Passengers plot mutiny on Queen Mary 2

[Scooter24]

Passengers plot mutiny on Queen Mary 2
By Amy Iggulden
(Filed: 23/01/2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/23/nmary23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/23/ixhome.html


Passengers on board the Queen Mary 2, the world's largest cruise ship, are threatening to stage a sit-in protest after three Caribbean stop-offs were cancelled.

The luxurious liner, which is running on only three of its four propeller pods after hitting the side of a shipping channel last week, was due to call in at St Kitts, Barbados and Salvador de Bahia in Brazil, during its latest cruise but is instead sailing straight to Rio de Janeiro. As a result, its 2,528 passengers have spent almost six consecutive days at sea with only an unscheduled stop in Fort Lauderdale and are growing increasingly angry.

They are due to disembark at Rio de Janeiro after a 12-day cruise from New York that has cost up to £17,000.
But after the three highlights of the trip were cancelled, they have been discussing plans to remain on board until the "inadequate" compensation is reconsidered.

Cunard Line has offered a 50 per cent refund on the cost of their cruise. About 1,500 new passengers are due to join the liner at Rio de Janeiro but they will not be able to board if the sit-in goes ahead.

Jack Coveney, a passenger from Clipstone, Notts, is aboard the ship on a 38-day cruise costing up to £46,000.

(more)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Power to the people!

Even if they are rich. You know this whole thing was set in motion by some old hippy boomers.

[mcscajun]

5. And that's just the point...many of these people aren't rich

Of course, "rich" is a relative term. :) People who can save up and go on a cruise, or buy it outright with their investment income, are certainly both "rich" compared to someone who lives in a packing crate, or in a tenement apartment and has no health insurance.

All that said, "the cruise of a lifetime" is how some put it...they may not be "rich" as many would call it, and instead have saved for years to go, and now their cruise was destroyed because the company wouldn't tell them up-front that they weren't going to make port stops.

What kind of a fucking "cruise" is that?

Granted, you couldn't get me on a cruise to Latin America in the first place. I've never been on a cruise; much as I like the ocean, I may never go on one. At this point, it's more about money than desire to go. $12 an hour doesn't let you take cruises.

I second your notion, though, about some old hippie boomers being at the bottom of this passenger revolt.
Power to the people, right on!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. I'd love to go on a cruise

but am afraid I'd spend my time throwing up over the side. And I'm a big lady and ships are kind of ..shipshape. I'm not.

But you are right, not all cruising folks have the big bucks. They save for the trip of a lifetime.

Right on! indeed. And I'll shared that when I first heard the expression when I was 14 I thought it was RIGHT ARM!

[mcscajun]

9. Well, your mistake was understandable, after all...

...back then, the right arm went UP when the phrase was uttered. :)

[rfranklin]

12. My entire family went on a 50th anniversary cruise...

The main objective of the cruise seems to be stuffing yourself at every opportunity. There's breakfast and brunch and lunch and snacks and tea and dinner and evening snacks. Other than that there is very little to do that you couldnt do at home when you are cooped up on a cruise ship.

[Fridays Child]

15. Farm out!

;)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Right arm, dude. Right arm.

[rinsd]

33. $26,000 for a cruise isn't rich?

There are many cruises that can be had for a 1/5 of that or less.

This is the QE2, supposedly the swankiest cruise ship in service.

[mcscajun]

36. Depends how you paid for it, doesn't it?

Out of pocket...or out of twenty years of saving.

[Ediacara]

40. The article said they paid "up to 17K GPB"

That's probably the price for suites. A room with no window and two twin beds costs substantially less.

And this is the QM2 btw, a brand new ship far swankier than the QE2....

ON EDIT: to add, that they're paying up to $26K essentially for a very very slow passage to Brazil rather than a vacation...

[MADem]

52. Hell, that ain't a cruise, in the Navy we'd call it a deployment!!!

Of course, the on board restaurants, bars and nightclubs, plus no watches to stand, would be a massive step up....but damn, you'd think they'd be a bit better on the compensation, because the ports of call are half the fun.

