Jade 4/9: Grenada cancelled

[cruiseny4life]

3 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

Wow, so you are advocating flexible pricing based on fuel costs. That is a dangerous proposition. 

Norwegian does already have a statement in the cruise contract that allows them to charge a fuel supplement of no more than $10 per person, per day. Personally, I'd prefer they just tack that charge on and keep the cruise the same...but we all know they want to be "sustainable," so claim the changes are for environmental reasons. A cruise ship, sustainable? Really! I think we all know cruising is about as far from a good environmental vacation as can be. So yea, I'd just ask the fuel supplement be charged. 

 

Or...ya know, Norwegian could just stick to their itineraries, barring storms, disasters, wars, etc. Then edit their itineraries to save themselves money BEFORE final payment date. That's all I'm asking for. 

 

Source: https://www.ncl.com/faq#!#fuel-supplement

[zqvol]

10 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

Wow, so you are advocating flexible pricing based on fuel costs. That is a dangerous proposition. 

Unless it has recently changed there is a clause in the NCL contract that allows them to impose a fuel surcharge if crude prices rise above a certain level. The fee is $10 per day per passenger and be collected even if paid in full.

Edited March 29 by zqvol

[luv2kroooz]

2 minutes ago, zqvol said:

Unless it has recently changed there is a clause in the NCL contract that allows them to impose a fuel surcharge if crude prices rise above a certain level. 

It has not changed. The fuel surcharge is still there. They've not implemented it to date.

[Distinctive-Destinations]

1 hour ago, bluesea777 said:

 

Originally the port times were 07:00-13:30 in Curacao, 13:00-19:00 in Grenada and 12:30-19:00 ... these are basically half days and the pax would not have been able to partake full day excursions in those 3 ports. 

 

Grenada is way out of the way between Curacao and Antigua - see this map:

 

 

So it makes more sense to drop Grenada and lengthen the port times in Curacao and Antigua (for the full day excursions) and have a sea day steaming from Curacao and Antigua at reasonable speed to save fuel.

 

Disappointing yes, but ship happens.

 

 

The times are irrelevant. They had been in place for months and was what I both agreed to and paid for. I’d rather have the three half days that I booked the cruise for than 2 fulls. Not that it matters, but the port I personally was most looking forward to was Grenada.

 

Besides when I called fuel conservation was not mentioned one time. They told me the port was dropped due to safety concerns. No credit or anything else offered.

[Distinctive-Destinations]

58 minutes ago, zqvol said:

Unless it has recently changed there is a clause in the NCL contract that allows them to impose a fuel surcharge if crude prices rise above a certain level. The fee is $10 per day per passenger and be collected even if paid in full.

I’d gladly the pay the $110 (11 days x $10) to keep the itinerary that was offered and I subsequently selected and paid for.

[CruiseMH]

I love how everybody beats NCL although nobody,absolutely nobody has a clue what the reasons are. Of course the text in the e-mail is really bad marketing blablabla, but that does not make the decision itself wrong.

Especially when these itinerary changes are on such short notice there are usually good reasons for a cruise line to do so.

Yes, i know ,everybody wants to think that the bad cruise lines just want our money and a creating a itinerary they never plan to actually do and after final payment they make the changes they have planned already anyway. Sorry, but this is the real bull***t .

 

There are for sure good reasons to make that change.Just ignore that blablabla in their e-mail.

 

 

[cruiseny4life]

3 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

I love how everybody beats NCL although nobody,absolutely nobody has a clue what the reasons are. Of course the text in the e-mail is really bad marketing blablabla, but that does not make the decision itself wrong.

Especially when these itinerary changes are on such short notice there are usually good reasons for a cruise line to do so.

Yes, i know ,everybody wants to think that the bad cruise lines just want our money and a creating a itinerary they never plan to actually do and after final payment they make the changes they have planned already anyway. Sorry, but this is the real bull***t .

 

There are for sure good reasons to make that change.Just ignore that blablabla in their e-mail.

 

 

It's the blablabla in the email. That's the point. Don't give me some marketing-speak drivel. Tell the truth. Be honest. Give it to me! I assure you, I can handle the truth! Heck, even if the truth is we need to pay our bills, so we're changing course to save money. I might grumble a little, but at least they would be providing a modicum of respect to their passengers. I'll even be supportive if it's an unpopular decision...just don't feed passengers a line of BS. Deep down, I'm sure there probably are reasonable decisions to make after final payment changes. The drivel doesn't provide that story though.

[Distinctive-Destinations]

4 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

I love how everybody beats NCL although nobody,absolutely nobody has a clue what the reasons are. Of course the text in the e-mail is really bad marketing blablabla, but that does not make the decision itself wrong.

Especially when these itinerary changes are on such short notice there are usually good reasons for a cruise line to do so.

