SailorG1

And you would be 100% correct. I'm not filing a complaint; I'm commenting on a legal issue. Thankfully we made it to Paradise Bay. I would absolutely be seeking a legal remedy if we were rerouted like these latest NCL guests were. Anyone seeking a remedy can hire counsel and move forward with the discovery process as appropriate. Crew statements about how common it is for NCL to make changes in Antarctica cruise routes and the frequency of missed stops can easily be verified through business records and guest & crew depositions.

Yes, it's my understanding from NCL crew that missing destinations is the norm, not the exception. I imagine the expedition boats have more success. In our case, the conditions were typical, not exceptional, according to an announcement made by our captain. It seems that a very prominent disclaimer notifying people that there is a high probability the itinerary may change before they book would prevent the disappointment.

You may be right. That's what I thought too but the crew told us something else.

Well, you think an attorney. You are spot on. That's exactly what NCL attorneys will argue. That said, you can't contract around legal requirements. The legal issue is whether or not the equipment being used by NCL is reasonably fit for the purpose it's being sold. If NCL survives that threshold, then the four corners of the contract (i.e. fine print) will rule.

2022, 2023, 2024 = several years. I'm not here to argue with you. Peace.

Class action litigation is not my practice area; that said, some passengers may wish to find a law firm that does class action work. The fine print of the contact is irrelevant if the product itself is determined to not be fit for its purpose. You may be right about recovering damages, but you never know. I suspect NCL would negotiate a resolution before it would allow the complaint to go to trial. I do think such a claim it would survive a summary judgement motion because, according to crew, very few NCL Antarctica cruises have fulfilled the advertised itinerary.

"I have no special insight on the reasons Paradise Bay was eliminated on later cruises but I haven't seen any evidence that she struggled on your trip. You didn't stop in Punta Arenas because the TENDERS weren't strong enough - not the ship itself. It's not like lifeboats are built to withstand all types of foul weather. Although you didn't say, cancelling Ushuaia was most likely weather related." Tenders are equipment that NCL is using to provide an advertised product - if the tenders are not strong enough for the currents, the product is not fit for the purpose it's being sold for. As a long-time mariner and attorney, I would argue that several years of NCL consistently not providing the product as advertised is prima facia evidence.

My family and I were just on the Norwegian Star cruise to Antarctica last month (January 7-21, 2024). Crew on board the NCL Star told us that in the few years NCL has been operating in Antarctica, NCL has rarely (if ever) made it to all of their advertised ports. According to NCL crew, cancellations are the norm not the exception. Passengers on our NCL cruise were angry too. On our cruise last month, Norwegian cancelled the stop in Punta Arenas, Chilie, after passengers were all bundled up and prepared to disembark. NCL said the tenders were not strong enough to manage the currents and wind. This claim was made despite the captain saying the weather we were experiencing was typical - not exceptional. Our NCL excursion in Ushuaia Argentina was also cancelled after we had already disembarked. At least we did make it into port. The NCL claim about the "go slow" order is not the reason for the cancellations. That order has been in place for a long-time. I keep seeing comments that people need to read their cruise contract, which is true, but I don't think the contract language precludes a lawsuit. In this situation, I believe the legal construct, "fitness for purpose", is applicable. Fitness for purpose refers to the standard that must be met by a seller in the course of business. Generally, when a buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose the goods are bought, there is an implied condition that the goods are fit for that purpose. It appears to me that NCL is knowingly selling Antarctica cruises on a ship with tenders not fit for Antarctica. I documented crew names and recorded an announcement by the captain saying the weather was typical as evidence that NCL is selling a cruise on a ship not equipped for its stated purpose. Thankfully, we did make it to Paradise Bay. If someone was generally interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit, evidence obtained during the course of discovery would likely show that NCL has rarely, if ever, delivered the Antarctica cruise as advertised. Because the NCL Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising in Antarctica, I don't believe NCL can use the contract language to avoid legal claims. That all said, Paradise Bay was magical. I highly recommend visiting Antarctica but suggest doing so on a vessel better suited for that purpose or you are likely to be disappointed.