NCL Breakaway 07-17-22 HAVEN SUITE NO TOILET

[DCGuy64]

3 hours ago, david_sobe said:

You may want to go back and read what you wrote that it "Should NOT' take 3 days to fix a line problem.   What expertise do you have to make such a statement?  You are a maritime plumber who was on board and diagnosed the problem?  Sometimes it takes more than 3 days.  I never twisted any of your words.  That is what you wrote.    Now you are saying NCL does not have properly trained mechanics and plumbers that have no expertise?  Just wow.  How would you know that?   Clogged toilets happen on ever cruise ship almost every sailing.   Its not NCL's fault someone flushed personal items down the toilet.  Its not NCL's fault it was so bad it clogged major lines and impacted many and took a few days to fix.  You realize if cruise lines cancelled a cruise for a few clogged toilets that ships would never sail.

Agreed.

[graphicguy]

16 hours ago, david_sobe said:

So NCL purposely took 3 days to fix everything when they could have gotten it fixed in one day?   Not only is NCL to blame for someone's pratfall but now they are purposely delaying to fix the problem?   Not a good thing to happen but clearly there are much worse things that can happen on a cruise ship.  Its fine to vent but the conspiracy theories of NCL delaying repair is getting a bit ridiculous.  Clogged toilets happen every day on every cruise ship.  Sewage will also sometimes creep up in your sink and shower too.  This is the nature of sailing ships.   Some want to twist my words of not being sympathetic. Not true at all but some of the things written here are a tad crazy.  If this happened to someone in another cabin, they would be offered to move.  However when you sail the Haven, its sold out and there is nowhere to go except downgrade.  Every time I have sailed the Haven, there are 3 restrooms that NO ONE ever uses in the Haven complex.  Throw in a meal at Cagneys and I would be content for just walking out my cabin door and down the hall to the restroom for a couple of days.

Problem Solved.

[Yesimapirate]

4 hours ago, david_sobe said:

Not sure what you are saying.  You may want to read my post.  I am not the one that is questioning the OP.  That was someone else.   Many are playing like expert maritime plumbers who were on board and allege it could have been fixed in one day.  Pretty silly argument and childish IMHO.  These things happen every cruise.  You must roll with the punches while cruising.  A little inconvenient for a few says but you will survive.  Many posts blame NCL for the problem and then blame NCL for not fixing it on purpose for 3 days.  I don't believe either situation because that is silly to believe.  If it rained during the cruise is it NCL's fault too?  They cant stop dumb people for flushing personal items down a nautical toilet which clogs major lines which impacts multiple cabins.

I don't think most of us pay for a luxury experience just to survive. 

 

People here freak out over a missed port or a brand of alcohol running out.   Those are things that happen and aren't a big deal.   You are singing a contract for a room.  A working bathroom is integral to that room being inhabital.  A building would not get a certificate of occupancy without working toilets.  The room description specifically lists a bathroom.

 

I personally would value the room at 75% of my cruise fare for the day and think a 30 to 35% return of the cost is appropriate. .

 

 Let me add, I don't believe for a second that the people who think this isn't an issue would look at their spouse or family and tell them to get over because they'll survive.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Yesimapirate
Edit

[mjkacmom]

13 minutes ago, Yesimapirate said:

I don't think most of us pay for a luxury experience just to survive. 

 

People here freak out over a missed port or a brand of alcohol running out.   Those are things that happen and aren't a big deal.   You are singing a contract for a room.  A working bathroom is integral to that room being inhabital.  A building would not get a certificate of occupancy without working toilets.  The room description specifically lists a bathroom.

 

I personally would value the room at 75% of my cruise fare for the day and think a 30 to 35% return of the cost is appropriate. .

 

 Let me add, I don't believe for a second that the people who think this isn't an issue would look at their spouse or family and tell them to get over because they'll survive.

