Liveaboard cancellation policies?

[Lee Taylor]

I am reading this thread with interest and a open mind. I suppose I am the guilty party that is the cause of Woodman's posting.

I have no experience with live-a-boards, but have used dive charters (day boats) for 15 years.

How this got started, was that, I was comparing what I have been reading about live-a-board policies with what I know to be true of the day charters I have used over the years. In the past I have been happy to hear, that my card will not charged to pay for a day charter, not going, due to high seas. I was of course responsible for my travel and accommodation expenses, and the relief from the not being charged for the charter, made the hit less painful.

So, naturally, when shopping live-a-boards, I am not going to overlook this particular item. I noted the significant difference between the day charters policies (that I use) and that of a live-aboard I was considering. I suspect policies vary. Please let it be noted that different live-a-boards may have significantly different policies. I have not done much researched yet.

Vladimir stated: With a reputable live-a-board operator, you will enter into an explicit contract. The terms should be clearly spelled out. If the terms are not acceptable to you, don't enter into the contract--simple.

I agree with this completely.

-------------------------

In the case of the Spree, if we don't leave the dock, your refund is offered immediately.

In addition to this policy, over the years I have heard nothing but good things about this operation.

-------------------------

 

[redacted]

I'm finding a more reasonable policy for Thailand liveaboard cancellations due to unforeseen events.

Under terms and conditions from this site: Dive The World Thailand Enquiry - Customer Feedback - Thanks

[h=3]Unforeseen Events[/h] If departure of your cruise is not advisable - or may be dangerous to the life or health of the passengers or to the boat, due to conditions such as: bad weather, perils of the sea, Acts of God, political incidents, force majeure - then the captain has the sole discretion to delay or cancel the cruise departure.
Likewise during the cruise, if bad weather or force majeure events occur that make it inadvisable for passengers to land or for the boat to enter port. then the captain shall have the right to delay or postpone sailing until conditions allow, and to make adjustments to the itinerary that may include cancellation of calls to ports, or the re-sequencing of island visits.
In accordance with the industry norm, cancelled cruises and vacations entitle you to a 100% refund of monies paid, less any bank charges incurred. Shortened dive trips entitle you to a proportionate refund, delayed trips to a choice of refund or re-scheduled trip, and lengthened trips have no extra charge! Re-sequencing of destinations is not considered satisfactory justification for a refund.
In the unlikely event of a cruise being cancelled due to insufficient reservations we will alert you to this as soon as we become aware of the danger. In these circumstances we will take all reasonable steps to ensure you receive an alternative and comparable cruise.

 

[Quero]

Don't understand, Quero.

Okay, then let me give you a few examples:

Force Majeure
The Company accepts no responsibility for and shall not be held financially liable for any loss or damage due to alterations, delays or changes arising from unusual and unforeseeable circumstances beyond its control, such as war, or threat of war, riots, civil upheavals, labour strikes including air traffic control disputes, terrorist activity, political unrest, changes in government regulations, natural and disasters, floods and adverse weather conditions, transportation delays, closure or congestion of airports or ports.

Force Majeure
Expedition Fleet Liveaboards shall not be liable for failure to carry out any contracted arrangements which are caused by acts of God, labor disputes or conditions beyond its control.

The operator, nor its subsidiaries, affiliated companies, staff or agents shall be responsible or become liable in contract or tort for any injury, damage, loss, delay to person or property, additional expenses or inconvenience caused directly or indirectly by any Service Provider or by "force major" or other events beyond the operator's control, including, but not limited to war, civil disturbance, pilferage, delays, severe weather, Acts of God, Acts of Government, accidents to or failure of machinery, equipment, vehicles or industrial disputes.

It is the customer's responsibility to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract entered into with the liveaboard operator. If the customer finds the terms unacceptable, the contract should be rejected. After having accepted the terms offered (whether tacitly by payment of the deposit or explicitly by physically signing and returning a contract), it's really rather disingenuous to come to SB and complain about victimization.

Having said that, in practice most operators do what they can to accommodate their disappointed passengers by offering vouchers for future trips (generally with a time limit and on a space-available basis). Most won't give cash back since that money has already been disbursed in relation to fresh food purchases, staff salaries, port fees, government taxes, etc., etc., etc. About the only thing an operator might recoup is the cost of fuel, and maybe laundry costs. It would be a rather paltry refund based only on those items.

 

[Rhone Man]

A better analogy might be Peyton Manning playing football in 2011. The Colts paid for his services, but unforeseen events meant that they did not get what they paid for. I don't think anyone asked Peyton for the money back.

