NCL changing itineraries for non-emergency reasons after final payment

[kitkat343]

There has been a lot of discussion on these boards about NCL changing itineraries after final payment for the Dominican Republic (for those of you who are not familiar please note that NCL ran a ship aground there last March, and is now not docking any mega ships into Taino Bay port.  There is a second port available, Amber Cove, but it is owned by carnival and can hold 2 ships.  If 2 carnival ships are already scheduled on your day in port, you will not be docking there.  On the 1/8 getaway cruise, they cancelled the DR and the morning in Antigua for environmental reasons and replaced the Dr with a sea day.  They did not update their website, and continued to market the cruise as going to the DR and passengers who bought the cruise directly from NCL after 12/20 were not notified of the loss of the DR or morning in Antigua nor were they allowed to cancel the cruise.)

 

I've recently learned that for the Bliss 1/27 sailing to the Panama Canal, the port stops in Nicaragua and Costa Rica were cancelled for safety reasons after final payment (which makes sense in Nicaragua but not for Costa Rica) , and replaced with Acapulco and Jamaica.  The port stop in Panama was changed from a full day and overnight and replaced with 4 pm - 11 pm, knocking out shore excursions.

 

Are there other NCL itineraries that have lost ports for non-emergency reasons?  Was I just lucky in my previous 8 cruises that I'd never heard of this happening unless there was an emergency that forced the cruise line to not follow its schedule?  On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed.

 

 

The thread describing the 1/27 sailing changes:  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by kitkat343

[AwesomO]

The Gem sailing on 2/17 lost Turks and Caicos and St. Martin in December. Final payment was in October. They didn't give a reason why (I suspect Turks and Caicos because they require vaccinations to get off the ship, but all speculation since they said nothing). Changed to Bermuda (not even in the Caribbean) and Puerto Rico. We also have DR on the itinerary so it's yet to be seen if we will make it-- hopefully, since the Gem is a smaller ship. Amber Cove is full that day. This sailing was originally marketed as a DR and Turks and Caicos itinerary. No clue why St. Martin was dropped, other than maybe distances between islands based on new itinerary? If vaccinations is the reason for Turks and Caicos, they knew that info ahead of time. Same if the reason was because of the damaged pier (but, to my understanding, that's only an issue for mega ships. other lines have been successfully stopping there).

[luv2kroooz]

Let the buyer beware!!

Ports of call are just suggestions on NCL.

 

There have been more changes in the recent past. They regularly alter itineraries and ports of call in the name of their sail and sustain environmental initiatives, port congestion, etc.

Many of the changes l have seen were announced after final payment date when passengers can not cancel without financial penalty. Some announced at embarkation via letter.

 

Itinerary changes due to weather medevac are outside of the control of the cruise lines and are typically made for safety of all in board. These are understandable, expected changes. 

 

However, NCL chooses to implement their green initiatives on itineraries that are inside of final payment where there is financial impact to booked guests. Additionally, they could carefully plan their itinerary details prior to opening cruises for booking to ensure there are no port conflicts. Often times, the conflicts are created by other NCL vessels. That reflects poorly on NCL.

[wally4ever]

One question I always have... what exactly happens when you miss a port?  Like... they time everything so that you get to the next port based on a six/eight/ten hour stop, do they just... go slower? Give more time at the next port?

[shof515]

32 minutes ago, wally4ever said:

One question I always have... what exactly happens when you miss a port?  Like... they time everything so that you get to the next port based on a six/eight/ten hour stop, do they just... go slower? Give more time at the next port?

it depends, there is no right or wrong answer. i had missed ports that went both ways with the ship going slower an extra sea day and then i had port times adjusted for a few extra hours

[luv2kroooz]

30 minutes ago, wally4ever said:

One question I always have... what exactly happens when you miss a port?  Like... they time everything so that you get to the next port based on a six/eight/ten hour stop, do they just... go slower? Give more time at the next port?

