We are in the same boat you are, except we are scheduled to leave on June 1st (same schedule and ports of call) insted we still pay the same amount of money to visit Cozumel ONLY. We meet all their criteria, according to their brochure and terms and conditions of the cruise contract for a full refund without "penelty" YEAH RIGHT. The penelty is they are keeping our money and not allowing us to make the choice as to where we spend our vacation. I was also informed that they reserve the right to change their terms and conditions on the spur of the moment to make sure that they are the ones who benefit. What ever happened to CUSTOMER SERVICE?? I would think that offering your customers a FULL refund would make them more likely to return but that obviosly isnt important to Carnival.

If the cruise line is offering passengers who booked the cruise the option of a refund or postponement, I think there's no reason to complain. Those who booked their own airfare or add-on hotels in Los Angeles have more difficulty, since they probably can't get a refund on the airfare (but they should definitely ask). They might end up with the choice of forfeiting that or taking their substitute vacation in Los Angeles (not a bad choice, unless you don't drive). But in that case the cruise line is doing their best to mitigate the problem, even though their adhesion contract imposes no such obligation.

However, if the cruise line isn't offering any choice other than taking the "American Riviera" cruise or forfeiting their money, then it's a problem that might justify legal action. Yes, the adhesion contract basically says the cruise line can do anything they want, but in this case the substitute itinerary is so different from what was advertised that a court might indeed find it unconscionable. But as others have noted, I doubt any attorney would take such a case. And I don't see the cruise lines taking this approach anyway.

661-284-4771 (FAX)

Mr. Alan Buckelew, President & CEO
24844 Avenue Rockefeller
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
www.princess.com

You discount the charges and in small claims court argue that the terms were "unconscionable."

Voila - a settlement will be offered or (less likely) you'll win, the end.

That will be five hundred dollars, thanks.

You know... I really enjoyed my last cruise. There was no norwalk virus, no itinerary changes, and the weather was beautiful every day. We had a minor problem with a shore excursion and the cruise line (Princess) gave us a partial refund that more than satisfied us.

The vacation was cheaper than almost any other vacation we've taken. I came back refreshed and renewed.

I once went to St. Louis by plane and became desperately ill with influenza as did many others at the hotel I stayed at. I got a bacterial infection (and almost died) when we stayed at an all inclusive resort in Jamaica. When I was a child, I nearly drowned in a pool in Florida.

Honestly, I really wouldn't want to go to Mexico right now. I probably would rather go someplace remote to vacation. Travel is fraught with danger, and there is no way to ensure you will have a problem free trip.

The problem here is that the industry does not give the consumer appropriate tools to identify and mitigate risk. Although trip itineraries are frequently changed (and in this case, they SHOULD be changed), trip insurance does not typically cover these particular situations. And while some cruiselines are good about helping their customers, their contracts are pretty draconian, making it clear that if they do choose to provide concessions, it's about customer service, not contractual liability.

There may or may not be a lawsuit here, but there should be both a regulatory response from the government and an effort by the travel industry to provide some sort of consumer protection in the form of enhanced trip insurance.

First, are cruise ships really notorious for being super healthy? Am I the only one that thinks that they're basically floating petri dishes? So you pass up on the H1N1 but here's some amoebic dysentery instead.

Second, having never been on a cruise myself I just assumed that you went on the boat for the boat, not the destinations. Was I mistaken? I just assumed you went so you could hang out in a floating hotel where the outside world couldn't get to you and you could pig out with impunity at what is basically a giant floating buffet.

P.S. Everything I know about cruise ships is from TV ads and Love Boat. So I assume Charo will be on like one out of every three cruises.

I'm booked on a carnival cruise for June and they are offering you the option of changing your cruise to a future sailing date (if they are still changing ports by then) they are just not providing refunds. I don't care either way we will still be going and we are hoping more people drop off and re-book so we can get a free upgrade. :)

I get motion sickness if the wind blows, so I would never go on a cruise, but my wife has been, and so have a few friends, and I have heard that they are pretty much a waste of money, the destinations are just touristy gluts of people and merchants. I heard that they often screw you on the amount of days the cruise last, like a 5 day cruise is one that leaves port at the end of day one and returns at the beginning of day 5, so you would really only get 3 full days. I was told that pretty much the only thing you can do is eat lots of food at any time. I can do that at home. Granted, this is just what I was told.

