Capitan Obvious

It appears that this was the actual goal. No interest in the actual facts, just looking for the comfort of an echo chamber. Would you? Really? If so, will you fire the clown who claimed 300+ days at sea with only 4 cruises?

Right, but you aren't looking to go to the airport to get your flight (which is the purpose of the transfer service), instead, you want to use it as partial ride to your hotel. Basically, you're skip-lagging the transfer. Likely easier to just arrange the transportation you actually need as NCL and the transfer companies are usually onto the tricks people try to play to maximize their dimes and nickels.

It can be an easy thing to overlook, but as a shareholder you are an owner of the company. So when you talk about NCL, remember you are "they". Your travel agent doesn't need to sort anything out, they already know and understand the issue. Your booking is not done at the full rate, but at a discounted rate that isn't eligible for OBC. Some TAs do this for extra profit...you just got caught up in in. As an example, lets say on a particular cruise a cabin is $1,000 and pays a $100 commission to the TA. (or you can book direct with NCL for the same $1,000 price). The TA can purchase a block of cabins, which NCL sells to them for say $850 each. The TA books you into one of the cabins at the published $1,000 price, but now gets to pocket $150 instead of $100 because of the block. This gives the TA an opportunity to earn more by filling up their entire block. You are, essentially, a group booking without the group. In this case, your special rate makes you ineligible for the OBC.

The reason for the flight number is so that they know what time they have to get you to the airport to make that flight. That aside, what do you mean when you say "I will stay there a couple of days before I really flying back home"? You do realize that the transfer is a day of disembarkation item, not a buy one and use it whenever, right?

Given the shouted "never again" declaration and the over the top accusations of "horrible service" and "lies", I'm guessing that the "reaming" is more because the OP (while making many errors) is demanding that NCL be 100% perfect. Well, that and we're 40+ replies in and we still haven't identified a single "lie".

I have to disagree. There certainly is a reason. The OP declared, in all caps and with all certainty: "I WILL NEVER CRUISE ON NCL AGAIN." Given that clearly stated fact, for the OP to add a second cert would require them to violate their stated position. And given the OPs stated disdain for lies, we know that just isn't going to happen.

So, you're going to go with the "virtue" excuse? You detailed a number of things that you were told. From the presentation, to the booking agent, and on through to the resolution department. Each and every thing you were told is a known TRUTH when it comes to CruiseNext. All of this is clearly outlined in the T&Cs. You have not shown where something you were told was not factual. If there is any deception here, it is not coming from NCL. "others will be forewarned to what might happen"? Might? Maybe? Unless your point is "Here is what could happen when you don't pay attention and when you aren't informed about what you are buying", that should apply to everything, no? Maybe, but from this side of the screen all CAPS just says "unnecessary drama", "pay attention to me", "tantrum", "my mind is made up and I'm not looking for honest discussion", etc. If you don't want to cruise NCL or any other line, that is your choice. You don't need to tell any of us. As they say, this isn't an airport, you don't need to announce your departure.

Well, it looks as though you reached your conclusion prior to even starting the thread. In a very dramatic fashion, you made sure you announced your decision IN ALL CAPS so that everyone knows that you "really mean it". (Yet somehow all I can see is Dr Rick explaining what posting in all caps means.) We have no stake here...no horse in the race. You want to sail NCL? Fine, welcome aboard. You don't want to sail NCL? Fine, bye-bye. I'm just wondering, given that you've proudly proclaimed your conclusion in advance, why we're even having the discussion? You've already stated your position, and if you were to change it, then you'd be guilty of the very thing you're trying to blame NCL for in the first place.

One thing that people need to remember, is that even when all of the port stops are cancelled as in the case quoted, you still have to pay port taxes and fees to the embarkation port and the debarkation port. These fees and taxes are not only for the port visits. Another point to consider: it is possible (however not probable) that a port may not charge taxes and fees. That could be the case, and if so, the cruiser would have no way of knowing one way or the other. Yet another point to consider: it appears that people think that if a ship doesn't dock at a port, that the taxes/fees are simply not owed. Again, we have no way of knowing if that is true. The cruise lines sign contracts with the ports, and the terms are dictated in the contracts. If a ship can't dock on a particular day, there may be a clause in the contract that still requires some payment from the line to the port simply for holding the pier space...something to protect the port from last-minute cancellations. We have no way of knowing for sure. We make a lot of assumptions with no knowledge of the actual facts. Heck, the whole point of this thread is "The Prima didn't visit Belfast, and our money wasn't refunded". Am I the only one who has noticed that nobody has been able to say exactly how much money was charged for Belfast so that we can say that this exact amount should now be refunded?

Any tax is always a government's confiscation of your money. No matter what snake oil pitch is used, it is always the taking of your money. One thing that governments take advantage of is the general public's lack of math skills. (There are people out there who actually think 5 is different than 4+1 or 3+2). For the government, nothing is better than their being able to take from you without you getting upset about it. It is to their advantage (advantage over you, btw) to hide as much information as they can. Their goal is to lull you into the "so the rate doesn't matter to me" mindset. You think because the tax is "included" in the price that it is somehow different, but a price of 5 including tax is no different than a price of 3.5 plus a tax of 1.5. You might be thinking "the price is still 49 Euro as written on the price tag", but the real truth is that the actual price is 40.83 Euro. They get 49 by adding on the 20% tax of 8.17 Euro to get to 49.

Woah. Lucky for you that they don't charge corkage for canned worms.

