NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey's attorney general sued Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Thursday for diverting a Bermuda-bound cruise to Canada last summer and refusing to issue refunds.

The cruise line said a looming storm prompted the change, and contends it was adhering to policies made known to travelers.

The state's lawsuit accuses the cruise line of violating the state Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks restitution for the people aboard the ship plus civil penalties.

"It is unconscionable that consumers showed up for a cruise they paid for with hard-earned money, only to be sent somewhere they didn't want to go, without access to the amenities they paid for and activities they looked forward to, and were told there was nothing they could do about it," said Consumer Affairs Director Kimberly Ricketts.

But Michael J. Sheehan, a spokesman for Royal Caribbean, said the ship was diverted because a tropical storm in the ship's path threatened the voyage.

"The safety of our guests and crew members is our top priority, and our obligation to ensure their safety required us to alter the sailing to Bermuda," he said.

The ship was scheduled to leave on July 24, 2005, for a five-day cruise to Bermuda. Instead, passengers found out as they boarded that they would be going to St. John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, according to the state.

Sheehan said the National Hurricane Center was forecasting on July 23 that Tropical Storm Franklin would become a hurricane that would probably cross the ship's path.

"All guests were provided a letter prior to boarding the ship that informed them of the predicted hurricane and the modified itinerary," he said. Also, the company posted a notice of the change the night before on its Web site.

Sheehan said the ticket contracts as well as sales brochures specifically outline the company's ability to make itinerary changes under unusual circumstances.

The Consumer Affairs Division said it received complaints from 53 passengers who claim they were told if they did not board the ship, despite the change in destination, they would lose all their money. There were 3,600 people on the cruise.

Although a cruise to Canada is significantly cheaper than one to Bermuda, the company offered only a credit of $42.50, representing the difference in port fees and taxes between the two destinations.

Because of the itinerary change should passengers have been given the opportunity to cancel and receive a full refund?

Obviously it is not a good idea to sail into a storm. Short of changing the itinerary should they have just cancelled the cruise altogether?

In this predicament changing a ships schedule before it sails when danger is looming - I feel it is wrong to force passengers to join the cruise instead of allowing people to cancel with full refunds.

However if it had to change its itinerary after it sailed it is a completely different story as the company endeavoured to provide what the passengers paid for.

It is like an airline if you are in the air and a storm causes you to land elsewhere then no body cares as they are safe and will be looked after.

But if before you board you are told because of storms they will fly you to the other side of the world to a new destination and forced you to go without the option of pulling out and getting a refund then that is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tazza:
The 'considerable' difference in price between Bermuda and Canada should definitely have been given back to the passengers.

---

That's an interesting point that I did not appreciate.
You should at least put your complaint in writting to 'Customer Services' if you feel you have a valid point.

In any letter of complaint be factual and not over emotional. Always state exactly what you want from them.

[ 06-16-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

No-one can control the weather, so why should RCCL take the loss? Why should the passenger take the loss? He hasn't, he gets to go somewhere else as the T&Cs dictate and what he/she accepted on making the booking. RCCL could have changed the itin once the ship had left port.. then the pax would be ranting about how RCCL knew beforehand and didn't tell them. No cruiseline can win it seems, whatever they do.

quote:

---

No-one can control the weather, so why should RCCL take the loss?

---

The cruise line is not obligated to refund any monies for ports missed. Usually as a goodwill gesture, they do indeed offer some form of compensation, and they do legally refund the head taxes paid for said ports missed.

But the bottom line is, these passengers paid for and received a 7-night cruise in the accommodations reserved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
As only 53 people seem to have been upset, 98.5% of the pax must have been happy with the change; or not sufficiently upset to take action.

---

I completely agree with everything you said Pam, apart from the above. People can be extremely unhappy, yet still can't be bothered to formally complain in writing. Writing letters is a hassle for many people.

I used to get a really unreliable train to work. Year after year passengers arrived late to work or late home, if they arrived at all. Every day they moaned at each other and moaned at the station staff.

I personally wrote a number of letters of complaint to the railway head office. One reply said that their trains had transported 1 million (?) people that year and my letter was only one of ten complaints received that year, so they believed the vast majority of passengers were very satisfied.

They paid for a cruise and got a line voyage.

In this case passengers paid for a Caribbean cruise and ended up else where.

Obviously RCCL could not deliver what they promised due to the weather and that is not their fault.

In light of the fact that the cruise had not departed passengers wishing to do so should have been given the option to pull out.

Think of it this way if 50 passengers pull out then RCCL refunds them, they are happy and the rest go on their cruise and RCCL gets revenue. No major loss to RCCL and everybody is happy.

The alternate is what RCCL did do and now they have to pay millions (well maybe) to lawyers. Not only that they get bad publicity and it deters people booking for the Caribbean during hurricane season if they dont want the cruise diverted.

Everybody could have come out happy in this situation, but RCCL obviously had other intentions and did not care either way about the feelings of all passengers on the subject.

