NCL Star passenger revolt

[VJWcruiser]

hsommer@ncl.com  CEO

kbyrd@ncl.com VP Guest Services

dherrera@ncl.com President NCL

 

I have sent an email to them expressing my dissatisfaction ( a nice way of saying I'm pissed off)

[JulianB]

13 hours ago, DBrown8939 said:

I was on the Feb. 4 not-quite-Antarctica cruise. According to a couple of reviews that I read, passengers on the Jan. 21 cruise were given OBC of $100/pp for missing the Falklands. Skipping the Falklands was a weather/safety decision that was perhaps overly cautious but beyond NCL’s control, and it cost them money due to cancelled shore excursions. Our change was more significant, was entirely NCL’s fault, and it saved the company on fuel costs – yet we got no OBC for it. It makes no sense. However, I noticed that I got double Latitudes points, despite not having the relevant promo code on my booking. I wonder if this is some kind of inadequate and poorly communicated attempt at compensation?

I was on the Jan 7th cruise and we missed Punta Arenas for weather reasons and got nothing (except my excursion money back). 

[PBM13]

13 hours ago, VJWcruiser said:

hsommer@ncl.com  CEO

kbyrd@ncl.com VP Guest Services

dherrera@ncl.com President NCL

 

I have sent an email to them expressing my dissatisfaction ( a nice way of saying I'm pissed off)

I imagine he they will get a lot of emails.

 

[DCGuy64]

14 hours ago, VJWcruiser said:

hsommer@ncl.com  CEO

kbyrd@ncl.com VP Guest Services

dherrera@ncl.com President NCL

 

I have sent an email to them expressing my dissatisfaction ( a nice way of saying I'm pissed off)

All of which will likely yield a standard reply like "thank you very much for your email, it is very important to us." And that's the last you'll hear of it. It's about as useless as emailing a member of Congress.

[UKstages]

i've had great success emailing katty byrd.

 

the office responded and provided a resolution unavailable onboard the ship.

 

i've also had very good results writing members of congress. (snail mail letters, not emails, but i assume for the spirit of the question, that counts.)

[julig22]

48 minutes ago, UKstages said:

i've had great success emailing katty byrd.

 

the office responded and provided a resolution unavailable onboard the ship.

 

i've also had very good results writing members of congress. (snail mail letters, not emails, but i assume for the spirit of the question, that counts.)

In the past, I've gotten some excellent results from Katty Byrd - but not so much more recently. They cancelled my cruise to Australia for December 2024 when they chartered out the ship and wouldn't match the compensation they gave to the people on the cruises preceeding or following. Somehow their system flagged the 2 Australia trips as Asian and gave us the opportunity to rebook on the Jewel in Asia (through Feb 2024) instead of choosing something similar to what was originally booked - neither location or time.

[PBM13]

2 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

All of which will likely yield a standard reply like "thank you very much for your email, it is very important to us." And that's the last you'll hear of it. It's about as useless as emailing a member of Congress.

So what would you recommend?  Should we just accept what's happened.   

[DBrown8939]

I would suggest that everyone on the impacted cruises open a case with NCL via the form at https://www.ncl.com/case-submission , unless a complaint was already registered with Guest Services. It's unbelievable that the only communication we have received on this matter is the letter on Day 1 that said they were "pleased to share" the revised itinerary with us. Given the amount of bad publicity that this situation has produced, I would have expected an apology email by now along with some kind of incentive to remain an NCL customer.

[PBM13]

16 minutes ago, DBrown8939 said:

I would suggest that everyone on the impacted cruises open a case with NCL via the form at https://www.ncl.com/case-submission , unless a complaint was already registered with Guest Services. It's unbelievable that the only communication we have received on this matter is the letter on Day 1 that said they were "pleased to share" the revised itinerary with us. Given the amount of bad publicity that this situation has produced, I would have expected an apology email by now along with some kind of incentive to remain an NCL customer.

I have done that. Let's see what happens 

[BirdTravels]

6 hours ago, PBM13 said:

I imagine he they will get a lot of emails.

