Would You Bail?

[DAGVBSB]

If the Police saw no reason to evacuate the ship, then the people who left were in no real danger and therefore left of their own choosing and NCL owes them nothing.

 

I work in a profession where we get many bomb threats. The experts have told us that 95% of all bomb threats are hoaxes. Usually people trying to get attention. The trained experts know by reading the threat or listening to the tape how serious a threat it is. In the case of the Spirit it was no threat.

 

Leaving the ship could have put you in just as much danger. The new "fad" amongst these wackos is to somehow cause panic in hopes that someone will get hurt in that panic. Also, many schools no longer evacuate for bomb threats due to the fear of a sniper lying in wait for the students to evacuate. So leaving the ship could have been just as dangerous as staying in a place where the police thought you were safe.

[ts01974]

If the Police saw no reason to evacuate the ship, then the people who left were in no real danger and therefore left of their own choosing and NCL owes them nothing.

 

I work in a profession where we get many bomb threats. The experts have told us that 95% of all bomb threats are hoaxes. Usually people trying to get attention. The trained experts know by reading the threat or listening to the tape how serious a threat it is. In the case of the Spirit it was no threat.

 

Leaving the ship could have put you in just as much danger. The new "fad" amongst these wackos is to somehow cause panic in hopes that someone will get hurt in that panic. Also, many schools no longer evacuate for bomb threats due to the fear of a sniper lying in wait for the students to evacuate. So leaving the ship could have been just as dangerous as staying in a place where the police thought you were safe.

 

Where are you from? You're very misinformed ? Where are the facts to support your rant

[smeyer418]

Where are you from? You're either very misinformed or a liar so which one is it? Where are the facts to support your rant

 

 

Why on earth would you call him a liar? Are you having a bad morning?

If you remember one of the shootings at a high school, their plan was to set off the fire alarm and shot people as they left. It wound up not happening that way but why attack the poster so? Evacuating a ship because there is a bomb threat takes both time and panicking people are dangerous as well. I am not saying people would panic but in almost every emergency evacuation people wind up with a broken something where there are any number of mass people involved. Its one of the reasons in most fire drills you don't actually evacuate everyone but just bring them to the stairwells and show them where it is without making everyone walk down.

 

While reasonable people can disagree calling someone a liar or asking them to prove it is really rude.

[nmcrzer]

...I work in a profession where we get many bomb threats. The experts have told us that 95% of all bomb threats are hoaxes. Usually people trying to get attention. The trained experts know by reading the threat or listening to the tape how serious a threat it is. In the case of the Spirit it was no threat.

 

Leaving the ship could have put you in just as much danger. The new "fad" amongst these wackos is to somehow cause panic in hopes that someone will get hurt in that panic. Also, many schools no longer evacuate for bomb threats due to the fear of a sniper lying in wait for the students to evacuate. So leaving the ship could have been just as dangerous as staying in a place where the police thought you were safe...

 

Who are these "experts"? Where are these statistics ("95%" and "many") documented?

 

If these are not verifiable, then you should preface your comments by saying something like "I think" or "IM(H)O".

[Globaliser]

Well, I'll preface my reply by saying that in my experience, at least 95% of all bomb threats are hoaxes.

 

But then it probably helps one's sense of perspective to live in a city that has often been bombed for real, and to do a lot of work in a building which is a pretty prime target for bombers - in fact, someone did try to bomb it once, but accidentally blew himself up when he was still on the bus around the corner.

 

So am I going to run and hide? No.

 

Would I be happy to pay compensation to those who choose to run and hide when there is no need to? No. At the end of the day, any compensation that were to be paid by NCL would come out of my pocket, and the pockets of all other fare-paying cruise passengers.

