Enavigo

Don't be sorry....I love it!:cool:

 

Has anyone told you, you should write a book?;):)

I'll second that! He reminds me a lot of a very popular poster on a flyer forum I also frequent (fly a ton for work). That guy is an active 767 pilot for a mainline airline (he does not state is affiliation). He comes on regularly to gives us a pilot's perspective of that latest controversy of the day or just to share his knowledge. I have learned so much for both of them.

My biggest lesson learned ... leave the professional decisions to the professionals. Their training, knowledge and experience is what we are paying for.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I am just saying that the fear is very real for them. i empathize with them. and fear can be heightened d/t the lack of info.

 

 

 

we have all the facts now, but they didn't. i cannot fault someone for how they acted based on how little info they had.

I totally agree with that and I understand the contemporaneous videos I viewed through that lens. My only point is that now that the facts are known, we should stick to those and not what someone "thought" happened.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Some of us have stated several times that we are very sorry that passengers had to go through what they did. We even acknowledge their subjective fear. However, many people question the objective viability of such fear and that is also fair.

For me, I just try to stick to facts ... not hyperbole or opinion. What drives me crazy are the people who are constantly repeating inaccuracies to justify their fear and make the situation seem worse than it was.

No matter how many times someone states in multiple threads, the captain most certainly did NOT direct the ship into the storm. He trailed a safe distance behind it, balancing the needs/safety of the passengers, crew and ship against multiple factors ... and YES including the ship's schedule as well as probably a dozen factors none of us are qualified to evaluate. He is a licensed professional and I highly doubt the people on here giving their "opinion" are nearly as informed.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

If your alluding that you sit on a judicial bench or have in the past, then you'd know full well not to cast an opinion without hearing all of the merits and given this is not a court room, you haven't read all of the merits which could be presented. You've read opinion, even those put forth by first responders advising people to avoid the storm if at all possible.

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree, the subject has degraded and further dialogue in the matter would be futile. The ship has, docked.

 

The cruise line, the media and subsequently my own indulgence into this matter is closed.

Full disclosure ... I am not a sitting member of the judiciary. My practice is limited to multi-national/cross border complex mergers and acquisitions. Further, none of my insights here are the provision of legal advice within the meaning of the jurisdictions I which I am admitted to practice.

I am only trying to add to the diverse opinions presented on this forum. My point was courts act based on facts ... not opinions or hyperbole.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Thanks for your legal perspective.

I have gained far more insights from this forum (from folks like you) than I have ever contributed. It's one of the things I like most about Cruise Critic, we all have diverse backgrounds and experiences that add to each others' experiences. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed my cruises far more than I ever would have had I not met the great people on these boards.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Just for clarity UK bookings are not subject to US law.

 

They use to be but it all changed after the Costa Concordia incident.

 

All bookings made in the UK are subject to UK law as per your cruise contract.

 

This applies to all cruiselines not just NCL.

 

 

 

If you book in the EU your contract with NCL is subject to German law.

 

 

 

I know the majority of people affected were subject to US law but not all.

A very important point. Thank you for that (I was assuming all US bookings).

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

You interpreted my post, the one you quoted, as a moral argument? Avoiding danger rather than heading straight into it is a "moral" decision for you? Not even for civil servants would I see this as a moral decision save the choice of profession. If that was your understanding of my post....I doubt I could clear it up for you.

I'll try and put it as clearly as I can for you. If you made that argument in my court (attempting to find someone negligent for what COULD have happened and not what DID) not only would I dismiss it with prejudice, I would entertain a motion to grant attorneys fees as well.

As for the sophomoric swipe at my reading comprehension skills, I will only respond with this; apparently my skills were strong enough to serve as editor in chief of one of the nations leading law reviews when in school. So I'm pretty comfortable with my abilities.

And now I am really done with this thread.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Yeah, Pacer is where I found the Simpson case, but I don't belong. You were posting when I was, I didn't look up the DeLuca case. Interesting that the poster doesn't know that his case was settled.

Simple members of the class (rather than the lead plaintiff) rarely get anything out of it. After the firm deducts their expenses and takes 1/3 of the remaining amount it typically leaves little to be distributed to the class.

Might have got a small check in the mail or they may still be working on the disbursements, I'm not aware of the timing of class action settlement in the federal regime.

My guess it was a low settlement number that RCCL just could not turn down. If I were RCCL, I actually would have wanted to litigate this to conclusion. It could have closed another l attempt by the class action bar to erode contract enforceability provisions in the cruise industry (which the Supreme Court has consistently enforced). The facts were not very sympathetic and a bench trail would have been favorable (more likely than not). Now, if there were claims or significant injury/death, those are the cases you settle quickly!

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the "accepted risks when you board the ship" defense, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

And, that's it for me folks on these threads. When we move for legal/factual into moral arguments I, as a rule, bow out.

Again, I'm sorry for anyone that went through this and I wish the best.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

There are two active class action lawsuits against RCCL for Anthem and both were granted permission to proceed by courts of law. I am a part of one of them and can't speak in detail, but they are active and moving forward against the cruise line.

