Thinking about Alaska with NCL? Don't do it.

[sunshine 229]

All well and good except in a case where a port is missed for any reason. Here's how it normally goes.

 

The ship and crew has been getting good marks up until that cruise. Then it misses a port. The person comes on here, and now the food is terrible, the crew is rude and doesn't do their jobs, the ship is filthy, the Captain placed them all in peril, the shows stunk, the port missed was the only reason for the cruise and the rest of the ports were terrible, etc., etc., etc.

 

When the ship starts hitting all ports again, the ship gets good marks again.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best. It boils down to a port was missed and that is no reason to recommend not to use the whole cruise line.

 

However, there is nothing wrong with recommending or not recommending anything based on normal operation, be it good or bad.

 

I am sure the scenario you decsribe has happened, but then I have also seen a number of cases where people have posted about how much they enjoyed their cruise and how great everything was and then, it comes out a little further down the thread, that either they were in a high priced suite and were therefore recepients of priority tendering, and other preferential treatment and fawning or, as in one thread I read some time ago, that they had been present at a CC meeting on board where the captain or hotel director had met them all and designated them as VIPs thus setting them up for special treats and treatment.

 

In one instance, for example, the ship was ( for whatever bizarre reason) refusing to sell soft drink cards to the regular passengers but, after the CC group met on board, the hotel director saw to it that all the people who had been at the CC meeting were given soft drink cards for free.

 

Yes, I'm sure those people came back recommending that as a great cruise and I'm also sure that part of their perception of the greatness of the cruise was formed by special treatment they received that other regular passengers had no chance of enjoying.

 

No doubt, your meal tastes better when you feel that you are a very special person being treated as a VIP, than it does when you are feeling disappointed that you have paid a lot of money and are now not going to a port you particularily wanted to see. The point of this being that, how anyone feels about a cruise is going to be colored by the total experience and while it may be true that " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best." It also IMO doesn't take a nuclear physicst to figure out that some one in a top level suite or someone receiveing special perks or recognition is also going to write a review that has to be some what suspect at best.

[Cosmopolitan]

All well and good except in a case where a port is missed for any reason. Here's how it normally goes.

 

The ship and crew has been getting good marks up until that cruise. Then it misses a port. The person comes on here, and now the food is terrible, the crew is rude and doesn't do their jobs, the ship is filthy, the Captain placed them all in peril, the shows stunk, the port missed was the only reason for the cruise and the rest of the ports were terrible, etc., etc., etc.

 

When the ship starts hitting all ports again, the ship gets good marks again.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best. It boils down to a port was missed and that is no reason to recommend not to use the whole cruise line.

 

However, there is nothing wrong with recommending or not recommending anything based on normal operation, be it good or bad.

 

Well said...as usual!!!:)

[Cosmopolitan]

Poppycock. But not surprising.

 

If you take a cruise and find the things that comprise the standard elements of a cruise (e.g., food, service, cabin, entertainment, public rooms, shore excursions, ship's events) to be well done, there is no reason in this world for someone to say it's "silly" for you recommend that cruise line or ship to others. What would be "silly" would be to recommend a cruise line because you happened to win the grand slot machine prize of NNN thousand dollars on your cruise. Or because, when your toilet was mysteriously plugged up and unrepairable, you received a golden upgrade to the only cabin still available: the Garden Villa. Why? Because none of your readers would have a reasonable expectation of having either of these events happen to THEM on THEIR cruise. Either would be a rare event, and not something anyone else could count on experiencing.

 

That's exactly why it's "silly" to tell the rest of the world NEVER to cruise a certain line or ship because of an incident that happened on YOUR cruise that is very unlikely to happen to THEM on THEIR cruise--like having a long-standing reservation for a shore excursion canceled in error, or having your beds made up not in the way you wanted and taking it as a grievous personal offense, or experiencing an unusual mechanical problem that caused your particular cruise to miss a port or sight that was significant to you.

 

I don't expect you to understand it this time, either, sunshine.

 

DITTO;)

[Host CMLA]

It also IMO doesn't take a nuclear physicst to figure out that some one in a top level suite or someone receiveing special perks or recognition is also going to write a review that has to be some what suspect at best.

Man...you'd think that I could get some of that special treatment. ;) I host the board for goodness sake. Have I EVER been on the VIP list? Nope. Does that mean my reviews and opinions mean more than someone that got those special perks? :D

[Cosmopolitan]

uh oh...off topic!

