarding overreaching by businesses when selling to consumers. At the “courts get involved” link (above), the NJ Attorney General calls certain cruise re-routing “unconscionable commercial practices”. “Unconscionable” is another word for “unenforceable” – i.e., consumer wins.
Consider that, by the terms of the contract, the cruise line could drop the most-distant port on a 5-port trip because of a spike in fuel costs. Or, because the cruise line was banned from the port because of a corporate tax dispute. Or, because a warrant had been issued for the captain. In theory, each of these is protected under the “for any reason” language and so the passengers would be out of luck. However, I don’t think that the courts would see it that way.
As Joe Farrell notes, the unanticipated event is not really the subject of the trip insurance that’s offered. I also wonder if it is technically “insurance” (and if it is regulated as such), as it seems to simply offer a customer cancellation option – and cancellation “for any reason” is an event within the control of the “policy” beneficiary (i.e., the customer). Insurance is traditionally for matters beyond the control of the beneficiary. The cruise line could offer “re-routing insurance”, which should be much cheaper.
Perhaps the more interesting situation would be this: The cruise line decides that it will follow its original route to Mexico (which is still quite lawful). Some passengers do not want to take the health risk and seek a refund. Who wins then? For this one, the law likely favors the cruise line, but it might require a trip all the way to an appeals court for them to prevail.
In addition to room and board, when you buy a cruise, you also buy transportation to a certain place. Granted, the idea is that you wind up in the same place you started. If this happened in any other sector if the travel industry, we wouldn’t stand for it. If I buy a plane ticket to Chicago and wind up in Peoria, being close doesn’t cut it. If I buy a train ticket to Boston, and I only get to Providence, you’d better believe I’ll be asking how they’re going to get me the rest of the way. The only thing that makes it legal is that I’m sure it’s in the contract that we agree to abide by when we purchase our package.
Now if Princess were savvy, they would want to keep their customers happy. Happy customers will sail again. Unhappy customers will never sail with them again, and they’ll also tell their friends.
This is why I prefer not to cruise: You can’t trust cruise ship companies. First Disney and the norovirus, now Princess and the flu virus. Customers should be given the opportunity to go to coastal Mexico.
I just wanted to point out that unlike the hurricane scenario, this is not a case where the cruise line CAN’T sail into Mexico. The cruise line has CHOSEN not to sail into Mexico. Whether this was a good choice or not is a completely different debate, but I think passengers should have the right to CHOSE not to sail on a vastly different itinerary than what they booked, and either get their money back, be allowed to reschedule the same itinerary on a different date at no additional charge, or get a future cruise credit equivalent to what they paid. Of course, I also believe that if Princess had decided to go ahead with the Mexico port calls, passengers should be allowed to cancel with the same options. Princess was really in a no-win situation here.
I also wanted to point out that even the AIRLINES, those bastions of questionable service, are allowing people to reschedule at no penalty. Never thought I’d see the day when an airline is the example to live up to!
@ Teresa – Last time I checked your government (and mine) recommended that no one travel to Mexico unless it was necessary. So you are right they are choosing not to sail to Mexico just like they heed government warnings not to sail to certain areas due to hurricane potential. Cruise lines could theorically still sail into a hurricane but safety dictates they don’t. Just like they could sail to Mexico but safety dicates they don’t.
If norwalk run rampant on a cruise ship, imagine the swine flu. In which case half the people on this board would be screaming that everyone on the ship should sue.
So what should the cruise line due? Unlike an aircraft that carries a few hundred people and costs a few thousand dollars to operate, its a cruise ship that carries thousands and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to operate. The cruise line can’t afford follow the airline practice.
So would you rather have low cruise fairs where you have to go where they take you or high fares where you can cancel if you don’t like the updated itinerary?
BTW … Our travel insurance provider does not cover choosing not to travel to Mexico due to swine flu even with the government alert not to go.
