Norwegian Sun Passengers Steamed Over Altered Cruise -- But Do They Have a Case?

[dockrocker]

Wow, if you have enough money to book a cruise to go Christmas shopping, I just can't really feel sorry for you. Really, who does that three weeks before Christmas? That was a gift to self for the people taking the cruise. Then they could bring back trinkets and say "Look what I bought for you, special from my trip the Caribbean."

 

Oh to have that problem that I get stranded on a strange island in the Caribbean when I go Christmas shopping;)

 

Nor can I work up any outrage for the couple that expected family and friends to cough up substantial cash to attend the destination wedding they couldn't even plan well enough to get to themselves. Selfish much?

[terrymtex01]

Well we agree to disagree, in my opinion of course you can pass laws on anyone that does business in/with the USA. Of course the type of refund depends on the reason for not making the ports, example if NCL knew before the cruise left the first port in the usa that they would need to change the itineary because of a mechancial issue, well in my opinion I have a big problem with that, in my opinion the contract needs to be changed to protect the consumer. I think the value casual cruiser has a different perspective than a long time cruiser. Conditioning may play a big part. The contract and changes to it have much more to do than just the complaints on this cruise, this is for the future, contact your congress person and senator.

 

Why do you want Congress to do for you what you can do for yourselves. Nothing will make a company change its policy faster than the almighty dollar. So just boycott NCL for this issue and if enough people feel like you do and join you in your boycott, it will get changed. In fact though, you would have to boycott every cruise line as it is in all of their ticket contracts. If there are enough people out there who feel as slighted as you do, then it shouldn't take long to get the cruise industry to change its policies. Oh but wait. That would mean having to do something yourself...make a sacrafice for what you believe in or making a sacrafice for how you think things should be. Seems like SoberSailer realizes how to get things done and is making the effort themselves, rather than asking someone else to do it.

 

NCL has changed over the years. My past cruises did not seem to matter with them. So boycott is what I will be doing and I look forward to my next cruise on another line. My door is open if NCL wants to tye to earn. Back my business and they know where to find me.

[newmexicoNita]

Just once -- only once -- try not taking the bait.

 

ok, I'll try, but I can't promise. I just have problems with posters that say something and don't back it up. legit compaints are fine.

 

Nita

[CILIBERTO]

We were on a cruise to the Mexican Rivera and has a simmular problem with the ship. Everything on the ship was working except there was an engine problem which kept us going on a very slow pace so we missed one of the ports of call.

 

No one complained and we all had a great extra sea day.

 

These people complain and make it bad for everyone else. You will not be getting your free cruise so just get off the pot.

 

NCL already gave you more than you should have received and they did not have to give even half of what they did. The captain is in charge and he sees that all are safe first.

 

JC

[Arzeena]

The compensation seemed quite fair.

The website that was launched by one unhappy cruiser was totally hilarious! It is a joke! Ridiculous! How low can people go to try to get a free cruise! Unbelievable! Just my opinion.

[Arzeena]

I am wondering about the mail and phone calls to the congress and senate, when the person who takes the call hears "Yes, it is an emergency that I speak to Congressman/woman xxx, my cruise was ruined because my cruiseports were changed. It is an outrage. Something MUST be done about this right away." Do you think the letter or call will even get through with a bunch of laughs??? Seriously people, you do know you are going to be laughed at, right??

 

What did you lose? Your voice while screaming at the top of your lungs for a free cruise? A night's sleep pondering how to get back at NCL? Extreme emotional distress? Hives? PTSD? Come on!!! I don't think Congress is going to put this at the top of their legislative agenda any time soon.

 

You are so right about this! Couldn't agree more that the Congress is not going to put this on their agenda any time EVER! :D

[dougbass]

i'm going on the sun next week, i'm hoping we miss like st. thomas for some reason and insted get ncl's private island, i had the most fun at that island!

[Partyatsea]

We think they should get 2, yes 2 free cruises for all their pain & suffering. AND we think they should all be put up in the suite of thier choice. And while were at it, let's throw a $1,000 OBC for these very wronged people. After all we're sure their lives will surely never be the same.

