Having your docs in hand

Even if you look at it from the most cynical way possible the right thing for NCL to have done was to offer the couple a future cruise credit from a damage control perspective. Offer them a future cruise credit and you take away their ability to make your business look bad. Does this mean that the couple might get something for nothing? Yes, it does. But you know what, that happens all of the time and it's the price of doing business. Had NCL offered them a future cruise credit when their letter reached corporate HQ then we wouldn't have even heard about it. So even if one looks at this like it was the customer's own fault and the company didn't owe them anything and it doesn't matter what anyone said to them in the terminal (which is the way most are looking at it), from a damage control perspective giving them a future cruise credit would have still been the right thing to do, because then you take the air right out of their sails and protect the company name.

If a company needs to worry about damage control when they have done absolutely nothing wrong (that can be proven at least), what does that say about the people of this country? Suit happy people looking for a hand out, cases won or lost not because of what was right or wrong but simply because of who had the best lawyer or a "victim" who could put on the best show in front of a jury or the media. Is this behavior something you want to defend? Another way to take the air out of their sails is to not even acknowledge that anything of the sort happened. Or file (or threaten to file) a lawsuit against the couple for libel. Anything but bending over backwards for someone who is stabbing you in the back. I'd rather have the ship sink from under me while doing the right thing than play pathetic games with a bunch of lowlifes (IMO).

That being said, I hope this comes back to bite NCL in the butt (tons more people running, crying to the media when they screw up and forget their paperwork). I can't stand that cruise line anyway.

Nicholas’s mum, Tara Colucci, then took to social media and shared the family’s outrage at the situation.

This is exactly the kind of BS I was talking about.

Outrage should be spent on worrying about their son's health instead of some stupid cruise and a couple of thousand quid lost because they didn't take proper precaution. :rolleyes:

While I feel sorry for the elderly couple, it appears that this type of situation happens when you misjudge that last trip before you get too old. It seems they needed some wise/younger person who could have helped them through the process.

 

The granddaughter was at fault with putting the passports in luggage. Grandma's purse or Grandpa's jacket pocket would have been a better choice. The basics like keeping your meds and doc with you should have been drilled into them.

 

The longshoremen who are the porters just want to move that luggage to the ship and aren't NCL employees. They also are well paid but keep their hands out for a tip.

 

NCL could have made a more valiant effort to find their luggage, and I sure wish they would have.

 

BTW- the LA port is pretty awful in my experience. I lost a device on an NCL ship in LA, filed a report that day, but it took three months before it showed up at my front door. The only report I ever received was that it was being held at port and then in transit. I called every two weeks for an update.

Very well said.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

If a company needs to worry about damage control when they have done absolutely nothing wrong (that can be proven at least), what does that say about the people of this country? Suit happy people looking for a hand out, cases won or lost not because of what was right or wrong but simply because of who had the best lawyer or a "victim" who could put on the best show in front of a jury or the media. Is this behavior something you want to defend? Another way to take the air out of their sails is to not even acknowledge that anything of the sort happened. Or file (or threaten to file) a lawsuit against the couple for libel. Anything but bending over backwards for someone who is stabbing you in the back. I'd rather have the ship sink from under me while doing the right thing than play pathetic games with a bunch of lowlifes (IMO).

 

That being said, I hope this comes back to bite NCL in the butt (tons more people running, crying to the media when they screw up and forget their paperwork). I can't stand that cruise line anyway.

I'm not defending anything, but this is the cost of doing business in today's society. A company can decide to be customer friendly and do things they don't have to do in order to take care of the 90% of their customers who are honest, or they can be by the book in order to avoid the 10% of the potentially dishonest customers. They can also be somewhere in between. Some examples:

1) I own a Keurig. Had one break and I called customer service about it to find out if there was anything that I could do to fix it, fully expecting to be told that it was broken and nothing could be done. I had not registered the warranty (which may have been expired anyway), and I wasn't looking for anything other than some troubleshooting help. The CSR confirmed that it was broken and asked me for my address. Before I knew it a brand new unit was on the way to me, even though I didn't ask for it or expect it. Know what? I'll never own another brand of coffee maker now (and I'm on my 3rd upgrade since that time).

