Jump to content

RCL TMZ Story - True or False?


Recommended Posts

I saw that story and believe it is highly misleading. Without knowing all the details, it appears that the nurses booked with a charter company that sponsored group cruises. It also seems that the charter company chose to cancel and the results are per the charter companies rules not RCCL. Noting that the FCC is good until 2023 indicates an arrangement different from customers booked with Royal. Sensationalist media using the Royal Caribbean name as an easy target currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that it's TMZ for one and a TMZ article without a byline or any actual named sources sets my "not the full picture" sonar getting lots of pings... ? Plus the editorializing at the end (I'm a huge fan of nurses, but c'mon, TMZ...way to bury the "no blame" thing...), well...

But yeah, guessing it was a charter company. But, you know -- TMZ readers aren't exactly known for being fans of journalistic accuracy or ethics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you need to know is from this paragraph (not that anyone reads that far down)

Quote

For the record, a rep for NURSECON doesn't see any blame to go around for anybody involved, insisting the rescheduled cruises and cruise credit was the best option for all parties, insisting that most of their patrons (the nurses) are actually pleased with the deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2020 at 9:36 AM, Matt said:

All you need to know is from this paragraph (not that anyone reads that far down)

 

And if I go to a trade show or convention and it gets cancelled, am I supposed to go get a refund from the Anaheim convention center, no. Of course not. It’s a charter so why would royal handle that change. It seems like a simple one that a group (nurses who are doing all the right things) got this one wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/3/2020 at 3:02 PM, Andrew72681 said:

And if I go to a trade show or convention and it gets cancelled, am I supposed to go get a refund from the Anaheim convention center, no. Of course not. It’s a charter so why would royal handle that change. It seems like a simple one that a group (nurses who are doing all the right things) got this one wrong. 

 BUT ...... what was Royal offering the charter company in the beginning?  It would have been Royal who had the nurse’s money at this point that would have been paid to them by the charter company.  
MAYBE Royal originally told the charter company that they could only offer the nurses an FCC and then Royal reversed course and allowed the charter company to offer refunds ONLY after the nurses had a fit.  
It wouldn’t  be the first time Royal tried to play hardball and then backed down after people threw a fit .......... like with the $18/day deluxe beverage package mistake they weren’t going to honor until people went insane about it.  I wouldn’t be so quick to let Royal off the hook without knowing what went on behind the scenes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:

 BUT ...... what was Royal offering the charter company in the beginning?  It would have been Royal who had the nurse’s money at this point that would have been paid to them by the charter company.  
MAYBE Royal originally told the charter company that they could only offer the nurses an FCC and then Royal reversed course and allowed the charter company to offer refunds ONLY after the nurses had a fit.  
It wouldn’t  be the first time Royal tried to play hardball and then backed down after people threw a fit .......... like with the $18/day deluxe beverage package mistake they weren’t going to honor until people went insane about it.  I wouldn’t be so quick to let Royal off the hook without knowing what went on behind the scenes.

 

The simple fact that the charter organization didn’t publish any communication lends me to believe the statements RCCL put out. Also, on the 18$ drink package, the language put into place by the FTC meant they could cancel and be within their legal rights, the drink package had not been offered at that price anytime recently, and was clearly a mistake. The other legal hurdle is that people clearly seemed to know it was a mistake as the conversation around it made it clear that they knew they weren’t in the right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andrew72681 said:

The simple fact that the charter organization didn’t publish any communication lends me to believe the statements RCCL put out. Also, on the 18$ drink package, the language put into place by the FTC meant they could cancel and be within their legal rights, the drink package had not been offered at that price anytime recently, and was clearly a mistake. The other legal hurdle is that people clearly seemed to know it was a mistake as the conversation around it made it clear that they knew they weren’t in the right. 


You do realize pretty much every business has a statement at the bottom of their emails telling you that it’s illegal to publish or share their private communications, right?  Neither company published the communications between each other.  
 

It still boils down to who actually had the nurse’s money at the time of the cancellation ..... and that was Royal ....... the charter company couldn’t give refunds of money that Royal  had without Royal returning the money to them first .......  unless the charter company  paid the refunds out of their own pockets  ..... so I’m going to stand by my original opinion ....... that Royal probably in the beginning told the charter company to only offer them an FCC and then only reversed course after the nurses had a fit because they wanted their money back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:


You do realize pretty much every business has a statement at the bottom of their emails telling you that it’s illegal to publish or share their private communications, right?  Neither company published the communications between each other.  
 

