Agent999

Sure, I figured it was all about squeezing money out of them, but I'm not sure that "meh" merits compensation. It will not happen that 100% of the people approve of everything 100% of the time...you simply can't compensate those who don't simply based on their own personal likes/dislikes. Seems like a lot of the "unnecessary frustration" was self-caused. You should have just complained once. You choose to create daily video documentation and you choose to make daily GS visits to complain. You did this while knowing there was no way they could move you or fix the issue onboard. That aside, since you had all of the video evidence, why would you even need their paperwork documentation? You had/have better documentation already. And I have been onboard. Didn't experience the issues in the overblown way that you've described. As noted before, no venue and any ship has unlimited seating, nor are there any venues that can accommodate the entire passenger compliment. I can't see "limited seating" as a viable position until you can name the venue that doesn't have this problem. Look at Syd Norman's. The venue is small and intimate. That is WHY it is so popular. They could put the same show in the main theater with hundreds of seats, except that people simply wouldn't enjoy the experience in the same way.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I never said YOU were advocating for compensation. I said "This all really seems like an exercise..." the "this all" part of my statement clearly indicates that I am referring to the topic as a whole, not to YOU specifically. Don't be so defensive. If this thread isn't about compensation, then what is the point of all this? An error was made, corrected, apologized for, and the customer was made whole. What, besides compensation, is missing? As I stated, I have read the thread and I see no indication that anyone has said that they are not understanding who owns the customer relationship. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that there is "widespread misunderstanding" on that. Yet, you provide no examples of anyone questioning the ownership of the customer relationship. Your position might be easier to understand if you would.

Who knows? NCL doesn't have a habit of letting Cruise Critic know the "why" behind any of their decisions. One could just as easily ask why they should offer it. Truth is that nobody here knows why.

Not sure what this means. No ship sailing for any line has unlimited seating for anything. All seating/venues are limited. They apologized. IOW they did SOMETHING. What exactly were you expecting? Why? You said there were no alternate cabins. You have to realize that they can't change the flooring mid-cruise. What did you think that 11 days of complaining would do that one would not? What specific resolution were you looking for? Except that it is tiered. Both by length of cruise and by cabin type.

Not really. 100+ replies and I haven't come across any where the poster claims to not know who "owns" the customer relationship. I don't think this is the question on anyone's mind. Let's see: NCL saw the mistake, fixed it, refunded their customer's money, and explained what happened and apologized IN WRITING. And this was all done promptly and without the customer having to ask. Seems like the customer service aspect is spot on. This all really seems like an exercise in "what is the best way to position this nothingburger in order to get compensation of some sort?". There was a time when NCL doled out upgrades through the "upgrade fairy". Imagine in those days if your phone rang. The caller ID showed that it was NCL's "upgrade fairy" calling you. Excited for the upgrade, you happily answer the phone. The "upgrade fairy" says "Is this Mr Jones?", and you say "No, it is not...there is nobody here by that name", to which the "upgrade fairy" replies "Oh, I'm very sorry, I must have dialed the wrong number" and the conversation ends. NCL wouldn't owe you "compensation" for the error in dialing, and they don't owe "compensation" here either.

Except that they are. They are YOUR subcontractor in that they have a relationship to you via your cardholder contract and they have the job of making the payment on your behalf. However, none of that matters here. The subcontractor made an error, the error was caught, apologized for, and the client made whole immediately...all before the last sentence of this would kick in: UPGRADE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM TERMS AND CONDITIONS The following terms and conditions ("Terms and Conditions") apply to all offers (each an "Offer" or a "Bid") made by you ("Guest", "you", "passenger") to NCL Corporation Ltd. ("Norwegian Cruise Line", "we", "us") for an opportunity to upgrade from the class of service that was originally purchased for travel with Norwegian Cruise Line to a higher class of service ("Upgrade"). This Upgrade program gives you a chance to place an Offer on an opportunity to upgrade from the class of service already purchased. Your Offer is not final and binding unless and until Norwegian Cruise Line officially accepts it. As NCL never officially accepted the upgrade, this entire discussion is moot.

It is interesting how this always comes back to NCL and compensation. Why not advocate that the subcontractor provide the compensation. Why should NCL be put out because of a subcontractor's error? Wondering if people would make the same argument(s) if it was THEIR subcontractor that made an error? For example: Say you had an NCL cruise booked. Final payment day arrives and you instruct your credit card issuing financial institution (your subcontractor) to provide NCL with the required payment on your behalf. Your subcontractor then commits an error which results in your payment not being made as required in the contract between you and NCL. NCL then cancels your reservation and keeps your deposit (per your contract). Who are you mad at here? NCL or your subcontractor for their error?

While I don't disagree, I think it is more likely that the people you see as "miserable grumpy people" are simply laser-focused on analyzing each and every interaction to see how it can be twisted into something that results in compensation. These are people who can NEVER accept any fact or opinion that may endanger the case for compensation...up to and including accepting any level of personal responsibility.

That is an interesting story, but it isn't really even close to what happened to the OP. What happened to the OP would be like: Ever had your airline 12th row window seat change to row 32 middle seat? And you didn't find out until airport check in? And then the airline gave you a written explanation, admitted the error, apologized and changed things so you were reassigned to your 12th row window seat? ^^^THIS is similar to what the OP experienced. The error was caught, fixed, and apologized for. Any funds charged were promptly returned. The OP was given the cabin they happily booked in the first place. Another similar comparison would be if you had a 12 row window seat booked. When you showed up at check in, the agent tells you that they can upgrade you to first class if you'd like, and of course, you say "yes, please". Then, when the agent processes the upgrade, they say: "Oh, I misread the screen, we have no availability in first class. I apologize for my error. I've re-assigned you to your original seat." and your reaction is to seek advice on the internet on how to wrangle "compensation".