Uh yeah I mean it looks like it says in plain English that they reserve the right to change everything up any time for any reason and you can't do squat about it.

Now, does that sound like a good agreement? Fuck no (and I will not be going on any cruise any time soon because of that), but I mean uh. Read it before you sign it, right?

You don't really have a right to complain if you signed up for something crappy and then you got something crappy.

I, on the other hand, do have a right to complain that there are no cruise lines out there that will give me my money's worth, and either take me to my destination, *or* give me a full refund, and because of that, I cannot spend my hard-earned money on a cruise.

If you want to sign things without reading them, and then whine about it, I feel like you don't belong on the consumerist. If you have no savvy when it comes to making a deal with a service provider, you are making it worse for all the rest of us by not helping to keep dishonest companies in check.

I used to work for a company that printed those 15 part cruise ship tickets.

I will never take a cruise after proofreading the fine print on those things.

Once they hit international waters, they could cut you up and server you on the buffet to the other customers and there isn't anything you could do about it.

The market forces from bad press and bad web press are the only things that can keep them in check, and it's only been since the internet that enough of a $h!t storm can be generated to really make a difference.

But if I did book a cruise, which I still would like to do someday, I think I'd look less for ports of call and more for a ship with lots of amenities. If I take a cruise, it would be to experience traveling at sea, not just going someplace. I can always fly to whatever destination I want if that's my goal. So hopefully it would be a nice experience on the boat. I might not even get off if that's the case.

Queen Mary II, here I come. Someday. :)

While this is "Standard Procedure" in the cruise industry, this does represent a situation where the procedure is being abused and should probably be made illegal. There should be a threshold defined where if more than that number of ports of call must be cancelled, then customers should be offered some form of compensation.

This is also another reason why cruises are a situation where travel insurance may be a valuable proposition. Do not get the insurance that comes from the cruise line or expedia or wherever because it will be limited.
Most "normal" travel policies will not give you the option to cancel your trip but there are policies available (they cost a little extra) that would allow you to recoup most of your investment if the cruise line won't help you.

I am going on my 9th cruise in August. As of right now, I am not affected, but I expect to be. Do I care? No. I hope they drop Mexico from my itinerary, who voluntarily wants to go there? You get off the ship to be harassed and sold crap.... No thanks, I stay on the ship and enjoy thoe activities instead.

However, To the people who are saying things like F the cruise lines, and Cruise lines are cheats, lets say they go to Mexico and half the ship gets sick including yourselves, what would you say then?

"F-in Cruise lines didn't want to spend the money to reroute the trip at the last minute, just lookin to save a buck, F-in cheap b@stards. Now the ship is full of sick people, I WANT MY MONEY BACK!"

Some people will never be happy I guess.

Their right to change ports and destination at any time is a well known and accepted policy.

If you booked the cruse, you knew this, and accepted it.

It's like complaining that it rained when you were on vacation at Disney World. Yes, that can happen. You knew there was a possibility of rain when you booked it.

If you wanted to go to Mexico, book a flight. Cruses aren't guaranteed to go to a destination.

Sorry, but this just seems ridiculous to be upset over the obvious.

@Corporate-Shill: Because Wolftrouble can't afford one. (S)he can't have one... no one can ;-)

@maztec: A+. I like people who clarify their position. I was wondering about a few things myself... emotional distress was definately the top of the list.

I would feel more "distress" in getting the swine flu, than a change of port(s). Although I feel very sorry for the people enduring these changes (Since I'm sure many saved up for a long time to experience an authentic cruise)... the fact is, that if just ONE case of swine flu broke out on a cruise ship, it would be a catastrophe. Chaos. All these people would need to be quarantined... just awful.

I also believe that these cruise lines should be offering alternate ports or a voucher, and changing their websites to explain WHY people who booked for Mexico are not getting it.

@j-o-h-n: I like your moxy.

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.

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".

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Do you know why?

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.

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.

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

Thanks for the info, Consumerist!

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.

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 :-/

@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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

"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]

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.