CAS bait and switch. Ticked OFF!

[DevCruise]

What about the airline tickets?

 

The OP should just eat the cost of them?

 

Sorry, I missed that airline tickets had already been purchased. :(

[pokerpro5]

You're wrong and I'm not going to debate particulars. I've had enough experience with land and sea based casinos/comps that I stand by my suggestion(s). My experience is not limited to CET and NCL casinos.

 

If third party companies have access to your play at casinos, then there is information theft involved.

 

Not to say that this doesn't happen (I know it does), but it's illegal and shouldn't be happening.

 

Databases of player information is considered COMPANY PRIVATE and that information is very valuable.

 

In a recent evaluation of CET's assets during its bankruptcy filing, the Total Rewards program was listed as a $1 billion asset. Most of the value comes from the massive (private) database of players and their gambling habits.

 

They don't just hand this out to small junket companies.

[luvcruzing]

VideoTech,

 

I'm sorry this happened to you. CAS is wrong and should have let your comp stand as it was offered to you. They could have informed you that a mistake had been made, but since you were a loyal and long-time player, they would let you keep the comp but not to expect a comp of that value at Christmas or holiday time in the future. (And, you're absolutely right: comparing a penthouse suite and all the perks and amenities to a mini-suite is ridiculous.)

 

Sorry to see you leave the NCL boards. I've always enjoyed your rational and well-informed posts.

 

Best of luck in the future.

[catsy57]

Understand about the squeaky wheel, but in this case NCL did not act as most companies might have.

 

My email this morning did have a result. Charles Poakeart from CAS called my DW, within a few hours. Bottom line, they basically refuse to honor their original offer, and he tried very hard to convince my wife that their replacement offer was "a very nice cabin." Nope. Not even close.

 

His attitude was that this was "just business" and that if it had been "any other week besides Christmas" there would have been no problem with the comp they offered us. He simply refused to accept the argument that it was not our fault that an employee didn't know that December 19 to 26 included Christmas, and said that this had been "escalated all the way to the top at CAS". Not too sure about that.

 

He did agree to refund our entire payment, so at least we don't have to fight them over that.

 

Interestingly, he gave my wife a dollar figure that he said represented our average in the casinos on the cruises we've taken. This figure was not, IMO, insignificant. But I guess it is to them. When my wife told him that their actions had just lost them two loyal customers, and that revenue stream, he didn't seem to be bothered by that.

 

It all just goes to show how little customer service means to most companies any more. Sad.

 

So, we're putting this behind us and moving on. We'll repurpose the airline tickets for a different kind of vacation. Thanks again to everyone for their support and suggestions. This is one reason why CC works so well..it's nice to have the opinions of other experienced cruisers!

 

Sounds to me like a VIP wanted the penthouse suite for Christmas, and NCL wants very much to please the VIP. But NCL totally mishandled the situation - they should have bent over backward to still try to please the OP, and should have profusely apologized for the situation. The OP sounds like a reasonable person to me, and I'll bet he and his DW would have agreed to a compromise, if any had been offered.

[Moby0215]

Sounds to me like a VIP wanted the penthouse suite for Christmas, and NCL wants very much to please the VIP. But NCL totally mishandled the situation - they should have bent over backward to still try to please the OP, and should have profusely apologized for the situation. The OP sounds like a reasonable person to me, and I'll bet he and his DW would have agreed to a compromise, if any had been offered.

 

 

The compromise was a comped mini suite. I know many people who would be stoked about that. I'm sorry that's not good enough for the OP and that is their prerogative to cancel instead.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emcelh]

The compromise was a comped mini suite. I know many people who would be stoked about that. I'm sorry that's not good enough for the OP and that is their prerogative to cancel instead.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's no comparison between a full suite, which the penthouse is, and a mini suite. I don't know anyone who would be "stoked" if they booked and paid for a penthouse and then were downgraded to a mini suite.

[Moby0215]

There's no comparison between a full suite, which the penthouse is, and a mini suite. I don't know anyone who would be "stoked" if they booked and paid for a penthouse and then were downgraded to a mini suite.

 

 

The point is it wasn't paid for. It was comped. Comped rooms are always subject to change. The comment of being stoked was talking specifically to that being comped.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pokerpro5]

The point is it wasn't paid for. It was comped. Comped rooms are always subject to change. The comment of being stoked was talking specifically to that being comped.

