NCL Star Passenger Revolt!

[clo]

4 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Of course, you could have just gone to Rio three or four days before the cruise and stayed in Buenos Aires after the cruise was over.

 

 

And your point is? What I'm saying is that we blew money on the cruise that - for us in that case - could have been better used.

[Woodrowst]

37 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

If they're going to charge more for "Antarctica" they ought to provide it -- or a refund making the cruise cost the equivalent of the S.A. sailings. 

 

 

 

This type of statement is what is confusing me.  The South Shetland Islands are close to the Antarctica peninsula and provide the same scenic cruising experience.  So exactly why is this change a problem?

[cruisemom42]

47 minutes ago, Woodrowst said:

This type of statement is what is confusing me.  The South Shetland Islands are close to the Antarctica peninsula and provide the same scenic cruising experience.  So exactly why is this change a problem?

 

Well for starters, they apparently got something like a few hours of "scenic viewing" -- not four days. 

 

I would defer to those who were impacted by the decision. I couldn't begin to tell you the difference between the actual scenery. Have you cruised both?

 

[clo]

2 hours ago, Woodrowst said:

This type of statement is what is confusing me.  The South Shetland Islands are close to the Antarctica peninsula and provide the same scenic cruising experience.  So exactly why is this change a problem?

Don't I remember that upon boarding they removed Antarctica from the name of the cruise?

[TRLD]

There are also the recent changes in ship certification requirements for ships sailing in polar waters, that have kicked in over the past couple of years. The exact dates are different for each ship based upon recertification dates for each ship. There was some discussion about it a couple of years ago and how the rule changes would prevent most of the sail by ships from going as far south. So far most lines have been less impacted than expected, but maybe the new rules are getting enforced. If so they would put most of the peninsula out of reach for non polar reinforced ships.

Edited February 15 by TRLD

[clo]

47 minutes ago, TRLD said:

There are also the recent changes in ship certification requirements for ships sailing in polar waters, that have kicked in over the past couple of years. The exact dates are different for each ship based upon recertification dates for each ship. There was some discussion about it a couple of years ago and how the rule changes would prevent most of the sail by ships from going as far south. So far most lines have been less impacted than expected, but maybe the new rules are getting enforced. If so they would put most of the peninsula out of reach for non polar reinforced ships.

Ding, ding, ding. I think we have the answer to why. Yay. Now let's figure out why they didn't notify passengers sooner. Maybe the approval for them was pending?

[Snaefell3]

2 hours ago, TRLD said:

There are also the recent changes in ship certification requirements for ships sailing in polar waters, that have kicked in over the past couple of years. The exact dates are different for each ship based upon recertification dates for each ship. There was some discussion about it a couple of years ago and how the rule changes would prevent most of the sail by ships from going as far south. So far most lines have been less impacted than expected, but maybe the new rules are getting enforced. If so they would put most of the peninsula out of reach for non polar reinforced ships.

Uhh...  No.

Both Paradise Bay and Admiralty Bay are south of 60ºS, and subject to the same certification requirements.  Star headed for Admiralty Bay, so it wasn't that that kept her from Paradise Bay.

 

NCL has stated that Star had to go slower than was planned and so simply couldn't get to Paradise Bay and back before the next cruise.  I've speculated upthread that they discovered a screw-up at the last minute: no one had loaded the new 2023-24 IAATO marine mammal speed restrictions into the voyage management plan.

Edited February 15 by Snaefell3

[cruisemom42]

9 hours ago, clo said:

Ding, ding, ding. I think we have the answer to why. Yay. Now let's figure out why they didn't notify passengers sooner. Maybe the approval for them was pending?

 

No, I don't believe that is the answer. I know of at least two other lines that have these "drive-by" Antarctic cruises: Princess and Holland America. 

 

I believe it was already referenced in one of the threads on this topic that a Princess cruise sailing about the same time as the NCL Star was not changing its itinerary.

 

I enquired of 2024 Antarctic cruisers on the HAL boards if any of the HAL cruises had reported impacts or itinerary changes and this is what was posted:

 

On 2/13/2024 at 3:55 PM, Dutchman48 said:

NCL's problem was poor planning on their part. The reason for slower speeds was the new regulation that went into effect this year to protect migratory whales. The regulation was passed a few years ago and not sprung on the cruise lines suddenly.