It still boils down to who actually had the nurse’s money at the time of the cancellation ..... and that was Royal ....... the charter company couldn’t give refunds of money that Royal  had without Royal returning the money to them first .......  unless the charter company  paid the refunds out of their own pockets  ..... so I’m going to stand by my original opinion ....... that Royal probably in the beginning told the charter company to only offer them an FCC and then only reversed course after the nurses had a fit because they wanted their money back.

 

Since I’m sensing a tone, you also realize that at the bottom of every single email on anyone’s corporate communication it says the same thing. That doesn’t stop the news cycle from gathering a care of White House communications. Also, as the money was paid to royal Caribbean by the charter Company they had no legal standing to return the money directly to the nurses, it would have had to go back to the charter company first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Andrew72681 said:

Also, as the money was paid to royal Caribbean by the charter Company they had no legal standing to return the money directly to the nurses, it would have had to go back to the charter company first. 


^^^ EXACTLY ........ you just proved my point ... all the charter company could do was offer the nurses a Future Cruise Credit as they did,  ..... UNTIL Royal agreed to pay the charter company the money back for any nurses who wanted a refund instead of a Future Cruise Credit.  

So just like I’ve been stating ..... the charter company couldn’t offer the nurses a refund with money they didn’t have ...... Royal had the money ............  So it the charter company ORIGINALLY told the nurses they had to take a Future Cruise Credit, it was because that’s obviously what Royal ... who had all the money ... told them to tell the nurses.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:


^^^ EXACTLY ........ you just proved my point ... all the charter company could do was offer the nurses a Future Cruise Credit as they did,  ..... UNTIL Royal agreed to pay the charter company the money back for any nurses who wanted a refund instead of a Future Cruise Credit.  

So just like I’ve been stating ..... the charter company couldn’t offer the nurses a refund with money they didn’t have ...... Royal had the money ............  So it the charter company ORIGINALLY told the nurses they had to take a Future Cruise Credit, it was because that’s obviously what Royal ... who had all the money ... told them to tell the nurses.
 

 

It is not obvious at all, charter contracts are not at all what the contract an individual has with the line.  It is spelled out in very clear and definitive terms the refund options.  Follow up articles have intimated that the charter company received full refund and it was the charter company that tried to push the attendees to commit to next year's Nurse-Con.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

It is not obvious at all, charter contracts are not at all what the contract an individual has with the line.  It is spelled out in very clear and definitive terms the refund options.  Follow up articles have intimated that the charter company received full refund and it was the charter company that tried to push the attendees to commit to next year's Nurse-Con.

Thanks TX. I’d love to see how long the charter contract is between Chick-fil-a and Royal are for their full ship Oasis class charters. The videos from those are so weird as there’s no alcohol in any of the bar setups. I’d love to see the crazy stuff they ask for in the contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Andrew72681 said:

Thanks TX. I’d love to see how long the charter contract is between Chick-fil-a and Royal are for their full ship Oasis class charters. The videos from those are so weird as there’s no alcohol in any of the bar setups. I’d love to see the crazy stuff they ask for in the contract. 

That would be interesting to see. We have friends that own 3 Chick Fil A franchises, I need to ask them about the cruise, they have been on one that I am aware of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

It is not obvious at all, charter contracts are not at all what the contract an individual has with the line.  It is spelled out in very clear and definitive terms the refund options.  Follow up articles have intimated that the charter company received full refund and it was the charter company that tried to push the attendees to commit to next year's Nurse-Con.


The original article clearly says the FCC being offered was for 125% of the fair paid ...... do you REALLY think the charter company was going to give the nurses an extra 25% out of their own pockets for next year’s cruise if Royal had already refunded the money to the charter company for the nurses?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:


The original article clearly says the FCC being offered was for 125% of the fair paid ...... do you REALLY think the charter company was going to give the nurses an extra 25% out of their own pockets for next year’s cruise if Royal had already refunded the money to the charter company for the nurses?

 

Sorry, but I don’t trust a single line in an article from TMZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...