When did Margaritaville become a specialty on Escape?

[Loonbeam]

See my dissertation above and the extract provided. As long as the contract is legal, its legal. There's no such concept as the law being above a contract in any court.

 

As for european (at least scandinavian) guests. The law is above a company's contract. You can not ever, as a company, go above the law, by writing a contract. Don't know how it is in America, though.

[CruisinHarvey]

I understand the frustration of the bait and switch and that is basically what this is. Will NCL change it again after all the uproar? Maybe, maybe not but I personally am not going to let a simple $6.99 hamburger charge ruin my vacation. Its cheaper than most sit down restaurants: ie Red Robin, Applebee's, even land Margaritaville's. This does NOT make me a food elitist as I saw one person say on here. Let's not forget that not too terribly long ago on cruises, you had two options for all meals, the MDR and the buffet. If you want the real Margaritaville experience, go visit it on Nassau. The ship venue is a Margaritaville in name only. As for those saying that the buffet burger is better...its the same burger.

 

Actually, I'd suppose it's not the same. That doesn't mean it's great either. The burgers in Uptown Grill on the Breakaway (where Margaritaville is on Escape) are significantly different than you can get anywhere else on the ship. So I'd suppose the Margaritaville burgers are like Margaritaville burgers everywhere else. Which if true, then they're just OK anyway. I wouldn't pay 6.99 it for on land. I surely won't pay that on the ship with no Margaritaville vibe. Which is why people go there anyway. It's not the food, for the most part, why they go.

 

I'd say I'll report back in a couple of weeks, since our cruise is only 8 days away. But, I have no plans on eating there. It would have been on a whim to go when it was complimentary. I was looking for it to be an alternative to the buffet, more than anything else. As others have said on here, at least you can go for breakfast now like on the Getaway and Breakaway.

Edited December 4, 2015 by CruisinHarvey

[Loonbeam]

You don't have to take it. You can cancel the cruise. Or you can not eat at that venue. That's what the terms and contracts you agree to on booking allow you to do if you don't like changes made. That's it. Anything else is in the realm of public pressure, but that has no legal implications and despite peoples wishes, its the legalities that bind actions, not ethics.

 

There's a big difference between being happy/accepting about something and understanding that you have no ability to challenge a decision other than with the power of the pocketbook. I suppose you could also get the appropriate governing body to make new law restricting such behavior going forward.. Anyone wanna guess at chances of that happening?

 

I am not arguing that what NCL did is right ethically, morally or even from a good business sense. What I am saying is that to everyone who is saying or thinking there should be a suit, or the changes are 'illegal' or there is a mythical law that overrides a legal contract, that's not correct.

 

There are effectively 3 things a cruise line cannot change/must provide (they all have the same contracts).

 

They cannot change your cabin class to a lower one, because your fare is calculated based on that class.

They must offer 3 meals of ordinary food in a venue or venues capable of feeding all passengers in a reasonable time frame.

They must provide a certain level of basic services such as sanitation, security etc.

 

That is all the contract obligates them to do. From a purely legal standpoint (which again, when it comes to disputes is all that matters), everything else is something they choose to provide for marketing/customer satisfaction.

 

Welcome to the reality of travel (because its not just cruises, read airfare T+Cs at some point. Some don't even promise to get you to the endpoint on the ticket)

 

 

 

I'm amazed so many are willing to just take what a corporation shovels them. And then defends them hiding behind legalities.

[Warm-Water Diver]

They're $6.99 burgers, but that's not the point. It was advertised as included, and they've tossed that out the window within a month, that's the issue. Whether you like their burgers or not is irrelevant. For a family of 4 to go to a dining venue they'd planned on, will now be $60 instead of $0. They may have planned several lunches there, so it's even more. It's about the bait and switch.

 

This pretty much sums up the issue in very few words. Too many people on this thread just don't understand and keep trying to cloud the issue.

 

Note to the ever vigilant NCL defenders, just try to keep this simple phrase in mind when trying to understand the root issue, "BAIT AND SWITCH." If that doesn't help, you might also try "NOT AS ADVERTISED" :rolleyes:

[rg24601]

You don't have to take it. You can cancel the cruise. Or you can not eat at that venue. That's what the terms and contracts you agree to on booking allow you to do if you don't like changes made. That's it. Anything else is in the realm of public pressure, but that has no legal implications and despite peoples wishes, its the legalities that bind actions, not ethics.

