One less day on with change on Jewel - Not Fair!

[AdoraBelle]

The most useful CC link:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

[NLH Arizona]

You're not going to win this one, and frankly, you're acting a fool trying. Even NCL agrees that pax were entitled to $fare/7.

 

Let it go dude. You lose. Just like the Flyers.

Did NCL admit to wrong doing according to the contract or did they just decide to a good PR and/or damage control move and compensate the passengers? Two different things.

[triptolemus]

The most useful CC link:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

 

Coming to that, yes.

 

But it's important that readers of these threads understand the misrepresentations by posters like this. By his accounts, NCL can tow you in circles around the turnaround basin in the Norwegian Fee and still be in alignment with the contract. He doesn't understand (more likely trolling) that doing so is a piss ass poor business decision.

 

[morrisretired]

Glad to see that NCL is giving you back 1/7 of the cost of your cruise fare. That seems like a fair resolution. It should go back on your account as refundable OBC, and will be refundable to you, if not used. I just hope that the NCL refund process is now faster, than ours was for the OBC, on the Pride of America one day delay, on 03/15/2016. It took months for some of us to receive refunds. Just be prepared for delays. The NCL phone hot line gets very busy, and you get placed on hold frequently. NCL does not have very many agents working in the refund department. Maybe NCL learned from our cruise, and you will get your refunds a lot sooner. "The check is in the mail!"

[triptolemus]

Did NCL admit to wrong doing according to the contract or did they just decide to a good PR and/or damage control move and compensate the passengers? Two different things.

 

I don't know. I wasn't there.

 

I know that it appears pax are getting $fare/7 for the itinerary change. Given NCL's recent lack of concern over bad PR, it's not unreasonable to surmise that they interpreted the contract in favor of the pax in this case. They certainly didn't do it because they're "nice guys"...

[casofilia]

I know that it appears pax are getting $fare/7 for the itinerary change. Given NCL's recent lack of concern over bad PR, it's not unreasonable to surmise that they interpreted the contract in favor of the pax in this case. They certainly didn't do it because they're "nice guys"...

 

Tut tut; "Nice people...,"

[NHL Philly Fan]

Did NCL admit to wrong doing according to the contract or did they just decide to a good PR and/or damage control move and compensate the passengers? Two different things.

 

They did not do anything wrong per the contract in fact they went beyond what was required with the initial $100.

[NHL Philly Fan]

You're not going to win this one, and frankly, you're acting a fool trying. Even NCL agrees that pax were entitled to $fare/7.

 

Let it go dude. You lose. Just like the Flyers.

 

 

I am not sure they agreed that anyone was entitled to anything. They just caved to a bunch of whiners who did not want to adhere to a contract that they had agreed to earlier.

[AdoraBelle]

Coming to that, yes.

 

 

 

But it's important that readers of these threads understand the misrepresentations by posters like this. By his accounts, NCL can tow you in circles around the turnaround basin in the Norwegian Fee and still be in alignment with the contract. He doesn't understand (more likely trolling) that doing so is a piss ass poor business decision.

 

 

 

 

 

I definitely don't fault you for trying to provide some sanity (quite the opposite). Certainly a lot of people here think that consumers should just roll over for the cruise mega-corps and be grateful for it, because "positivity".

Edited August 5, 2016 by AdoraBelle

[BirdTravels]

What I don't understand re the original post is this. If NCL says the ship needs some type of repair etc. why didn't they cancel the cruise and refund all of your money.I wouldn't want to be on a ship that has some issues that would cause them to cut the cruise short so they can be back in the Seattle port early.

 

The issue is that the repair will take more than the time the ship has during a normal turnaround. "You need to leave your car in the shop overnight". Not a week.

[triptolemus]

I am not sure they agreed that anyone was entitled to anything. They just caved to a bunch of whiners who did not want to adhere to a contract that they had agreed to earlier.

 

You don't appear to be sure of anything.

 

You appear to be a relatively new member here who is simply trying to stir it up.

 

Or you're an old member here with a new handle.

 

NCL obviously agreed that pax were entitled to $fare/7. The fact that NCL is refunding $fare/7 makes this painfully obvious. For you to suggest otherwise makes you a troll.

 

You've made your point. Accept that the overwhelming majority here disagrees with you - as does NCL.

 

Done with you.

