Would You Bail?

[Janchris]

As some one said on another thread, the people in the WTC were told it was safe to stay.....I don't necessarily trust what is the government says in a crisis. i.e Katrina, Galveston ship explosions etc. but I do have more trust in the NYPD if they wanted the ship evacuated it would have been, 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.

 

Not that I do not trust the NYPD, as my husband is a retired NYPD Sergeant, but it is a matter of me feeling entirely safe in this situation. As I said prior, my husband said he would stay on board until told otherwise but I guess I am a worry wart and might be too anxious being aboard the vessel, hoax or no hoax. Of course, this is my opinion and other's might feel differently and that is what makes the world go round.

Janet:D

[hotpotato6]

My husband and I were on this one day overnight. We never considered leaving - though we certainly would have if we were told to do so. I feel comfortable enough to believe (though I know there are those who would disagree) that, especially because of these past few years, the authorities wouldn't put us in jeopardy and tell us "the threat was a false one" if they had any reason to think otherwise.

 

Want to share an unforgettable memory I will always have regarding NCL. We spent some wonderful time touring England by car before boarding the 17 day transatlantic cruise out of Southampton, England to NYC on the Norwegian Sun on September 10, 2001. On September 11 we took the shore excursion to Normandy in France, and for those who have been there they understand the emotional impact of that special place. On the bus ride back to the ship there was talk that the two towers of the World Trade Center had been totally destroyed. Upon return to the ship we discovered that incredibly it was true. We live 20 minutes north of the NYC pier and are native New Yorkers. My husband was at the trade center helping with evacuation during the Feb. 1993 bombing incident and he couldn't believe the collapse of the buildings either until we saw it with our own eyes over and over on the BBC channel on the ship.

 

NCL immediately took action to provided free internet service and telephone service for many, many hours. There were sign-up sheets for the telephone and computers and there was a reasonable time limit set for usage so there would be no "hogging" so to allow access for everyone who wanted it. We had received a telephone message from our daughter telling us of the tragedy - and we did get to call both of our daughters to be assured that they and our relatives who worked in Manhattan were safe. However, like so many, when we got home we discovered we did know people who lost their lives that day.

 

Since the ship was to dock in NYC, NCL worked to make alternative plans to dock in Boston - and once again they opened up the telephone and computers for no charge so people could make travel arrangements from Boston to get home. They also provided free bus service to the NYC area for those who wanted it. We took one of the many buses and the driver was kind enough to let us off a bit north of the city so we could then call a relative to meet us by car.

 

Good friends of ours were also on a transatlantic crossing that left a few days before September 10 on a ship of another cruise line. The ship they were on did NOT handle the situation in the same way at all. It took them days of telephoning at their own expense to find out if all their family members were ok.

 

Again, I will never forget the caring, calming and compassionate way NCL and the Norwegian Sun crew cared for us passengers.

[Gabgab]

I would have left, my dad was in the pentgan when it was hit and was way to close to where the plane hit. So honestly people who say I would have stayed mabey their tune would change if they were more persoanly involed in 9/11. Sometimes you cant wait for someone to tell you to get off the boat like some mindless cow waiting to follow the herd. Many people may have gotten off because they remember all to well 9/11 and becasue the ship was in New York I would except the percentage to be higher.

 

So yes NCL should at least give them credit for a future cruise, mabey a refund but at least respect the fact that some people may not want to put the family at risk. Also I do relize that some people could have stayed who were persoanly affected but everyone reacts differently and I wish NCL would be kind enough to give some credit back to the people who left.

[dadof2]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_bomb_hoax_on_norwegian_spirit_luxury_shi.html?ref=rss

 

I can only HOPE that when a call like that is received...that the NYPD

does not send too many officers to that scene...the call could have been a tactic to send them all to the wrong end of town.

What a thought:eek:

[smeyer418]

I can only HOPE that when a call like that is received...that the NYPD

does not send too many officers to that scene...the call could have been a tactic to send them all to the wrong end of town.

What a thought:eek:

Don't worry about the NYPD there are 30,000 of them, even if they send 100's, there are plenty left for a couple of hundred other problems. They practice having more than one problem at a time constantly.

