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

[navybankerteacher]

I was on a 7 day cruise on Oosterdam in the fall of 2006 when a fire disable an azipod - we missed Puerto Valarta and returned to San Diego a day early. As I recall call we got a $300 credit plus 25% off next cruise. I was delighted - but there were crowds still complaining.

 

The credit and the discount on a longer itinerary in better accommodations came to significantly more than what the Oosterdam cruise cost.

[mjkacmom]

Unfortunately, what they are doing is perfectly legal. I'm sure folks who don't live in Seattle, and have flights, would not be happy having to leave the ship a day early. Legally, NCL can drive around in circles for 7 days if they wish.

[KeithJenner]

But your 7 minus 0 = 7 while technically true on its own is a false equivalency and there a fallacious argument. We paid for a 7 day cruise, not a 6 day cruise with 1 day not cruising. I paid to go to Alaska. It's an Alaskan cruise. The whole point of the cruise is to see Alaska.

 

I did not pay to stay in a small room in downtown Seattle. And if I had paid for that, I would have paid considerably less than the cost for the one day on a cruise. And to add insult to injury, the piers in Seattle are in a chaotic state of disarray due to construction of the sea wall. I'm from Seattle, I love Seattle, I don't need to pay that kind of money to stay in Seattle. Nor did I agree to pay that kind of money to stay in Seattle. I paid big bucks to be on a cruise, and more specifically, on a cruise going to... Alaska. Stopping in... Alaska.

 

It's irrelevant what sort of equivalency or argument it is. I'm actually not arguing at all, just making a comment.

 

People seem to be misunderstanding my words, which is rather odd because they aren't complicated. I'll try again.

 

My point is nothing more than that as the passengers will be onboard for all 7 days, it is not the same as a cruise where the passengers were only able to be onboard for 6. Therefore, whatever compensation was given for past cruises where the number of days onboard is not a direct comparison to what should happen in this case.

 

To be absolutely clear for anyone who is still confused. I am not saying that $100 is sufficient. On another post I have agreed with a suggestion that a refund for 1/7 of the fare sounds sensible.

[gusbourg]

Thank you. I agree. If there is a mechanical problem then the ship must return early. You cant control that. However, cut the cruise by one day and just refund one day.

The cruise lines can do this though. The contract lets them do this. Perfectly legal. It is proper? No. But NCL is giving them 7 full days on the ship no matter if you have 3 days in Seattle....embarkation, disembarkation, and docked day in Seattle.

I don't agree with it either though.

 

There is no way NCL is going to budge. PLEASE DONT LET THIS RUIN YOUR CRUISE YOU WAITED SO LONG FOR. Get it out of your head and enjoy the vacation!

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. I've asked NCL to prorate the missing day, and I'll disembark the day we get into Seattle. They will not under any circumstances do this. It's the only fair thing to do in my mind, and they refuse to do it.]

 

With respect to ruining the vacation? Well too late. If you planned excursions in Skagway, they're not happening now. I could get over this (stuff happens) but the insult to injury here is that NCL is charging us for 7 days and giving us 6. Given that it's a cruise to Alaska, and I'll only have two days in Alaska ports, you could argue that they should be giving me a 1/3 discount - but all I asked for was a single prorated day.

 

Why not go to Skagway and miss Victoria?

 

Great question. Especially for the people who live in Seattle, they've all seen Victoria. For the people flying in to Seattle, they're all going to see it anyways. The thought process by NCL here is seriously lacking any sort of through or process.

Edited August 3, 2016 by gusbourg

[KeithJenner]

Why not go to Skagway and miss Victoria?

 

Isn't Victoria there as the obligatory non US Port?

 

I'm not up on the relevant law, but are they allowed to miss it?

[bazil501]

Why not go to Skagway and miss Victoria?

 

I believe there's a law that says a foreign flagged vessel leaving US waters must call on at least one foreign port (in this case Victoria) before re-entering US Waters?

 

Something to that effect.

