Be careful of Disneys Terms and conditions

[dreamer17555]

You're right. We should all just accept whatever terrible terms the big corporations come up with and we should never ask them to be better. Obviously.

Companies only really listen when you speak with your wallet. If you speak with your wallet and enough guests join you, changes might occur but only if enough guests refuse to sail with them

 

[Lesverts]

This is not a change that will ever happen. And if it did you would be saying goodbye to ports like Key West and the Cayman Islands that are notorious for being missed due to weather and overcrowding. Cruise lines would never take a risk on a port, would never offer unusual or new destinations etc.

 

[Dug720]

And if it did you would be saying goodbye to ports like Key West and the Cayman Islands that are notorious for being missed due to weather

Heck, with Disney that would include Castaway as well since it can be missed if the currents or winds are too bad.

 

[Kwami]

Heck, with Disney that would include Castaway as well since it can be missed if the currents or winds are too bad.

There's a big difference between missing a port due to weather and changing an entire cruise a few weeks before sailing.

 

[anricat]

There's a big difference between missing a port due to weather and changing an entire cruise a few weeks before sailing.

But they didn't "change an entire cruise." We're literally talking about one port due to conditions beyond their control.

 

[Kwami]

But they didn't "change an entire cruise." We're literally talking about one port due to conditions beyond their control.

No, we're not. Did you not read the original post? The original port was canceled and now the ship is sailing in a completely different direction into different ports in a different climate.

 

[Mommb]

But they didn't "change an entire cruise." We're literally talking about one port due to conditions beyond their control.

No, we're not. Did you not read the original post? The original post was canceled and now the ship is sailing in a completely different direction into different ports in a different climate.

Both statements are correct. The original 6-night cruise had only 1 port stop, to the northeast of Sydney. Due to safety concerns at that port, that stop was cancelled and replaced with 2 port stops to the southwest of Sydney. The average temperature at the southern new port is around 20 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than at the original port (60 degrees versus 80 degrees).

There may not be other cruise ports in the same direction as New Caledonia that would be safer and accessible on a 6-day cruise, so Disney may not have had the option to keep the direction and weather.

 

[CM Dad]

Sorry, but I question your memory on that timeline. DCL would have zero reason for offering anything 8 months in advance of an itinerary change. Only concierge would have been unable to cancel without penalty anyway, and even concierge could change dates that far out.

ETA: I stand corrected. That was a very generous (and unusual) offer!
https://disneycruiselineblog.com/20...ugust-1-2016-12-night-disney-magic-itinerary/

You probably have good reason to question my memory. I am getting up there in age . I did try to find the old emails about this cruise to confirm my memory. I'm glad you were able to find that blog article.

I really was surprised at the unexpected, and unrequited offer from DCL. We had plenty of notice of the change before the cruise, and could have just cancelled for a full refund that far in advance without any penalty.

Wasn't us, but haven't there been other instances where due to a hurricane (I believe), a Caribbean cruise got switch to a Canadian coast cruise on short notice? I'm not sure I would have packed the proper clothes for that. Also don't know what, if any, compensation the passengers got for that.

 

[anricat]

Did you not read the original post?

Actually I did and I just went back and re-read it just now and it doesn't indicate that the original itinerary only had one port to begin with and I didn't realize that the temperature was different at the new ports. I'm not familiar with the geography of that region and the original post didn't seem to indicate either of those things. So I admit that is kinda crappier than I realized. It just sounded like one port was changed and then they also got an extra port in the bargain.

 

[AussieNSW]

For those of you interested the final result. After 10 days of people emailing and ringing DCL has made an offer to people. It is contacting people and offering one of 3 things $250 credit onboard, transfer to another cruise or full refund without penalties.
DCL is stating that they assessed all the correspondence to them about the issue and decided that this was the best course of action.
I think there was some other factors involved. In Australia we have extremely strong consumer laws even when something is in a companies terms and conditions. A number of passengers had lodged complaints with the office of fair trading about this.

 

[RivShore]

For those of you interested the final result. After 10 days of people emailing and ringing DCL has made an offer to people. It is contacting people and offering one of 3 things $250 credit onboard, transfer to another cruise or full refund without penalties.
DCL is stating that they assessed all the correspondence to them about the issue and decided that this was the best course of action.
I think there was some other factors involved. In Australia we have extremely strong consumer laws even when something is in a companies terms and conditions. A number of passengers had lodged complaints with the office of fair trading about this.

Glad to hear they finally came up with a reasonable solution (with a little help from the law it seems).

