Fox viewer does not buy travel insurance, kid gets cancer they get upset at losing 4k

[pcgeek11]

Fox viewer does not buy travel insurance, kid gets cancer they get upset at losing 4k

Nowhere in that article did it say that these people were Fox Viewers.

 

[John Connor]

Not sure what Fox viewers have to do with this.

Me either. Fucker anti Fox people gonna hate.

 

[John Connor]

Terrible that the cruise line won't allow the family a new cruise or a refund. The boy has liver cancer one of the most serious of cancers. No compassion at all.

Did you not read all the posts?

 

[werepossum]

Wow some many generalizations and false assumptions with this post that it blatantly reeks of trollish attempt to bait people.

This, exactly. Some people are so stuck on stupid that anything even reported on a Fox Entertainment affiliate automatically brands everyone in the story as a diehard political reactionary.

That said, somebody in Norwegian Cruise Lines screwed up bad. While they are technically in the right, this is terrible publicity and they'll spend a lot more trying to make people forget it.

Although just to be contrarian, everyone cancelling a cruise has what they consider an important reason. Could be that I'm wrong, Norwegian Cruise Lines really has thought this through, and they've decided that it's better to take a big publicity hit for denying an exception to a small child with cancer rather than have every cancelling customer feel entitled to get back their money.

 

[Exterous]

That said, somebody in Norwegian Cruise Lines screwed up bad. While they are technically in the right, this is terrible publicity and they'll spend a lot more trying to make people forget it.

:thumbsup: They didn't even want a refund just a different date of travel. Technically correct with the T&C but definitely asking for bad exposure. I am pretty surprised Norwegian did this given how the travel industry tends to handle serious medical situations. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer my parents had to cancel two cruises and a number of flights. While they did not have to refund the money spent all the various companies did (after submitting proof) with the exception of one cruise line which held a $500 deposit towards their rebooking.

Although just to be contrarian, everyone cancelling a cruise has what they consider an important reason. Could be that I'm wrong, Norwegian Cruise Lines really has thought this through, and they've decided that it's better to take a big publicity hit for denying an exception to a small child with cancer rather than have every cancelling customer feel entitled to get back their money.

I think there could be a line drawn somewhere between 'emergency cancer surgery' and 'I changed my mind'. Don't list it in the T&C but still have the agent rebook the cruise. The gratitude from 'Well, we shouldn't and its against the T&C but that is such a terrible tragedy that I'll go ahead and make this happen for you' is going to more than outweigh the bad PR. While only anecdotal my parents were willing to spend more to rebook a cruise with one line over their competitors because of how they handled his situation

 

[FerrelGeek]

Not sure what Fox viewers have to do with this.

The need to start yet another circle-jerk? Could be wrong, but the link points to a local Fox NETWORK affiliate, not Fox NEWS? They are different, you know. I can tell you for a fact that local Fox NETWORK news outlets don't just hand out stuff given to them by Fox NEWS. When I lived up in NE Ohio, the local Fox affiliate news bore little resemblance to what you'd get on Fox News.

 

[nehalem256]

I think there could be a line drawn somewhere between 'emergency cancer surgery' and 'I changed my mind'. Don't list it in the T&C but still have the agent rebook the cruise. The gratitude from 'Well, we shouldn't and its against the T&C but that is such a terrible tragedy that I'll go ahead and make this happen for you' is going to more than outweigh the bad PR. While only anecdotal my parents were willing to spend more to rebook a cruise with one line over their competitors because of how they handled his situation

Which works until people find out about the "secret policy" and claim to have cancer so they can change their cruise dates.

 

[Exterous]

Which works until people find out about the "secret policy" and claim to have cancer so they can change their cruise dates.

As I mentioned in my post the cancellations my parents got required proof of diagnosis and treatment

 

[thraashman]

Arguing that the cruise line should accommodate because of the unexpected cancer even though they didn't buy insurance is the same as arguing that if they didn't have medical insurance that they shouldn't have to pay any of the cancer bills because it was unexpected cancer. Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected things!

