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

[sparks1093]

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

 

As CruisinGerman points out someone sailing under the protection of the European Union law would have received, under law, what NCL provided on it's own without any outside agency intervention. So what point would be served by having Congress get involved with more "consumer protection"?

[Memiki]

It is too bad the ones who wanted to complain so loud ruined it for others. NCL gave them much more than the cruise contract states they have to. The complainers have no case. Stuff happens and you just have to go with the flow. It is no wonder other countries hate Americans. We can be very rude to people and can act so spoiled. It makes me sad.:confused:

 

I so agree with you.

 

I have to agree that I think fair compensation was given.

 

I would hate to be on a cruise and have people milling around and complaining, and demanding this and that. Not only that but the poor crew. Working for the public is one of the hardest jobs in the world.

 

Sometimes stuff (caught myself and didn't use word that I almost used) happens.

 

One poster felt sorry for the couple that was going to be married. In a way I do, but not completely. We were to go to a outdoor wedding once. It was going to be beautiful. Suddenly Mother Nature decided to unleash all of her power. I admire the couple that they took it in stride. All decorations were ruined due to them already were set up outside. They just said well that is what happens. We had an indoor one and it turned out lovely. They were very creative on short notice.

 

There is no guarantee in life.

 

If you want perfection, stay home. Oh wait things go wrong at home, too.

[commission1]

As CruisinGerman points out someone sailing under the protection of the European Union law would have received, under law, what NCL provided on it's own without any outside agency intervention. So what point would be served by having Congress get involved with more "consumer protection"?

 

My position is very clear, yours may be different, I am not going to go around and around when we all know each others position. However I am not going to let a poster say that I said something when in fact it was the very opposite of what I said, and the only reason I had to make that example was because some other long time poster was trying to distort something else that i said. So what we disagree, we know each others position, we posted our thoughts, get over it.

[sparks1093]

My position is very clear, yours may be different, I am not going to go around and around when we all know each others position. However I am not going to let a poster say that I said something when in fact it was the very opposite of what I said, and the only reason I had to make that example was because some other long time poster was trying to distort something else that i said. So what we disagree, we know each others position, we posted our thoughts, get over it.

 

All well and good but you didn't answer my question. You keep mentioning consumer protection and getting Congress involved and my post was in furtherance of that debate, it wasn't about someone else distorting your posts (I quoted that post, and only a limited section of it, because you brought up "consumer protection" again, and someone knowledgable of the EU laws provided new information). If you don't want to debate you don't have to, of course, but even under the far reaching EU laws passengers would be entitled to no more than what NCL provided voluntarily. So again I ask what point would be served by having Congress get involved with more "consumer protection"?

[klingoncruiser]

They were fairly compensated? Yes They did sail for 7 day, they ate well and had plenty to do. Did the ship's upper management really blow it, well yeah, that seems to be the case. Should all of Norwegian lines ships be shunned over this? Not likely. I have been on "bad" cruises. I got a really good deal on a future cruise. However as I do not live in Florida, it was of no value to me as it would mean a long trip to a port. At least they did offer.

 

I don't think ANYTHING will make these people happy at this point.

[SPMorrissey]

As has been said in many many different variations...how do you equate a mechanical failure as negligence. Does your own car run 100% 24/7/365?

 

As for the rest of your little rant' date=' we do not need any more governmental regulations. That is what is destroying this country as exampled by the goings on in Europe.[/color']

 

PE

Like you I want less government involvement so we aren't like Europe or get in a benefit payout mess like the UK. Incidents like this are good to educate people to read the small print when they go on a cruise.

[Kancruze]

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.

 

Is that what they were compensated with?? By the sounds of the complaints, I was thinking that maybe NCL had dumped you all off in rowboats or something. WOW! What a bunch of spoiled brats! I've been on many other cruiselines which had to miss ports and never got near as much as that. Suck it up, NCL was more than fair to you.

[jsmith1195]

I just checked that site out. Unbelievable. Those people are really just wasting their time. They do not have a case. I applaud NCL for trying to make guests happy and their offers are more than acceptable. Please, boycott NCL, I would not want to sail with ANY of these people. You live one life, and you're wasting it by trying to 'hold NCL responsible'. Laughable. I would like the creator of that website to read this whole thread and see how off he and his group are about this.

[iheartbda]

Great, I will then disregard your comment as you are unaware of why I am Boycotting NCL. As for the folks on this thread being discussed, Please refer to my previous post. I have never agreeed or disagreed. I think the fact the 400 people gathered in the theater to voice their displeasure is a statement that Management truly failed to communicate effectively.

 

Have a good one.

It's probably more likely they were 400 people who didn't read their cruise contract.:D BTW, was there an official headcount taken?

