Norwegian cancels cruise at only hours notice

[garycarla]

I found out on Tuesday that a coworker didn't make the connection to his flight to Miami and so "missed the boat". So they rented a car in Houston and visited relatives in NO instead. They made the best of it but it did cost them a bundle. No trip insurance. It was supposed to be their second cruise. They aren't bitter at all. I advised him to read CC or ask me. They were scheduled to arrive at 2:30 for a 5:00 sailing. :eek:

 

* I do feel bad for these folks - no cruise.

 

* I give them two thumbs up for finding something else to do.

 

* Trip Insurance - that is a gamble overall.

 

* Booking a flight that arrives at 2:30 for a 5:00 sailing is downright stupid.

 

* Flying to a cruise in the winter on the same day is marginal. Flying with a connection is insane. Flying a day earlier or better connections is way cheaper and smarter than insurance anyday.

 

Again, glad they made the best of it.

 

p.s. - This posting is worthy of it's own new thread.

[trevgbb]

All of you blindly defending NCL need to read the post again, particularly this paragraph;

We learn that the ship was chartered out ... BUT NCL did the pre-sailing registration, ticketing, luggage labels etc., on their web site, and the pre-sailing procedures were exactly as we had completed on three previous NCL cruises ...

Until he learned of the cancellation, he did not know the cruise was a charter, we don't know why he didn't know, but NCL didn't tell him(apparantly) when they accepted his booking, does this mean NCL were acting as agents for Newwest?, which I think, would make them jointly liable. This para also seems to suggest that he did not use a TA, but booked direct with NCL.

I, for one have learned something from this and will, in future check and check again for a possible repeat of this situation when booking, and thanks to Cruisingerman for one of the few sensible posts on this thread.

Oh, and I probably won't be sailing with NCL, either.

[hamrag]

Oh' date=' you think someone might be TROLLing.[/color']

 

PE

 

I would guess there is always someone TROLLing, look in the mirror!!

 

What I meant was that the OP will be reading this thread, incredulous at the OTT reaction, dousing the flames and wisely deciding not to go near the fire again!

[hamrag]

I feel no angst :D

keep taking the pills.;)

[terrymtex01]

All of you blindly defending NCL need to read the post again, particularly this paragraph;

We learn that the ship was chartered out ... BUT NCL did the pre-sailing registration, ticketing, luggage labels etc., on their web site, and the pre-sailing procedures were exactly as we had completed on three previous NCL cruises ...

Until he learned of the cancellation, he did not know the cruise was a charter, we don't know why he didn't know, but NCL didn't tell him(apparantly) when they accepted his booking, does this mean NCL were acting as agents for Newwest?, which I think, would make them jointly liable. This para also seems to suggest that he did not use a TA, but booked direct with NCL.

I, for one have learned something from this and will, in future check and check again for a possible repeat of this situation when booking, and thanks to Cruisingerman for one of the few sensible posts on this thread.

Oh, and I probably won't be sailing with NCL, either.

 

I don't think anyone is blindly defending NCL. While I still haven't read a posting where someone is trying to blame the OP, what folks have tried to say is that this cruise could not have been booked directly with NCL as it was a full charter. Of course NCL did the pre-cruise registeration, ticketing and luggage tags. However the OP had to have booked this directly with Newwest or another TA. You cannot book fully chartered cruises with NCL. When the OP booked the cruise the TA should have advised the OP that any and all changes had to be made through the TA since Newwest was fully responsible for all of the bookings.

 

Has anyone else noticed that the ones that keep saying over and over how the OP was attacked or hammered or NCL is being blindly defended or whatever have so few postings themselves? I find that very odd. Go back and read through this whole thread. It's almost as if someone who is new to posting on CC can't seem to understand what people are trying to say is that the OP was blaming the wrong entity, not that it was the OP's fault. Don't know that it means anything.. it's just odd.

[newmexicoNita]

Don't you think NCL should have contacted all those people they bumped and reinstated their reservations? Seems like the only fair thing to do! ;)

 

No, this had nothing to do with NCL, I don't undestand why a few of you can't understand that. If a convention is planned and everyone is staying at XYZ hotel, suddenly for some reason the convention is cancelled the hotel isn't the one that notifies those planning on staying there. Add to this, the OP left UK before the cruise was even cancelled. We have no idea if anyone had a way to reach him..

 

Nita

ps I didn't see the smiley either!!!!

