Would You Bail?

[ts01974]

"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.

 

Yes the cruise lines. Good point.

[ukbecky]

In Congressional testimony (concerning the cruise lines) just last week, the Deputy Asst. Director of the FBI called bomb threats one of the "less serious matters" reported by the cruise lines.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/hernandez091907.htm

 

I think he is probably well-informed.

 

Makes me think this happens quite a bit so I'm not surprised that NCL didn't make a big deal out of it.

[thirdrock]

A few months after 9/11 I was aboard a cruise ship in the Caribbean somewhere between St. Thomas and St. Maarten, the latter island being our next port. I hasten to add that this was not an NCL vessel. The captain announced that we were bypassing St. Maarten because high surf had made tendering impossible. As compensation for the missed port, the cruise line opened the bars and free booze flowed for the next three hours. While everyone else was getting plastered, my mind was in overdrive because I recently had read that major dock renovations were completed in St. Maarten, making temporary tendering unnecessary. Plus, the seas could not have been calmer. The next day a very hung-over constituency was informed that a terrorist threat on an unidentified ship had been received for the Port of St. Maarten. The FBI had instructed the cruise line to avoid the port but say nothing to the passengers. A near riot ensued. Some of the passengers were angry that a credible threat was not disclosed. Some insisted that we should have gone to St. Maarten anyway. And still others were disgruntled that three hours of open bar wasn’t sufficient compensation for such an emotionally taxing event. The moral of the story is that human nature is a fickle and sometimes irrational aspect of our being. As with the NCL incident, there was and remains no single resolution with the power to yield universal satisfaction. Perhaps giving thanks for our collective safety should have been enough.

[mbisson]

A near riot ensued. Some of the passengers were angry that a credible threat was not disclosed. Some insisted that we should have gone to St. Maarten anyway. And still others were disgruntled that three hours of open bar wasn’t sufficient compensation for such an emotionally taxing event.

 

 

Ya gotta love that! Some angry that a credible threat was not disclosed (they didn't go there anyway so I don't understand what they were angry about) other saying it was emotionally taxing (again, if they didn't know and didn't go I'm not sure how they were "emotionally taxed" guess a couple more hours of free drinks would've taken care of it ;) ).

 

You're right-human nature is indeed fickle! Thanks for posting

 

BTW-I also was on a cruise shortly after 9/11 - we didn't run into anything like you did and we sure had a wonderful cruise (although it was within a month of 9/11 so there was sort of a somber atmosphere).

[salty dingo]

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

 

I bet NCL does not make that mistake again!

[ts01974]

I bet NCL does not make that mistake again!

 

That's not a mistake. Geez some people on these boards are unreal.

Do you prefer to be kept in the dark and let NCL determine what information you should be given about BOMB THREATS OR OTHER THREATS OF TERRORISM????????

 

They did the RIGHT thing by letting people disembark. I know CONTRACTUALLY they didnt have to offer compensation or a refund but I think it would've been a good business practice to have done it.

 

"Hold on" others say "Thats my money your giving away"

 

No it's not as much as some of you bleed NCL blood it's really not your company or business

[caravellov]

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.

 

So, do you believe in refunds if there was a bomb and it exploded?

[Globaliser]

So, do you believe in refunds if there was a bomb and it exploded?

I think the cruise would have been cancelled. And if the cruise was cancelled, then yes people should have been paid refunds.

 

But no refunds just because someone is too scared to wait, and wants to run away.

[CanadianTwosome]

That's not a mistake. Geez some people on these boards are unreal.

Do you prefer to be kept in the dark and let NCL determine what information you should be given about BOMB THREATS OR OTHER THREATS OF TERRORISM????????

 

 

Have you read the posts made by people who have been involved in bomb threats or trained for them? NCL were not likely making decisions as to what information was given or when.

[nealstuber]

I bet NCL does not make that mistake again!

Sorry, I'm in shock. After following this thread for the better part of the week, I was quite convinced that none of the NCL fan base would admit that NCL did anything wrong in their handling of this situation.

So why do you feel NCL made a mistake in letting scared folks get off the ship? Why do you feel the customers should bear the responsibility for this NCL mistake?

[smeyer418]

So, do you believe in refunds if there was a bomb and it exploded?

Nonsense you are off base. There was no bomb. That is clear. What happens if the air all of a sudden leaves your side of the room? there a million what ifs...and if there was an act of terrorism that is different...and is covered under the cruise contract....If it doesn't sail they haven't fulfilled their contract. It sailed they did. get over it already are you going to spend the rest of you life trying to get back $500.00 you yourself said it was your decision which you made irrespective of whether they would refund you the money...its time to move on and stop with absurd what if's.

[smeyer418]

Sorry, I'm in shock. After following this thread for the better part of the week, I was quite convinced that none of the NCL fan base would admit that NCL did anything wrong in their handling of this situation.

So why do you feel NCL made a mistake in letting scared folks get off the ship? Why do you feel the customers should bear the responsibility for this NCL mistake?

 

I don't see that as a mistake. You wanted NCL to hold them against their will? It was their decision made after NCL told that what they knew and what they were allowed to tell.

How that can possibly be a mistake is beyond reason.

 

remember all the complaining about Airlines holding people who wanted to get off...

[mbisson]

Sorry, I'm in shock. After following this thread for the better part of the week, I was quite convinced that none of the NCL fan base would admit that NCL did anything wrong in their handling of this situation.

So why do you feel NCL made a mistake in letting scared folks get off the ship? Why do you feel the customers should bear the responsibility for this NCL mistake?

 

There was no bomb. From the posters above they were told there was no bomb. They got off the ship anyway. Why should they then get a refund?

Oh-don't bother!

[Globaliser]

I bet NCL does not make that mistake again!

