Would You Bail?

[sunshine 229]

I think I would have stayed, mostly because as a previous poster pointed out, I do not intend to let terrorists control my life. Since I was not in the situation though, I can't say for sure how I would have behaved if I had been there and frightened.

 

If we were forced to evacuate I would expect more compensation from NCL than if I were told I could stay and made a personal decision to leave.

 

In a situation like this, I don't feel NCL is required to assume the full responsibility for the lost time or money since this is an action by an independent party of which NCL is a victim as much as the passengers are. That differs significantly in my mind, from a situation where problems are caused by something like equipment failure which should , in my opinion, be the responsibility of the cruiseline to keep in good repair.

[CanadianTwosome]

I said NCL was not meeting the expectations of 40% of the poll respondents.

 

I also said that it was not right to categorize the folks who walked of the Spirit last night, (whatever the final percentage is) as bad customers.

 

The line I was responding to was this one:

 

"NCL just got bought out so I'm sure they don't need 40% of their customers."

 

As for categorizing any of the customers who got off the ship, I did no such thing. I didn't say anything about them at all, I just made a comment about the percentage of customers that are statistically profitable or not according to common business knowledge.

 

Feel free to continue to argue with me, but I think it's quite clear that you think I am 'arguing back', and that's not my intention. I'm just doing my best to point out that it's not black and white. You seem so angry with them and so adamant that a little generosity on their part will fix things, and I just think it's not that simple.

 

On the topic at hand, this situation was both unexpected and unavoidable. The crew of the ship handled it as well as they could without prior experience, and expecting them to handle it perfectly is unrealistic, to say the least. It appears from what I'm reading that the majority of the passengers are not here complaining, and many have posted that they stayed on and enjoyed themselves. Speculating about refunds, credits or other compensation is moot at this point also, since nobody has made any attempt to contact NCL or has any information in that regard. Half of the people who have taken the poll feel that the people who left are not entitled to a refund. I think that says a lot in itself.

[nealstuber]

Half of the people who have taken the poll feel that the people who left are not entitled to a refund. I think that says a lot in itself.

It says that NCL has "dumbed down" customer expectations to very low levels.

[Host CMLA]

It was not NCL's fault but goodwill goes a long way.

I agree that goodwill does a long way sometimes but why does NCL need to provide goodwill in this instance when it was out of their hands? NCL was inconvenienced just as much as the passengers.

I agree, not NCL's fault. If I chose to get off, I would expect nothing. If I was evacuated, I would hope for a cruise credit as a goodwill gesture.

I voted nothing. If they kicked us off, I'd expect a full refund. I can't say whether or not I'd get off though. How many times have any of us been on a plane that's delayed for a maintenance issue and then suddenly it's fixed? That gives me more pause than a possible bomb threat.

Results are preliminary, and entirely unscientific, but from the looks of the poll, it looks like NCL would fail to meet the expecations of just 40% of the folks in the situation!

This poll is so beyond unscientific that it's really not possible to say what percentage is real. 115 have responded...how many have posted to this thread? And when did not meeting the expectations mean losing a customer? I went to a favorite restaurant over the weekend and it wasn't up to what we're used to. It didn't meet my expectations. Of course, we'll go back...and we got no future dining credit. ;)

[coka]

I would not have left the ship. I would not second-guess how the threat was handled. I would not assume that all officers/staff/crew had any more information than what was coming over the announcements. I would trust the officials making the decision to sail yet have compassion for those who were uncomfortable with the situation and left.

 

I have training and experience in responding to threats. Without going into the curriculum, the psychology, the analysis, the precedence etc. over what is a credible versus non-credible threat, let me just tell you that if a bomb was going to go off at 7pm, then they certainly would not have called in to warn you about it...Even so, protocols and procedures are carried out.

 

I have compassion for anyone who was afraid and left. I am not sure whether they should be compensated or not. My answer was "no" in the poll but NCL usually does the right thing so I will wait a few more weeks and read about it here. I think cruisecritics rarely give them a chance to figure it out.

