NCL Cancels Another Cruise of Mine

[Cindy]

Cheerleader=Investor. Don't trust them. The best thing to do is complain to your congressperson and senator. NCL entered into a contract with you bad faith. They have the ability to offer a comparable product but refuse. Many politicians would love to regulate the cruise industry. You might get lucky.

 

I don't think government involvement is the answer...I actually kind of shudder to think what they might do to the industry!:eek:

 

I'm an investor for several lines as well as a frequent cruiser. While I think the bottom line and profit are important, so are ethics and good customer relations. If a company doesn't have the latter, sooner or later it will affect the former.

 

[DMH15]

Those who state the "contract"... how many of us have taken advantage of cancelling our contract before final payment but cry foul when NCL does it to us? I am guessing what they have done is within the contract.

 

Yes, I am one of the ones cancelled. It would be ok with me to go ahead and move the cruise up a full year but I am cruising with my sis and niece and that niece starts college in a few weeks so funds are tight for them. This switch may not be an option for them unless I open my wallet.

[titangas]

I somewhat disagree. All cruise lines cancel individual sailings for charters. All cruise lines also redeploy ships, but they don't do it to 1/3 of their fleet months after the sailings open for booking. I've been cruising on 5 different cruise lines since 2000, and this is the first time I've seen a redeployment on this scale with such poor, limited alternatives for the displaced cruisers.

 

EXACTLY!!!!

 

I keep reading how cruise lines do this all the time. NO! They do nothing like this all the time. Individual sailings are one thing, this is another whole level.

 

Then add the crappy service and lack of reasonable alternatives is the icing on the cake.

 

Another misinformation is most people usually don't book that far out. I have sailed 5 cruise lines and always book well over a year out, usually when the itineraries are released, and everyone else I know does too -- Cruise Critic is a small minority of cruisers.

 

 

Some act like no big deal, no harm. I have a cruise booked since January for July 2016 -- it is Alaska so it is not affected, but I have already given them $1500 deposit if I was sailing an affected cruise, that is a lot of dough they are holding on to and not giving an adequate resolution. I sailed the Med on the Spirit last summer and booked well in advance and had a substantial deposit.

[Shawnino]

You may have a point, but the fact is; it does happen and in many cases there really isn't a decent alternative. this is one time I totally side with NCL.

 

Just to be clear: do you "totally side with" a cruiseline selling these cruises all July, and collecting deposits, when they never had any intention of delivering the product?

 

Thanks.

[maywell]

Just to be clear: do you "totally side with" a cruiseline selling these cruises all July, and collecting deposits, when they never had any intention of delivering the product?

 

Thanks.

Guess you never dealt with Pearl's last minute charters before or when any ship has mechanical issues so bad, it involves cancellations of weeks for drydock....

 

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk

[4774Papa]

Cheerleader=Investor. Don't trust them. The best thing to do is complain to your congressperson and senator. NCL entered into a contract with you bad faith. They have the ability to offer a comparable product but refuse. Many politicians would love to regulate the cruise industry. You might get lucky.

Sorry, the last thing we need is for the Government to regulate the cruise industry. If an aggrieved person has a legitimate claim based on a contract, they can sue the cruise line.

[Jane Don]

Sorry, the last thing we need is for the Government to regulate the cruise industry. If an aggrieved person has a legitimate claim based on a contract, they can sue the cruise line.

 

The cruise lines walk a fine line when it comes to staying unregulated. Moves like accepting deposits for cruises in bad faith are the kind of thing that will lead to more calls for regulation.

 

And I don't think that a little regulation would be a bad thing. A passenger bill of rights would make everyone safer and encourage more of the non-cruising public to give it a try. It sure would eat into profits though.

[Cindy]

The cruise lines walk a fine line when it comes to staying unregulated. Moves like accepting deposits for cruises in bad faith are the kind of thing that will lead to more calls for regulation.

 

And I don't think that a little regulation would be a bad thing. A passenger bill of rights would make everyone safer and encourage more of the non-cruising public to give it a try. It sure would eat into profits though.

