Dream Settlement

[kirbmeister]

According to a local news story in Utah tonight Norwegian has settled a complaint by the state over the Dream missing ports and not informing passengers beforehand about engine problems:

 

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=169949

[cruiser-dude]

Thank you for your post. Interesting, huh?

[ute_fan]

Here's an article from our local newspaper this morning about the same subject. Guess the folks who were on the cruise should have read the cruise critic boards before they left, and at least they would have known what to expect.

 

I actually have a problem with the way the story is written, because this was the week of hurricane Wilma, and a lot of the problem was beyond NCL's control. They definitely would have missed either Belize or Roatan -- I forget which stop was being eliminated --- but missing Cancun, Belize, and Roatan, with the substitution of Progresso -- was due to the hurricane.

 

 

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635188484,00.html

 

Vacation dream turns into nightmare

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[kirbmeister]

At least the rhetoric was tuned down for the newspaper article. In the TV reporting missing the ports was repeatedly referred to as a scam.

[Carolyn1950]

Yep, I loved how they called the hurricane 'bad weather".. Ya Think!

Only a fool would sail head on into a hurricane.. Glad the gal with the petition wasn't behind the wheel..

[kirbmeister]

Yep, I loved how they called the hurricane 'bad weather".. Ya Think!

Only a fool would sail head on into a hurricane.. Glad the gal with the petition wasn't behind the wheel..

 

The report claims 1100 passengers (out of 1600) signed the petition. Carolyn, did you ever see a petition?

[Velvet Teddy Bear]

Hi all....

 

Carolyn, are they giving an additional $200.00 over the original that was given to us on board ship....???? that would be great..BUT....I don't think that is the way it is....do you....

 

jus me .....jim.....the velvet teddy bear....:cool:

[kirbmeister]

My impression from the stories is that it was $200 (per person, not cabin) in addition to any compensation received onboard.

[karen2cruz]

Hi Carolyn and everyone,

 

We saw the petition, and the crew allowed the passengers the stage as a forum while we were waiting to go on shore excursions in Progresso. We didnt sign it. We had a lovely cruise without all the ports. Were we disappointed not to go to Roatan and Belize? sure...but it was a good excuse to book another cruise.

 

By the way, passsengers on our cruise received a letter with a $200 credit to be used within a year for another cruise. Sounded reasonable.

 

The Dream crew and ship are lovely,and if it sailed Alaska in 2007 we would book without hesitation.

 

Karen

[Carolyn1950]

The report claims 1100 passengers (out of 1600) signed the petition. Carolyn, did you ever see a petition?

 

You couldn't miss the petition, it was in your face frequently.. Those folks really caused some havoc..They clogged up the passage ways trying to get folks to sign..

 

"reimbursing all Utah passengers on the Davis' cruise with $200"

Jim, this sounds like they are getting 200 per person above and beyond what we got on board. Because...they already have the 200.00 credit like us, so I am certain this is extra.. We should be getting the 200.00 for having to put up with them.. I wrote NCL about my displeasure of them allowing Davis to get on stage prior to the show and discuss her petition..

NCL wrote back and said the itinery change was due to the weather and I got 200.00, thank you very much. I was like, HUH? I got the normal form letter I am sure, guess mine hit file 13..

I had no problem with the itinery change, I knew of the broken engine prior to boarding.. But I had a big problem with Davis.. It caused division among the passengers as this was the main topic of conversation.. NCL wouldn't let us announce the scheduling change of our crusie critic meeting on the intercom which was changed due the Dream's late arrival, yet they let Davis announce about her meeting in the reception area.. That did not set well with me..

But I guess this proves what we all know, the squeaky wheel gets the oil..

 

 

edit: Karen, I didn't know about Davis getting the stage a second time.. I saw her on stage just prior to the show, Sea Legs.

[mbisson]

Sounds like the Davis family would've enjoyed their cruise more had they not spent the week leading a crusade!

 

-Monte

[NormanW]

How many folks actually read the paperwork (CONTRACT) from beginning to end? How many do and shrug their shoulders and say "oh well that rarely happens" ? Folks it's a contract. Mr. Murphy is on every ship.

 

Cheers,

 

Norman

[Carolyn1950]

Here's an article from our local newspaper this morning about the same subject. Guess the folks who were on the cruise should have read the cruise critic boards before they left, and at least they would have known what to expect.

 

I actually have a problem with the way the story is written, because this was the week of hurricane Wilma, and a lot of the problem was beyond NCL's control. They definitely would have missed either Belize or Roatan -- I forget which stop was being eliminated --- but missing Cancun, Belize, and Roatan, with the substitution of Progresso -- was due to the hurricane.