[goodml]

I would have left, my dad was in the pentgan when it was hit and was way to close to where the plane hit. So honestly people who say I would have stayed mabey their tune would change if they were more persoanly involed in 9/11. Sometimes you cant wait for someone to tell you to get off the boat like some mindless cow waiting to follow the herd. Many people may have gotten off because they remember all to well 9/11 and becasue the ship was in New York I would except the percentage to be higher.

 

So yes NCL should at least give them credit for a future cruise, mabey a refund but at least respect the fact that some people may not want to put the family at risk. Also I do relize that some people could have stayed who were persoanly affected but everyone reacts differently and I wish NCL would be kind enough to give some credit back to the people who left.

 

I don't understand why the cruiseline (any cruiseline) would be responsible for giving the passengers credit for a future cruise when they were not ordered off the ship and chose to leave of their own free will. I'm not saying it's not the right decision to leave. Certainly that's up to every individual. I just think that at times we have to be responsible for our own choices and not expect someone else to foot the bill.

[caravellov]

As I said elsewhere, I just hope that none of you who were sitting comfortably at home Saturday evening are ever put in this kind of situation. NCL does have a primary responsibility to keep passengers safe. When announcements, as important as the ones they were making on Saturday night, can not be heard throughout the entire ship, this is a cause for concern. When there are no NCL Officers around to answer questions, this is a cause for concern. The crew and staff were fabulous but they did not have any information and in some cases were providing incorrect information (the delay is the reuslt of a sick passenger; engine problems). When I left the ship, I didn't care about the money. But now that I have time to think about how it was handled, I believe I deserve a refund. I know this will aggrevate most of you, but, YOU WERE NOT THERE!

[cruise4kicks]

Hotpotato6, thanks for sharing your story. It's good to hear that a corporation that many have come to think of as impersonal, money-grubbing and outright liars can sometimes make the compassionate decision. That must have cost them a bundle, but it was the right thing to do.

[smeyer418]

As I said elsewhere, I just hope that none of you who were sitting comfortably at home Saturday evening are ever put in this kind of situation. NCL does have a primary responsibility to keep passengers safe. When announcements, as important as the ones they were making on Saturday night, can not be heard throughout the entire ship, this is a cause for concern. When there are no NCL Officers around to answer questions, this is a cause for concern. The crew and staff were fabulous but they did not have any information and in some cases were providing incorrect information (the delay is the reuslt of a sick passenger; engine problems). When I left the ship, I didn't care about the money. But now that I have time to think about how it was handled, I believe I deserve a refund. I know this will aggrevate most of you, but, YOU WERE NOT THERE!

 

You really need to stop posting this. In this poll we were asked our opinion. We gave it. while we may not have been there many of us have been through bomb threats and have some idea how we would respond. You are entitled to your opinion but you don't control these boards and your repeating this is just boorish. Its like saying a jury can't convict a murderer because they didn't either kill themselves or haven't had a loved one killed.

[mbisson]

I would expect nothing back but I also not sure I would have remained. Given what has happened in the past, I probably would have gotten off until they cleared it and then got back on.

 

My evil twin & I are in full agreement.

 

But I can't link to the thread the OP pasted in so I can't check all the details.

[mbisson]

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!

 

Surely those folks will realize they are in the minority, never utter a bad word about NCL, and pledge their cruise loyalty to the line!:D

 

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

 

Let me figure this out---

 

1)you posted a question

2)you have a preconceived notion of how you expect the result

3)you're not happy that the result isn't what you expected

4)you attempt a backhanded insult to those who don't agree with you

[98Charlie]

Let me figure this out---

 

1)you posted a question

2)you have a preconceived notion of how you expect the result

3)you're not happy that the result isn't what you expected

4)you attempt a backhanded insult to those who don't agree with you

 

Pretty good summation.

[nealstuber]

Let me figure this out---

 

1)you posted a question

2)you have a preconceived notion of how you expect the result

3)you're not happy that the result isn't what you expected

4)you attempt a backhanded insult to those who don't agree with you

 

To "stand down" and I have. To me, the most unexepected result of this poll has been that, even though 55% of poll respondents have stated that some sort of compensation would be in order, just 2 (or so) have seen fit to post why they feel it is in order.

 

The minority has been much more vocal.

 

Why do you suppose that is?