 

 

We've had a passenger bill of rights for a couple years. There's not much substance to it...the cruise lines can still do things like this redeployment, or charter after people have purchased airfare. A cruise contract is probably one of the most lopsided legal documents around.

 

 

Cindy

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[littlelulu01]

The cruise lines walk a fine line when it comes to staying unregulated. Moves like accepting deposits for cruises in bad faith are the kind of thing that will lead to more calls for regulation.

 

And I don't think that a little regulation would be a bad thing. A passenger bill of rights would make everyone safer and encourage more of the non-cruising public to give it a try. It sure would eat into profits though.

 

Idk. They took my $1500 deposit in bad faith on August 1st. All I want is them to offer me a chance to move to another sailing around the same dates and honor the price. If they did something like this it would be in good faith. But to take my $ in bad faith and then turn around and tell me they are still sailing Europe year round but if I want the same price ill have to move up a year? That's the kind of stuff that calls for concern.

[4774Papa]

The cruise lines walk a fine line when it comes to staying unregulated. Moves like accepting deposits for cruises in bad faith are the kind of thing that will lead to more calls for regulation.

 

And I don't think that a little regulation would be a bad thing. A passenger bill of rights would make everyone safer and encourage more of the non-cruising public to give it a try. It sure would eat into profits though.

Look at how the passenger bill of rights worked for air travel. It resulted in many cancelled flights and more waiting.

[Shawnino]

Guess you never dealt with Pearl's last minute charters before or when any ship has mechanical issues so bad, it involves cancellations of weeks for drydock....

 

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk

 

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about the bait-and-switch of a company selling a product it has zero intent of delivering to scam a deposit.

[old nutter]

.......A cruise contract is probably one of the most lopsided legal documents around.

 

Almost. Have a look at the Legal Notice at the bottom of all NCL web pages. Basically it says that you should not believe anything on any NCL web page. Under that notice, they can say anything at any time and there is nothing you can do to hold them to it. They can make as many mistakes on the web site as they want and leave wrong information on there so it should never be relied upon. It may be argued under that notice that if you use the web site to book your cruise and something is wrong on it that is not corrected by an official NCL document it is your fault not theirs. Worryingly, that notice is still there on the "my NCL" pages where you book excursions, presents, dining etc.

 

There are even sections that say they can deliberately take the site off at any time and cannot be held responsible for anything that affects you at all. If you rely on say, a sailing time on one of the pages and you miss the ship, again, it is your fault not theirs.

 

This document has to be the ultimate CUA get-out ever published.:(

[maywell]

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about the bait-and-switch of a company selling a product it has zero intent of delivering to scam a deposit.

Again, I guess you never dealt with Pearl's last minute charter where it suppose to one place and then in less than 2 months before actual sailing, gets cancelled for 'a private party'. That situation is worse than what you're going through - at least you have years /months to find a replacement /alternative. Those last-minute Pearl charter cancellations barely get time to even get their refunds back to book anything.

 

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk

[newmexicoNita]

Cheerleader=Investor. Don't trust them. The best thing to do is complain to your congressperson and senator. NCL entered into a contract with you bad faith. They have the ability to offer a comparable product but refuse. Many politicians would love to regulate the cruise industry. You might get lucky.

 

First, you need to understand, if you don't and obviously you do not: the ships are flagged out of the USA, so I doubt your congressmen and senators could be much help and second, according the contract you want to talk about, it is written and plain to see, if you read it, a cruise can change itinerary at any time. This is not just an NCL policy but all cruise lines. BTW, they didn't enter into anything in bad faith. They made a decision to move a lot of their ships to different ports. Where do you get the idea anyone entered into a contract? What alternative should they have offered?

 

You don't have to like what they did, but this does happen. Just like when a ship is chartered and this too, happens all the time. A cruise line has a chance to charter the ship and there is sufficiant time to allow passengers to find another cruise, the line will take the charter route. There is nothing illegal about this. Good PR? maybe not, but certainly not illegal.

