I find it interesting that most folks perceive that Royal Caribbean folded to pressure rather than it decided that it was the right thing to do.
The issue here was not merely missing a port or hitting some rough seas, it was about the guests being subjected to an extended very scary situation which resulted in some injuries and lots of inconveniences.
When one considers the fall out from what is perceived as insufficient compensation (compare some of the complaints about the rather benign Celebrity Century rudder issue canceling a cruise), one might just consider that Royal Caribbean weighed the situation taking all factors into account - which takes some time to truly understand...it is not instantaneous - and determined the compensation was appropriate on a number of levels.
So I have to ask, "What makes most people perceive Royal Caribbean's actions as being negative rather than positive?"
[Though probably too opinionated to post as part of this thread, if you want to read my full thoughts, check out my personal blog post: Royal Caribbean's Handling of the Brilliance of the Seas Situation - It Did The Right Thing, So Why the Negativity?