Passport question and carnival triumph

Here's the hate I saw in this thread to say nothing of other threads I've read...










OK, so the 900 on the cruise ship obviously were travelling to a foreign country, but how many live near one? Or have close family members living in one? Or have the extra money for one.

Look, I agree a passport *IS* a good thing to have, even on a closed loop cruise. But can a cruise line REQUIRE someone to have a passport even if the government (of whichever county the cruise is visiting) doesn't?

Maybe not the cruise line, but our government certainly can. They are the ones who set the closed loop rule, and the entity who said U.S. citizens must have a passport to return to the U.S. via air. They can, and should, expand that for all cruisers.
 
NHdisneylover said:
It would not be covered by most policies since most policies only cover:

1 "trip interruption" -- technically the trip was not "interrupted" or cut short. It was miserable and not what people expected, but it was not shortened.

2. "extra expenses incurred" -- so if someone had to change airfare to get back, then that would be covered--but nothing for the cost of a cruise spent mostly hot and stinky eating onion sandwiches, or for lost wages if there were any and very unlikely that extra pet boarding or babysitting costs would be covered either--just airfare change fees, etc at most.

This is actually one reason that with our current ages and heath we do not buy insurance--it often does not cover things that we would want. I totally think that if you do not have the means to cover an emergency yourself, have a strong liklihood of issues or are spending a HUGE sum (which varies depending on your income and savings level) on a trip, then the only reasonable thing to do is insure yourself--but, just as you need to know what not having a passport could put you through, you need to know what insurance really will cover and what it will not.

mdsoccermom said:
Travel insurance wouldn't cover it because 1) you sailed on time so there was no delay; 2) you never got off the ship that did sail so your cruise was not interrupted and 3) the cruise was never cancelled. No, you did not make your ports, but there is nothing in your policy that says you can or will make them. Plus, your cruise contract states the itineraries can be changed. You were compensated by the cruise line so there is no fare money lost.

If you went to medical during the week and received copies of your paperwork, you night be able to file a claim for any fees incurred, but that's about it.

Thanks.

I was more talking about medical trip insurance, but I was wondering if trip interruption would come into play at all, not in regards to missed ports as those aren't guaranteed, but in terms of sanitation of ship, no food, etc

Tiger
 
Thanks.

I was more talking about medical trip insurance, but I was wondering if trip interruption would come into play at all, not in regards to missed ports as those aren't guaranteed, but in terms of sanitation of ship, no food, etc

Tiger

Nope, trip interruption refers to the complete cessation of travel. Since passengers remained on the ship and did not lose more than 50% of travel, I.e. left the ship early, the trip technically wasn't interrupted.

I keep Travel Guard's policies on my iPad.
 
OK, so the 900 on the cruise ship obviously were travelling to a foreign country, but how many live near one? Or have close family members living in one? Or have the extra money for one.

I read the posts, no one said anything about people who didn't have those qualifiers you listed above needing one. :confused3
 
My understanding is that most travel insurance would not cover this anyway. The cruise was not cut short, they were returned (via bus) to the correct port, etc--so technically it does not fall under any normal insurance issue. That is one of the reasons this has been such a nightmare for people.

It would not be covered by most policies since most policies only cover:

1 "trip interruption" -- technically the trip was not "interrupted" or cut short. It was miserable and not what people expected, but it was not shortened.

2. "extra expenses incurred" -- so if someone had to change airfare to get back, then that would be covered--but nothing for the cost of a cruise spent mostly hot and stinky eating onion sandwiches, or for lost wages if there were any and very unlikely that extra pet boarding or babysitting costs would be covered either--just airfare change fees, etc at most.

This is actually one reason that with our current ages and heath we do not buy insurance--it often does not cover things that we would want. I totally think that if you do not have the means to cover an emergency yourself, have a strong liklihood of issues or are spending a HUGE sum (which varies depending on your income and savings level) on a trip, then the only reasonable thing to do is insure yourself--but, just as you need to know what not having a passport could put you through, you need to know what insurance really will cover and what it will not.

Travel insurance wouldn't cover it because 1) you sailed on time so there was no delay; 2) you never got off the ship that did sail so your cruise was not interrupted and 3) the cruise was never cancelled. No, you did not make your ports, but there is nothing in your policy that says you can or will make them. Plus, your cruise contract states the itineraries can be changed. You were compensated by the cruise line so there is no fare money lost.

If you went to medical during the week and received copies of your paperwork, you night be able to file a claim for any fees incurred, but that's about it.
You are correct about "trip delay" or "trip interruption" if you consider only the front-end of the trip. However, most trip insurance also covers the return home -

For example:
"When Coverage Ends
Your coverage automatically ends on the earlier of:
1. the date the Covered Trip is completed;
2. the Scheduled Return Date;
3. cancellation of the Covered Trip covered by the plan;
4. your arrival at the return destination on a round-trip,
or the destination on a one-way trip.
All coverages under the plan will be extended if your
entire Covered Trip is covered by the plan and your
return is delayed by unavoidable circumstances beyond
your control.

If coverage is extended for the above reasons,
coverage will end on the earlier of the date you reach
your originally scheduled return destination or seven (7)
days after the Scheduled Return Date.[/quote]
(bold added).

If you're stuck at an airport, or stuck on a ship, your trip home is certainly "delayed" and you will be reimbursed by the insurer under Trip Delay. It may pay for extra expenses like babysitting or pet sitting or even lost wages, depending on the coverage chosen.
 
I read the posts, no one said anything about people who didn't have those qualifiers you listed above needing one. :confused3
Maybe I didn't express myself well. You brought up a number of reasons someone should have a passport. Aside from the "traveling out of country", we don't know if those 900 passport-less passengers (say that 10 times fast:goodvibes) fall under the conditions.