 

They never see the emails that are sent to their outward facing email addresses. Yes, there are thousands of them weekly. Emails sent to these addresses go to a guest services desk where they respond with legally-approved responses. It makes people feel good that the big bosses have responded... when it is really just a customer service rep. 

[SailorG1]

My family and I were just on the Norwegian Star cruise to Antarctica last month (January 7-21, 2024).  Crew on board the NCL Star told us that in the few years NCL has been operating in Antarctica, NCL has rarely (if ever) made it to all of their advertised ports.  According to NCL crew, cancellations are the norm not the exception.  Passengers on our NCL cruise were angry too. 

 

On our cruise last month, Norwegian cancelled the stop in Punta Arenas, Chilie, after passengers were all bundled up and prepared to disembark. NCL said the tenders were not strong enough to manage the currents and wind.  This claim was made despite the captain saying the weather we were experiencing was typical - not exceptional. Our NCL excursion in Ushuaia Argentina was also cancelled after we had already disembarked. At least we did make it into port.  The NCL claim about the "go slow" order is not the reason for the cancellations.  That order has been in place for a long-time. 

 

I keep seeing comments that people need to read their cruise contract, which is true, but I don't think the contract language precludes a lawsuit. In this situation, I believe the legal construct, "fitness for purpose", is applicable. Fitness for purpose refers to the standard that must be met by a seller in the course of business.  Generally, when a buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose the goods are bought, there is an implied condition that the goods are fit for that purpose.   It appears to me that NCL is knowingly selling Antarctica cruises on a ship with tenders not fit for Antarctica.  I documented crew names and recorded an announcement by the captain saying the weather was typical as evidence that NCL is selling a cruise on a ship not equipped for its stated purpose. Thankfully, we did make it to Paradise Bay. 

 

If someone was generally interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit, evidence obtained during the course of discovery would likely show that NCL has rarely, if ever, delivered the Antarctica cruise as advertised. Because the NCL Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising in Antarctica, I don't believe NCL can use the contract language to avoid legal claims.

 

That all said, Paradise Bay was magical. I highly recommend visiting Antarctica but suggest doing so on a vessel better suited for that purpose or you are likely to be disappointed.  

 

 

Edited February 21 by SailorG1

[julig22]

31 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

My family and I were just on the Norwegian Star cruise to Antarctica last month (January 7-21, 2024).  Crew on board the NCL Star told us that in the few years NCL has been operating in Antarctica, NCL has rarely (if ever) made it to all of their advertised ports.  According to NCL crew, cancellations are the norm not the exception.  Passengers on our NCL cruise were angry too. 

 

On our cruise last month, Norwegian cancelled the stop in Punta Arenas, Chilie, after passengers were all bundled up and prepared to disembark. NCL said the tenders were not strong enough to manage the currents and wind.  This claim was made despite the captain saying the weather we were experiencing was typical - not exceptional. Our NCL excursion in Ushuaia Argentina was also cancelled after we had already disembarked. At least we did make it into port.  The NCL claim about the "go slow" order is not the reason for the cancellations.  That order has been in place for a long-time. 

 

I keep seeing comments that people need to read their cruise contract, which is true, but I don't think the contract language precludes a lawsuit. In this situation, I believe the legal construct, "fitness for purpose", is applicable. Fitness for purpose refers to the standard that must be met by a seller in the course of business.  Generally, when a buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose the goods are bought, there is an implied condition that the goods are fit for that purpose.   It appears to me that NCL is knowingly selling Antarctica cruises on a ship with tenders not fit for Antarctica.  I documented crew names and recorded an announcement by the captain saying the weather was typical as evidence that NCL is selling a cruise on a ship not equipped for its stated purpose. Thankfully, we did make it to Paradise Bay. 

 

If someone was generally interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit, evidence obtained during the course of discovery would likely show that NCL has rarely, if ever, delivered the Antarctica cruise as advertised. Because the NCL Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising in Antarctica, I don't believe NCL can use the contract language to avoid legal claims.

