Bad Verandah Experience...

[Renee']

Better yet, why don't you request cabin #6634 as your assigned stateroom

I would, in a heartbeat. The fact that you're secluded and only have one neighboring verandah is enough incentive for us. That stateroom/verandah wouldn't bother us in the least.

Reneé

 

[taswira]

Originally posted by Mickey4Me
Better yet, why don't you request cabin #6634 as your assigned stateroom?

You don't have to be sarcastic. My post was not meant to be. I <I>am</I> curious and I <I>would</I> like to photograph it. I have had a totally unobstructed Cat 5 mid-ship stateroom, as well as Cat. 7. I actually prefer the Navigator Verandah for reasons I previously stated. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[KeenHo]

Renee -

To get the full appreciation of the obstructed view verandah, you'll need to first save up for it and then pay for it. Then I would suggest comparing the view from the verandah with the view from all of the other verandahs in the same category (at the same rate you paid) that are not obstructed.

We were not given the information that this "was a secluded" verandah, we were told it was the last unobstructed verandah on deck 6.

If anyone does stop by stateroom #6634 on a future cruise to check out the room, please ask the cruisers if they like the view, if they would rather have a full view verandah (that they paid for). Ask them if they were told that it was obstructed when they booked their cruise. Then ask if you can sit in the right hand deck chair on the verandah. Enjoy the view.

Howard

 

[paulmc80]

I think its a great idea to take pics of the room's view It could be very helpful to future cruisers, and if DCL did reclass the room it would be even more useful. I for one am writing to DCL and asking them to reclass the room. I think its important that people know up front what they are getting.

I run a small business and if I misinform a customer I bend over backwards literally to make up for it. I do this because I feel it is the right thing to do and whether or not I make a profit from that customer is not material to me at that point. Correcting the error I made and keeping my self respect in knowing I did the right thing is much more important.

In this case, I imagine the CM's are used to regular disappointment by guests assigned to that room. Truth be known, I am willing to bet that the CM's have suggested many times that this room be reclassified. From my persepective management doesn't have much of a motivation to change things. Afterall, they are not having to deal with these guests face to face on a daily basis. So, guess I'll have to write and let them know to put one more tick mark in their spreadsheet column.

Darn! I feel so serious now. LOL

 

[keenercam]

Paul--I like the way you do business. I truly believe that whatever good we do returns to us ten-fold. I wish you every success.
Cam

 

[Renee']

To get the full appreciation of the obstructed view verandah, you'll need to first save up for it and then pay for it. Then I would suggest comparing the view from the verandah with the view from all of the other verandahs in the same category (at the same rate you paid) that are not obstructed.

I can only speak from experience as we've only ever stayed in verandah staterooms. I made my statement with true sincerity. The room really wouldn't have bothered us. We would enjoy the extra privacy with only having one neighboring verandah.

While sitting in either of the chairs you truly cannot see much except the railing. (Unless of course you have a long torso and can see over it). While sitting you cannot see much of the ocean either as the plexiglass is usually spotted with salt water. The only view that you may miss is a small portion of the sky. So weighing those facts, versus having a more secluded verandah, we truly wouldn't mind that stateroom in the least.

Reneé

 

[lpursell]

I wouldn't like it if I had been told it was an un-obstructed view and it was. I appreciate the warning from Cam & Howard.

 

[allshookup]

