Getaway 4/27/19 Transatlantic Shortened by Two Days

[JerseyCruisers2019]

54 minutes ago, flipper32 said:

It’s highly unlikely this was bait and switch and proving it would be virtually impossible. 

 

 

Actually, it would be quite easy to prove bait & switch.   Subpoena the dry dock scheduling records and find out WHEN the decision was made to start dry dock 2 days earlier.   If that decision was made within a day or two of when the change was announced, then there's no bait & switch.....However, if the decision was made much earlier than that, then it's a textbook case of bait & switch, because even up until the date the itinerary change was announce, they were selling this trip as a 12-day cruise with 4 ports...

Edited May 22, 2019 by JerseyCruisers2019

[JSSIII1970]

Not necessarily bait and switch, more so fraud via-a-vis:  NCL continued to portray a 12 day cruise when they knew they were only going to deliver a 10 day cruise

 Nor did they give timely notice, offer cancellation or provide upfront options to accommodate impacts caused by their optional change.

For sure I would not have taken this cruise had I received timely notice.

[vwlmember]

Several people, both on the cruise and after, stated that they were sold the cruise as a 12-day voyage after we were notified of the change.  They most certainly have a case regardless of the timing of the dry dock change.

[JSSIII1970]

So for the record:

1. When did NCL have reasonable knowledge when they were likely to change the schedule?

2. When, how and to whom did NCL issue written notice of their final decision?

3. What steps did NCL take to notify ALL prospective passengers of the change.

4. Did NCL ever attempt to hide or restrain the public knowledge of the likely change.

5. What was the corporate strategy to minimize compensation if such were demanded?

6. What was the preceived financial benefit to NCL for making this change.

7. Why was shortening the cruise, as opposed to keeping to both the cruise and the repair schedules as planned, so important to NCL.

8. Why has NCL tried to minimize payment of legitimate damages caused by this discretionary change (e.g., changing flights on non-refundable tickets could/did cost thousands per person).  

[sverigecruiser]

 

Can it really be a fraud when NCL refunded a bigger part of the cruisefare than the part that was cancelled? (They cancelled 17% and refunded 25%.)

 

[Slburrough]

3 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Can it really be a fraud when NCL refunded a bigger part of the cruisefare than the part that was cancelled? (They cancelled 17% and refunded 25%.)

 

Well I don't know about you but the 25% refund was per cabin and so my share for half the cabin was a measly $149! I hardly think this is sufficient compensation for  losing two days, missing the stops in the Azores and Portland...and for going on the cold northern route. Furthermore the 25% future cruise certificate is useless to me because I will never cruise on NCL again.

[vwlmember]

7 minutes ago, Slburrough said:

Well I don't know about you but the 25% refund was per cabin and so my share for half the cabin was a measly $149! I hardly think this is sufficient compensation for  losing two days, missing the stops in the Azores and Portland...and for going on the cold northern route. Furthermore the 25% future cruise certificate is useless to me because I will never cruise on NCL again.

If you knowingly sell someone a product when you know it is being misrepresented, it is definitely fraud.  They could have told the customer upfront about the change and offered them the reduced rate right from the beginning. But then the customer could change their mind. If you sell them the product first, then offer compensation with no possibility of cancelling without penalty, you have purposely forced them into taking the cruise despite the change.

Edited May 23, 2019 by vwlmember

[sverigecruiser]

23 minutes ago, Slburrough said:

Well I don't know about you but the 25% refund was per cabin and so my share for half the cabin was a measly $149! I hardly think this is sufficient compensation for  losing two days, missing the stops in the Azores and Portland...and for going on the cold northern route. Furthermore the 25% future cruise certificate is useless to me because I will never cruise on NCL again.

 

I may have missed some posts but thought that the 25% refund was cash. If not I agree with you about that it's not good enough.

 

I think that $596 for a 12 day cruise sounds like an amazing deal.

Edited May 23, 2019 by sverigecruiser

[Slburrough]

17 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I may have missed some posts but thought that the 25% refund was cash. If not I agree with you about that it's not good enough.

 

I think that $596 for a 12 day cruise sounds like an amazing deal.

No the refund was to the card used. No cash paid out. My share of the cabin was $700 USD because my partner used a Latitudes coupon. It was a shitty cruise and I couldn't wait to get off the Getaway. It felt like we were trapped below-decks (outside decks closed) in a noisy, crowded, endless line-up of grumpy people! Never again...

