One less day on with change on Jewel - Not Fair!

[casofilia]

Wouldn't that effectively put the mass market lines out of business, since at that point only the literal one-per centers would be able to afford to cruise?

 

I'm not disagreeing with the principle, just questioning the reality.

 

I also agree in principle but can see a double market; USA=expensive; Europe/South America/Europe=cheap(er). Two sets of cruise liners; America v Not America.

 

Surely that is why PoA cruises are relatively expensive vas-a-vis almost all other NCL cruises.

[triptolemus]

The laws they need to change need to go in the other direction. They need to get rid of these flags of convenience crap and force vessels that are operating primarily out of America and serving American clientele to be flagged in the US, then both the passengers and crew get the benefits of US law, such as consumer protection and employee protection.

 

This comes up every couple of weeks, usually as a half-baked idea by someone who hasn't really thought out all of the implications of such a move.

 

You don't just slap a US flag on a vessel and call it a day. There are requirements which govern the construction of the vessel be in the US, dictate crew nationalities, among other requirements. For more:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine

 

If your suggestion came to pass, you would never cruise out of a US port again.

 

The other half of this idea usually is something along the lines of allowing foreign flagged vessels to engage in cabotage because that would be "better" for the cruise consumer. This line of thinking fails to consider operations besides cruising, and the public safety and environmental risks that would come along with foreign flagged ships operating in our waterways.

Edited August 5, 2016 by triptolemus

[NHL Philly Fan]

Argue all you want but this EXACT situation is discussed on the contract to which we all agree...

 

 

6. Vessel and Voyage:

© Itinerary Deviation: The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other vessels

in all situations; deviate from the purchased voyage or the normal course for any purpose, including, without limitation, in the interest of Guests or of the vessel, or to save life or property; put in at any unscheduled or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at any time before, during or after sailing of the vessel; omit, advance or delay landing at any scheduled or advertised port; return to port of embarkation or to any port previously visited if the Carrier deems it prudent to do so; substitute another vessel or port(s) of call without prior notice and without incurring any liability to the Guest on account thereof for any loss, damage or delay whatsoever, whether consequential or otherwise.

 

You lose!

[NHL Philly Fan]

Wtg and congrats. It is a shame they couldn't done the right thing from the beginning.

 

Enjoy!:)

 

Bill

 

 

They did. So many whiners and complainers who did not wnat to bide by what they agreed to ahead of time that it was easier to have them all just shut up.

[triptolemus]

Argue all you want but this EXACT situation is discussed on the contract to which we all agree...

 

 

6. Vessel and Voyage:

© Itinerary Deviation: The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other vessels

in all situations; deviate from the purchased voyage or the normal course for any purpose, including, without limitation, in the interest of Guests or of the vessel, or to save life or property; put in at any unscheduled or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at any time before, during or after sailing of the vessel; omit, advance or delay landing at any scheduled or advertised port; return to port of embarkation or to any port previously visited if the Carrier deems it prudent to do so; substitute another vessel or port(s) of call without prior notice and without incurring any liability to the Guest on account thereof for any loss, damage or delay whatsoever, whether consequential or otherwise.

 

You lose!

 

You keep posting that contract bit, but you're missing the point entirely.

 

It has been established that the ship can sail in circles according to the contract. One person even suggested the ship can simply stay tied up at the dock for seven days and call it a cruise. There's the contract, then there's the right thing to do. I think NCL agrees that sailing any given itinerary is a better business decision than staying tied to a dock regardless of what the contract says. In this case, NCL has evidently concluded that refunding 1/7 of the fare, plus port fees is a better business decision than staying with that $100 crap, contract be damned.

[triptolemus]

They did. So many whiners and complainers who did not wnat to bide by what they agreed to ahead of time that it was easier to have them all just shut up.

 

Guess we'll wait for you to start whining when your next cruise has you walking up a 40-degree ramp, or tendering onto a bobbing boat with your dumb ass cane, or makes you stand in line for hours in a crushing crowd.

 

After all, the contract doesn't guarantee those things, right? The contract doesn't require NCL abide by the ADA, does it? So far as I can see, the hell with your cane and your ADA and your ramp and your crowds. None of those things are guaranteed by the contract.