[newmexicoNita]

This whole thing is NOT OP's problem, he is the VICTIM! given the magnitude of the way he was messed over, WHO CARES WHO HE BLAMES???? PULEEZE just leave him alone and quit dumping on him for not being more precise in laying blame!! Let him blame NCL, someone here can set the record straight, and that's the end of it! WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL that's worth hundreds of posts anyway???

 

I can only imagine how furious ANY OF US would be about the cancellation, whether we learned about it 2/3 or 2/6!! c'mon!

 

Of course he was a victom, but what part of this do you not understand? He is putting the blame on the wrong company. All most of us are saying is: he is wrong to blame NCL or any other line if it were another line. They could not have done anything..It wasn't their fault either...What would you have suggested NCL do? Of course we would have all been disapporinted and yes, probably furious, but to report untrue information regardless of how upset one is, should never happen...

 

You say, someone can set the record stright, that is what some are trying to do.

 

To the OP, I still don't think you realize, the cancellation had nothing to do with NCL. Think of the money they lost..I know you don't care about that, and I understand..the fact remains nothing could have been done by NCL to prevent this from happening to you. It makes no difference who printed the docs, took care of luggage tags, or anything else.

 

Nita

[sparks1093]

I went back and re-read the first post. The OP titles his post that NCL cancels cruise at only hours notice. Then he or she states that they left the UK on the 28th of Jan., traveled around and checked their email on the 6th of Feb. while on their way to the port, finding an email from their TA from the 3rd of Feb. saying the cruise was cancelled. The OP has been trying to get in contact with NCL with no return calls, etc. Sounds like there was more than an hours notice, the cruise wasn't cancelled by NCL and the OP is trying to contact NCL when they should be going through their own TA or the charter company.

 

And while I do feel for the OP I have to say that if I am heading out 10 days before my cruise I would be checking my email much more often than just the day the cruise leaves, especially if I'm going to a different country to get to the port.

[sottovoce]

All of you blindly defending NCL need to read the post again, particularly this paragraph;

We learn that the ship was chartered out ... BUT NCL did the pre-sailing registration, ticketing, luggage labels etc., on their web site, and the pre-sailing procedures were exactly as we had completed on three previous NCL cruises ...

Until he learned of the cancellation, he did not know the cruise was a charter, we don't know why he didn't know, but NCL didn't tell him(apparantly) when they accepted his booking, does this mean NCL were acting as agents for Newwest?, which I think, would make them jointly liable. This para also seems to suggest that he did not use a TA, but booked direct with NCL.

I, for one have learned something from this and will, in future check and check again for a possible repeat of this situation when booking, and thanks to Cruisingerman for one of the few sensible posts on this thread.

Oh, and I probably won't be sailing with NCL, either.

You simply can't be serious. Really, no one could be that oblivious.

[Planer's Edge]

I would guess there is always someone TROLLing, look in the mirror!!

 

What I meant was that the OP will be reading this thread, incredulous at the OTT reaction, dousing the flames and wisely deciding not to go near the fire again!

 

Now that is really funny. The king of all trolls calling me a troll.

 

PE

[hamrag]

Now that is really funny... [/quote]

 

Hi Planer, glad you have come out from under the bridge. Your silence recently has been deafening! Do the pills make you sleepy?

[Planer's Edge]

Now that is really funny... [/quote]

 

Hi Planer' date=' glad you have come out from under the bridge. Your silence recently has been deafening! Do the pills make you sleepy?[/quote']

 

You a really funny guy. Not under a bridge just out working for a living, how about you. Haven't seen much of any intelligence to comment on lately. ;)

 

You must have WiFi under your bridge. How modern of you. :rolleyes:

 

PE

 

P.S. I have to admire your avoidance techniques of using partial quotes to not deal with real issues. :D

[hamrag]

 

Not under a bridge just out working for a living' date=' how about you. Haven't seen much of any intelligence to comment on lately. ;)[/color']

 

 

Like you, out working for a living to pay for next cruise. Agree, not a lot of intelligent comment around. Cannot believe I wrote that, agreed....with Planer, must get some of them pills!;)

[Planer's Edge]

Gotta love partial quoting only to make a "certain point".. :rolleyes:

 

PE

[hamrag]

".. :rolleyes:

 

PE

 

Remember, some of your "friends" say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!:D

[MrLee]

Remember, some of your "friends" say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!:D

 

Hey!!! Sarcasm is my favorite indoor sport! :rolleyes:

[Planer's Edge]

Hey!!! Sarcasm is my favorite indoor sport! :rolleyes:

 

ditto!!