Yes, i know ,everybody wants to think that the bad cruise lines just want our money and a creating a itinerary they never plan to actually do and after final payment they make the changes they have planned already anyway. Sorry, but this is the real bull***t .

 

There are for sure good reasons to make that change.Just ignore that blablabla in their e-mail.

 

 

If there are “for sure good reasons” how come no one knew them when I called? Shouldn’t they know? And your post reads to me as contradictory as you seem to be simultaneously saying no one knows what they are talking about, then say there are good reasons, but you don’t know that either.
 

If it is safety, how come no one knew it was from a change of rating from the state department, or civil unrest like Haiti, or some sort of navigation issue with the inlet making docking impossible, or some local disaster situation like the bridge in Baltimore?

 

Sorry, but I’m not buying it. And unless I’m told what changed from safe to unsafe, my opinion is not changing.

[Distinctive-Destinations]

9 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

It's the blablabla in the email. That's the point. Don't give me some marketing-speak drivel. Tell the truth. Be honest. Give it to me! I assure you, I can handle the truth! Heck, even if the truth is we need to pay our bills, so we're changing course to save money. I might grumble a little, but at least they would be providing a modicum of respect to their passengers. I'll even be supportive if it's an unpopular decision...just don't feed passengers a line of BS. Deep down, I'm sure there probably are reasonable decisions to make after final payment changes. The drivel doesn't provide that story though.

Yes, you nailed it. Give me a valid explained reason.
 

Just saying “security” doesn’t really mean anything. That’s on par with a parent telling a kid “because I said so.” Actually that might be a better reason than this…lol

 

I already mentioned that I was fine with the Epic/Israel change last year. 

[NCL ruined vacation]

You should also read

Start at the top

[IAcruising]

12 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

If you are truly committed to an itinerary, NCL is not your best choice.

 

This is true for any cruise line. If you use a cruise ship simply as a hotel and restaurant, you're doing it wrong.

 

I cruise to be on the sea.

 

[Kayak25]

5 hours ago, IAcruising said:

 

This is true for any cruise line. If you use a cruise ship simply as a hotel and restaurant, you're doing it wrong.

 

I cruise to be on the sea.

 

The main reason I cruise is for the destinations and yes the ship is a hotel and restaurant. The cruise ship is the best and most convenient way of getting to many places. The best cruise I have ever done was a South American cruise, I could never have visited many of the places on that cruise any other way, certainly not at the same cost and comfort.

I can see people go on cruises for other reasons but because I go for the destinations doesn't mean I'm "doing it  wrong."

 

[woodley]

After  a number of cruises with NCL I noticed what they were doing, selling X but supplying Y.  As a result I have changed to other cruise lines and up till now have not had any issues with bait and switch.  Yesterday a cruise  which I had booked for March 2025 with HAL informed me of an itinerary change way before final payment and with dates and alternative ports.  Now I can choose if I want to stay with this cruise or move to another.  This is how it should be handled, not wait till its too late to do anything but accept the changes.

[luv2kroooz]

8 hours ago, IAcruising said:

 

This is true for any cruise line. If you use a cruise ship simply as a hotel and restaurant, you're doing it wrong.

 

I cruise to be on the sea.

 

Again, as I posted above, we have not experienced "matters of convenience" changes on other cruise lines. Maybe we are just lucky. 

 

With respect to Caribbean, we cruise to be on the sea, too. Ports are secondary. But that's us. Europe, South America, Greece....we cruise to actually see the destination. 

 

If you only cruise to be on the sea, go cruise on a freighter. Maybe you are the one that is doing it wrong.

Edited March 30 by luv2kroooz

[CruiseMH]

15 hours ago, cruiseny4life said:

It's the blablabla in the email. That's the point. Don't give me some marketing-speak drivel. Tell the truth. Be honest. Give it to me! I assure you, I can handle the truth! Heck, even if the truth is we need to pay our bills, so we're changing course to save money. I might grumble a little, but at least they would be providing a modicum of respect to their passengers.

 

I don`t know if all guests would be so calm as you would be i agree with you, most people would honor truth more than any BS excuses.

 

 

[CruiseMH]

15 hours ago, Distinctive-Destinations said:

If there are “for sure good reasons” how come no one knew them when I called? Shouldn’t they know? And your post reads to me as contradictory as you seem to be simultaneously saying no one knows what they are talking about, then say there are good reasons, but you don’t know that either.

 

No, they should not know. Simply because they don`t need to know. thats what press releases and information to the guests are there for. To give you all the information you need (or they want/can give you). They don`t want 100.000 people to call them and block the lines just to ask for information which was already spreaded in the mail.

I admit that of course the mails then should give at least as much truth as possible and don`t be any useless marketing BS. But even if it is useless blabla it is a waste of time to call anybody at NCL cause they don`t know more about and if they do they won`t tell you.

 

 

[njkate]

It’s to the point if I just want some R&R, float around the sea I’ll book a cruise from one of the Florida ports I can drive to. Seen most of the Caribbean so a port change wouldn’t bother me.

