Comments on: Swine flu sinks family’s cruise — are they outta luck?

By: Joe Reynolds

Joe Reynolds — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:53:24 +0000

Insurance cost is proportional to the cost of the trip, so it is not just a flat fee.
It depends on how much you want to risk and how much you want to be secure. The cruise lines rules are spelled out and that is the contract you enter into.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about. If you don’t like the contract don’t sign it and don’t take the cruise.
The cruise line is in business to make money. Now if the cruise line refuses to board you for any reason, then look in the contract and find that reason. You are the one that signed the contract. You have to honor it. If you have insurance you can honor the contract and not take the financial loss. If you don’t have insurance and you have to cancel you will take the financial loss. In this case you have self insured. You don’t have to buy the insurance from the cruise line or use the one that cruise line recommends. A good travel agent that you deal with year to year is a good idea. They can be very helpful.

By: DeVon Thomas

DeVon Thomas — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:36:51 +0000

Chris,

Sorry I am a few months late reading this post. But Rae has a great point, would travel insurance cover the entire family since only one was diagnosed? I am thinking it wouldn’t have covered the entire family and they would have still been out of gas if they chose not to go which was the responsible thing to do.

By: Adrienne

Adrienne — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:50:48 +0000

A couple posters made statements like this: “I sometimes wish that I would have gone, infected everyone on the ship, and had hundreds of people filing claims against these shysters.”
To the people who would go on the cruise anyway and risk infecting everyone so the cruise line would be forced to deal with claims, you are evil. Yes, evil. The Kaus should have bought travel insurance but at least they are not EVIL.

By: Carver

Carver — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:59:10 +0000

@kenish

I might be more willing to agree with hyou if travel provider allowed you to give away teh cruise to someone else who could use it. But since many tickets are non-transferable, (don’t know about cruises) then I see it as a money grab

By: kenish

kenish — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:12:59 +0000

I also side with the cruise line in this case. All four cruise lines I have used make the non-refundability very clear and suggest travel insurance. You can buy through them, or get coverage independently. Many great websites exist to help select the best policy for your itenerary and needs.

Several have commented the Kau’s paid for something they didn’t use. Not entirely true, when the ship sails with an empty cabin (or a plane takes off with an empty seat) that revenue opportunity is lost forever. They can’t hold it on the shelf to sell tomorrow like a box of cereal at the supermarket. A better perspective is Princess set aside a cabin under contract which the Kaus did not use.

I don’t want to sound unsympathetic; it’s bad when anyone loses a vacation and losing money just adds insult to injury. The cruise line could have tried to resell the Kau’s cabin at a distressed fare, then refunded or credited that amount to the Kaus. There have been cases where a passenger has to cancel days or a week in advance; some cruise lines will not allow them to send a friend or relative in their place (or charge a big fee for the substitiution). That is really a shame on the cruise line.

By: Joel Wechsler

Joel Wechsler — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:00:02 +0000

I think Daniel Wilson and both Joses (assuming they aren’t one and the same) are off the mark with respect to travel insurance as it relates to cruises. The cancellation penalties, which are clearly spelled out when you book, are fairly stiff, ranging up to 100% if the cancellation is last minute. Knowing this, EVERYONE who books a cruise should buy travel insurance, although not from the cruise line for reasons that have to do with your ability to collect in the event of a bankruptcy. That said, it would be nice if Princess and the other cruise lines had something in their policy that makes exceptions for illness.

By: Rae

Rae — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:34:14 +0000

My question is this: Even if the entire party had purchased travel insurance and decided as a whole not to travel, yet only one of their party had been diagnosed, would the travel insurance have covered the ones not showing symptoms yet?

By: Paulette

Paulette — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:25:27 +0000

Before my most recent trip to Australia, I had never purchased trip insurance. I decided to do so this time because of the medical and auto coverage more than the trip package itself. My travel agent tried to push me into purchasing their insurance, but I wanted to do some research before signing up. Boy, am I glad I did. The agency’s policy was a high-price, low-coverage ripoff. I got more than twice the coverage for less than half the price from a reputable third-party company. I agree that buying insurance for a large-ticket trip is a good idea, but I strongly recommend refusing an agent/cruise line’s offering before doing a bit of research — just make sure you sign up within the short time frame allowed for “pre-existing conditions.”

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:10:44 +0000

This is yet another reason I don’t cruise. If this had been an airline ticket, at the least I could have rebooked for a change fee to a future flight.

What is really going on here is that the cruise lines WANT to ADD to the cost of the cruise YOUR paying for the trip insurance, which has to be a HIGH PROFIT product, which is either rebated to the cruise lines if the cruise lines don’t own the trip insurance companies in the first place.

What a SCAM!

By: Jose

Jose — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:21:48 +0000

This whole travel insurance thing has gotten way out of hand. What is next? Ice cream insurance, so when I go to Baskin Robbins, if I drop my ice cream, it has happend to a lot of people, I file a claim and get my money back. C’mon, its a scam, if companies would just practice a little bit of common sense and customer service all this would be a moot point and the travel insurance business would not exist.

By: MarkieA

MarkieA — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:44:18 +0000

Chris

You need to add option #4:

4) Get to the cruise ship early, stand at the top of the gangplank – or whatever it’s called – and loudly announce that you have Swine Flu to every boarding passenger, and that you’re still going to go on the cruise because Princess won’t refund your money. If you don’t get beat up by irate passengers, Princess will surely “come to some agreeable terms” with you :)

By: sue

sue — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:13:09 +0000

I’m with Carver here, and I question the ethics of the cruise company being the one selling the insurance product. Of course they won’t be generous to anyone who doesn’t buy their insurance because it would undermine their product. Of course they don’t have a reasonable cancellation policy because that too, would undermine their insurance product.

I’ve never taken a cruise and the more I read about their questionable practices, the less I am ever likely to.

By: Regina

Regina — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:27:47 +0000

I completely disagree that “doing good never pays”–and I don’t think it has to “pay” in the traditional sense. If you cancel a cruise because you may be carrying a disease (not to mention that you won’t enjoy the cruise anyway if you become symptomatic) you are doing the right thing. Just because the cruise line won’t refund your money doesn’t make it right to infect everyone else. You would be punishing other passengers because you were angry at the cruise line. That’s childish, irresponsible and totally selfish. I sincerely hope that you, Mr. Dayton, are never on a cruise I take.

By: carver

carver — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:15:54 +0000

CONTINUED…

In my opinion, all travel tickets should be applicable to a future fare less a reasonable change fee, and with enough restrictions that it doesn’t hurt the travel provider’s business model.

By: carver

carver — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:13:16 +0000

My problem with this decision is far more fundamental. The entire concept of non-refundable fares is difficult for me. The travel industry sets prices that make little or no sense.

I’m not a fan of travel insurance. In particular trip cancellation insurance is ridiculously priced. I suspect its becuase of a lack of transparency in the market 6.6% is highway robbery. By comparison, my car insurance premium is $50/month to provide a quarter million in coverage.

Also, the cruise line is short sighted. I agree it is unethical and immoral to take the cruise knowing that you have a highly contagious disease. That should be a no-brainer. However, the cruise line actions incentivizes people to act immorally to protect their investment and take the cruise. Particularly the family members who don’t know if they are sick.

I think the people who should really be pissed are the other passengers who are put at risk because of the cruise line’s short sightedness.