[Toyz711]

at the department store i worked at...if we had a threat, if the police said..we would evacuate. but it had to be through to the mall, not out the doors that went to the parking lot. the reason being, they didn't want people walking/running into a worse situation. if the whole mall was under a threat, i don't know what they would do. but with our store, they wanted a control evacuation though a protected, enclosed area...until the police could secure the parking lot. watching the spy/crime dramas on TV, too many people are learning that the best way to get "to" your target is to get your target into a open area. i don't like be a open target, especially when i don't know what is going on around me. better the hidey hole i know, then the wide-open-space i don't know.

yes, i do know how i react in some of these situations...twice, while in london, i have had to evacuate the underground, once due to smoke and a threat, another time the train was stopped at the next station ...unknown packages (1 confirmed to be a bomb) were found along the tracks. we won't go into the life threats from my own brother or the hostage situation at the beauty salon i was working at or the shots being fired less then a block from my tour in Caracas, or the near drowning when i was 5...as my dad said "staying calm may save your life". (notice i said MAY)

if someone felt better by leaving, then fine...you did what you thought you had to do to protect yourself. but to get a refund or any money back for your choice, no. that won't be fair to the ones that stayed...would give the hoaxer more ammo against the companies they threaten.

anyone remember the mini-sub that was found in the waters, near a cruise ship. no one had any idea what was going on with that one, either. coast guard had a fit explaining that one!!!

[nealstuber]

At the end of the day, any compensation that were to be paid by NCL would come out of my pocket, and the pockets of all other fare-paying cruise passengers.

 

Who ultimately bears the cost of replacing lost business when NCL looses customers through poor customer service policies?

 

Do you think NCL will pass along the money they saved by selling tickets to passengers who decided not to cruise?

[mbisson]

That's OK, IMO the ships I've sailed on had too many people on them anyhow! ;)

[Toyz711]

a few less people means i MIGHT be able to get a lounger near the pool this december.

[pathubia]

We have had bomb threats where I work. They take each call seriously, but we dont always get evactuated. If the authorities think it is a serious threat, we get evacuated until the builking is clear.....We have never been told to go home, once they clear the building, its back to work.

 

There are lots of screwballs out there with phones...

[coka]

Who are these "experts"? Where are these statistics ("95%" and "many") documented?

 

If these are not verifiable, then you should preface your comments by saying something like "I think" or "IM(H)O".

 

1. I think DAGVBSB is very well informed.

2. I discourage anyone from sharing/posting their place of employment's evacuation plans on a public forum as this.

3. I stand by my original post on this subject. Although, if you seek more information/statistics/documented cases, then there are plenty of sites to google...but beware...big brother might wonder why you are googling all that...!!

 

Coka

[salty dingo]

Ok, so some joker calls in a bomb threat, and some people think that is a reason to get their money back? I can't believe it!

[Globaliser]

Who ultimately bears the cost of replacing lost business when NCL looses customers through poor customer service policies?

That I care less about.

 

I object to paying compensation to people who voluntarily chose not to go on the cruise when there was no reason to bail out.

 

If those who irrationally cancelled their own cruise for no reason, yet still expect to be compensated, choose not to book again through NCL because NCL are strong enough to stand up to them and to resist the blackmail, then good riddance. I'll happily support that.

[GROOVERS]

If they choose not to go, that's "their" business...I respect NCL for doing what they can do to see to it we have a good time! I say they don't owe um a dime!:p

[ts01974]

1. I think DAGVBSB is very well informed.

2. I discourage anyone from sharing/posting their place of employment's evacuation plans on a public forum as this.

3. I stand by my original post on this subject. Although, if you seek more information/statistics/documented cases, then there are plenty of sites to google...but beware...big brother might wonder why you are googling all that...!!

 

Coka

 

1) I think your as misinformed as DAHVBSB

2) why would anybody begrudge somebody getting a refund is beyond me. You people act like it's your money :eek:

[nmcrzer]

1. I think DAGVBSB is very well informed.

Coka

 

If DAGVBSB is "very well informed", then DAGVBSB shouldn't mind citing sources. If the statements are just opinions or educated guess, then that should be stated.

[salty dingo]

why would anybody begrudge somebody getting a refund is beyond me. You people act like it's your money :eek:

 

I say if someone can manage to get a refund, more power to them. I just think a bomb scare is no reason to EXPECT a refund. If you get one, great.

