That’s no miracle! Carnival switches itinerary, offers $25 credit for the trouble

Anne and Jack King couldn’t wait for their December cruise to Panama, Costa Rica, and Belize on the Carnival Miracle. But the tour of Panama City and the Panama Canal would have to wait for them. At the last minute, and with no warning to the Kings, Carnival abbreviated its itinerary to include ports of call in Costa Maya, Cozumel and Roatan.

What’s worse, Carnival offered them a $25 onboard credit for the change in schedule, which didn’t come close to compensating them for a cruise they never wanted. How could it do that?

When we arrived in Fort Lauderdale to check in, we were told by rude agents that the itinerary had been changed and that we could not get our money back. They said we should have received an email a couple of days before. We didn’t.

We drove from upstate New York to Fort Lauderdale for this cruise, and checked our email every day. The only email we got from Carnival was a lame Christmas card.

The Kings asked a Carnival representative why its itinerary changed, and were told the ship’s propulsion system was “failing” and they couldn’t get to Panama and back in the time allotted.

We are sick that we spent more than $2,000 on a cruise we didn’t want to take and never would have chosen at any price.

We heard other passengers say they didn’t believe there was anything wrong with the propulsion, that Carnival had shortened the route because the ship wasn’t full and they wanted to save money.

In fact, on the last night of the cruise the captain announced that we were arriving in Fort Lauderdale at midnight instead of 8 a.m. because there was a sick passenger who needed emergency care. Then he floored it, and gave us a jolting ride back at top speed. What happened to the broken propulsion?

To add insult to injury, Carnival is not even returning our $160 fuel surcharge! They changed to an itinerary with half the mileage and still charged us for the trip to Panama, PLUS the surcharge.

The couple hadn’t contacted Carnival yet, so I suggested they do so.

Here’s the cruise line’s response:

Dear Mrs. King:

When any guest of ours takes the time to share their cruise experiences they obviously care enough to bring these matters to our attention.

We realize many vacations are chosen because of a specific itinerary and regret any disappointment caused as a result of the changes made to itinerary. Please understand that the decision to change an itinerary is difficult and generally undertaken as a last resort to ensure the safety and comfort of our guests. While we certainly sympathize and extend our sincere apologies, our passenger ticket contract and Welcome Aboard brochure state that Carnival reserves the right to alter itineraries as needed, as was the case with this sailing.

We hope to regain your confidence in us so that we may have the opportunity to welcome you aboard again soon.

Obviously a canned response, but it’s technically correct. Carnival’s cruise contract says it can make any change it wants to an itinerary.

If a change in the itinerary is needed due to factors or conditions beyond Carnival’s control, no refund or credit will be made, however, Carnival will make an effort to provide accommodations and services of a comparable quality and standard as set forth in the brochure. Any such change shall not modify the cancellation provisions in the brochure. No credit will be allowed nor refund given for any services provided in the brochure should any such services not be utilized by Participants.

I think Carnival’s response to King’s letter left something to be desired. There’s a precedent for a better answer than just “it’s in our contract.” But as I mentioned in an article several years ago, it’s up to the cruise line.

Carnival should have communicated its schedule change more clearly to passengers like King. It should have offered a refund if they wanted one, and at the very least, it could have offered a partial refund for the fuel surcharge.

It shouldn’t take a miracle for Carnival to do the right thing.

  • MarkieA

    This is, obviously, despicable. One more reason that I will never set foot onboard a cruise ship. If there is any way around Carnival’s “cover our a**” contract, it may be in the phrase, “…due to factors or conditions beyond Carnival’s control.” If the Kings want to pursue the situation and can prove that there was no damage to the propulsion system and, in turn, no real reason – other than greed – for the shortened itinerary, wouldn’t they have a case? And, of course the fuel surcharge should be reduced if not refunded.

  • Chris

    “…due to factors or conditions beyond Carnival’s control.”

    Isn’t an equipment problem something that is WITHIN their control? I thought that’s how it worked with airlines: you are entitled to compensation if it’s a mechanical problem (something within their control) but not entitled if its a force majeure (read: weather, ATC).

    Does it not work the same way with a cruise line?

    If their cruise got rerouted because of a hurricane, that’s beyond their control – but equipment? Sounds like they may have a small claims case, even if based solely on semantics.

  • Tom Walters

    This type of treatment will not stop until the public gets serious about having companies “do the right thing”. They believe we will sit back and take it. These issues have lately been taken to small claims and with success. Take their butts to small claims and you may be surprised at how responsive they get!

  • http://www.ffocus.org Bruce InCharlotte

    I am sure that the discovery phase would include requests to review propulsion maintenance logs and the portion of the ship’s log that included the return to Fort Lauderdale at high speed. They are VERY due a refund of at least a portion of the fuel charges.