 

Coka

[Globaliser]

It says that NCL has "dumbed down" customer expectations to very low levels.

No, it says to me that some customers have unrealistically high expectations. A ship is delayed for a few hours because of something beyond the cruise line's control. But everything continues to go on on board. There's no sensible reason why anyone should want to voluntarily abandon ship.

 

Yet customers who do that should expect compensation? That's cloud cuckoo land.

[nealstuber]

I just made a comment about the percentage of customers that are statistically profitable (20%) or not (80%) according to common business knowledge.

.

 

 

I have an MBA and have been working in manufacturing, engineering and quality for 15 years. I never ran into this "common business knowledge."

 

Seriously, are there books I can read? If I can stop pleasing 4/5th of my customers and still be profitable, I want to know how to do it.

 

Then I'd have even more time on my hands for this!

[Globaliser]

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

[nealstuber]

I voted nothing. If they kicked us off, I'd expect a full refund. ;)

 

Before I put this poll up, I posted ,on the orignal thread, that I don't think anyone but the bomb caller was responsible for the situation and I still stand by that statement.

 

I do not understand how NCL kicking people off is really different then the way it went down for some in this instance.

 

I can almost hear the Master of the Spirit on the ships intercomm, bomb sniffing dogs in the background...police divers with body armor off the stbd side....fire trucks on the dock at the port side.... CBS Helicopter overhead ...."You can get off the ship if you want, its your nickel, we're not telling you what to do." Almost seems like in the midst of a Bomb threat NCL is more interested in protecting one day's revenue.

[CanadianTwosome]

I just thought I would provide a reference to a situation in which NCL took responsibility and compensated passengers.

 

From www.cruisejunkie.com/events.html

 

Norwegian Crown, August 26

 

The ship was due to return to New York City this afternoon, but a problem with the ship's starboard propeller shaft has caused reduced speed and will delay arrival almost 24 hours ... now arriving between 6 and 8AM on Monday morning. The next cruise is expected to embark one day late (at 4PM) on a revised itinerary. Passengers on the shortened cruise will be refunded one-seventh of their cruise fare plus receive a 10% future cruise credit on the cruise fare paid. UPDATE AUGUST 27: Necessary repairs will take longer than anticipated -- the ship will now depart on Tuesday afternoon. Passengers on the shortened cruise will be refunded one-half of their cruise fare plus receive a 20% future cruise credit on the cruise fare paid. NCL will also refund government taxes and fees of approximately $34 to the guest's on-board account.

[CanadianTwosome]

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 

Thanks Globaliser!! :)

[ma_t_gus]

If this was a 7 nighter, I bet you most of the people that left would have stayed.

As far as the that 1-nighter, I would have stayed and got my monies worth.

[ckpan]

... As I said above I probably would have left the ship and then returned when it was cleared. But I would not have expected a f\refund unless the shp was evacuated and did not sail.

 

I was on this cruise last night and I don't believe that leaving the ship and returning when all cleared was an option. We decided to stay as we were not informed that the threat was as specific as I find out now that it was.

[nealstuber]

I And when did not meeting the expectations mean losing a customer? I went to a favorite restaurant over the weekend and it wasn't up to what we're used to. It didn't meet my expectations. Of course, we'll go back...and we got no future dining credit. ;)

 

If your meal was 2 hours late getting to the table and you left before you were served, even if it was due to a bomb threat - would you expect to pay for the meal?

 

If the resturaunt presumed to bill you for the meal cause the food was in the Kitchen and you paid for an over priced beer while you were waiting for the situation to be resolved, would you still go back?

 

I would hope the manager of the resturaunt would say, hey we have an unpredictible situation, and just like NCL ,we've never dealt with a bomb threat before. We hope you won't hold the fact that we are acting for your safety against us and come back at your earliest convience - sorry your evening was ruined. Or if you want, just bear with us a little longer and we can try to make it better.