A friend recently stayed at a hotel for work, had some client meetings the next morning. Woke up, went to shower, there was no lever to turn the water on. She had to wait for maintenance to come and turn the water on, and she missed her meeting. The hotel offered to comp her breakfast, ended up refunding her the cost of her room.

[notscb]

4 hours ago, david_sobe said:

Not sure what you are saying.  You may want to read my post.  I am not the one that is questioning the OP.  That was someone else.   Many are playing like expert maritime plumbers who were on board and allege it could have been fixed in one day.  Pretty silly argument and childish IMHO.  These things happen every cruise.  You must roll with the punches while cruising.  A little inconvenient for a few says but you will survive.  Many posts blame NCL for the problem and then blame NCL for not fixing it on purpose for 3 days.  I don't believe either situation because that is silly to believe.  If it rained during the cruise is it NCL's fault too?  They cant stop dumb people for flushing personal items down a nautical toilet which clogs major lines which impacts multiple cabins.

 

Thanks for the clarification, that's not how I read your post so I appreciate it.

You're right in that NCL wouldn't purposefully let something go on for that long unless they were struggling to fix it (or a guest somewhere kept flushing the wrong thing). I think a lot of these comments assume bad intentions, which is maybe why I misread your post.

 

I still think that customers deserve something back for not having a usable toilet in their room, especially folks who paid a high premium for what NCL markets as a "luxury-" esque experience.

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, notscb said:

 

Thanks for the clarification, that's not how I read your post so I appreciate it.

You're right in that NCL wouldn't purposefully let something go on for that long unless they were struggling to fix it (or a guest somewhere kept flushing the wrong thing). I think a lot of these comments assume bad intentions, which is maybe why I misread your post.

 

I still think that customers deserve something back for not having a usable toilet in their room, especially folks who paid a high premium for what NCL markets as a "luxury-" esque experience.

 

First, I disagree with your last statement. A toilet is a basic necessity...not something that should fall under "especially folks who paid a high premium". A rich person's toilet is no more or less important than any other.

 

That said...I agree with you that customers deserve something back in these situations. However, it is really up to the business (NCL in this case) as to a) whether or not to offer something, and b) exactly what that something should be. I don't particularly like the consumer who immediately puts out their hand EXPECTING compensation. For example "My question for everyone is what would feel is appropriate consideration for this very large inconvenience?".

 

Everyone's focus should be on: What is the problem? How can it be fixed/repaired? How quickly and safely can the repairs be made? What is the interim solution? How can we prevent this issue in the future? The focus should NOT be on: "pay me".

 

[cruiseny4life]

3 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

First, I disagree with your last statement. A toilet is a basic necessity...not something that should fall under "especially folks who paid a high premium". A rich person's toilet is no more or less important than any other.

 

That said...I agree with you that customers deserve something back in these situations. However, it is really up to the business (NCL in this case) as to a) whether or not to offer something, and b) exactly what that something should be. I don't particularly like the consumer who immediately puts out their hand EXPECTING compensation. For example "My question for everyone is what would feel is appropriate consideration for this very large inconvenience?".

 

Everyone's focus should be on: What is the problem? How can it be fixed/repaired? How quickly and safely can the repairs be made? What is the interim solution? How can we prevent this issue in the future? The focus should NOT be on: "pay me".

 

Oh boy, at the risk of being scolded - I would most certainly be thinking "pay me." I do agree a toilet is a basic necessity - Haven rooms should get just as much toilet service as someone in an interior room. Maybe the toilet will be chromed out, with gold inlays, but it should function properly.

 

Yes, there should be an appropriate timeframe for something to be fixed - a couple hours, maybe a whole day. I don't know the intricacies of cruise ship plumbing (and with a couple exceptions, I doubt most on this board do). I do know that in business you need to provide compensation when something breaks or isn't usable, IF you want to be a business that is considered highly by consumers. 

 

You are correct that NCL may offer compensation, or may choose to ignore a customer's plight without a working bathroom for three days. If this were my husband and I, I wouldn't care - we can walk. If my grandmother were in the room, then I would care, as she has a walker, oxygen, etc., so it's a whole production to get her up and going. 