 

 

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635188484,00.html

 

Vacation dream turns into nightmare

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is where a lot of folks are confused.. We did not miss Roatan due to the hurricane.. We were given letters as we waited to board stating that due to the engine problems, we were NOT going to Roatan.. THEN the hurricane happened.. And the hurricane knocked out the Belize stop..

Missiing Roatan in the beginning had absolutely nothing to do with huricane Wilma.. Roatan was off the schedule before many of us even left home for the ship... Travel agents were notified on Thursday that we were not going to Roatan..

 

And to assume everyone should have read the Cruise Critic board to be better informed.. I visited with elderly people on the cruise that don't even own a computer.. What about them?

[kirbmeister]

 

And to assume everyone should have read the Cruise Critic board to be better informed.. I visited with elderly people on the cruise that don't even own a computer.. What about them?

 

I understand that not everyone does or can read cruise critic. A point I made on the blog to the television station that ran the story and repeatedly referred to this as a "cruise scam" was that people who cruise should be aware of the logistics of cruising. "Elderly people who dont even own a computer" more than likely booked through a travel agent, who should have been aware of the ongoing engine problems with the Dream (they weren't exactly a tightly held NCL secret).

 

The news story made it sound like NCL was trying to deceive passengers and didn't recognize that this is an issue which affects the whole cruising industry.

 

The headline in the newspaper story makes it sound like the case went to court and NCL lost, when in truth NCL chose pay out a small amount of money to get rid of the issue.

[ute_fan]

My post about everyone needing to read CC was really TIC -- obviously, not everyone has access to a computer, or if they do, they may not know about cruisecritic or similar message boards.

 

My point was that, while one port was eliminated due to engine troubles, the remaining ports were cancelled or substituted due to the hurricane, which is not even mentioned in the newspaper article. It makes it sound as though the entire change in the itinerary was due to the engine problems.

 

Could NCL have handled the matter differently and with better customer service? I think the answer to that is obviously "yes", and since I wasn't directly involved, I don't know what compensation was given for the "scheduled missed port", if any. Trying to blame NCL for the remaining change in itinerary, due to a hurricane occuring in the middle of hurricane season, is a bit ridiculous however.

[kirbmeister]

This is where a lot of folks are confused.. We did not miss Roatan due to the hurricane.. We were given letters as we waited to board stating that due to the engine problems, we were NOT going to Roatan.. THEN the hurricane happened.. And the hurricane knocked out the Belize stop..

Missiing Roatan in the beginning had absolutely nothing to do with huricane Wilma.. Roatan was off the schedule before many of us even left home for the ship... Travel agents were notified on Thursday that we were not going to Roatan..

 

I can't speak for other posters, but I understood that Roatan was missed because of engine problems. The news stories however blamed missing both ports on the engine problems. The hurricane or weather at all were never mentioned.

 

NCL is according to the TV news reports running a scam, because according to the news stories they never intended to make it to those two ports and made an effort to hide it from passengers.

 

My issue here was more with the news station (which is a well respected station) for sloppy research and reporting on this story.

[sunshine 229]

I think I am going to take the minority view here, ( surprise, surprise) but I am glad to see the passengers getting the extra $200 compensation.

 

I agree that the newspaper put a sensational spin on the story by reporting it as a 'scam', but I also think that the current cruise contract is ridiculously one sided and, having followed a lot of posts about the Dream, at the time this was all going on, I also feel that NCL did purposely mis-lead or fail to inform passengers of the engine problems and the changes in itinerary that those engine problems would entail, and that they continued to sell cruises listing a certain itinerary when they knew it was not a realistic expectation that they would be able to deliver those ports.

 

Yes, NCL did not lose the case but, I don't think NCL willingly throws money away so I have to figure that they settled because they realized that there was a fair possibility that they would lose the case.

[Carolyn1950]

Btw, in the petition, the petitioners were asking for a 100% refund..

[cruiser-dude]

In the case of the Dream, NCL was "lucky" in that an unusual hurricane season popped up at a time when ill-disclosed engine problems were the main reason for missing ports. This allowed a shift to blame weather for some of the problems, which only amplified the already poor situation. The engine problems were incurred in Alaska, in August, and continued through November with nothing but minimal compensation for shortened itineraries given to pasengers after they were already aboard. No prior disclosure of this ongoing problem to any passengers. We sailed Nov 19 and the engine was just fixed - lucky for us! In the case of these itineraries, NCL knew for quite a while that they would not be able to sail the sold itinerary and kept selling, did not change the itinerary on the website, and did not inform passengers into well into the cancellation penalty period. When it was finally put on the internet, they later pulled it... It's not hard to research this. While things happen, NCL's lack of disclosure and decisions that seem only short-termed caused the problem they are facing, not "bad" passengers. The situation was worsened by NCL's decisions.