 

He is just ADORABLE! LOVED last weeks pic., also!:)

Is Nathan all set for the holidays? Good thing he got used to the camera!

Hope I don't get yelled at again for posting my Nathan comments!

 

Back on topic ~ your opinions are invaluable...VIP or not!

[kalamari]

I can see why, after reading your post...

 

<<And the staff walked around without smiles. Maybe because the passengers were so grouchy >>

[Retired not Expired]

I am sure the scenario you decsribe has happened, but then I have also seen a number of cases where people have posted about how much they enjoyed their cruise and how great everything was and then, it comes out a little further down the thread, that either they were in a high priced suite and were therefore recepients of priority tendering, and other preferential treatment and fawning or, as in one thread I read some time ago, that they had been present at a CC meeting on board where the captain or hotel director had met them all and designated them as VIPs thus setting them up for special treats and treatment.

 

In one instance, for example, the ship was ( for whatever bizarre reason) refusing to sell soft drink cards to the regular passengers but, after the CC group met on board, the hotel director saw to it that all the people who had been at the CC meeting were given soft drink cards for free.

 

Yes, I'm sure those people came back recommending that as a great cruise and I'm also sure that part of their perception of the greatness of the cruise was formed by special treatment they received that other regular passengers had no chance of enjoying.

 

No doubt, your meal tastes better when you feel that you are a very special person being treated as a VIP, than it does when you are feeling disappointed that you have paid a lot of money and are now not going to a port you particularily wanted to see. The point of this being that, how anyone feels about a cruise is going to be colored by the total experience and while it may be true that " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best." It also IMO doesn't take a nuclear physicst to figure out that some one in a top level suite or someone receiveing special perks or recognition is also going to write a review that has to be some what suspect at best.

 

Again, something taken out of the norm. Exactly why I said people should base their opinions of a cruise line based on normal day to day and when something out of the norm occurs, disregard it unless it becomes a normal occurence, good or bad.

[Bennett'sCruise]

as in one thread I read some time ago, that they had been present at a CC meeting on board where the captain or hotel director had met them all and designated them as VIPs thus setting them up for special treats and treatment.

 

It also IMO doesn't take a nuclear physicst to figure out that some one in a top level suite or someone receiveing special perks or recognition is also going to write a review that has to be some what suspect at best.

 

Hmmm ... not sure this was me, but it could have been. Is this any different from any other industry? Would think not. It's always been "who you know" for several good reasons ... one of which is to get good PR out there.

 

HOWEVER, having been on a few cruises ... I've seen some "bad" things, some "good" things, and some "great" things! I've seen LOTS of people who go around with a scowl on their faces ... while on a cruise ship ... in the middle of the ocean:eek: I tend to think they must be in pain, or everything else in their lives is not going so good, hopefully it's not that they have a problem of some kind with the ship or crew and are stewing about it! (tongue in cheek, here). I met one couple on our last cruise who were furious with the staff. I asked them if they had done ANYTHING to rectify the problem. No, they hadn't. It was just easier to get mad about it and complain to everyone around them. I'm sure they gave a bad review.

 

When we have probs on board (and we have), I talk to whomever needs to hear about it. If the prob gets solved, great. If it doesn't, it certainly doesn't ruin my vacation or taint the entire experience.

 

My "glass is always half full" on a cruise ship!

 

Another thing: if people would take the time to read the small print of the documents they have signed, they would realize most of what they are "critching" about is just part of the cruise industry ... the possibility exists for mother nature to blow in a storm, or the ship to suffer mechanical problems, whatever. You are still in a stateroom (whether an inside on Deck 4 .. or the Owner's Suite), that someone is taking care of you, you don't have to cook, your entertainment is provided and someone else is doing the driving!! It's all good....

 

Just my 2 cents ...

 

~Dianne

[mbisson]

My "glass is always half full" on a cruise ship!

~Dianne

 

LOL-Then ask for a different waiter to keep it topped off. ;)

 

-Monte

[Cruise_More_Often]

My "glass is always half full" on a cruise ship!

~Dianne

Dianne' date=' I think your glass is [b']always[/b] full! Lucky you.:)

Adele

[Zeno]

Yes, I'm sure those people came back recommending that as a great cruise and I'm also sure that part of their perception of the greatness of the cruise was formed by special treatment they received that other regular passengers had no chance of enjoying.