 

Understand when regulations change without much notice, but this was not the case this time. All cruise lines had ample time to correct itineraries for this year.

 

On 2/13/2024 at 3:56 PM, TravelBluebird said:

Not that I am aware of, and besides my recent cruise, I’ve closely followed two other HAL Antarctica LIVE blogs here on Cruise Critic.

 

We did miss a port (Port Montt) but that was due to leaving Santiago very late (weather and delayed passengers).

 

 

[TRLD]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

No, I don't believe that is the answer. I know of at least two other lines that have these "drive-by" Antarctic cruises: Princess and Holland America. 

 

I believe it was already referenced in one of the threads on this topic that a Princess cruise sailing about the same time as the NCL Star was not changing its itinerary.

 

I enquired of 2024 Antarctic cruisers on the HAL boards if any of the HAL cruises had reported impacts or itinerary changes and this is what was posted:

 

 

 

 

The changes in polar certifications are by ship, depending upon when their first certification occurs under the new rules. It is my understanding that shios are certified every 5 years. So if a ship had a recent certification before the Start of the new rules they can still sail in polar waters, until their next certification. So there is no relationship if another line is doing such sailings since the application is by ship and certification dates.

 

My understanding is also that the rule is not a hard and fast 60 degree cutoff with some flexibility about ice conditions. 

 

There are some parts, primarily the environmental rules, that are date fixed such as the restrictions related to heavy diesel fuel that kick in July 1, 2024.

[cruisemom42]

16 hours ago, Woodrowst said:

This type of statement is what is confusing me.  The South Shetland Islands are close to the Antarctica peninsula and provide the same scenic cruising experience.  So exactly why is this change a problem?

 

Here's some first-hand information from someone who has experience about whether the removal/diminished  "Antarctica" viewing is something to be upset about (from the current thread on the NCL board):

 

20 hours ago, GHCruiser7 said:

Have you ever been to Antarctica?  If not, then you haven't a clue what this means.  Antarctica "viewing" is the number one highlight/itinerary in my 2000 days of cruising.  It is 100 times more exciting than the ports in 157 countries that I've visited.  Please be informed and not just speculate.

 

 

[cruisemom42]

41 minutes ago, TRLD said:

So if a ship had a recent certification before the Start of the new rules they can still sail in polar waters, until their next certification. So there is no relationship if another line is doing such sailings since the application is by ship and certification dates.

 

That 5 year inspection has been a known quantity for years. I remember reading discussions about it on the HAL board prior to Covid (when I had booked one of these cruises). NCL should have been well aware of it.

 

(That requirement also would have nothing to do with the "go slow" excuse that has been cited by some apologists....)

 

 

Edited February 15 by cruisemom42

[Snaefell3]

13 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

⋮

a screw-up at the last minute

⋮

 

55 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

⋮

(That requirement also would have nothing to do with the "go slow" excuse that has been cited by some apologists....)

"Apologist"?

 

"I don't think that word means what you think it means"

— Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride

[EJL2023]

Seems like this thread would be better suited for either Norwegian or the Antarctica Port of Calls forums. 

[cruisemom42]

16 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

 

"Apologist"?

 

"I don't think that word means what you think it means"

— Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride

 

Uh, no?

 

I used it in the sense of this definition:  a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

[Snaefell3]

6 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

Seems like this thread would be better suited for either Norwegian or the Antarctica Port of Calls forums. 

On the surface, yes.  But it's really about "how cruise lines come to make pax irate at them", and O has a talent for that, no?

 

Or --just maybe-- O just attracts irate-prone pax?  😉

[Snaefell3]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Uh, no?

 

I used it in the sense of this definition:  a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

Ah!  Gotcha.  Accusing a line of screwing up is defending them.

 

Well...  Good point.  "Screw-ups" is not as bad as "evil money-grubbers".  

[EJL2023]

9 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

On the surface, yes.  But it's really about "how cruise lines come to make pax irate at them", and O has a talent for that, no?

 

Or --just maybe-- O just attracts irate-prone pax?  😉

Nah, I’m gone with even under the surface it belongs over there. 😉😉