NCL Slammed in Washington Post Column for Poor Customer Service

[elhenry]

So in other words, he expressed his sympathy toward your situation, but took no action as a result, right?

 

 

Seems like that is exactly what he is condemning NCL for doing. :rolleyes:

 

 

...just sayin'

 

Excellent analysis. Too bad you aren't writing the articles...

 

el henry

[newmexicoNita]

Here is a link to a column published in today's Washington Post. It is written by travel consumer advocate Christopher Elliott and relates the poor customer service exhibited by NCL to two families who lost a family member (one lost their 25-year-old son).

 

Yes, people should know that cruise line rules are stringent about cancellations and that they should purchase travel insurance. Nevertheless, it appears that other cruise lines, namely Royal Caribbean and Carnival, show compassion to people who have lost a family member shortly before sailing and Elliott argues that more should do so.

 

I am passing this link on just for information--no flames, please.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/some-cruise-lines-take-a-hard-stance-on-refunds-even-when-a-relative-dies/2014/08/07/97a733a0-143e-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html

 

thanks for sharing. It is so sad when tragedies happen and people have to face something like this as well, but if companies don't keep strict rules why would anyone buy insurance? How would any of us handle a situation where our home insurance or car insurance had just expired and we were in an accident or fire? Would we expect the insurance company to pay us even if we didn't have a paid up policy? Or what about the person who has just started a new job, our health insurance hadn't kicked in and one of our kids falls out of a tree and breaks his arm, should we expect the hospital to treat the injury and we would not have to foot the bill? I know I sound cold, I am glad some companies do show compassion (though I am surprised) but I do not see where someone can say NCL has poor customer service based on this.

 

I think the writer did a sloppy job, he wrote an article for sensationalism and needs to hear the other side of these stories.

Edited August 10, 2014 by newmexicoNita

[EvilBanker]

Ironically, for my past and upcoming cruise - I purchased insurance from one of the sponsors of Elliott's website, from a link on his site. :cool:

[Luvmesomeme]

"Sorry Sir. The ship is overbooked. We'll put you on the next sailing in two weeks.":eek:

 

I do believe that the ships do overbook. A few years ago my husband and i booked a cruise a year in advance to celebrate our anniversary on another line. Within a week of our cruise we started getting calls asking us to switch to another sailing and offered us onboard credit, discounted pricing and other incentives. The calls were coming in daily even though I asked not to be contacted. It was just like being at the airport when they make the announcement asking people to give up their seats. This is one reason why I will never travel without a confirmed cabin number or fly without a confirmed seat number. It may not be a fact but I'm afraid that those are the people who may not be able to travel in over sold situations.

 

As far as insurance, I have gone both ways depending on the cost and length of the cruise. Expensive cruises warrant insurance. Weekend getaways, I usually risk.

[rbrugler]

It has been on the news that airlines are ending compassionate fares. Should we cruicify them too? I always buy insurance. I had to use it once too. Case closed.

[cruisecritiquer]

It has been on the news that airlines are ending compassionate fares. Should we cruicify them too? I always buy insurance. I had to use it once too. Case closed.

 

I know from experience that the "compassionate" fares aren't very compassionate at all. Sometimes they are even more expensive than the regular rate.

Edited August 10, 2014 by cruisecritiquer

[BlueRiband]

I do believe that the ships do overbook....

 

Actually I know they generally don't, but it was part of my response to reporter Chris Elliot. He ended his column by saying that the bereaved families should perhaps have planned to fly to their vacations instead.

 

Airlines have far greater flexibility to deal with late cancellations and no shows as they overbook and involuntarily bump passengers if too many show up. There’s always another flight leaving within hours or at least by the next day. A cruise line cannot overbook and bump passengers who have driven or flown to the embarkation port to a sailing weeks away.

 

The decision to buy or not buy trip insurance is like any other risk/benefit calculation. If one would rather save the money than spend it in case of a one in a million risk then so be it. These people made that decision and now they run crying to the press.

 

All of us have experienced the death of someone close to us. But a liberal bereavement refund policy would quickly be worked down the line until somebody wants a refund because the beloved family dog had to be put down.

Edited August 11, 2014 by BlueRiband

[Da-Painter]

So now this has again, turned into another "buy insurance" issue.