 

 

So what you are saying is that ALL people who enjoyed this cruise got special treatment. Really? How would you know? All I can say is that I NEVER got any special treatment on my NCL cruises and I was in a "regular" cabin and still managed to enjoy them. Therefore my assumption would be that a least some of the people who enjoyed this cruise did not get "special" treatment and were not in "premium" cabins.

[Heytoots]

I would go on a cruise to Alaska on NCL, with no ports....any day of the week!! Vacation is what you make it!!

[SailAways]

From our personal experience, it truly does not make a bit of difference where you are located on the ship. The cabin is the least of a cruise IMHO.

If you are a person with a positive attitude, who can roll with the punches, and are determined to always have a good time, it will happen, Owner's Suite, or Bottom Deck.

Life is filled with grumblers. They come in all sizes, shapes, and from all financial realms.

Probably, the ones who grumble the loudest are the ones who had to dig a deeper into their shallow pockets to come up with the extra $ to pay for something which they truly could not afford to begin with.

[sjbdtz]

I previously posted that we enjoyed some VIP treatment, while in an inside cabin. However in addition to being at a CC meeting, we were also friends with people in the GV, 2 courtyard villas, and 2 owner's suites. We were also FRIENDLY, and grateful! We have no doubt that employees on the ship will remember us next year.

 

However, since this was an unusual situation, I didn't count on it for my next cruise...instead, I've upgraded to a suite!

 

You state that the people in suites are more likely to write a good review? You seem to forget that people in suites are PAYING for this additional service. They are the highest priced (and highest margin) passengers onboard. Sort of like SUV customers at GM.

 

You mention an issue with drink cards. SOME posters might consider this a serious affront to the enjoyment of their cruise. YOU have recognized that the reason behind it is (at best), bizarre, and not usual. BRAVO!

 

When I comment, generally, I refer to the sum of my cruising experience (3 trips), all of which have been positive. I have always qualified them that anything which wasn't positive (including a very important missed shoreEx), was resolved beyond my expectations by NCL.

 

What I resent are people who come onto CC, and state unequivocally that since they had a bad experience, NOBODY should EVER take this itinerary, or this cruiseline again. It's ridiculous, and deserves to be ridiculed.

 

Stephen

 

P.S. If something has gone wrong, or was not up to snuff... put it in writing, reasonably, offer a solution, and send it to NCL to address. Then be patient. There are thousands of people at any given time, either trying to rebook, get upsells, arrange their bar setups, complain, whatever... and only SO many customer relations reps.

[Bobgaffney]

What I resent are people who come onto CC, and state unequivocally that since they had a bad experience, NOBODY should EVER take this itinerary, or this cruiseline again. It's ridiculous, and deserves to be ridiculed.

 

I agree 100%. Not to mention the fact that I am immediately suspect of what they have to say.

[Don Haynes]

I have cruised on four NCL ships, some newer and some older. I have yet to find slop in any of their restaurants. I have noticed that half the ship's passengers prefer to eat home style cooking in the buffet than the continental crusine in the main restaurants. Why? Would NCL be better off leasing space to McDonalds?

[shoreguy]

I have cruised on four NCL ships, some newer and some older. I have yet to find slop in any of their restaurants. I have noticed that half the ship's passengers prefer to eat home style cooking in the buffet than the continental crusine in the main restaurants. Why? Would NCL be better off leasing space to McDonalds?

 

I can see it now - the Garden Food Court - Mickey Ds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway.....

 

Time to find a new cruise line:rolleyes:

[Don Haynes]

I was thinking in terms of Bennigans, Chilis, the Blackeye Pea, and Applebees replacing one of the main dining restaurants..... You know, American home style cooking.....

[fleet]

I am sure the scenario you decsribe has happened, but then I have also seen a number of cases where people have posted about how much they enjoyed their cruise and how great everything was and then, it comes out a little further down the thread, that either they were in a high priced suite and were therefore recepients of priority tendering, and other preferential treatment and fawning or, as in one thread I read some time ago, that they had been present at a CC meeting on board where the captain or hotel director had met them all and designated them as VIPs thus setting them up for special treats and treatment.

 

In one instance, for example, the ship was ( for whatever bizarre reason) refusing to sell soft drink cards to the regular passengers but, after the CC group met on board, the hotel director saw to it that all the people who had been at the CC meeting were given soft drink cards for free.

