NCL's Deceptive Letter to Gem Passengers

[CruisePrincess575]

The reasoning they gave that we are leaving St. Thomas 5 hours later than usual didn't make sense as it was a very short distance to either port.

 

 

They were fixing the problem in St Thomas which is why we left later I believe.

[rufusrex]

Good that you were able to rearrange your plans!

 

I hope everyone in your group enjoyed your trip and that nobody got sick either. Remember that you were quite worried about your son.

 

Thanks for remembering us. No one got sick! The crew did a fantastic job with washy washy and the ship was very clean. I didn't see or hear about any noro or any other virus on this cruise. Pretty good cruise overall, although I think for our personal taste is our next cruise may not be out of NYC, 5 1/2 full days at sea was a little too much for us. Even thinking about maybe next year spending a week on an island, we had so much fun on the beach the time we had just wasn't enough!

[mississauga]

I also believe that the port tax is $20.00pp. That's how much we received when we missed San Juan last month on the Carnival Dream. As for 3 or 4 in a cabin, it's possible that port charges are only paid for the first 2 passengers ....... thus the lower rates for the 3rd/4th passengers.

[goldmom]

The letter spoke about the itinerary changes and the reason why and about the repairs. It then states "Because of this itinerary change, you will receive an automatic credit of $75 USD per stateroom, applied directly to your on-board account before the end of your cruise."

 

Nothing misleading in my opinion. The credit is for missing the port, whether it's the port fees or just to make up for the inconvenience or a combination of the two, the letter seems fairly straight forward. I thought it was pretty decent of them and my feeling was that it was probably more than the port charges.

[sottovoce]

The letter spoke about the itinerary changes and the reason why and about the repairs. It then states "Because of this itinerary change, you will receive an automatic credit of $75 USD per stateroom, applied directly to your on-board account before the end of your cruise."

 

Nothing misleading in my opinion. The credit is for missing the port, whether it's the port fees or just to make up for the inconvenience or a combination of the two, the letter seems fairly straight forward. I thought it was pretty decent of them and my feeling was that it was probably more than the port charges.

Thank you, goldmom. Exactly what I thought it would say.

 

The OP's whine was an intentional distortion, misleading, and utterly uncalled-for, and just another attempt to slam NCL because he didn't get all the little things he wanted as spelled out in his other negative thread.

[defreeze]

That's exactly what the letter said - and although it contains no overt misstatement, it certainly is deceptive. EVERYBODY on board believed that the money was a concession from NCL to compensate us for missing the port.

 

A truly honest letter would have said: "Because we will not be stopping at San Juan, you will be credited your previously paid port taxes in the amout of $75".

 

As for my other purportedly "whining" post (boy, you sure love that word), ummm, read it a little closer - no whining - merely observations - this board is about sharing information and I merely was commenting about differences betwen my latest cruise and the one I took two years ago. It's a shame that a polite discourse results in personal attacks against posters.

[sottovoce]

A truly honest letter would have said: "Because we will not be stopping at San Juan, you will be credited your previously paid port taxes in the amout of $75".

OK, pal, show me your source for saying the port taxes for San Juan were $75.

 

NCL's letter was, in fact, "truly honest." As goldmom wrote: "Nothing misleading, in my opinion." Or anyone else's who read it objectively. Your description of it was a distortion, and did NCL a great disservice. But that was your intention all along.

[halos]

I think you would be surprised how many threads exist on CC about ships missing ports and the passengers got no refund at all (and not just NCL board)

 

So I wouldn't worry too much about the wording

 

I agree.

I have seen so many threads on the CCL Boards about missed ports. CCL refunds the port fees and nothing else in most cases and passengers go berserk. (and come here to Cruise Critic to vent)

Bottom line is that you are never, ever guaranteed any of your ports. If the ports mean that much to you, then it's best to fly to your destination and stay at a hotel.

[hamrag]

As for my other purportedly "whining" post (boy, you sure love that word), ummm, read it a little closer - no whining - merely observations - this board is about sharing information and I merely was commenting about differences betwen my latest cruise and the one I took two years ago. It's a shame that a polite discourse results in personal attacks against posters.

 

Don't take the insult too personally - Sotto is well known around these boards for his arson attacks, flames everyone who does not live on his planet!

[Simon_B]

Don't take the insult too personally - Sotto is well known around these boards for his arson attacks, flames everyone who does not live on his planet!

 

Like.

[zqvol]

Just off the Gem today.

 

As some may have heard, there were engine problems on our sailing resulting in one port (San Juan) being canceled and replaced by a day at sea.

 

NCL delivered a letter to all passengers informing them of the itinerary change and stating that each cabin would receive a $75 onboard credit due to the inconvenience.