[Tight_rope]

41. I totally agree..."POWER TO THE PEOPLE!"

I don't believe that everyone on board the is part the US's top 1%. I and several friends have taking cruises and trust me we are not even in the top 50%. We worked and saved.

In saying that, I too would be joining in on that sit-in if I were on that ship.

[merbex]

2. The amount of complaints associated with cruise ships is staggering

Maybe it's me but taking a cruise is my idea of of a vacation from hell

(I'm writing as a former flight attendant and former travel agent)

A lot of old sick people (sad really)

No where to go for days on end

My husband would LOVE to go on a cruise - I tell him -go with someone else

[BOSSHOG]

3. Agreed

Give me a week at Club Med anytime.

[Scooter24]

6. I actually enjoy cruising...

but those are the shorter 7-day weekend to weekend trips. I always come back with many great memories.

And they are affordable too. :)

[Divernan]

11. I agree - 1000s of passengers being herded on and off like cattle.

I love the sea and spend time on small, live-aboard dive ships (12 - 24 passengers). I've seen these huge cruise ships dock and discharge thousands of passengers for their shore visits in places like Grand Cayman, Nassau, Cozumel, St. Kitts, Bonnaire and St. Maarten's. Paricularly one morning in St. Maarten's, there were 3 megaships docked at once. The town was a sea of tourists - like Times Square on New Year's Eve. They were frantically crowding into the local shops to buy souvenirs. At this point, an island's greatest allure to me is that it doesn't have docks large enough for these huge ships so they just pass by on the horizon.

When you're on the ships, most of the decks are shielded from the ocean breezes by clear glass/plastic sheilds. The huge size of the vessels and the stabilizers mean you don't feel the ocean's movement at all. The women I know who love these cruises have taken huge wardrobes with them to try to outdress each other. The men overindulge in the all you can eat, endless buffets. They call it getting their money's worth. The gambling appeals to many. It's just really a damn shame because they are in some very beautiful parts of the world, but they're in this cocoon that isolates them from great natural wonders and local cultures. They might as well have just gone to Atlantic City and booked an oceanview room. The only good thing about these ships is that the waves of credit-card waving tourists are a godsend to local island economies.

So listen guys, if you want to have a wonderful island/Caribbean experience, you can have a week at a lovely beachfront resort or inn, rent a car to explore an island. Try local restaurants. Get your souvenirs stopping at little roadside stands to bargain for handwoven hats or bags or hammocks, polished seashells, carved driftwood, etc. Go to the weekly "chicken bingo" or walk by a little wooden church on Sunday morning and hear some beautiful singing. Stroll on a lovely, uncrowded palm lined beach to find your own shells, and just relax with no deadline to get back on a cruise ship. You will have many colorful memories of your trip - and those are the true souvenirs which linger in our minds for years and can still bring back a sense of peace and relaxation.

By shopping around for good airfares, you can do this for a lot less $$$ than taking a cruise.

[architect359]

19. Romantic notions

A number of people (OK, anedoctal conversations with a few friends of the family) do save up for a long time to afford these cruises. Most of them still have romantic visions that modern cruises are like the old trans-oceanic voyages (in the upper class, not steerage where it IS a step above the cattle pens). You're right, there are so many amenties built into those things now that they are literally floating condo / malls. Nonetheless, I guess I am still a romantic; I'd like to experience a cruise when I can afford one later in life. I think that it'll be fun.

[spinnaker]

44. I totally agree - learn to sail instead

for not much more you (and your family or some of your friends) could charter a sail boat in Florida, the Bahamas, British Virgin Islands etc. for a week and enjoy an unforgettable vacation. There is not like the satisfaction of captaining a boat into a beautiful anchorage, fishing off the stern, snorkelling, going ashore to explore a deserted beach etc. It's not as difficult or as expensive as you might imagine.