So tired of this.

The issue was a journalist writing an article on NCL, to slam them, now folks think they need to tell us that we should buy insurance every time we travel.

[Hikini]

Any reporter that stoops to this level of emotional blackmail should be forced to dig into their own pocket and pay these people.

 

They call this journalism?

 

I wholeheartedly agree!!

[EyeSeaEwe]

1) This is a editorial.

2) Editorials are opinions.

3) Opinions are like...

[GUEST080219]

#2 - The cruise line is technically not keeping your fare. Once you cancel, you actually are refunded the entire fare...no matter when, or for what reason you cancel. (Now read this next part VERY carefully) Your contract with the cruise line also contains a clause where you agree to pay a CANCELLATION FEE if you choose to cancel. Depending on when you cancel, the cancellaton fee can be as much as 100% of the original booked fare. IOW...you didn't pay for the cabin, what you ended up paying was actually the cancellation fee agreed to because you choose to cancel.

 

So, since you cancelled the reservation AND there is no money tied up in fares, the cruise line is free to re-book the cabin as they see fit.

 

That may change soon, at least in some European countries.

There has been a court ruling here in Germany a couple of weeks ago where an airline had to pay the full ticket price back to a customer as they could not prove that they could not sell the seat again for the fare.

The cancellation fee is to protect the company against financial loss but not thought as a second source of income through selling the same place twice.

It should be the same for cruise lines. They have to prove that they could not sell your cabin or only for a lower cruise fare.

[old nutter]

So now this has again, turned into another "buy insurance" issue.

So tired of this.

The issue was a journalist writing an article on NCL, to slam them, now folks think they need to tell us that we should buy insurance every time we travel.

 

The majority of posts are discussing the incorrect and unfair content of that article. Posters are merely linking this sloppy journalism to the solution that the families could have taken to avoid the situation that this journalist chose to print.

 

The bottom line to the subject of the article is that if you do not take up travel insurance that is entirely your decision because you wish to take the potential financial risk yourself rather than paying someone else to take that risk. If all goes well then fine, you will be better off than those who do choose to pay for the insurance but if not, don't blame the cruise line and then use public or social media to blame anyone but yourself - that is the key point of personal experiences mentioned in this thread.

[sparks1093]

1) This is a editorial.

2) Editorials are opinions.

3) Opinions are like...

 

And opinions can be wrong if based on incomplete facts or come from a faulty premise.

[Starry Eyes]

I do believe that the ships do overbook. A few years ago my husband and i booked a cruise a year in advance to celebrate our anniversary on another line. Within a week of our cruise we started getting calls asking us to switch to another sailing and offered us onboard credit' date=' discounted pricing and other incentives. The calls were coming in daily even though I asked not to be contacted. It was just like being at the airport when they make the announcement asking people to give up their seats. This is one reason why I will never travel without a confirmed cabin number or fly without a confirmed seat number. It may not be a fact but I'm afraid that those are the people who may not be able to travel in over sold situations.

 

As far as insurance, I have gone both ways depending on the cost and length of the cruise. Expensive cruises warrant insurance. Weekend getaways, I usually risk.[/quote']

OK, it happened to you once on another cruiseline a few years ago. Since I do not know which cruiseline, I cannot say if overbookings are frequently reported on that line or not.

 

Consider the possibility that rather than intentional overbooking, maybe some cabins became uninhabitable during that time for some urgent reason or another (serious plumbing issue, nearby noisy work, as examples). Such unexpected last minute events differ from the airline's tactic of trying to oversell every single flight by a few seats on the presumption that X% will be no shows. Most every time I am in an airport I overhear requests for volunterrs due to overbooking one flight or another.

[Starry Eyes]

Ironically, for my past and upcoming cruise - I purchased insurance from one of the sponsors of Elliott's website, from a link on his site. :cool:

Thanks for sharing.

I wonder if Mr Elliott and his employer will donate to beleaguered, uninsured families the profits from those ads from evil profit-seeking insurance companies.:rolleyes:

[Susie51]

It wasn't your cabin to use anymore. Next time if someone in your party has to cancel put one person from your party in the cancelled persons cabin and you'll have it. You paid for 3rd and 4th person rates so why would they let you upgrade to first and second person rates without paying.

 

Thank you for the suggestion.

