Furious river cruise passenger says itinerary on $15,500 trip was changed last minute to less desirable locations… and that he has been refused a refund
Brian Lobaskie says AmaWaterways changed his 11-day European river cruise itinerary less than 24 hours before his flight, replacing the planned route from Amsterdam to Switzerland with one through the Netherlands and Belgium. He and his partner decided not to travel, arguing that the substitute did not match the trip they had planned and paid for.
The couple had spent C$22,000, around US$15,400, on the cruise. AmaWaterways said extreme weather and changing river levels prompted the rerouting for safety, and that because the ship sailed, its policy did not allow cash refunds. It offered passengers who travelled on the revised route a credit worth 50 per cent of the cruise fare, or those who postponed a credit worth 100 per cent; Lobaskie says rising prices could mean paying more to take the trip later.
- AmaWaterways changed the route less than a day before departure.
- The couple declined the replacement itinerary and received a C$22,000 credit.
- Low water levels are making European river cruise changes more common.
New here? Start with this
River cruises are holidays where passengers travel on a boat along inland waterways in Europe, visiting different destinations. Brian Lobaskie booked an 11-day cruise with AmaWaterways planned to go from Amsterdam to Switzerland, but the company changed the route to the Netherlands and Belgium less than a day before he was to travel. He and his partner decided not to go.
The couple had paid around US$15,400 for their cruise. AmaWaterways said extreme weather and rising river levels forced the change for safety, and its policy does not allow cash refunds once the ship has sailed on an alternative route. It offered passengers a credit for 50 per cent of their fare if they travelled on the new itinerary, or a full credit if they postpone the trip.
Lobaskie argues the alternative trip was substantially different from what he had paid for and that he should receive a full refund rather than a credit. The dispute raises questions about what companies owe passengers when circumstances force itinerary changes, and whether credits are a fair substitute for refunds when a significantly different holiday is offered.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The passenger has a legitimate complaint about purchasing a specific €15,400 service that was fundamentally altered mere hours before departure, leaving no time to adjust arrangements or seek alternatives. He paid for an Amsterdam-to-Switzerland route and received a different journey through the Netherlands and Belgium; receiving a 50 per cent credit rather than a refund fails to compensate for the substantial breach of contract, particularly given that postponing the trip may cost considerably more at future pricing levels.
The case against
AmaWaterways invoked force majeure—extreme weather and dangerous river conditions—which genuinely necessitated the rerouting for passenger safety, an outcome beyond any company's reasonable control. The cruise operator did provide the service as a functioning holiday, albeit on an altered route, and offered fair compensation: a 100 per cent credit for those willing to postpone, or 50 per cent for those who sailed. Requiring cash refunds whenever circumstances force operational changes would render river cruise businesses financially unviable and discourage them from prioritising passenger safety over profit.