 

That all said, Paradise Bay was magical. I highly recommend visiting Antarctica but suggest doing so on a vessel better suited for that purpose or you are likely to be disappointed.  

 

 

Quite a big jump to not making port calls to an argument that the Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising Antarctica. She seems to sail there just fine. The issue is more that perhaps cruise ships have no business trying to sail there in the first place. As a reminder

 

'Rogue wave' hits Viking cruise ship, killing 1 passenger and injuring 4 others (nbcnews.com)

 

I have no special insight on the reasons Paradise Bay was eliminated on later cruises but I haven't seen any evidence that she struggled on your trip. You didn't stop in Punta Arenas because the TENDERS weren't strong enough - not the ship itself. It's not like lifeboats are built to withstand all types of foul weather. Although you didn't say, cancelling Ushuaia was most likely weather related.

I was on the Star in Antarctica last season - we were not scheduled for Paradise Bay. We stopped in Ushuaia, we stopped in Punta Arenas, we had smooth sailing in Drakes Bay.  We also were bundled up, ready to go in Stanley when the tenders (again, not the ship) came back saying the conditions weren't ideal for docking at that time - and the stop was cancelled, rather than stranding a few thousand passengers later in the day. I would consider that I got the cruise that was advertised.

Unless you are on an expedition ship (and paying $$$$$) you are at the mercy of what a CRUISE ship can tolerate, old or new.

[SailorG1]

13 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Quite a big jump to not making port calls to an argument that the Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising Antarctica. She seems to sail there just fine. The issue is more that perhaps cruise ships have no business trying to sail there in the first place. As a reminder

 

'Rogue wave' hits Viking cruise ship, killing 1 passenger and injuring 4 others (nbcnews.com)

 

I have no special insight on the reasons Paradise Bay was eliminated on later cruises but I haven't seen any evidence that she struggled on your trip. You didn't stop in Punta Arenas because the TENDERS weren't strong enough - not the ship itself. It's not like lifeboats are built to withstand all types of foul weather. Although you didn't say, cancelling Ushuaia was most likely weather related.

I was on the Star in Antarctica last season - we were not scheduled for Paradise Bay. We stopped in Ushuaia, we stopped in Punta Arenas, we had smooth sailing in Drakes Bay.  We also were bundled up, ready to go in Stanley when the tenders (again, not the ship) came back saying the conditions weren't ideal for docking at that time - and the stop was cancelled, rather than stranding a few thousand passengers later in the day. I would consider that I got the cruise that was advertised.

Unless you are on an expedition ship (and paying $$$$$) you are at the mercy of what a CRUISE ship can tolerate, old or new.

"I have no special insight on the reasons Paradise Bay was eliminated on later cruises but I haven't seen any evidence that she struggled on your trip. You didn't stop in Punta Arenas because the TENDERS weren't strong enough - not the ship itself. It's not like lifeboats are built to withstand all types of foul weather. Although you didn't say, cancelling Ushuaia was most likely weather related."

 

Tenders are equipment that NCL is using to provide an advertised product - if the tenders are not strong enough for the currents, the product is not fit for the purpose it's being sold for. As a long-time mariner and attorney, I would argue that several years of NCL consistently not providing the product as advertised is prima facia evidence. 

Edited February 21 by SailorG1

[CptJLMcCrea]

16 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

As a long-time mariner and attorney, I would argue that several years of NCL consistently not providing the product as advertised is prima facia evidence. 

 

Never mind. 🙄

 

Edited February 21 by CptJLMcCrea

[G-DawgMN]

29 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

"I have no special insight on the reasons Paradise Bay was eliminated on later cruises but I haven't seen any evidence that she struggled on your trip. You didn't stop in Punta Arenas because the TENDERS weren't strong enough - not the ship itself. It's not like lifeboats are built to withstand all types of foul weather. Although you didn't say, cancelling Ushuaia was most likely weather related."

 

Tenders are equipment that NCL is using to provide an advertised product - if the tenders are not strong enough for the currents, the product is not fit for the purpose it's being sold for. As a long-time mariner and attorney, I would argue that several years of NCL consistently not providing the product as advertised is prima facia evidence. 