Also, I would like to point out that RCCL did not capriciously change the sailing but rather rerouted the ship due to a hurricane which was forecast to hit Bermuda. Also, I like the way consumer affairs says that customers could not use many of the amenities they planned on using because of the rerouting of the ship. The list included the cooler temperatures in Canada which prevented customers from using the pool, the mini golf course, the rock climbing wall and other outdoor amenities. Gee, I guess if RCCL sailed to Bermuda as planned these customers would have gotten the wonderful sunshine and amenities that they were deprived of due to RCCL's negligence. Afterall, these customers would have enjoyed nice sunshine in hurricane force winds with rain coming down on them. Sounds like they were truly deprived of these amenities. ALso, I guess anytime it rains we should go complain to New Jersey consumer affairs because in the RCCL brochures they only show sunny weather and customers soaking up the sun. I guess RCCL is now responsible for the weather as well. Also, consumer affairs mentioned that customers couldn't enjoy the shore excursions they had planned like glass bottom boat adventures, golf, etc. However, if RCCL had done the right thing and let customers cancel or sailed right into the hurricane suddenly these passengers would have enjoyed these amenities.

When all is said and done, the cruiselines publish itineraries but now mainly focus on the ship as the destination. As such, I firmly believe this consumer affairs complaint and investigation is just plain stupid. It is like saying that anytime there is construction at a hotel that customers should get a refund because not all of the amenities are available. Lets be honest, most hotels do jack squat for customers when they are refurbishing the hotel and often don't even disclose it to customers.

Those passengers paid for a Caribbean cruise and RCCL could not deliver - not their fault - but still if it cant deliver on its proposed holidays then they should offer a refund.

It is entirely different for people who cancel a week or two before for other reasons. That is their problem and just bad luck - hopefully they had a good insurance policy.

Cunsumers have rights to and in this situation I feel that RCCL did not give any passengers any opportunites.

I do not believe that all passengers would have taken the full refund. They got time off work and would have had to do something.

How would passengers on QM2 feel if Cunard kept operating the ship skipping all the ports when that pod broke?

The fact is here that RCCL changed the itinerary PRIOR to the cruise sailing. BIG MISTAKE. If they had changed it after it had sailed and tried to go to the Caribbean then the passage conditions would protect them.

As the did it the way they did they are now open to all sorts of legal action and I hope RCCL lose big time here.

It is like an airline if you are in the air and a storm causes you to land elsewhere then no body cares as they are safe and will be looked after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Wasn't this precisely the issue with the QM2 pod failure - that Cunard changed the itinerary without telling the passengers BEFORE leaving?

---

Without wishing to cover old ground, the QM2 'cruise' became a 'line voyage', a very different experience to the mor epeople had booked.

[ 06-17-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

They cant just offer a cruise/holiday on one of their ships and say that is exactly what they are trying to sell when the ship moves to different destinations.

The destinations is part of the holiday package, and they bought that package on the basis that bermuda was the proposed destination included in that package.

I doubt that every passenger would have wanted to pull out of the cruise. RCCL should have had some sort of contingency plans to be able to cater to the few passengers that didnt want to proceed due to the change.

A change of destination is a signifigant change in ones holiday.

Besides State and Federal laws governing cunsumer laws override any contracts companies have with consumers operating in that state or country.

If RCCL is going to be in the business of offering cruise holidays and having destinations included in that holiday then in my opinion they have to be prepared to face the concequences should something go wrong.

Why should the passengers alone be penalised, and the cruise line get away with the upper hand despite the fact it was neither of their faults about the weather.

If RCCL does not want lawsuits which is inevitable when you are dealing with concumers then they should not be operating a cruise line.

so what you are saying is that RCCL should now be held responsible, financially and legally, for Acts of God?

So, let's say I order a brochure from the Australian Tourist Board and it is filled with photos depicting sun-splashed scenery, binini-filled beaches, koalas and kanagroos. And then I go to the Hyatt website and book all my hotels. All the photos of the Hyatts in Australia are sunny, cheery pitcures. And the Qantas website shows the plane flying in a sunny, clodless sky.

I book a holiday and fly down. It is rainy, cold and miserable the entire time there. There is no sun outside my hotel window. All the koalas and kangaroos are in hiding due to the torrential rains and I don't see a one. And, I can't climb the Sydney Harbor Bridge. My vacation is a miserable flop.

Therefore, the Australian Tourist Board, Hyatt and Qantas are all to be held responsibe for the weather. I didnt recieve what was depicted in the brochure photos. They should all reimburse me and pay damages for my pain and suffering because they could not provide sunny weather. I did NOT get the destination or experience I paid for.

If you say this is not what you are advocating, you had better just delete your most recent post.

If you prefer maybe the world should revert to living under Hitler's nazi regeime, or even better Communist Russia!, maybe even Islamic Sharia law where under all three no one has any rights!

We have freedom in our society to do what we want and if we feel justified seek compensation, and our society is an excellent place to have such rights.

I believe you misread my arguement. RCCL and the passeners could have all been happy if RCCL had done better planning. They are in business selling holidays and have to be held somewhat responsible if they cant deliver.

I dont know what garbage that is about above and it is completely irrelevant to the RCCL issue.

NOT ONCE DID I SAY RCCL SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE WEATHER!!!!!

My arguement was that they sold a cruise package that included Bermuda as the itinerary. Like it or not Bermuda was part of the package they tried to sell. They could not deliver and they did offer an alternate cruise which is good. HOWEVER RCCL SHOULD HAVE HAD OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN THE EVENT THAT SOME WANTED TO PULL OUT OF GOING.

IT IS ALRIGHT FOR RCCL TO CHANGE THE ITINERARY BUT NOT ALRIGHT FOR THE PASSENGER TO CHANGE THEIR MIND WHEN DISASTER LOOMS?

MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPANY AND CONSUMER. EVERYBODY COULD HAVE BEEN MADE HAPPY.