[sverigecruiser]

18 minutes ago, Slburrough said:

No the refund was to the card used. No cash paid out. My share of the cabin was $700 USD because my partner used a Latitudes coupon. It was a shitty cruise and I couldn't wait to get off the Getaway. It felt like we were trapped below-decks (outside decks closed) in a noisy, crowded, endless line-up of grumpy people! Never again...

 

Ok, no cash. Not surprising! 25% of the cruisefare back on the used card is still more than 17% back on the card so I can't see how that can be fraud. (When I said cash I didn't really mean cash. What I meant was that it wasn't a future cruise credit but a 25% reduction of the fare.) 

 

 

 

[Slburrough]

1 minute ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Ok, no cash. Not surprising! 25% of the cruisefare back on the used card is still more than 17% back on the card so I can't see how that can be fraud. (When I said cash I didn't really mean cash. What I meant was that it wasn't a future cruise credit but a 25% reduction of the fare.) 

 

 

 

We were sold a 12 day cruise not a 10 day one. We were notified 2 days before the cruise sailed. Some passengers were never notified. We couldn't cancel or we would have list our money. What would YOU call that?

[sverigecruiser]

6 minutes ago, Slburrough said:

We were sold a 12 day cruise not a 10 day one. We were notified 2 days before the cruise sailed. Some passengers were never notified. We couldn't cancel or we would have list our money. What would YOU call that?

 

I would say that it was very bad handled by NCL but I will not call it a fraud.

[Montanagirlalways]

1 hour ago, JSSIII1970 said:

So for the record:

1. When did NCL have reasonable knowledge when they were likely to change the schedule?

2. When, how and to whom did NCL issue written notice of their final decision?

3. What steps did NCL take to notify ALL prospective passengers of the change.

4. Did NCL ever attempt to hide or restrain the public knowledge of the likely change.

5. What was the corporate strategy to minimize compensation if such were demanded?

6. What was the preceived financial benefit to NCL for making this change.

7. Why was shortening the cruise, as opposed to keeping to both the cruise and the repair schedules as planned, so important to NCL.

8. Why has NCL tried to minimize payment of legitimate damages caused by this discretionary change (e.g., changing flights on non-refundable tickets could/did cost thousands per person).  

Great questions 

[JerseyCruisers2019]

54 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I would say that it was very bad handled by NCL but I will not call it a fraud.

And I would say you do not understand the definition of fraud.   

NCL purposely misled its customers and potential customers by continuing to advertise this cruise as a 12-day cruise with 4 ports of call, even when they already knew they were going to cut it down to 10 days and 2 ports (there's possible evidence here on CC that some crew members knew of the itinerary change at least week BEFORE it was announced to customers).   That is the legal definition of intent to defraud...selling a product/service you already know you will not provide to the customer.  To further prove the issue of fraud, NCL did not give anyone the option to cancel for a full refund after they announced the itinerary change.   Instead, they basically thumbed their noses at us and pretty much said "f you...here's a pittance refund and credit towards a future cruise".   They already had everyone's money...the "pay in full" date had already past...we were basically extorted into taking a shitty cruise or lose our investment.

Edited May 23, 2019 by JerseyCruisers2019

[NLH Arizona]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I may have missed some posts but thought that the 25% refund was cash. If not I agree with you about that it's not good enough.

 

I think that $596 for a 12 day cruise sounds like an amazing deal.

You are correct, they gave them a 25% refund, less taxes and port charges, a 25% future cruise certificate and $300 reimbursement for lodging and transportation, if I remember correctly.

 

And I think it is an amazing deal at $596, even when you add the taxes and port fees.

[Slburrough]

1 minute ago, NLH Arizona said:

You are correct, they gave them a 25% refund, less taxes and port charges, a 25% future cruise certificate and $300 reimbursement for lodging and transportation, if I remember correctly.

 

And I think it is an amazing deal at $596, even when you add the taxes and port fees.

It wasn't $596 it was $700 USD for a total of $1,400 for the cabin. The $149 refund each was for the 25% refund, they refunded two days of port taxes because WE LOST TWO PORTS!! The 25% future credit is useless because many of us on this cruise will never sail NCL  again. The $300 credit for lodging and transportstion changes is onky obtained once you provide receipts. Generous of NCL? I don't think so!!! Royal Caribbean provided members if my family 100% refunds a few years ago AND a free future cruise!