A charter boat captain once remarked to me that cruises are "for the newly wed, over fed and nearly dead".

[LostinVA]

14. Take your husband on a Windjammer cruise

If you have the money -- totally different.

[Vividqueen]

28. I agree... completely different experience

I went on one last year and it was fabulous. I will never go on a big boat again. Crew was totally kicked back and cool. Because it was a small boat you could always find your party and the other passengers and crew became familiar after one or two meals.

This was the first vacation I ever went on that I immediately came home and started planning my next.

[LostinVA]

42. They're great, aren't they???

[dysfunctional press]

18. my wife and I swear that we'll NEVER go on a cruise.

i'm a former travel agent too- and I fail to see the appeal of going on a cruise.

we LOVE the tropics- but there's lots more room, and lots more to see and do on an island than a boat.

[0007]

24. A cruise is eat eat eat eat eat, drink , drink, drink, drink,

and one show after another.

Forget it!

[BiggJawn]

45. No sex, sex, sex?

Shit, if I wanna eat and drink to excess and see "Love Boat" calibre celebrities, I'll go to Las Vegas.

[0007]

46. These are old old old old folks

[BiggJawn]

48. Hey, watch it!

I ain't exactly "Spring Break in Cancun" age myself, y'know!
;)

But-but-but....the Teeee-Veee comercials for the cruiselines show all these young yummies sunning themselves on the Lido deck! I realize I have to add 30 pounds and remove the deep tan on most of them to be more accurate, but... :evilgrin:

[liberal N proud]

4. These few people can stage this over a mishap

Why in the hell can't we the people of the United States organize and stop the government from destroying the world as we know it?
It is amazing what a difference a few people can make.

[mcscajun]

7. Exactly right! Margaret Mead's quote still applies.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. The idea of deliberately stranding one's self on a tinny floating island

just so you can overeat, overdrink, gamble and look at fat people, I just don't get the attraction.
Oh Wait! They stop so you can go shopping for a few hours, TAX FREE!

Oh, be still my heart.


Anyone ever see what happens when a cruise ship lands on an island? The rush of greedy shoppers, wearing bad clothing, rushing to find "deals" and "memories" of their trip. It is hideous, scary and amusing, all at once. Or worse, try Miami when four ships dock, with 5,000 people rushing to catch their flights. I forgot the author, but "The Ugly American" needs to be rewritten and updated.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. B-but Iggy Pop thinks cruising is kool!

cuz of a "Lust for life", man.

It's all about fit young folks and their active outdoor lifestyles, I'm told. On their TV spots, which surely reflect demographic reality as accurately as, oh, casino or fast-food adverts, right?

[Rhiannon12866]

13. They were just discussing this on "American Morning."

And the three hosts disagreed about the best way to resolve this. I agree with whichever one of the women said that these people paid a lot of money and the cruise line should do whatever they could to "make these people happy." The other one said that it would cost the cruise line a lot of money and Miles pointed out that it would cost them a lot more, in bad publicity.:-(

I've never had any wish to go on a cruise, but I have been on tours. When we were in England, we ran out of time, and the last two scheduled stops were cancelled. I didn't much care, but several of the others were very upset and I didn't blame them. This happened because the guide was chronically inept, and these people had been looking forward to visiting some famous garden or other. And it's not as if they'd be in England, again, anytime soon, to get a second chance.:shrug:

BTW, I was probably the only one who didn't have a problem with the guide. He liked me, since I was one of the few in the group who wasn't a senior citizen, and I liked him, because he was the national Irish Jimmy Carter look-alike! LOL!:D

[Occulus]

32. I noticed in your post it's all about cost, cost, cost

Did anybody mention any damn thing about how much it is worth to cruise on a small ship that doesn't have all the amenities?

THAT is one reason our society is failing, IMO: we're so concerned about monetary cost that we've almost completely forgotten about the nonmonetary, nonmaterial value of the whatever-it-is.

