NCL "Construction Cruise" nightmare...What would You Do?

Won't work because the cruise line provided what they said they would...a cruise.

I agree with you. It may not have been the cruise most expected but neverthe less, it w as/is a cruise.

Satisfaction will have to come from the cruise line. the bad PR ,hop fully will make them do the right thing.

Maybe low level of common sense, but High level of Greed. That greed in this instance is sure to cost them big time.

Well stated. And I'll add: shame on NCL for taking their customers for granted.

Well stated. And I'll add: shame on NCL for taking their customers for granted.

Total lack of respect for their paying customers. I can pi cture some 'lowish' level executive prancing through nCL offices shrugging his/her shoulders with distain for the dissatisfied cruisers on board demanding NCL do something adequate to make it look like NCL even cares how badly their terrible choices to have continuing work done created awful cruise for paying customers..

JMO

Full refund. Plus a credit.

The real issue for them will be any legal actions arising from the use of hazardous chemicals (if indeed they were).

The notion of a cruise line doing any sort of work that inconveniences customers is a complete turn off for me. The usual story is that work was unavoidably delayed. It can happen but I think it is mostly hogwash. Cruise line have have be experts when it comes to drydock time. They impinge upon customer time and cruise quality to reduce their out of service time.

HAL is certainly no stranger to this type of behavior, to a lessor extent, based on recent posts. NCL seems to have taken it to a new level. Bottom line...it is called cheating the customer.

When I feel ripped off, cheated, whatever by a vendor I simply stop dealing with them. Why on earth reward a company for bad behaviour?

Lots of TV footage on the national news.

NCL sure is going to take a beating over this -- at least for a while.

So they should. Let's hope that it negatively impacts their business in the short term. Losing business, loosing revenue is perhaps the only language that they understand.

Same goes for other cruise lines who do the same or who purposely cut back on maintenance that directly impacts customer comfort. Forget the letters, forget the surveys. Much more effective to vote with your feet and with your wallet. Simply reward someone else with your business.

I've been on this ship and I love NCL. This was a bad decision on their part but I would think it is a lesson well learned. I would now trust them more than ever and more than other cruise lines to never do this again because of this bad publicity. Like I said, it should be lesson learned by all lines. It took a bit, but they came thru in the end. It won't stop me from cruising with them again, but to each their own.

I've been on this ship and I love NCL. This was a bad decision on their part but I would think it is a lesson well learned. I would now trust them more than ever and more than other cruise lines to never do this again because of this bad publicity. Like I said, it should be lesson learned by all lines. It took a bit, but they came thru in the end. It won't stop me from cruising with them again, but to each their own.

Totally agree.

Full refund. Plus a credit.

 

The real issue for them will be any legal actions arising from the use of hazardous chemicals (if indeed they were).

 

The notion of a cruise line doing any sort of work that inconveniences customers is a complete turn off for me. The usual story is that work was unavoidably delayed. It can happen but I think it is mostly hogwash. Cruise line have have be experts when it comes to drydock time. They impinge upon customer time and cruise quality to reduce their out of service time.

 

HAL is certainly no stranger to this type of behavior, to a lessor extent, based on recent posts. NCL seems to have taken it to a new level. Bottom line...it is called cheating the customer.

 

When I feel ripped off, cheated, whatever by a vendor I simply stop dealing with them. Why on earth reward a company for bad behaviour?

Some people claimed they took samples of the dust from construction and were going to have it tested. If they go through with this and find something toxic, I expect they'll sue.

If I remember correctly a year or two ago another Cruise Line did the same thing and took a beating for it you would think NCL what have learned by their mistakes

Sent from my SM-G530T1 using Forums mobile app

Last year we were on the Rotterdam after dry dock (11/4/2017). We had a very late boarding at 5:00 p.m., which put a lot of people in a bad mood on embarkation day (Homeland security issue). Despite this, what happened did NOT ruin our cruise entirely and only moderately impacted some areas of ship operations. The aft retreat area was not at all complete for most of the 15 nights. The bar and New York pizza and smoking area functioned most of the time, however they were working on the aft retreat up until the last few days. There was a lot of construction dust, noise, and spectators. Our stateroom was aft on deck 6 , so we were not impacted, and on deck 7 all aft balconies experienced some impact. There were a lot of leaking pipes on the lower promenade deck, which were fixed some days later. The metal ceiling on the lower promenade deck was reinstalled after painting , which went on the entire cruise, so there were more than normal periods of it being closed.We had to walk back and forth promenade for our walks ( a two way traffic agility test). There were a lot of condensation leaks from the air system (a new ship activity was to dodge the buckets & cones). Our stateroom had poorly functioning air conditioning for three or four of the first nights, which was fixed on night four. Some staterooms had flooding, no hot water, no air conditioning, and some people complained that this was their worst cruise ever and will never sail HAL again. We just kind of rolled with it. We did receive OBC for the air conditioning issue, it was fair amount for the inconvenience and discomfort. We did receive a 10% of the fare we paid as a future cruise credit for all other problems, and have already taken advantage of this and applied this to our upcoming cruise on the Rotterdam. We want to see the ship without all these issues, as, honestly, we loved the ship. The crew of this ship really went above and beyond to make up for many mechanical failures and service never faltered. Anyway, that was our experience. We look forward to our next cruse and always understand that this is a hotel at sea and any ship out of dry dock has issues, we just didnt know this prior to our cruise. If i were to give advice to anyone: dont sail when your ship is fresh out of dry dock.