Don't understand, Quero. Besides the suggested situation being the car was destroyed not delayed, it's the terms of the contract, not knowing in advance what they are that are being questioned here. Knowing the contract in advance is already implicit to me and has no bearing on the content. Yes, we shouldn't enter a blank contract but that's not the question. And the claim isn't for some broad protection against cancellation but pretty easily narrowed to simply whether the boat goes out and why not. The customer has a clear responsibility to be there and the seller clearly has no responsiblity for anything beyond providing the trip. While I can understand the boat owners base cost, it doesn't seem equitable to keep the entire charter fee, since a not insignificant portion is based on fuel and supplies which weren't consumed since they didn't go. Some refund/credit would be reasonable. Perhaps it's evolved to push it onto the customer to get insurance, but insurance claims are far from sure bets. Perhaps a built in insurance would be better with lower cost due to increased volume, and maybe more secure terms. I'm certain this message will have zero effect on the whole process though...

 

[Quero]

I'm finding a more reasonable policy for Thailand liveaboard cancellations due to unforeseen events. <snip>

What you may not have noticed is that this particular company reserves the right to alter customers' bookings so that they go to a different destination instead when a trip cancellation occurs. The customer has no option to either accept a refund or a rebooking to a different destination. In other words, if there were a tropical storm forcing the cancellation of a trip in the Northern Andaman, the company has explicitly stated its policy of rebooking the customer onto a different trip, for example to the Southern Andaman. This is essentially what airlines do with passengers' itineraries in the event of delays and cancellations on any particular flight.

 

[drrich2]

Quero:

In the sample policy sections you provide, it is made clear the live-aboard operator is not liable for 'yadda-yadda-yadda,' and certainly, we don't expect the operator to reimburse us for plane tickets & hotel stays related to the trip, etc... Keeping the money paid for a service (the live-aboard trip itself) that you did not then provide, on the other hand, in the minds of many goes far beyond that.

And in the first snippet you posted, notice how far 'adverse weather conditions' was buried under other things, like war, riots & labor strikes? No doubt companies bury self-serving terms of service in fine print (which many don't make prominent in their banner ads & so forth, strangely enough).

As for disingenuous, that might be true if the allegation made is that the operator has violated a law. On the other hand, if one is on the receiving end of such a policy and believes this is an immoral practice (not necessarily illegal), and exercises free speech rights to make it known in not-fine-print on a public forum in hopes to generating ill will toward the operator as a retaliatory measure, well, I don't see that as disingenuous. That's just exercising customer clout to impact public opinion & hold an operator accountable for what they're doing. Not to a court of law, but to a court of public (and customer) opinion.

This same approach is used by some to vilify dive op.s who do shark feed dives, for example.

Richard.

 

[drrich2]

What you may not have noticed is that this particular company reserves the right to alter customers' bookings so that they go to a different destination instead when a trip cancellation occurs. The customer has no option to either accept a refund or a rebooking to a different destination. In other words, if there were a tropical storm forcing the cancellation of a trip in the Northern Andaman, the company has explicitly stated its policy of rebooking the customer onto a different trip, for example to the Southern Andaman. This is essentially what airlines do with passengers' itineraries in the event of delays and cancellations on any particular flight.

When flight times were changed in such a way as to mess up my itinerary, I was offered the option of a refund. Though I am no fan of major airlines (hello, Delta!), I have yet to pay for a plane ticket, show up at the airport on time, be denied a flight due to weather, and told I'm out of luck, no refund, no alternative arrangements, too bad, so sad.

If one does that, we should post about it so people can start avoiding that airline when practical.

That said, if a live-aboard had to switch destinations but still took me out and 'made the best of it,' and it was at least a decent trip, I imagine I'd personally be okay with that.

Richard.

 

[Thalassamania]

Quero, it seems to me that the operator should insure the risk against cancelling a trip due to things that are in the operator's control and customers should insure their personal risks. That leaves thing like storms, that I'm not really sure who should cover, but I lean toward making that an operator responsibility.

 

[Quero]

Quero, it seems to me that the operator should insure the risk against cancelling a trip due to things that are in the operator's control and customers should insure their personal risks. That leaves thing like storms, that I'm not really sure who should cover, but I lean toward making that an operator responsibility.

Short of legislation mandating consumer rights in relation to tour services, I don't see operators being held responsible financially for losses resulting from storms and natural disasters. Legislation exists for other kinds of big-ticket purchases to account for buyer remorse (I can't recall just what time frame these laws stipulate--days? weeks? months?), but as far as I am aware, noplace in the world legislates for tours and trips (travel, yes, but trips no). Are you advocating legislation, Thal?

 

[Thalassamania]

It would not take legislation, it would take a rule change by the credit card companies, that's all.