Not the cruise line you want to cruise with

[brookie848]

1 minute ago, cdnsteelman said:

I use a variety of travel aggregator sites now for pricing out trips and when I go to book there's always a step now where you ahem to wive or accept various insurance options before you get the the book / pay page. Insurance has become a BIG sideline profit centre for travel providers.

We always book direct, so we don't see that. We've never been offered insurance on a hotel or flight.

 

If that's the case, then there is truly no excuse for complaining about not being covered if something goes wrong.

[tallnthensome]

20 minutes ago, jpcdds6 said:

I’m saying that IN THIS CASE, the right thing to do is grant a refund. I buy insurance too. All other carriers refunded their reservations.

No, it isn't regardless of the sad situation. What about a sick child, what about a broken leg , etc. I would bet that almost all the reason people have to cancel a dream vacation are due to something bad or an illness ....... 

[Itchy&Scratchy]

4 minutes ago, brookie848 said:

Most of the other carriers (not all) don't offer insurance when you purchase their services. I've never been offered it on a hotel or airline ticket. The only places we've been offered insurance by the vendor is a cruise and when we rent a condo at the beach.

WE've definitely been offered to buy insurance when purchasing an airline ticket. Cruises - too. Hotels are a bit different - when you make a refundable reservation, you can cancel 1-2-3 days prior to the arrival to avoid a penalty. Now, if you booked a non-refundable, instant pay hotel room, then it was a gamble on your part. Who's to blame for one's gambling nature?

[fshagan]

Sorry your wife has to go through this, and I wish you both the best as navigate through the treatment.

 

My understanding is the no-refund policy is there to ensure the limited inventory they can sell for the trips is all sold. The problem with a cruise is that there's a limited time to sell the cabin. So I understand the policy, and the reason for it.

 

But it would be nice with today's technology if the cruise line could come up with a creative solution. Allowing you to transfer the cruise to someone else, for instance, so you could sell it on the secondary market. Or providing a refund if the rest of that cabin category sells out. In the past, doing this would incur additional costs for the handling of the inventory. Today, I'll bet a forward thinking company could leverage their booking technology to jump ahead of the competition by doing it.

 

DCL automatically adds the trip insurance and you have to remove it. I always remove it, but for consumers who are not as savvy or experienced as the rest of us it's a pretty good solution. 

[NLH Arizona]

59 minutes ago, Son of a son of a ... said:

 

‘I think they should follow United Airlines’ model and accept a physician’s letter that travel was impossible due to life threatening medical condition.  United gave a full monetary refund.  Delta gives credit for a future flight.  Heck, even Alliegant Air gives credit after imposing a change fee.  

 

If NCL wants to book the revenue, then give a credit.  If they want to inflict some pain, then take 20%, but 100% is heartless.  What is the overall exposure to NCL?  One or two cabins a cruise?  NCL had a $759 M profit last year.

 

Being a hard a@@ in the hospitality industry does not contribute to good will.

It is not about inflicting pain, it is about staying in business.  When someone cancels on short notice, there is no guarantee to NCL that that revenue will be recouped by another reservation and I'm sure that is why they offer insurance to their customers, so that they are not out any money if something goes wrong.  If a customer reads the cancellation policy and still decides not to take insurance, the burden of the cost is on them, not the cruise line.  Since the airlines overbook their flights, there is no revenue lost to them, like there is the cruise ships.

 

In life we never know what is going to happen and as far as cruises are concerned we can either roll the dice that everything will go as planned and not purchase insurance and if something goes wrong, pay the price or we can be astute enough to purchase insurance to make sure if something does go wrong, we are covered.  

[NLH Arizona]

37 minutes ago, jpcdds6 said:

I’m saying that IN THIS CASE, the right thing to do is grant a refund. I buy insurance too. All other carriers refunded their reservations.

What makes this case more important than any other case?  If they do it in this case, then they open themselves up legally to have to do it in every case no matter what the situation is.  I guess you won't mind having your fares raised as NCL's insurance, so they won't lose revenue.  

Edited November 11, 2018 by NLH Arizona

[Son of a son of a ...]

1 minute ago, NLH Arizona said:

It is not about inflicting pain, it is about staying in business.  When someone cancels on short notice, there is no guarantee to NCL that that revenue will be recouped by another reservation and I'm sure that is why they offer insurance to their customers, so that they are not out any money if something goes wrong.  If a customer reads the cancellation policy and still decides not to take insurance, the burden of the cost is on them, not the cruise line.  Since the airlines overbook their flights, there is no revenue lost to them, like there is the cruise ships.