We had a similar situation on NCL only it was after the drydock...not before.

We sailed on the Pride of America (which normally does 7 day cruises around Hawaii) in March 2016 immediately following a drydock in San Francisco. The cruise was to be a unique 11-day itinerary sailing from San Francisco and then doing the "normal" route around the islands.

However...the work on the ship did not get finished on schedule and NCL announced 24 hours before we were to board that it was going to be delayed by a day. For us it wasn't a big deal. We were already in San Francisco and were able to add another night onto our hotel stay. For others it was a major mess. Many did not get the message that the cruise was delayed until their flights landed in San Francisco. Hotel rooms were in short supply due to some conventions in town and people were left scrambling to find a place to stay.

Different messages were being sent out as to when we were to arrive for embarkation and it turned into a mob scene trying to get into the terminal. Once inside we waited for several hours before we could board.

Construction work continued as we spent the next 4 days crossing the Pacific and certain areas of the ship were roped off. The promenade deck was closed to walkers and the spa area was completely closed. Noise & odors were a problem.

Initially NCL offered the 25% discount on future cruises, but by the time the cruise was over they had upped the offer to 50%. For us, the compensation seemed fair. NCL picked up our total tab (food & hotel) for the extra night in SF, gave us a refund equal to the cost of one day of the cruise and we were able to use the 50% credit on a 14-day Alaska cruise this past May (on the Sun!) I'm sure those that had trouble finding a hotel room at the last minute might think differently.

In our case the problem was blamed on unusually wet, rainy weather that delayed the work. In the case of the NCL Sun, the construction was something that had been pre-planned AND seemed to be much larger in scope...certainly not an "accident." I agree that NCL should be giving refunds in this case...not credits.

The idea of compensation (FYI, I am a lawyer) is to make one whole. I saw a video where a cruiser followed the signs to get to their lifeboat-every single way to their lifeboat was blocked! This has to be a significant maritime violation in addition to whatever hazardous chemicals the passengers were subjected to. This is way different from just construction. These are health and safety violations-not just noise and nuisance problems. First-giving people credit for a free cruise is wrong-they should offer a choice of cruise credit OR a refund. Personally, I would think twice about booking on NCL again after this debacle. Second, in reference to making these people whole, many, many people had to fly to board the ship and had flight and/or hotel expenses, and people who drove had parking and possibly hotel expenses. Those expenses are not accounted for by any cruise credit. Third, any inflation in cruise prices is not accounted for, nor the inconvenience, health risk, and wasted vacation time. NCL should throw extra money or shipboard credit at the people who are taking a cruise credit refund. This is like the United Dr. Dao public relations nightmare, and the CEO was an idiot for thinking this would work and people would not complain. More bad press is going to follow, and NCL will get sued. NCL may win, but the bad press they will get will nullify any victory. They would be better off paying everyone off now, IMHO.

Lots of TV footage on the national news.

NCL sure is going to take a beating over this -- at least for a while.

I again saw some video, this morning. I think I mi ght have been watching it on CBS

I still consider myself a "novice" at this, but I was on the final Amsterdam Alaska cruise last September before a "wetdock" (I think that's what it's called) to do some fairly extensive cosmetic interior changes (replacing carpet in large areas, etc.). The ONLY thing that hinted at that was disembarkation in Seattle -- it was sort of "rushed" -- not unpleasant, but clearly they were trying to get us off the ship as quickly and efficiently as possible. The ship moved from Seattle to Tacoma the same day and as soon as the passengers were off, they start ripping up carpet, etc. At no time were passengers inconvenienced.

Lana in Bellingham

I appreciate all of the viewpoints given.

I must say, I'm really disturbed by the stories that talk about extensive construction/problems AFTER dry dock, too. Seems to me that some of these companies are really playing fast and loose with making extensive repairs during sailings, assuming that guest will tolerate more and more.