Not sure if that is wise since a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people aren't educated as to the difference between gratuity and service charge. And people on CC aren't going to find out the answer because they afraid that it would show how wrong they've been, so we get cute snarky comments instead. Your suggestion is between semantic and pedantic? That is your concern? Pot-Kettle sir, Pot-Kettle.

In the FAQ section of their website NCL talks about gratuity/tipping and the DSC as separate items. They even go as far as to say gratuities are not required (which makes one wonder why there is a DSC if it isn't required). We'll stop what you call semantics (which is actually properly using the correct wording) when you can explain the difference between a gratuity and a service charge and tell us WHY the legal dept at NCL felt it was necessary to treat these as different.

Just for fun, look at it from the other side... The person at NCL responsible for this decision? As though such a person would be seeking advice from Cruise Critic "experts". Have you considered that the "decision" isn't made by a person at NCL, but is made by the legislative body behind the VAT? You don't like the VAT, fine, but take it up with the government responsible. Blaming NCL is only shooting the messenger. Every turn? Really? If that is the case, couldn't we (looking at the other side) ask why it is that YOU so strongly and consistently attack NCL at every turn? Not to mention the "Why do you sail NCL and/or spend your time on NCL forums if you have so many disagreements about them" question.

But your argument is built on misconceptions. First, the terms and conditions clearly point out that a VAT tax can be charged by certain ports/countries and that the guest is responsible for payment. It isn't just stated once, but it stated TWICE in the T&Cs. When you don't bother to read/understand what you are buying, it negates the "totally unacceptable from NCL" position. They can't FORCE you to read it. Of course they blame the countries involved...those countries are levying and collecting the tax. Why shouldn't they be blamed? This is like blaming your employer when the government takes taxes out of your paycheck. Talk about missing the point...FWIW, they ARE charging the VAT at source. The VAT is levied on each served drink, NOT on each sold package (again, this is the law enacted by the country) so NCL follows the law by collecting the VAT each time a drink is served. Free at Sea only awards you drinks without the drink charge. You still have to pay gratuity, taxes, etc...not to mention you have to buy an entire cruise just to get it. Are you really going to die on the "its not free" hill?

It isn't the DSC.The $22 is the price for two $11 drinks. The next line on the check indicates that it is the 20% service charge/gratuity that is charged (when you buy your drinks without F@S). I would argue that it is anything but obvious. If it was just one or two confused people I could understand your point, but the fact is that the vast majority of people on the thread have questioned whether or not F@S was present. The exact opposite of "obvious".

I think he is confused by my post (#12) where I pointed out that the VAT was charged on the drinks and then again on the 20% gratuity on the drinks. Obviously, the 20% drink gratuity is NOT the DSC, but that is the only post in the thread that even mentions the additional VAT charges.

JMHO, but then you should have just posted that educational warning instead of framing it like NCL wasn't giving you your free @ sea amenities. You know, a friendly "A bit of a heads up for my fellow cruisers...While it is known that Spain has a VAT on certain purchases, you should be aware that other countries also have their own VAT and you may find yourself having to follow the law and pay appropriate taxes while you travel". And that warning should have gone on a general cruising board, not just the NCL specific cruising board. Honestly, I didn't think it did, but when you hit us with the "did you see the picture" back in Post #76, I assumed that you thought it mattered.

I think what graphicguy is saying is that a) the reports from the OP don't reflect the personal experiences of others, nor does the OP offer a reasonable explanation for the difference, and b) that you have to be skeptical when "facts" are carefully curated and only released to promote a particular viewpoint. Yes, we all saw the receipt in post #1. But then we had to wait until post #44 for the onboard account photo. Did you look at the receipt pic that was posted with the onboard account pic? It is dated 27SEP, yet none of the charges shown in the onboard account pic share that date? Seems that some people only see what they want to see while others would rather see everything before passing judgment.

That is also inconsistent. On NCL, access to Cruise Critic is open and free to everyone...you don't have to use any of your Wi-Fi for Cruise Critic. There are a handful of sites that NCL allows you to visit without using your minutes. The Internet Cafe Manager can fill you in on the current listing.

That point would only be valid in a world where "discretion" and "optional" were the same thing. Technically, going against the grain an removing the charge would be the exact opposite of being discreet.

The reason not to focus on it is simply because our focus doesn't matter in this instance. NCL collects the DSC. The also collect the fare, the taxes, the cost of an excursion, the cost of a specialty meal, the cost of a watch from the gift shop, the cost of a spa treatment, the cost of a go kart ride, etc...and none of us has any idea what-so-ever of exactly how the money collected for any of these items is distributed after we pay it. No idea at all. Yet, we don't have endless threads about it like we do with the DSC. Why? Why do we pontificate about it to the extreme? We spend far more money on other things with one iota of care about where that money goes, but for some reason we have to know how much the busboy gets everyday? Our priorities are simply out of whack.

One of the tools used in marketing is using words with multiple meanings. Words like "Free". When you have the UBP, you are "free" to order drinks without the worry of getting a large bar bill at the end of the cruise. You have "free"dom from worry. Marketing causes many people to only see "free" as in $0 cost. I agree that it appears that this person doesn't even have the drink package, and therefore should change the thread title. What I really find odd is that there are TWO VAT charges. A 20% VAT on the drink cost AND another 10% VAT on the gratuity.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like you'd expect a basic DSC question out of a newbie, NOT however, out of someone who has been on Cruise Critic for 15 years. I guess that there are some cruisers out there who keep their attention focused on every nickel and every dime.

Just an FYI, but the post you're questioning is nearly 9 months old. In case the poster doesn't return to address your question, here are a couple of posts confirming that this actually does happen.