 

 Let us know when you file your case, I'm pretty sure you won't get anywhere since NCL has a lot of lawyers writing their contracts but you never know. As a class action lawsuit even if you win you'll probably get 10 bucks.

 

 

[julig22]

32 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

As a long-time mariner and attorney, I would argue that several years of NCL consistently not providing the product as advertised is prima facia evidence. 

Several years??? I hope you do a better job with research before you file your case because AFAIK, NCL has only been offering Anctarctica for 2 seasons- I don't believe they offered that itinerary prior to covid. I was booked for Antarctica on the Star in 2022 - cancelled due to Covid restrictions.  Rebooked for Feb 2023 - I went, had a wonderful time. We missed Stanley - a very difficult port. And it's not a matter of tenders not being strong enough, it's a matter of not being able to dock. Or guarantee to be able to return to the ship at the end of the day. As a seasoned cruiser, I can tell you that it's no fun whatsoever trying to board a ship from a tender when there are 6 ft swells. Been there, done that, don't want to repeat.

 

[SailorG1]

1 minute ago, KSSS2013 said:

 

 Let us know when you file your case, I'm pretty sure you won't get anywhere since NCL has a lot of lawyers writing their contracts but you never know. As a class action lawsuit even if you win you'll probably get 10 bucks.

 

 

Class action litigation is not my practice area; that said, some passengers may wish to find a law firm that does class action work.  The fine print of the contact is irrelevant if the product itself is determined to not be fit for its purpose. You may be right about recovering damages, but you never know. I suspect NCL would negotiate a resolution before it would allow the complaint to go to trial.  I do think such a claim it would survive a summary judgement motion because, according to crew, very few NCL Antarctica cruises have fulfilled the advertised itinerary. 

[SailorG1]

2 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Several years??? I hope you do a better job with research before you file your case because AFAIK, NCL has only been offering Anctarctica for 2 seasons- I don't believe they offered that itinerary prior to covid. I was booked for Antarctica on the Star in 2022 - cancelled due to Covid restrictions.  Rebooked for Feb 2023 - I went, had a wonderful time. We missed Stanley - a very difficult port. And it's not a matter of tenders not being strong enough, it's a matter of not being able to dock. Or guarantee to be able to return to the ship at the end of the day. As a seasoned cruiser, I can tell you that it's no fun whatsoever trying to board a ship from a tender when there are 6 ft swells. Been there, done that, don't want to repeat.

 

2022, 2023, 2024 = several years. I'm not here to argue with you. Peace. 

[julig22]

2 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

2022, 2023, 2024 = several years. I'm not here to argue with you. Peace. 

21-22 season cancelled. 22-23 season, 23-24 season. 2 seasons, maybe 8 cruises. Peace

[G-DawgMN]

3 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

Class action litigation is not my practice area; that said, some passengers may wish to find a law firm that does class action work.  The fine print of the contact is irrelevant if the product itself is determined to not be fit for its purpose. You may be right about recovering damages, but you never know. I suspect NCL would negotiate a resolution before it would allow the complaint to go to trial.  I do think such a claim it would survive a summary judgement motion because, according to crew, very few NCL Antarctica cruises have fulfilled the advertised itinerary. 

 

 I'm absolutely not an attorney but this line seems to invalidate any claim you would have saying the vessel/tender isn't capable of sailing down there. It would be interesting if you can even find a class action attorney that would take this up because it would be expensive to litigate.

 

  Once again, good luck.

 

 6. Limitations and Disclaimers of Liability: (a) THE CARRIER AND THE GUEST HEREBY AGREE THERE IS NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS, SEAWORTHINESS, OR CONDITION OF THE VESSEL

[SailorG1]

3 minutes ago, KSSS2013 said:

 

 I'm absolutely not an attorney but this line seems to invalidate any claim you would have saying the vessel/tender isn't capable of sailing down there. It would be interesting if you can even find a class action attorney that would take this up because it would be expensive to litigate.