I don't have my PACER password handy so I can't see the actual filings, but I just looked up the docket for DeLuca. The case was dismissed after settlement in July. Following the docket is interesting. RCCL filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (the formal filing that would be made to enforce the contract terms). After hearing, the plaintiff was ordered to refile an amended complaint. He plaintiff sought multiple extensions to file, But that never happened ... they settled.

I also read the complaint itself. It's attempt to void the limitation clause was dubious at best. They told the court it should ignore the RCCL contract terms in reliance on a federal statute. Only problem is that statute ONLY applies to injury or death on a cruise ship. They then go on to make a blanket statement about "intentional" actions on the part of the captain and cite a Carnival case in which the facts were entirely different. It is obvious, the claim was gong to have to extend settled law were it to continue.

As opposed to risking losing on jurisdictional grounds, they settled, which RCCL was probably more than happy to do at that point to have it go away.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Water slides are gone, ice bar defrosted, the casino lost all its $500 chips, and no more steaks at Cagneys.

But it is not all bad ... I heard all those monster waves and flooding brought in a huge haul of lobsters! Back on the menus for the month. Get 'me while they last!

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I've been on three cruises where we changed our route due to hurricanes. I did not feel the need to interview myself and send it to the local news. I did not feel the need for compensation. People were ill on the boat, the decks were closed off at times. Barf bags on every stairwell.

 

 

 

People who suffered actual damages should be compensated. Rough seas are part of what you signed up for.

 

 

 

The tv family was offered $500 per person by NCL already. And turned it down.

They should have taken the $500. Better than anything they will get in binding, non-discovery arbitration in Miami, FL ... the cruise capital of the US. Dumb decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I feel badly for those on board who were scared or who were uncomfortable or displaced due to water. Never was anyone in danger though. Just because they might have felt like that were, does not make it true. The ship can't control the weather, but they kept the passengers safe. They can't control the passengers' feelings either. Sorry some had bad experiences, but go hug your dog and move along.

+1. This is well said. No one on here has said they don't feel bad for what passengers had to endure or that they wish anyone ill will.

All I am saying is there is a difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE fear. There is also a massive distinction between hyperbole and fact.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Customer service industries need to maintain a good reputation for what they advertise. This was not a vacation and was a predicable event since this storm has been in the news for days and they decided NOT to stay put for an extra day. I think they owe everyone who will sail with them again a replacement cruise. Giving a replacement cruise costs NCL close to nothing (VS a cash payment) and builds good will and turns a negative opinion into a positive one. Your advise for them to do nothing will cause them to loose future business from these passengers and all the people they tell. People who have a bad experience will tell lots of people where as people who have a good experience tend to say nothing. Most restaurants will replace your meal if you didn't like it, most hotels will change your room or compensate you if there is an issue, why shouldn't NCL do some good PR here too.

If I was pushed further by my client I would stand by my advice. Your request is wholly unreasonable.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

The bottom line for me is that NCL chose to sail INTO a storm that had hurricane force winds and 40' swells.

Except that is not what NCL did. [emoji849]

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I'm not sure about the Epic, but on the Breakaway it is only the Owner's Suites and the Deluxe Owner's Suite that get that benefit. For those ships with a Garden Villa I think the number is 6 bottles.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

AlexandNessa, you are MY Cruise Heroes. :) Appreciate you weighing in to balance the discussion.

 

 

 

I will say that now that everyone has witnessed the Anthem of the Seas winter storm situation, and now these Breakaway cruise events, that anyone booking out of New York in the middle of winter going forward needs to ACCEPT what MIGHT happen.

 

 

 

Don't read about these incidents, book anyway, and come back here (or to the local news) looking for sympathy and a refund.

 

 

 

Weather is uncontrollable and no one has any idea what NCL or the captain knew what/when about the storm. I am going to assume that, in addition to not wanting to harm or kill passengers, they have an interest in not damaging their pretty expensive ship and business reputation. So I highly doubt they consciously made a decision to risk destroying the ship and killing people to pick up another round of cruisers in New York. I am sure they are not happy with the way things turned out, but I will never believe that they INTENTIONALLY or NEGLIGENTLY moved ahead.

 

 

 

I think they could offer some future cruise credit as a "good will" gesture - but in my opinion they don't owe anybody a refund. And anyone asking for one is an opportunist. (Also my opinion.)

I wish we could "like" posts on cruisecritic! Well said.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

It’s really frustrating to be judged by someone who has not experienced this cruise. So hold your self-centered opinions unless you have something useful to say

But your self-centered opinion is wholly dispositive? And experiencing it has absolutely nothing to do one's ability to read the contract every single one of us agrees to when we step foot on a ship. And some of us (myself included) are actually trained to be dispassionate in the execution of our profession. And yes, I am able to do so even when I myself (or a member of my family) has been harmed.

Again, no one is saying they don't feel for those who sailed through the storm and no one wishes ill will. We are just trying to frame the issue here and make expectations more reasonable.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Nobody goes on a cruise and expects to fear for their lives. The captain should have avoided this storm and stayed put in the last port for an extra day. Where in NCL's advertising does it have a disclaimer for water coming down the stairwells and into your cabin? Where does it state if you can't use your cabin the atrium is a place to sleep if you can even sleep? I believe everyone is entitled to a cruise credit equal to their fare towards their next cruise if they choose to cruise again.