 

If what was mentioned earlier in this thread is true, i.e. that this is a directive straight from Del Rio, many are going to see this as the latest in a chain of events designed to cut costs and maximize profits at the expense of the customer and customer relations.

Edited August 3, 2016 by bazil501

[txbuffetslayer]

Why not go to Skagway and miss Victoria?

 

This would make the majority happier I would expect. It would in our house at least. Skagway is a huge port to cancel :(

[david_sobe]

I was on a 7 day cruise on Oosterdam in the fall of 2006 when a fire disable an azipod - we missed Puerto Valarta and returned to San Diego a day early. As I recall call we got a $300 credit plus 25% off next cruise. I was delighted - but there were crowds still complaining.

 

The credit and the discount on a longer itinerary in better accommodations came to significantly more than what the Oosterdam cruise cost.

Now that was more than fair. What cruise line?

[momto2js]

We did Alaska last year and we flew across the country to do it. I would not be happy at all if we missed 1/3 of the trip and I was discounted a crappy $100. I feel for the local folks getting home early, but the folks that flew in must be livid. Is this something you should make an insurance claim about potentially?

[KeithJenner]

I don't understand what you're saying here. I've asked NCL to prorate the missing day, and I'll disembark the day we get into Seattle. They will not under any circumstances do this. It's the only fair thing to do in my mind, and they refuse to do it.

 

I think pretty well everyone agrees that they should do something like that. What people are saying though is that, if they don't do it voluntarily, then there probably isn't much that can be done about it.

 

It's often quoted around here that the cruise contract just commits NCL to take you on a cruise for a number of days. As is often said, they could just sail around in circles for the week and be within the contract.

 

Given the reason for getting back early, they have a good reason for missing a port. I think that most people think that they should offer more than they have, but in my (fairly limited) knowledge of the law, they don't have to.

 

It's worth mentioning that ships do miss ports sometimes. It's not common, but does happen. We've had it happen once, luckily at a port where we have been many times. We received a refund of our port fees, and that was all.

 

I can understand how disappointing this is, and I would certainly encourage people on the ship to do what they can to get more from NCL, but I believe that the law is on their side.

 

It may be hard to do, but I think that the best advice you have had is to try not to let this ruin the whole thing.

[casofilia]

Now that was more than fair. What cruise line?

 

Oosterdam === Holland America.

[triptolemus]

When is this cruise?

[KeithJenner]

When is this cruise?

 

Looking at the roll calls, it looks like this Saturday.

Edited August 3, 2016 by KeithJenner

[gusbourg]

Unfortunately, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

 

Is it? Will it be legal for me to dispute the charges after the cruise based on them not delivering the services they sold? Terms and conditions, and shrink wrap contracts are a weird thing. They're only binding when the courts agree that they are. Arbitration clauses, jurisdiction clauses, all of that gets thrown out of court all of the time based on local consumer protection laws.

 

I think that if they don't do better than this, it'll go to court. And when it does it'll come down to two things:

 

1) What is the monetary value of the compensation they provided? I'm sticking with a conservative $50.

 

2) How much money per cabin did they save by not going to Skagway?

 

If the answer to #2 is greater than #1 they're going to look pretty terrible here on the question of 'did they deliver the goods, or provide a reasonable compensation for the portion thereof they did not deliver'.

 

Make no mistake about it, they stand to save a ton of money here - and they're not passing any of it on to those of us who have been wronged.

 

#NCLRipoff

[www3traveler]

I am wondering if this problem was discovered YESTERDAY during the Coast Guard inspection in Skagway????

 

Yes, by law they have to stop in Victoria (foreign port of call) before returning to the US. It would be nice if someday under enough pressure Congress would either repeal or update that law.

 

Seattle is the safest place for divers to go under the ship for the needed repair work and probably the only place where the needed parts are in place.

 

I am sorry that this is taking place but I also glad they are addressing the issue before it becomes a bigger issue. Mechanical parts fail. If we drove our own cars as hard as cruise ships are used day in day out, week in week out, I guess we would a failure of a mechanical part or two.