 

PE

[Planer's Edge]

Remember, some of your "friends" say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!:D

 

Besides I don't have battles of wit with with unarmed people. :D

 

PE

[mbisson]

keep taking the pills.;)

 

I'm a fan of Jethro Tull. You remind me of one of their albums---let's see what's the name of it??? Oh yes,

 

Thick as a Brick

[RichNY]

GM Monty

 

I'm a big fan of Jethro Bodine...love the ceeeement pond......:D

[swedish weave]

All of you blindly defending NCL need to read the post again, particularly this paragraph;

We learn that the ship was chartered out ... BUT NCL did the pre-sailing registration, ticketing, luggage labels etc., on their web site, and the pre-sailing procedures were exactly as we had completed on three previous NCL cruises ...

Until he learned of the cancellation, he did not know the cruise was a charter, we don't know why he didn't know, but NCL didn't tell him(apparantly) when they accepted his booking, does this mean NCL were acting as agents for Newwest?, which I think, would make them jointly liable. This para also seems to suggest that he did not use a TA, but booked direct with NCL.

I, for one have learned something from this and will, in future check and check again for a possible repeat of this situation when booking, and thanks to Cruisingerman for one of the few sensible posts on this thread.

Oh, and I probably won't be sailing with NCL, either.

 

Perhaps you should re-read the post also. I don't see anywhere that NCL accepted his booking.

[Planer's Edge]

Perhaps you should re-read the post also. I don't see anywhere that NCL accepted his booking.

 

That's right. Just like Expedia taking your booking for a hotel, Expedia is not there to register you at check in. NCL was a hired service for the booking agent.

 

PE

[Cruise_More_Often]

All of you blindly defending NCL need to read the post again, particularly this paragraph;

We learn that the ship was chartered out ... BUT NCL did the pre-sailing registration, ticketing, luggage labels etc., on their web site, and the pre-sailing procedures were exactly as we had completed on three previous NCL cruises ...

Until he learned of the cancellation, he did not know the cruise was a charter, we don't know why he didn't know, but NCL didn't tell him(apparantly) when they accepted his booking, does this mean NCL were acting as agents for Newwest?, which I think, would make them jointly liable. This para also seems to suggest that he did not use a TA, but booked direct with NCL.

Once again -- NO, NO, NO. We were at one time interested in booking the cruise to Vancouver. I tried to find the cruise on the NCL site and on other online sites, but I could never locate it. That's because the bookings were being handled by NewWest Travel, NOT NCL. I finally found it by using a link here on CruiseCritic directly to the NewWest travel website. The OP booked his cruise through a travel agent who neglected to tell him that it was a chartered cruise. That's who should have told him. The responsibility lies with NewWest and the fellow's travel agent.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

My re-read of the original post leads me to believe that the traveler booked the cruise through a UK or European travel agent, who perhaps may have not fully disclosed to the traveler that the cruise was a charter. Here in Europe, you receive confirmations on the letterhead of your travel agent, and not necessarily the confirmation directly from the travel provider or carrier.

 

So up until here, it may be possible that the traveler was under the impression that this was an NCL cruise and not a charter -- we'll never know that.

 

Where I believe NCL adds to the blame is in the web check-in phase. When logging in to check-in for this cruise, NCL should have flashed a warning to the effect that NCL was acting only as a servicer and operator for this cruise, and that the contractual relationship was with the charter company and not NCL.

 

If NCL did not do this prior to accepting web check-in, I believe the consumer was placed in a misleading position -- obviously unintentionally -- but nevertheless misleading.

 

It is here where I believe NCL would still be held liable for this situation in a European Court, since NCL is the dominant name on the ship itself (the ship was not repainted to reflect the name of the charter company), and probably NCL did not provide disclosure of the charter status before accepting web check-in.

 

No matter to whom one attributes liability, as I mentioned previously, here in Europe the travel agency must make good on this situation and is the one that carries the insurance policy, because of the very strong consumer protection we are afforded here. The passenger only needs to purchase insurance to protect instances instigated on the passenger side (illness, missed flights, etc.) but the passenger never has to purchase insurance here in Europe to protect against the travel agency, cruise line, charter company, wholesale supplier, etc.

 

At the end of the day, NCL also has its goodwill to protect, and should have provided better telephone assistance to the traveler as well.

 

Happy Cruising,

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[mbisson]

It is here where I believe NCL would still be held liable for this situation in a European Court, since NCL is the dominant name on the ship itself (the ship was not repainted to reflect the name of the charter company),

 

Holy crap! If not repainting the ship (that the customer didn't see anyway) could have any impact, your courts must be as screwy as ours!