I also have been following this thread for a while, just waiting to hear what Disney was going to do to rectify the situation. I am truly stunned by the response and this is why..... (I will try to keep this brief). DH and I decided to (for us a splurge) stay at the CR (Garden Wing) in 2000. We checked in and found dirty towels left in a pile in the room. Called front desk and informed them, they apologized and had them removed immediately. We went to MK and returned about 11:30pm w/ exausted DS-3 and DD-6. Key wouldn't work in door. Called front desk...told us we had wrong room. Nope we don't. Sent up mngr. and security. They broke main key in door and now the lock would have to be drilled, but not until morning or other guests will be disturbed. I am at this point furious and I tell mnger. that I am so far not having a magical time at the CR! He says "I am soooooo sorry I am going to try and get you a room in the tower, what else can I do? Do you want T-shirts to sleep in?" I said yes and tooth brushes. My DD is hysterical because her glow worm is locked in so the mngr. bends down and asks if she would like something else to sleep with? She asks for Nala. We go to second to top floor of tower, end room w/ view of MK....breath-taking. Brings DD Nala and DS Tigger. DS throws Tigger and says "I hate him". I am now embarrassed, but Mngr. says "no prob. who do you like"? DS says Donald Duck....he gets Donald Duck. We also had one night deducted from bill and all belongings sent up to tower next day w/ free upgrade for rest of trip. My point? I was beaming by the end of that day. I again felt the magic and I have nothing but good things to say about Disney, because the Mnger. at CR made damn sure I was happy. I know not the same as an obstructed view, but helllloooooo this is the same company here. Disney can absolutely "afford" to compensate unhappy guests and in fact does so on a regular basis. IMHO Disney can't afford NOT to make guests happy! Just as the CR Mngr asked me, "what can I do to make you happy" so should've Howard and Cam been asked the same thing. Sorry I tried to be brief.

 

[taswira]

allshookup - I am glad they were able to please you by more than remedying the situation. The key to it becoming a "magical" experience was that they were able to go above and beyond for you then and there. But what would they have done if every room had been occupied (like a full ship)? I guess they could have moved you to another resort area . . .

 

[el_tigre]

Originally posted by taswira
allshookup - I am glad they were able to please you by more than remedying the situation. The key to it becoming a "magical" experience was that they were able to go above and beyond for you then and there. But what would they have done if every room had been occupied (like a full ship)? I guess they could have moved you to another resort area . . .

I think comparing a full resort to a full ship can be like comparing apples to oranges. allshookup was simply trying to illustrate the lengths Disney has gone in the past to make its customers happy and that she's surprised they didn't do anything here. But even if there wasn't another stateroom to move them on the ship, the cost incurred by the CR to give allshookup a free night and then upgrade them to a tower room for their entire stay would probably be about the same cost (if not more) than giving Cam and Howard a credit for the difference in a catagory 6 and 7.

 

[Hygiene99]

Seems to me that this was an easy fix, a couple of post above this explains it all these people have 2 other cruise Booked with DCL.. and was not there first ...
and are DISNEY people ... a simple shipboard credit on a future cruise would have solved the whole thing IMO .......

And the MAGIC and Faith and trust would have been restored
and life would be good... this could of all Been taken care of on the ship and we would not be having this conversation....
... I mean really I have gotten a Shipboard credit for no reason at all... It just showed up on the bill .... and it was $100.00 as a matter of fact... and also depending on who u get for CM at the rebooking desk have had other credits and price reductions taken care of ....
I think a post of how the room has a bad view but not all this
they did home work as most people on this board do....
IN one post disney is finding Room for a 3 yr. old
and in another they dropped the ball IMO

 

[Dave_from_Marietta]

As I write this, it’s been just over 24 hours since Howard posted the response he received from Disney Cruise Lines. It’s been interesting to read everyone else’s responses. Someone asked if I had an opinion to offer… I have been mulling it over. Yes, DCL did assure Howard that they’d look into correcting their processes so that they give more accurate information. This is good. Score one for DCL. They also assured Howard that they were considering his and other correspondents’ comments about these rooms and were considering reclassifying them. Again, this is good. Some may call it lip service, but I agree with other posters that this was an adequate and appropriate response by DCL on the first two points.