[Norwegian Cruise Line]

Dear Cruise Critic Members,

Thank you for your support following this article.

 

We appreciate those of you who emailed the writer and expressed your thoughts.

 

Best,

Norwegian Cruise Line Public Relations

[dalgirl]

Quoted from NCL in the article:

 

...reviewed on a “case by case” basis, but that the company’s refund rules are clear: Any cancellations made within 14 days or less of the sailing date are subject to a 100 percent cancellation fee. A request for an exception must be made to the company in writing. “In the instance of Mr. Birnbaum, we are very sorry for his loss,” she said. “However, we have not received a written request from him.”

 

Did I miss where this family wrote asking for some consideration and were refused????

 

...."It’s difficult to say whether these passengers would have fared any differently on a competing cruise line, since none of the lines prominently advertise their policies on refunds in the event of a family member’s death.

 

So how is this an indictment against NCL???

 

"We do know that insurance might have saved their vacation, but also that it would have benefited the cruise line."

 

We buy insurance through an independent insurance company, how is that benefiting the cruise line? It benefits us against loss.

 

This type of journalistic hyperbole is ridiculous - but the next time I try to go around procedure and get what I want without taking personal responsibility to go about it in the right way, I will take a note out of this playbook. I understand that the family is upset, but they took the time to contact the media and not to go up the chain with NCL. :rolleyes:

[accmiller]

Bingo. Two weeks ago NCL was slammed here.. That family didn't take out insurance and ran to the press. The story has us believe that a greedy, obstinate corporation has no compassion for a sick little boy and his family or for the bereaved. It's not reporting - it's being generous with other people's money. (In this case NCL/Carnival's share holders.)

 

Is it really someone else's money to allow someone to change the date of their cruise due to a death in the family?

 

As the article states what they are clearly doing is taking a hardline stance so that more people will buy travel insurance so they can make more money.

 

I have taken once cruise on NCL and it is abundantly clear that is how they operate which is fine. They have every legal right to do what they do. As the writer points out though it is a very short-term view that will hurt them in the long run. We budget a very good amount of money for family vacations and I can promise you that Norwegian's business methods have guaranteed that we will never go back.

[joteacher]

thanks for sharing. It is so sad when tragedies happen and people have to face something like this as well, but if companies don't keep strict rules why would anyone buy insurance? How would any of us handle a situation where our home insurance or car insurance had just expired and we were in an accident or fire? Would we expect the insurance company to pay us even if we didn't have a paid up policy? Or what about the person who has just started a new job, our health insurance hadn't kicked in and one of our kids falls out of a tree and breaks his arm, should we expect the hospital to treat the injury and we would not have to foot the bill? I know I sound cold, I am glad some companies do show compassion (though I am surprised) but I do not see where someone can say NCL has poor customer service based on this.

 

I think the writer did a sloppy job, he wrote an article for sensationalism and needs to hear the other side of these stories.

 

I was so irritated after reading that article that I wrote this email to him (forgive the length):

 

Dear Mr. Elliott:

 

I just read your recent article, “Some cruise lines take a hard stance on refunds, even when a relative dies,” and I would like to offer a different perspective on how NCL and its staff handle death of a loved one. This past February (17th-21st), my husband and I and our best friends cruised on the NCL Sky. Sadly, on the last night of our cruise, our friend had an episode with his heart and passed away in their cabin. We called 911 on the ship and approximately 20 crew members came to assist (doctors, nurses, officers, medical technicians, etc.) and worked on our friend for nearly 40 minutes before he was pronounced dead.

 

Needless to say, we were all devastated. The officers and crew of that ship showed so much compassion to his wife and to us; they couldn’t have done more to make it as easy as possible for us. They took care of helping her get their belongings out of their cabin, getting us off the ship away from the crowd, changed our airplane reservations for us, made us hotel reservations in Miami (and paid for the rooms for one night for each of us), got us a taxi to the hotel and paid for that as well. While we were in Miami, NCL contacted us several times each of the two days we were there to see if we were okay and if there was anything more we needed assistance with.

 

We did have travel insurance which I did not buy through NCL; I always buy insurance through an on-line company, so the cruise line never “gains” any additional money from us in that regard. We live in Upstate NY, and always cruise in February since I am a teacher and that is my vacation time; so due to weather conditions, travel insurance is a “must” for us.