 

That's not the point.

 

Comped rooms are not "subject to change". Are you saying that it should be perfectly okay to move someone from a comped penthouse suite to a comped bottom-deck-inside?

 

These comps are not GIFTS. They are EARNED through play in the casino (where the house has a significant advantage -- far greater than land-based casinos in most cases).

 

When you are promised a penthouse suite, given a confirmation e-mail with booking number, and then DOWNGRADED because they "made a mistake", that's highly unethical (and perhaps even actionable legally).

 

You have no right to tell someone expecting a penthouse suite that they should be "stoked" to get a minisuite. Everyone has different standards.

 

For example, if I were offered a free cruise in an inside cabin, I would reject it, because it's not worth going through the trouble of cruising for just an inside cabin (even for free). That's my personal opinion. I know that others are perfectly thrilled with an inside.

 

At the same time, I am happy with a balcony room and don't need a suite. However, others still find minisuites and balcony rooms to be cramped, and really only want to cruise if they get a suite or above. That doesn't make them arrogant or haughty. Each person has the right to choose what they like and dislike.

 

In this case, the OP was promised a suite, accepted that, received confirmation, and then after spending substantial money on nonrefundable flights, they were informed that it was being taken away from them, and seriously downgraded.

 

If you can't see a major problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Edited September 2, 2015 by pokerpro5

[spidybabe]

The point is it wasn't paid for. It was comped. Comped rooms are always subject to change. The comment of being stoked was talking specifically to that being comped.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So if we are comped an inside cabin on the BA (usually get better), we accept it, pay taxes, port charges, pre-pay DSC, book tours...CAS can change it! What tell us we can't sail on that ship, and make us change to another ship, or cancel altogether? Not good business...lousy customer service by NCL.

A mistake was may by employee, and CAS should give the OP the original deal. Employee wrong...why should OP suffer?

Sorry for the OP

Safe sailing

[CasinoCruzGirl]

Wow, pretty bad.

 

He should call the Miami corporate office and file a complaint.

 

Seems like he's just letting it go. Not a nice way to thank good customers of the casino!

 

Yep Charles is the manager and when I had a similar problem I left him a detailed message asking him to call me back never heard from him. This was a few months ago still waiting.

 

Geri

[sjbdtz]

Was Charles the manager of CAS, or was he just the designated "no man" sent to call and deny you?

 

Did you ask for the CAS manager? If not, why?

 

I believe Charles is the manager of CAS

 

Harriet

 

 

 

Yes, Charles is the Manager, and he's also the one who told me 'no'.

 

 

Stephen

 

 

.

[Moby0215]

That's not the point.

 

Comped rooms are not "subject to change". Are you saying that it should be perfectly okay to move someone from a comped penthouse suite to a comped bottom-deck-inside?

 

These comps are not GIFTS. They are EARNED through play in the casino (where the house has a significant advantage -- far greater than land-based casinos in most cases).

 

When you are promised a penthouse suite, given a confirmation e-mail with booking number, and then DOWNGRADED because they "made a mistake", that's highly unethical (and perhaps even actionable legally).

 

You have no right to tell someone expecting a penthouse suite that they should be "stoked" to get a minisuite. Everyone has different standards.

 

For example, if I were offered a free cruise in an inside cabin, I would reject it, because it's not worth going through the trouble of cruising for just an inside cabin (even for free). That's my personal opinion. I know that others are perfectly thrilled with an inside.

 

At the same time, I am happy with a balcony room and don't need a suite. However, others still find minisuites and balcony rooms to be cramped, and really only want to cruise if they get a suite or above. That doesn't make them arrogant or haughty. Each person has the right to choose what they like and dislike.

 

In this case, the OP was promised a suite, accepted that, received confirmation, and then after spending substantial money on nonrefundable flights, they were informed that it was being taken away from them, and seriously downgraded.

 

If you can't see a major problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. No point in the back and forth trying to convince the other of our opinions. I do however want to correct a couple things.

 

1) I didn't say it would be perfectly ok to move somebody. The "subject to change" was meant just as it happened to the OP. They were called and notified of the mistake and were told they could be offered something else. It is up to the OP if acceptable or not.

 

2) I didn't say comps are gifts. They are giving you the room for free based on your ADT (average daily theoretical loss). If you are given a room comp and you Don't play then they would just not offer you the comp in the future.