[Preds]

What a bunch of whiners. NCL's compensation was above and beyond IMO.

 

Break it down:

 

Lose St. Thomas - whatever, vastly overrated port IMO, particularly the shopping

Lose St. Maarten - disappointing

 

Substitute Samana - an underrated port IMO, we enjoyed our day there

Substitute GSC - a plus for some, negative for others, I'm not a huge fan

Gain $100 OBC

Gain 30% refund credit towards future cruise

Gain bottle of wine

Gain free use of the Hippos Slide on GSC (good for families, though probably crazy busy that day)

 

Lets see, they had food, they had water, they had elecrticity and plumbing, they had onboard entertainment. They missed 2 freakin ports. Give me a break.

 

Seems they were more than fairly compensated in my book.

[DMH15]

You know I maintain my car... And yet sometimes something breaks and I have to put it in the shop. It's unscheduled. I had other plans. I have to come up with plan b. And I'm not in the middle of the freaking ocean. And my car only cost 28k.

 

Things happen. Most cruises run fine, on schedule, no diversions. But to expect it every time is unrealstic.

[Susie51]

I think they were fairly compensated, but NCL could have handled it better. Bulk summary of stuff instead of piece meal offers and make it to all pax via cabin letters or something.

 

I understand the pax disappointment in missing two great ports, but what can you do? They are wanting a free cruise and that shouldn't happen. They got their cruise and what they experienced was NOTHING like the recent Carnival debacle - which, in my mind deserves a couple of really cheap cruises to go along with the free one they EARNED!

 

At anyrate, what NCL offered would have covered most of my on board purchases and 30% off a future cruise? Sure thing. Bad things happen. How you respond after that shows your true character.

 

Very well stated.

[emcelh]

If congress got involved at all' date=' fares would go up even before they enacted any law at all.[/color']

 

PE

You've got that right. People should be careful what they wish for.

[emcelh]

If a cruise line had to refund the fare every time they missed a port they'd be out of business very quickly. But in the case of NCL that might not be such a bad idea.

 

 

A good idea for a company that employs 10,000+ people to go out of business? Just what we need in this world economy....more unemployment.

[sparks1093]

Thank you Terry -

 

I will let my money talk... or in this case the lack of NCL ever seeing my $$$$$ again.

 

Said the ant as he kicked the elephant;).

[sjbdtz]

Thank you Terry -

 

I will let my money talk... or in this case the lack of NCL ever seeing my $$$$$ again.

 

 

At least now your agenda on that thread asking whether NCL was losing money or whether your future deposit was safe, has become clear.

 

 

ALSO.....I have finally realized who you are.

 

 

Welcome back, GIGCRUISER....... I wondered where you had gone.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

I think that many of you are forgetting that this was not a case of missing two ports because of bad weather. This was a case of missing two ports because of mechanical failure. Consequently, this is not a force majeure, or no fault situation, but rather NCL is to blame since a passenger is legally entitled to the reasonable expectation that he or she will be carried on a vessel with no mechanical failure or breakdown.

 

Here in Spain, this circumstance is covered under the Spanish version of the EU Package Travel Directive for passengers who book a complete air/sea package. If there were any passengers from Spain onboard who booked such an air/sea package with NCL in Europe, those passengers would actually be legally entitled to all of the compensation that in this case, for the U.S. passengers, you are all saying that NCL provided out of the goodness of their heart without any obligation. The legal reasoning behind this in the EU is that the cruiseline, due to mechanical failure, substantially altered the original itinerary.

 

However, given the nature of the itinerary, time of year, etc., I don't believe there were many passengers onboard from Spain or other countries of the European Union.

 

However, whether or not NCL is legally required to provide compensation under its contract with U.S. passengers, because there is indeed a fault element involved here (mechanical breakdown vs. weather), I do believe that NCL owes something additional to the wedding party, for example, to cover the expenses of people who showed up on an island to witness a wedding that didn't take place, or to passengers who perhaps purchased pre-paid, non-refundable private shore excursions and didn't get their money back.