[DeeT]

This happened to us on Carnival but the cruise was already in progress. We came home a day early to NY because of a hurricane. They said passengers were welcome to stay on board until the next day but we live in NY and once docked we felt like we were home and cruise was over so we went home! As did many other passengers. I don't remember exactly what they offered but we were offered some small amount off a future sailing (within a year) which we did not take advantage of because we cruise ever few years or so.

 

I did however put in a claim with our travel insurance and received a pro-rated amount back so that was good.

 

Although your situation sounds different and I completely understand why you are upset. That's bull!

[swedish weave]

You don't appear to be sure of anything.

 

You appear to be a relatively new member here who is simply trying to stir it up.

 

Or you're an old member here with a new handle.

 

NCL obviously agreed that pax were entitled to $fare/7. The fact that NCL is refunding $fare/7 makes this painfully obvious. For you to suggest otherwise makes you a troll.

 

You've made your point. Accept that the overwhelming majority here disagrees with you - as does NCL.

 

Done with you.

 

He is doing the same thing on another thread ----- Just trying to start arguments.

[KeithJenner]

NCL obviously agreed that pax were entitled to $fare/7. The fact that NCL is refunding $fare/7 makes this painfully obvious. For you to suggest otherwise makes you a troll.

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not convinced this is the case. NCL clearly decided that the best cause of action was to give the 1/7 fare refund, but that doesn't mean that they believe that they were entitled to it.

 

I have certainly given "goodwill" credits for various things, and on many occasions not because I believed that the customer was entitled to them. It could just be because someone is a good customer, sometimes because it's difficult to say whose fault the problem was. Perhaps (as could be the case here) because despite there being no requirement or entitlement, we know that the issue was our problem so the customer shouldn't be the one to pay and finally because, despite the fact that we know we are in the right, the costs and time of arguing the point just aren't worth it.

 

In the end it's a business decision, one which i believe NCL got wrong to start with, regardless of the legal position.

 

We will, of course, never know which one is the case here.

[AdoraBelle]

He is doing the same thing on another thread ----- Just trying to start arguments.

 

 

Yes, have seen the same behavior in many threads.

[KeithJenner]

This happened to us on Carnival but the cruise was already in progress. We came home a day early to NY because of a hurricane. They said passengers were welcome to stay on board until the next day but we live in NY and once docked we felt like we were home and cruise was over so we went home! As did many other passengers. I don't remember exactly what they offered but we were offered some small amount off a future sailing (within a year) which we did not take advantage of because we cruise ever few years or so.

 

 

 

I did however put in a claim with our travel insurance and received a pro-rated amount back so that was good.

 

 

 

Although your situation sounds different and I completely understand why you are upset. That's bull!

 

 

 

There are a couple of significant differences (as you acknowledge).

 

Firstly, this cruise is commencing with the knowledge that the ship will return a day early, whereas yours was due to an incident that happened mid cruise.

 

Secondly, yours was caused by an issue that was out of the cruise companies hands. On this one, it is a problem with NCLs ship. That gives them some extra responsibility in my mind.

 

The compensation you received sounds fairly reasonable to me (although I think it should have been OBC rather than against a future cruise.

 

On this current one, if an incident happened mid cruise which caused the ship to have to return a day early then I wouldn't have expected as large a compensation.

Edited August 6, 2016 by KeithJenner

[swedish weave]

Actually, I'm not convinced this is the case. NCL clearly decided that the best cause of action was to give the 1/7 fare refund, but that doesn't mean that they believe that they were entitled to it.

 

I have certainly given "goodwill" credits for various things, and on many occasions not because I believed that the customer was entitled to them. It could just be because someone is a good customer, sometimes because it's difficult to say whose fault the problem was. Perhaps (as could be the case here) because despite there being no requirement or entitlement, we know that the issue was our problem so the customer shouldn't be the one to pay and finally because, despite the fact that we know we are in the right, the costs and time of arguing the point just aren't worth it.

 

In the end it's a business decision, one which i believe NCL got wrong to start with, regardless of the legal position.

 

We will, of course, never know which one is the case here.

 

Being right sometimes does not mean that it is a good way to do business.

 

Maybe NCL management is beginning to realize that they need to treat people fairly in order to keep the media from publicizing their shoddy practices.

[KeithJenner]

Maybe NCL management is beginning to realize that they need to treat people fairly in order to keep the media from publicizing their shoddy practices.

 

 

Maybe. I'm not that hopeful though.