Could be either. Sometimes they will adjust the cruising speed. If there is an open berth at the next port, they may be able to get in early. I think that happened to us on a cruise. It was too windy/strong currents to tender into great stirrup. Our next scheduled port was Nassau. We left great stirrup around 8 or 9 am due to the winds/currents. Captain was able to get us into Nassau by 8 pm and we stayed there overnight and the following day.

[BirdTravels]

45 minutes ago, wally4ever said:

One question I always have... what exactly happens when you miss a port?  Like... they time everything so that you get to the next port based on a six/eight/ten hour stop, do they just... go slower? Give more time at the next port?

There are a lot of different situations where ports are missed and each time, the result is different. 

 

If they replace a port, it could be a new itinerary for the next few ports.

 

We had a port cancelled in October and we showed up at the next port in the late afternoon the day before we were scheduled to arrive and overnighted. We were informed at check-in on day of embarkation of the itinerary change. 

 

Over the past year, we have had a couple of cruises impacted by MediVacs. One cruise, we lost a port and they reworked the itineraries for a couple of other ports. (Bad if you made private tours and the days shifted).

 

On another cruise with a MediVac, we just got to the next port really late.

 

On a cruise in August, we lost about 5 hours, stopping twice to offer assistance to refugees in a two boats off the coast of Cuba.

 

On RCCL, our itinerary changed from Bermuda to Halifax 2 days prior to departure. We were able to re-pack before leaving for the airport the day before departure. Some didn't get the blast emails and robo-calls (probably put fake numbers in their reservations) and showed up in shorts and t-shirts when they needed long pants and flannel shirts for the north. 

 

August 2022

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by BirdTravels

[Travelling2Some]

We lost 3 ports on the Sun transatlantic in November.  Different circumstances for each.  (1) Bermuda dropped by popular demand, everyone on the roll call was pleased not to have to comply with all their covid requirements since we were headed for Europe and Bermuda was inconsequential to most.  (2) Horta (Azores) where any reasonable person could see that the seas were too rough that day to consider a tender port. and (3) Madeira dropped with no explanation whatsoever.  This made very little sense since it lay directly in our path between the Azores and the Canary Islands.  We were to be the only ship in port that day, the seas were calm and the weather beautiful.  Speculation was that NCL just wanted to take our day in Madeira away so they could slow the ship and save money on fuel.  First two port losses very acceptable.  Last one not.

[jimsig]

Last year the 7 day April Boston/Bermuda R/T's were supposed to be in Bermuda from Sunday Morning to 7a Wed, a day at sea on Thur, and back to Boston Friday morning.  After April they would still arrive Sunday morning  but leave Bermuda around 4p Tue with a day at sea Wed arriving in Bar Harbor Thur and back to Boston Friday morning.  The afternoon before the first 7 day R/T they announced that all April cruises would be leaving Bermuda on Tue with a stop at Bar Harbor on Thur.  Some of the passengers on the first cruise didn't find out about the change until they were on board. 

 

One time on RC we were due to stop at Coco Cay at 8a.  Around 7a they made an announcement that  currently the winds were too strong but were due to die down.  They then went on to say that if it didn't die down by 730 we would spend the majority of the day at sea but arrive Key West that evening as that was our next port.  It ended up dyeing down and we made the stop.

[BirdTravels]

4 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

Are there other NCL itineraries that have lost ports for non-emergency reasons?  On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed.

This post seem to be really stuck on trying to define a "non-emergency" reason for changing port. From what I gather in the post, I think that the definition of "non-emergency" is "something that the OP doesn't like".  No cruise line makes itinerary changes "just for the heck of it". Every cruise line wants to operate on their published schedule. Every change is done with careful consideration,,, which includes a risk assessment.

 

"Things" happen. Sometimes you don't get clearance from the host country. Sometimes conditions at the port changes. For example, many port calls at Nassau were cancelled over the past year because of construction at the port. In the photo below, port personnel scaped concrete rubble and dirt off the dock to make a narrow path for us to walk down while jack hammers and heavy equipment kicked up dirt and rocks onto passengers as they walked. Would it have been an "emergency" if the captain decided that the port should be cancelled seeing the conditions for passengers. 