 

There's a big difference between being happy/accepting about something and understanding that you have no ability to challenge a decision other than with the power of the pocketbook. I suppose you could also get the appropriate governing body to make new law restricting such behavior going forward.. Anyone wanna guess at chances of that happening?

 

I am not arguing that what NCL did is right ethically, morally or even from a good business sense. What I am saying is that to everyone who is saying or thinking there should be a suit, or the changes are 'illegal' or there is a mythical law that overrides a legal contract, that's not correct.

 

There are effectively 3 things a cruise line cannot change/must provide (they all have the same contracts).

 

They cannot change your cabin class to a lower one, because your fare is calculated based on that class.

They must offer 3 meals of ordinary food in a venue or venues capable of feeding all passengers in a reasonable time frame.

They must provide a certain level of basic services such as sanitation, security etc.

 

That is all the contract obligates them to do. From a purely legal standpoint (which again, when it comes to disputes is all that matters), everything else is something they choose to provide for marketing/customer satisfaction.

 

Welcome to the reality of travel (because its not just cruises, read airfare T+Cs at some point. Some don't even promise to get you to the endpoint on the ticket)

 

Way past this analysis but thanks.

[jmele999]

This pretty much sums up the issue in very few words. Too many people on this thread just don't understand and keep trying to cloud the issue.

 

Note to the ever vigilant NCL defenders, just try to keep this simple phrase in mind when trying to understand the root issue, "BAIT AND SWITCH." If that doesn't help, you might also try "NOT AS ADVERTISED" :rolleyes:

 

I think that one of the reasons why cruise lines are able to get away with a contract like the ones they have allowing them to do whatever they want is because the ships are not flagged in the US. I am sure that if Escape was a US-flagged ship, then the contract would be different and they could not make changes to restaurants once final payment has been made.

[MrMan]

I think that one of the reasons why cruise lines are able to get away with a contract like the ones they have allowing them to do whatever they want is because the ships are not flagged in the US. I am sure that if Escape was a US-flagged ship, then the contract would be different and they could not make changes to restaurants once final payment has been made.

 

 

Nope see the airlines 'flagged' in US, same boilerplate. And note I am not sure one would want a law governing this. It would preclude improvements as well as downgrades. One does not have to accept NCL's contract, they can move to another line. I suspect all lines and other transportation have this boilerplate. When airlines stopped serving food you don't see people asking for the contract to be null, as well as when they start food you don't see the airline saying time for updated contract. When ship adds an amenity after you paid do you want the cruise line to be able to cancel your fare and resell it. The swipe of the pen or law could go both ways.

[jmele999]

Nope see the airlines 'flagged' in US, same boilerplate. And note I am not sure one would want a law governing this. It would preclude improvements as well as downgrades. One does not have to accept NCL's contract, they can move to another line. I suspect all lines and other transportation have this boilerplate. When airlines stopped serving food you don't see people asking for the contract to be null, as well as when they start food you don't see the airline saying time for updated contract. When ship adds an amenity after you paid do you want the cruise line to be able to cancel your fare and resell it. The swipe of the pen or law could go both ways.

 

Actually, your argument comparing cruise lines to airlines is not totally true. In the contract, it says that NCL does not have to take you to the destination they promise you and just take you on a cruise. Can airlines do that?

[insidecabin]

As for european (at least scandinavian) guests. The law is above a company's contract. You can not ever, as a company, go above the law, by writing a contract. Don't know how it is in America, though.

 

Same for much of europe covered by EU regulations,

The unfair terms in consumer contract laws protect the consumer from non negotiated contracts with terms that are unfair or try to overide other EU legislation like the package holidays regs.

[MrMan]

Actually, your argument comparing cruise lines to airlines is not totally true. In the contract, it says that NCL does not have to take you to the destination they promise you and just take you on a cruise. Can airlines do that?

 

As a 4 million mile flyer on AA I can tell you yes. I can't tell you the numbrer of cities around my home DFW I have been deverted to over the years in weather. Got almost to SHV last month and ended up renting a call as the flight cancelled in SHV.

 

Look, this sucks I agree. The contract you signed allows NCL to make changes, for the better or the worse. I just don't think the sword I would want to fall on is one for a crappy hamburger at a crappy restaurant, and I would not want NCL or any other line to null a contract if they add an improvement, new restaurant, new activity etc. and force one to refare.