[Velvet Teddy Bear]

Hi all. We also were on this crtuise...it was great....couldn't ask for a Captian to do a better job keeping us out of the bad weather....BUT HAVING TO BE BOMBARDED by those people wanting you to sign their petition .....was BAD.....:eek: and please don't tell me they didn't know, going in, that the ship was having troubles......they would have to be both deaf and blind.......:rolleyes: .it was a good trip....and MOST people enjoyed thenselves.

 

till we all said again (11/25/06).....on the DREAM

 

jus' me....jim....the velvet teddy bear....:cool:

[bboyack]

Been on a few cruises, and I have always been aware that there might be a change in itinerary. I love being on the ship, no matter. We did 11 days Ensenada - Hawaii in Dec. 03 on RCCL Legend of the Seas. The first sea day out, about noon we noticed we were turning around. The captain came on the P.A. and announced we were possibly returning to San Diego due to a crew member being burned in an explosion on board and needing medical care. He mentioned that if we had to go back the entire way or at least far enough to get him to medical care by helicopter, we might miss our first Hawaii port. I couldn't believe some of the negative comments by some passengers. All I could think of was if that was my loved one, I would want him or her getting medical care as soon as possible. As it turned out, we went back about 5 hours and it was close enough for a Navy helicopter with extra fuel tanks to get over our ship and take the crew member to San Diego. We turned back toward Hawaii and the captain made up speed and we were fine with our ports. If I missed one of them, oh well sea days are great. And the crew member ended up recovering from what I heard. Thank goodness.

[beachchick]

Hi all. Haven't cruised with NCL (yet, planning to this year), but have cruised with RCI, Princess, and the short-lived US Lines, as well as Norwegian Coastal Voyages. I am boggled over all this.

 

Even new cruisers are responsible for knowing the terms of their cruise contracts. While I agree that the terms of passage are extremely one sided (especially regarding the cruise lines' ability to take your money for X, but give you Y), we still have to live with them or not cruise. Now, if I pay for a 7-night cruise, but a cruise line (for whatever reason) decides that it's going to be a 3-night cruise, I expect compensation because that is an entirely differerent product. However, if I pay for a 7-night cruise and the cruise line gives me a 7-night cruise, then they have fulfilled the contract. What grounds do these pax have to sue? The cruise contracts clearly state that the cruise line may cancel or substitute ports for any reason or none.

 

From a purely public relations standpoint, the cruise lines should heed the dissatisfaction of so many cruisers with some of the issues. For example, when a cruise line substitutes a cool weather cruise (Canada) for a warm weather cruise (Bermuda or the Caribbean), what's going to matter to most pax is that the entire cruise has been changed. It would be smart to give pax a choice of cancelling with no penalty (but for a future cruise credit rather than refund) or taking the alternate cruise with a small "we're sorry" OBC. This would go miles in creating and keeping good will, especially with new cruisers. I realize that the cruise lines aren't required to do this, but it would be smart. Look at the bad publicity here (and with the QMII situation, which frankly boggled me even more than this considering that the pax were offered pretty fair compensation right from the get-go). It would be a small investment to keep new cruisers cruising and attract more people to cruising. Regardless of whether the media sensationalizes any of this, many people who might have chosen a cruise will decide to use their vacation dollars elsewhere.

 

On our US Patriot cruise, the ship broke mid-cruise, so instead of going from Kauai to Maui, we went back to Honolulu. After half a day, the captain determined that the problem couldn't be fixed in time to complete the cruise. First (when it was thought that the ship would be delayed by less than a day), pax were offered a 50% refund, and help with any changed air or other bookings if it became necessary. Ultimately, we were offered the opportunity to remain onboard (in Hawaii, oh how sad for us; LOL) plus a small OBC, a 100% refund of the cruise, and a 50% off certificate for a future cruise. As well, pax who chose to leave were offered help in changing air, etc. Many pax were upset and said it wasn't enough, but exactly what more could they expect the cruiseline to do?

 

No matter my disappointment, I certainly wouldn't interfere with other pax enjoyment by cluttering the passageways and trying to force them to sign a petition because I didn't get everything I expected.

 

As always, JMHO.

 

beachchick

[Velvet Teddy Bear]

JUST READ THE CONTRACT....THATS ALL....

 

 

jus' me...jim the velvet teddy bear:cool:

[ocngypz]

I have a question.... did the sailing the week before make her original ports....?? If not, where did she go?

 

I'll bet my last dollar, they aren't going to get cash, but a future cruise certificate

[elleluv]

Great post, Beachchick.....

 

 

Yes, NCL did not lose the case but, I don't think NCL willingly throws money away so I have to figure that they settled because they realized that there was a fair possibility that they would lose the case.

 

 

I don't think they settled because they thought they would lose the case.... My guess is that they saw it as a nuisance suit that would cost more in attorney's fees to defend than it would to settle. The longer these things drag on the more it costs them in fees and bad publicity.