 

The second photo was from last month. We had waves breaking over our gangway. A junior security officer (who was soaking wet) yelled to disembarking passengers when it was "safe" to run down the wet, slippery gangway (some didn't make it and were hit up side the head with sea water).  Would it have been an "emergency" if the captain decided that the port should be cancelled seeing the conditions for passengers. 

 

I gather you believe that a decision to not call at Taino Bay is not an "emergency" and not a "valid reason to change itinerary". We called at Taino Bay on the Encore after the Escape beached herself. In a stiff breeze, I watched our captain run our bow thrusters at near full speed to keep us from being pushed into the reef as we left. The Escape's hull breach required them to evacuate the ship in the DR, spend several weeks at Port Canaveral patching the hull, then several weeks in dry dock in Europe to permanently fix the hull. Is changing itineraries to not call at Taino Bay an "emergency". I fully support that decision and I will not be mad if we have to skip the DR on our upcoming cruise versus endangering passengers, crew, and ship. I never want to hear seven short blasts followed by a long blast on the ship's whistle. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by BirdTravels

[wcook]

Here’s the reply I got when contacting customer service:

 

[Travelling2Some]

4 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

There has been a lot of discussion on these boards about NCL changing itineraries after final payment for the Dominican Republic (for those of you who are not familiar please note that NCL ran a ship aground there last March, and is now not docking any mega ships into Taino Bay port.  There is a second port available, Amber Cove, but it is owned by carnival and can hold 2 ships.  If 2 carnival ships are already scheduled on your day in port, you will not be docking there.  On the 1/8 getaway cruise, they cancelled the DR and the morning in Antigua for environmental reasons and replaced the Dr with a sea day.  They did not update their website, and continued to market the cruise as going to the DR and passengers who bought the cruise directly from NCL after 12/20 were not notified of the loss of the DR or morning in Antigua nor were they allowed to cancel the cruise.)

 

I've recently learned that for the Bliss 1/27 sailing to the Panama Canal, the port stops in Nicaragua and Costa Rica were cancelled for safety reasons after final payment (which makes sense in Nicaragua but not for Costa Rica) , and replaced with Acapulco and Jamaica.  The port stop in Panama was changed from a full day and overnight and replaced with 4 pm - 11 pm, knocking out shore excursions.

 

Are there other NCL itineraries that have lost ports for non-emergency reasons?  Was I just lucky in my previous 8 cruises that I'd never heard of this happening unless there was an emergency that forced the cruise line to not follow its schedule?  On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed.

 

 

The thread describing the 1/27 sailing changes:  

You are right to call attention to this.  It has become an issue that passengers would appreciate more transparency on.  It is fair to say that some new cruisers do not understand that itineraries are not set in stone and that is the nature of cruising and must be accepted.  Blah blah blah.

But many of the recent itinerary changes do seem to be without reasonable cause and look very much like bait and switch and/or convenient cost savings.  Of course, if NCL were to give us a sensible reason then reasonable people would be okay with it, ie. not substituting Acapulco for Costa Rica because they are "concerned for our safety".  Please, that was hilarious!  Costa Rica is and has been politically stable and heavily touristed for many years.  Acapulco is a Level 4 Do NOT Travel USA and Canadian travel advisory specifically calling out even the tourist areas in the city.  NCL is the only mass-market line still calling at Acapulco (the murder capital of the entire world) and had it been on our itinerary before final payment we would have canceled.  Those that have spoken up on our Roll Call seem to agree.  NCL needs to pay attention to this issue.  They need to deliver what they advertise and sell people.

 

 

 

 

 

[kitkat343]

1 hour ago, BirdTravels said:

This post seem to be really stuck on trying to define a "non-emergency" reason for changing port. From what I gather in the post, I think that the definition of "non-emergency" is "something that the OP doesn't like".  No cruise line makes itinerary changes "just for the heck of it". Every cruise line wants to operate on their published schedule. Every change is done with careful consideration,,, which includes a risk assessment.