 

In fact, upon further questioning of the reception staff, it was learned that the $75 credit was, in reality, a refund of the port taxes for San Juan.

 

So, NCL was only refunding what they were legally required to refund, yet the letter made it seem as if we were being compensated for missing a port.

 

I realize that NCL's passenger contract allows them to skip ports for no reason and with no compensation. But it was deceptive to write a letter like that wrongly suggesting that they WERE compensating us when in fact they were merely refunding our port charges.

 

Lots of people were angry about this - personally, I would have been ok if they just came out and stated that they were refunding the port charges. But the way they did it left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Someone fed you a crock of garbage that you believed. Port fees in San Juan are less than $20 per person. Here is the link to the most recent information:

 

http://www.prpa.gobierno.pr/uploads/Trarifas/M-1-6%20ENMIENDA%20DE%20AGUA.pdf

 

The only reason you had a bad taste in your mouth had nothing to do with what you got for missing San Juan.

[martinchem]

We've had a couple Carnival miss ports and we received $20pp per incident, One time on Royal and we got $0, I always wondered why we didn't get our port fee back for missing Grand Caymen. I guess Royal needed our money more than we do. Hmm, 3114 passengers at $20, thats $62,280 more profit that cruise, I'm wonder if they do it on purpose when the ship misses its revenue mark for a cruise.

[zqvol]

The port charge per passenger for Puerto Rico is $20.00 per passenger.

 

No it is $13.25

[defreeze]

Someone fed you a crock of garbage that you believed.

 

Well, that someone is the NCL representative at the reception desk. I know of many passengers who asked the same question about port charges being refunded, and all were told the same thing at the front desk - the $75 was the refund of the port charges. Excuse me for beleiving what the NCL front desk told me.

[njhorseman]

Well, that someone is the NCL representative at the reception desk. I know of many passengers who asked the same question about port charges being refunded, and all were told the same thing at the front desk - the $75 was the refund of the port charges. Excuse me for beleiving what the NCL front desk told me.

 

A good rule of thumb is to believe what you get in writing rather than believing what a low level customer service rep tells you.

 

In this case, there would have been no need to start a thread about a "deceptive letter" that was not at all deceptive.

[hamrag]

No it is $13.25

Does that include gratuity??

[*Wink*]

I remember reading posts on cc that the reason you sometimes aren't refunded port charges when a port was missed, is due to how far the ship went into the port.

 

If the ship "tries" to dock or anchor, the port still charges them at certain points, regardless as to whether or not the ship actually stayed.

 

Does anyone remember that too?

 

As far as the OP, I'm sorry you were upset, but you're arguing over semantics. From your OP, I believed it was a little "odd" that NCL would call the refund OBC, but after seeing what the letter said, and your confirmation, you lost me.

 

I've been on 4 cruises, half of those had missed ports. I think the total of all of that came to a $20 refund. LOL

 

And just so people are aware, if you miss the private island, there is no refund.

[weltek]

I agree with the OP, that it was a bit misleading (and FWIW, I don't think the OP was whining and slamming NCL), and NCL really should've explained where that $75 figure came from (sounds like a combo of port taxes and an "inconvenience" compensation). It would've saved the front desk staff and NCL customer service department a lot of trouble. I hope they use this as a learning opportunity.

 

I wonder, does the "compensation" factor largely depend on the REASON for missing a port? If it's "an act of God/Mother Nature/Whatever their contract says," I wonder if they are not required to compensate, but if it's equipment malfunction, etc., they compensate, generally speaking?

[smeyer418]

That's exactly what the letter said - and although it contains no overt misstatement, it certainly is deceptive. EVERYBODY on board believed that the money was a concession from NCL to compensate us for missing the port.

 

.....

 

 

how is that deceptive? The fact is that Port charges include many things. There is also something called NCL(non-commissionable fare) which includes fuel charges so when a ship "misses" a port, the costs for the cruise line don't in fact go down-although since they can do things like sell duty free and keep the casino open they can make more money- but its not a dollar for dollar credit. Does the fact that you eat extra food or not have to pay for a shore excursion mean you should pay the cruise line more?

 

The cruise contract allows them to miss the port and not return one cent. Some cruise lines actually don't reimburse one penny. Some give a nominal $25 per missed port as compensation. Some open the bar for an hour or two(I don't personally like this not everyone drinks and there are enough drunken people on the ship already). NCL gave back $75 more than most but as the saying goes no good deed goes unpunished by some(and if you think I always stand up for the cruise line read my other posts)

 

The "fact" that some one said it was merely reimbursing port charges is one of those rumors that was spread by a bunch of sea lawyers.