 

I believe that your article unfairly portrayed NCL as an uncaring cruise line. To me, it appeared to be sensationalistic in nature. You specifically mentioned only two negative cases in your lengthy article. I wonder how many positive cases like mine you could have referred to? And how many negative cases are there from the other cruise lines? I thought this quote from your article might be quite telling, ““We’re usually pretty compassionate when a guest experiences a death in the family and is unable to take their cruise,” says Cynthia Martinez, a Royal Caribbean spokeswoman.”” That quote tells me that maybe, sometimes, they are not...

 

We are so pleased with the NCL customer service, that we have another cruise booked with them this upcoming February. Our friend is going with us; it will be different without her husband, but she feels that he would want her on a ship for the first anniversary of his death. She is not ready to go back on the Sky, so we will be sailing on the Sun, but we know that her husband’s spirit will be with us, and that the Officers and crew of the Sun will be just as friendly and caring as that of the Sky. If you’d care to write another article that includes a positive spin on how NCL handles tragedy, or you’d just like some additional information about our experience, please feel free to contact me.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

...we'll see if I get a response...:confused:

~Joanne

[peg013]

Is it really someone else's money to allow someone to change the date of their cruise due to a death in the family?

As the article states what they are clearly doing is taking a hardline stance so that more people will buy travel insurance so they can make more money.

 

I have taken once cruise on NCL and it is abundantly clear that is how they operate which is fine. They have every legal right to do what they do. As the writer points out though it is a very short-term view that will hurt them in the long run. We budget a very good amount of money for family vacations and I can promise you that Norwegian's business methods have guaranteed that we will never go back.

 

You do realize that most people that do purchase travel insurance know they will get a better deal and actually buy from a third party insurance company and not from the cruise line, don't you? The cruise line makes NOTHING from insurance purchased elsewhere so maybe the reporters should do their homework before they make such outlandish statements making themselves look so foolish.

[Starry Eyes]

Is it really someone else's money to allow someone to change the date of their cruise due to a death in the family?

 

As the article states what they are clearly doing is taking a hardline stance so that more people will buy travel insurance so they can make more money.

 

I have taken once cruise on NCL and it is abundantly clear that is how they operate which is fine. They have every legal right to do what they do. As the writer points out though it is a very short-term view that will hurt them in the long run. We budget a very good amount of money for family vacations and I can promise you that Norwegian's business methods have guaranteed that we will never go back.

Number one: In the cited case, the cancellation occured the day of the cruise. So, there would be no time whatsoever for the cruiseline to rebook that cabin. To re-schedule means the new cruise is far enough out for this family would have to reschedule all their other arrangements; therefore, if there is any vacancy the week they might now want, there was also sufficient time for the cruiseline to sell that cabin. So, yes the cruiseline would certainly be foregoing profit by sailing with an empty cabin and letting them reschedule. That is shareholder's money.

 

Every single time I have booked, I have had to actively decline travel insurance. When I decline they tell me the date of my last opportunity to change my mind and buy it. Do they have a profit motive? Yes, but the way they handle it also reminds customers to think about travel protection. Once reminded, the customer can buy said protection from another company; the cruise line makes no attempt to stop or discourage such purchases. The article states the customer did not know the refund policy (on the web, on the travel documents...customer responsibility to educate self or at least to call for help); the article does not say he did not know about insurance availability...could that mean that perhaps because he actively declined it?!?

 

All cruiselines have similar written policies. So if you are writting off NCL, then write off the other major lines, too. Oh, and what are the written policies for prepurchased hotels and all inclusives and such? Better check, you might not like those any better:eek:. So puffing that you will not do business with somebody with a cancellation policy may cause your vacation options might dwindle very quickly....In fact may be you, not the company, are the one taking the sort term view!

 

Alternatively, you can take the longer term view and do the obvious....Budget for and buy the insurance! Do not buy it from the cruiseline, shop around for the best policy....unless you can bear the risk totally on your own shoulders. And remember cancellation is not the greatest risk.