No doubt some were subjectively fearing for their lives. Was that fear objectively reasonable? Not so sure. In any event, they signed a contract, they are "entitled" to binding arbitration in Miami-Dade county if they feel harmed. That is it.

Now, if they WANT to offer a little something (maybe 1 free cruise next certificate per cabin?) I think that would be more than sufficient. If I were on their in house legal team (in full disclosure, my area of practice is general corporate law, not civil lit or maritime law) I would advise them to offer nothing. The captain got everyone home safe and sound. Could he have communicated better? Perhaps. Was he negligent in any way? Highly, highly unlikely.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Thanks for you help here, Enavigo. Can you please clarify the meaning of ‘you have only one option: file for binding arbitration in Miami. That is it. Nothing else. No class action, no suit or actions filed outside of FL.

 

 

 

Multitudes of courts (at both the state and federal level) have adjudicated the enforceability of these provisions and the law is settled. These are invariably enforced by their terms.’ ?

Sure. Section 10(b) of your guest ticket contract covers lawsuits or other actions (other than those resulting in injury or death). I won't go into all the legal specifics, but essentially it says by traveling on the ship, you agree to wave all your rights and seek recovery solely through binding arbitration in Miami-Dade county. Subsection © of that same section goes on to say you expressly waive your right to file any class action.

I should add, you do retain the option to file an action in a small claims court of your choosing, but as you may know, those courts have limited ability to grant remedies (usually varies by jurisdiction, but usually maximum recoveries under $5K).

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Count me in

First, let me start with the obvious, I am so sorry you all had to go through what you did the past few days. I can't imagine what that must have been like and I'm sure I would have been concerned for my safety as well.

That said, I would encourage you all to take a deep breath and take some time to gather your thoughts. After you do, please take a brief look at your contract of carriage. I will offer you this free legal advice ... you have only one option: file for binding arbitration in Miami. That is it. Nothing else. No class action, no suit or actions filed outside of FL.

Multitudes of courts (at both the state and federal level) have adjudicated the enforceability of these provisions and the law is settled. These are invariably enforced by their terms. If you can somehow show fraud in the inducement, then perhaps you could void the whole contract (including the arbitration clause), but that is so highly unlikely it almost does not even bear mention.

Again, I can only imagine what you have gone through and it would certainly have me wondering if cruising (or cruising with NCL) was for me, but understand that you agreed to the terms of carriage the moment you walked on the ship.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Yulp ... Good (sunny but chilly) morning, dexddd & HNY 2018 to you and yours.

 

At least, Amtrak & regional trains are running this morning while roads remained dangerous to drive & navigate ... one of our cousins on the Empire services coming downstate from Albany, NY earlier this week - an usual 3 hour trip, took 8.5 hours (temporary suspended due to frozen switches) ... as they didn't want to drive.

 

Breakaway on Marinetraffic dot com - she's now "visible" on AIS tracking, going just under 11 knots - heading home toward NY, off the coast of NJ, passed Atlantic City area in the last hour, south of Barnaget Beach ... a good 5 to 6 hours away at that speed.

 

Shipcam viewable - sea state is still a bit rough with white caps, I am guessing 10' to 12' maybe as much as 15' waves at times.

 

To all those onboard, welcome home - it is 10 degree F in NY, wind chill is like minus 7 degree, continuing to plunge. Both JFK and LGA are now up & running - in full recovery mode, some might not get on a new flight until tomorrow ... patience.

 

< Be nice to the crew, blame mother nature >

I'm not quite sure where your Amtrak information came from of if you are just looking at trains arriving to NYC from the south, but I just walked through south station here in Boston and although all our commuter rails are running (some with delays), every single Amtrak train (arriving and departing) is cancelled for the day.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

The Epic could easily fit in the Port of Boston. For that matter, so could the Escape or the Bliss. The Port is one of the largest in the country and still serves as a primary east coast shipping port with some of the largest ships afloat coming and going every day.

I think the issue is more the terminal itself and the ability to accommodate traffic to and from there. That said, the Dawn has been, by far, the smallest cruise ship to call Boston home for a while now.

I think the lack of a large ship in Boston also has more to do with the 1 hr flight distance from NY, which as a much larger market, can more easily (and with higher certainty) fill the bigger ships.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

With the Escape coming to NYC I wonder if they will begin enforcing arrival times at least for that ship. I just can't imagine how another 1000 people can squeeze in that tiny terminal. Last fall it was a complete disaster just getting to the terminal, nevermind the mass of humanity squeezed in there when we arrived.

Maybe they'll move away from pier 88 and adopt the 2 pier approach used in Miami?

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

It's Anoop.....but his nickname from now on will be Snoop.:')

 

Before making the jump to Regent SS, maybe look at Oceania, MSC Yacht Club, or Celebrity (especially Edge, under construction).

Lol, bad typo! Ha. Yes, we love Anoop! Thank you for the advice, I will look into it!

Sent from my iPhone using Forums