Sorry, I'm in shock. After following this thread for the better part of the week, I was quite convinced that none of the NCL fan base would admit that NCL did anything wrong in their handling of this situation.

So why do you feel NCL made a mistake in letting scared folks get off the ship? Why do you feel the customers should bear the responsibility for this NCL mistake?

Recently undergone an irony bypass, have we? :rolleyes:

[nealstuber]

I don't see that as a mistake. You wanted NCL to hold them against their will? It was their decision made after NCL told that what they knew and what they were allowed to tell.

How that can possibly be a mistake is beyond reason.

 

remember all the complaining about Airlines holding people who wanted to get off...

 

I never said it was a mistake, I said NCL could not be seconded guessed for their handling of the situation, someone else said it was a mistake.

 

As other "experts" on bomb threats on this thread have stated that the danger may have been greater on the pier, not sure why you are outraged by the prospect of the line preventing folks from disembarking. They routinely hold passengers on board when they are sick, before clearing customs, and they don't let them jump overboard - no matter how bad their NCL cruise was.

 

As to the airlines, I remember the Jet Blue fiasco, but I remember their response much better....A flyers Bill of rights that includes: for starters, generous compensation for unduly inconvenienced passengers. This not only makes the situation more patellable, it encourages the airline to improve their performance. I consdier this to be a good example of how a good customer service department turns an adverse situation into a "win."

 

One more thing, I feel confident that even the worst of airlines,and airlines are by no means the bright light on customer service front, would allow passengers the option to take a later flight if the plane they were on was delayed 2 hours or more for a bomb threat.

[coka]

Have you read the posts made by people who have been involved in bomb threats or trained for them? NCL were not likely making decisions as to what information was given or when.

 

Thank you Canadian Twosome for the above statement. Not only have I trained for them, I have been the one making the decision whether to evacuate, not evacuate, etc. Now you know why I would never second guess anyone's decision. Lastly, NCL was most likely not making the decision what to do and when. Once something like this happens, they probably (I say probably because I was not there and do not know their procedures) had to wait for the NYPD or USCG to tell them what they were going to do. I think the thread should revert to the original poster's question. Would you bail or not? There are other sources for learning about statistics and factors about threat credibilities.

 

May you all be safe in all your travels,

Coka

[nealstuber]

:o For our commotion. Interesting that Mel choses to write that almost half think nothing is in order when more than half think something would be.

[mbisson]

:o For our commotion. Interesting that Mel choses to write that almost half think nothing is in order when more than half think something would be.

 

What is more interesting is that only about 7 or 8 percent (from the figures I've seen) felt it worthy of getting off the ship!

Let's see, half of that would be ???

[nealstuber]

What is more interesting is that only about 7 or 8 percent (from the figures I've seen) felt it worthy of getting off the ship!

Let's see, half of that would be ???

 

That only 7 or 8 percent is a credit to the crew with respect to how they handled the situation. And I agree with your point that the number of PAX who would let this impact their future cruising decisions is pretty small.

 

I would argue (of course) that because it is such a small number, its a no brainier for the line to offer a credit - my quick math says the cost to NCL (which they would of course pass on to cruisers) would be $15,000.

 

At last glance this thread has approx 3500 views and 350 poll respondents, likely NCL cruisers all. NCL looks cheap to half of them.

 

Penny wise, Pound Foolish (IMNSHO).

[DAGVBSB]

What I am curious about is how anyone can blame this situation on NCL and want NCL to pay for something that wasn't thier fault.

 

Is NCL responsible for bad weather that may cause a missed port? No

Is NCL responsible for rough seas that requires a delay or change in itinerary? No.

Is NCL responsible if you have airlines delays and miss your sailing? No.

Is NCL responsible if you have an emergency and can't go on your trip? No.

 

So how can NCL be held accountable for a crazed idiot who calls in a fake bomb threat?

 

So how can NCL be held accountable when the Police Department refuses to let them sail until all is clear.

 

So how can NCL be held accountable when the PASSENGERS themselves decide to go against the opinion of TRAINED security professionals and get off the ship themselves.

 

To me, the only ones who are responsible for the lost fare are the fools who got off the ship.

[Cosmopolitan]

 

To me, the only ones who are responsible for the lost fare are the fools who got off the ship.

 

AFTER the "all clear" was issued by the NYPD. All clear = danger is over!

Why leave the ship:confused:

[Globaliser]

As to the airlines, I remember the Jet Blue fiasco, but I remember their response much better....A flyers Bill of rights that includes: for starters, generous compensation for unduly inconvenienced passengers. This not only makes the situation more patellable, it encourages the airline to improve their performance.

Not a comparable situation. No passenger on board the ship was inconvenienced, let alone "unduly" so. All the ship facilities were available to them. The water did not run out, nor did the food. All the ship's toilets were working as normal.

 

So what performance of NCL's should be improved? Currently, the only argument in favour of compensation is that compensation ought to be paid for anyone who voluntarily abandons their cruise and chooses to ask for a refund.

 

As before, if those in that category never cruise on NCL again, good riddance - IMHO.

[MrPete]

To me, the only ones who are responsible for the lost fare are the fools who got off the ship.

 

Geez. Would you still call them fools HAD something happened?

[nealstuber]

No passenger on board the ship was inconvenienced.....The water did not run out, nor did the food. All the ship's toilets were working as normal.

 

So what performance of NCL's should be improved?

quote]

 

For starters they might set their standards a little higher than that...

 

But the serious answer to your question is, I don't know. I do know that number of folks showed up to cruise and went home scared. What incentive is there for NCL to reduce that number?

[TPEINC1958]

Neal buddy, I thought you were asked to be mum on this topic or was that more of your hyperbole!!!!:rolleyes:

 

Hasn't this dead horse been thrashed enough.

 

John