So, lets vote with our feet by not patronizing companies that behave like this and help them go away now, politely getting the word out (like this forum) about actual experiences while we gleefully patronize and promote the ones that care about our satisfaction as customers.

Actually the cruise was not a Panama Canal cruise, as the ship was never scheduled to enter the Canal. It was scheduled to dock in Colon for excursions to the Panama Canal but that was it, so the Vacation Guarantee should have applied.

1. This is despicable for Carnival to do to them, contract sneakiness in 5-point font on page 37 or not. If there had been a weather event like a hurricane fine, but obviously lying about engine mechanics, and false advertising should be actionable. If not in small claims court than by the FTC and the correct respective State Attorney General’s offices, both in Florida and the state these folks live in where the purchased.

2. The Anonymous posting Jan 26 at 3:22 – look don’t be a smart-a$$ insulting and blaming the victim. It is real easy for you to lie and say you always read every page of fine print on everything you sign. No, you don’t, you’re lying, you know it and your’e not any better or more perfect than these poor folks. Folks, really why do you want to beat up on other consumers that are rear ended by corporations? How does that help them, you or anyone else? Nobody cares how smarter you think you are. Knock it off.

3. If carnival did this to me, I would wage a Consumer Jihad on the internet, press, etc. against them, on travel review sites, yelp.com, etc. galore. Even if you don’t win in court, you can cost them millions with the right kind of internet campaign. I hope these folks do that! Carnival deserves it!

Scott

This all all guesswork on my part. The reason for my supposition is that Cruise don’t get business travelers in the way that airlines do.. For example, the lowest recognized tier of frequent flier fliers 25,000 miles annually and usually does that every year, with the highest tier fliers breaking 100,000 miles annually.

For hotels, top level perks begin at 50 nights annually, a number I am guessing only an infinitesimal number of cruiser achieve, whereas in the hotel work that merely the top 2-3 percent.

As such, air and hotel heavily market their frequent quests programs.

Normally, in a case like this I would give a business the benefit of the doubt, but from everything I’ve heard and read lately, this is becoming Standard Operating Procedures for Cruiselines, and I wouldn’t put it past them.

The bottom line is I will not need to take them to court, I just will not be cruising anymore. Enough people will get sick and tired of this stuff, and then they will wonder what is wrong with their business model? Take care of your customers, give them what they pay for, and quit nickel and diming folks out of their money – and you might not need to ask the government for a bailout.

However, the quoted line from their contract was NOT technically correct. “Carnival will make an effort to provide accommodations and services of a comparable quality and standard as set forth in the brochure.” First, engine trouble known beforehand was not something out of anyone’s control, and if they indeed did sail back faster then what the employees told the guests was an outright lie. Second, The ship sailed far less than it actually would have which is not a service of comparable quality. To make matters worse, even their cruis was cut short on the return leg by 8 hours, suggesting that there really wasn’t anything wrong with the ship in the first place.

I’m with the others in saying that they should take their case to small claims court. the cost to the cruise line to send a representative will easily cost more than what they would be seeking in compensation/refund.