Ala Carte items in MDR

[3kidsncats]

[quote name='LMaxwell']Consumers have every right to expect a company to fulfill its advertised promises.

Are you telling me any company can promise me ABC, take my money, and has NO obligation to give me ABC, or can just give me XYZ instead, and make ABC an additional fee extra?[/quote]

Believe it or not, there are some here who seem to think exactly that. There was a long discussion on that, ended up being deleted. That's why I don't bother really going down that road, discussion wise, with any real effort. Those that refuse to see, won't see. And if that works for them, that's great. I don't care about it in terms of what they express for themselves -- it's the belittling of others who feel differently that astounds me. Edited November 6, 2015 by 3kidsncats

[NLH Arizona]

[quote name='LMaxwell']Enough of them this year, that's for sure!

I don't understand why a vocal minority on here are dead against people getting what they have paid for, as if that's a sin? Do they not comprehend or what is it? Why are they so defensive of the company but have no empathy for fellow cruisers. If they don't care about their own wallet, so be it, but to claim that every little change doesn't detract from value is ridiculous. taken as a whole the value I am getting for my thousands of dollars is less than the day I booked.

Right on with you![/QUOTE]Some see it differently then you or understand why it can be done or don't really care. It has nothing to with defending NCL for anything, other than it is their company and they can do what they want. I certainly feel sympathy because you and others are upset by the changes, but I'm not going to campaign for these changes to be reversed, if I don't consider them an issue. When there is that one change that I feel is an issue, even if you don't, I'll be campaigning for its change and I don't expect you to join me if you don't have the same issue I do. I certainly care about my wallet, as I have a budget for my cruises just as you do and that is why I personally don't have an issue with some of the changes, because it allows me the choice on how to spend my money.

People see and react to things differently and, IMHO, that is a really good thing, because if we all agreed on everything, it would be a really beige and boring world. You have every right to disagree with NCL and their policies and to voice your displeasure, but please extend that same right to those that might not have an issue to voice their opinions as well. BTW, it doesn't seem like those who have no issues with the changes are in the minority.

[3kidsncats]

[quote name='NLH Arizona']Some see it differently then you or understand why it can be done or don't really care. It has nothing to with defending NCL for anything, other than it is their company and they can do what they want. I certainly feel sympathy because you and others are upset by the changes, but I'm not going to campaign for these changes to be reversed, if I don't consider them an issue. When there is that one change that I feel is an issue, even if you don't, I'll be campaigning for its change and I don't expect you to join me if you don't have the same issue I do. I certainly care about my wallet, as I have a budget for my cruises just as you do and that is why I personally don't have an issue with some of the changes, because it allows me the choice on how to spend my money.

People see and react to things differently and, IMHO, that is a really good thing, because if we all agreed on everything, it would be a really beige and boring world. You have every right to disagree with NCL and their policies and to voice your displeasure, but please extend that same right to those that might not have an issue to voice their opinions as well. BTW, it doesn't seem like those who have no issues with the changes are in the minority.[/quote]

While we see it differently, I appreciate your comments and the effort to show respect for alternate views

[LMaxwell]

[quote name='3kidsncats']Believe it or not, there are some here who seem to think exactly that. There was a long discussion on that, ended up being deleted. That's why I don't bother really going down that road, discussion wise, with any real effort. Those that refuse to see, won't see. Which I don't care about in terms of what they express for themselves -- it's the belittling of others who feel differently that astounds me[/QUOTE]

I feel very strongly about consumers getting what has been advertised to them as an inducement to part with their money. I've had to fight this battle many times, with many different companies and vendors who have promised me ABC in order to get me to sign a contract and then only want to provide A and B, and feel no obligation to provide C.

I wonder if any of these people would feel taken advantage of if they go to board a ship and suddenly the ropes course has a fee, or desserts have a fee, or the DSC is increased with no warning, or studio access is a $15 per day fee, or $1 per tender ride fee, entertainment is an additional $5 per show, etc. I mean technically those are all "choices" but they are fundamental changes to the package they had purchased and the value they bargained for is reduced or eliminated.