 

3) I doubt it is actionable legally as I'm sure their terms have a clause to allow for the downgrade.

 

4) I didn't say the OP should be stoked. I said I know plenty of people who would be. I mean come on, that is still at least a $2000-$3000 comp. Obviously the OP is a much higher tier then I am and they are probably used to higher value comps. It just didn't work out for them for the date they wanted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VideoTech]

VideoTech,

 

I'm sorry this happened to you. CAS is wrong and should have let your comp stand as it was offered to you. They could have informed you that a mistake had been made, but since you were a loyal and long-time player, they would let you keep the comp but not to expect a comp of that value at Christmas or holiday time in the future. (And, you're absolutely right: comparing a penthouse suite and all the perks and amenities to a mini-suite is ridiculous.)

 

Sorry to see you leave the NCL boards. I've always enjoyed your rational and well-informed posts.

 

Best of luck in the future.

 

Thanks for the support and for the compliment about my posts. I'll probably hang around the board for a while - I'm going to be curious to see if this trend with CAS continues. However, since I doubt we'll cruise NCL anymore, I won't have much up-to-date information to share from now on.

 

Thanks again.

[VideoTech]

The compromise was a comped mini suite. I know many people who would be stoked about that. I'm sorry that's not good enough for the OP and that is their prerogative to cancel instead.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is why I initially did not want to discuss the details of the original comp and the downgrade. The actual cabins are not the point. What is the point, and the focus of my original post, is the terrible customer service displayed in the way they handled this matter.

 

In point of fact, there have been times when we have been offered a "lesser" cabin as a comp, and then paid to upgrade. Believe it or not, we do understand that some ships, on some dates, and some itineraries are more popular, and therefore harder to get comp'd. If you read any of my posts on the CAS system, you'll see that I've explained this to others many times.

 

Had CAS originally offered us a mini-suite, and then allowed us to upgrade, we could have decided if it was worth it, and done it or not. But that's not what happened. They offered us the Penthouse, we accepted and booked, and then they just jerked it away, even as they told us we qualified for it. IMO, that is terrible customer service, and that is ALL that I am complaining about.

 

Also, a "compromise" is something that both parties to an agreement arrive at. In this case, there was no compromise. CAS simply took uni-lateral action and changed the deal, without giving us any options. It was take it or leave it. Again, not the way to handle a loyal customer.

[NLH Arizona]

This is why I initially did not want to discuss the details of the original comp and the downgrade. The actual cabins are not the point. What is the point, and the focus of my original post, is the terrible customer service displayed in the way they handled this matter.

 

In point of fact, there have been times when we have been offered a "lesser" cabin as a comp, and then paid to upgrade. Believe it or not, we do understand that some ships, on some dates, and some itineraries are more popular, and therefore harder to get comp'd. If you read any of my posts on the CAS system, you'll see that I've explained this to others many times.

 

Had CAS originally offered us a mini-suite, and then allowed us to upgrade, we could have decided if it was worth it, and done it or not. But that's not what happened. They offered us the Penthouse, we accepted and booked, and then they just jerked it away, even as they told us we qualified for it. IMO, that is terrible customer service, and that is ALL that I am complaining about.

 

Also, a "compromise" is something that both parties to an agreement arrive at. In this case, there was no compromise. CAS simply took uni-lateral action and changed the deal, without giving us any options. It was take it or leave it. Again, not the way to handle a loyal customer.

Just in case they are reading this. What if they would have given you some perks with the mini-suite, would that have been something you would have considered?

[hpecorari]

Just in case they are reading this. What if they would have given you some perks with the mini-suite, would that have been something you would have considered?

 

I can't answer for the OP but I'll answer if it were me:

 

I'd take the mini-suite if they gave me all the promos for the Penthouse instead of making me choose just one.....as well as breakfast/lunch in Cagney's...or wherever this ship has it.

 

Harriet

Edited September 2, 2015 by hpecorari

[Moby0215]

This is why I initially did not want to discuss the details of the original comp and the downgrade. The actual cabins are not the point. What is the point, and the focus of my original post, is the terrible customer service displayed in the way they handled this matter.

 

 

 

In point of fact, there have been times when we have been offered a "lesser" cabin as a comp, and then paid to upgrade. Believe it or not, we do understand that some ships, on some dates, and some itineraries are more popular, and therefore harder to get comp'd. If you read any of my posts on the CAS system, you'll see that I've explained this to others many times.