 

Think of potential medical and evacuation costs...If you or a companion become seriosly ill or injured, your normal insurance may not pay the international medical bills (check your policy carefully). Even if they do cover the medicl bills, they may not cover evacuation or delayed return home or hotel/meals for the companion staying near ill person. Potential big bucks in all that; that risk dwarfs cancellation risk. Since med/evac is the real major expense risk, that is the one I always insure against. An annual travel medical policy every year; I am so glad I have never yet needed to make a claim! I am willing to risk cancellation costs; someday I'll eat the cost of the trip, but I am now well ahead of the game and pschologically prepared to accept the risk.

 

If you cannot or will not assume the risk, be wise enough to buy insurance. That is what it is for.

[accmiller]

Number one: In the cited case, the cancellation occured the day of the cruise. So, there would be no time whatsoever for the cruiseline to rebook that cabin. To re-schedule means the new cruise is far enough out for this family would have to reschedule all their other arrangements; therefore, if there is any vacancy the week they might now want, there was also sufficient time for the cruiseline to sell that cabin. So, yes the cruiseline would certainly be foregoing profit by sailing with an empty cabin and letting them reschedule. That is shareholder's money.

 

Every single time I have booked, I have had to actively decline travel insurance. When I decline they tell me the date of my last opportunity to change my mind and buy it. Do they have a profit motive? Yes, but the way they handle it also reminds customers to think about travel protection. Once reminded, the customer can buy said protection from another company; the cruise line makes no attempt to stop or discourage such purchases. The article states the customer did not know the refund policy (on the web, on the travel documents...customer responsibility to educate self or at least to call for help); the article does not say he did not know about insurance availability...could that mean that perhaps because he actively declined it?!?

 

All cruiselines have similar written policies. So if you are writting off NCL, then write off the other major lines, too. Oh, and what are the written policies for prepurchased hotels and all inclusives and such? Better check, you might not like those any better:eek:. So puffing that you will not do business with somebody with a cancellation policy may cause your vacation options might dwindle very quickly....In fact may be you, not the company, are the one taking the sort term view!

 

Alternatively, you can take the longer term view and do the obvious....Budget for and buy the insurance! Do not buy it from the cruiseline, shop around for the best policy....unless you can bear the risk totally on your own shoulders. And remember cancellation is not the greatest risk.

 

Think of potential medical and evacuation costs...If you or a companion become seriosly ill or injured, your normal insurance may not pay the international medical bills (check your policy carefully). Even if they do cover the medicl bills, they may not cover evacuation or delayed return home or hotel/meals for the companion staying near ill person. Potential big bucks in all that; that risk dwarfs cancellation risk. Since med/evac is the real major expense risk, that is the one I always insure against. An annual travel medical policy every year; I am so glad I have never yet needed to make a claim! I am willing to risk cancellation costs; someday I'll eat the cost of the trip, but I am now well ahead of the game and pschologically prepared to accept the risk.

 

If you cannot or will not assume the risk, be wise enough to buy insurance. That is what it is for.

If the cruise is not sold out the cruiseline is not losing any money. Plain and simple. They have chosen take a hardline on this and it is just short-minded. They think it will make more money by selling insurance. It is their MO across the board on several policy fronts. It amazes me to what degree some on here will go to defend these actions.

 

As the article states most of the other cruiselines will work something out in such an instance. This type of thing seems to happen way too often with NCL. Go to a top-end resort and try to ask for something where they say no. Any reasonable request is granted. Resort employees are taught how not to say no. The list goes on. They don't nickle and dime you and then hold you to every minor detail on page 34 of your agreement. Yes they can but it is a hard way to keep loyal guests who know better.

 

Their son died. If I was a stockholder I would want management to understand that empathy goes a long way. I would want management to have enough common sense to think how does this make us look if it was on the front page of the Washington Post.

[accmiller]

You do realize that most people that do purchase travel insurance know they will get a better deal and actually buy from a third party insurance company and not from the cruise line, don't you? The cruise line makes NOTHING from insurance purchased elsewhere so maybe the reporters should do their homework before they make such outlandish statements making themselves look so foolish.

 

They don't look foolish. They are right. Norwegian is trying to grow this business. Just because you buy elsewhere doesn't mean they aren't making money of it. Right?

[peg013]

They don't look foolish. They are right. Norwegian is trying to grow this business. Just because you buy elsewhere doesn't mean they aren't making money of it. Right?

 

Wrong on all counts!