Itinerary subject to change at cruise lines discretion!

[rogerbid]

HI,

 

I was appalled to read the following report on www.news.com.au : (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/why-cruise-company-had-a-right-to-ruin-womans-trip/news-story/c197e946292adbdf28443602a00d3ab5 )

 

To summarise, NCL changed itinerary of a Baltic cruise and cancelled 3 (of the 5 scheduled) ports of call without explanation.  No ports were substituted thus increasing the number of sea days.  No compensation was offered to the passengers.

 

Have other members on here experienced such a change to their itineraries?  It seems to me that this is a horrendous state of affairs and effectively means that you cannot be sure of anything when booking a cruise.

 

I have enjoyed several NCL cruises but will definitely think twice about chancing my luck on another!

 

Roger B

[Texas Tillie]

Your thread title says it all. If you absolutely must go to one or more ports, a cruise is not the way to go.

[jollyjones]

Caveat emptor.

 

Read the terms and conditions in the contract before you pay for a cruise.

[whogo]

Does anyone know why the itinerary was changed?

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, whogo said:

Does anyone know why the itinerary was changed?

The article says "she would not take weather as an excuse" and "perhaps NCL should hire more experienced captains". I think this implies that the captain found the weather conditions unsafe for those skipped ports.

 

Cruise lines don't normally skip ports, especially a majority of the scheduled ports, just because the contract says that this is allowed.

[whogo]

Thanks, ontheweb. It must have been nasty weather for them to cancel three ports before sailing. "But shortly before boarding Norwegian Breakaway for the voyage in September, Ms Fennel was told the ship would be taking a different course, with three of those stops scrapped."

[Nic6318]

1 hour ago, rogerbid said:

HI,

 

I was appalled to read the following report on www.news.com.au : (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/why-cruise-company-had-a-right-to-ruin-womans-trip/news-story/c197e946292adbdf28443602a00d3ab5 )

 

To summarise, NCL changed itinerary of a Baltic cruise and cancelled 3 (of the 5 scheduled) ports of call without explanation.  No ports were substituted thus increasing the number of sea days.  No compensation was offered to the passengers.

 

Have other members on here experienced such a change to their itineraries?  It seems to me that this is a horrendous state of affairs and effectively means that you cannot be sure of anything when booking a cruise.

 

I have enjoyed several NCL cruises but will definitely think twice about chancing my luck on another!

 

Roger B

 

 

Hi Rogerbid

 

You have been a member of this site since 2004, and it would seem you have never spent any time reading the threads. 🙂

 

As you put it "it effectively means that you cannot be sure of anything when booking a cruise". While this isn't totally an accurate generalization, it is in regards to the itinerary. If you have a problem understanding, think of yourself driving to your port on cruise day... now when you are almost there you encounter a roadblock where a police officer tells you the road ahead is closed, you will have to double back and take the alternative route. … but officer, you say, I will miss my ship if I go back. Sorry she says. 😥

 

A few life lessons to be learned. Read the fine print, and have a plan B.

 

hope this helps

[thinfool]

1 hour ago, whogo said:

 "But shortly before boarding Norwegian Breakaway for the voyage in September, Ms Fennel was told the ship would be taking a different course, with three of those stops scrapped."

And yet she boarded the ship and sailed the entire (modified) itinerary.   Later she decided to try to get her money back...not gonna happen.

[sparks1093]

Yes OP, every cruise contract that I've read makes it quite clear that itineraries can change with or without notice. Some cruise lines will offer limited compensation (depending on the reason for the change) but that too is entirely within their discretion. Typically all a passenger is entitled to is a refund of port fees for the cancelled port.

[rogerbid]

Hi and thanks for your replies.

 

Yes, you are correct, I have not been a regular visitor to this forum, but have always had the site at the back of my mind when looking for inspiration.  I have referred to the site from time to time.

 

My reason in posting this question now was to get a gauge on how often this happens.  From your responses I take it that it is very rare and due only to extenuating circumstances.  If so, I can live with it😊

 

Best regards,

 

Roger

[paul929207]

Like most businesses, cruise lines are not aiming to piss off their customers. Occasionally, conditions force a change in itinerary. We just relax and enjoy where they take us.

[Aplmac]

You must admit

it's a great way to keep them on board

spending their money at the NCL shops.............