[gusbourg]

On this current one, if an incident happened mid cruise which caused the ship to have to return a day early then I wouldn't have expected as large a compensation.

 

With respect to the contract:

 

(f) Mechanical Failures of the Vessel: In the event of cancellation of voyage due to mechanical failures

of the vessel, the Guest will be entitled to a full refund of the cruise fare, or a partial refund for voyages

that are terminated early due to those failures. In the event a voyage is terminated early due to

mechanical failure of the vessel, the Guest is also entitled to transportation to the vessel’s scheduled port

of disembarkation or the Guest’s home city, at Carrier’s discretion and expense, as well as lodging at the

unscheduled port of disembarkation, if required, at Carrier’s expense.

 

I would expect that it is at least as clear cut if not more so that they would be entitled to the same compensation.

[KeithJenner]

With respect to the contract:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would expect that it is at least as clear cut if not more so that they would be entitled to the same compensation.

 

 

 

I said an incident. That covers many things.

 

My point is that the fact that the ship is heading off in the knowledge that it will be back on Friday puts NCL in a more difficult situation than if so,etching unforeseen happened during the cruise. I also believe that passengers would generally be more understanding in that position, which could affect the amount of compensation that is seen as being acceptable.

Edited August 6, 2016 by KeithJenner

[gusbourg]

I said an incident. That covers many things.

 

My point is that the fact that the ship is heading off in the knowledge that it will be back on Friday puts NCL in a more difficult situation than if so,etching unforeseen happened during the cruise. I also believe that passengers would generally be more understanding in that position, which could affect the amount of compensation that is seen as being acceptable.

 

Gotcha. I see your perspective and it makes sense.

[Zippeedee]

Just a thought about leaving the ship early. If they have called it a " deviation" that may mean customs is not available so you can leave but can't take your luggage. When we docked in Boston on a Canada/New England cruise I wanted to drop off most of my luggage so I wouldn't have to check a bag on my flight from NY back home. Because it was just a port stop and not a debarkation port there were no Customs agents available and I had to bring my luggage back to my cabin before I could leave the ship. Best to check first!

[Budget Queen]

 

However, as has been said over and over again is that they are not simply missing a point of interest or a port of call. They are returning us early one day. It is not a 7 day cruise it's a 6 day cruise. There's not way to treat it otherwise, as well, because as others have noted aspects of the ship are unavailable (e.g. casino) or otherwise impacted (e.g. drink tax) when they're back in Seattle. So no, it's not the same thing as being at sea.

 

Further, their offer of compensation is insulting and not on par with what they've taken away. Take away a day, compensate me the value of that day.

 

You have said this over and over, in your skewed posts. BUT they haven't taken any "day" away from you. They are sailing the day they would have been IN PORT, and giving you another PORT day, that you are choosing NOT to accept. There are STILL 7 days in your cruise. YOU are the one claiming you are going to get off the ship on day 6. AND as already mentioned customs has to let you disembark, although you state NCL would be idiots not to let you off.

 

Yes, this compensation does appear low. Maybe there will be a revision next week. But the way you are going, you are headed for a miserable week.

[AdoraBelle]

You have said this over and over, in your skewed posts. BUT they haven't taken any "day" away from you. They are sailing the day they would have been IN PORT, and giving you another PORT day, that you are choosing NOT to accept. There are STILL 7 days in your cruise. YOU are the one claiming you are going to get off the ship on day 6. AND as already mentioned customs has to let you disembark, although you state NCL would be idiots not to let you off.

 

 

 

Yes, this compensation does appear low. Maybe there will be a revision next week. But the way you are going, you are headed for a miserable week.

 

 

You might want to catch up with the thread.

[dexddd]

Glad to see that NCL is giving you back 1/7 of the cost of your cruise fare. That seems like a fair resolution. It should go back on your account as refundable OBC, and will be refundable to you, if not used. I just hope that the NCL refund process is now faster, than ours was for the OBC, on the Pride of America one day delay, on 03/15/2016. It took months for some of us to receive refunds. Just be prepared for delays. The NCL phone hot line gets very busy, and you get placed on hold frequently. NCL does not have very many agents working in the refund department. Maybe NCL learned from our cruise, and you will get your refunds a lot sooner. "The check is in the mail!"

 

The letter they posted a few pages back actually said any unused OBC would be credited back to their credit card so we'll have to see if that actually happens unlike our scenario.