 

NCL should not simply treat this as a port cancellation due to weather and should assume its share of the responsibility because it was in fact a mechanical breakdown.

 

Happy cruising,

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[teacher_md]

This sounds like a public relations problem.

 

Was the compensation fair? Yes, I think it seems reasonable.

 

Did NCL handle the situation proactively? Sounds like they didn't. If they did, a mutiny on board probably would have taken place like it did. I would be angry if there were perks out there (free drinks, whatever) that weren't publicized. They seemed to know pretty early on what was going on. Seems like they weren't able to communicate effectively or in a timely manner otherwise a situation like this shouldn't have happened.

 

The only person I feel truly bad for is the couple that was going to get married. I think NCL should try to make-good for them, one way or another. The other people may have taken it a little bit too far.

 

In life _ _ _ _ happens and we just have to deal with it. I am sure NCL learned from this how to do little things, communicate effectively and quickly so that a situation like this doesn't happen again. Actually, I feel bad for the many people on the cruise who were fine with the compensation but had to endure all of this drama and bickering. This is a hospitality industry and they need to keep people happy. Kind of a crappy situation overall.

 

And one more thing - on the website it talked about a LUXURY cruise. Ahem... ummmm... sorry, but NCL is not a luxury cruiseline, in my opinion. It's a good, affordable, vacation that promises a lot of FUN.

 

Also, the tone on these boards get out of hand with "poor baby" and even mocking the people. That's not right. Let's be respectful.

- AJ

[Jeff]

Our first NCL cruise was on the former Royal Viking ship, the original "Norwegian Star" from the Port of Houston, sponsor of the famous (at least in our area) "Cruise from Hell", etc, and we were given a letter prior to boarding that we weren't going to be able to access one of the ports due to "mechanical trouble", and offered basically the same thing, a discount on a future cruise, onboard credits, etc, which we decided to accept, and though we didn't make the port as announced, we had a wonderful time, made the best of it, took our discounted cruise a year later (an uncanny way to regain $$$ to NCL's pockets) and have since taken 4 or 5 more NCL cruises. We've had less-than-satisfactory experiences on other cruise lines as well, goes with the territory sometimes. After 16 cruises, it's something you prepare yourself for, hope for the best, and move on. Ruining someone else's cruise experience by constant bitching and whining isn't an acceptable way to "voice your displeasure", at least my opinion. Whether at work, at play, whatever, a little "southern hospitality" goes a long way.

 

I'm off my soapbox now.....

[sparks1093]

Dear friends:

 

I think that many of you are forgetting that this was not a case of missing two ports because of bad weather. This was a case of missing two ports because of mechanical failure. Consequently, this is not a force majeure, or no fault situation, but rather NCL is to blame since a passenger is legally entitled to the reasonable expectation that he or she will be carried on a vessel with no mechanical failure or breakdown.

 

Here in Spain, this circumstance is covered under the Spanish version of the EU Package Travel Directive for passengers who book a complete air/sea package. If there were any passengers from Spain onboard who booked such an air/sea package with NCL in Europe, those passengers would actually be legally entitled to all of the compensation that in this case, for the U.S. passengers, you are all saying that NCL provided out of the goodness of their heart without any obligation. The legal reasoning behind this in the EU is that the cruiseline, due to mechanical failure, substantially altered the original itinerary.

 

However, given the nature of the itinerary, time of year, etc., I don't believe there were many passengers onboard from Spain or other countries of the European Union.

 

However, whether or not NCL is legally required to provide compensation under its contract with U.S. passengers, because there is indeed a fault element involved here (mechanical breakdown vs. weather), I do believe that NCL owes something additional to the wedding party, for example, to cover the expenses of people who showed up on an island to witness a wedding that didn't take place, or to passengers who perhaps purchased pre-paid, non-refundable private shore excursions and didn't get their money back.

 

NCL should not simply treat this as a port cancellation due to weather and should assume its share of the responsibility because it was in fact a mechanical breakdown.