I have booked a cruise for Mex Riviera through a Triple “A” travel agt, departure date 5/2 and I did purchase insurance. I was told by my travel agt that it covered me medically and if I wanted to cancel. Well, to my surprise I was given misleading information. It was a “family Plan” which did not cover “antime or circumstances cancellations”. So, here I believed that I was protected, but I am not and am stuck in a mess. We have four people invested in this cruise, we live on the CA coast and don’t want to cruise in our front yards, for a week. Princess Cruise Lines are unreasonable. They offer no options to their customers, They are using this as a business opportunity to get you on their ship again by offering a 50% discount on your next cruise. This insults me! This will be our first cruise (if we opt to go, still not sure) and we are angry.
This happened to us. My mother in law booked staterooms and flights for all of her kids (and their spouses and kids) to take a cruise to Mexico on Royal Caribbean, departing out of Los Angeles, for her 70th birthday in June.
We’re now going to be cruising to SEATTLE. After flying to Los Angeles from Portland, OR.
If it were me, I’d be raising hell. Fortunately, my mother in law is a very gracious woman and even though she undoubtedly purchased travel insurance is going through with the cruise, since it’s near impossible to get all six kids and families together at the same time.
Then again, if it were me, I never would have booked a cruise in the first place. This situation is CERTAINLY not changing my initial perception of cruise companies as rip-off artists blowing sunshine up my a$$ (the forwarded email talked about how we’ll have “just as much fun” freezing our butts off a three hour drive from home).
@John
I reject the choice as false. I want low prices and refundable tickets whenever the cruise ship can’t substantively perform
For example, a Caribbean Cruise of 6 Islands might be permitted to miss one or two ports of call due to weather or some otherthingoutside of their control. Sure. But to fundamentally changethenature of the cruie is not acceptable.
OK, so any bright ideas on how to proceed? Any lawyers out there want to comment on whether there is a legitimate case here? Could this be fought in small claims court?
I think both Joe and I have suggested that there is a legitimate case. I would go the small claims route.
This is not a case of skipping port A because the captain didn’t care for the traffic. It was a passenger safety issue, and no one was going to get a different answer on a different cruise line. They all pulled out, not just Princess.
Good luck with that small claims case. I think you’ll get laughed out of court.
@Carlo
Your legal analysis is understandable but unfortunately completely wrong. The fact that the cruise line wasn’t at fault for not delivering is not germane to the issue. Ultimately, the cruise line failed to deliver what was promised and as such is not entitled to provide a substitute good. This is an excellent small claims court case.
There is a tendency to believe that there must be fault in order to breach a contract. Nothing is further from the truth. If a party fails to perform the contract then at the very least it must refund the money paid by the other side, even if no one is at fault.
@ Carlo – I’ve had flights diverted because it was not safe to land at an airport (ice, fog, etc) BUT, they finally managed to deliver me to the appointed destination! They didn’t just drop me off somewhere else and say – it’s not safe in XYZ so we’re only taking you to ABC. The cruise lines can delay or defer the final destination, but can’t just change it and say “Live with it… because WE say so”.
In my opinion, if they had just made a little minor adjustment to the ports, no big deal, but to change a cruise to Mexico, to a cruise to California, that would really suck. Especially if you are from California. Secondly, I always thought of travel insurance, as being like the extended warranties, not very good value for the consumer. But to hold you hostage to these policies, in the case of extreme divergence of locale, is just bad business. I will really rethink taking a cruise in the future. Or consider the cost of insurance an integral, and essential part of the cost of the cruise, and if it raises the price too much, I’ll vacation elsewhere.
Steve
Somehow, they manage to redirect cruises during hurricane season all the time without getting sued successfully (or at least that I’m aware of). I think this is a very similar situation and I think the courts would view it similarly. And if I see a court case fly by my desk on WestLaw or LexNex over the next few months, I’ll keep the ketchup handy.
@Carlo
The difference here is that they are completely changing the weather possibility, location, direction and country near which they are sailing. it’s a completely different cruise. it’s like you signing up for a 2 week alaskan cruise to whale watch then get sent to Panama where it’s 95* instead.
