JSSIII1970

52 minutes ago, Kayra2386 said:

Hurricane Harvey canceled our whole cruise-100% refund plus the 25% off a future one. Carnival really did handle it well and thought about everyone's safety. Was disappointing but we completely understood. 

Right - the storm was not in their control, unlike NCL who was in complete control of this decision. 

22 minutes ago, mugtech said:

Expect it the next couple on months.  Time value of money not so high these days, you Don't lose all that much by waiting.  Cashing checks for NCL gets priority over writing checks.  They are not in a hurry to part with $500,000.

THEY were not so patient getting their money from us.  NCL just sucks!

43 minutes ago, OscarMcSloth said:

I'm not sure what it is, maybe you have to have been a part of the cruise to fully understand but please keep in mind...

25% of the cruise fare doesn't touch the taxes or port fees. So for most people that math ends up being more like 16-18%, not 25%. Also keep in mind:

- the itinerary was modified twice from its original course

- the second itinerary change was AFTER most folks rebooked travel. This was over the holiday weekend making it a disaster when they re-added ports for those of us that made plans to go see places like Normandy after it was removed the first time... oh but wait... the $300 travel credit can cover a SECOND rebooked flight right!?!? I think not...

-50% of our ports were cut

- the NCL Cruise Portal was not updated to reflect the changes until 24 hours before sailing.

- the only notice NCL gave on the cruise portal was a vague banner that the trip had been changed, not to what, not why, no details (attached)

- Passengers were told their booked excursions for the ports that were cut and then again re-added (La Havre and Belgium) were canceled and that they would have to rebook - only to find the excursion tickets for the original purchase in their staterooms upon boarding

- the second change was made with 96 hours before sailing... 96 hours. At this point many people weren't even aware of the FIRST itinerary change, let alone a second. 

- customers, like myself that pleaded to switch to the Pearl TA or be refunded were denied, even after messaging executive leadership - we had no options

- Because of the ships northern route most of the outdoor activities remained unusable or closed

- future cruise credits and travel compensation has still not been refunded for anyone as far as I know

- this is all on top of expected inconveniences with a ship going into dry dock such as: sections of the ship being closed for prep work

 

You need to understand that what was offered was not 50%, it was not 50% mathematically or on principal. Remember this cruise went from 50% to nearly full capacity because of the RCL fiasco. You really think that after the way NCL handled this that people from RCL sailing with NCL for their first time would ever return to use their "generous" 25% future cruise credit? I'll tell you right now, most NCL loyalists won't be returning to use that credit let alone those whose first experience with NCL was this cruise. Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that NCL is counting on people not using that 25% (really 17%) future cruise credit.

 

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion but unless your a glutton for punishment the way that NCL handled this situation is/was completely unacceptable and unprofessional. I've grown up in, on and around boats, my brother was a submariner - you're kidding yourself if you don't think NCL knew when Getaway was launched when and where she would have her first refurb.

Totally agree. For me, reducing the time, by surprise, and leaving all to fix this mess, then offering essentially the cost of what was taken was a breach and fraud.  This would be like going to a 3D movie and given 50 cents back because they had no 3D glasses to give you. And worse, they knew they had no 3D glasses to hand out, but didn't tell you until after you bought your ticket.  Fraud, deception, breach of contract - NCL ought to be returning 100% to everyone, firing the idiots that did this, and NEVER allow management to do this again.  

3 hours ago, JerseyCruisers2019 said:

And I would say you do not understand the definition of fraud.   

NCL purposely misled its customers and potential customers by continuing to advertise this cruise as a 12-day cruise with 4 ports of call, even when they already knew they were going to cut it down to 10 days and 2 ports (there's possible evidence here on CC that some crew members knew of the itinerary change at least week BEFORE it was announced to customers).   That is the legal definition of intent to defraud...selling a product/service you already know you will not provide to the customer.  To further prove the issue of fraud, NCL did not give anyone the option to cancel for a full refund after they announced the itinerary change.   Instead, they basically thumbed their noses at us and pretty much said "f you...here's a pittance refund and credit towards a future cruise".   They already had everyone's money...the "pay in full" date had already past...we were basically extorted into taking a shitty cruise or lose our investment.

I had quite a bit of stock in NCL. Selling it before they tank!!!  

So for the record:

1. When did NCL have reasonable knowledge when they were likely to change the schedule?

2. When, how and to whom did NCL issue written notice of their final decision?

3. What steps did NCL take to notify ALL prospective passengers of the change.

4. Did NCL ever attempt to hide or restrain the public knowledge of the likely change.

5. What was the corporate strategy to minimize compensation if such were demanded?

6. What was the preceived financial benefit to NCL for making this change.

7. Why was shortening the cruise, as opposed to keeping to both the cruise and the repair schedules as planned, so important to NCL.

8. Why has NCL tried to minimize payment of legitimate damages caused by this discretionary change (e.g., changing flights on non-refundable tickets could/did cost thousands per person).  