 

Happy cruising,

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

A passenger is legally entitled to what is in the cruise contract. Now in such situations does it really matter if the company volunteers to do something for the passengers out of good will (or to stave off potential litigation) or that the company was required to provide the compensation? In either case the customer was made whole.

 

Further, in the case of EU covered passengers what exactly would they legally be entitled to? Any monetary loss resulting from the port change, i.e. the port charges themselves. No OBC, no free amentities, no 30% off a future cruise. (Granted if the cruise line were providing such things to non-EU passengers they would be hard pressed to exclude the EU passengers, but still...).

[RJake1]

If I bought an airline ticket from NYC to LA, and due to mechanical diffiiculties I was left off in Detroit, would the airline give me 50% refund on the theory that they got me half-way there?

 

No. Thats ridiculous.

 

Yet cruise lines maintain that they have no obligation to take you to the advertised ports of call. The ones that you paid to see. All the consumer is really buying is a ticket to sail around on their ship for a week to whatever random ports the company decides to go.

 

That's absurd.

 

If cruise lines advertised that fact how many tickets do you think they'd sell? Probably very few, or the prices would have to be a lot cheaper.

 

The fact is people select cruises based on the ports of call. If the cruise line doesn't deliver due to its own negligence (mechanical failure) a full refund is in order.

 

The only exception I'd make is for weather issues. They can't be held responsible for hurricanes.

 

The FTC needs to get involved in tighter regulation of the cruise industry. They are not accountable to anyone right now. They keep no crime statistics. They don't enforce their own onboard rules. They often ignore customer complaints.

[sjbdtz]

=All the consumer is really buying is a ticket to sail around on their ship for a week to whatever random ports the company decides to go.

 

That's absurd.

 

The fact is people select cruises based on the ports of call. If the cruise line doesn't deliver due to its own negligence (mechanical failure) a full refund is in order.

 

The only exception I'd make is for weather issues. They can't be held responsible for hurricanes.

 

 

Are you the person behind the website? Your statements sound very similar.

 

 

Indeed, airlines charge a transportation fee. They also don't feed you, provide a bed with twice-daily turndown, I have yet to see a Broadway show or acrobatics act on a plane (although I did hear of one flight with some type (:D) of snakes).

 

Cruising is about the experience at sea. The ports are NOT part of the contract. Factually, and definitively, and every person who sails on a cruiseline accepts the terms of their contract which explicitly says the cruiseline has no obligation WHATSOEVER to port anywhere.

 

If this is news, then it means you did't read your contact before agreeing to it. That's poor practice in any situation.

 

Expecting a full refund, THAT is absurd.

 

The only exception you'd make is for weather. So if the ship got out 30 -40 miles and someone needed to be medically evacuated, you would then hold the ship responsible for millions of dollars of refunds.....instead of trying to save the person's life? How callous.

 

 

As for the FTC.... as a Canadian, I have no interest in the US government dictating things about my cruise experience. I have a contract between myself and the company with whom I'm doing business. Foreign governments can stay out of the mix, thanks very much.

 

 

 

 

.

[Family Travel Story]

I must say, it seems to me as an avid cruiser, that passengers on the NCL Sun cruise were more then fairly compensated for the change in islands. First off, it is a very well known fact that the cruise ship can change its plans for any reason. Now, that typically has to do with safety and weather. With that said, an argument can certainly be made that taxing the engines in an unsafe manner to get to St. Thomas and St. Martin would be just that, unsafe. Additionally, I have cruised to Samana and NCL's private island, and must say that both are very nice.

 

With the foregoing stated, I truly believe that being compensated with, a $100-per-cabin onboard credit, wine with dinner one night, rum punch one afternoon, free photos from the onboard gallery, free use of the Great Stirrup Cay's Hippo Slide (one of the world's largest inflatable water slides; regularly $5 per ride, $20 for unlimited) and a credit, equal to 30 percent of the cruise fare paid, to be used on a future cruise. Port taxes and fees for the missed ports were also refunded is quite the consideration for a change in itinerary.