I like being a "captive audience" on a cruise ship, but some of this is beyond the pale. I guess some of it's related to the vast increase in the number of ships, cruises, and customers, but it sure goes against common sense.

The idea of compensation (FYI, I am a lawyer) is to make one whole. I saw a video where a cruiser followed the signs to get to their lifeboat-every single way to their lifeboat was blocked! This has to be a significant maritime violation in addition to whatever hazardous chemicals the passengers were subjected to. This is way different from just construction. These are health and safety violations-not just noise and nuisance problems. First-giving people credit for a free cruise is wrong-they should offer a choice of cruise credit OR a refund. Personally, I would think twice about booking on NCL again after this debacle. Second, in reference to making these people whole, many, many people had to fly to board the ship and had flight and/or hotel expenses, and people who drove had parking and possibly hotel expenses. Those expenses are not accounted for by any cruise credit. Third, any inflation in cruise prices is not accounted for, nor the inconvenience, health risk, and wasted vacation time. NCL should throw extra money or shipboard credit at the people who are taking a cruise credit refund. This is like the United Dr. Dao public relations nightmare, and the CEO was an idiot for thinking this would work and people would not complain. More bad press is going to follow, and NCL will get sued. NCL may win, but the bad press they will get will nullify any victory. They would be better off paying everyone off now, IMHO.

Thank you! I was about to bring that up. It wasn't just about inconvenience, it was about SAFETY! I also saw those pictures of muster stations blocked off and no access to the lifeboats. I saw pictures of workers sanding and soldering with sparks flying. I saw pictures of workers with respirators working 10-20 feet away from paying customers who had no protection.

I've been on one HAL ship - can't remember which now - that had some cosmetic work being done in a few places after drydock. Not a big deal, and they did the best they could not to overly impact the customer's enjoyment of the ship. Quite different from the NCL debacle, which calls for a full refund, not credit.

With all those added workers on b oard, In the event of an emergency, More capacity was necessary to accomodate gettting all souls aboard into a life boat , raft or other route to safetry, ESPECially GIVEN THE possibility the risk of fire was high with all that work going on. Where were those workers to go for evacua tion and were paying guests advised of any alternate from the norm plans? Were those aapproved by U.S. CG?

Was a drill held for the temporary workers in order to avoid chaos in the event of emergency?

This is the reason why we never consider a pre or post drydock cruise, or an inaugural cruise for that matter. On any cruise line.

Started to read this thread while on the Eurodam with some keen interest. At no time during the cruise was there any indication that a dry dock was about to begin. The only exception was crew complaining that they wouldn’t make any money for 10 days.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

With all those added workers on b oard, In the event of an emergency, More capacity was necessary to accomodate gettting all souls aboard into a life boat , raft or other route to safetry, ESPECially GIVEN THE possibility the risk of fire was high with all that work going on. Where were those workers to go for evacua tion and were paying guests advised of any alternate from the norm plans? Were those aapproved by U.S. CG?

 

Was a drill held for the temporary workers in order to avoid chaos in the event of emergency?

Those are some VERY scary questions! I saw the news stories on TV, but I missed the part about blocked emergency routes until I read about it here. What a mess!

Those are some VERY scary questions! I saw the news stories on TV, but I missed the part about blocked emergency routes until I read about it here. What a mess!

I thought twice before posting those questions as I feared someoe n would say I was creating an issue t hat did not exist but the more I thought about it,I wondered a bout those questions. Iit Could have been a a real scenario. Thankfully, this time it was not.

I'm booked on the Maasdam pre-dry dock and am a bit concerned after reading the Norwegian Sun story. I've read many reports about pre and post dry dock problems on many cruise lines. I'm happy to hear that there aren't a lot of HAL stories. I worry because my last two HAL cruises had significant problems. I'm starting to wonder if I should cancel. I'm looking forward to this repositioning cruise, but I'm a little worried.

I was on the Maasdam for 20 days starting November 27 and there were no issues I saw. I can't imagine things could have deteriorated that quickly. FYI, it is my favorite HAL ship.

I'm booked on the Maasdam pre-dry dock and am a bit concerned after reading the Norwegian Sun story. I've read many reports about pre and post dry dock problems on many cruise lines. I'm happy to hear that there aren't a lot of HAL stories. I worry because my last two HAL cruises had significant problems. I'm starting to wonder if I should cancel. I'm looking forward to this repositioning cruise, but I'm a little worried.

I am surprised after two HAL cruises you thought had "significant problems" you would risk your vacation dollar again on any HAL ship. My guess is you may well run into similar situations - because ships do have problems and often times the passengers themselves are the one who can create them - clogged toilets and interfering with cabin ventilation systems.