[Jane Don]

First, you need to understand, if you don't and obviously you do not: the ships are flagged out of the USA, so I doubt your congressmen and senators could be much help and second, according the contract you want to talk about, it is written and plain to see, if you read it, a cruise can change itinerary at any time. This is not just an NCL policy but all cruise lines. BTW, they didn't enter into anything in bad faith. They made a decision to move a lot of their ships to different ports. Where do you get the idea anyone entered into a contract? What alternative should they have offered?

 

You don't have to like what they did, but this does happen. Just like when a ship is chartered and this too, happens all the time. A cruise line has a chance to charter the ship and there is sufficiant time to allow passengers to find another cruise, the line will take the charter route. There is nothing illegal about this. Good PR? maybe not, but certainly not illegal.

 

Any publicly traded company is at the mercy of the SEC which is controlled by the legislature. I am done arguing with you. I am Noam Chomsky, you are Ann Coulture. There is no logic, it is like talking to a brick wall. "Where do you get the idea that anyone entered into a contract?" Seriously?

[newmexicoNita]

Just to be clear: do you "totally side with" a cruiseline selling these cruises all July, and collecting deposits, when they never had any intention of delivering the product?

 

Thanks.

 

If indeed they did know exactly what ships were going to be repositioned, absolutely no, but we do not know exactly when they made the final decision and if it was the last week of July, how would they handle people calling and requesting a sailing that was not going to be offered anymore without letting the cat out of the bag. However, you bring up a good point.

[maywell]

Any publicly traded company is at the mercy of the SEC which is controlled by the legislature. I am done arguing with you. I am Noam Chomsky, you are Ann Coulture. There is no logic, it is like talking to a brick wall. "Where do you get the idea that anyone entered into a contract?" Seriously?

You automatically enter the contract when you make payment and completely locked in and after whenever the final payment date. You can get out of contract by getting your refund before final payment - also note, they own you a sailing doesn't necessarily mean you get the ports you paid for due weather, strikes, murder, etc... You also, are not technically entitled to compensate if sailing has changed for whatever reason or someone in your group is winds up in the morgue. Trust me, reading the cruise lines contracts, not just NCL - its a interesting read.

 

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk

[peteukmcr]

Wow so many sympathetic people on here - not! Must be NCL cheerleaders.

 

'Things happen. If you would not book so far out then maybe you would not have such bad luck' - why shouldn't we book so far out?

 

'It's so far out that they can't even have airline tickets yet. There is nothing for which to be compensated' - wrong, we have flights booked for Oct 2016, oh yes there is a UK airline that takes reservations for more than 12 months out.

 

'It looks like someone just trying to stir things up... ' - no comment

 

We booked our cruise 17 months out that NCL have now cancelled and we are being offered an alternatives one month earlier that do not sail to the ports we chose. We can't make any changes until 17th Aug and so by now there are only 4 cabins of the category we booked still available and in the location we chose (one of the reasons to book early btw to get the cabin of our choice :D).

 

NCL customer service is only available 9 am to 5:30 pm and I work 8:30 am to 6 pm, so that's really useful for me. I have tried calling the US but a) can't connect and b) don't see why I should pay international call rates to resolve an issue made by NCL.

 

Perhaps the best thing is for us to cancel and never book NCL again.

Edited August 13, 2015 by peteukmcr

[Shawnino]

Again, I guess you never dealt with Pearl's last minute charter where it suppose to one place and then in less than 2 months before actual sailing, gets cancelled for 'a private party'. That situation is worse than what you're going through - at least you have years /months to find a replacement /alternative. Those last-minute Pearl charter cancellations barely get time to even get their refunds back to book anything.

 

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk

 

You're beyond illogical.

 

An arguably bad situation doesn't make a bad situation OK.

Starving in North Korea is surely worse than norovirus--but it doesn't make norovirus OK.

 

If that's what happened on Pearl, well that sucks.

But it doesn't make this OK.

[Jane Don]

You're beyond illogical.

 

An arguably bad situation doesn't make a bad situation OK.

Starving in North Korea is surely worse than norovirus--but it doesn't make norovirus OK.

 

If that's what happened on Pearl, well that sucks.

But it doesn't make this OK.

 

Like, like, like.