[Agent999]

No kidding. A lot of folks love hiding safely behind a keyboard, because they don't have to be civil, as if they were in a face to face discussion.

 

The war stories and "you should be happy you missed this or that port" are so beyond the point.

 

You make some very valid points. I would like to add: Does everyone realize how much less of this type of behavior would occur if people would put their reviews in the REVIEW section of Cruise Critic instead of posting them on the DISCUSSION boards?

 

Just think...someone could post their opinions and experiences without the questioning, commenting, and arguements that seem to follow reviews posted on discussion boards.

[Agent999]

Ed, if you are suggesting that this thread was started in the wrong location, please consdier this...

 

This thread was started by "LauraS" the Community Manager as a "Sticky"

This thread was moved to the main discussion board.

 

This thead was and is not a review, but a question.

 

I did not say THIS thread was a review.

 

The previous poster had commented on what could be called "bad Internet behavior" that is frequently seen on these boards.

 

My post simply pointed out that the type of behavior in question OFTEN occurs in review threads that are placed in the discussion boards instead of in the review section.

[legaljen1969]

Commission, I have not been back on CC until just now. I did not see your post of 9:40 a.m. EST until just now. I have reviewed the thread and realize that I misread what you stated. Apologies.

That's all that will be said.

[Ismay1912]

....Would these knuckle-heads have been happier if the Captain "chanced" it to the port(s) desired and have the propulsion crap out all together? One only has to use common sense here. Besides, every brochure clearly states that in the event of un-forseen circumstances, the Captain calls the shots!

...With all the nonsense happening in the world today, people really need to examine what really are "hardships" these days. Get a Grip!

[oldguysandgalls]

We still believe that NCL should have just lowered the lifeboats and tell every unhappy "hard done by" passenger to line up for their oars ( 1 oar per passenger, charged to their onboard account and non refundable), and board the lifeboats and ROW AWAY. The rest of us are staying on board and having a great time. Bon Voyage!

[newmexicoNita]

You make some very valid points. I would like to add: Does everyone realize how much less of this type of behavior would occur if people would put their reviews in the REVIEW section of Cruise Critic instead of posting them on the DISCUSSION boards?

 

Just think...someone could post their opinions and experiences without the questioning, commenting, and arguements that seem to follow reviews posted on discussion boards.

 

there are several reviews on CC review board about this and other cruises. I like to see both and why? I like to read a review where I can question the accruacay (spelling) of the comments and question the reviewer as often terms like "the food sucked" are not explained. Maybe the food did suck, maybe the OP had a couple of dishes that were not to thier liking. I also like to read reviews, good and bad, where we can honestly see how someone feels without the back and forth debates. I look at a review (especially if it is a ship I have sailed or are thinking of sailing) and read all the reviews I can find. We do the same when staying in a hotel. Doesn't it make sense to have both types of reviews? One thing many readers do not realize: Often and yes, this happens often, an unhappy family will post on the review section. 3 or 4 will post how bad the cruise was, throwning the rating all out of kilter. If those same people post where we can question the review and opinions it is possible to get to the bottom of what really happened. Believe me, I have seen this happen many times and it is pretty easy to spot if you are looking for it. Nita

[fergusonvt]

I actually just took the time to read the ourbadcruise website from start to finish and can't believe that someone actually used the work "suffered" to describe their experience. OMG.

[4774Papa]

NCL's compensation was ok, but not super. However, raising a public stink doesn't help. We were on a Med cruise on the GEM this July and missed out on some excursions due to strikes in Greece. We were flexible and still had fun.

[Agent999]

there are several reviews on CC review board about this and other cruises. I like to see both and why? I like to read a review where I can question the accruacay (spelling) of the comments and question the reviewer as often terms like "the food sucked" are not explained. Maybe the food did suck, maybe the OP had a couple of dishes that were not to thier liking. I also like to read reviews, good and bad, where we can honestly see how someone feels without the back and forth debates. I look at a review (especially if it is a ship I have sailed or are thinking of sailing) and read all the reviews I can find. We do the same when staying in a hotel. Doesn't it make sense to have both types of reviews? One thing many readers do not realize: Often and yes, this happens often, an unhappy family will post on the review section. 3 or 4 will post how bad the cruise was, throwning the rating all out of kilter. If those same people post where we can question the review and opinions it is possible to get to the bottom of what really happened. Believe me, I have seen this happen many times and it is pretty easy to spot if you are looking for it. Nita

 

 

Thanks for sharing your views, Nita. I do understand the logic behind your position. However, I still must respectfully disagree.

 

 

A review is nothing but a person's OPINION. Anyone reading a review must always remember that reviews are, by definition, subjective. Because of that, I cannot agree with your statement about questioning "the accruacay (spelling) of the comments and question the reviewer as often terms like "the food sucked" are not explained". Because a review is a person's OPINION, I don't believe that it's accuracy can be questioned. It is what it is. You, I, or others may feel differently or we may have had different experiences than the reviewer, but that does not change what that particular person experienced.