 

In this specific case, if the facts are 3 days without a toilet, no offer of a different room (even non-Haven), then I would absolutely be demanding compensation as the consumer. I might not be successful, but I would also let my credit card company know that I did not receive a product as promised , though I kind of doubt the terms and conditions of a cruise state "operable toilet in the stateroom."

 

I'd let my CC and NCL battle it out, then accept the decision, but certainly let every consumer know what the heck happened (positive for me, or not).

[SeaShark]

Interesting that we're four pages into the thread without any discussion of the CAUSE of the issue.

 

Somebody broke the plumbing. Somebody caused inconvenience for both NCL and a large number of NCL's guests. Somebody put NCL in the spot where now NCL has to provide "compensation" to people simply because not everything works perfectly 100% of the time.

 

What sort of action should NCL take against that somebody? What sort of "compensation" should somebody have to provide to NCL for the damage they did? Should the affected guests be receiving their compensation from that somebody? Remember, NCL's property was damaged...they are a victim in this as well.

 

Of course, some will say "I don't care about NCL. That is their problem, not mine. I'm only concerned about getting MY compensation". What a world we live in when Person A can screw over Company B and then Person C comes along to demand compensation from Company B as a result. Person A gets off scot free

[hallux]

25 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

Yes, there should be an appropriate timeframe for something to be fixed - a couple hours, maybe a whole day. I don't know the intricacies of cruise ship plumbing (and with a couple exceptions, I doubt most on this board do).

and someone who DOES know, @chengkp75, related a story in the other thread on this topic about a couple situations that resulted in several days of effort to clear a clog and restore service.  Maybe he can relate it here as well, or people can go read it in the other thread linked below (linked directly to his post)-

 

[mjkacmom]

9 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Interesting that we're four pages into the thread without any discussion of the CAUSE of the issue.

 

Somebody broke the plumbing. Somebody caused inconvenience for both NCL and a large number of NCL's guests. Somebody put NCL in the spot where now NCL has to provide "compensation" to people simply because not everything works perfectly 100% of the time.

 

What sort of action should NCL take against that somebody? What sort of "compensation" should somebody have to provide to NCL for the damage they did? Should the affected guests be receiving their compensation from that somebody? Remember, NCL's property was damaged...they are a victim in this as well.

 

Of course, some will say "I don't care about NCL. That is their problem, not mine. I'm only concerned about getting MY compensation". What a world we live in when Person A can screw over Company B and then Person C comes along to demand compensation from Company B as a result. Person A gets off scot free

It’s NCL’s problem, the cost of doing business.

[notscb]

4 hours ago, SeaShark said:

A toilet is a basic necessity

 

...And I would agree with that? It's not like there weren't toilets available onboard in this case, just not available in the OP's (and many other's) staterooms. My comment was to factor in the increased cost the cruisers pay in the Haven for a luxury experience, and to have any element of that room not be in order doesn't reflect well on NCL.

 

21 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

What sort of action should NCL take against that somebody?

On RCL, they have a sign in the bathroom that indicates the guest who caused the blockage can be fined and held responsible if they are deemed responsible. It's not like holding whoever caused the initial backup responsible isn't a thing in the industry.

 

4 hours ago, SeaShark said:

Everyone's focus should be on: What is the problem? How can it be fixed/repaired? How quickly and safely can the repairs be made? What is the interim solution? How can we prevent this issue in the future? The focus should NOT be on: "pay me".

 

It seems like you're conflating the needs of the cruise line vs the needs of the passengers who are paid guests expecting a service to be rendered. Think of this situation from a consumer advocacy perspective- NCL promised these (and many other guests) a certain level of service that wasn't met. What obligation does NCL have to these guests? Nobody is "expecting" a handout, even the original OP said "I would appreciate feedback on what everyone believes is fair and reasonable."

 

25 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Interesting that we're four pages into the thread without any discussion of the CAUSE of the issue.