 

"Things" happen. Sometimes you don't get clearance from the host country. Sometimes conditions at the port changes. For example, many port calls at Nassau were cancelled over the past year because of construction at the port. In the photo below, port personnel scaped concrete rubble and dirt off the dock to make a narrow path for us to walk down while jack hammers and heavy equipment kicked up dirt and rocks onto passengers as they walked. Would it have been an "emergency" if the captain decided that the port should be cancelled seeing the conditions for passengers. 

 

The second photo was from last month. We had waves breaking over our gangway. A junior security officer (who was soaking wet) yelled to disembarking passengers when it was "safe" to run down the wet, slippery gangway (some didn't make it and were hit up side the head with sea water).  Would it have been an "emergency" if the captain decided that the port should be cancelled seeing the conditions for passengers. 

 

I gather you believe that a decision to not call at Taino Bay is not an "emergency" and not a "valid reason to change itinerary". We called at Taino Bay on the Encore after the Escape beached herself. In a stiff breeze, I watched our captain run our bow thrusters at near full speed to keep us from being pushed into the reef as we left. The Escape's hull breach required them to evacuate the ship in the DR, spend several weeks at Port Canaveral patching the hull, then several weeks in dry dock in Europe to permanently fix the hull. Is changing itineraries to not call at Taino Bay an "emergency". I fully support that decision and I will not be mad if we have to skip the DR on our upcoming cruise versus endangering passengers, crew, and ship. I never want to hear seven short blasts followed by a long blast on the ship's whistle. 

 

 

The issue for me on my cruise is that we chose to pull our children out of school to sail during the school year solely because the itinerary was stronger than the cruises over the christmas holiday.  If weather, a port strike or something unavoidable had caused us to miss the DR and the morning in Antigua I would have been disappointed but understood that these things happen.  But when you go through the stress of taking 3 small children traveling, it is really difficult if NCL isn't transparent about the itinerary at the time of booking (and for me that was October, at a time NCL had to know there was no room for the getaway in the DR).  We were told by NCL that the DR and the morning in Antigua were taken away for  environmental reasons, not for safety or weather.  And while I support the cruise lines making environmental changes for their future itineraries, its pretty unfair for them to wait until after final payment to spring that on their customers.

 

And looking at Travelling2Some's cruise, they are taking a one way Panama Canal trip in which they have lost Costa Rica for safety reasons according to NCL and won't be able to see the locks in action from land in Panama because they are docking in Panama at 4 pm.   I don't mean to pour salt in their wounds but honestly it strikes me that they are left with a less interesting itinerary than the 10 day Princess partial transit Panama Canal.  And since people on the East coast  are dealing with flying back from LA it seems pretty unfair to leave them with a cruise that is less interesting than one that is much easier logistically after final payment deadline.  

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by kitkat343

[luv2kroooz]

"Is changing itineraries to not call at Taino Bay an "emergency"?"

 

It may have been an emergency a few months ago. It certainly isn't an emergency anymore. If the port can't safely accommodate ships, then it needs to be removed from the itineraries now. It is a known issue. If NCL continues to deceptively market itineraries with Taino Bay with no intention of taking us there, that is unethical.

 

It is also unethical to announce itinerary changes two or three days after final payment due date. The coincidence of this repeated behavior is not lost on most fair minded people. This isn't theory, either. It happens over and again and is well documented in these threads.

 

Lastly, well intentioned environmental initiatives are applauded. However, these initiatives could be implemented on itineraries currently being developed which have zero impact to paying passengers. Leave the published itineraries alone.

 

Classic examples of paying X and then getting something less on NCL for their convenience, not ours.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by luv2kroooz

[luv2kroooz]

6 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed

The reality of the current situation is that NCL is making an above average number of non emergency itinerary changes as you have correctly noted. You have to go in with an " eyes wide open" approach, expecting itinerary changes. Right or wrong, it is happening and will likely continue. If you are open to other cruise lines, I would research them. I think you will discover less itinerary changes in the name of port congestion, safety concerns, and green initiatives. Alternatively, you can roll the dice and hope for the best. Hope it all works out whatever decision you make!