[KeithJenner]

I think that if they don't do better than this, it'll go to court. And when it does it'll come down to two things:

 

1) What is the monetary value of the compensation they provided? I'm sticking with a conservative $50.

 

2) How much money per cabin did they save by not going to Skagway?

 

If the answer to #2 is greater than #1 they're going to look pretty terrible here on the question of 'did they deliver the goods, or provide a reasonable compensation for the portion thereof they did not deliver'.

 

Make no mistake about it, they stand to save a ton of money here - and they're not passing any of it on to those of us who have been wronged.

 

#NCLRipoff

 

Why do you think they will save money by not going to Skagway? I believe that NCL do quite good business with shore excursions in Alaska.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd have expected them to lose some money from not stopping there.

[david_sobe]

I don't understand what you're saying here. I've asked NCL to prorate the missing day, and I'll disembark the day we get into Seattle. They will not under any circumstances do this. It's the only fair thing to do in my mind, and they refuse to do it.]

 

With respect to ruining the vacation? Well too late. If you planned excursions in Skagway, they're not happening now. I could get over this (stuff happens) but the insult to injury here is that NCL is charging us for 7 days and giving us 6. Given that it's a cruise to Alaska, and I'll only have two days in Alaska ports, you could argue that they should be giving me a 1/3 discount - but all I asked for was a single prorated day.

 

 

 

Great question. Especially for the people who live in Seattle, they've all seen Victoria. For the people flying in to Seattle, they're all going to see it anyways. The thought process by NCL here is seriously lacking any sort of through or process.

I agree with you. It sucks to miss an Alaska port and cut the cruise by one day. I also agree one day should be refunded.

But mechanical failure happens on cruise ships. It happens all the time. The cruise lines will always protect themselves and reserve the right to change any port at any time for any reason. You are not the first cruise passenger to sail on a ship that is in need of mechanical repair. You must get this out of your head otherwise why go on a vacation where every day you are going to be angry and cant enjoy yourself.

That is what I was saying.

[gusbourg]

Given the reason for getting back early, they have a good reason for missing a port.

 

I completely disagree. I agree that they have a problem with the boat. But is it a serious problem? Well, it's not serious enough to prevent them from leaving port in the first place.

 

After all, they're going to leave Seattle with the damage to the boat. They're not delaying the start of the cruise, they're returning early to do repairs. It's not a safety issue for this cruise - otherwise they would have delayed or canceled it.

 

By compressing the end of this cruise, it allows them to prevent any impact to the beginning of the cruise that will happen afterwords. Why is this important?

 

Because in many causes NCL or Travel Agencies working with NCL have booked flights for people to Seattle to take the cruise. They'd have to either change those flights (read: costs NCL money), or possibly put those folks up in a hotel in Seattle for the first day (read: costs money) since they can't leave that day.

 

This is about NCL maximizing their bottom line at our expense. It's not about our safety. It's not about circumstances beyond their control. It is about the bottom line, and their lack of respect for us, the customer.

 

#NCLRipoff

Edited August 3, 2016 by gusbourg

[triptolemus]

Looking at the roll calls, it looks like this Saturday.

 

Can't see what the big emergency is with the propulsion system if the ship is currently sitting in Skagway as we speak. Maybe they need time to procure parts... who knows.

 

The proper credit due passengers is $fare/7. Ridiculous.

 

The analogy of NCL simply sailing in circles doesn't apply. We're talking about docking the ship a day early, not just missing a port. Sitting on the ship for a day at dock is not cruising.

 

And they can't scrap Victoria. The ship must visit a foreign port. If I had to drop one, I guess I'd drop Ketchikan. But the different scheduling concerns are obviously more complicated than that.

Edited August 3, 2016 by triptolemus

[KeithJenner]

I completely disagree. I agree that they have a problem with the boat. But is it a serious problem? Well, it's not serious enough to prevent them from leaving port in the first place.

