Has FDR lost it ?

[Travelcat2]

Why is it always FDR’s fault? NCL has their own President. I hardly think Frank is setting the construction schedules. And she was headed to Dry Dock. They just started early I believe.

 

You are so right! NCL's CEO/President is the one that fingers should be pointed at. Frank Del Rio is managing the people that manage the cruise lines. I have no doubt that the CEO/President of NCL will hear plenty about this issue.

[ronrick1943]

I agree 99% of what you say TC2. However an capital expense like this would be approved higher than the President of NCL. But its done and over. It's now in FDR's court, you have to see what he does about it now. Travelcat2, if this happened on a Regent Cruise that you were on I think I'd be afraid to read what you'd be writing. I do agree FDR is managing the people that manage his cruise lines---but not every well at this point I guessing. But let's see how it's handled from here on out. Right now it's pretty bad PR for the group, not just NCL.

[Travelcat2]

I agree 99% of what you say TC2. However an capital expense like this would be approved higher than the President of NCL. But its done and over. It's now in FDR's court, you have to see what he does about it now. Travelcat2, if this happened on a Regent Cruise that you were on I think I'd be afraid to read what you'd be writing. I do agree FDR is managing the people that manage his cruise lines---but not every well at this point I guessing. But let's see how it's handled from here on out. Right now it's pretty bad PR for the group, not just NCL.

 

For clarification, the President of NCL is also CEO of NCL (an important distinction In my opinion) so that should give him greater powers. I have no doubt that he went to FDR to consult with him about upping the compensation among other things. Given the structure of the three companies (three separate CEO/President's), I do not expect most people to assume that what goes wrong on one cruise line would happen on another.

 

Agree that if this happened on Regent (which I cannot imagine happening) we would all be up in arms. I will tell you, however, that Regent had some major disruptions a few years ago (under FDR's watch). One sailing was cancelled before it left port. A world cruise was cut short when a pod on Voyager got tangled in fishing nets and the Mariner's pod stopped working and it limped back to port (another pod had to be built - it took a year) and continued going slower than normal until the new pod was installed. In all cases, the customers were happy with how it was handled by corporate.

 

Getting back to Oceania - under current ownership - there was the deadly fire a couple of years ago and I did not read any complaints on the Oceania board about how that was handled.

 

So, past issues supports my belief that two of the three cruise lines seem (seem being the important word), to handle problems in the best way possible. My faith in Regent and Oceania is based on past events.

[pinotlover]

NCL’s offers have been for future cruises or services on NCL. Some of those affected passengers want nothing to do again with NCL, ever.

 

Should their experiences be dismissed? If you get good poisoning from a restaurant, should your only reimbursement be a future free meal st that Restaurant?

 

Here’s s clue also for the apologist s, many cruisers have no idea whether a ship is heading into or out of dry dock around the time of their cruise! They shouldn’t be forced to find out either. They should have, and expect to have, the same experiences as any other cruise dates!

Edited April 9, 2018 by pinotlover