 

Yes, I'm sure those people came back recommending that as a great cruise and I'm also sure that part of their perception of the greatness of the cruise was formed by special treatment they received that other regular passengers had no chance of enjoying.

 

No doubt, your meal tastes better when you feel that you are a very special person being treated as a VIP, than it does when you are feeling disappointed that you have paid a lot of money and are now not going to a port you particularily wanted to see. The point of this being that, how anyone feels about a cruise is going to be colored by the total experience and while it may be true that " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best." It also IMO doesn't take a nuclear physicst to figure out that some one in a top level suite or someone receiveing special perks or recognition is also going to write a review that has to be some what suspect at best.

Just wanted to add my two cents to the brew. I do agree with this point of view that special treatment feels much better than the opposite. The change in the Lattitudes program seems to have resulted in a change in the crew's attitude that many passengers will not feel until the next cruise. And, perhaps the attitude is relavent to the ship, schedule, etc. I just know there was a very definite change on our recent past NCL cruise. The work was done, the towel animals appreared and the food was there, but the friendliness was gone. No, it did not ruin our vacation, but it did make us more aware of who we are, where we were, and who was in control of our lives. I realize I do not post often, and will be flamed for my opinions, but felt the need to say we were not as comfortable with our lastest cruise as we were last year.

[sunshine 229]

So what you are saying is that ALL people who enjoyed this cruise got special treatment. Really? How would you know? All I can say is that I NEVER got any special treatment on my NCL cruises and I was in a "regular" cabin and still managed to enjoy them. Therefore my assumption would be that a least some of the people who enjoyed this cruise did not get "special" treatment and were not in "premium" cabins.

 

I think you miss understood what I was saying.

 

I'm not saying that everyone who enjoyed the cruise ( or any cruise) was in premium cabins or received special VIP treatment; what I'm saying is that everyone's experience of even the 'normal operation' of the ship as Retired not Expired calls it, or the 'standard elements' of a cruise as hotspur calls it, is colored by all that happens on the cruise so, to me, it is as wrong to say that :

 

"almost all reports where a port was missed then become suspect at best"

 

as it is would be to say that any review by someone who has been designated a VIP or who is in a premium cabin is somehow suspect.

 

All anyone can do is to report on their cruise experience and how they enjoyed it, what they liked or what they didn't like, and let other readers decide for themselves if they think they would enjoy the cruise or not.

[Host CMLA]

All anyone can do is to report on their cruise experience and how they enjoyed it, what they liked or what they didn't like, and let other readers decide for themselves if they think they would enjoy the cruise or not.

I totally agree. So what does that say about the OP of this thread and their review? It's titled: Thinking about Alaska with NCL? Don't do it. What happened to telling the facts and letting the membership decide? In my opinion, when people use those types of titles, they aren't asking the membership to take the review and use it as a tool to consider for future cruises. They're saying that because they had a bad cruise, you'll have a bad cruise too and you shouldn't cruise with this line. But again, I agree with what you said. Members should give a review without trying to influence opinion. If you give a comprehensive review, good or bad, it means a whole lot more than a negative diatribe that's telling you how to feel.

[sunshine 229]

I previously posted that we enjoyed some VIP treatment, while in an inside cabin. However in addition to being at a CC meeting, we were also friends with people in the GV, 2 courtyard villas, and 2 owner's suites. We were also FRIENDLY, and grateful! We have no doubt that employees on the ship will remember us next year.

 

However, since this was an unusual situation, I didn't count on it for my next cruise...instead, I've upgraded to a suite!

 

You state that the people in suites are more likely to write a good review? You seem to forget that people in suites are PAYING for this additional service. They are the highest priced (and highest margin) passengers onboard. Sort of like SUV customers at GM.

 

You mention an issue with drink cards. SOME posters might consider this a serious affront to the enjoyment of their cruise. YOU have recognized that the reason behind it is (at best), bizarre, and not usual. BRAVO!

 

When I comment, generally, I refer to the sum of my cruising experience (3 trips), all of which have been positive. I have always qualified them that anything which wasn't positive (including a very important missed shoreEx), was resolved beyond my expectations by NCL.

 

What I resent are people who come onto CC, and state unequivocally that since they had a bad experience, NOBODY should EVER take this itinerary, or this cruiseline again. It's ridiculous, and deserves to be ridiculed.

 

Stephen

 

P.S. If something has gone wrong, or was not up to snuff... put it in writing, reasonably, offer a solution, and send it to NCL to address. Then be patient. There are thousands of people at any given time, either trying to rebook, get upsells, arrange their bar setups, complain, whatever... and only SO many customer relations reps.