[insidecabin]

I think that one of the reasons why cruise lines are able to get away with a contract like the ones they have allowing them to do whatever they want is because the ships are not flagged in the US. I am sure that if Escape was a US-flagged ship, then the contract would be different and they could not make changes to restaurants once final payment has been made.

 

Where the ships are flagged is not relevent

 

The consumer contract will where you book, to do business in the UK and most of Europe the contacts are covered by local consumer laws.

 

One key set of regulations for europe is the package holiday regulations which covers cruises but was designed for land/hotel holidays so is open to some interpretations.

[projectorguy1]

I tried to try the nachos once on the Breakaway, only to find out that the late night dining menu was in effect. You know what's worse than O'SheeWhos nachos? The plate of dry tortilla chips that were offered by the server.

 

I gotta say... UBP combined with limited late night dining options is a frightening combination. I debated swimming to shore.

 

Now HOLD ON THERE:

 

If you read NCL's Guest Ticket Contract, you'll realize we're all getting WAY MORE than what we paid for, and agreed to. Life would be a lot easier if everyone could comprehend this reality.

[jmele999]

As a 4 million mile flyer on AA I can tell you yes. I can't tell you the numbrer of cities around my home DFW I have been deverted to over the years in weather. Got almost to SHV last month and ended up renting a call as the flight cancelled in SHV.

 

Look, this sucks I agree. The contract you signed allows NCL to make changes, for the better or the worse. I just don't think the sword I would want to fall on is one for a crappy hamburger at a crappy restaurant, and I would not want NCL or any other line to null a contract if they add an improvement, new restaurant, new activity etc. and force one to refare.

 

I am also an elite frequent flyer for AA and I am sure that if I buy a ticket from Baltimore to SFO, AA has to find a way to get me there sooner or later.

 

I agree with you that it is just a hamburger, but the way in which NCL went about the changes was wrong. They could have easily said "in 120 days this restaurant is going a la carte" instead of giving the customer one day notice. Airlines do not say we are going to charge for bags starting tomorrow, do they?

Edited December 4, 2015 by jmele999

[SteveH2508]

See my dissertation above and the extract provided. As long as the contract is legal, its legal. There's no such concept as the law being above a contract in any court.

 

This may be correct under US law but it most definitely is not under UK or EU law.

 

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in UK renders any attempt to restrict a consumer's statutory rights void.

 

Consumer Protection legislation in the EU takes into account other representations made as well as the words of the contract (e.g. saying something is included and then renaging on that representation). This would give rise to a cause for action and possibly even a criminal offence.

 

US laws and EU laws are quite different - NCL seem to have forgotten this in their rush to gouge the customer for every cent they can.

[jmele999]

This may be correct under US law but it most definitely is not under UK or EU law.

 

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in UK renders any attempt to restrict a consumer's statutory rights void.

 

Consumer Protection legislation in the EU takes into account other representations made as well as the words of the contract (e.g. saying something is included and then renaging on that representation). This would give rise to a cause for action and possibly even a criminal offence.

 

US laws and EU laws are quite different - NCL seem to have forgotten this in their rush to gouge the customer for every cent they can.

 

So what can customer from the EU do in this case? Are they entitled to compensation or free meals in Margaritaville? Just trying the understand the EU laws in regards to customer rights.

[SteveH2508]

So what can customer from the EU do in this case? Are they entitled to compensation or free meals in Margaritaville? Just trying the understand the EU laws in regards to customer rights.

 

Practically speaking - not a lot - they may be able to sue for compensation but for a $10 burger it isn't worth it - that is what NCL is counting on:mad:.

 

I was trying to point out that EU laws and US laws are quite different - for example - we see loads of US people on this site talking about cancelling and re-booking without penalty or cancelling and getting their deposit back. It does not work like that over this side of the pond - cancel = lost deposit at least.

 

Why do you think that NCL's UBP has added gratuities in US but not in EU? In EU free means free - not an 18% charge (why that is allowed under US law boggles my mind?:confused::eek:)

[Loonbeam]

Short answer? Yes (but not without limitation, and recourse depending on circumstances.

 

For example if AA is scheduled to land at JFK and diverts to Newark, according to their T+C they are not liable for anything. Ground transport may be provided. The same does not hold if they divert to Charlotte lets say, but the rules say they have to put you on the next available option, which could be 3 days later and depending on cause for delay may not need to provide a hotel, for example.

