ak1004

Letting the merchant know their disappointment wouldn't get you get banned. Opening a dispute and/or making noise in the media might. If the consumer is aware of this possibility and the consumer is willing to face the consequences, then the consumer might go ahead and do it. But then the consumer should not come back to CC and complain that they were banned. Personally I would do the same if I were NCL.

I think you should listen to @Jancruz The only thing you will achieve by making too much noise is being banned from NCL for life. If this is the goal, go ahead and publish it on every single media you can. This whole thread has been a colossal waste of time and energy.

I think what he meant by placeholders is people who book several cruises for the same period knowing in advance that they will be cancelling most of them. This blocks other people from booking. We also book two years in advance, but we book only cruises we really intend to take. Obviously things can change and we might be forced to cancel, but this is different from booking 4 cruises and knowing in advance that you will cancel 3 of them.

To me O and W are in the same category, right between Celebrity/Princess and SS/SB. It’s not about the size. To me they are both small ships and have more similarities than differences.

I completely agree with you about value. But the prices I checked are similar or slightly lower on O even if you ignore all the inclusions. I checked few other sailings. Vista French veranda is consistently around $400 USD per night, while most W sailings are around $400-450 or more (there are some exceptions of course). So I was kind of surprised by your statement that O with SM is not competitive with Windstar. Plus I did see the sale on W, but since we don't drink and most of the value of the sale is drinks, I doubt it would be much value for us anyway

Is the one-time move feature applicable till the sailing or only till the penalty period starts?

Based on many data points, I believe that most O guests take at least some of ships excursions. This was true with oLife and still true with SM. If on a 10 day cruise you take 2-3 ships tours, you easily spend $400 per person if not more. So for most people not much has changed. And the cancelled port situation is no different from the previous model if someone took oLife and selected excursions. In both cases there is no refund. Of course for people who book only private tours (and don't drink) it's a big change for worse.

Isn't it the same with Viking, Silversea and Regent, where excursions are "free" (but of course reflected in the price), but if excursions are cancelled, you don't get any credit? Now, I have another question. Lets say you got $400 SM credit per person, but booked excursions worth $700 and paid the difference. I assume in this case you do get a refund?

Last time we booked on board was in May, so maybe this has changed. But I think this is an important benefit of booking on board, personally I wouldn't want it to change. I think percentage of on board bookings is not that high, but those who book at home will not do it anymore. Also remember that you need to change to O cruise, while many people were booking “placeholders" on several lines.

I'm pretty sure the standard cancellation policy applies to cruises booked on board as well. The only difference is that you are eligible to one change, applied to the new cruise (plus price guarantee till the sailing date). And I actually like the new policy, it will hopefully eliminate or reduce those “placeholder". P.S. you got to love those posters who post inaccurate and misleading information and when asked to provide any evidence or proof, they just go silent..

The only small issue is that their prices are double compared to Oceania and 50-60% higher than SS or SB.

Good luck.. just be careful, you might run out of cruise lines..

Well, this is cruise critic. People just love cruising. Experienced cruisers know that changes happen and are prepared. Making lemonade from lemons is a much better way to live than constantly whining and thinking that everyone is trying to screw you. But then again, this is cruise critic. For some people here constant whining is their second nature.

And as someone who used a TA for years with only some occasional $100-200 OBC and/or PPG, some people on CC mentioned that generous rebates are possible from some TAs. Of course they didn't mention any names, but it's not that difficult to find out who those TAs are..

https://www.oceaniacruises.com/legal/terms-conditions Looks pretty clear to me. But we have yet to see your invoice that shows 180 days final payment..

What O did with the FCCs is inexcusable and non defendable. However, from a pure legal point of view, I doubt you would have a case. What would you claim? "Product not as described"? This would be very difficult to prove. They will just point to the contract that allows them unlimited changes.

Well, my experience says otherwise. I obviously could not show up in Barcelona in May 2020, and our friends could not take their land tour in Switzerland in 2020 - and still no refunds. And Expedia kept my money. No different.

Here is the link - https://consumerrescue.org/cruise-fiascos/cruise-line-do-not-sail-list-banned-from-cruising/ Offered a full credit and refused. How stupid this is? No wonder NCL banned them. And yes, it's much more clear with physical products. It's pretty easy to prove "no delivered or not as described".

My understand is that their business model doesn't force you to cruise. Don't like their rules - don't cruise. And I don't think it's unique to the cruise industry. We had a non refundable hotel reservation on Expedia for May 2020. Obviously we had to cancel when Covid started. They refused to provide a refund, only credit, valid till end of 2022. We requested an extension and were refused. It expired and they just kept our money. Our friends had a booking for a land tour with Trafalgar for 2020. Again, no refund, only future credit, and when they finally took the tours in 2023, they had to pay the current price which was 40% higher than what they paid. Many airlines refused to provide refunds when flights were cancelled during Covid. And of course when rebooking later, customers had to pay much higher prices. So lets stop the whining and enjoy life. 99% of people in the world would be very happy to have those "problems" - that means that they can afford to travel.

My dispute rate is actually very low, but this is not the point. It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of principle. You buy a product or a service and sign a contract. You don't read the contract and file a dispute. Many times those disputes are completely illegitimate. But people still file them because they have nothing to lose. Worst case the dispute is rejected. But meanwhile the business suffers and can be punished if there are too many disputes, no matter if they are legitimate or not. The only difference is that deliver of goods is easier to prove. Delivery of service is more vague and can be easily disputed. You can claim basically anything. "Service was not as described because my two cabins did not have a connecting door. I want a full refund (true case)".

My business is an online trading subscription service. There is a very clear and detailed description of the service. Once they sign up, they get access to the service. Nothing is promised or guaranteed, except for access to the content. In which scenario requesting a refund can be considered legitimate? It's like requesting a refund from Netflix because you didn't like their content. It's pretty much the same with the cruises. You buy their service and in return, they guarantee to bring you from A to B. Nothing else is promised or guaranteed.

As a business owner myself, I can confirm that this is 100% true. This is why everyone who files a chargeback or a PayPal dispute is automatically banned from using our services for life.

The letter basically confirms what some people posted here about the FCC offer. It is clear that O really screwed up and provided very poor customer service. It was perfectly fine not to offer any compensation as this is really terrible situation. But to offer FCC and then change their mind after a day or two is not defendable. I don't know what they were thinking.

The real question is how many TA’s were able to get refunds or FCC’s vs. people getting refunds or FCC’s on their own? There are at least few evidences on CC from people who said that it took intervention of the agency president to get a refund after trying on their own. A well connected TA can do a lot for their clients. But even if the added value was zero in terms of service, it's still worth to use them for the perks. Since switching to our current TA, we are consistently paying 10-12% less compared to those who book directly. But as I said, your money, your call. To me it's pretty obvious, and not really worth any further discussion.

@Cruisedreamer1 any chance to see a screenshot of your reservation where it shows final payment in 180 days?