[Travelling2Some]

3 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

The reality of the current situation is that NCL is making an above average number of non emergency itinerary changes as you have correctly noted. You have to go in with an " eyes wide open" approach, expecting itinerary changes. Right or wrong, it is happening and will likely continue. If you are open to other cruise lines, I would research them. I think you will discover less itinerary changes in the name of port congestion, safety concerns, and green initiatives. Alternatively, you can roll the dice and hope for the best. Hope it all works out whatever decision you make!

We are about to make final payment on a  Baltics itinerary.  If they pull the rug out from underneath us again after final payment we will be canceling our other three booked cruises after that.  We book primarily for the ports.  There is much we like about NCL but if they cannot deliver the itineraries we book we cannot continue to trust them with our precious vacation days and money.  They need to get the message that disrupted itineraries are a very big deal.

[YangtzeCruiser]

6 hours ago, AwesomO said:

TWe also have DR on the itinerary so it's yet to be seen if we will make it-- hopefully, since the Gem is a smaller ship. Amber Cove is full that day.

Cruised on the Jan 3 sailing ofthe Sky. We docked at Taino as advertised on Jan 5

[Hannodcruise]

[1025cruise]

Per the cruise contract, ports are not guaranteed. 

[DaCruiseBug]

If anything, this shows that there needs to be more oversight and regulation of cruise ships by the Federal government. Unfortunately cruise lines have a green light to do almost as they please without any consequences and without any kind of transparency.

 

What NCL has been doing with some of these port changes and waiting until final payment to announce them is nothing short of bait and switch.

[cruiseny4life]

17 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

Are there other NCL itineraries that have lost ports for non-emergency reasons?  Was I just lucky in my previous 8 cruises that I'd never heard of this happening unless there was an emergency that forced the cruise line to not follow its schedule?  On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed.

 

We originally purchased a cruise out of New Orleans in May, 2023 on the Escape. A couple months later the itinerary changed from Costa Maya/Cozumel/Harvest Caye/Roatan to western Caribbean (St. Thomas, Puerto Plata, etc). Thankfully, this happened before final payment. At first we thought we'd just keep the cruise as we've never been to any of those ports, but then my husband realized he really wanted to see the Mayan ruins, so we canceled this cruise and booked a new one.

 

Fast forward to final payment date (mid-November, I think). We paid the rest of our fare on the final payment date, actually a couple days after as our PCC wasn't available. Then, while on our 12/31 cruise we received notice we'd no longer be stopping at Costa Maya. The port was replaced with a sea day. On a cruise the next week, Costa Maya was replaced with Belize City. So, no Chacchoben Mayan ruins. We had decided on these as the drive to Chitzen Itza, from Cozumel is just too far for an hour or so at the site. Welp, too bad! 

Our port was canceled, not due to an emergency, but due to port congestion. I have to imagine port schedules are known a bit ahead of time, with some fluctuation, but if a ship has a berth reserved, you'd think the berth is reserved. Maybe ports act like airlines and ask for volunteers to step aside. In looking at the port schedule in Costa Maya for March 22nd, it appears there are four ships scheduled, including my ship that is actually not stopping there. Plenty of room as I believe there are four berths. So, is it really port congestion? Who knows.

 

Alas, we do know not to book a cruise for the ports. Every cruise we have been on has had an alteration in the schedule. Our first cruise, we didn't make Norfolk (didn't really shed a tear there), our second, we didn't get to Bermuda, our third, we didn't get to Bermuda, and apparently our fourth cruise in a year will not make Costa Maya. 

 

Why? I don't really know. NCL doesn't have a track record of being honest with customers. 

 

11 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

It is a known issue. If NCL continues to deceptively market itineraries with Taino Bay with no intention of taking us there, that is unethical.

 

It is also unethical to announce itinerary changes two or three days after final payment due date. The coincidence of this repeated behavior is not lost on most fair minded people. This isn't theory, either. It happens over and again and is well documented in these threads.