 

  Once again, good luck.

 

 6. Limitations and Disclaimers of Liability: (a) THE CARRIER AND THE GUEST HEREBY AGREE THERE IS NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS, SEAWORTHINESS, OR CONDITION OF THE VESSEL

Well, you think an attorney. You are spot on. That's exactly what NCL attorneys will argue. That said, you can't contract around legal requirements.  The legal issue is whether or not the equipment being used by NCL is reasonably fit for the purpose it's being sold. If NCL survives that threshold, then the four corners of the contract (i.e. fine print) will rule. 

[SailorG1]

14 minutes ago, SailorG1 said:

2022, 2023, 2024 = several years. I'm not here to argue with you. Peace. 

You may be right. That's what I thought too but the crew told us something else. 

[Mike07]

9 hours ago, PBM13 said:

I imagine he they will get a lot of emails.

 

 

And hopefully some are retaining legal counsel.

[Mike07]

22 minutes ago, KSSS2013 said:

 

 I'm absolutely not an attorney but this line seems to invalidate any claim you would have saying the vessel/tender isn't capable of sailing down there. It would be interesting if you can even find a class action attorney that would take this up because it would be expensive to litigate.

 

  Once again, good luck.

 

 6. Limitations and Disclaimers of Liability: (a) THE CARRIER AND THE GUEST HEREBY AGREE THERE IS NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS, SEAWORTHINESS, OR CONDITION OF THE VESSEL

 

 

I'm sure all the carriers have similar language.... But would all of the companies on this board be as tone deaf as NCL?

 

To me, it sounds like NCL branded ships are run by incompetent officer crews and an indifferent corporate office. NCL is known for nickel and dimeing and being ultra cheap, but completely lying about a promised itinerary is a bit much.

[TRLD]

4 hours ago, SailorG1 said:

My family and I were just on the Norwegian Star cruise to Antarctica last month (January 7-21, 2024).  Crew on board the NCL Star told us that in the few years NCL has been operating in Antarctica, NCL has rarely (if ever) made it to all of their advertised ports.  According to NCL crew, cancellations are the norm not the exception.  Passengers on our NCL cruise were angry too. 

 

On our cruise last month, Norwegian cancelled the stop in Punta Arenas, Chilie, after passengers were all bundled up and prepared to disembark. NCL said the tenders were not strong enough to manage the currents and wind.  This claim was made despite the captain saying the weather we were experiencing was typical - not exceptional. Our NCL excursion in Ushuaia Argentina was also cancelled after we had already disembarked. At least we did make it into port.  The NCL claim about the "go slow" order is not the reason for the cancellations.  That order has been in place for a long-time. 

 

I keep seeing comments that people need to read their cruise contract, which is true, but I don't think the contract language precludes a lawsuit. In this situation, I believe the legal construct, "fitness for purpose", is applicable. Fitness for purpose refers to the standard that must be met by a seller in the course of business.  Generally, when a buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose the goods are bought, there is an implied condition that the goods are fit for that purpose.   It appears to me that NCL is knowingly selling Antarctica cruises on a ship with tenders not fit for Antarctica.  I documented crew names and recorded an announcement by the captain saying the weather was typical as evidence that NCL is selling a cruise on a ship not equipped for its stated purpose. Thankfully, we did make it to Paradise Bay. 

 

If someone was generally interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit, evidence obtained during the course of discovery would likely show that NCL has rarely, if ever, delivered the Antarctica cruise as advertised. Because the NCL Star is old and not fit for the purpose of cruising in Antarctica, I don't believe NCL can use the contract language to avoid legal claims.

 

That all said, Paradise Bay was magical. I highly recommend visiting Antarctica but suggest doing so on a vessel better suited for that purpose or you are likely to be disappointed.  

 

 

The winds at Punta Arenas can be extreme. Was once there on another line a day we were stuck there for 5 hours after our planned departure because the winds were stronger than the side thrusters could safely maneuver away from the dock.

 

Missing one or more ports in that area not unusual for all of the lines. Especially Port Stanley.