I too live by a budget. My budget is more than some, less than others, but it is a budget. All of the features and amenities of a particular cruise line or ship are considered in my value proposition when I put my money down on the line.

Duped. What I feel is duped by NCL. A lot of people are feeling duped. No gun to my head to pay for add ons, and out of principle I won't pay for them. but I will still feel duped. Our next cruise, on the Escape, includes a large number of family coming from various places, lots of arrangements have been made, flights, hotels, etc. It would be stupid of me as well to throw away a large sum of money or NOT spend time with extended family. If I was traveling solo and had no other considerations, perhaps I'd view things differently. But I sure as hell know when I'm being conned.

[LMaxwell]

[quote name='NLH Arizona']Some see it differently then you or understand why it can be done or don't really care. It has nothing to with defending NCL for anything, other than it is their company and they can do what they want. I certainly feel sympathy because you and others are upset by the changes, but I'm not going to campaign for these changes to be reversed, if I don't consider them an issue. When there is that one change that I feel is an issue, even if you don't, I'll be campaigning for its change and I don't expect you to join me if you don't have the same issue I do. I certainly care about my wallet, as I have a budget for my cruises just as you do and that is why I personally don't have an issue with some of the changes, because it allows me the choice on how to spend my money.

People see and react to things differently and, IMHO, that is a really good thing, because if we all agreed on everything, it would be a really beige and boring world. You have every right to disagree with NCL and their policies and to voice your displeasure, but please extend that same right to those that might not have an issue to voice their opinions as well. BTW, it doesn't seem like those who have no issues with the changes are in the minority.[/QUOTE]

There is an extremely vocal minority that badgers and belittles anyone that has any negative feeling towards these changes. I am sick and tired of people attempting to run me out of town for stating that I expect to receive the value promised to me when the company accepted my money. You are an exclusion to that, obviously. But it is very real and permeates this message board.

Look at Cruise Critic tagline "A community of people who love to cruise". You'd think more would be helpful towards each other, or understand that community means people look out for the best interests of one another.

[emcelh]

What am I missing? It seems they might not be serving a slice of prime rib that might have been about 6- 8 ounces any longer but are now offering 16 ounces for a surcharge. The lobster disappeared long ago.

I doubt people are as upset about prime rib and lobster as they are about one more change added to the list. Edited November 6, 2015 by emcelh

[3kidsncats]

[quote name='LMaxwell']I feel very strongly about consumers getting what has been advertised to them as an inducement to part with their money. I've had to fight this battle many times, with many different companies and vendors who have promised me ABC in order to get me to sign a contract and then only want to provide A and B, and feel no obligation to provide C.

I wonder if any of these people would feel taken advantage of if they go to board a ship and suddenly the ropes course has a fee, or desserts have a fee, or the DSC is increased with no warning, or studio access is a $15 per day fee, or $1 per tender ride fee, entertainment is an additional $5 per show, etc. I mean technically those are all "choices" but they are fundamental changes to the package they had purchased and the value they bargained for is reduced or eliminated.

I too live by a budget. My budget is more than some, less than others, but it is a budget. All of the features and amenities of a particular cruise line or ship are considered in my value proposition when I put my money down on the line.

Duped. What I feel is duped by NCL. A lot of people are feeling duped. No gun to my head to pay for add ons, and out of principle I won't pay for them. but I will still feel duped. Our next cruise, on the Escape, includes a large number of family coming from various places, lots of arrangements have been made, flights, hotels, etc. It would be stupid of me as well to throw away a large sum of money or NOT spend time with extended family. If I was traveling solo and had no other considerations, perhaps I'd view things differently. But I sure as hell know when I'm being conned.[/quote]

I'm right there with you on all points. It's not going to wreck my vacation; I'm glad I know about some of the changes ahead of time, because it will allow me to be mentally prepared rather than be broadsided and upset while traveling. And as much as I'm a fan of NCL, it concerns me for future travel with them.