[Globaliser]

To me, the most unexepected result of this poll has been that, even though 55% of poll respondents have stated that some sort of compensation would be in order, just 2 (or so) have seen fit to post why they feel it is in order.

...

Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe most of those who anonymously voted for the payment of compensation can't express any rational reason for their choice. Or maybe no rational reason beyond "I want money". Or even "I want".

 

Much as I disagree with them, obviously this doesn't apply to those who have set out other reasons for wanting compensation.

 

And I agree entirely with smeyer418: Those of us who have been through this sort of thing before can have a pretty good idea of how we'd react.

[electricron]

Looking at the poll numbers, why do you think a small credit should be included for the cruise you didn't even take? The credit would be in the form of on board credits, and since you weren't on the cruise, how could NCL give it. So, I suggest dropping those numbers from the poll.

 

If that were done, a majority, vs a plurality, would be no credit or refund at all.

 

Remember, NCL didn't cancel the cruise nor did the government cancel the cruise. You canceled it. The decision was yours, and yours alone.

 

Expecting compensation from someone else over a decision you made isn't right, imho. Were you correct to disembark? Obviously you believe you were, and I will not disagree with the decision you made. But, I repeat, it was your decision. Passengers have that option on every cruise, to go or not. Supposed it wasn't a bomb threat, but another reason that caused you to change your mind about sailing on the ship that day; like you were ill, you were in an accident getting to the ship, you felt like doing something else at the last minute, or you died that morning.

 

I don't see why you expect NCL to be held financially responsible over a decision you made caused by the bomb threat. jmho.

[electricron]

Sorry, another double post.

[nealstuber]

Looking at the poll numbers, why do you think a small credit should be included for the cruise you didn't even take? The credit would be in the form of on board credits, and since you weren't on the cruise, how could NCL give it. So, I suggest dropping those numbers from the poll.

 

If that were done, a majority, vs a plurality, would be no credit or refund at all.

 

Remember, NCL didn't cancel the cruise nor did the government cancel the cruise. You canceled it. The decision was yours, and yours alone.

 

Expecting compensation from someone else over a decision you made isn't right, imho. Were you correct to disembark? Obviously you believe you were, and I will not disagree with the decision you made. But, I repeat, it was your decision. Passengers have that option on every cruise, to go or not. Supposed it wasn't a bomb threat, but another reason that caused you to change your mind about sailing on the ship that day; like you were ill, you were in an accident getting to the ship, you felt like doing something else at the last minute, or you died that morning.

 

I don't see why you expect NCL to be held financially responsible over a decision you made caused by the bomb threat. jmho.

 

I'd like to answer you guys, I really would, as I can assure you I have a several "rational" counters.

 

However, by request, I have joined the silent majority.

[nmcrzer]

Remember, NCL didn't cancel the cruise nor did the government cancel the cruise. You canceled it. The decision was yours, and yours alone....

 

...Expecting compensation from someone else over a decision you made isn't right, imho. Were you correct to disembark? Obviously you believe you were, and I will not disagree with the decision you made...

 

...I don't see why you expect NCL to be held financially responsible over a decision you made caused by the bomb threat. jmho...

 

Those people made a decision based upon information presented to them as a result of an external force or situation. Those people did not chose to be part of a cruise on which there was a threat. The were given a choice because of the threat, not because of something that was in their direct control. Changing plans at the last minute because of situations in your immediate control are different. The cause of the need to vacate (in their opinion) was beyond their control.

 

I would want some form of compensation, even if it were just a small OBC for a future cruise. It would be a goodwill gesture to get me to try the cruiseline again. A "too bad so sad" approach to customer service doesn't sit well with me.

[mbisson]

To "stand down" and I have. To me, the most unexepected result of this poll has been that, even though 55% of poll respondents have stated that some sort of compensation would be in order, just 2 (or so) have seen fit to post why they feel it is in order.

 

The minority has been much more vocal.

 

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Actually, going by the fact that out of probably over 2000 on the ship and 100+ leaving, the minority is those who would leave the ship in the first place!

 

Why do you suppose that is?

 

I'm sure that the respondents to your question have a vested interest in NCL! ;)

[NormanW]

RTFCC

 

(Read The Friendly Cruise Contract)

 

If you don't understand the terms a lawyer can explain it to you.