 

But, look at it from the cruise line's perspective. They are going to sail the ship if it is safe. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. If they sail the ship and it is not full, they are going to lose money if they have to refund the non-sailing people's fare or issue future credits.

 

Why should someone expect the cruise line to lose money for something they did not cause, or could not control? And most importantly, why would someone who was looking forward to a cruise for so long, why would they decide not to go at the last minute, if the authorities declared the ship safe? I think if they are that cautious / scared then they deserve no compensation. And maybe that would be enough to convince them to go and have fun!

[smeyer418]

1) I think your as misinformed as DAHVBSB

2) why would anybody begrudge somebody getting a refund is beyond me. You people act like it's your money :eek:

of course its our money. Do you think the cruise lines have free money floating around? It just gets added to the fares. Its like saying its the insurance companies money so why be concerned when they have to pay out money they shouldn't...because in the end its us who pays.

[Globaliser]

2) why would anybody begrudge somebody getting a refund is beyond me.

Because it's unfair to those of us who understand what contractual obligations mean, keep our heads and don't panic?

 

The world isn't about seeing how much money you can screw out of other people for whatever reason.

[ts01974]

of course its our money. Do you think the cruise lines have free money floating around? It just gets added to the fares. Its like saying its the insurance companies money so why be concerned when they have to pay out money they shouldn't...because in the end its us who pays.

 

It is not your money.

 

Do you own NCL? Didnt think so.

 

Insurance is a totally diferent business please.

[ts01974]

Because it's unfair to those of us who understand what contractual obligations mean, keep our heads and don't panic?

 

The world isn't about seeing how much money you can screw out of other people for whatever reason.

 

Come on contractual obligations? Gimme a break pulheezzzzzzzzeee

 

Who is screwing anybody out of money here?

 

Please rethink your position it doesn't make any logical sense:eek:

[nealstuber]

... most importantly, why would someone who was looking forward to a cruise for so long, why would they decide not to go at the last minute, if the authorities declared the ship safe?

I think you need to look at some of the communications problems cited by the folks who left before you draw the conclusion that they over reacted. I'm not saying that NCL did a bad job handling the situation, just that it was probably inevitable that some folks would react the way they did.

The ship took the extraordinary and unusual measure of allowing folks to disembark. That, in and of itself, might make some people uncomfortable.

[Globaliser]

Insurance is a totally diferent business please.

No, it isn't.

 

Take this example: Someone is taken ill after boarding, and has to get off the ship at the last minute and miss their cruise. Normally, you would expect an insurance company to pay out for the wasted cruise fare, if insurance was taken. If you expect the cruise line to refund the fare instead, you are expecting the cruise line to insure the passenger against this eventuality.

 

It's the same if the passenger simply decides not to travel, as in the case of this bomb hoax.

[Globaliser]

Come on contractual obligations?

"I paid money for the cruise. I understand that I cannot get a refund if I decide not to travel."

 

What part of that is so difficult to understand? It's in the cruise contract.

 

But obviously, there are always people in the world who think that contracts and other rules just don't apply to them.

[Toyz711]

if 1 person gets a refund for this, then everyone should get a refund...but if they did that no business would be in business for very long. i don't believe in refunds for a hoax threat...that puts too much power in the hands of the hoaxer..to scare and to put businesses under.

even though, we the consumer, aren't responsible for the hoax or terror threat, neither is the business, in this case NCL. in fact, does anyone even know if the threat was to the ship or to the docks where the ship happened to be. if the dock was threatened are you going to ask for a refund from the dock management? NCL was as much a victem as the passengers. no one would have be able to handle that situation perfectly.

yes, the money would come out of our pockets..all businesses pass on their losses to the customers...in the form of higher costs!!!

 

since the crew are from other countries, they have had to deal with some of this in their own countries...to us it's still new. sueing or demanding refunds will not solve the problem, we have joined the rest of the world in not feeling safe.