 

For example, a reviewer may have a meal in the MDR that they think "sucked". That very dish may also be your favorite dish on the menu and you may not agree that it could possibly "suck". That is just two people with two differing opinions...it should not be subject to an argument over accuracy.

 

The other statement that you made that I would disagree with is "If those same people post where we can question the review and opinions it is possible to get to the bottom of what really happened". My disagreement on this is simply based on the idea that (and correct me if this mission is posted somewhere) it is not our "job" to get to the bottom of what really happened. People should be able to post their opinons without having to be subjected to a witch-hunt because other people have a differing opinion.

 

There really is no need to question and badger a poster over a review. As you pointed out, it is easy to tell the difference between real issues and people who blow things out of proportion. When one or two people complain, I just take it with a "you can't please everyone" grain of salt. When many complain, then there might be an issue.

 

My simple point is that there would be less bickering if reviews where placed on the review section. If you read something "odd" in a review, there is nothing stopping you from coming here and starting a thread to discuss the issue and get opinions on the subject from others. That is a good way to get the accurate information without making someone feel as though they are being cornered and attacked over their opinion.

 

 

Besides....if reviews don't belong there, what is the purpose of having a review section in the first place?

[newmexicoNita]

Thanks for sharing your views, Nita. I do understand the logic behind your position. However, I still must respectfully disagree.

 

 

A review is nothing but a person's OPINION. Anyone reading a review must always remember that reviews are, by definition, subjective. Because of that, I cannot agree with your statement about questioning "the accruacay (spelling) of the comments and question the reviewer as often terms like "the food sucked" are not explained". Because a review is a person's OPINION, I don't believe that it's accuracy can be questioned. It is what it is. You, I, or others may feel differently or we may have had different experiences than the reviewer, but that does not change what that particular person experienced.

 

For example, a reviewer may have a meal in the MDR that they think "sucked". That very dish may also be your favorite dish on the menu and you may not agree that it could possibly "suck". That is just two people with two differing opinions...it should not be subject to an argument over accuracy.

 

The other statement that you made that I would disagree with is "If those same people post where we can question the review and opinions it is possible to get to the bottom of what really happened". My disagreement on this is simply based on the idea that (and correct me if this mission is posted somewhere) it is not our "job" to get to the bottom of what really happened. People should be able to post their opinons without having to be subjected to a witch-hunt because other people have a differing opinion.

 

There really is no need to question and badger a poster over a review. As you pointed out, it is easy to tell the difference between real issues and people who blow things out of proportion. When one or two people complain, I just take it with a "you can't please everyone" grain of salt. When many complain, then there might be an issue.

 

My simple point is that there would be less bickering if reviews where placed on the review section. If you read something "odd" in a review, there is nothing stopping you from coming here and starting a thread to discuss the issue and get opinions on the subject from others. That is a good way to get the accurate information without making someone feel as though they are being cornered and attacked over their opinion.

 

 

Besides....if reviews don't belong there, what is the purpose of having a review section in the first place?

 

and I agree there would be, but think about those who are not seasoned cruisers and are depending on maybe the last review to make a decision? Reviewer says the ship was awful and dirty but the last CDC reports gave the ship 100% for cleanliness. The poor person reading the review doesn't know this. I give this example because exactly that happened very recently twice. A bad review and 2 different people who had reservations started panicing and thinking they should cancel because they were afraid the ship might be dirty.

 

Nita

[cod]

Maybe I'm missing something but to me some of the comparisons don't compare. Bad weather, strikes, uprisings at destinatinon etc are 100% out of a cruiselines control and what I think the contract clause was meant cover. And to those who say 'well, so are engine problems' I beg to differ...somewhat at least. Granted, NCL didn't intentionally cause their breakdown but it is afterall THEIR ship and certainly no fault of passengers who plan and save long-and-hard for their vacation. I've never understood people who book a cruise during hurricane season and then raise-cane when they have to miss a port. But if ports are important to you and then you book a cruise during this time of year I think you can reasonably expect to get where you wanted to go!!

 

I think a full refund as some were wanting was out of line but the compensation certainly could have been greater and should have been more forthcoming in order to avoid the angry encounter that ensued.

 

Do you recall RCCL's incident last year when they were hit but a rogue wave near a port somewhere in the Med? To me, that was certainly no fault of theirs yet EVERYONE got a full cruise refund. I remember reporters talking to passengers who were surprised (and happy of course) that they were getting that, saying they in no way blamed the cruiseline and never even complained!!?!!

 

I think one line did too much and, in this instance, not enough.