[DELUSIONAL]

16. The Ocean off of St. Kitts is horribly rough right now

My friend who lives there tells me that the cruise ships are moving fast because it is so rough. They've had high winds and heavy rains -- so the cruise ships are trying to find some smooth water. But it does seem like that ship could stop at a port and just park there. But then the boat probably needs all propellers to dock and undock.

The passengers are due something more than a rebate.

And yes not all are wealthy -- some have saved years and years for this trip of a life time. But then at least they didn't get attacked by pirates like the cruise ship off of the coast of Africa. I just happen to know 4 of the passengers. Those passengers were given a 50% off coupon for their next cruise.

[Paulie]

20. Not really

If the seas are rough, docking is the last thing you want to do. You can easily damage the ship by crashing it into the dock, thrusters or no thrusters. Safety of the passengers, crew and ship is taken very seriously.

The passengers appear to not have read their contract. Basically the cruise line can change the itinerary at any time for any reason. They don't have a leg (or ship) to stand on. Sometimes stuff just happens, and that Cunard is offering 50% back is very generous.

In this case, a loss of one power plant along with the weather means the itinerary changes. Just take the 50% and book another cruise! :)

[architect359]

21. A bit more on why they're upset from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4637240.stm

"Passengers have reacted angrily to the change of plans, saying they were only told scheduled stops - at the Caribbean islands of St Kitts and Barbados, and Salvador in Brazil - were cancelled once the ship set sail from Fort Lauderdale.

"Many passengers planned to meet relatives at the aborted destinations and have paid for hotels and sight-seeing trips.

" 'We have been lied to and misled,' passenger Alan Berg, 63, from Manchester, UK, told the BBC News website.

" ' We should have been allowed the option of getting off at Fort Lauderdale and not taking the cruise at all. It is not in fact a cruise now but a rather a voyage by sea to Rio . Many guests are on once-in-a-lifetime holidays and I have seen several in tears.' "

Many people saved up for years and invested a lot of emotions and expectations into "a vacation of a lifetime". 50 percent refund is just not enough compensation. It certainly doesn't improve their image one bit in the long run. What gets me is them breaking the news after they left port thus denying any passenger to disembark to make other plans - sounds like they, intentially or unintentionally, "trapped" the passengers on the ship w/o recourse. The cruise line needs to make some greater gesture. This really stinks.

(edit spelling)

[natrat]

22. cruise line fucked up---bad publicity---real bad

[tatertop]

29. What a rotten way to do business!

[MercutioATC]

25. What does the CONTRACT say?

I'm betting that Cunard is operating within the limits of the contract. Is is lousy PR? Yes. Do they have every legal right to do it anyway? Probably. Did the passengers sign a contract that detailed what would happen in the event that the ship had to cut the trip short for a mechanical problem? Definitely.

I can understand why the passengers were upset, but they signed a contract. If Cunard's actions are within the limits of the contract, I don't think a "sit-in" is appropriate.

[Gormy Cuss]

26. Absent from the spokeperson's comments is any reference to the contract.

One would think that Cunard would have an incentive to defend its actions by referring to the contractual stipulations if such language exists because the passengers have gained the attention of the international press.

I'm betting that Cunard doesn't have clear protection in the contractual language and that they have their lawyers looking for a way to massage the meaning of some ambiguous passage to suit the situation.

Cunard was fully aware during the stop in Fort Lauderdale that the cruise would not be able to continue as planned yet according to the passengers they were not informed of the new schedule until they were out to sea. It does not take much imagination to think that Cunard management made a deliberate choice to delay informing the passengers rather than risk many disembarking in Florida and demanding pro-rata refunds.

[MercutioATC]

27. If that's the case, the passengers would have recourse.

What bothers me is that there's so much "Cunard OWES them more" talk when we don't even know what the contract said. If Cunard's operating within the limits of the contract, they don't OWE the passengers anything. It might be good public relations to do so, but they're not bound to do it.