2) Had an LL Bean jacket. Didn't have the receipt since I'd bought it so long ago. The down feathers in it had settled and it no longer kept me warm. I returned it and received a replacement with no questions asked. I'll buy LL Bean as long as my budget allows.

I do get where you are coming from and in a perfect world people wouldn't lose receipts, or put their passports in their luggage, or develop cancer just before a cruise. But it's not a perfect world and sometimes these things happen and sometimes a company has to do something just for customer goodwill, even if it means making an exception for that customer. And no, that doesn't open the door to everyone to make a claim, although it might encourage people to try, because the cruise line still has the contract on their side to protect them against the frivolous claims.

(And if a customer should happen to make too many claims over a long enough period of time then the cruise line can invite them to take their business elsewhere, just like RCL did with the one couple who always seemed to have something go wrong with their cruises.)

I don’t think these stories hurt business. If I thought that I could reschedule my cruise after final payment with no penalties, I wouldn’t bother to buy insurance. I’m sure they get tons of these requests every day.

I'm pretty sure in your own personal life you would treat people's apparent lack of consideration differently depending on what caused it. If you had arranged and paid for an outing with two friends and their families, and they both failed to turn up, you'd be cross. If you later found out that one missed the trip because their child was at the hospital getting a cancer diagnosis, and the other missed the trip because their child fancied a day at the seaside, then your reaction to the two cases would be different.

Sometimes businesses can adopt this real life attitude too. Being charitable to the cancer sufferer does not create any obligation to be charitable to the one who couldn't be bothered.

I'm not defending anything, but this is the cost of doing business in today's society.

 

2) Had an LL Bean jacket. Didn't have the receipt since I'd bought it so long ago. The down feathers in it had settled and it no longer kept me warm. I returned it and received a replacement with no questions asked. I'll buy LL Bean as long as my budget allows...

Which is why LL Bean and REI tightened up their once liberal "return anytime for any reason" policies. Too many people retuned things they used for years and then damn it, how dare they sell something that could wear out.

I'm pretty sure in your own personal life you would treat people's apparent lack of consideration differently depending on what caused it. If you had arranged and paid for an outing with two friends and their families, and they both failed to turn up, you'd be cross. If you later found out that one missed the trip because their child was at the hospital getting a cancer diagnosis, and the other missed the trip because their child fancied a day at the seaside, then your reaction to the two cases would be different.

 

Sometimes businesses can adopt this real life attitude too. Being charitable to the cancer sufferer does not create any obligation to be charitable to the one who couldn't be bothered.

But what if one family missed because they all came down with a stomach virus? I wouldn’t be mad at all, but should a family be given a free future cruise because they got sick, weren’t even allowed to board, and neglected to get travel insurance, which would’ve reimbursed them?

As for how many cases like this NCL deals with, they have 16 ships, so I’m guessing about 40,000 passengers a week? Most who don’t purchase travel insurance? How many find that they can no longer travel that particular week?

Which is why LL Bean and REI tightened up their once liberal "return anytime for any reason" policies. Too many people retuned things they used for years and then damn it, how dare they sell something that could wear out.

Their guarantee used to be even more liberal and it was clear that an item could be returned even if it just wore out, especially their Maine Walking Boot (which now involves a re-soling charge I believe). They have slowly been ratcheting it back. If a company has a guarantee that says "return it at any time for any reason" they shouldn't be surprised when people take them up on it. In any event, a company needs a to decide on a policy that works for them.

I'm pretty sure in your own personal life you would treat people's apparent lack of consideration differently depending on what caused it. If you had arranged and paid for an outing with two friends and their families, and they both failed to turn up, you'd be cross. If you later found out that one missed the trip because their child was at the hospital getting a cancer diagnosis, and the other missed the trip because their child fancied a day at the seaside, then your reaction to the two cases would be different.