 

Would you honestly expect to pay for a dinner you didn't get - after they jerked you around for 2 hours?:confused:

[Globaliser]

If your meal was 2 hours late getting to the table and you left before you were served, even if it was due to a bomb threat - would you expect to pay for the meal?

Was anybody's meal delayed? It sounded to me like onboard activities were pretty much as normal.

 

The situation seems more like one where your meal is prepared and served as you ordered it, but because of a lot of blue flashing lights outside you decide of your own volition to get up and leave the restaurant. I wouldn't expect the restaurant to be happy about me refusing to pay in those circumstances - my own choice to abandon a perfectly good meal.

[CanadianTwosome]

Again, I think you've come up with an analogy that misses the mark. In order for your analogy to be appropriate, the passengers on the ship would have had to be denied the amenities they were expecting. They were not.

 

How about this:

 

Concert tickets.

 

Scenario: The concert is delayed by authorities checking the venue for a potential danger, but goes ahead and all that stay for the show see the performance they paid for. Some of the ticketholders felt that due to lack of information and possible remaining danger, they did not want to stay. Should they get a refund for their tickets? I'll bet you'd have a really hard time convincing Ticketmaster to refund anything!!

[nealstuber]

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention since I said I never heard of it.

 

I always thought of it as the 90-10 rule. And it was always presnted to me something like this: "yes! you are 90% of the way towards your goal, unforunately getting the last 10% will take 90% of the effort-so get back to work" it was never used an an excuse not to strive for excellence.

 

When I read past the first paragraph, I found lots of emphasis on six-sigma. What I learned from six s was relentless elimination of waste and variation will drive you to excellence - that there are too many pitfalls associated with a 4 sigma proccess for it to be acceptable.

 

Oh yeah, I wouldn't survie as an NCL cruiser if I didn't read the fine print.

 

From the article:

 

Mathematical notes

The idea has rule-of-thumb application in many places, but it is commonly misused. For example, it is a misuse to state that a solution to a problem "fits the 80-20 rule" just because it fits 80% of the cases; it must be implied that this solution requires only 20% of the resources needed to solve all cases

[antsnanny]

It's hard to say since I wasn't there but my first reaction would probably be to leave and swim back to New Jersey. All kidding aside 911 would come to my mind right away being in NYC. It's interesting because at the port in NYC when you park your car they ask you to open your trunk and they have their dogs sniff it. I am assuming there sniffing for bombs, maybe we'll see more in the terminal checking out our carry on's.

I do think NCL could have bought a few rounds of drinks!!!

:)

[newmexicoNita]

It's hard to say since I wasn't there but my first reaction would probably be to leave and swim back to New Jersey. All kidding aside 911 would come to my mind right away being in NYC. It's interesting because at the port in NYC when you park your car they ask you to open your trunk and they have their dogs sniff it. I am assuming there sniffing for bombs, maybe we'll see more in the terminal checking out our carry on's.

I do think NCL could have bought a few rounds of drinks!!!

:)

A few rounds of drinks would have been nice for those who choose to continue with the drinks. It could have been announced something like "all is clear, we are on our way and now enjoy an open bar for an hour" or something like that.

 

Nita

[nealstuber]

Again, I think you've come up with an analogy that misses the mark. In order for your analogy to be appropriate, the passengers on the ship would have had to be denied the amenities they were expecting. They were not.

 

How about this:

 

Concert tickets.

 

Scenario: The concert is delayed by authorities checking the venue for a potential danger, but goes ahead and all that stay for the show see the performance they paid for. Some of the ticketholders felt that due to lack of information and possible remaining danger, they did not want to stay. Should they get a refund for their tickets? I'll bet you'd have a really hard time convincing Ticketmaster to refund anything!!

 

The resturaunt analogy wasn't mine, but I went with it...