[Gormy Cuss]

30. I agree on the "owes me" whine.

Fair's fair. If the contract stipulates that Cunard is not obligated to refund money any time that the ship is still able to cruise, the passengers don't have a leg to stand on.

I do wonder however why the Cunard spokesperson was silent on the limits of the contract. I think that they realize they have a major public relations disaster looming because of sailing from Florida without informing the passengers of the change in itinerary. Cruise contracts do stipulate that itinerary changes may happen due to circumstances beyond Cunard's control, but leaving port under reduced power isn't a circumstance beyond their control. That was a corporate decision to move the ship to Rio in time for the next boarding of new passengers and they chose to restrict the choice of passengers to opt out of the remaining cruise. Note that allowing passengers to opt out in Ft. Lauderdale may not have meant that they were required to compensate the passengers even to the degree of the current offer.

By keeping all the passengers on board for an extra week Cunard can legitimately claim they are owed for food and lodging. Without the passengers they would be running at a greater loss.

[MercutioATC]

31. Their decision is troubling.

Cunard seems to have financially benefited from moving the ship under reduced power but it certainly doesn't seem to have been "beyond their control". By 1) having realized financial benefit to the detriment of passengers and 2) refusing to disclose the situation to passengers until they were already at sea it seems that Cunard has really harmed their defense in any resultant civil lawsuit.

Again, without seeing the contract, we really don't know...but it doesn't seem like Cunard made a wise choice.

[Occulus]

34. Except they didn't cut the trip short

They are eliminating expected and bought-and-paid for items.

I suppose, per the contract, yes, the ship could just keep 'em all holed up on board, tool around the ocean a bit, and then come home and say, "there's your cruise".... but they would be begging for legal action in doing so.

You know- I'm getting really, really tired of all these contracts-that-aren't-really-contracts being defended all the time, especially on this board, of all places. Did these people sign a contract? Yes. Did they also pay in good faith? Yes. Are there contracts with better or more cruiseline-restrictive clauses available? Probably not, because the people who are writing the contracts are the ones selling the packages (these contracts are written to defend somebody, and it's not the consumer). There's no independent third-party restraint, nor is there a ready means of enforcement.

A cruise line (or airline, or any other business operation that uses either a contract or a license agreement) can usually, at will, alter the terms of the contract while it is in progress. When I stopped just now to think about in how many different "contracts" I've seen the phrase "the terms of this agreement are subject to change at any time without the consent of the purchaser" or some other such phrase (there's a similar one used in many software license agreements), I was shocked at what I remember having seen. Everything from rental terms on big-ticket items to, as I mentioned, computer software has these little catch-all clauses. Now- if you signed a contract, would you expect to be able to do this? Would you have the nerve to argue such in court? I'm thinking not; quite frankly, I'd be a bit fearful myself of trying to defend such a phrase.

Why are businesses allowed to issue contracts written by themselves which they themselves can alter at will? Think about credit cards. So many people here, who in all honesty are technically correct, feel this is okay just because you signed the agreement; I myself disagree. It is, technically, a valid statement- but it is not an ethical one, not when we're speaking of agreements the issuer claims he can alter after the fact.

Too many people tolerate it, and that sincerely disturbs me.

[MercutioATC]

35. I don't just "tolerate" it. I support it.

To me it's a personal responsibility issue. Cunard (or anybody) offers a service. If you choose to avail yourself of that service, you have to agree to be a party to a contract in which Cunard (or anybody) explains the terms under which they're willing to provide the service. If you don't agree with the terms, don't agree to the contract. If you don't understand the terms, don't agree to the contract. It's very simple.

I don't want to hijack this thread with an ethical debate about contracts. I just thought the wording of the contract the passengers signed was part of the issue in this case.

[architect359]

38. Mayeb I'm being way too idealistic here

Or maybe just being naive.