 

In life we never know what is going to happen and as far as cruises are concerned we can either roll the dice that everything will go as planned and not purchase insurance and if something goes wrong, pay the price or we can be astute enough to purchase insurance to make sure if something does go wrong, we are covered.  

 

Respectfully, it is not good business in the hospitality industry.  People suggest insurance is a necessary additional cost to cruising.  By strict application of terms, NCL believes it is reinforcing the need to purchase insurance to guard against the risk of loss, thus increasing its profit margin.  However, it incorrectly assumes a level of risk aversion.  There is a sub population that will not lower their risk; rather, they will lower their potential loss by booking cheaper cabins. 

[PTC DAWG]

Has travel been banned by the Dr.?

[Son of a son of a ...]

3 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

What makes this case more important than any other case?  If they do it in this case, then they open themselves up legally to have to do it in every case no matter what the situation is.  I guess you won't mind having your fares raised as NCL's insurance, so they won't lose revenue.  

 

NCL waives on board and excursion costs all the time to satisfy the customer.

[NLH Arizona]

4 minutes ago, Son of a son of a ... said:

 

Respectfully, it is not good business in the hospitality industry.  People suggest insurance is a necessary additional cost to cruising.  By strict application of terms, NCL believes it is reinforcing the need to purchase insurance to guard against the risk of loss, thus increasing its profit margin.  However, it incorrectly assumes a level of risk aversion.  There is a sub population that will not lower their risk; rather, they will lower their potential loss by booking cheaper cabins. 

With NCL's recently release financials, I seriously don't think that this policy hurts them at all.  Insurance is only a necessary addition to the cost of cruising, if one wants to protect themselves from any monetary loss in case of an accident or sickness, otherwise you are not forced to purchase it.

 

I guess for me, if I didn't like the policies of a business, then I wouldn't give them any of my money.

 

As far as waiving onboard or excursions cost that is a totally different scenario, as the folks are already on the ship and have paid a fare, thus NCL wouldn't be losing that fare for that cabin.

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by NLH Arizona

[Homosassa]

First of all, if the cruises were canceled in August for cruises in the middle of December, the OP was outside final payment and should have been able to cancel without penalty (such as RCCL and the Barcelo hotel chain allowed them to do)

 

So that begs the question on what was different about the NCL cruise booking that incurred a cancellation penalty? OP gives no information on the restrictions on the cruise fare under which they booked.

 

I also agree with the numerous posters that state no special treatment of a refund  due to a cancer diagnosis is justified.

 

And as someone who once had a breast cancer diagnosis four days before a scheduled cruise, there is no reason to panic and cancel.

 

Without details on the pathology of the breast cancer, there is good possibility that the wife would have been able to cruise in December.

[NLH Arizona]

Here is NCL's cancellation policy:  https://www.ncl.com/about/cancellation-fee-schedule

[jpcdds6]

40 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

No, it isn't regardless of the sad situation. What about a sick child, what about a broken leg , etc. I would bet that almost all the reason people have to cancel a dream vacation are due to something bad or an illness ....... 

A broken leg or a sick child is not the same as battling cancer.

[terry&mike]

I'm curious, or think I missed something - diagnosed and cancelled in August for sailing in December, then you were not passed final payment, correct?

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, jpcdds6 said:

I’m saying that IN THIS CASE, the right thing to do is grant a refund. I buy insurance too. All other carriers refunded their reservations.

 

I am not aware of any other cruise line (but there could be some that we aren't familiar with) that DOES allow a refund within the "no refund penalty period".  That's what the "penalty period" is, usually with increasing percentage up until the final 100% penalty.

 

Some cruise lines even have a non-refundable deposit, starting from the date the reservation is made.  That's rough, and they changed it last year.  This line used to have a 20% deposit (and given the types of itineraries, even inside cabins are pricey), but all but $350 was refundable until a few months prior to travel when the full amount was due (and NOT refundable in any way or part).  Then... they changed it to having the *entire* deposit non-refundable.  That's REALLY harsh, but the policy is clearly stated.  Now, that has indeed caused us not to make reservations that we might have otherwise made, as we can't be sure when we make reservations 2+ years in advance.  But the ships sail FULL, and they INCREASE the price as sailing dates get closer, rather than needing to discount.

Next time we see an itinerary we like, however, we will book anyway, and get travel insurance that includes CFAR (Cancel For Any Reason) so that we'll feel quite free to cancel if the schedule later isn't working for us.

 

But we *KNOW* about the policies, and don't expect any exceptions for us.

And we don't expect exceptions for others, either, or.... why them but not us?  And *THAT* is what everyone would start demanding.

Then... prices would skyrocket, as the fare would need to include increasing proportions of people who changed their mind, for urgent reasons or just convenience.