 

After all, they're going to leave Seattle with the damage to the boat. They're not delaying the start of the cruise, they're returning early to do repairs. It's not a safety issue for this cruise - otherwise they would have delayed or canceled it.

 

By compressing the end of this cruise, it allows them to prevent any impact to the beginning of the cruise that will happen afterwords. Why is this important?

 

Because in many causes NCL or Travel Agencies working with NCL have booked flights for people to Seattle to take the cruise. They'd have to either change those flights (read: costs NCL money), or possibly put those folks up in a hotel in Seattle for the first day (read: costs money) since they can't leave that day.

 

This is about NCL maximizing their bottom line at our expense. It's not about our safety. It's not about circumstances beyond their control. It is about the bottom line, and their lack of respect for us, the customer.

 

#NCLRipoff

 

Obviously, not knowing the specifics of the issue, I have no way of knowing whether the points you make are valid or not.

 

I didn't realise you were so well informed about the technicalities.

[krewzin]

Obviously, not knowing the specifics of the issue, I have no way of knowing whether the points you make are valid or not.

 

I didn't realise you were so well informed about the technicalities.

 

I don't know that he's "well informed," I just think it's a matter of common sense really.

[gusbourg]

I don't know that he's "well informed," I just think it's a matter of common sense really.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

They're compressing the end of the cruise, not the beginning. Clearly that means that they know they have an issue, will continue to cruise with said issue, and they're returning early from cruising a day ahead of schedule so they can have extra time to fix it before their next departure. If they didn't need that extra day to fix it, they wouldn't have affected our itinerary. If they had buffer time between cruises, or had no obligation to the next set of passengers, they would not have affected our itinerary.

 

Further, they're a company. And I have no problem with companies, but it's safe to say that the goal of a company is to make money. They are cutting our cruise short to save money (ostensibly from the obligation that they have for the next departure). With certainty, I can say that a bean counter did the math. "Is it cheaper to delay the departure of X or shorten the trip of Y?" I have no problem with them doing this calculation. I get it, and it makes sense. What I have a problem with is not compensating me equivalent to the damage I have suffered. What they are doing is ripping me off. It is therefor an NCL Ripoff.

 

#NCLRipoff

[AK Dreaming]

The first person I spoke to was no help so I asked to speak to a supervisor. The person I was transferred to was very rude. We were up sold just a couple days ago to a larger suite and now we paid so much more for a nice balcony that for one day will be looking over construction at the port of Seattle. We will not be "cruising", so the casino will not be open. Also, I asked if there were any excursions they could offer in Seattle as we are flying from South Florida and I thought maybe we would try to make the best of the "port" day. They had nothing to offer. I chose the port credit for one of my offers so this is another financial hit. This is my third cruise on NCL in less than a year, but if this is the way they treat people, I'm sure it will be my last. A hundred dollar on board credit is an insult.

[KeithJenner]

But, why would they have to change flights or put people up in hotels? They aren't kicking people off early, so whatever they are doing can be done with people onboard.

 

There are two extremely good reasons for doing the repairs at the end of the cruise rather than at the beginning. They are a bit boring I'm afraid, but I suspect that they make more sense than issues with the bottom line.

 

Perhaps the parts or skills required aren't available with just two days notice.

 

Also, if you delay the start of the cruise by a day then the first few ports will be reached a day late. Then you would be missing tours in more than just one port. As Skagway is the last of the Alaska ports to be visited then it makes absolute sense to leave on time and have the first half of the cruise as scheduled rather than mess everything up.

 

Look, I really sympathise with the situation you are in. I think NCL should do more. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that there is any issue with the way NCL have dealt with it other than their compensation offer.

[KeithJenner]

Also, I asked if there were any excursions they could offer in Seattle as we are flying from South Florida and I thought maybe we would try to make the best of the "port" day. They had nothing to offer.

 

 

That's disappointing. I assume they do disembarkation day tours in Seattle, so they would have a link to local companies.

 

At least the port is close to the city, which has a lot to offer, so there are options for doing it yourself with no worries about getting back to the ship on time.