[NLH Arizona]

[quote name='LMaxwell']Consumers have every right to expect a company to fulfill its advertised promises.

Are you telling me any company can promise me ABC, take my money, and has NO obligation to give me ABC, or can just give me XYZ instead, and make ABC an additional fee extra?[/QUOTE]And the consumer should also read the terms of their contract with any company, that has one, that they do business with.

The only obligation any cruise line has is to provide a customer with transportation and ordinary cruise food (and there is no description of what that food is). Everything else is at their discretion. It is unfortunate, but the cruise line has every passenger over a barrel because the contract is written in their favor and that is why once past final payment we have lost our rights.

Question, was their an advertisement that said prime rib would be served for free anywhere on the ships?

[MrJoeBlack]

[quote name='maywell']i can't speak for other but i can definitely tell you for myself - i know that 1) things/policies/rules change at any given time without notice, so either pay it up or don't. And 2) when stuff changes like every other week /month and one think it's for the worst before their trips months down the line - that should be the anvil-dropping hint to go elsewhere / run like hell; whether it's a cruise line or a land vacation....



Sent from my sm-n910t3 using tapatalk[/quote]


[attachment=294733:name]

[NLH Arizona]

[quote name='LMaxwell']There is an extremely vocal minority that badgers and belittles anyone that has any negative feeling towards these changes. I am sick and tired of people attempting to run me out of town for stating that I expect to receive the value promised to me when the company accepted my money. You are an exclusion to that, obviously. But it is very real and permeates this message board.

Look at Cruise Critic tagline "A community of people who love to cruise". You'd think more would be helpful towards each other, or understand that community means people look out for the best interests of one another.[/QUOTE]I never said that there aren't those that, IMHO, post offensively, but that is on both sides and some get really nasty with the personal attacks. I was saying that those that have no issue with the changes are not in the minority in my opinion.

[mking8288]

Enough of them this year, that's for sure!

I don't understand why a vocal minority on here are dead against people getting what they have paid for, as if that's a sin? Do they not comprehend or what is it? Why are they so defensive of the company but have no empathy for fellow cruisers. If they don't care about their own wallet, so be it, but to claim that every little change doesn't detract from value is ridiculous. taken as a whole the value I am getting for my thousands of dollars is less than the day I booked. Right on with you!

+1 here. Liked & I go with that analogy, except that it's more substantial than a gallon of milk. :D Answer for the question, my semi-educated guess - TA's and maybe ex-TA's.

 

In many parts of the world, including some of the islands on NCL's itineraries, 16 oz. of protein is enough to feed a family of 4 to 6 - much rather spend that "extra" $18 or so (donate is the better term) as a goodwill via our choice of charity than to further butter up NCL's bottomline, especially believing that the extra fees or charges (whatever the "fancy" marketing terms used) are not reaching the crew members - however pooled & shared, split & participating/or not - or, the welfare funds for their benefits.

 

Afterall, NCL isn't exactly running in red ink these days. It's our hard earned money, don't appreciate anyone else telling us to walk or how to spend it or give it away. In hintsight, glad that we cancelled our booking and a full ground stop in effect for future sailings with NCL - flew abroad for a great 2 weeks land-based escort tours (yes, we can afford it too ...)

 

Part of the problems some of us, loving the NCL products over the years, is the trending in corporate business ethics and practices, the communications or lack of, and how it is moving forward. For some - it's perfectly fine but we disagree. Anyone here driving a VW or Audi and still feeling good about those diesel engine emissions ... as for the Porsche being implicated :confused: - of course, the oil companies aren't complaining at all.

 

Use it - the Ignore list - easy to skip reading & not respond to nonsense, there is a difference on an open forum, on agreeing to disagree.