 

I was on a cruise that was redirected from Bermuda to Canada. NCL returned just under $50 pp. I have no idea how that was calculated and I bet that no one on this board does either. In any case as a percentage it was small and the people who paid less for the cruise got back a bigger percentage than those who paid more...is that fair either?

[billie5]

OP, you do not have to apologize for believing what a staff member at the front desk told you. However, I do believe only a fool would take as gospel what a crew member says, even an agent supposedly trained in the subject -- which the front desk personnel may not be.

 

It is hard for me to believe that a person who is well-traveled and experienced in the present world would not understand that the planet is not inhabited just by pure mathematicians, who speak only truth and logic. (So I am prejudiced in favor of pure mathematicians, but you get my point!) We should all realize that even the supposed experts are wrong, misinformed or careless a surprising percentage of the time.

 

So even if the front desk really said "all" of the credit was port charge, or merely that it covered port charges (which would be true), what is the big deal? An easy perusal of CC threads would have made clear to you that $75 is much too high a figure to be just port charges, and in any case would have had to be per person.

 

You do seem determined, though, to believe what can so easily be disproved with good old Google. Perhaps we should all be grateful you are not a pure mathematician!!

 

Bill

[njhorseman]

OP, you do not have to apologize for believing what a staff member at the front desk told you. However, I do believe only a fool would take as gospel what a crew member says, even an agent supposedly trained in the subject -- which the front desk personnel may not be.

 

It is hard for me to believe that a person who is well-traveled and experienced in the present world would not understand that the planet is not inhabited just by pure mathematicians, who speak only truth and logic. (So I am prejudiced in favor of pure mathematicians, but you get my point!) We should all realize that even the supposed experts are wrong, misinformed or careless a surprising percentage of the time.

 

So even if the front desk really said "all" of the credit was port charge, or merely that it covered port charges (which would be true), what is the big deal? An easy perusal of CC threads would have made clear to you that $75 is much too high a figure to be just port charges, and in any case would have had to be per person.

 

You do seem determined, though, to believe what can so easily be disproved with good old Google. Perhaps we should all be grateful you are not a pure mathematician!!

 

Bill

 

 

I am a mathematician, and I have no idea what this means. :eek::D;)

[RNPJN]

Just off the Gem today.

 

As some may have heard, there were engine problems on our sailing resulting in one port (San Juan) being canceled and replaced by a day at sea.

 

NCL delivered a letter to all passengers informing them of the itinerary change and stating that each cabin would receive a $75 onboard credit due to the inconvenience.

 

In fact, upon further questioning of the reception staff, it was learned that the $75 credit was, in reality, a refund of the port taxes for San Juan.

 

So, NCL was only refunding what they were legally required to refund, yet the letter made it seem as if we were being compensated for missing a port.

 

I realize that NCL's passenger contract allows them to skip ports for no reason and with no compensation. But it was deceptive to write a letter like that wrongly suggesting that they WERE compensating us when in fact they were merely refunding our port charges.

 

Lots of people were angry about this - personally, I would have been ok if they just came out and stated that they were refunding the port charges. But the way they did it left a bad taste in my mouth.

:cool: Get over it!

[swedish weave]

Just off the Gem today.

 

As some may have heard, there were engine problems on our sailing resulting in one port (San Juan) being canceled and replaced by a day at sea.

 

NCL delivered a letter to all passengers informing them of the itinerary change and stating that each cabin would receive a $75 onboard credit due to the inconvenience.

 

In fact, upon further questioning of the reception staff, it was learned that the $75 credit was, in reality, a refund of the port taxes for San Juan.

 

So, NCL was only refunding what they were legally required to refund, yet the letter made it seem as if we were being compensated for missing a port.

 

I realize that NCL's passenger contract allows them to skip ports for no reason and with no compensation. But it was deceptive to write a letter like that wrongly suggesting that they WERE compensating us when in fact they were merely refunding our port charges.

 

Lots of people were angry about this - personally, I would have been ok if they just came out and stated that they were refunding the port charges. But the way they did it left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Now that the port charge issue has been clarified, are you happy that NCL gave you the 75 dollars?

[Zimomiller]

Some call it spin

 

Others call it lies

[sjbdtz]

it certainly is deceptive. EVERYBODY on board believed that the money was a concession from NCL to compensate us for missing the port.

 

A truly honest letter would have said: "Because we will not be stopping at San Juan, you will be credited your previously paid port taxes in the amout of $75".

 

 

A truly honest POST would have said "I'm not the only one who thought this, I overheard someone else with the exact same understanding".

 

Any time you say "EVERYBODY on board" you lose credibility.