[NLH Arizona]

5 minutes ago, Slburrough said:

It wasn't $596 it was $700 USD for a total of $1,400 for the cabin. The $149 refund each was for the 25% refund, they refunded two days of port taxes because WE LOST TWO PORTS!! The 25% future credit is useless because many of us on this cruise will never sail NCL  again. The $300 credit for lodging and transportstion changes is onky obtained once you provide receipts. Generous of NCL? I don't think so!!! Royal Caribbean provided members if my family 100% refunds a few years ago AND a free future cruise!

If you read my post, I said the 25% refund was  less taxes and port charges.  So, you thought they were going to hand you $300 without out you providing receipts.  Generous,  50% plus $300, with receipts, for missing two ports, yes I do, but if you don't that is your right to disagree.  

[JSSIII1970]

3 hours ago, JerseyCruisers2019 said:

And I would say you do not understand the definition of fraud.   

NCL purposely misled its customers and potential customers by continuing to advertise this cruise as a 12-day cruise with 4 ports of call, even when they already knew they were going to cut it down to 10 days and 2 ports (there's possible evidence here on CC that some crew members knew of the itinerary change at least week BEFORE it was announced to customers).   That is the legal definition of intent to defraud...selling a product/service you already know you will not provide to the customer.  To further prove the issue of fraud, NCL did not give anyone the option to cancel for a full refund after they announced the itinerary change.   Instead, they basically thumbed their noses at us and pretty much said "f you...here's a pittance refund and credit towards a future cruise".   They already had everyone's money...the "pay in full" date had already past...we were basically extorted into taking a shitty cruise or lose our investment.

I had quite a bit of stock in NCL. Selling it before they tank!!!  

[OscarMcSloth]

3 hours ago, NLH Arizona said:

If you read my post, I said the 25% refund was  less taxes and port charges.  So, you thought they were going to hand you $300 without out you providing receipts.  Generous,  50% plus $300, with receipts, for missing two ports, yes I do, but if you don't that is your right to disagree.  

I'm not sure what it is, maybe you have to have been a part of the cruise to fully understand but please keep in mind...

25% of the cruise fare doesn't touch the taxes or port fees. So for most people that math ends up being more like 16-18%, not 25%. Also keep in mind:

- the itinerary was modified twice from its original course

- the second itinerary change was AFTER most folks rebooked travel. This was over the holiday weekend making it a disaster when they re-added ports for those of us that made plans to go see places like Normandy after it was removed the first time... oh but wait... the $300 travel credit can cover a SECOND rebooked flight right!?!? I think not...

-50% of our ports were cut

- the NCL Cruise Portal was not updated to reflect the changes until 24 hours before sailing.

- the only notice NCL gave on the cruise portal was a vague banner that the trip had been changed, not to what, not why, no details (attached)

- Passengers were told their booked excursions for the ports that were cut and then again re-added (La Havre and Belgium) were canceled and that they would have to rebook - only to find the excursion tickets for the original purchase in their staterooms upon boarding

- the second change was made with 96 hours before sailing... 96 hours. At this point many people weren't even aware of the FIRST itinerary change, let alone a second. 

- customers, like myself that pleaded to switch to the Pearl TA or be refunded were denied, even after messaging executive leadership - we had no options

- Because of the ships northern route most of the outdoor activities remained unusable or closed

- future cruise credits and travel compensation has still not been refunded for anyone as far as I know

- this is all on top of expected inconveniences with a ship going into dry dock such as: sections of the ship being closed for prep work

 

You need to understand that what was offered was not 50%, it was not 50% mathematically or on principal. Remember this cruise went from 50% to nearly full capacity because of the RCL fiasco. You really think that after the way NCL handled this that people from RCL sailing with NCL for their first time would ever return to use their "generous" 25% future cruise credit? I'll tell you right now, most NCL loyalists won't be returning to use that credit let alone those whose first experience with NCL was this cruise. Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that NCL is counting on people not using that 25% (really 17%) future cruise credit.

 

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion but unless your a glutton for punishment the way that NCL handled this situation is/was completely unacceptable and unprofessional. I've grown up in, on and around boats, my brother was a submariner - you're kidding yourself if you don't think NCL knew when Getaway was launched when and where she would have her first refurb.

[NLH Arizona]

11 minutes ago, OscarMcSloth said:

I'm not sure what it is, maybe you have to have been a part of the cruise to fully understand but please keep in mind...

25% of the cruise fare doesn't touch the taxes or port fees. So for most people that math ends up being more like 16-18%, not 25%. Also keep in mind:

 

Obviously you didn't read my post, with regard to the 25% refund and BTW, you only lost 17%, not 25% of your cruise.