 

As for a concert, In many circumstances, tickets can be exchanged for a later date. And Ticketmaster wouldn't be the decsion maker on the refund - anymore than my TA would be in a posisiton to issue a refund for a cruise. The decision to refund would rest with the promoters and the perfomers - I'd think. I would hope they would be interested in maintaing their fan base. I would not be a fan of a performer who was interested in ticket revenues for empty seats - so if it went down that way - I would not go back.

[Markandrews]

I can almost hear the Master of the Spirit on the ships intercomm, bomb sniffing dogs in the background...police divers with body armor off the stbd side....fire trucks on the dock at the port side.... CBS Helicopter overhead ...."You can get off the ship if you want, its your nickel, we're not telling you what to do." Almost seems like in the midst of a Bomb threat NCL is more interested in protecting one day's revenue.

 

I seriously doubt the captain said anything like that.

 

You have posted that NCL ships rated at the bottom of your list of 13 cruises. You would probably be of more benefit on the boards of cruise lines that ranked 1 and 2. Those folks will surely benefit from your great insight, experience and MBA.

[antsnanny]

A few rounds of drinks would have been nice for those who choose to continue with the drinks. It could have been announced something like "all is clear, we are on our way and now enjoy an open bar for an hour" or something like that.

 

Nita

 

 

EXACTLY. I was on the Dawn and the Spirit for their overnights this month and let me tell you they are party ships. Everyone would have loved a few drinks.

[nealstuber]

I just thought I would provide a reference to a situation in which NCL took responsibility and compensated passengers.

 

 

Funny you bring this up, as it is an exmple of my underwhelment with NCL before I became "certificate challenged."

 

From thread: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=615417&page=4

 

quote: nealstuber:

 

With both passenger sets, NCL is not obligated to do much - but if they expect repeat business from these folks they need to keep them whole. Many on this thread have suggested that trip insurance is the cure. I would expect the Cruise line to indemnify itself for such situations in order to do what it needs to do to meet or exceed customer expectations.

Wether you are a first time cruiser or a veteran, when you pull up to the pier, you expect to see your ship and not a sign that says "Come Back tomorrow." Through its own poor practices NCL chose to take that experience from its customers. Having done that, they could have taken the opportunity to wow their customers with their response. Book NYC accomdations. Rent space at a nearby convention hall and get NCL staff up from Florida to organize excursions and activities and meals.

 

Or they could do what they did-as little as possible.

 

endquote

 

Many passengers, on both cruises were underwhelmed with NCL's initial response and the updated response.

[nealstuber]

I seriously doubt the captain said anything like that.

 

You have posted that NCL ships rated at the bottom of your list of 13 cruises. You would probably be of more benefit on the boards of cruise lines that ranked 1 and 2. Those folks will surely benefit from your great insight, experience and MBA.

 

....Was good.

 

Rest assured, once I get my Spirit Cruise over with I won't be gracing NCL ships or message boards for some time.

 

I must confess, you guys bring out the best in me.

[CanadianTwosome]

The resturaunt analogy wasn't mine, but I went with it...

 

As for a concert, In many circumstances, tickets can be exchanged for a later date. And Ticketmaster wouldn't be the decsion maker on the refund - anymore than my TA would be in a posisiton to issue a refund for a cruise. The decision to refund would rest with the promoters and the perfomers - I'd think. I would hope they would be interested in maintaing their fan base. I would not be a fan of a performer who was interested in ticket revenues for empty seats - so if it went down that way - I would not go back.

 

The original restaurant reference was not an analogy, but a description of an experience in which the poster was not satisfied and still intended to return to the business.

 

As for your take on my concert analogy, sure, maybe it wouldn't be Ticketmaster that made a refund decision, but that was hardly the important part of the scenario. I accept full responsibility for that error. Your response is too much for me, though. You're an angry man, Neal. It's pretty clear to me that no matter what is posted, whether it is logical, sensible or otherwise, you are determined to be negative and find a way to 'prove' that you're right. Well, I know when to stop before I get too frustrated, so this will be my last reply to you. I hope NCL resolves your certificate issue and that you enjoy your cruise.