SeaShark

No worries...I wasn't expecting the answer anyway. The entire point was to show that you want things to be open-ended and undefined so that you can always change the conditions to fit your argument...thus the continual inability to define your own terms. Have a nice flight.

Sorry sport, but that is a swing and a miss. First...if you don't have the time to support it, then you shouldn't be making accusations. Second, defining the line isn't answering a question of mine, it is getting YOU to define exactly what it is that YOU are claiming. Quite a bit of difference. When YOU are going to claim that A is GOOD and B is BAD, then you have to tell us what divides good from bad or we'll never know how to define C. If it were my question, I could research and provide my own answer. However, there is no way that I could research and provide YOUR answer.

This is a discussion forum, not an airport...you don't need to announce your departure.

Please reference where I require someone else to answer my question.

Yeah...you jumped into page 6 of a settled topic and started arguing with everyone's posts...all I did was hold your feet to the fire and I harassed you...sure. 🙄

Right...but instead of deflecting to "what are they", why don't you just explain what they are instead? IOW...provide answers instead of new questions.

Given the time at which the OP arrived in NY, I'm willing to bet that shuttles TO the ship had already stopped by that point. If taking the cab didn't get them there on time, waiting and taking the shuttle certainly would not have either. We also have to remember that you have to be onboard 2 hours prior to sailing on embarkation day. If the ship was scheduled to leave at 4pm, onboard time is 2pm. If it was 5pm, then onboard time would have been 3pm. No way the OP could do either when the flight only landed at 2:30pm. Think about it. Flight lands at 2:30pm...taxi to the gate...get off the plane...walk to baggage claim...pick up baggage...walk to NCL shuttle operator...at this point, what time is it???

Oh but you are deflecting. I posed a question and instead of answering it, you quote replied with another question...the very definition of deflecting. Even though you quoted my question about why nobody was looking at AA, you didn't answer it.

Are you certain of that? My understanding is that this is true when you buy air through NCL. However, if your air comes from the Free@Sea promotion, it has different T&C and the "get you to the next port" isn't a part of it. Under the promotion, NCL's obligation is to purchase your airfare that is scheduled to get you to the ship on time. Variations in that schedule by the airlines or other parties are out of NCL's hands.

Good question...I'd ask you to share the answer when you complete your research, but I'm guessing you aren't really that interested in the answer as much as using the question to deflect. You could also have asked the same about NCL and/or the OP. Once the OP took matters into their own hands and booked the SW flight, does that relieve AA and/or NCL of their obligations?

AA cancelled the flights. AA failed the OP. Why is all the blame then on NCL? Nobody seems to feel that AA has any responsibility here.

"seems to be" is the operative phrase, no? And I don't need to be proven right...I'm comfortable in my beliefs. When I'm wrong, I own it, and when I'm right...nothing needs to be proven. (Again, much funnier to let those who are wrong show it. You know, like I give you the shovel and you just keep digging your way out of the hole). No problem with others standing firm in their beliefs either, but as PATRLR showed above, yours seem to be very fluid. The topic is unimportant to him, not the opportunity to stir the pot.

Right...and once again, we're presented with extremes. Mom & Pop vs a "huge corporation" (ever notice that the corporations are always "huge"?). Where would you draw the line. Its OK to steal from "a huge corporation", so how small would the corporation need to be before you'd not steal?

Once again, you present extremes. Stealing A is "OK", but stealing B is "BAD"...where you you draw the line? At what point exactly does the "level of wrongness" register on your moral compass? Or look at it another way...with the drink package you could order rum & coke, after rum & coke, after rum & coke, until you personally consume all of the rum in the bottle at the bar....and that would be OK as it is within the terms of the promotion. However...would it be OK then for you to reach over the bar, grab the entire bottle of rum, and take it with you back to your room to consume as you wish?

It isn't anger, I just don't tolerate what Ron White can't fix. What you (again) fail to recognize, or likely intentionally ignore, is that the pricing is based on the purchase model. If they made it an option where only the heavy drinkers could choose it, then the price would have to be increased to reflect that. It can be $99pd for both people or $198pd for only one person. There is no free lunch. BTW...it isn't about "winning" an argument. There is no argument, only a discussion. Likewise, there is no winning, either. Personally, it doesn't bother me if you're wrong about something...that only reflects poorly on you, not on me. However, I also don't have an issue with standing firm on my beliefs.

But you are being disingenuous in your argument and you know it. You have a CHOICE as to whether or not to buy the drink package. When you have a CHOICE, by definition, you are not forced. You also fail to recognize that the price is $99pppd applied to ALL adults in the same stateroom...the pricing only can be applied to one person, if that one person is the only adult in the room. You are trying to change the offer into something it is not in order to argue...and that dog don't hunt.

So why then present in a way in which you know I didn't mean?

But that option is entirely possible...just place the two adults in different cabins (like, for example, adjoining studios) problem solved. Challenging sounds good, but in the long run you won't win. If NCL was told that they had to allow one person in the cabin to buy the package while the other could pass on it, they'd just double the price of the package...problem solved, right? Remember, the current pricing is based on the assumption that the double occupancy guest both get the package. When the model changes, so will the pricing...and you likely won't be happy with that change either.

How much rain are we talking? What if its just a light drizzle and not a heavy downpour? Is it different if the rain is accompanied by fog?

Now follow it up. Interstate speed limit is 70 mph, so 82 is "OK" and 83 is "BAD". Why does one person get a ticket and the other doesn't over just a paltry 1 mph? You're just as dangerous at 82 mph as your are at 83 mph.

Well, then if there is no demarcation between the two, your initial argument is therefore invalid. BTW...I don't want a line...that is something you put on the table when you tried to claim one instance of speeding was OK while another was not. I'm just asking you to specify how we tell the difference.

Since we've seen this "logic" attempted earlier in the thread, I'll put the same question to you. You present this a 1 mph over the limit is "OK" while 65 mph over the limit is "BAD". Please give the specific number over the limit where "OK" turns to "BAD". Your argument only cites the extremes...where is the actual line drawn?

For @CruzinMel I wanted to address this part. Yes...CC has taken to archiving old discussion forum posts, making them difficult to impossible to find. If you'd like to be able to review your reviews, you really should submit them in the Member Review section of CC...NOT here on the discussion boards. The Member Reviews aren't memory-holed like the forum posts are.

The whole beer angle is a very bad analogy since the purchase conditions of the two scenarios is totally different. A better analogy: Person A and Person B walk into an all-you-can-eat buffet. Person A pays their $15.99 for the buffet, while Person B pays nothing as they are "not hungry". Then Person A goes up to the buffet, fills two plates full of food and they eat one plate while Person B eats the other. Think the restaurant would be OK with that?

Hate? What hate? Please quote and reference specific examples. Disagreement is not "hate". Additionally, the word "liar" has only been used twice in this thread...never by me. Care to walk that back? I rely on Sr Management with NCL that have plainly refuted your report. As did others here. BTW, the mere fact that it "is just select cruises" certainly does change your experience...which was to say this was a new NCL corporate policy.