[babs135]

The article states that she knew of the changes before boarding so I wonder if she was given the option of cancelling at that point?  Losing 3 out of 5 ports is obviously upsetting but as has been said cruise lines can do this; it's a risk we all take when booking our trip.  However, I would have thought that some form of compensation could have been forthcoming having lost over 50% of the ports of call?

[rogerbid]

My apologies to all, I over-reacted when my wife read the report to me and did not take the time to give it adequate thought.  Classic case of foot in mouth!🤐

[navybankerteacher]

A line interested in customer service might be expected to permit cancellation and refund if there is to be a significant change.  I was booked on an MSC sailing from Venice to New York - when they advised it would be Hamburg to New York (the North Sea in Autumn is very different from the Mediterranean), they gave me full refund even though we were past final payment.   NCL, however, seems very diligent about maximizing revenue at every turn, so I would be surprised if they did not take full advantage of every contract clause in their favor.

[cruisemom42]

I also have been given to understand that while US customers have little recourse, there are provisions in the mandated travel insurance that, for example, UK travelers have that provide some compensation when an itinerary is "substantially altered" (which I would think missing 3 of 5 ports would qualify for).

[Aplmac]

6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

NCL, however,

seems very diligent about maximizing revenue at every turn

so I would be surprised if they did not take full advantage

of every contract clause in their favor.

.

Which ties right in with my comment above

about keeping them on board -to spend spend spend in the shops!

[sverigecruiser]

8 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

A line interested in customer service might be expected to permit cancellation and refund if there is to be a significant change.  I was booked on an MSC sailing from Venice to New York - when they advised it would be Hamburg to New York (the North Sea in Autumn is very different from the Mediterranean), they gave me full refund even though we were past final payment.   NCL, however, seems very diligent about maximizing revenue at every turn, so I would be surprised if they did not take full advantage of every contract clause in their favor.

 

I guess, only guess, that the reason why they gave you the refund was that the embarkation moved to another country. Maybe something in the fineprint is the reason for that? They can change the itinerary but maybe not the embarkation town?

[hallasm]

2 hours ago, whogo said:

Does anyone know why the itinerary was changed?

Due to very bad weather conditions- cold and bad weather should be expected on a Baltic cruise at the end of September - safety first and not another Viking Sky incident -  here is a link to the Actual Roll Call

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

A line interested in customer service might be expected to permit cancellation and refund if there is to be a significant change.  I was booked on an MSC sailing from Venice to New York - when they advised it would be Hamburg to New York (the North Sea in Autumn is very different from the Mediterranean), they gave me full refund even though we were past final payment.   NCL, however, seems very diligent about maximizing revenue at every turn, so I would be surprised if they did not take full advantage of every contract clause in their favor.

 

51 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I guess, only guess, that the reason why they gave you the refund was that the embarkation moved to another country. Maybe something in the fineprint is the reason for that? They can change the itinerary but maybe not the embarkation town?

Navybankerteacher,  it seem you are always lying in wait to take advantage of a chance to say something negative about NCL,  from food to whatever else might irk you at the moment, but if you took five seconds to read NCL's Guest Ticket Contract you would find that while a change in ports of call specifically is permissible at the cruise lines discretion, as it is for every cruise line I'm familiar with, there is nothing in the contract that permits NCL to change the port of embarkation . Since the contract speaks to ports of call but not ports of embarkation if NCL were to change the embarkation port as happened to you with MSC,  NCL would also be obligated to refund the fare. So MSC wasn't being nice to you versus NCL being mean. A change in embarkation port would be a breach of contract by the cruise line.

 

By the way, every cruise line is diligent about taking full advantage of every contractual clause in their favor. In fact pretty much every corporation engaged in every type of business is. Some may be a bit more willing at times to bend in the interest of customer goodwill, but there's a reason why the contract you enter into with any business has all its i's dotted and t's crossed. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by njhorseman

[John Bull]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I also have been given to understand that while US customers have little recourse, there are provisions in the mandated travel insurance that, for example, UK travelers have that provide some compensation when an itinerary is "substantially altered" (which I would think missing 3 of 5 ports would qualify for).

 

Yes, very different terms for those booking in Europe, and that's part of the reason for higher prices than for those booking in the US.