When there is a hurricane the lines travel to different ports of call or in different areas of the carribbean. They stilll make it a carribbean cruise and make ports of call in carribbean areas. The weather is still substantially similar in nature with the possibility of increaseed waves, winds, and rain.
On May 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm Lex said This happened to us. My mother in law booked staterooms and flights for all of her kids (and their spouses and kids) to take a cruise to Mexico on Royal Caribbean, departing out of Los Angeles, for her 70th birthday in June.
Your case is different than the one on Princess. Royal Caribbean HAS offered you the opportunity to cancel for a full refund OR take the cruise and get onboard credit AND a future credit OR switch to another Royal Caribbean cruise and get onboard credit. You have a choice. They aren’t taking advantage of you and are allowing you to get all your money back if you want.
Since Westlaw’s and Lexis/Nexis’ small claims coverage is nearly non-existent, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a small claims case to pop on on the major legal resources.
The cruise lines really are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. No matter what choice they make, they’re subject to litigation (irrespective of any forced arbitration clause in the adhesion contract they dictate to all passengers). I think nobody would disagree that they made the right choice by foregoing Mexico, since that would have made them liable for the risk of exposing passengers and crew to the virus. But in diverting the ship they have fundamentally altered the product they’re delivering, substituting a cold and cloudy northern itinerary for the warm and sunny Mexican trip they advertised. This is such a major alteration to the nature of the cruise that I believe a judge would override the adhesion contract and order a refund should it actually get to court.
The cruise lines did the best they could under the very difficult circumstances. Some passengers who enjoy cruising may not mind the completely different itinerary. But others, especially those who live in the Bay Area or the Pacific Northwest and booked a Mexican cruise specifically to escape clammy overcast weather, may not find the revised itinerary appealing at all. So it comes down to how the cruise line handles the latter category of passenger.
If the cruise line offers them a choice of a refund or a rescheduled trip (as Royal Caribbean apparently does), it’s only a problem if they booked their own non-refundable airfare. They can try to get the airline make an exception for them. That’s probably a long shot, but “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.” If that doesn’t work, they can either forfeit the cost of the airfare or enjoy a fun-filled week in Los Angeles.
It’s only a problem if the cruise line decides to strictly enforce their adhesion contract (as Princess apparently does). They can do that, since the contract effectively lets them change anything and everything about the cruise as they see fit. That would be bad business, but sometimes greed or desperation overrides good business sense. Normal travel insurance wouldn’t cover a situation like this, so small claims court may well be the appropriate response to a hard-nosed refusal of a refund. As I said, the cruise line’s insistence on an unacceptable, fundamentally different substitute for the advertised product would probably give the judge reason to override the adhesion contract. But good luck collecting on the judgment!
@ Ted
I agree with you accept for your second to last sentence. I checked the website and their brochure. They both state that the itinerary can change below the printed itinerary. Knowing that .. fundamentally you are purchasing x number of days on a cruise ship and nothing else. As long as the cruise line allows you to stay for x number of days, they haven’t changed the advertised product.
Just because they plan to go somewhere doesn’t mean they have to. As long as they don’t change the cruise length, you are probably stuck!
Guess its one that will have to go to court! Unless keeping people happy becomes a bigger priority
I’m currently battling Carnival for a refund. I would like to point out my cruise to Mexico was canceled/changed to avoid swine flu, yet there was no swine flu suspected or confirmed in the Mexican ports of call as of the day the cruise was changed to be a cruise to the Pacific Northwest (per Google Maps and my multiple Google searches). There WERE numerous cases of probable or confirmed swine flu in ALL ports of call in US and Canada as of the date of the change. What the….?????
I find this statement interesting from the original posting “The reason for this it’s simply not fair to the over 3/4 of our passengers that spend their money to purchase travel protection, to provide a benefit to passengers who choose not to purchase this.”
I would like to see proof that over 75% of all the passengers that Princess has on board that ship have purchased the travel protection….
and to *NOT* offer a re-booking to a customer who did not purchase this protection because it would not be fair to the others who *DID* purchase this protection, is the completly wrong reason! Live ain’t fair…Princess should tell the truth of why they don’t want to rebook or refund the fares…they are hurting in this economy just like every other company…they don’t want to let go of the money they have in their hands!