 

I felt the need to take a break today because the Fox News School of Logic was driving me bonkers.

[perditax]

CC loves false equivalencies.

Edited August 13, 2015 by perditax

[Diver2014]

Show me one thing the government has regulated well. If they stick their blood sucking tentacles into the cruise industry, forget about any perks

or reasonable prices.

I'll still take a cruise over a land vacation, no matter what.

You try to get the best deal you can and then you go off and have a nice, relaxing vacation. Or you can read Cruise Critic and moan and groan about every little thing that wasn't perfect on your cruise. Which is it?

[maywell]

Show me one thing the government has regulated well. If they stick their blood sucking tentacles into the cruise industry, forget about any perks

or reasonable prices.

I'll still take a cruise over a land vacation, no matter what.

You try to get the best deal you can and then you go off and have a nice, relaxing vacation. Or you can read Cruise Critic and moan and groan about every little thing that wasn't perfect on your cruise. Which is it?

 

I would think if there wasn't equivalent cruise trip to make up for the cancellation - one would take their money and go else like to Royal that has the trip I want and like, a year from now. Common sense, right?

 

 

The one time the US government decides to regulate aspect an of the cruise lines and there's complaints about the trips going to 12 days to 14 days for whatever reason from CC posters. If truly feel that adamant that they did did this situation so wrongly - the address to Miami-Dade court system for cruise line litigation is in the NCL contract. Knock yourself filing a lawsuit and complaint - that lawyer guy with that website whatever, also thrives on these cases, give him a ring too; I'm sure he will take your case pro bono just to stick to any cruise line just because...

[littlelulu01]

Show me one thing the government has regulated well. If they stick their blood sucking tentacles into the cruise industry, forget about any perks

or reasonable prices.

I'll still take a cruise over a land vacation, no matter what.

You try to get the best deal you can and then you go off and have a nice, relaxing vacation. Or you can read Cruise Critic and moan and groan about every little thing that wasn't perfect on your cruise. Which is it?

 

 

If I purchase just about ANYTHING for x $ the seller can't without warning and at any time, for any reason, cancel my sale in order to sell to someone else for more $. The cruise lines however can and NCL just did on a Massive scale never seen before in the cruise industry.

 

In addition they sold cruises on these ships until the day prior to announcing the change. Ncl champions are arguing that perhaps they did not know which ships were to be redeployed thus continued to take deposits? I'm sorry but I can't imagine that NCL had not decided to redeploy the Epic on August 1st, the day I gave them $1500. They announced the redeployment of the Epic on August 3rd. The charge of $1500 was posted on my credit card on August 5th and a couple hours later they notified me of the cancelation and told me to call on August 17 so I could have my cruise price protected if I sailed in a couple months vs a year from now. In order to be able to beg them to honor my cruise fare on one of their 4 ships sailing in Europe at any other time other than in the next couple of months I need to let them keep my $ till the 17th. They have zero requirement to honor ANY request to work with me. I have zero valid complaint according to their contract. Name me one thing I could possible purchase where a company could sell me something, take my $ and have zero intent to ever honor?

 

I am not in favor of butchered up regulations either. Other cruise lines have absolutely NOT done what NCL just did. If everyone was doing this there would be more regulation. But as it stands now a consumer has zero protection and I am at the sole mercy of NCL. I hold out a small shred of hope that they will let me transfer my very inexpensive haven suite to a valid sailing on one of the many ships they will be sailing in the med.

[Jane Don]

Show me one thing the government has regulated well. If they stick their blood sucking tentacles into the cruise industry, forget about any perks

or reasonable prices.

I'll still take a cruise over a land vacation, no matter what.

You try to get the best deal you can and then you go off and have a nice, relaxing vacation. Or you can read Cruise Critic and moan and groan about every little thing that wasn't perfect on your cruise. Which is it?

 

Ladies & gentlemen, I give you the false dichotomy. Some might call it the fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

So I can either moan and complain OR have a relaxing vacation? I assure you, I have other options. Furthermore the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

The airline industry is well regulated. Passengers have a bill of rights and if an airline overbooks a flight and can't give you the seat you paid for they must compensate you.