But is this enough? I was almost willing to say “yes”, <i><b>but</b></i>…

Today was my son’s first day of kindergarten… a significant milestone in any child’s life and also in their parents’ lives. To celebrate, we went out for dinner this evening. We chose <a href="http://www.williamsonbros.com/"><font color=blue>Williamson Brothers Bar-B-Q</font></a>, a local favorite here in Marietta, Georgia and one of the best barbeque restaurants in the greater Atlanta area. Their ribs are (usually) to <I><b>die</b></I> for. The meat falls off the bone… it’s drenched in their great, peppery sauce… absolutely fantastic ribs. But not tonight. By some unusual fluke in their quality control, the ribs were fatty and the meat was tough. If this were the first time I’d ever been to Williamson Brothers, it would also have been my last. I would have wondered what all the hype was about. Oh, and my Texas toast was stale.

I decided not to complain. After all, if nothing else, I could take the ribs home and trim the meat off for my dog to eat. And the Texas toast was just a piece of bread. My wife suggested that I should tell them that they weren’t producing a consistent product… that they wouldn’t know how to improve if they didn’t know they hadn’t satisfied every customer.

When our waiter asked if we were ready for take-home boxes I said, “No, these ribs were rather disappointing. I won’t be taking them home.” Without delay he summoned a manager to our table. She inquired about our disappointment. She offered to either bring me another slab of ribs or to take the ribs off my check. I chose the latter option. I’d sampled three or four of the ribs hoping that the problem was just with the first one I tried. Between those few ribs and the side orders I'd eaten, I was no longer hungry; I didn't <b><i>need</i></b> another slab of ribs. Cheerfully offering to take the rib platter off the check was the right thing to do.

She also assured me that she would check on procedures in the kitchen so that they would not serve stale bread again.

Now let me tell you what she did <I><b>not</b></I> do… she didn’t send over a bowl of Brunswick stew. They have good Brunswick stew at Williamson Brothers, but I came there for their ribs. She didn’t send me a slice of banana cream pie. Their banana cream pies are almost as famous as their ribs, but we were planning on going out for ice cream afterwards. And had she not offered the refund but I had requested one, I doubt she would have said… “No, sorry. You ate your side items including half of your Texas toast. You ate some of the ribs. And we gave you Brunswick stew and banana cream pie, which is valued at $4.98. We can’t offer you any additional compensation.” If this had been you and this had been their response, would you have been happy with the situation? I doubt it.

No, the manager at Williamson Brothers immediately offered an acceptable remediation <b><I>of my choosing</I></b> and did so cheerfully. She didn’t tell me she had to check with the restaurant’s general manager or with the Williamson brothers themselves. She was empowered to correct the situation immediately, and as a result, I am so pleased with their service recovery, there’s no doubt that I will be patronizing this restaurant again.

Do you think I’m pushing this parable too far? I’m not so sure. Howard and Cam’s requests were not outrageous. They were asking for the difference in price between the category paid for and the category that, effectively, they got. They weren’t asking for a full refund. Williamson Brothers offered me a <b><i>full</i></b> refund... without my even having to ask for it... and they let me choose which remedy would make me happy.

Howard and Cam were also asking for DCL to take steps so that future guests would be spared this disappointment. Nobody asked for or even suggested that anybody should be fired… simply that they take this as an opportunity to improve their level of service as a benefit to their future cruisers. I certainly didn’t want the kitchen employee who served me stale toast to be fired… I was more than satisfied when the restaurant’s manager assured me that corrective action would be taken.

To those who think that Howard and Cam are grumpy old curmudgeons who would have been unhappy with whatever response DCL made, I disagree. They specified what it would take to make them happy. Despite the problem with my ribs, and because the manager did the right thing, I was very happy with my visit to Williamson Brothers. Howard and Cam's requests were not unreasonable. DCL's decision to respond by paying lip service to two of their requests and denying their third request (based on the absurd idea that the unsolicited gifts were, in any way, comparable to what Howard and Cam were asking for) is… to use a word used by <I><b>several</b></I> of the previous posters… <I><b>disappointing</b></I>. Howard and Cam enjoyed their cruise, and if DCL had responded appropriately to this service situation, they would have been completely satisfied with DCL.