There are fair reasons for having contracts, I don't disagree there. In this case, these contracts are generated by people hired by the company, Cunard in this case, to protect itself. That's all fine and good - if you want to use their services and choose to enter into the contract, so be it.

I, on the other hand, still think that it's a bit underhanded of Cunard to set sail, knowing full well about the damage and all that implies, prior to notifiying their passengers - thus, leaving them no choice on the matter. Was that legal? I don't know, there probably is some C.Y.A passages in the contract that saves the company. Was that ethical? Was that the right (karmic) thing to do? No way. I agree with you, MercutioATC, that this is a horrible PR move, but, I don't know, it just feels to be more than that, you know? When one takes into context the loaded emotional expectations that these people bring with them, encouraged, I might add with no small expense, by Cunard's advertising, than I think that it is fair for Cunard to be more sympathetic to these passengers. Especially after leaving port without notifying their customers - I mean, that's just idiotic. If nothing else, it just opens a whole can of ill feeling towards the company.

[northzax]

37. the Captain of the ship has final say over destinations

if the QM2 couldn't make the stops, then she couldn't make the stops. Cunard's contractual obligation was the get their passengers safely to Rio on schedule, nothing else. That's the way cruising works. Had there been a hurricane, and the ship didn't stop in Antigua, would the passengers get refunds? Would you expect a refund from an airline that changed the itinerary of a flight in progress for safety reasons? ("sorry folks, due to engine problems we are making a stop in Denver instead of Chicago")

[architect359]

39. But the fine line here is that its quite a different scenario

Missing a port of call because of a hurricane - well, nothing can be done about that. Engine trouble on a plane diverting that to another airport is also reasonable. I think that the fact that these passengers are really riled up is because, the QM2 was already damaged (and apparently significantly) prior to berthing in Ft Lauderdale. The passengers were not notified of this or it implications until AFTER the ship left port. I mentioned previously that there's probably cya clauses in Cunard's service contract but this doesn't negate the ill will that the passengers have by not being able to make any alternative plans - they are effectively "trapped" and forced to accept a bill of service. The better analogy, say with the plane, was if there was engine trouble discovered by the airline prior to landing at the airport, do nothing, say nothing; load the passengers and take off. Than notify them in midair that they were going to Denver instead of Chicago.

[Paulie]

49. Here's the language from the CONTRACT

This is from the Cunard Contract on their website:

Cunard shall have the right to cancel or alter in any way any scheduled sailing or itinerary which, in its sole judgment and discretion, is justified for any reason and to do so without liability for damage or for any loss to passengers. Cunard also reserves the right, in the event of a full-ship charter or for any other reason, to cancel reservations and bookings whether or not a deposit or full payment has been received. In such an event, Cunard's only liability will be to refund to passengers the amount it has received.

[MercutioATC]

50. Sounds like they're within their rights, then.

Yeah, it's unfair and it's lousy PR but I'd be surprised if it's actionable.

[Gormy Cuss]

51. In such an event, Cunard's only liability will be to refund to passengers

So by refusing to cancel the remainder of the cruise when they docked in Fort Lauderdale, Cunard can claim that they owe no refund to the passengers.
Sleazebags.

That aside, I wouldn't sign on with this clause in the agreement.

[Dudley_DUright]

43. We saw the QM2 when we were in St. Thomas

over the Xmas holidays (we were on Holland America's Westerdam). That is one BIG boat. I can see why the passengers are upset since half the fun of cruising is the excursions at the various ports of call (the other half being eating too much great food).

[Buns_of_Fire]

47. On the bright side...

How many real, live mutinies does a person get to participate in in their life? Avast, ye mateys! Swash those buckles! Poop those decks! Haul them keels! Arrrrrgh!

Okay, that said, methinks Cunard's got a lot of 'splaining to do, if they allowed the ship to leave port in the first place if there was damage that would prevent visiting certain ports-of-call. They might have lost money by just refunding the fares, but now they're going to lose money and suffer a black eye.

Yoo, hoo! Captain! Look! Batman!