 

Cruise ship cabins/suites are perishable.  They go "poof".  It's very unlikely that they can be sold again "later", for the same price.

Hotels are different.  Most people don't book 2 or 3 week hotel stays (although some certainly do) . But IF someone cancels a long hotel reservation, it can be resold in "bits", one or two nights here, 2 or 4 nights there, etc.  There are often last minute travelers who are changing hotel plans (especially business travelers).  Not so much for people needing to fly somewhere and then have a specific unchangeable itinerary for a couple of weeks (or longer), on short notice.  It's quite different.

 

It's no different from any other insurance.  If one chooses not to pay for homeowner's insurance (and there's no mortgage so there's no lender requiring any), then IF the house burns to the ground... who should pay?  It would be the your loss.  It was your choice to get the insurance, and as someone above phrased it, you chose to gamble, and this time you lost.

 

To OP:  Another way to think about it is:  You haven't been paying for travel insurance on all of those other cruises you say you've taken.  Okay, you've saved a lot on the insurance you did NOT buy.  You have, in effect, "self insured"... saved those premiums for a time just like this.

Many here on CC do this very purposefully.  It's a different strategy.  It's a bit riskier, as a cancellation could happen "early" before lots of premiums are "saved".  OTOH, one might never need to cancel, and thus come out ahead.

 

OP made a choice.

 

Don't blame NCL (or other cruise line).  You had a chance to purchase the insurance, and you CHOSE not to do so.

 

GC

 

[mjkacmom]

19 minutes ago, terry&mike said:

I'm curious, or think I missed something - diagnosed and cancelled in August for sailing in December, then you were not passed final payment, correct?

Maybe they booked in another country where there are different travel laws that don’t allow refunds, but do protect the consumer better than US laws in other circumstances (like if ports are missed, trip is shortened/ lengthened).

[AtlantaAlly]

1 hour ago, brookie848 said:

We always book direct, so we don't see that. We've never been offered insurance on a hotel or flight.

 

If that's the case, then there is truly no excuse for complaining about not being covered if something goes wrong.

Have you booked with Delta? It’s offered prior to purchase with every flight.

[Two Wheels Only]

Maybe the thread title should be "Not the cruise line you want to forgo travel insurance with"..?

[Son of a son of a ...]

Assume OP cancels the cabin with 100% penalty and NCL re-sells the cabin at a higher price, is that fair?  If you are inside final payment and have no insurance, then cancel the day before departure or no-show ... don’t give NCL the opportunity to make more money off your crisis.

[Sdockendorf]

That is the deal. we cancelled as soon as found out...months away from the actual cruise. we didn't ask for a refund just a credit towards a future cruise. NCL took our money, more than likely will resell our balcony mid ship room and take the gain of both. No we did not take insurance. 

[Barb Nahoumi]

OP,

 

I'm so sorry to hear about your wife's illness, and I wish her a speedy recovery.

[deliver42]

It's not a case of blaming NCL or their policies. All cruise lines have the same policies, as do airllines.It's not about policies, or having insurance or not. It's about compassion, and we all know NCL has none.

 

[mjkacmom]

2 minutes ago, deliver42 said:

It's not a case of blaming NCL or their policies. All cruise lines have the same policies, as do airllines.It's not about policies, or having insurance or not. It's about compassion, and we all know NCL has none.

 

I’ve seen similar posts on the RCL board with folks getting nothing, I usually fly United, $200 domestic fee, $400 international, but I’m free to purchase insurance on the flights. I’ve seen posts about military deployments not getting refunding because of no insurance. It’s always a sad story.

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, Homosassa said:

First of all, if the cruises were canceled in August for cruises in the middle of December, the OP was outside final payment and should have been able to cancel without penalty (such as RCCL and the Barcelo hotel chain allowed them to do)

 

 

1 hour ago, terry&mike said:

I'm curious, or think I missed something - diagnosed and cancelled in August for sailing in December, then you were not passed final payment, correct?

 

Actually, the OP stated that they received the diagnosis in August. They never said that the cancellation attempt occurred in August. We don't know exactly when that occurred.

 

If this all had happened back in August, then why wait until November to create a CC account just to post a complaint about the policy? Were they not upset about the policy in August? In September? In October? 

 

Why now?

 

Like many complaints, I feel like important details are missing since we only hear one side of the story.

[ColinIllinois]

13 minutes ago, deliver42 said:

It's not a case of blaming NCL or their policies. All cruise lines have the same policies, as do airllines.It's not about policies, or having insurance or not. It's about compassion, and we all know NCL has none.

 

 

Actually it IS about policies and insurance.