Edited November 6, 2015 by mking8288

[LMaxwell]

The only obligation any cruise line has is to provide a customer with transportation and ordinary cruise food (and there is no description of what that food is). Everything else is at their discretion. It is unfortunate, but the cruise line has every passenger over a barrel because the contract is written in their favor and that is why once past final payment we have lost our rights.

 

ALL contracts are written in companies favors and never in the consumers. All companies reserve the right to put customers over a barrel. But most do not, because it's business suicide. It can take decades to build a positive brand image and it be wrecked overnight.

 

When I ran my own company all of the contracts my customers signed were for MY protection and gave me the upper hand; these were standard boilerplate contracts, no additional hidden gotcha clauses put in or anything like that. But I never, ever went out of my way to take advantage of someone just because I "had the right". I delivered to them what they had contracted and paid for, in the terms specified, even though technically they were signing their life away. I never juiced them at the last second to make a quick buck because, hey, what are they gonna do about it?

 

Having the right to do what you want doesn't mean doing what you want is right. Materially changing what has been promised shows a lack of ethics.

[LMaxwell]

I never said that there aren't those that, IMHO, post offensively, but that is on both sides and some get really nasty with the personal attacks. I was saying that those that have no issue with the changes are not in the minority in my opinion.

 

Cruise Critic itself is an exceptionally small minority of cruisers. Probably less than 1/10th of 1 percent. In my opinion over the last few months it is a minority position to have no qualms with rapid fire cost increases. Short of a scientific survey we each have our subjective opinions based on what we do and do not read. I personally believe the issue is the seemingly endless changes to the fundamental product offered and that it is only a minority that claims no issues.

 

Different perspectives.

[NLH Arizona]

ALL contracts are written in companies favors and never in the consumers. All companies reserve the right to put customers over a barrel. But most do not, because it's business suicide. It can take decades to build a positive brand image and it be wrecked overnight.

 

When I ran my own company all of the contracts my customers signed were for MY protection and gave me the upper hand; these were standard boilerplate contracts, no additional hidden gotcha clauses put in or anything like that. But I never, ever went out of my way to take advantage of someone just because I "had the right". I delivered to them what they had contracted and paid for, in the terms specified, even though technically they were signing their life away. I never juiced them at the last second to make a quick buck because, hey, what are they gonna do about it?

 

Having the right to do what you want doesn't mean doing what you want is right. Materially changing what has been promised shows a lack of ethics.

You are right, having the right to do something doesn't mean it is right for everyone. But I have to ask, when did NCL promise that you could have free prime rib in any dining location?

 

With regard to your post above. If we all thought the same way, as I said, it would be a very beige and boring world.

Edited November 6, 2015 by NLH Arizona

[perditax]

Re-posting the complimentary prime rib I got at O'Sheehan's in June. In my TR at the time (before ANY of this started) I commented on how generous the portion size was and that it was a nice piece of meat. Don't be fooled by the bizarrely huge garnish. I guess they had extra plants lying around.

 

Short version: no, this wasn't some little 4-ounce afterthought.

 

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/405/19302547976_8498a40bcb_c.jpg

Edited November 6, 2015 by perditax

[Josher61]

You folks have carried on one of the most civilized discussions of late. I see some of these threads pop up and cringe, because we know some are started simply to stir the pot, and boy do they succeed. People wind up getting downright nasty. From both sides.

 

I can see both sides of the issue and certainly empathize with those who are affected by the changes. None of us have the right to decide what another persons value or perception of value is. All a consumer can do is speak with their wallet. I know that doesn't help anyone today or on their upcoming, already paid for cruise....but certainly there appears to be many who will be speaking with their wallets for any upcoming choices of cruise lines. And for those that the changes don't bother them, they too will speak with their wallets.

 

Anyway, didn't want to "get into the issue" really, just wanted to say its nice to see a pleasant exchange of opinions; a civilized discussion. I applaud you for accomplishing that! Sincerely.

