This is an interesting situation and one that evokes more questions than answers. I would suggest, however, that you should put this question to Princess to get the definitive answer. I would also suggest that you did this as a hypothetical case and remain anonymous or give a pseudonym. Hope that helps. .... Neil.
Thanks for that. I have tried that, but Princess will not respond to my email enquiry via their UK contact email address. I don`t want to call them as I am not good at remaining anonymous or being economical with the truth. Ha ha.
The whole single supplement would be the other persons fare surely! Their fare has been paid so whats the problem?
Are you saying the single supplement is more expensive than the other persons fare? Surely not!!
Yes it is. I confirmed this with my TA. The cost of a single occupancy in a Princess cabin is several hundred pounds more than the price of the fares for double occupancy. And, in the event of a "no show", Princess would cancel that person`s booking without return of fare, and additionally implement the single person supplement which would be equivalent to one fare plus several hundred pounds. Incredible but true as far as I can gather.
The problem is that the small print says otherwise. Clause 10 suggests that in the event of a "no show" or cancellation, that a penalty supplement equivalent again has to be paid by the remaining passenger in respect of a passenger who fails to show up when even though both fares are paid in full. It is possibly a play on words in the T&Cs, but i have yet to get this clarified by Princess.
Other cruisers in another forum have suggested this may happen too.
The person that did not turn up at the port has not cancelled only missed the ship and could in thery join the ship at a later port of call ?as they have not cancelled they would not get any refund so you should not pay a single supplement.
Thanks for that. That is what I thought, but Clause 10 of Princess`s T&Cs, along with previous experience of past cruisers via another cruise forum, suggest that a "no show" incurs an extra penalty which is the equivalent of a new fully paid booking for the "no show" passenger. I have tried to get clarification from Princess via email bu they have not responded. I continue to search for a definitive answer to this query. Thanks.
I've just read Clause 10 & no way do I percieve the rule the way you do. There is no inference to 'no show', simply that if one cancels the other is responsible for the single supplement. That is obviously to stop people wangling a cabin to themselves. Maybe some of the legal eagles who comment on this site could give their rendition of the rule.
I would be all too happy if any legal eagle could comment. My perception of this rule was sparked by comments from US customers who had previously had to pay up (or so they said..). I find that I may well be in this situation on the day and would not want to pay any more on the quayside. If I did not have to pay any more than what I have already paid (ie full fare for 2 persons in double occupancy cabin), I would be happy. I actually booked adjacent cabins for myself and wife, to be next to my mother and aunt, the latter of whom has a habit of curtailing her travel on the day due to flying phobia.
Step 1 - Sign up to our emails: Enter Processing... Close X