Edited August 5, 2016 by triptolemus

[NHL Philly Fan]

Hi everyone, I was the OP and I just got my letter. I am not sure why the posts had to get so unfriendly to each other, but I am very satisfied with what NCL has decided. I believe it is fair now and I hope we all have a wonderful cruise!! Bon Voyage..

 

 

Yeah it is very fair to get a huge compensation when ahead of time you agreed that no compensation was due. I guess being a man/woman of your word means nothing to you. Oh well! :eek:

[NHL Philly Fan]

Guess we'll wait for you to start whining when your next cruise has you walking up a 40-degree ramp, or tendering onto a bobbing boat with your dumb ass cane, or makes you stand in line for hours in a crushing crowd.

 

After all, the contract doesn't guarantee those things, right? The contract doesn't require NCL abide by the ADA, does it?

 

 

I will not be silly enough to try to board a tender that I cannot safely board, also I know that if I can't stand any long that maybe I should sit down. I won't be calling the media to whine about it that is for sure.

[CindyLouWho2]

Is anyone able to post a copy of the email or the wording regarding getting the refund? We have not received the email informing of the credit, and when I called this evening they said they would only be providing the 100.00 OBC. That said, we never got the original email changing the itinerary and I found out on cruise critic...funny because they made sure we got the drinks email!

[gusbourg]

You keep posting that contract bit, but you're missing the point entirely.

 

It has been established that the ship can sail in circles according to the contract. One person even suggested the ship can simply stay tied up at the dock for seven days and call it a cruise. There's the contract, then there's the right thing to do. I think NCL agrees that sailing any given itinerary is a better business decision than staying tied to a dock regardless of what the contract says. In this case, NCL has evidently concluded that refunding 1/7 of the fare, plus port fees is a better business decision than staying with that $100 crap, contract be damned.

 

Not only does he keep posting the same bit over and over, but he completely ignored Regguy's quote from the contract which appears to equally address this situation:

 

(f) Mechanical Failures of the Vessel: In the event of cancellation of voyage due to mechanical failures of the vessel, the Guest will be entitled to a full refund of the cruise fare, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures. In the event a voyage is terminated early due to mechanical failure of the vessel, the Guest is also entitled to transportation to the vessel¿s scheduled port of disembarkation or the Guest¿s home city, at Carrier¿s discretion and expense, as well as lodging at the unscheduled port of disembarkation, if required, at Carrier¿s expense.

 

If they're returning earlier to fix an azipod, it's hard to not argue that this particular part of the contract spells out EXACTLY what should happen: they should refund full or partial and provide other services. The other services part is "stay on the boat that's your lodging". It seems to me that not only was it the right thing to do on NCLs part, it's also required as per contract.

[triptolemus]

I will not be silly enough to try to board a tender that I cannot safely board, also I know that if I can't stand any long that maybe I should sit down. I won't be calling the media to whine about it that is for sure.

 

Your opinion on how these people handled it is one thing. But you cannot tell me that NCL's offer of $100 for lopping off 1 day of a 7 day trip is fair, using any reasonable definition of fair.

 

And I think you would be calling someone if a cruise line decided that the easiest and most convenient way for them to get your ass onto the ship is with a cargo net.

 

Your word of the day: empathy

[gusbourg]

Is anyone able to post a copy of the email or the wording regarding getting the refund? We have not received the email informing of the credit, and when I called this evening they said they would only be providing the 100.00 OBC. That said, we never got the original email changing the itinerary and I found out on cruise critic...funny because they made sure we got the drinks email!

 

Sure

 

Dear Valued Guests & Travel Partners,

 

To follow up on our communication yesterday, advising that in order to conduct maintenance to Norwegian Jewel's Azipod propulsion system the itinerary

 

for Norwegian Jewel's August 6 sailing has been altered. As advised yesterday, the ship will no longer be calling in Skagway, Alaska, and will instead

 

spend a day at sea on Wednesday, August 10th; in addition, the itinerary will now include an overnight stay in Seattle, WA on Friday, August 12th.

 

We want to inform you that after further consideration, our management team has decided to provide you with a refund of one day's cruise fare rather than

 

$100 of onboard credit as a gesture of our appreciation. The refund will be credited to your onboard account and can be utilized for any expenditure

 

onboard; any funds not used during your cruise will be refunded to the credit card linked to your onboard account.