 

Actually, your argument comparing cruise lines to airlines is not totally true. In the contract, it says that NCL does not have to take you to the destination they promise you and just take you on a cruise. Can airlines do that?

[sjbdtz]

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

 

Companies don't need to do what you consider 'right', and peoples' definition of ethical varies.

 

I would not want NCL or any other line to null a contract if they add an improvement, new restaurant, new activity etc. and force one to refare.

 

 

This is the crux of the matter. If a company needs to make a change, so be it. But there should be an 'out' for anybody who is contractually obligated to the agreement prior to the change (either a grandfathering, or an exemption from cancellation clauses).

 

Anybody who is not beyond final payment has no claim, as they can simply sever the agreement and walk away, leaving NCL to rebook their cabin to somebody who expects the restaurant is a specialty venue.

 

 

That's where I agree with people who are upset. Forcing a change on somebody who has no other recourse isn't a best practice.

 

 

.

[Loonbeam]

Just because I was curious about this, I spoke with a lawyer specializing in EUs contract law at one of my clients who is following this (he's more of a cruise junkie than most of us I think). The language that was posted earlier would serve to insulate them in cases like this in many cases as long as something of comparative value was offered...

 

Or as he put it, regardless of the name of the venue, the offer was a free burger where you can see the ocean. You can still get that.

 

As he explained it to me, the same guidelines about substantive and significant changes hold true under EU law, although the division is slightly more in favor of the consumer as to what is substantive.

 

This may be correct under US law but it most definitely is not under UK or EU law.

 

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in UK renders any attempt to restrict a consumer's statutory rights void.

 

Consumer Protection legislation in the EU takes into account other representations made as well as the words of the contract (e.g. saying something is included and then renaging on that representation). This would give rise to a cause for action and possibly even a criminal offence.

 

US laws and EU laws are quite different - NCL seem to have forgotten this in their rush to gouge the customer for every cent they can.

[SuiteTraveler]

So now we have this Margaritaville on the Escape and it operates completely different than the other Margaritavilles on land where it doesn't have the over-the-top decor, live music and it also doesn't do the fun things that the Margaritavilles on land do. The food overall is known to be so-so and the menu on the Escape is missing several of the items from the land Margaritavilles.

[CasinoCruzGirl]

Wow this thread giving me a headache with all the legal mumbo jumbo lol

[SuiteCruiser]

Now HOLD ON THERE:

 

If you read NCL's Guest Ticket Contract, you'll realize we're all getting WAY MORE than what we paid for, and agreed to. Life would be a lot easier if everyone could comprehend this reality.

 

Agreed to, yes, paid for, not so much.

[SteveH2508]

Just because I was curious about this, I spoke with a lawyer specializing in EUs contract law at one of my clients who is following this (he's more of a cruise junkie than most of us I think). The language that was posted earlier would serve to insulate them in cases like this in many cases as long as something of comparative value was offered...

 

Or as he put it, regardless of the name of the venue, the offer was a free burger where you can see the ocean. You can still get that.

 

As he explained it to me, the same guidelines about substantive and significant changes hold true under EU law, although the division is slightly more in favor of the consumer as to what is substantive.

 

Changes to the terms of the contract may be material (goes to the heart of the deal) or not. Material changes would give rise to the ability for the injured party to repudiate the contract. A non-material change would give rise to damages (rough paraphrase of UK contract law based on lessons from 30 years ago and a few malt whiskys tonight:D).

 

The point is that NCL are probably sailing close to the wind (sorry, couldn't resist that:D) with US contract law and are pretty much ignoring EU contract law, with all of their shenanigans with added charges.

 

They are banking on the fact that no-one will sue them based on one change as it is, on its own, a trivial issue.

 

Whilst NCL continue to treat their customers in this disrepectful, immoral manner, I am highly unlikely to do business with them - I do not trust them to deliver what I sign up to.

[Ctrinh225]

Wow this thread giving me a headache with all the legal mumbo jumbo lol

 

 

Haha. I know! But it's fun to read them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited December 4, 2015 by Ctrinh225

[Loonbeam]

And I wish I didn't have to put it all out there, but its important to know what your rights as a passenger actually area, as opposed to what people may think they are, because that determines what you can actually do about an issue.

 

Wow this thread giving me a headache with all the legal mumbo jumbo lol