Covid-19 (coronavirus) Updates - Liveaboard Cancellation Policy
- Thread starter Dive and Cruise
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
soonerwink
Contributor
The 29th
This Covid-19 Pandemic is costing everyone business. I've known Mike a long time and love how he runs his boats. So, I communicated with him to find out why he's doing it this way. It makes sense... at least to me. Here are my takeaways from the interaction...
There are lots of hard decisions being made around the world due to this pandemic. Mike is one of the most stand up guys in our industry. I like how he does things and will be on one his boats again, I am sure. I know this will not please many, but he wants to stay in business. The real issue is how the insurance companies have figured out a way to not pay. That's just horrid. I guess they don't want to go out of business either.
Like all of Scuba, these trips have a low ROI.
Trip insurance is supposed to cover these things. I was surprised to see the exclusions for pandemic.
Nautilus is dedicated to pay their staff for as long as they can. I'm sure it will be at a reduced salary but I didn't ask.
Nautilus has other monthly bills that they still have to pay.
40% is better than nothing. Way better. It's a high probability that you'll never get to use those who are offering 100% towards your next trip. That's almost guaranteed to bankrupt them.
Trip insurance is supposed to cover these things. I was surprised to see the exclusions for pandemic.
Nautilus is dedicated to pay their staff for as long as they can. I'm sure it will be at a reduced salary but I didn't ask.
Nautilus has other monthly bills that they still have to pay.
40% is better than nothing. Way better. It's a high probability that you'll never get to use those who are offering 100% towards your next trip. That's almost guaranteed to bankrupt them.
There are lots of hard decisions being made around the world due to this pandemic. Mike is one of the most stand up guys in our industry. I like how he does things and will be on one his boats again, I am sure. I know this will not please many, but he wants to stay in business. The real issue is how the insurance companies have figured out a way to not pay. That's just horrid. I guess they don't want to go out of business either.
outofofficebrb
HARRO HUNNAYYY
I appreciate your efforts to reach out and better understand why Nautilus is taking the stance that they are. I can also appreciate his thoughtfulness and wanting to pay his staff for as long as possible as I am sure they are stressing out and worried about how they will make ends meet. The fact that he is able to and wants to is commendable as not everyone has that luxury or ability, or desire. This event has a huge ripple effect.
When someone opts to have a business, ROI and monthly bills/cash flow/budgeting and risk assessments are things that should be taken into account on a regular basis. I am sure the decision to offer a 40% voucher is being made because he is keeping in mind those aspects of business that are now extremely concerning and that is what is motivating his decision. However, even with this in mind, it is difficult for me to wrap my mind around them justifying only issuing a 40% credit for all the customers and essentially having the customer be bailing them out of a possibly poor business plans or decision making in the past. Call me harsh...do I have a dive biz? No. Am I scheduled to be on the Nautilus? No...However, to me, it is not the problem of the customer that the business yields a low ROI as is on a regular basis and that they now have to cough it up so that the business will continue. I know it is an extremely difficult situation and it is easy to armchair here but I am just sharing my gut reactions.
Yes, 40% is better than nothing if you want to speak about it in relative terms. Yeah, losing only one eye instead of going completely blind is way better. This is a totally extreme example but I am trying to explain the relative nature of the conversation. I'm in no way suggesting that losing money on a vacation is comparable to losing eyesight, etc. so please don't take it the wrong way. When you are reading about full charters or customers not being able to come due to legal reasons and not just because of disinclination or fear of traveling, it just sucks and I feel for them. I also feel for the business - this is an unexpected, unprecedented disaster, so to speak. It is a lot of money being swallowed here and a lot of money that customers are having to say goodbye to as a result. We are not talking about customers asking for refunds here. They can keep the money and use it how they wish with their budget. I guess, in short, it just blows my mind that a business doesn't have enough cash in reserve to be able to keep the business afloat (monthly expenses, at minimum assuming not even sailing due to significant issues) even when they can keep 100% of the dollars already paid and by honoring a reschedule.
I am by no means trying to get in your face about it, just typing my initial reactions to what you shared and what might be going through the minds of customers that are reading this. I know you are just conveying the message and relaying his filter set. I respect his business decisions and to do what's best for the longevity of his company and his employees but it does not mean that I have to agree with them. Perhaps I'm not seeing it in the same way.
I can't fathom how you think it is reasonable? 40% is indeed better than nothing, but that is about the only thing that makes sense out of this. When just above every single other travel vendor of any type, LOB included, is either doing 100% refunds or credit towards a future trip, an offer of 40% is ridiculous no matter how you try to reason it out. He will lose way more in the future because of this stance than the he would ever have otherwise.
Jay
Need to dive more!
No one can argue that hard decisions are needing to be made between less than optimal choices. But when it comes to those decisions there also must be some reasonable balance, and hopefully the majority of operators get that right. In this case, 40% doesn't seem nearly inline with others, and not fair; Even a back of the envelope of the operators costs and P&L tells me that.
re Insurance, there's another poll about that, but when operators expect client's insurance to cover a pandemic, it's a bit like diver's expecting a business' to have their 'business continuity insurance' cover pandemics.
When this is all said and done we'll each have a set of reinforced favourites, and those at the other end of the spectrum. Another member provided his list in a separate post. Some of those on there I don't yet understand / how why.
FWIW, Here's my list - yes, and a separate thread for this sub-topic much later on ....
Liveaboard.com
Liveaboard Diving Philippines.
All M/Y Sakura- - Philippines
M/Y Azalea - Philippines (not to be confused with the Maldive's vessel of similar name which has nothing to do with this one nor this company).
All Star Liveaboards
Aggressor [EDIT - added - for other reasons than in this thread]
?Equator? - depends on outcome of other thread. [EDIT - corrected from Expedition Fleet]
re Insurance, there's another poll about that, but when operators expect client's insurance to cover a pandemic, it's a bit like diver's expecting a business' to have their 'business continuity insurance' cover pandemics.
When this is all said and done we'll each have a set of reinforced favourites, and those at the other end of the spectrum. Another member provided his list in a separate post. Some of those on there I don't yet understand / how why.
FWIW, Here's my list - yes, and a separate thread for this sub-topic much later on ....
Liveaboard.com
Liveaboard Diving Philippines.
All M/Y Sakura- - Philippines
M/Y Azalea - Philippines (not to be confused with the Maldive's vessel of similar name which has nothing to do with this one nor this company).
All Star Liveaboards
Aggressor [EDIT - added - for other reasons than in this thread]
?Equator? - depends on outcome of other thread. [EDIT - corrected from Expedition Fleet]
outofofficebrb
HARRO HUNNAYYY
drk5036
Contributor
if I paid serious money and was only give a 40% voucher, I wouldn't use the money and would instead be gunning for sharing this information as far as possible. We'll see how the gamble works out in the long run for them...
soonerwink
Contributor
I compare it to stealing, when you are paid for a service and you don't provide the service. Even going so far as to re-sell your spots that have become available now because we are unable to travel there at no fault of us. Maybe someone who cares so little for their customers should not remain in business. I know this may seem harsh, but I have seen many dive shops and other businesses go out of business because of this very reason.
I'm generally not a fan of disputing charges with my CC company. I feel consumers abuse that process. With that being said, if you paid for the trip using a CC, absolutely dispute the charge with your provider. Nautilus doesn't stand a chance in this scenario. Obviously if you paid for the trip through your dive shop, this isn't a solution.
Similar threads