[Moby0215]

I don't get it either --I find it almost boggling. The only thing that I can think is that they really don't have to budget like I do -- and maybe they don't realize how disrespectful and condescending they appear. I have a party of six I'm paying for -- several of whom would want the prime-rib -- so that $15 extra is now $30, $45, $60, etc. for us to enjoy something we would have gotten (yes, a smaller portion which we would be delighted with) as included had we been able to pick an earlier sailing date.

 

I keep seeing the word "choice" related to paying for the upgrade or not, it's your choice. When for me, the choice was to buy the cruise in the first place, with the understanding that certain things were included. A "choice" that comes along later, requiring me to pay for what I already feel like I paid for, isn't really a choice.

 

 

Your choice to buy the cruise never had an understanding that prime rib was included. Menus change all the time. Just because it was on previous cruises menus does not mean it is always there. You may "feel like" you paid for it but that's not what you paid for.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[motleyfan]

No, all inclusive is all is included. Everything inclusive means everything is included.

 

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g150807-i8-k5364423-What_does_all_inclusive_means_exactly-Cancun_Yucatan_Peninsula.html look at this

[3kidsncats]

And the consumer should also read the terms of their contract with any company, that has one, that they do business with.

 

The only obligation any cruise line has is to provide a customer with transportation and ordinary cruise food (and there is no description of what that food is). Everything else is at their discretion. It is unfortunate, but the cruise line has every passenger over a barrel because the contract is written in their favor and that is why once past final payment we have lost our rights.

 

Question, was their an advertisement that said prime rib would be served for free anywhere on the ships?

 

Have to at least partially disagree here -- all cruise lines have the obligation to provide exactly what they advertised they would provide at time of sale. The law does provide some wiggle room for reasonable inability to meet advertised elements, but the company can't just pick and choose because they want to.

 

And, no, I did not see any advertisement about prime rib, so yes, I agree they can change that and it's within their rights to do so. I looked at current menus before booking, and did research of what was normally offered, so that contributes to my expectation of what I was buying. So it's a change that I and others perceive as a reduction in value, but is legally acceptable. It still negatively affects my experience, and adds to my concerns about booking future trips. Some of the other changes which have been reputedly experienced by others, would fall into the, "yes, it was advertised to me and I expect to receive it" category but unless I see it happening for myself, I will hope for the best when I'm onboard. Hopefully I will have no issue.

[Loonbeam]

There are two issues here, the right one and the legal one...

 

In a perfect world, companies should be required to hold to the terms of a deal when purchased. However, contract law allows a provider to insert a clause (as has NCL) that allows them to modify the terms in what is considered a 'non substantial' way...

 

So the technical answer to your question is yes, they can in most cases (if you look at case law, the items considered 'substantial' on a cruise would be price, accommodations and number of nights. So NCL cannot raise the price of your cruise at all or lower cabin class or shorten the cruise without appropriate compensation. They also have to offer a substantially similar dining option - they could not suddenly make the whole ship A La Carte for example. Anything else is pretty much fair game.

 

Like I said, that's technical/legal. The other question is "Should they?" The obvious answer is no, but that said, there are logistical issues in trying to track who purchased when. The right thing to do in my book is when a substantive change is made they should allow people to cancel without penalty even if the cruise is 2 days away. That's about as fair as logistically possible.

 

Whether a change like this counts as substantive is another matter (in my book, it isn't, but the overall change to a la carte IS).

 

Consumers have every right to expect a company to fulfill its advertised promises.

 

Are you telling me any company can promise me ABC, take my money, and has NO obligation to give me ABC, or can just give me XYZ instead, and make ABC an additional fee extra?

[3kidsncats]

Your choice to buy the cruise never had an understanding that prime rib was included. Menus change all the time. Just because it was on previous cruises menus does not mean it is always there. You may "feel like" you paid for it but that's not what you paid for.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please see my response to NHL Arizona. And as I have mentioned previously, it's not this single issue which is causing me concern -- it's all the various changes which have happened since I booked that I'm collectively concerned about.