 

I agree that people in suites are in most cases paying a lot extra for the priviledge, but I don't state that they are necessarily more likely to write a good review.

 

What I am saying is that whatever review they write is going to be influenced by the fact that they are in a suite. If they get extra great, extra special service, then that will influence them to write a more positive review of the ship but, I have, also seen instances where I think the fact that the poster was in a suite and felt that they had not received the extra level of service that they had paid for, probably caused their review to be more harsh.

 

Once again I just want to say that everyone's cruise experience is colored by all sorts of different things: what cabin they are in, if their cruise missed ports or had bad weather or had an out break of Norwalk, if they were staying for the first time in a better category of cabin, if they booked the cruise at a special low price, etc.

 

To pick out one of these occurances, like a missed port, and decide that the fact that a port was missed on the poster's cruise makes their experience somehow suspect, while reviews by all the people who experienced other conditions are not suspect, is to me just silly.

[SailAways]

Once again I just want to say that everyone's cruise experience is colored by all sorts of different things: what cabin they are in, if their cruise missed ports or had bad weather or had an out break of Norwalk, if they were staying for the first time in a better category of cabin, if they booked the cruise at a special low price, etc.

To pick out one of these occurances, like a missed port, and decide that the fact that a port was missed on the poster's cruise makes their experience somehow suspect, while reviews by all the people who experienced other conditions are not suspect, is to me just silly.

 

These points are well taken. However, being the human creatures that we are, some folks will be completely dissatisfied with a cruise at the first hint of something going awry, and they will let it cloud their entire experience.

Other people will not be bothered at all, even if a few things aren't quite perfect, and they will have a wonderful vacation.

Some of us just simply tolerate bumps better than others. We see this everyday in our lives in dealing with different personalities.

[Retired not Expired]

To pick out one of these occurances, like a missed port, and decide that the fact that a port was missed on the poster's cruise makes their experience somehow suspect, while reviews by all the people who experienced other conditions are not suspect, is to me just silly.

 

What is really silly is you read a post and pick out what you can argue about without reading or else ignoring the whole post and other posts that project further about it.

 

I said people should look at the norm. I also said your example where perks were given was also out of the norm. When judging a ship or line, people should look at posts where NOTHING out of the norm occured. No missed ports, no bad weather, no one got up-graded from an oceanview to the owners suite, no one got extra perks, etc.

 

They need to judge by what happens 98-99 % of the time and judge on what they can reasonably expect to experience. Most cruisers do not miss ports, nor experience bad weather, nor are given over the top perks. When these things do happen, it clouds the whole experience when they report it in most cases as seen time and again on these boards.

 

So it is not silly to disregard reports or reviews when any of these thing happen. What is silly is to take any report that has something bad happen out of the norm and argue that the ship or cruise line is terrible and needs to be not a company to use just as a report where someone received perks over the top is not a reason to believe that is what you can expect and everything will be perfect.

 

I spend time on several other boards because I cruise with several lines. The same things happen over on those boards. The plane that crashed in Miami trapped two Carnival and one RCCL ship in port an extra day. People over on those are upset about their cruise and expect the companies to give them the world. Should I not use those cruise lines because a plane crash may trap my ship in port and change my cruise?

 

Things happen on cruise lines and everywhere else in life. When they do, people get upset or elated and embellish on facts. Those reports should be suspect in what I may expect to occur if I do the same cruise. That is not silly.

[sunshine 229]

I said people should look at the norm. I also said your example where perks were given was also out of the norm. When judging a ship or line, people should look at posts where NOTHING out of the norm occured. No missed ports, no bad weather, no one got up-graded from an oceanview to the owners suite, no one got extra perks, etc.

 

 

Well, great idea if you can find it, but I think if we only accepted reviews where absolutely nothing out of the norm happened we would have very few reviews to judge by.

 

Toss out reviews by everybody who: had a suite, or got an upgrade, missed a port,or had bad weather, suffered an Norwalk outbreak, or won money on the slots etc. etc. and how many will be left?

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore the sensational, blanket comments and judge the reviews on the information reported?

 

Yes, warning the whole world off a particular cruise ship because you had a bad experience is silly, but so is saying that anyone who has a bad time on a cruise is a whiner just because you enjoyed your cruise on the same ship.