 

The problem(s) when the 'lines capitulate, others see this and even more unbalanced scenarios will unfold always putting said 'lines at distinct financial disadvantage. Think of a cage of lions. If one acts up and gets away with it; others follow until it gets out of control and they eat the trainer! :eek:

 

Cheers,

 

Norman

[electricron]

Those people made a decision based upon information presented to them as a result of an external force or situation. Those people did not chose to be part of a cruise on which there was a threat. The were given a choice because of the threat, not because of something that was in their direct control. Changing plans at the last minute because of situations in your immediate control are different. The cause of the need to vacate (in their opinion) was beyond their control.

 

I would want some form of compensation, even if it were just a small OBC for a future cruise. It would be a goodwill gesture to get me to try the cruiseline again. A "too bad so sad" approach to customer service doesn't sit well with me.

 

I would agree some on board credit would be a nice gesture, I just don't believe NCL is obligated to give it.

 

Never-the-less, a nice letter or e-mail to Colin Veitch expressing how much you enjoyed your short stay on the Spirit and wished it was longer, but you didn't have the courage to stay aboard because of the bomb threat, might get something better than on board credits, like a bon voyage package on your next cruise. I've read that Colin is quick to reward postive comments with such gestures here in the past. A letter demanding on board credits will probably get thrown into the trash bin.

[melika091900]

I would have waited to see if there was a credited threat BUT if our daughter was with us , then i would leave an YES I would want my money back, especially since the ship didnt even leave port yet.. it wasnt like in the middle of a cruise,

I would never book a 1 nighter anyways , but if i was in that situation thats what i would do ...

 

Do i sound greedy?? :confused:

[CC Help Michell]

As I said elsewhere, I just hope that none of you who were sitting comfortably at home Saturday evening are ever put in this kind of situation. NCL does have a primary responsibility to keep passengers safe. When announcements, as important as the ones they were making on Saturday night, can not be heard throughout the entire ship, this is a cause for concern. When there are no NCL Officers around to answer questions, this is a cause for concern. The crew and staff were fabulous but they did not have any information and in some cases were providing incorrect information (the delay is the reuslt of a sick passenger; engine problems). When I left the ship, I didn't care about the money. But now that I have time to think about how it was handled, I believe I deserve a refund. I know this will aggrevate most of you, but, YOU WERE NOT THERE!

 

Well, no I wasn't on the Spirit on Saturday, but as I've posted elsewhere, I've "been there, done that" in a situation with an actual terrorist bombing, and I've posted about how we resolved what to do in our own way. I wouldn't fault anyone who didn't resolve that question the same way we did, ever.

 

But, most adults are now familiar with the phrase "the fog of war." In an emergency situation, confusion happens. Every single "authority" figure may not have the most current information, or the most accurate information. What information is released, and how it is released, isn't some minor consideration -- the factor of panic comes into play, plus safety concerns in moving thousands of people pending threat investigation, versus not moving them, plus the question of whether moving those people would make the ongoing investigation more difficult.

 

I think the company in a situation such as this is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma. I guess just as you maintain that you had to make the call you made based on the information you had, so did the company (plus they had the advantage of the expert advice of NYPD and the Port Authority on how to handle the situation). How in such a confusing situation -- which was not NCL's fault -- you feel entitled to a refund for a cruise you made a personal decision not to take is something I still don't "get."

[mbisson]

 

I think the company in a situation such as this is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma.

 

I think that is about as accurate a summation as anyone could ever give.

thanks

[Gabgab]

I really just dont undersatnd how people can justfy NCL greed. I love NCL on the ship but man does there corpate side suck at custmer service. Many people did not want to risk there family getting hurt, if your a parent would you want your child where there has been a bomd threat or would you want to leave? Alot would say they would leave. Now NCL should give future credit on next cruise. I know if we were not compestated a little for a cruise we did not take becasue of safaty reason NCL should give a little credit. If they dont do this then in long run they will just lose all the business they could have gained by getting those epoepl to come back on the cruise and realize that hey NCL does a great job when your own the cruise (cause they do :) ) But Now these people will be saying how horrible they have been treated to their friends and guess what they will choose another cruise line. So I wil put a way NCL can understand snece they dont care about actaul doing the right thing, they will make more meony in the long run buy showing a litte genorsity now then being stingy now.