Agent999

15 hours ago, Shynook11 said:

I would expect a cruise credit or partial refund.  Not a lot....but something for the 11 days of unnecessary frustration.   We have never had an issue on any cruise even remotely like this.   Had they followed up as they were supposed to do onboard and provide me with the paperwork documenting the problems, it would have been better.  Limited seating....just you wait until you are aboard.  This ship is something else entirely with regards to the venues vs passenger capacity.  You can read about it in almost every review.  Same problems.

 

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.

16 hours ago, UKstages said:

look, 

 

 

not really.

 

look, i'm not here to edumicate you, but you're barking up the wrong tree. go back and read my posts and perhaps you'll realize i'm not advocating for the things you seem to think i'm advocating for, namely compensation for the OP.

 

all my posts have been about who owns the customer relationship and, actually, if you read all the posts in this thread you will see that there is indeed widespread misunderstanding about that. 

 

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.

1 hour ago, TRAVELBUGCRUISER said:

Im just wondering why there is no free airfare on the VIVA ship. Is that because it's new and they figure people will book it regardless? Thanks

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.

1 hour ago, Shynook11 said:

limited seating to listen to music

Not sure what this means. No ship sailing for any line has unlimited seating for anything. All seating/venues are limited.

1 hour ago, Shynook11 said:

 We videoed multiple days of proof of this and presented to GS, who were apologetic but did nothing. 

They apologized. IOW they did SOMETHING. What exactly were you expecting?

1 hour ago, Shynook11 said:

 I spent hours waiting over 11 days at GS for a resolution.

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?

1 hour ago, Shynook11 said:

Also dislike that NCL offers only 2 nights of specialty dining for 11 night +  in their package.   I feel that should be tiered based on length of voyage.  IMHO

Except that it is tiered. Both by length of cruise and by cabin type.

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

this is fundamentally a question about who "owns" the customer relationship.

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.

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

i focused strictly on the customer service aspects of this query.

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.

3 hours ago, Belletora said:

While I understand where you are going with this, the logic has a flaw. Your card issuer is NOT a subcontractor.

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.

26 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

The OP was made whole by NCL after an error by their subcontractor. No one is really out anything, except a wee bit of false excitement. I doubt anyone's hopes and dreams were crushed. Ok, well, maybe a little. Could NCL offer a paltry platter of chocolate covered strawberries as a gesture of goodwill or comp a room service fee or two? Wouldn't cost much, but might go far in satisfying a customer that had a bad (but not that bad) of an experience. If I were in charge of their customer service, I would. I've certainly made similar gestures in the past to customers. 

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?

32 minutes ago, Sailing12Away said:

I'm convinced there are just some miserable grumpy people out there who can never be pleased.

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.

1 hour ago, Panhandle Couple said:

Ever had you airline 12th row window seat changed to row 32 middle seat? 

And you didn't find out until airport check in?

And you received zero compensation or sympathy from the airline?

And your only alternative to get a similar seat again was to wait until the 10AM flight the next day?

 

[Raises hand}

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".

2 hours ago, farmersfight said:

 

Did you change your CC screen name Captain Obvious?

 

If I pointed out the CC doesn't have anyone with the screen name of "Captain Obvious" would that be obvious or oblivious?

"Just happen not to be any"???

 

I'm saying that 40 years ago (or more) they should have been planning for the professional development of female officers.

You can "plan" all you want, but you can't force someone into a job via policy just because they'll help you meet some quota. However, that isn't the point...I still question why you think NCL has a POLICY in place that prevents a qualified female from holding this job.

The Jewel captain, responding to a question at our meet and greet, stated NCL had no female captains or deck officers. Let's hope NCL decides to update its personnel policies into the 21st century.

Are you asserting that NCL actually has a policy against having female captains or deck officers? Could it be that there just happen not to be any?

Gee...after making wise cracks about me citing articles from the Internet, what do you do? Cite an article from the Internet!!

 

The difference is I've the cited official explanatory bulletin issued by the government agency, CBP, responsible for enforcing this law, as well as provided a link to the wording of the official regulation published in the Code of Federal Regulations, while you're citing some lawyer who may or may not really know what he's talking about.

 

By the way, the lawyer's article you've cited dates from 1999, 12 years ago, while the official CBP publication dates from 2010. Which is more likely to be the most up-to-date interpretation of the law?

So...I have the official and current explanation...you have something 12 years old that's some guy's opinion...

 

By the way, I can cite at least one item in your article that has changed since it was published in 1999...the fine for violations was $200 then...it's now $300. The point is that even if he was right in 1999, he may not be right in 2011.

Good catch on the date of the article! Interesting that the article is 12 years old. Exactly how old is the law? Has the law been re-written since the article was published? I think that a complete re-write of the law would invalidate the article since it was published prior to the re-write.

There might be some confusion over exactly what you are asking for with this thread (as we've already seen). Let me take a stab at restating the question...

What the OP is looking for is an inclusive list of ALL job duties of an NCL butler.

There are two useful purposes to the list:

(1) To make sure that the OP does not accidentally ask the butler to perform a task which is outside of thier job description.

~~Nobody wants to think the butler did a bad job because he didn't do something that he wasn't supposed to do in the first place.

(2) To make sure that the OP does not accidentally miss out on a desired service simply because they were unaware that the butler was able to provide it.

~~Nobody wants to say "Awwwww, I didn't know I could ask for THAT!"

Am I in the ballpark here?

I figure if my Travel Agent is giving me information, and for some reason (call it a gut feeling) I don't trust or believe the TA's information and I have to go to an Internet Message Board to get the correct information...then it is obviously time to get a new Travel Agent.

For if they give be wrong info...or if they give me info that I have to question because it doesn't "sound right", then what good are they really?