Really, it doesn't matter whether everyone on the ship had passports or not. They STILL didn't need them for this trip.
 
Maybe I didn't express myself well. You brought up a number of reasons someone should have a passport. Aside from the "traveling out of country", we don't know if those 900 passport-less passengers (say that 10 times fast:goodvibes) fall under the conditions.

Really, it doesn't matter whether everyone on the ship had passports or not. They STILL didn't need them for this trip.

They may not have needed them for the original intention of the trip, but once an emergency happens, the original trip has now ended, and a new one has begun, and that is when a passport may be needed.

Tiger
 
I've never understood why someone would step a foot outside this country without a passport. If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford a passport. They are simple to get, and as someone else said, the absolute gold standard for identification.
 
mnrose said:
I've never understood why someone would step a foot outside this country without a passport. If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford a passport. They are simple to get, and as someone else said, the absolute gold standard for identification.

Amen
 
Maybe I didn't express myself well. You brought up a number of reasons someone should have a passport. Aside from the "traveling out of country", we don't know if those 900 passport-less passengers (say that 10 times fast:goodvibes) fall under the conditions.

Really, it doesn't matter whether everyone on the ship had passports or not. They STILL didn't need them for this trip.

Traveling out of the country was ONE of the reasons people were listing.:confused3 Whether they met any of the other conditions I think it's a good idea to have a passport in or not, they certainly met one of them.

I just don't get it. Why is it so upsetting to you that some people think a passport is prudent to have when traveling out of the country and that I dared to list some other circumstances people would do well to have them as well?
 
Here's the hate I saw in this thread to say nothing of other threads I've read...










OK, so the 900 on the cruise ship obviously were travelling to a foreign country, but how many live near one? Or have close family members living in one? Or have the extra money for one.

Look, I agree a passport *IS* a good thing to have, even on a closed loop cruise. But can a cruise line REQUIRE someone to have a passport even if the government (of whichever county the cruise is visiting) doesn't?

Why not? It's a business and they can require whatever they want to. It may not win them any popularity contests but so what? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would simply be "No passport, no boarding".
 
And from now on I will think people who take cruises are ridiculous for not taking food, water and garbage bags, just in case they need them should the next ship break down. Of course they're not required but I can't imagine someone who take a chance. Who knows what could happen. :rolleyes1
 
Why not? It's a business and they can require whatever they want to. It may not win them any popularity contests but so what? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would simply be "No passport, no boarding".

They're in a very competitive business. While they may suggest that people have passports, it wouldn't make good business sense to require something from your customers that the competition doesn't require.
People take chances all the time-people live with their decisions. Not a big deal. Like someone else mentioned, we never buy trip insurance. We made a decision to take the chance that things will turn out in our favor. If I'm wrong, I'll pay the price for that decision. We travel often, and with what we've saved by not buying insurance over the years would probably cover most emergencies so we are now ahead of the game.
 
They're in a very competitive business. While they may suggest that people have passports, it wouldn't make good business sense to require something from your customers that the competition doesn't require.
People take chances all the time-people live with their decisions. Not a big deal. Like someone else mentioned, we never buy trip insurance. We made a decision to take the chance that things will turn out in our favor. If I'm wrong, I'll pay the price for that decision. We travel often, and with what we've saved by not buying insurance over the years would probably cover most emergencies so we are now ahead of the game.

I didn't say it would make good business sense, nor did I say they should require them. I was responding to someone's question about whether or not the could require them.

I don't think people should be required to do much of anything. I think they should deal with any consequences of their actions and decisions; quietly and without suing anyone. I'm for less regulation, not more. I'm also for personal responsibility, which was my point earlier in this thread.
 
Essentially, I feel that if someone chooses to take that risk, then they should be prepared to deal with whatever hassles ensue if their trip is interrupted and have no right to complain about delays or having to cover their own costs while they wait for an embassy issued passport, etc.
True enough. In the entire time I've been reading these forums though I have never seen a person complain that someone else didn't solve all their problems when they chose to cruise without a passport. I have seen many, many people get all weirdly fist-shaking angry about people choosing not to get passports. I just ... don't get it.
 
The way I see it if I miss the boat due to my own error and don't have a passport then II will have to deal with that. If the boat fault that I have to fly home then they need to take care of it.
 
They may not have needed them for the original intention of the trip, but once an emergency happens, the original trip has now ended, and a new one has begun, and that is when a passport may be needed.

Tiger
Agreed.
But even in this extremely rare situation, on a ship stranded in the middle of the Caribbean, passports STILL were not a necessity.

Traveling out of the country was ONE of the reasons people were listing.:confused3 Whether they met any of the other conditions I think it's a good idea to have a passport in or not, they certainly met one of them.

I just don't get it. Why is it so upsetting to you that some people think a passport is prudent to have when traveling out of the country and that I dared to list some other circumstances people would do well to have them as well?
I have agreed multiple times in this thread that a passport is a good thing to have. What is "upsetting to me" is that people are so judgemental about those who don't have a passport.

And from now on I will think people who take cruises are ridiculous for not taking food, water and garbage bags, just in case they need them should the next ship break down. Of course they're not required but I can't imagine someone who take a chance. Who knows what could happen. :rolleyes1
:rotfl2::rotfl::thumbsup2
 
I've never understood why someone would step a foot outside this country without a passport. If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford a passport. They are simple to get, and as someone else said, the absolute gold standard for identification.

I love this argument. Can we say to people going to Disney "If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford to stay on property?" :rotfl2:
 
I've never understood why someone would step a foot outside this country without a passport. If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford a passport. They are simple to get, and as someone else said, the absolute gold standard for identification.

I agree with you.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top