 

Sometimes businesses can adopt this real life attitude too. Being charitable to the cancer sufferer does not create any obligation to be charitable to the one who couldn't be bothered.

I see you point: "It's cancer so have some compassion." Yes, the story of the boy with cancer was a hot topic here a couple of years ago. At that time the majority opinion here sided with NCL: The family didn't buy travel insurance.

Some of the news website readers for the NCL story made left comments that the line should comp the family. "NCL would be flooded with reservations because of their good will". Instead, they would have been flooded with calls from others who missed their sailing for a number of reasons and now wanted a complimentary do-over. What is the point in buying tracel insurance if one can just save the money and get their story out on social media?

A business has three choices for refunds/returns: very liberal (as LL Bean used to be), strict (e.g. final sales on women's dresses) or case-by-case. In the case-by-case situation who decides that a hardship is worthy of special consideration? An elderly couple with their passports in checked luggage? The 40-something who did the same? The family who cancels because of their child's cancer diagnosis? A parent's cancer diagnosis? The husband who needs emergency heart valve surgery the day before sailing? The adult children who cancel because they now have to attend dad's funeral?

We're going to see more stories like this because the public shaming of a big corporation achieved its goal. And nobody has to be responsible for their actions or their failure to act.

I see you point: "It's cancer so have some compassion." Yes, the story of the boy with cancer was a hot topic here a couple of years ago. At that time the majority opinion here sided with NCL: The family didn't buy travel insurance.

 

 

Some of the news website readers for the NCL story made left comments that the line should comp the family. "NCL would be flooded with reservations because of their good will". Instead, they would have been flooded with calls from others who missed their sailing for a number of reasons and now wanted a complimentary do-over. What is the point in buying tracel insurance if one can just save the money and get their story out on social media?

 

 

A business has three choices for refunds/returns: very liberal (as LL Bean used to be), strict (e.g. final sales on women's dresses) or case-by-case. In the case-by-case situation who decides that a hardship is worthy of special consideration? An elderly couple with their passports in checked luggage? The 40-something who did the same? The family who cancels because of their child's cancer diagnosis? A parent's cancer diagnosis? The husband who needs emergency heart valve surgery the day before sailing? The adult children who cancel because they now have to attend dad's funeral?

 

 

We're going to see more stories like this because the public shaming of a big corporation achieved its goal. And nobody has to be responsible for their actions or their failure to act.

Again, it's the businesses decision to make how far they are willing to go for customer goodwill. NCL's mistake was initially sticking to their policy and then reversing it when they received bad press for it. If they try to do something and the customer is still dissatisfied then NCL has ammunition to counteract the bad press- "we attempted to find a solution that would address the issue, even though we didn't have to under our contract". Yes, it has to be handled on a case by case basis but so what, that's why folks in corporate get paid so much. I'll mention again what cruise lines do when a ship gets re-routed because of a hurricane- they don't have to do anything, the contract is clearly on their side, but for customer goodwill the passengers will usually be offered something. They aren't going to please everyone, no one can ever do that, but they'll please 95% and the other 5% will only look foolish if they complain (which does happen).

Again, it's the businesses decision to make how far they are willing to go for customer goodwill. NCL's mistake was initially sticking to their policy and then reversing it when they received bad press for it. If they try to do something and the customer is still dissatisfied then NCL has ammunition to counteract the bad press- "we attempted to find a solution that would address the issue, even though we didn't have to under our contract". Yes, it has to be handled on a case by case basis but so what, that's why folks in corporate get paid so much. I'll mention again what cruise lines do when a ship gets re-routed because of a hurricane- they don't have to do anything, the contract is clearly on their side, but for customer goodwill the passengers will usually be offered something. They aren't going to please everyone, no one can ever do that, but they'll please 95% and the other 5% will only look foolish if they complain (which does happen).