 

Value of a product is more than what is strictly advertised, especially a product of this nature that people discuss publicly with regards to their experience. And yes, some changes fall into the "you're just going to have suck it up and deal with it" category -- but that doesn't mean I can't be upset about it, or feel that I'm not happy with the direction the company is going.

[luvtheships]

Motley....what is the link again to your you tubes?

[NLH Arizona]

There are two issues here, the right one and the legal one...

 

In a perfect world, companies should be required to hold to the terms of a deal when purchased. However, contract law allows a provider to insert a clause (as has NCL) that allows them to modify the terms in what is considered a 'non substantial' way...

 

So the technical answer to your question is yes, they can in most cases (if you look at case law, the items considered 'substantial' on a cruise would be price, accommodations and number of nights. So NCL cannot raise the price of your cruise at all or lower cabin class or shorten the cruise without appropriate compensation. They also have to offer a substantially similar dining option - they could not suddenly make the whole ship A La Carte for example. Anything else is pretty much fair game.

 

Like I said, that's technical/legal. The other question is "Should they?" The obvious answer is no, but that said, there are logistical issues in trying to track who purchased when. The right thing to do in my book is when a substantive change is made they should allow people to cancel without penalty even if the cruise is 2 days away. That's about as fair as logistically possible.

 

Whether a change like this counts as substantive is another matter (in my book, it isn't, but the overall change to a la carte IS).

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say, but you said it much more eloquently than I did.

[3kidsncats]

There are two issues here, the right one and the legal one...

 

In a perfect world, companies should be required to hold to the terms of a deal when purchased. However, contract law allows a provider to insert a clause (as has NCL) that allows them to modify the terms in what is considered a 'non substantial' way...

 

So the technical answer to your question is yes, they can in most cases (if you look at case law, the items considered 'substantial' on a cruise would be price, accommodations and number of nights. So NCL cannot raise the price of your cruise at all or lower cabin class or shorten the cruise without appropriate compensation. They also have to offer a substantially similar dining option - they could not suddenly make the whole ship A La Carte for example. Anything else is pretty much fair game.

 

Like I said, that's technical/legal. The other question is "Should they?" The obvious answer is no, but that said, there are logistical issues in trying to track who purchased when. The right thing to do in my book is when a substantive change is made they should allow people to cancel without penalty even if the cruise is 2 days away. That's about as fair as logistically possible.

 

Whether a change like this counts as substantive is another matter (in my book, it isn't, but the overall change to a la carte IS).

 

Very valid points, expressed very well. And I agree, a few menu changes are unlikely to be viewed in a legal debate as "substantial" change. This topic is, for a lot of people, as much about the sheer volume of changes that have happened since we booked --and the totality of those changes could be successfully argued as substantial. If someone really wanted to go there. And was good a making an argument.

 

I haven't gone on my cruise yet, so I don't know what will and will not be honored that was offered to me at time of purchase. I'm hoping to find they honor what they should without hassle. If not, I'll deal with that however best suits me at that time

[3kidsncats]

You folks have carried on one of the most civilized discussions of late. I see some of these threads pop up and cringe, because we know some are started simply to stir the pot, and boy do they succeed. People wind up getting downright nasty. From both sides.

 

I can see both sides of the issue and certainly empathize with those who are affected by the changes. None of us have the right to decide what another persons value or perception of value is. All a consumer can do is speak with their wallet. I know that doesn't help anyone today or on their upcoming, already paid for cruise....but certainly there appears to be many who will be speaking with their wallets for any upcoming choices of cruise lines. And for those that the changes don't bother them, they too will speak with their wallets.

 

Anyway, didn't want to "get into the issue" really, just wanted to say its nice to see a pleasant exchange of opinions; a civilized discussion. I applaud you for accomplishing that! Sincerely.

 

You're right! I love a good debate, but don't like the sniping at all. Sometimes I get involved in a debate more because I'm battling the rudeness than because I care all that much about the issue :-)