Info New Nautilus Cancellation Policy

[living4experiences]

I got this info in an email from Nautilus. Their T&Cs on the website have not been changed yet. The last sentence is not entirely clear, though. Maybe there will be refundable and nonrefundable fares and only on certain rooms(?) I hope not...that would be very complicated.

IMO, this is a step in the right direction for the liveaboard industry. Perhaps other companies will take notice and follow suit.

WHATS NEW​ ​

REFUNDABLE TRIPS​ ​ We understand that life is full of unexpected events that can affect your travel plans. That's why we've carefully considered the feedback from our valued guests and brainstormed a solution to meet your needs. With our fully refundable option, you now have the flexibility to cancel your booking and receive a refund of your trip fees up to 60 days prior to departure—no questions asked. Whether it's a change in circumstances, unforeseen events, or simply a change of heart, we've got you covered. Select your berths to see refundable pricing.​

 

[O-ring]

I got something similar from Aggressor yesterday..well, similar in that it is a relaxing in their terms.

Dear Valued Guests,

Aggressor Adventures is thrilled to announce effective today, all new individual reservations will now only require a 20% deposit for reservations made more than 90 days prior to departure. In addition, guests and resellers can cancel a reservation up until 91 days prior to departure and will incur a 20% penalty verses 40%. We are always looking for ways to better serve our guests and that has not changed in our 40 years of business.

These changes take effect June 26, 2023 and will apply to new reservations and is not retroactive.

We at Aggressor Adventures value your trust and loyalty and hope these updates to our payment and cancellation policy demonstrate our dedication to your satisfaction. We can't wait to welcome you on board for an unforgettable adventure filled with incredible memories and discoveries. Book your next journey with us today and let us be part of your extraordinary story!

Regards,

The Aggressor Adventures Team

 

[aquabluegreg]

The move by Nautilus is a great change in philosophy. The Aggressor not so much so. I would guess the change implemented by Nautilus will be slow in acceptance across the industry. Specifically cancel for any reason. Book a trip on a Red Sea ship and then find a less expensive trip on a competitor? I'm not sure the various liveaboard companies will be crazy about that...

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So what impact does this have on Nautilus's lawsuit against customers?

You'd think they'd at least drop it.

While this change is a good PR move, there still is that outstanding lawsuit that more than cancels it (for me at least).

 

[aquabluegreg]

I haven't been following the litigation. I assume you are referring to the Guadalupe Island dives.
Life has taught me there are always two sides to every story. I don't know enough about either side's position to have it cause me to not book Nautilus trips.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I haven't been following the litigation. I assume you are referring to the Guadalupe Island dives.
Life has taught me there are always two sides to every story. I don't know enough about either side's position to have it cause me to not book Nautilus trips.

I have looked at both sides. I even joined the FB Guadeloupe page to see the comments posted there that resulted in the lawsuit.

Have you?

I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, as litigious as it is, it would be thrown out as frivolous.

If you feel I am wrong, please quote the exact comment(s) that you feel are so egregious and deserving of a lawsuit.

People have the right to complain about something, rightly or not, as long as what they say is true. You can't sue them for that. That's ridiculous.

 

[aquabluegreg]

No, I have not dug into the litigation. I don't know enough about either side's position to have a knowledgeable opinion. I don't rely on FB as a source of credible info so you are ahead of me there.

I would agree that people have a right to express a grievance, but I have seen instances where people who posted negative reviews about restaurants were sued by the restaurants...go figure. So maybe we don't really have that right?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I would agree that people have a right to express a grievance, but I have seen instances where people who posted negative reviews about restaurants were sued by the restaurants...go figure. So maybe we don't really have that right?

We do have that right. I can sue you for any reason. It would be completely frivolous to do so, and it would be thrown out, but it would cost you lawyer fees.. The issue for plaintiffs comes down is do you want to bite of your own nose to spite your face. There is backlash for plaintiffs that come across as little b'es. That's where Nautilus is hurting themselves even more, despite the denial of this by people who are friends with the owner or have some connection. In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a libel lawsuits I believe they must meet two conditions: first is proving damages caused by the defendant; second is proving that the statements are false.

This is/was discussed here: https://scubaboard.com/community/th...or-brings-libel-suits-against-clients.634063/.
That SB thread cites this article Shark-dive operator brings libel suits against clients which quotes the owner of Nautilus stating:
Mike Lever had been quoted on Divernet in January following the park closure, insisting that the government’s move was illegal and would be reversed.

Now he says that his decision to take legal action against his detractors has come about following “some very nasty and malicious postings they each made about myself and our company on social media. I believe that when people cross a certain line on social media, they need to be held accountable.”

That line, he says, was crossed when the criticism began to affect his and his company’s reputation and ability to sell their services.

Most, though not all, of the criticisms have been expressed on the public Facebook page of the Guadalupe Island Shark Group, members of which are now understood to have retained a law firm in Canada to represent them.

So I joined the FB group to see what was so egregious. I searched for Nautlius and it was basically gripes about the refund policy. There is the case that people didn't read the fine print, but it gets muddied with people who were on bookings with different companies that were transferred to Nautilus. People griping and stating facts isn't slander. So why the lawsuit?

To me, this is a PR nightmare that should have just been ignored and it would blow over. Stuff on social media gets buried and it takes an effort to find old comments/discussions.

 

[MrChen]

These horrible refund policies are what have me looking for alternatives to accommodations with non-refundable deposits. This includes resorts.