In your opinion. I think their mistake was caving. Lands end has great customer service, Old Navy does not. I shop at ON a lot more because it’s cheaper. The bad press cruiselines get for these human interest stories doesn’t happen that often, and most people don’t even remember what cruiseline did what.

But, my opinion means nothing either, obviously they know what works to keep profits as high as possible.

In your opinion. I think their mistake was caving. Lands end has great customer service, Old Navy does not. I shop at ON a lot more because it’s cheaper. The bad press cruiselines get for these human interest stories doesn’t happen that often, and most people don’t even remember what cruiseline did what.

 

But, my opinion means nothing either, obviously they know what works to keep profits as high as possible.

Um, my opinion is the same as yours, I said their mistake was reversing themselves (in other words, caving). I would sail NCL if their price was the same as another cruise line, but the last thing that I would expect would be good customer service if something went wrong because NCL has had customer service issues for a long time. If the bad press doesn't affect their bottom line than they shouldn't react to it at all, but their reaction does tell me that it does affect their bottom line.

Which is why LL Bean and REI tightened up their once liberal "return anytime for any reason" policies. Too many people retuned things they used for years and then damn it, how dare they sell something that could wear out.

Oh, yeah ... LL Bean was awesome. So was Sears. My MIL used to buy dungarees there and when the older son was done ... she'd pass them to the younger son and THEN return them to Sears for new pants. They took them.

Oh, yeah ... LL Bean was awesome. So was Sears. My MIL used to buy dungarees there and when the older son was done ... she'd pass them to the younger son and THEN return them to Sears for new pants. They took them.

That's pretty much like formal dress', get purchased for occasion, worn at occasion, day after occasion....returned. With stains, dirt....BUT I NEVER WORE it ......I can't even comprehend the amount of dollars of merchandise that got returned, then had to be thrown out....no wonder so many retailers have gone out of business.

But what if one family missed because they all came down with a stomach virus? I wouldn’t be mad at all, but should a family be given a free future cruise because they got sick, weren’t even allowed to board, and neglected to get travel insurance, which would’ve reimbursed them?

 

As for how many cases like this NCL deals with, they have 16 ships, so I’m guessing about 40,000 passengers a week? Most who don’t purchase travel insurance? How many find that they can no longer travel that particular week?

It's just the way of the world. When people hear of a child with cancer, they get all tearful and sympathetic. (Not everyone, as this board proves, but I think the majority.) When people hear of a child with a tummy bug, it just doesn't have the same emotional appeal.

Remember this - the family may have been given an unfair deal with the free cruise, but they have also been given an unfair deal with the child's cancer. It's swings and roundabouts, but the gain on the swings is nowhere near compensation for the loss on the roundabouts. If NCL can help them out in some way in this very difficult time, then I don't think they need criticism for doing so.

I'm not defending anything, but this is the cost of doing business in today's society. A company can decide to be customer friendly and do things they don't have to do in order to take care of the 90% of their customers who are honest, or they can be by the book in order to avoid the 10% of the potentially dishonest customers. They can also be somewhere in between. Some examples:

 

1) I own a Keurig. Had one break and I called customer service about it to find out if there was anything that I could do to fix it, fully expecting to be told that it was broken and nothing could be done. I had not registered the warranty (which may have been expired anyway), and I wasn't looking for anything other than some troubleshooting help. The CSR confirmed that it was broken and asked me for my address. Before I knew it a brand new unit was on the way to me, even though I didn't ask for it or expect it. Know what? I'll never own another brand of coffee maker now (and I'm on my 3rd upgrade since that time).

 

2) Had an LL Bean jacket. Didn't have the receipt since I'd bought it so long ago. The down feathers in it had settled and it no longer kept me warm. I returned it and received a replacement with no questions asked. I'll buy LL Bean as long as my budget allows.