That said on the more expensive European cruises ports are important to me and I truly hesitate to book NCL. I either need to research other cruise lines, read their forums to see how often this happens or book a land based vacation on what I want to see!

 

Port changes for weather, unrest etc things out of the control of NCL I don’t have a problem with but these Willy nilly changes and cancellations of late give me pause

[Distinctive-Destinations]

1 hour ago, CruiseMH said:

 

No, they should not know. Simply because they don`t need to know. thats what press releases and information to the guests are there for. To give you all the information you need (or they want/can give you). They don`t want 100.000 people to call them and block the lines just to ask for information which was already spreaded in the mail.

I admit that of course the mails then should give at least as much truth as possible and don`t be any useless marketing BS. But even if it is useless blabla it is a waste of time to call anybody at NCL cause they don`t know more about and if they do they won`t tell you.

 

 

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If the customers were told the reason there would be LESS calls.

 

If the email (or the woman I spoke to) had said “The Grenada port has been cancelled due to a raised alert level from the US State Department” that would have explained everything. Or “we are unable to dock in Grenada due to depth issues in the canal from recent storm damage.”

[dexddd]

The whole fuel surcharge has been around since roughly 2010 when fuel went crazy high, lines started fees after booked, lawsuits happened, back peddled and language added to give option.

 

I don't recall seeing any posts about any fees though since but I also don't follow all lines.

[Haywood Jablome]

I'm on the cruise in question, not happy about the change at all, is there gonna be a refund of some of the port charges as we just list a port,  I. Sure it saves them in fuel, port fees, and don't forget in the email from ncl it said to give our passengers more time for excursions, oh wait who sells the excursions and would make the most income from them, or maybe it is for safety reasons maybe England is gonna invade again

[CruiseMH]

2 hours ago, Distinctive-Destinations said:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If the customers were told the reason there would be LESS calls.

Maybe i should have been more clear.

 

I was saying that NCL does not give any info to the employees because there is an official statement. I also said that this statement to me is useless.

But I find this statement useless and you might find the statement useless. But NCL doesn`t ! Thats why they have given exactly that statement to the customers.Because they think it is good.

And because they think this is good and enough they don`t give their employees any info.

 

 

[Distinctive-Destinations]

1 hour ago, Haywood Jablome said:

I'm on the cruise in question, not happy about the change at all, is there gonna be a refund of some of the port charges as we just list a port,  I. Sure it saves them in fuel, port fees, and don't forget in the email from ncl it said to give our passengers more time for excursions, oh wait who sells the excursions and would make the most income from them, or maybe it is for safety reasons maybe England is gonna invade again

We’ll be at the whiskey bar most of the time if you want to come and complain with us…lol

[IAcruising]

9 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

If you only cruise to be on the sea, go cruise on a freighter. Maybe you are the one that is doing it wrong.

 

If freighters had great bars, restaurants, waterfronts, observation lounges, water slides, go karts, pools, the Vibe, etc., I'd be there in a heartbeat. Embarkation and debarkation ports are all that are necessary.

 

 

 

[Travelling2Some]

8 hours ago, njkate said:

It’s to the point if I just want some R&R, float around the sea I’ll book a cruise from one of the Florida ports I can drive to. Seen most of the Caribbean so a port change wouldn’t bother me.

That said on the more expensive European cruises ports are important to me and I truly hesitate to book NCL. I either need to research other cruise lines, read their forums to see how often this happens or book a land based vacation on what I want to see!

 

Port changes for weather, unrest etc things out of the control of NCL I don’t have a problem with but these Willy nilly changes and cancellations of late give me pause

Exactly this.  We go on two different kinds of cruises.  We could care less about Caribbean ports but will sometimes book a mid-winter break from the New York weather.  BUT a cruise in Europe or Asia is a whole different thing.  These trips are much more expensive and involve extensive planning so, yes, we do care a great deal about the ports in those cases.  We have adopted the same way of dealing with NCL.  We only book our less important cruises with them now because they have been too unreliable on our last three cruises with them.

[G-DawgMN]

11 hours ago, Haywood Jablome said:

I'm on the cruise in question, not happy about the change at all, is there gonna be a refund of some of the port charges as we just list a port,  I. Sure it saves them in fuel, port fees, and don't forget in the email from ncl it said to give our passengers more time for excursions, oh wait who sells the excursions and would make the most income from them, or maybe it is for safety reasons maybe England is gonna invade again

 Port fees are just estimated so you may not be due to any refund. If the port fees are higher than what is collected the cruise line will absorb it instead of charging people more that are already booked. But if they overcharged you will get it back. But it’s usually 5-15 bucks. 
 Surprisingly on the Epic last year we got back 8 bucks even though we didn’t have any ports cancelled. 

Edited March 31 by G-DawgMN