 

See the original post.

[Travelicious]

6 hours ago, Yesimapirate said:

I personally would value the room at 75% of my cruise fare for the day and think a 30 to 35% return of the cost is appropriate.

This is the most reasonable analysis in the whole thread.

[SeaShark]

...And I would agree with that? It's not like there weren't toilets available onboard in this case, just not available in the OP's (and many other's) staterooms. My comment was to factor in the increased cost the cruisers pay in the Haven for a luxury experience, and to have any element of that room not be in order doesn't reflect well on NCL.

--->Increased cost has nothing to do with it (which was my point). Things break and break down no matter what the cost or expectation. Even a Rolls Royce needs repaired now and again.

 

 

On RCL, they have a sign in the bathroom that indicates the guest who caused the blockage can be fined and held responsible if they are deemed responsible. It's not like holding whoever caused the initial backup responsible isn't a thing in the industry.

 

 

 

It seems like you're conflating the needs of the cruise line vs the needs of the passengers who are paid guests expecting a service to be rendered. Think of this situation from a consumer advocacy perspective- NCL promised these (and many other guests) a certain level of service that wasn't met. What obligation does NCL have to these guests? Nobody is "expecting" a handout, even the original OP said "I would appreciate feedback on what everyone believes is fair and reasonable."

--->Not conflating, I'm looking at the WHOLE picture, not just one little portion in order to make a point. Your "think of this situation from a..." tact is the exact opposite. This is more than just one-sided. And yes, the handout was expected....the OP specifically asked about compensation as opposed to, for example, asking "Did NCL handle this in an appropriate manner?".

 

 

See the original post.

--->That is my point. It was MENTIONED in the original post. "Discussion" means it should be mentioned in multiple posts. The cause was stated in the thread, but it was not discussed.

[Pizzasteve]

54 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Interesting that we're four pages into the thread without any discussion of the CAUSE of the issue.

 

Somebody broke the plumbing. Somebody caused inconvenience for both NCL and a large number of NCL's guests. Somebody put NCL in the spot where now NCL has to provide "compensation" to people simply because not everything works perfectly 100% of the time.

 

What sort of action should NCL take against that somebody? What sort of "compensation" should somebody have to provide to NCL for the damage they did? Should the affected guests be receiving their compensation from that somebody? Remember, NCL's property was damaged...they are a victim in this as well.

 

Of course, some will say "I don't care about NCL. That is their problem, not mine. I'm only concerned about getting MY compensation". What a world we live in when Person A can screw over Company B and then Person C comes along to demand compensation from Company B as a result. Person A gets off scot free

Very interesting comment and got me thinking about a scenario.  Say NCL comps cruisers generously for clogged toilets.  Could that not perhaps incentivize clogging toilets?  Someone might deliberately flush a depends down their toilet, calls maintenence, and start demanding a free or deeply discounted cruise, denying any responsibility (it was the prior passenger, not me, I dont even use those...).

 

One can see immediately why being too generous might create an issue.  People can be just greedy enough to do stuff like that.  Anyway, just food for thought as $ amounts get thrown around.

 

I stick by my thoughts that a 15-20% refund seems fair, given the story as told by OP. Just my personal opinion.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Pizzasteve

[laudergayle]

I sure hope the OP reports back and doesn’t ghost us.  

[notscb]

1 hour ago, SeaShark said:

asking "Did NCL handle this in an appropriate manner?".

 

I think OP pointed out that there was a clear lack of empathy from the crew onboard in their original post, before asking what sort of compensation would be appropriate to ask for. They also provided an update on page 2: "All I received was excuses as to why nothing could be done on board and I had to deal with NCL Corporate and that they would be in touch."

 

1 hour ago, SeaShark said:

it was not discussed.

 I guess I'm wondering what more there is to be discussed about the cause. We know that there was a backup that affected many customers on this cruise. There's a whole other thread about it from another passenger as well. What's the point in speculating the cause when the question is around NCL's responsibility to provide a basic level of service to its passengers? As you argued: a toilet is a toilet, regardless of cruise cost. NCL didn't provide in room toilets for three days.