 

[MagicalDaze]

I'm surprised how many people seem to feel strongly that we should accept changes without compensation because "that's what you agreed to" in the contract. FYI, provisions in these types of contracts are often invalidated by courts. Companies draft terms and conditions that severely favor their interests and because consumers have no meaningful power to negotiate said terms (as one typically would in an "arms length" contract) courts will imply, as a matter of equity and various consumer protection laws, limitations on the companies' ability to enforce those provisions. It's not generally cost effective to litigate and can be costly from a brand loyalty and reputation perspective so most sensible corporations offer reasonable options/compensation when they can't deliver what they originally offered. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect flexible options and/or compensation when itineraries change because the fact is the cruise you'll be getting is not the cruise you agreed to go on. The reason and extent of the itinerary change should correspond to the options/compensation offered and we as consumers should not be willing to accept "oh well, tough luck" as a response to getting something different than what we agreed to pay for when entering the contract.

 

[mjkacmom]

I'm surprised how many people seem to feel strongly that we should accept changes without compensation because "that's what you agreed to" in the contract. FYI, provisions in these types of contracts are often invalidated by courts. Companies draft terms and conditions that severely favor their interests and because consumers have no meaningful power to negotiate said terms (as one typically would in an "arms length" contract) courts will imply, as a matter of equity and various consumer protection laws, limitations on the companies' ability to enforce those provisions. It's not generally cost effective to litigate and can be costly from a brand loyalty and reputation perspective so most sensible corporations offer reasonable options/compensation when they can't deliver what they originally offered. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect flexible options and/or compensation when itineraries change because the fact is the cruise you'll be getting is not the cruise you agreed to go on. The reason and extent of the itinerary change should correspond to the options/compensation offered and we as consumers should not be willing to accept "oh well, tough luck" as a response to getting something different than what we agreed to pay for when entering the contract.

lol NCL at least is very loosey goosey with itineraries, changing ports for reasons like “environmental “ on a regular basis. Folks are never happy but legally they can do this.

 

[SL6827]

Glad to hear they finally came up with a reasonable solution (with a little help from the law it seems).

I agree.

 

[scroogie]

I'm surprised how many people seem to feel strongly that we should accept changes without compensation because "that's what you agreed to" in the contract. FYI, provisions in these types of contracts are often invalidated by courts. Companies draft terms and conditions that severely favor their interests and because consumers have no meaningful power to negotiate said terms (as one typically would in an "arms length" contract) courts will imply, as a matter of equity and various consumer protection laws, limitations on the companies' ability to enforce those provisions. It's not generally cost effective to litigate and can be costly from a brand loyalty and reputation perspective so most sensible corporations offer reasonable options/compensation when they can't deliver what they originally offered. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect flexible options and/or compensation when itineraries change because the fact is the cruise you'll be getting is not the cruise you agreed to go on. The reason and extent of the itinerary change should correspond to the options/compensation offered and we as consumers should not be willing to accept "oh well, tough luck" as a response to getting something different than what we agreed to pay for when entering the contract.

But it depends on the extent of the change. A court won't invalidate a cruise contract because of a change that could be construed as minor. Substituting one port with another (or two others)? Depending on who the guest is, that may be minor, it may not be. At the end of the day, the length of cruise wasn't modified and what services they had access to on the ship wasn't compromised.

Now if Disney decided to simply stay in port for 6 nights, or anchor just out in international waters, and not make any attempt to make up for the cancellation of a port (which they did attempt to do in replacing Noumea with Hobart and Eden), that's different.

The fact is any time there's an itinerary change on any cruise, there will always be people that complain that this specific thing we're now missing out on was the reason they were on the cruise to begin with.

 

[Kwami]

lol NCL at least is very loosey goosey with itineraries, changing ports for reasons like “environmental “ on a regular basis. Folks are never happy but legally they can do this.

NCL is ridiculous. We booked a cruise with them about 18 months before sailing. Six months later, they changed 3 out of the 5 ports with no explanation given. They just completely changed the cruise!

 

[MagicalDaze]

But it depends on the extent of the change. A court won't invalidate a cruise contract because of a change that could be construed as minor. Substituting one port with another (or two others)? Depending on who the guest is, that may be minor, it may not be. At the end of the day, the length of cruise wasn't modified and what services they had access to on the ship wasn't compromised.

Now if Disney decided to simply stay in port for 6 nights, or anchor just out in international waters, and not make any attempt to make up for the cancellation of a port (which they did attempt to do in replacing Noumea with Hobart and Eden), that's different.

The fact is any time there's an itinerary change on any cruise, there will always be people that complain that this specific thing we're now missing out on was the reason they were on the cruise to begin with.

You're absolutely right, it's all very dependent on the specifics of the situation. My point was that it's more nuanced than the severely one-sided terms of an adhesion contract and that consumers should expect fair compensation commensurate to the change when a cruise line fails to deliver. That doesn't mean invalidating contracts over minor issues but it might mean onboard credits and/or waiver of cancellation/modification penalties are absolutely appropriate in various circumstances. There's always a few with unreasonable expectations and those folks will find a problem no matter what is offered but it would be really unfortunate for the majority who operate in good faith to just swallow their losses/disappointment without registering a complaint and seeking fair compensation.