Not necessarily bait and switch, more so fraud via-a-vis:  NCL continued to portray a 12 day cruise when they knew they were only going to deliver a 10 day cruise

 Nor did they give timely notice, offer cancellation or provide upfront options to accommodate impacts caused by their optional change.

For sure I would not have taken this cruise had I received timely notice.

If they finished 4 days early, why was it so imperative to cut our cruise 2 day short?  A 2 year old must be running this "cruise line".  More of this and NCL stock wont be worth the bubble gum that comes with it. 

1 hour ago, flipper32 said:

The problem is you are reading the contract in a way to support your argument that NCL cannot shorten the cruise. They have the legal right to change the itinerary. The itinerary is not the ports, its not the route its the entire voyage. Itinerary is defined as 

the route of a journey or tour or the proposed outline of one, the word clearly covers the entire voyage. On top of that our cruise was reduced in length by 16% and we received 25% off of this trip, and an equal amount on another trip. No logical court is ever going to say the compensation was inadequate. 

Bottom line: NCL caused damage by their purposeful, self-serving actions and changes, when they EASILY could have complied with their obligations, and then they decided what compensation THEY felt appropriate with no knowledge what those damages were or would be. 

Now, as a minimum, each passenger who feels cheated should be placing NCL on written notice (a simple letter works) what those actual damages were, INCLUDING a reservation for the intrinsic damages if those are not yet quantified. 

1 hour ago, NLH Arizona said:

I was asking JSSIII1970, because the poster seemed to have some inside information, based on what they said. 

 

Wondering if there the dry dock slot became available at the last minute because another ship was finished early and they needed more time for some issue.  Guess we will never know.  I wouldn't be surprised if the crew on the ship knew about it a couple of days before it was announced, because some times it takes a couple of days for the management of a company to advise their customers, but the way some are posting NCL knew about prior to final payment. 

 

I hope if someone does sue, we hear about it and find out accurate information instead of folks guessing.

Don't know for sure. I was in the Navy for 30 years. Planned Availability for dock repairs are typically scheduled a year in advance or more. I am SURE this was an optional/desired schedule  change for some value to NCL, or they would not have done it - maybe they got a better rate for what otherwise would have been a downtime loss to the repair facility.  Normally these tend to be delayed (parts/materials, etc.). But, really,  they couldn't wait 2 days that had to already have been planned for???  Again, my issue isn't that NCL had to change the schedule, rather, it's that they they likely DIDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE IT, but they did so without making our options clear, timely, nor fair. I still want to know why they did this - for sure that would show they didn't give a care about us, if not purposely covering up this change.   

17 minutes ago, flipper32 said:

There is no doubt that many people got on the ship annoyed and were determined to have a lousy time and had one. The cruise wasn't nearly as bad as people state. Was the atrium crowed? yes, is it always crowded on every Getaway cruise? yes. Did I go there every afternoon and get twp seats ? yes? . Was there  a long line at the guest relations desk the first four days? Yes, but we had 7 sea days there was no reason that people needed to talk to someone the first couple of days. I made reservations the day of for 5 specialty restaurants, I waited for 5 minutes one day at the noodle bar, the hours wait for food is nonsense. People make this cruise sound like mass pandemonium and huge lines everyplace, it just wasn't the reality. The weather wasn't great and that wasn't NCL's fault. When we left NYC the forecast was for 63 in Le Harve , a cold front came in.  Would I have rather had the original itinerary ? Yes thats what I purchased, but I received 25% off this and another cruise. Its not like we weren't compensated. The notion of a class action suit is absurd, groundless and baseless, you can't sue someone because your pissed.

To each his own. I bought a 12 day cruise, and relied on that, subject only to circumstances beyond NCL's control. NCL contracted for that, but on their own decided they preferred to take that from us, then gave us what they chose to, and for their own benefit. Suggesting that the passengers were somehow supposed to know when the shorter lines would come, if ever (the ship sure as hell didn't help) while ignoring the responsibility falling on us to rearrange many issues - changes/additional in booking at UK, etc., etc. But gave NO help or info, except by standing in this line - none of which was the result of being pissed (though pissed most people were) - and while the ship got rich selling internet HOURS (no support here either). As for compensation, the 25% hardly returned what NCL didn't provide.  They sure as hell didn't offer to refund my non-refundable airline tickets, and another 25% off a cruise I couldn't take - convenient for them, but zero value for me. 

I would be happy to participate in a suit, not because there had to be a change to our schedule, but because THERE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE A CHANGE.  And even worse, NCL kept this info from us until we had little choice but to go on this cruise we didn't buy.  The bad weather was exacerbated by not going to Azores, - and there was nothing there that prevented the ship from going south to  there (then north). And please note that 50% of our ports were taken from us, not 25%.  Anyway, glad you enjoyed the cruise.

What did they know, when did they know it and what action did they take to warn or advise - they NEVER told me. This was NOT a requirement except for the benefit of NCL - sure as hell hope this wasn't a safety issue that they let all of us proceed. Of course, no one in NCL has ever explained why this was so important the couldn't wait two days. They took their chances their costs would be less if they screwed their clients - now they are just hoping their bet pays off.  