  • http://VacationGuarantee? twothirds

    Could they have used the vacation guarantee and jumped ship?
    http://www.carnival.com/cms/fun/cruise_control/vacation_guarantee.aspx

    >>>
    We’re so confident you’ll enjoy your Carnival cruise vacation, we guarantee it. Carnival is the only cruise line to offer the Vacation Guarantee*. Simply book your cruise vacation and sail away on a “Fun Ship.” If you are not completely satisfied with your cruise vacation experience, all you need to do is notify us before arrival at the first port of call and you must debark at your ship’s first non-U.S. port of call. Carnival will refund the unused portion of your cruise fare and pay your flight back.
    <<<

  • Lianne

    I enjoy cruising, but I find it baffling that the airlines and the cruiselines are both allowed to create contracts that basically say “We can take your money then give you whatever we want.” Where is the so call truth in advertising? Seems to me that if I pay for something and don’t get it, the company owes me something. At the very *least* these folks should have gotten a non-expiring credit for their fare to use on a cruise that is actually going where they want to go.

  • Carver

    Alas, it appears that dealing with a cruise ship is somewhat akin to being in the wild west. Between the fact that most are internationally registered, and that they may or may not have any assets in the US, its very hard to hold a cruise line accountable.

    I suspect cruise ships don’t count of repeat business nearly as much as other forms of transportation. That makes it harder to hold them accountable. There’s enough information about airplanes that I have a good idea of which ones to avoid. I haven’t a clue about cruise ships, and I suspect that many others are similiarly ignorant.

    At this point, I think I’ll just continue avoiding cruise ships until they get their act together.

  • Peter Zimmerman

    Unfortunately, in the King’s case, the exclusion which reads “VOID WHERE PROHIBITED AND NOT APPLICABLE ON ALASKA, EUROPE, HAWAII, PANAMA CANAL, SOUTH AMERICA ITINERARIES AND CRUISES-TO-NOWHERE.” would have prevented them from exercising their rights under the Carnival Vacation Guarantee

  • Lianne

    @ Carver

    “I suspect cruise ships don’t count of repeat business nearly as much as other forms of transportation”

    Actually cruise lines HEAVILY court repeat customers. Most lines have past cruiser clubs that extend pretty nice, lifetime perks to people who continiuosly cruise their lines. I have found cruise lines actually very willing to work with unhappy customers because of this which is what makes this even more baffling. Its not like the customers didn’t want to cruise, they just didn’t want to go on that particular cruise once it changed.

  • Mike

    Peter Zimmerman, that was VERY funny. LMAO.

    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.

  • Skip

    When I hear stuff like this, it really burns me up as a consumer… Isn’t this a snapshot of what is wrong with business & customer service today?

    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.

  • Rama

    I was thinking about a cruise, but thanks to this article, I will not be wasting my money. What an outrage.

  • John

    What I love about this is that it is effective advertising. My wife desperately wants a cruise for our aniversary. A proper response to these victims would have been positive, but Carnival has certainly has proven themselves unworthy of my business. Keep up the circus, Carnival! Who would really be tempted by Carnies running a cruise operation?

  • Carver Farrow

    @Lianne

    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.

  • Joe Farrell

    Wow, 25 whole dollars. Meeester, I could feed my famly for several years on 25 genuine american dollars.

  • Aaron

    Three words: Small claims court.

  • Eric

    Chances are, small claims court is not an option. Chances are, the contract under which the tickets were purchased requires binding arbitration in a forum chosen by the cruise line, in say Delaware, Barbados, or Liberia.

  • Anonymous

    Honestly, you overpaid for your cruise ticket, and you should have read the contract. This is not that uncommon of an event to happen to cruise itineraries. If you would have read some cruise review websites and done more research you would have known. Regardless of the change you still got a cruise, quit being so whiny when most people can’t afford the luxury of a cruise.

  • http://Consumer007@gmail.com Scott Womack

    I have a couple of reactions here:

    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

  • Jeff

    I’ve done the Panama, Costa Rica, and Belize cruise. Other than the SCUBA diving in Belize, they didn’t miss much. The nice parts of those countries aren’t accessible in the time frame of a cruise ship port call. Costa Maya, Cozumel and Roatan really was a better itinerary!

  • Jennifer

    If the propulsion system worked fine, then Carnival lied! They have the right to alter the contract, as they state, but nowhere in said contract does it say that they reserve the right to lie. I don’t agree with the cruise line’s contract stipulations, that allow them to make such drastic changes, but they should be held accountable for being dishonest! That said, the affected passengers deserve more than a small onboard credit!

  • Wrona

    On January 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm Peter Zimmerman said Unfortunately, in the King’s case, the exclusion which reads “VOID WHERE PROHIBITED AND NOT APPLICABLE ON ALASKA, EUROPE, HAWAII, PANAMA CANAL, SOUTH AMERICA ITINERARIES AND CRUISES-TO-NOWHERE.” would have prevented them from exercising their rights under the Carnival Vacation Guarantee

    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.

  • 335

    For the shortened itinerary, my money is on the fact that the ship was way below passenger capacity and executives back at HQ mandated the change (and the lies). Unfortunately, under the current prevailing economic conditions, we’ll be seeing more and more of this behavior, with companies making short sighted decisions based on making numbers THIS quarter so that executives can save part of their bonus, even though it will eventually put the company in the tank.

    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.