Edited May 23, 2019 by NLH Arizona

[Nebr.cruiser]

I get that this was a terrible decision on NCL's part and frustrating and maddening to the passengers.  I also don't think nearly enough compensation was offered.

 

However, don't be too sorry you didn't get on the April 28th Pearl Transatlantic.  Weather was awful, seas weren't great and the ship was pretty much shut down because of Noro virus.  We luckily didn't get ill or seasick, but many did.

 

The combination of weather and sickness meant the outside areas were mostly shut down and many venues were impacted as well.

 

We enjoyed all the ports, but several of them were cool and rainy.  I doubt if we hit 60 degrees at any time.

 

Many complained about customer service and staff; we however had only good experiences with a staff that was really under stress with all the additional cleaning, etc.

[JSSIII1970]

43 minutes ago, OscarMcSloth said:

I'm not sure what it is, maybe you have to have been a part of the cruise to fully understand but please keep in mind...

25% of the cruise fare doesn't touch the taxes or port fees. So for most people that math ends up being more like 16-18%, not 25%. Also keep in mind:

- the itinerary was modified twice from its original course

- the second itinerary change was AFTER most folks rebooked travel. This was over the holiday weekend making it a disaster when they re-added ports for those of us that made plans to go see places like Normandy after it was removed the first time... oh but wait... the $300 travel credit can cover a SECOND rebooked flight right!?!? I think not...

-50% of our ports were cut

- the NCL Cruise Portal was not updated to reflect the changes until 24 hours before sailing.

- the only notice NCL gave on the cruise portal was a vague banner that the trip had been changed, not to what, not why, no details (attached)

- Passengers were told their booked excursions for the ports that were cut and then again re-added (La Havre and Belgium) were canceled and that they would have to rebook - only to find the excursion tickets for the original purchase in their staterooms upon boarding

- the second change was made with 96 hours before sailing... 96 hours. At this point many people weren't even aware of the FIRST itinerary change, let alone a second. 

- customers, like myself that pleaded to switch to the Pearl TA or be refunded were denied, even after messaging executive leadership - we had no options

- Because of the ships northern route most of the outdoor activities remained unusable or closed

- future cruise credits and travel compensation has still not been refunded for anyone as far as I know

- this is all on top of expected inconveniences with a ship going into dry dock such as: sections of the ship being closed for prep work

 

You need to understand that what was offered was not 50%, it was not 50% mathematically or on principal. Remember this cruise went from 50% to nearly full capacity because of the RCL fiasco. You really think that after the way NCL handled this that people from RCL sailing with NCL for their first time would ever return to use their "generous" 25% future cruise credit? I'll tell you right now, most NCL loyalists won't be returning to use that credit let alone those whose first experience with NCL was this cruise. Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that NCL is counting on people not using that 25% (really 17%) future cruise credit.

 

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion but unless your a glutton for punishment the way that NCL handled this situation is/was completely unacceptable and unprofessional. I've grown up in, on and around boats, my brother was a submariner - you're kidding yourself if you don't think NCL knew when Getaway was launched when and where she would have her first refurb.

Totally agree. For me, reducing the time, by surprise, and leaving all to fix this mess, then offering essentially the cost of what was taken was a breach and fraud.  This would be like going to a 3D movie and given 50 cents back because they had no 3D glasses to give you. And worse, they knew they had no 3D glasses to hand out, but didn't tell you until after you bought your ticket.  Fraud, deception, breach of contract - NCL ought to be returning 100% to everyone, firing the idiots that did this, and NEVER allow management to do this again.  

[mugtech]

8 hours ago, Slburrough said:

We were sold a 12 day cruise not a 10 day one. We were notified 2 days before the cruise sailed. Some passengers were never notified. We couldn't cancel or we would have list our money. What would YOU call that?

Fraud

 

[NLH Arizona]

1 hour ago, Nebr.cruiser said:

I also don't think nearly enough compensation was offered.

 

I agree to some extent.  I think the as I have said on another post, the 25% refund and 25% future cruise certificate is fine, but they sould have paid for all transportation, hotel and food caused by this change, within reason, instead of just the $300, although I think what they did offer was generous.

Edited May 23, 2019 by NLH Arizona

[Newleno]

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical.  I am curious if the 25% future cruise certificate can be used on any category/timeline?  example -  Can you book a sailaway 3 days before departure with that 25% future cruise certificate?  Otherwise 25% on a cruise purchased 6 months out aint worth squat.