 

[werepossum]

:thumbsup: They didn't even want a refund just a different date of travel. Technically correct with the T&C but definitely asking for bad exposure. I am pretty surprised Norwegian did this given how the travel industry tends to handle serious medical situations. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer my parents had to cancel two cruises and a number of flights. While they did not have to refund the money spent all the various companies did (after submitting proof) with the exception of one cruise line which held a $500 deposit towards their rebooking.

I think there could be a line drawn somewhere between 'emergency cancer surgery' and 'I changed my mind'. Don't list it in the T&C but still have the agent rebook the cruise. The gratitude from 'Well, we shouldn't and its against the T&C but that is such a terrible tragedy that I'll go ahead and make this happen for you' is going to more than outweigh the bad PR. While only anecdotal my parents were willing to spend more to rebook a cruise with one line over their competitors because of how they handled his situation

Yep, I think that's only good business.

 

[glenn1]

Arguing that the cruise line should accommodate because of the unexpected cancer even though they didn't buy insurance is the same as arguing that if they didn't have medical insurance that they shouldn't have to pay any of the cancer bills because it was unexpected cancer. Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected things!

You and your silly rules and personal responsibility. This little kid has cancer and everyone knows that stuff doesn't apply to them or their parents.

 

[Hugo Drax]

The need to start yet another circle-jerk? Could be wrong, but the link points to a local Fox NETWORK affiliate, not Fox NEWS? They are different, you know. I can tell you for a fact that local Fox NETWORK news outlets don't just hand out stuff given to them by Fox NEWS. When I lived up in NE Ohio, the local Fox affiliate news bore little resemblance to what you'd get on Fox News.

the story was on Foxnews main website. Why would they put a nonstory like this on the front page of foxnews.

It is a non story yet they put it up there as somehow Norwegian was in the wrong, when they were just practicing what Fox preaches.

 

[desy]

A fox is crap, however this was just a reporting without the obvious bias
B the family didn't buy insurance and according to policy don't get a refund
C the cruise line upon hearing the circumstance offered up a free solution for the family

 

[Londo_Jowo]

A fox is crap, however this was just a reporting without the obvious bias
B the family didn't buy insurance and according to policy don't get a refund
C the cruise line upon hearing the circumstance offered up a free solution for the family

C is incorrect

After the MyFoxNY story, the CEO of another cruise line called the Coluccis, who live in North Babylon, Long Island. He offered them a free cruise with Nicolas and Nicolas’ younger brother when they are ready.

 

[Genx87]

The thing about this is yes, they should had bought travel insurance. However what cruise line willingly goes through public scorn like this for a few thousands dollars?

 

[highland145]

However what cruise line willingly goes through public scorn like this for a few thousands dollars?

It's not like there was a dysentery outbreak, right?

 

[desy]

Thanks I glossed over the 'another cruise line'
Still they aren't entitled to anything more than what they purchased and unfortunately there are thousands of hard luck stories such as this all over the place.
Its a contract they opted out of the insurance 'wife is insurance contract writer she sees this ALL the time' you can't insure the barn after the fire

 

[glenn1]

The thing about this is yes, they should had bought travel insurance. However what cruise line willingly goes through public scorn like this for a few thousands dollars?

What family puts their "sick with cancer" 5 y.o. under the public spotlight (including photos of him for people to gawk at) just to score a few thousand in cruise vouchers? I guess their integrity and privacy come very cheap to them.

 

[Exterous]

You and your silly rules and personal responsibility. This little kid has cancer and everyone knows that stuff doesn't apply to them or their parents.

While they may think the rules don't apply to them this is still a hospitality industry where customer experience and service is of paramount importance.

Again the cruise line was technically correct but from a business perspective this seems to be a bad decision especially given that exceptions seem to be made by their competitors for a terrible experience many\most potential customers can relate to (having a relative sick with cancer). I expect this will negatively affect their bookings until people forget about the story

 

[Zaap]

Wow. McOwned-rivaling OP FAIL.