UK / EU laws on the product being substantially as advertised give the rights of cancellation or adequate compensation if the changes materially alter the product and are within the control of the cruise line. Bad weather of course isn't in the cruise line's control (but cancelling 3 ports before even casting off ?????), nor are things like industrial action or civil unrest in the ports, but  certainly cruise lines are required to provide (or compensate for) things that are within their control.

I was once successful in gaining compensation for missing an important (to us) port-of-call due to a mechanical issue, which of course was within the cruise line's control . It required perseverance but didn't go to Court because the cruise line settled.

I don't think an American would have had a cat's chance in hell of getting redress beyond the port fees.

 

If this link works in the US, it'll be interesting to compare NCL's terms with those on their .com website

https://www.ncl.com/uk/en/about-us/terms-conditions-uk

 

JB 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, whogo said:

Thanks, ontheweb. It must have been nasty weather for them to cancel three ports before sailing. "But shortly before boarding Norwegian Breakaway for the voyage in September, Ms Fennel was told the ship would be taking a different course, with three of those stops scrapped."

Your welcome. I hope the comments by me and by others have convinced you that this is allowed, but not the standard procedure. Think about it in this age of internet communication, the word would spread rapidly, and that would have a real negative effect on people wishing to book cruises.

 

In our personal experience, we only came close to missing a port once. We had trouble due to a hurricane getting to our disembarkation port of Fort Lauderdale and got there 2 days late.

[momofmeg]

6 hours ago, rogerbid said:

HI,

 

I was appalled to read the following report on www.news.com.au : (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/why-cruise-company-had-a-right-to-ruin-womans-trip/news-story/c197e946292adbdf28443602a00d3ab5 )

 

To summarise, NCL changed itinerary of a Baltic cruise and cancelled 3 (of the 5 scheduled) ports of call without explanation.  No ports were substituted thus increasing the number of sea days.  No compensation was offered to the passengers.

 

Have other members on here experienced such a change to their itineraries?  It seems to me that this is a horrendous state of affairs and effectively means that you cannot be sure of anything when booking a cruise.

 

I have enjoyed several NCL cruises but will definitely think twice about chancing my luck on another!

 

Roger B

 My last Celebrity cruise we missed San Juan , Puerto Rico because something was wrong with the ship and it had to go extra slow, like 5 knots an hour less.  However. they  could have offered us something. A free dinner in  a cheaper specialty or if that was too much a couple of free drinks. All we got  was a refund of port fees since we missed the port. No port of course no port fee.

 

But that is not the worst. They knew the ship had the issue while still in Europe and a dry dock was scheduled a month after our cruise. We were the first cruise in the Caribbean after their transatlantic re-position.  If only they had been honest and scheduled only 2 ports instead of 3 from the get go.  Or better yet, picked 3 ports nearer to  Ft. Lauderdale as we were an over crowded ship since that was Thanksgiving week and it would have been nice to get away form the crowd one more day.

 

anyway I was pretty peeved with them. I have not been on them since and that was 5 years ago.

[TonyB17]

3 hours ago, Aplmac said:

.

Which ties right in with my comment above

about keeping them on board -to spend spend spend in the shops!

I'm not a defender of NCL (or any company) but that doesn't make sense.  A little conservative math:  1000 people booking an excursion through the ship at $100 each x 3 ports is $300,000.  Is there $300,000 of inventory in the shops on the ship?  I think the company wound up losing a lot more money cancelling the ports.  If anything, they may have lost even more money with the increase in alcohol being served, since most passengers are on the drink package.  If it's a scheme to make money, I'm having trouble seeing how it pencils out.

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, TonyB17 said:

I'm not a defender of NCL (or any company) but that doesn't make sense.  A little conservative math:  1000 people booking an excursion through the ship at $100 each x 3 ports is $300,000.  Is there $300,000 of inventory in the shops on the ship?  I think the company wound up losing a lot more money cancelling the ports.  If anything, they may have lost even more money with the increase in alcohol being served, since most passengers are on the drink package.  If it's a scheme to make money, I'm having trouble seeing how it pencils out.

 

The cruise line does not get the full amount of a shore excursion, more like 6-8% (maybe 10%) as a commission.  The rest goes to the excursion provider.