Several posters have noted that DCL is a business… they can’t just go throwing around refunds. Yes, it is. And I agree with you to a point, <i><b>but</b></i>...

First point… Howard and Cam weren’t requesting a full refund… just a small token of category difference.

Second point… DCL has (by now) spent far more in labor than the monetary amount requested in considering this case both onboard and back at their ivory tower in Celebration (an inside joke to anybody who’s ever seen Celebration). The monetary amount requested was not significant. But it’s a <I><b>tangible</b></I> token of DCL’s professed regret.

Third point… it is a generally accepted rule in business that it costs <I><b>ten times</b></I> more to acquire a customer than it does to keep an existing customer happy. <I><b>Ten times!!!</b></I> DCL has a huge marketing budget… we’ve all seen and snickered at the ad where the little girl tells everybody in the elevator about her little brother who’s known as a “little souvenir” of their cruise. DCL spent a lot of money leading you to believe that everybody’s going to have warm, fuzzy memories that last more than a year afterwards. Again, I submit that the monetary amount requested by Howard and Cam was, by comparison, chump change.

Fourth point… (related to the third point) as paulmc80 stated in his excellent post… if you make a mistake and give your customer bad information… you do whatever it takes to make it right with the customer. Paul said he’s willing to forgo making a profit from that customer’s transaction if it means that he’s going to keep that customer. Paul… you’re the kind of small businessman I like to do business with. I’m not only going to give you my repeat business, but I’m going to refer other business to you. I’ll tell folks that it’s worth the drive to go past the big-box retailers to do business with you… that it will be worth their while because they’re doing business with an honest, respectable, hard-working businessman who respects his customers. Sure, the profit margins in the cruise industry are thin. Maybe, just maybe, despite the thousands of dollars that Howard and Cam spent on their cruise, if DCL had awarded them the small monetary amount they’d requested, they wouldn’t have made a profit on Howard and Cam’s passage. But that would have been a small investment to make to ensure that Howard and Cam continued to be happy customers and would continue to refer their friends to Disney because of Disney’s superior level of service.

Fifth point… somebody suggested that if DCL caved into Howard and Cam’s demands, they’d be flooded with other people demanding refunds for petty grievances. Sorry, but I disagree. There’s another thread on this board that has also gotten a lot of attention and many, many posts. DCL responded to a special situation and offered a complimentary category upgrade and other amenities. Everybody was very happy. I am, personally, delighted. I, like everybody else, love a happy ending and am delighted that DCL stepped up to the plate here. I hope that family has a truly Magical time. And everybody else, I'm sure, hopes so too. But because DCL was able to offer these things to this family, do you think now there’ll be a rush of indignant passengers calling DCL and demanding that they also receive complimentary upgrades? I doubt it.

Sixth point… Disney is not just any old company. They have been setting the standards in customer service. allshookup gave a wonderful account of how Disney should properly respond in a service recovery situation. Yes, it cost them money… the cost to Disney in that situation undoubtedly wiped out any chance of a profit on allshookup’s business for that visit, but you can bet that allshookup came away with a positive impression about the Magic in Disney’s name. And you can bet that she's excited about planning future trips to WDW because she know she'll get no less than what she paid for. And, by the way, the cost to Disney was <i><b>far</b></i> greater in allshookup's case than what Howard and Cam were asking for. As Ginny had noted, Disney literally wrote the book about good customer service. They have been a model of fine guest service for many industries.

They definitely dropped the ball here. Again, to quote Ginny, “whomever wrote that letter (and allowed it to be mailed) just ‘doesn’t get it.’” Perhaps DCL should send their managers to take customer service training from Williamson Brothers.

 

[paulmc80]

Oh shoots! Now I'm hungry for some ribs! lol

Next time I"m up there around Atlanta, which should be the end of this year, I gotta go look that place up! Sounds like quite decent folks to me.