 

It's up to NCL to figure out the details of what happened and resolve it, not for us to speculate about it.

 

Your original point was person A in this situation getting off "scott free," which I addressed in my original response to you. Cruise lines do hold Person A accountable if they can back trace which cabin caused the original issue. Would you argue, then, that person B,C,D,E,F,G, and so on who didn't have a toilet for three days in their cabin don't deserve anything?

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by notscb

[notscb]

27 minutes ago, laudergayle said:

I sure hope the OP reports back and doesn’t ghost us.  

I have a feeling it's going to be a while before OP hears anything from NCL Corporate about this one...

[notscb]

1 hour ago, Pizzasteve said:

Could that not perhaps incentivize clogging toilets?

 

I don't know about that- on my previous RCL cruise there was a very clear warning sign in two places in the bathroom saying that if you cause a clog you'll be held responsible for damage up to X amount (i can't remember the exact wording). It was very, very clear.

 

Does anyone know if NCL has similiar warnings/signs in their bathrooms?

[MsMidge]

6 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

 

 

Everyone's focus should be on: What is the problem? How can it be fixed/repaired? How quickly and safely can the repairs be made? What is the interim solution? How can we prevent this issue in the future? The focus should NOT be on: "pay me".

 

No, thats not what everyone should be focusing on.  Only the cruise line should be focusing on those issues.  The consumer should be focusing on that they paid for something they did not receive, in this case, a cabin with a private bathroom, and how they will be compensated or in other words how to not pay for something they did not receive..  

[MsMidge]

10 minutes ago, notscb said:

 

I don't know about that- on my previous RCL cruise there was a very clear warning sign in two places in the bathroom saying that if you cause a clog you'll be held responsible for damage up to X amount (i can't remember the exact wording). It was very, very clear.

 

Does anyone know if NCL has similiar warnings/signs in their bathrooms?

Nobody knows if it was due to a clog or not.  The people claiming this were nowhere even near the ship, so making that diagnosis is just foolish.   I am sure there are many many other issues that could cause that problem.  

[notscb]

2 minutes ago, MsMidge said:

Nobody knows if it was due to a clog or not.

 

From the original post on page 1:

"  The Guest Services Manager said the problem was caused by other guest who disposed of items in the toilet that clogged the system. "

[MsMidge]

14 minutes ago, notscb said:

I have a feeling it's going to be a while before OP hears anything from NCL Corporate about this one...

This is why they should just dispute it with their credit card.  Not sure of all credit cards, but my visa does not do partial credits, so if they find in the consumers favor that these sailors did not get what they paid for, then they get a full refund and let the cruiseline eat it. Teach them a lesson!

[MsMidge]

Just now, notscb said:

 

From the original post on page 1:

"  The Guest Services Manager said the problem was caused by other guest who disposed of items in the toilet that clogged the system. "

If that were the case, and they knew for sure, it shouldn’t have taken 3 days, regardless what you read here, dont be fooled!

[scooter6139]

2 minutes ago, MsMidge said:

If that were the case, and they knew for sure, it shouldn’t have taken 3 days, regardless what you read here, dont be fooled!

 

You should really educate yourself first before jumping to this conclusion.  As stated elsewhere by someone who knows all about Cruise ships, this can take several days to resolve.

[notscb]

3 minutes ago, MsMidge said:

regardless what you read here, dont be fooled!

 

Ok...but this is the discussion we're having, so what else would you have us do? (Also, this incident was well documented by another thread on this same forum, so I really don't know what you're saying).

 

5 minutes ago, MsMidge said:

This is why they should just dispute it with their credit card.

Most Credit card disputes don't work like that. The cruise line will point to their contract of carriage and say "we fulfilled our end of our cruise contract" and the case will be open and shut. OP is really looking for a goodwill gesture in this case.