 

JMHO..no flames please.lol

[Agent999]

and I agree there would be, but think about those who are not seasoned cruisers and are depending on maybe the last review to make a decision? Reviewer says the ship was awful and dirty but the last CDC reports gave the ship 100% for cleanliness. The poor person reading the review doesn't know this. I give this example because exactly that happened very recently twice. A bad review and 2 different people who had reservations started panicing and thinking they should cancel because they were afraid the ship might be dirty.

 

Nita

 

Exactly why I said "When one or two people complain, I just take it with a "you can't please everyone" grain of salt. When many complain, then there might be an issue.".

 

There is no reason to take one or two bad reviews out of many as an indicator of "problems". There will always be disgruntled people with an axe to grind. You don't have to be a "seasoned cruiser" to understand that simple fact.

 

 

That is why, if a person reads something in a review that concerns them, that they can open a new thread on the discussion boards to discuss the topic. That way, they can get information and feedback from many people and not have to rely on the opinion from one reviewer.

 

Reviews should be posted in the review section...much like opinions belong on the editorial pages of a newspaper. General questions and answers, along with information gathering, should be done on discussion threads.

 

If we can't respect the boundries of the various sections of Cruise Critic, then we may as well just eliminate all of them and just make the whole thing one big discussion thread. :rolleyes:

[Mooder]

For example, a reviewer may have a meal in the MDR that they think "sucked". That very dish may also be your favorite dish on the menu and you may not agree that it could possibly "suck". That is just two people with two differing opinions...it should not be subject to an argument over accuracy.

 

In my opinion, this is a great example of where it is nice to have a discussion with the reviewer. If they say it sucked, I want to ask what they had. Maybe they ordered something I would never order and therefore I do not have to be concerned about the issue. How else would I ever know? It is not a matter of "getting to the bottom of things" as though we are law enforcement, but it is a matter of have a discussion so we can see what issues concern us and what do not. Along with you, I prefer to see these boards remain civil and not have reviewers jumped on. But my experience is that I can include negative comments without being jumped on so long as the review is balanced and include sufficient explanation of the negatives.

[swedish weave]

Regarding the original question on this thread --Do they have a case ?

 

I scanned the website and read the ticket contract.

 

Of the approximate 400 people who created the disturbance, I wonder how many read the ticket contract and realize that they don't have the right to class action, and if they pursue this through the legal system, they will be responsible for attorney fees and other expenses as individuals rather than as a class. I expect the furor to subside rather quickly when they realize the cost of keeping this going.

[Agent999]

In my opinion, this is a great example of where it is nice to have a discussion with the reviewer. If they say it sucked, I want to ask what they had. Maybe they ordered something I would never order and therefore I do not have to be concerned about the issue. How else would I ever know? It is not a matter of "getting to the bottom of things" as though we are law enforcement, but it is a matter of have a discussion so we can see what issues concern us and what do not. Along with you, I prefer to see these boards remain civil and not have reviewers jumped on. But my experience is that I can include negative comments without being jumped on so long as the review is balanced and include sufficient explanation of the negatives.

 

And I think it is the perfect example of why the discussion is ultimately pointless.

 

It really would not matter what they ordered. Their tastes may be totally different than yours and/or mine. Just because they disliked, or liked, a particular dish...that has NO BEARING on whether you or I might like or dislike that same dish. And that assumes that the dish was properly prepared. If it was not, then this becomes a whole different discussion.

 

Regardless...it is always best to just realize that reviews are OPINIONS and therefore should never be taken to heart.

 

If you see something in a review that does concern you, wouldn't it be best to bring it up in the general discussion forum where you could get the opinions of others who may have been on that sailing...or subsequent sailings...instead of just discussing the opinion of one poster?

 

And...

 

Your last statement intrigues me. Why must a review be "balanced"? Are you stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have either a completely good or a completely bad experience? While I understand that good and bad thing can, and do, happen, I do believe that it is possible that a person can experience one without the other. And since the review represents the reviewer's opinion, they should be able to voice that opinion without having skew it so the pros match the cons (or vice versa).

[Agent999]

Regarding the original question on this thread --Do they have a case ?

 

I scanned the website and read the ticket contract.

 

Of the approximate 400 people who created the disturbance, I wonder how many read the ticket contract and realize that they don't have the right to class action, and if they pursue this through the legal system, they will be responsible for attorney fees and other expenses as individuals rather than as a class. I expect the furor to subside rather quickly when they realize the cost of keeping this going.

 

I don't think the cost is going to be the issue. Rather, this will die when they realize that they already "closed" the case.

 

 

As we all know, these passengers have an issue stemming from their cruise. As a result of those issues, NCL offered the passengers a settlement in the form of an OBC plus other amenities. Once the passengers accept that settlement it is "case closed". In the eyes of the legal system, once they accepted the offer they were made "whole" and there is no further case on these issues.