Very interesting perspective on this topic Dave. I think you hit the nail right on the head and pointed out what I was missing on this whole thing.

 

[peagreenid]

I've been reading this post with a lot of interest.... Curious about everyone else's opinions on this subject and not sure how I would feel.
1st- I would like to point out that Disney has been Sailing the Magic for 4 years now. And well this board has been around for just about as long. I find it interesting, that this stateroom and this topic of discussion has JUST NOW reared it's ugly head. WHY? I'm curious. I can't believe that there have NOT been any Dis'ers that have sailed on the Magic or the Wonder that have not ended up in this stateroom. Come on now, we've all heard about the metal Verandah's, and yet this has alluded us for this long. Maybe it is because this affected these people in an entirely different way.
2nd- I too think that fixing this publicly on a bulletin board isn't the way to go. Dave believes that if one person got this corrected and had the results posted here, it wouldn't affect others, I would have to disagree. How many people are disappointed because they read that others got towel animals only to find their hostess didn't leave any, or that the Beer MUGS used to be filled with Mixed drinks at the same cost as Beer Refills until they were inundated with folks that wanted the same thing.
3rd-

Since we got a 1/2 view verandah, I'd like to receive 1/2 credit for the difference we paid for the stateroom with the verandah. I don't think this is asking too much. I would take it as a credit towards our next cruise. I would also like the rooms to be reclassified for future cruisers.

This is not the same Dave as- They were asking for the difference in price between the category paid for and the category that, effectively, they got. That is certainly several hundred dollars. There isn't much difference in price between a Navigators verandah and a verandah, but a lot between NO verandah and a Verandah.
4th- This is a very touchy situation. Obviously there weren't any other staterooms available to switch them to. I'm sure if there had been, DCL would have remedied that. It appears to me that in situations like this, the only thing that can be offered in amends on this ship are I guess the stupid things that are not wanted-like cheese trays and snorkeling equipment. I see that as DCL trying to make things better because their hands are tied. And any other remedies will come at a later time. I honestly don't believe that they would have refunded their money on the ship like they would or could in a restaurant. So now, what would have happened had DCL not done anything AT ALL on the cruise. I think I would be really P.O.'d.
5th- When I booked our first cruise I was upset because at 6 months out, everything left was in a guarantee status. I was worried that we would get a metal verandah. That isn't what I wanted, but, if I had gotten one what were my options. Should the metal verandahs be priced lower than the plexiglass verandah's? Afterall you have essentially lost 1/2 of your view out of the verandah, and can't see anything at all while seated.
6th- A verandah is a verandah. It isn't like the Secret Porthole rooms with the obstructed views. From the picture I saw it appeared more like the verandah was "SHIELDED". Other cruiselines offer partially obstructed and obstructed views. But, generally LIKE DCL they are obstructed by Life boats and equipment. This didn't appear the same to me.

well enough of my .02 cents worth.... i'm starting to ramble.
smiles Patty

 

[SlyHubby]

Originally posted by peagreenid
6th- A verandah is a verandah. It isn't like the Secret Porthole rooms with the obstructed views. From the picture I saw it appeared more like the verandah was "SHIELDED". Other cruiselines offer partially obstructed and obstructed views. But, generally LIKE DCL they are obstructed by Life boats and equipment. This didn't appear the same to me.

Now we're getting down to definitions of what "obstructed" vs. "shielded" means? Let's forget the semantics - we all know what a verandah is. If you all have to squeeze over to one side to see out because there is SOMETHING BLOCKING YOUR VIEW on half the verandah - well, the view is OBSTRUCTED.

You want to look at definitions of words, fine.

http://www.websters.com/search?q=obstructed

"3. To get in the way of so as to hide from sight."

Would you like to discuss the matter with Mr. Webster? The view was obstructed. They were guaranteed the view was not obstructed. They were given incorrect information and sold a product based on that misinformation.