 

Agree with you. By the time we finish our March cruise, we will have taken four cruises on NCL inside of a year. Each sailing included the Haven and significant onboard spend. We are certainly just a blip on NCL's radar, but a higher spending blip than many. Based on the actions of NCL in how they treat their customers, we are choosing to leave the cruising world for awhile after the March cruise. We love cruising. We want to cruise. But, NCL is (as you say) unethical and I refuse to give my money to an unethical organization. To be fair to NCL, all the major cruise lines are unethical in various ways. Just look at the boards on Cruise Critic. All of them have complaints. That's why we won't be cruising for awhile. 

 

We'll find a land-based vacation place to stay where the purveyor has a good track record and enjoy ourselves. Don't worry though! I'm sure I'll stick around Cruise Critic to hear about the travails of traveling on NCL, and the other lines. Besides, we are people that book on a whim, so maybe a deal we can't refuse will come up and we'll book a cruise. You just don't know. I'm not one to say "never." 

[DaCruiseBug]

2 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

Our port was canceled, not due to an emergency, but due to port congestion. I have to imagine port schedules are known a bit ahead of time, with some fluctuation, but if a ship has a berth reserved, you'd think the berth is reserved. Maybe ports act like airlines and ask for volunteers to step aside. In looking at the port schedule in Costa Maya for March 22nd, it appears there are four ships scheduled, including my ship that is actually not stopping there. Plenty of room as I believe there are four berths. So, is it really port congestion? Who knows.

 

Correct. We were just in Costa Maya a few weeks ago.

 

There were 4 large cruise ships in port.

 

1. MSC Seascape

2. Harmony of the Seas (or Wonder...can't remember)

3. NCL Bliss

4. Princess (Crown or Caribbean I think)

[SeaShark]

[PATRLR]

15 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Is changing itineraries to not call at Taino Bay an "emergency". I fully support that decision and I will not be mad if we have to skip the DR on our upcoming cruise versus endangering passengers, crew, and ship. I never want to hear seven short blasts followed by a long blast on the ship's whistle.

I agree that the right thing to do is skip Taino Bay, but don't you think NCL knows well in advance if they aren't going to be able to get into Amber Cover and they should let passengers know DR isn't going to happen?  I think that's the issue with NCL and the DR - NCL knows and for some reason they don't want to communicate it.  Heck - everyone who pays attention knows.  There is a story on another forum of someone trying to book a private excursion and the excursion operator saying "no" because they knew the NCL ship wasn't coming.  The passenger asks NCL and insists they are going to DR and of course in the end, upon embarkation, passengers are told they were skipping DR.  I'm sorry, but that's just no way to treat your customers.

[PATRLR]

19 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

On the Baltic board we usually advise new cruisers to sail for itinerary, not cruise line.  But if NCL will change the itinerary for reasons other than emergencies (weather, port strikes, actual danger in countries other than Costa Rica) then this advice may need to be changed.

I think you would be wise to change that advice when it comes to NCL.  We will soon be looking at European cruises where the ports are everything and I realize that we will probably need to investigate the reliability of other lines when it comes to actually making it to the ports they advertise.

13 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

The reality of the current situation is that NCL is making an above average number of non emergency itinerary changes as you have correctly noted. You have to go in with an " eyes wide open" approach, expecting itinerary changes. Right or wrong, it is happening and will likely continue. If you are open to other cruise lines, I would research them. I think you will discover less itinerary changes in the name of port congestion, safety concerns, and green initiatives. Alternatively, you can roll the dice and hope for the best. Hope it all works out whatever decision you make!

I think this paragraph sums it up well.  We will definitely be taking a long hard look at alternatives.

13 hours ago, Travelling2Some said:

We are about to make final payment on a  Baltics itinerary.  If they pull the rug out from underneath us again after final payment we will be canceling our other three booked cruises after that.  We book primarily for the ports.  There is much we like about NCL but if they cannot deliver the itineraries we book we cannot continue to trust them with our precious vacation days and money.  They need to get the message that disrupted itineraries are a very big deal.

I know I'd be very angry.  I hope it works out for you.

 

2 hours ago, 1025cruise said:

Per the cruise contract, ports are not guaranteed. 

 

I don't think anyone has questioned that very obvious fact.  I think you have missed the points people are raising.