 

We appreciate your understanding and continued support.

 

If you have any questions, please contact us at 800-327-7030 (Monday through Friday from 8am to midnight ET and Saturday and Sunday from 9am to

 

9pm ET). We look forward to welcoming you aboard the beautiful Norwegian Jewel.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vivian Ewart

 

Vice President, Passenger Services

[CindyLouWho2]

Thank you! Much appreciated.

[casofilia]

 

You lose!

 

THEY WON

 

NCL have done the right thing morally even if it took intervention by a TV station to make them see "sense".

[AdoraBelle]

One word: troll.

 

Ignore list stat.

[Pszaffveauhraunne]

Why not go to Skagway and miss Victoria?

 

US regulations require that foreign-registered vessels stop at a foreign port if they're carrying passengers from a US port and back again (a "closed loop" cruise). Thus, the need to make a whistle-stop in Victoria; short cruises from LA to Catalina are in the same position, needing to stop in Ensenada Mexico for a few hours.

[casofilia]

Thus, the need to make a whistle-stop in Victoria.

 

Do the regulations state the required length of the "whistle stop"?

[elruth]

What I don't understand re the original post is this. If NCL says the ship needs some type of repair etc. why didn't they cancel the cruise and refund all of your money.I wouldn't want to be on a ship that has some issues that would cause them to cut the cruise short so they can be back in the Seattle port early.

[don't-use-real-name]

Instead of taking out the propulsion (azipod) problems on the customers maybe

NCL should be taking it out on the manufacturer of the azipod - some kind of

maintenance warranty contract.

The STAR had azipod maintenance issues coming out of dry-dock and NCL

had to cancel a Panama Canal cruise to limp the ship to Freeport in the

Bahama's to fix the problem.

 

I wonder who is the bonehead at NCL making these goofy decisions and the

rest of the office staff not owing up to the "RIGHT THING TO DO" ?

It was unforgiveable for the cruise staff on the JEWEL to be put into the

situation of answering and taking all the customer guff because that someone

in the front office tried to pull cheap fast one at the customers expense !

 

Certainly not going to vote for NCL for President of customer relations in the

Cruise Industry !

Edited August 5, 2016 by don't-use-real-name

[KeithJenner]

What I don't understand re the original post is this. If NCL says the ship needs some type of repair etc. why didn't they cancel the cruise and refund all of your money.I wouldn't want to be on a ship that has some issues that would cause them to cut the cruise short so they can be back in the Seattle port early.

 

 

 

My guess (and its only a guess) is that something has been found which indicates that the part is likely to fail in the future, but it's unlikely to be in the next week.

 

Similar to how you may take your car to the garage and they say that, whilst you can take your car home, you need to go back next week when they have got in the part that needs replacing because it's on its way out.-

[Love my butler]

What I don't understand re the original post is this. If NCL says the ship needs some type of repair etc. why didn't they cancel the cruise and refund all of your money.I wouldn't want to be on a ship that has some issues that would cause them to cut the cruise short so they can be back in the Seattle port early.

 

Very easy answer. NCL does not want to lose a week's worth of Alaska cruise revenue. An empty ship costs money. A full ship makes money. It really is that simple. NCL's conduct in this matter is disgraceful. They only caved when the media got involved and the bad press was imminent.

[KeithJenner]

It's amazing the in depth detail that some people seem to know regarding things like this.

 

I'm assuming they do actually know the detail, or surely they wouldn't be able to state what would otherwise be speculation as fact.

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I also agree in principle but can see a double market; USA=expensive; Europe/South America/Europe=cheap(er). Two sets of cruise liners; America v Not America.

 

Surely that is why PoA cruises are relatively expensive vas-a-vis almost all other NCL cruises.

 

POA cruises are more expensive because of that, but they are also more expensive because it's Hawaii and they're the only game in town. Prices would go up, but I bet they'd be significantly less than POA level, especially with competition.

[NLH Arizona]

Instead of taking out the propulsion (azipod) problems on the customers maybe

NCL should be taking it out on the manufacturer of the azipod - some kind of

maintenance warranty contract.

How do you know that they don't have a warranty contract? Even with a warranty, the azipod would still have to be fixed, which would mean at least one day of maintenance.

[ColinIllinois]

Seems like a situation where NCL is damned if they do and damned if they don't. No win.