No, it's not the same as in your example. In one case (the secret porthole) you are getting more than what you paid for. In this case, the folks were specifically told THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION. They asked, they were told - they were assured of it. They paid full price for an UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW and that is what they expected.

A verandah is not a verandah - these folks knew it, the DCL representative they spoke with knew exactly what they were asking. Maybe the representative didn't have the correct information available - that is still not the customer's problem and they should not have suffered as a result.

 

[peagreenid]

Sorry if you don't agree with my thoughts.
That's what I love about america, we are all entitled to our own opinions. If everyone felt the same way as these folks, I guarantee we would have heard of this before. I did a search of this stateroom on Cruisecritic also. I didn't come up with anything there either.
So SlyHubby are you saying that the people with the Metal verandah's should be paying for a navigators verandah also? Should the Handicapped people pay more because their verandah's are larger?

Now we're getting down to definitions of what "obstructed" vs. "shielded" means? Let's forget the semantics - we all know what a verandah is. If you all have to squeeze over to one side to see out because there is SOMETHING BLOCKING YOUR VIEW on half the verandah - well, the view is OBSTRUCTED.

Everyone keeps saying HALF on this thing. No matter which picture I look at, the picture from the inside or the picture from the outside it doesn't even look close to half. It appears to me that the upper right corner is "SHIELDED". the entire bottom is open and the verandah is of the normal size.
I guess until we all see it personally we will never know.

smiles
Patty

 

[paulmc80]

I don't know ... but to me it does not seem important to what extent the verandah is obstructed. It is obstructed. They specifically asked and were told it was not obstructed. That was incorrect information.

When a customer makes a financial decision based on erroneous information I provided, that customer rightfully expects me to rectify the situation accordingly. And I will mostly definitely do so.

Also, I certainly do not mind that a customer passes on to others the fact that I will do what it takes to make them happy. In fact I encourage that.

 

[paulmc80]

Oh yeah!

I wonder how many people on this board could say that they have stayed in this stateroom before, stateroom #6634 I believe?

Now that would be interesting!

 

[my3kids]

I think maybe Dave missed my point on DCL not offering compensation because of the publicity and opening themselves to others with complaints.....

I've followed the other thread also about the family who needed a space for an ill child on a full ship...they found a handicapped accessible room in a higher category.....Now how can you compare the good will of DCL doing this for a sick child to an adult couple who were not happy with the verandah view? Two totally different things.

If they gave a partial refund because of the view of the room, in such a public forum, what's to stop everyone who ever had that room from asking for the same well publicized perk? The Magic has been sailing 1 or 2 times a week since what, 1998? The Wonder twice a week since 1999? That is a lot of people who suddenly would, by all accounts, be entitled to a refund. Not among people here, but I think there are a lot of people who just want to get a free ride. I DO NOT think that was the case AT ALL with this couple, but I think once the discussion was sent into an open forum, DCL could have been flooded with people seeking compensation for some part of the trip which wasn't up to their liking.

Anyway, just wanted to express that I think this is a TOTALLY different situation than the family who received an upgrade at no cost to take their sick child along. No comparison.

 

[Doctor P]

One question that has not been addressed, however, is whether someone who wanted a Navigator's Verandah (a Category 7) stateroom would be disappointed with this stateroom. I would hazard to guess that many would be, since many families want the increased safety of the enclosed verandah. This just opens a whole additional Pandora's Box with this issue. From what I know and can see, they clearly got a Category 6 stateroom. It had an open verandah. Was it as good a verandah as some other Category 6's? Apparently not. Did it have an obstructed view? That is clearly open to interpretation as one can see from the responses to this thread. Were they given misinformation? Clearly, that is also open to interpretation. Did they expect something different? Clearly, they did. Are they entitled to a stateroom credit or some other kind of credit for the difference or a portion of the difference between Category 6 and Category 7? I don't think so. Would it have been good customer relations to give such a credit? Probably.