 

I do get where you are coming from and in a perfect world people wouldn't lose receipts, or put their passports in their luggage, or develop cancer just before a cruise. But it's not a perfect world and sometimes these things happen and sometimes a company has to do something just for customer goodwill, even if it means making an exception for that customer. And no, that doesn't open the door to everyone to make a claim, although it might encourage people to try, because the cruise line still has the contract on their side to protect them against the frivolous claims.

 

(And if a customer should happen to make too many claims over a long enough period of time then the cruise line can invite them to take their business elsewhere, just like RCL did with the one couple who always seemed to have something go wrong with their cruises.)

I understand your point of view and don't necessarily disagree with it. To me, the huge difference between your stories and this story is that you didn't go onto social media or a news outlet complaining when your Keurig broke or your jacket didn't keep you warm (I love LL Bean as well). To me, that is what makes a world of difference. You called the company and politely asked if anything could be done and probably was most likely very thankful and surprised when something was done. To me, this whole story is about a drama queen couple shaming a company and begging for emotional sympathy from others when they knew from the get go that they were in the wrong. To me, therein lies the difference. I guess I should say I'm usually very accommodating to those who don't ask for help and couldn't care less about those who feel they are entitled to help from others, especially when they created the problem in the first place. It's just how I roll. ;)

It's just the way of the world. When people hear of a child with cancer, they get all tearful and sympathetic. (Not everyone, as this board proves, but I think the majority.) When people hear of a child with a tummy bug, it just doesn't have the same emotional appeal.

 

Remember this - the family may have been given an unfair deal with the free cruise, but they have also been given an unfair deal with the child's cancer. It's swings and roundabouts, but the gain on the swings is nowhere near compensation for the loss on the roundabouts. If NCL can help them out in some way in this very difficult time, then I don't think they need criticism for doing so.

That's being generous with other people's money.

Now if you want to start a crowd funding compaign where willing donors contribute for the lost cruise, great. Otherwise it's saying that a company owes special consideration to somebody based on the personal hardship suffered. It's a business, not a charity.

i understand your point of view and don't necessarily disagree with it. To me, the huge difference between your stories and this story is that you didn't go onto social media or a news outlet complaining when your keurig broke or your jacket didn't keep you warm (i love ll bean as well). To me, that is what makes a world of difference. You called the company and politely asked if anything could be done and probably was most likely very thankful and surprised when something was done. To me, this whole story is about a drama queen couple shaming a company and begging for emotional sympathy from others when they knew from the get go that they were in the wrong. To me, therein lies the difference. I guess i should say i'm usually very accommodating to those who don't ask for help and couldn't care less about those who feel they are entitled to help from others, especially when they created the problem in the first place. It's just how i roll. ;)

like

I understand your point of view and don't necessarily disagree with it. To me, the huge difference between your stories and this story is that you didn't go onto social media or a news outlet complaining when your Keurig broke or your jacket didn't keep you warm (I love LL Bean as well). To me, that is what makes a world of difference. You called the company and politely asked if anything could be done and probably was most likely very thankful and surprised when something was done. To me, this whole story is about a drama queen couple shaming a company and begging for emotional sympathy from others when they knew from the get go that they were in the wrong. To me, therein lies the difference. I guess I should say I'm usually very accommodating to those who don't ask for help and couldn't care less about those who feel they are entitled to help from others, especially when they created the problem in the first place. It's just how I roll. ;)

And I completely understand what you are saying as well. Unfortunately to do business in America today means dealing with people that will run to the media or to a lawyer at the first chance they get. By being a little proactive in the customer service department companies can avoid the big black eyes. Had NCL offered either of the two families discussed in this thread a future cruise credit or an opportunity to rebook we wouldn't have heard a thing about it. Neither one of those two options would have cost NCL a great deal, would have garnered some goodwill with the customer and if it did get mentioned in the press at all it would have been a positive story. And of course NCL made matters worse for themselves by caving to the media report.