[newmexicoNita]

Our first NCL cruise was on the former Royal Viking ship, the original "Norwegian Star" from the Port of Houston, sponsor of the famous (at least in our area) "Cruise from Hell", etc, and we were given a letter prior to boarding that we weren't going to be able to access one of the ports due to "mechanical trouble", and offered basically the same thing, a discount on a future cruise, onboard credits, etc, which we decided to accept, and though we didn't make the port as announced, we had a wonderful time, made the best of it, took our discounted cruise a year later (an uncanny way to regain $$$ to NCL's pockets) and have since taken 4 or 5 more NCL cruises. We've had less-than-satisfactory experiences on other cruise lines as well, goes with the territory sometimes. After 16 cruises, it's something you prepare yourself for, hope for the best, and move on. Ruining someone else's cruise experience by constant bitching and whining isn't an acceptable way to "voice your displeasure", at least my opinion. Whether at work, at play, whatever, a little "southern hospitality" goes a long way.

 

I'm off my soapbox now.....

 

We did that old ship as well. You know we had a really good time, it was our first visit to Roatan (back when no one had ever heard of the island) the ship wasn't crowded so the service was fantastic, the embarkation port was a joke and how about the bathtubs in all the cabins? Sure there were problems, would we have chosen to cruise the ship again? Probably not, but the price was good and we made the best out of it.

 

Nita

[newmexicoNita]

If I bought an airline ticket from NYC to LA, and due to mechanical diffiiculties I was left off in Detroit, would the airline give me 50% refund on the theory that they got me half-way there?

 

No. Thats ridiculous.

 

Yet cruise lines maintain that they have no obligation to take you to the advertised ports of call. The ones that you paid to see. All the consumer is really buying is a ticket to sail around on their ship for a week to whatever random ports the company decides to go.

 

That's absurd.

 

If cruise lines advertised that fact how many tickets do you think they'd sell? Probably very few, or the prices would have to be a lot cheaper.

 

The fact is people select cruises based on the ports of call. If the cruise line doesn't deliver due to its own negligence (mechanical failure) a full refund is in order.

 

The only exception I'd make is for weather issues. They can't be held responsible for hurricanes.

 

The FTC needs to get involved in tighter regulation of the cruise industry. They are not accountable to anyone right now. They keep no crime statistics. They don't enforce their own onboard rules. They often ignore customer complaints.

 

Very few select a cruise based solely on ports. Yes, some do but that isn't what you are paying, that is what your port charges are for. When you book a cruise you are entitled to food, shelter and getting from point A back to point A, you are contracting for anything else. This is cut and dry and very different than the example of air travel. What about when an air craft has mechanical problems and can't get you to your destination on time? This happens daily. What do they do? They offer you a dsicount on any other flight if you are lucky. If it is an overnight issue, they will give you a food voucher and a hotel room.

 

Nita

[commission1]

Commission1- Your comparison on signing up for a cruise to Aruba only to be diverted to Alaska is asinine. Such a change is not going to take place. It amazes me how people will post things that are so completely far fetched and unrealistic.

 

Your post pretty much explains it, it amazes me how people will post thngs that are so completely far fetched, your post cannot be by accident, it was deliberate, I said the exact opposite in response to another far fetched poster that also has some type of agenda.

 

What part of NOT, dont you understand, once again this post by you appears not to be a mistake, if so please state othewise, we all make mistakes.

 

Here is what I said, again as a response to another illogical attack:

 

"It is very important to be reasonable and not to distort a post because of your own agenda, please. Would a cruise line advertise a cruise to aruba then take you to alaska? Please, Please, probably not, however the issue is the cruise lines have a right to, now that is a problem in my opinion, your opinion may be different"

 

Apparently there are some on this board that are not familar with the consumer protection agency, there are many differnt aspects to government, if those on this board that believe that commerce is not as important to the united states as national security, than, well I have this cruise ship to sell you. Now go ahead and distort away. I will always post to let people know of deals and economic ways to explore ports, whether the long term posters and others like it or not. Value is a good thing