Liveaboard cancellation policies?

[Quero]

Quero:
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.

Everybody wants to protect his or her pocketbook! The disappointed customer wants to protect his and so does the operator. Is one person protecting his own interests more "moral" than the other one protecting his own interests with equal fervor? Is is really "immoral" if the policies, terms, and conditions were provided to the customer in advance but the customer failed to take note? Trip insurance exists for a reason, and the reason is simply that service providers decline to accept financial responsibility for events beyond their control that interrupt their customers' vacations and holidays.

As I have repeatedly said, most operators do try to offer some sort of accommodation or compensation to disappointed customers even though they are not legally required to do so, but if a hypothetical customer flat out demands a full refund and then claims the operator is immoral when the refund is not forthcoming, subsequently appealing to the court of public opinion in an attempt to vilify the business and cause irreparable harm to the operator's livelihood, I would find the customer to be the immoral boor and not the operator.

Most operators do a great job with customer service and know it is in their best interest to go the extra distance to try to make disappointed customers happy. The few that won't do this, even when they are not legally obligated, should not be in an industry centered on customer service. But that does not entail that every operator should have to automatically offer cash refunds for any and all trip cancellations due to weather or other force majeure reasons that they are powerless to control.

 

[Quero]

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.

Richard, what if you were offered a destination you felt was "inferior" or a boat you felt was "inferior"? Would you still be okay with it? Would you request a partial refund? Would you come online and claim that the company cheated you?

I simply advise my customers that refund and cancellation policies vary from operator to operator, and that they may want to invest in trip insurance to cover not only force majeure eventualities that most operators list as exclusions, but also family emergencies, flight disruptions, etc.

 

[vladimir]

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

And their incentive for making that change would be what? To accommodate the 1/10 of 1% of their customers who this is an issue for?

Trip insurance is there for the risk-averse--why not use that? That's what insurance does--shifts risk from those who can't undertake it to those who can. But beware that most insurance policies won't cover all the risks we are discussing here either. That's another contract you should read carefully before entering into.

Ultimately, if you can't afford to lose the price of a liveaboard trip because of bad weather, the trip is probably not a prudent expense for you.

 

[Thalassamania]

What we are discussing is who should take out which piece of the insurance, that's all. I guess in the end it is the customer anyway that foots the bill. What concerns me is the incentivation (now there's a good Aussie word, coined by John Howard) of not going out, the operator pays the crew for not working (but no overtime I'm sure) and pockets not only the profit he would have made, but the cost of fuel, vittles, etc.

 

[vladimir]

What we are discussing is who should take out which piece of the insurance, that's all. I guess in the end it is the customer anyway that foots the bill.

Yes, exactly; but he loses the option of not insuring if the insurance becomes somehow compulsory.

What concerns me is the incentivation (now there's a good Aussie word, coined by John Howard) of not going out, the operator pays the crew for not working (but no overtime I'm sure) and pockets not only the profit he would have made, but the cost of fuel, vittles, etc.

Yes, that is the appropriate concern, where do his incentives lie?, which I addressed earlier:

As a customer, your interests are generally aligned with those of your service provider. The continued viability of his business depends on satisfying his customers. If he seizes upon a flimsy excuse to keep payment without providing service, his business will be short-lived. That is your protection.

The answer is to dive with operators whose reputations are very valuable to them--more valuable than the short-term benefit of scamming one or two boatloads of passengers out of their money. But we learned with Nekton that it's not always apparent when that cost/benefit balance shifts, and it can be a lot more than a few boatloads who lose out.

 

[drrich2]

Richard, what if you were offered a destination you felt was "inferior" or a boat you felt was "inferior"? Would you still be okay with it? Would you request a partial refund? Would you come online and claim that the company cheated you?

I'd judge it on a case-by-case basis. I know with any chartered trip there is the chance that a particular dive site might not be available on a given day, & another might be chosen. Taking my money and then giving me no trip to any site on any boat is a far different matter.

Richard.