 

 

 

Had CAS originally offered us a mini-suite, and then allowed us to upgrade, we could have decided if it was worth it, and done it or not. But that's not what happened. They offered us the Penthouse, we accepted and booked, and then they just jerked it away, even as they told us we qualified for it. IMO, that is terrible customer service, and that is ALL that I am complaining about.

 

 

 

Also, a "compromise" is something that both parties to an agreement arrive at. In this case, there was no compromise. CAS simply took uni-lateral action and changed the deal, without giving us any options. It was take it or leave it. Again, not the way to handle a loyal customer.

 

 

I don't see how this is about customer service. How would you have liked them to handle it knowing that the option of them honoring your original room is not gonna happen? They provided an option of the downgraded room or cancel. Or maybe even just change the week of your sailing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NLH Arizona]

I can't answer for the OP but I'll answer if it were me:

 

I'd take the mini-suite if they gave me all the promos for the Penthouse instead of making me choose just one.....as well as breakfast/lunch in Cagney's...or wherever this ship has it.

 

Harriet

That is how I would have handled it as well. I would have said, since it was your mistake, how about if you give me all the suite perks and promotions and we will call it even. Sometimes you have to ask for what you would be willing to settle for (if the OP was willing to make a compromise), because most companies are not going to offer much unless you tell them what you want.

[Jane Don]

In my opinion, this is substandard customer service. The worst part is that they left a 'you've been downgraded' voice mail. A message, either voice or email, to call the CAS manager is the only appropriate way to break the news. At that point in time the matter could have been immediately resolved ensuring the satisfaction of the OP. Whether he chose to accept the lesser offer, change dates or cancel and have his supplementary costs refunded, it would have been sorted and left far less ill will.

 

Negativity deepens in flavour as it stews.

[VideoTech]

I don't see how this is about customer service. How would you have liked them to handle it knowing that the option of them honoring your original room is not gonna happen? They provided an option of the downgraded room or cancel. Or maybe even just change the week of your sailing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Don't really want to go round and round about this any more. In my opinion (and I'm the person involved) this IS about customer service. I feel they should have honored their original commitment to us, the one we booked and had a confirmation for. They did not provide a compromise. it was, as you say, a "take it or leave it" situation.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Thanks for your comments.

[zorbarick]

I've been following this for several days and, quite frankly, assumed it would get resolved by reinstating the promised room. And while I'm disappointed that did not happen, I am far more surprised at how many people seem to take the side of CAS/NCL in this discussion.

 

Let's all try to forget the specific room that was originally promised and the resulting downgrade.

 

For most people, there is some level of offered comp that will prompt us to commit to a cruise, buy plane tickets, etc. For some, that may be a comped full suite; for others, a few hundred dollars in OBC along with a paid-for inside cabin may be enough. But whatever that threshold amount is, some offers will exceed it (and, thus, prompt a booking) and some will not (and, thus, causing the person not to book).

 

If one receives an offer above their own personal "line" and then commits to all the other costs associated with the trip, only to be told later that they are going to be downgraded to an offer well below the line that would not have prompted a booking, how is that not a serious problem for which the company should be held accountable?

 

I get it if the offer was so clearly disproportionate to prior offers that the person knows darn well he or she is getting away with something (and, in my mind, should not be surprised when the offer is later corrected). But that is not the case here.

 

And as some have tried to point out, the "downgrade" here is massive. Aside from the room itself, the loss of the suite perks is worth a lot of very real dollars. I'm not going to take the time to add up the value of the UBP, shore excursion credits, etc. that come with the current promotion, but the difference between being allocated every promotional offer (for a suite) as opposed to picking one of them (for a mini-suite) is, in my mind, huge. Even if I were willing to accept a lesser room, I cannot imagine accepting a downgrade with such massive, out-of-pocket ramifications.

 

I'm not sure why I think I can jump in at this point and convince those on this thread who still do not see the problem here, but I just couldn't stop myself from taking a shot at it.

 

If CAS/NCL simply cannot entirely fix the problem (i.e., because the suite has now been booked to someone else) they should be doing everything they can to make it right. As someone else mentioned, they should have offered up all the suite perks, along with enough OBC to reasonably compensate for the downgraded room. To me, it's not even a close call, and I suspect that the ultimate cost of not doing the right thing will be far higher than doing what it could have to fix the situation.