1 hour ago, Newleno said:

I would like to see a victory for cruisers in the courts, However Those cruise contracts are pretty tough.  Just because we believe something is immoral, wrong, unethical does not necessarily mean it is illegal.  Seems like a tough battle good luck.

Need to take every opp to tell the cruise community/world what we think, and why we will never sail with NCL Again. NCL will pay more to overcome the crap cruise and the woeful dishonesty than they ever would have paid to fairly compensate for their actions. I've got plenty of time and FREE INTERNET to repeat my experience and displeasure for years!!! They will regret what they did. 

10 hours ago, flipper32 said:

I'm puzzled by the comment "waiting in lines HOURS on two occasions" I was on the cruise also, was it what I originally though it was going to be, of course not. The cruise from hell I certainly wouldn't describe it that way. I never saw a line or waited on a line that was remotely close to that. The worst line I had I was getting on the ship in Brugge and although long it was no worse than many other boarding experiences.  Clearly the weather caused issues but most of that was the weather not the route. The day we left the forecast for Le Harve was 63 degrees and sunny obviously that changed dramatically.  Unfortunately late April early May the weather can be unpredictable. 

Lines at customer service were perpetually huge - wrapping fully around the room - people all trying to address their issues resulting from the surprise cutting of two days and two ports - maybe you didn't get to deck 6 in the first four days. 

Yes. NCL apparently has agreed to return this cost. 

Ok. To start with, the cruise from hell is not over - still waiting two days for my plane to come - too costly to abandon the no-refund flight (NCL not going to pay for that), so stuck in a place I didn't want to be - hating NCL every second of it! - as I did waiting in lines HOURS on two occasions, and all the time to rework reservations - but no free WiFi given to do this either (thanks again NCL).   Then, how could you forget the weather?  Instead of the warmer weather on the more southerly route via Azores, my intended pass time, the pool and lounging in the sun, were too cold and worthless - also caused the inside of the ship, the Atrium and dining areas to be overcrowded, and most of the outside eating areas on the "Waterfront" were closed due to weather. Fueling the hatred was the intentional cover-up by NCL who hid the planned change from its loyal patrons for its own benefit. So pending return of money NCL, most inefficient to cover the costs and lost value of my annual vacation, I'm done with NCL. I've requested a refund on my next planned cruise with them as well as their "pay $500 and get $1000" which I stupidly paid for. Never again!  Rescheduled next cruise with Celebrity.

Just landed in NY. I've heard rumors BUT NOT ONE WORD from NCL. What the HELL?  OVER!!##

2 hours ago, Alaskawhovian said:

We are happy to see the 2 ports back, but I think people are giving Norwegian way too much credit.

 

Norwegian still shortened the cruise by two days, and they still eliminated two of four ports. It was still a voluntary, intentional decision on the part of the cruise line to do this.   This was not the result of something that was not their fault or could not be helped.  

 

It it was also their choice to notify people one week ahead of time, as well as on a holiday weekend- leaving 5 business days for cruisers to scramble around and modify plans, often to the tune of significant money.  Remember, the refunds are not immediate, so one must come up with the cash/credit up front, which many may not have.  

 

There seems to to be plenty of proof that NCL has known about the early dry dock for quite a while, yet chose not to notify people until 7 days before.   Perhaps this whole song and dance we are getting now was just a calculated decision by the cruise line.  Also, it is nonsense to suggest that anyone buying a cruise before or after dry dock is responsible for this.  We did not get some kind of discount rate on this cruise because of that, nor would the average cruiser be aware of the dry dock and what it could potentially mean.    Norwegian has an obligation to advertise the cruise accurately and notify cruisers of changes.  

 

Yes, they can change ports.  Yes, they can modify the cruise itinerary.    In this case, however, Norwegian chose to deceive its guests, play bait and switch with ports, give last minute notice of very significant changes, and to offer compensation that still does not cover expenses for many.  Don’t forget, people are also missing out on two days of meals and entertainment as well as flight changes and possible lodging.  As far as the current cruise credit, after refund of the cost of two days, there is only a small percentage that could be considered compensation.   The 25 percent on the next cruise is minor, given that many have stated that they are not cruising with Norwegian again.

 

We are happy to get the two ports swapped, but there are people who added stuff in the Azores and Portland that are now losing out.  They are simply switching ports, not giving anything back.

Another likely issue not mentioned: the path of the ship, now not going to Azores, will likely track much farther north - much colder, and given all the sea days, will impact use of the pool and running.

This purposeful deception goes beyond the pale and generates significant costs that don't appear to be covered. The 25% hardly covers the value of the time, but doesn't address flights, hotels, meals, etc., etc.  As a minimum, I would like to know the truth from a senior officer of the company, when NCL had a reasonable understanding when this change was known.  I would not have taken this cruise if I had known.  There are plenty of cruise lines out there that chose not to make such biased misrepresentations for personal gain