Ed
@John
I understand your logic. However a contract must also be read in light of prevailing customs and law. There are powerful counter-argument to the position that you are only buying “x” days on a cruise ship.
The first is the prevalance of marketing the ports as well as any advertising calling the cruise a Caribbean cruise, or an Alaska Cruise or other such nomenclature.
The second is the price differential. Unless the cruise ship charges the same price for every cruise of “x” days during the relevant time frame, then the argument goes bust. For example if a 7 day South American cruise from Jan 1 to Jan 8 leaving San Diego costs $2,500, but the same seven day California cruise from Jan 1 to Jan 8 leaving San Diego only cost $1000. Then we know that the cruise line’s argument that you are only buying days on the ship is demonstrably false. If that were true, no one would ever buy the South American cruise.
The value of the South America ports is at least the difference, i.e. $1500.
I have a question maybe someone can answer. Regarding the no refund policy on Carnival Cruises, why are the Galveston Cruises offered a refund. The cruise is being extened from 5 to 7 days at no extra charge, Carnival is crediting $150.00 per person for airline changes, but if you do not want to go on a 7 day cruise instead of the 5 day cruise you paid for, you will get your money back. Why not cruise credit like everyone else?
It’s understandable if this answer’s not liked, but it’s because each provider will decide on their own how to approach an issue based on what they can and can’t afford. None of them are required to act in the same way, and each has varying costs and benefits in doing something.
Like Kathy Langley there are several thousands of people who just because of their callous attitude land up to such problems. I too faced the situation once and from that time i have realized travel insurance is must. It helps us to utilize out hard earned money wisely and get it back if such cancellations are to be made by us or the company has to cancel the trip for some unavoidable reasons like the swine flu.
@Nirdeshini
That hardly fair. How is Langley’s attitude callous. She booked a cruise. The cruise line didn’t deliver. She’s owed a refund.
What’s particularly troubling about your post is that it repeats the falsehood that travel insurance is a panacea that covers all woes. A quick google search will show that travel insurance in this case would have been useless for many reasons, including the fact that the trip was not cancelled.
To Quote..
Travel Guard Vice President Dan McGinnity says most traditional travel plans will not provide coverage for canceling a trip due to a health scare.
“Most of our policies have a provision in there for terrorism but not for something like swine flu,” adds Ambrose, who is also the president of Travelex Insurance Services.
Remember, Princess did NOT “cancel” the cruise, they simply changed ports. So travel insurance would not have covered this change of ports. Their “gift” of half off my next Princess cruise is a joke, like I would ever give them another penny! My guess is that the 500 or so others like me that also canceled rather than go with the new itinerary feel the same way. I think in the long run, it was a bad decision in this economy. And keep in mind, we did not ask for a refund, just the ability to cruise the Mexican Riviera at a time that worked for Princess.
Here is my past experience last week.
I had never taken a cruise and we booked and paid for one on The Holiday (which I do not recommend) in November for May 14th.
I never wanted to cancel or get a refund. However, I did get a passport to go to Mexcio, but unfortunately I ended up in Key West. I was fine with this and made the best of this old ship trip.
I have heard from many people that they get their original price from taxes on the port and in Mexico paid more than Key West. I have also heard from people booking during hurricane season, that after their changes received money to spend on the ship.
I was very disappointed to not receive anything. I didn’t like how Carnival handled things from the beginning. We never received anything in the mail prior to sailing and also never responed to 2 emails tht I sent inquiring about changes. I was never even contacted. I had to keep watching on the website for the change and it finally was posted a week before we left.
Since the cruise lines (and airlines) seem to write their own arbitrary contracts, my solution would be to write my own arbitrary addendum…. and on my check or credit card slip add the verbiage – “Acceptance of these funds constitutes acceptance of the terms of addendum (available on request)”. See if they send your check or credit card slip back to you :-) If you have to go to court, just pull out your copy of the addendum, which has terms favorable to you!