Are NCL selling cruises to ports they have no intention of going to.

[woodley]

The last two NCL cruises I have been on have cancelled port/countries after final payment with little or no explanation and no return of port fees.  I have been reading other reports of this happening with increasing frequency.  I understand bad weather could sometimes impact the ability to dock but it does seem to be happening more and more also ports and countries were cancelled on both my recent cruises with no reason given at all.  I am beginning to think they are advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to. What do others think?

 

[RocketMan275]

If  you distrust NCL enough to believe this, then you'd best find another cruise line.

Have you researched other lines to see if there is a pattern of missing ports as well?

[jdc987]

My Alaska 7-day on NCL Spirit had the Inside passage removed after I paid for it.  The issue appears to be that this ship will not pass Canadian emissions and is banished.  I would not have booked this had the correct information been provided.  This was clearly done to sucker in people!  I am very upset!

[jdc987]

6 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

If  you distrust NCL enough to believe this, then you'd best find another cruise line.

Have you researched other lines to see if there is a pattern of missing ports as well?

Exactly the point!

[www3traveler]

4 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

My Alaska 7-day on NCL Spirit had the Inside passage removed after I paid for it.  The issue appears to be that this ship will not pass Canadian emissions and is banished.  I would not have booked this had the correct information been provided.  This was clearly done to sucker in people!  I am very upset!

IF the Spirit could not pass the Canadian Emissions test, they WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to dock in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  With 6 additional cruises lines sailing either out of Seattle, Washington or Vancouver, British Columbia to Alaska there is pobably a limit on how many cruise ships can cruise the Inside Passenger in a given day.  

[CILCIANRQTS]

They’ll hide behind the Sail and Sustain program when they cancel ports.

Who could argue with a noble goal like that??

[jdc987]

18 minutes ago, www3traveler said:

IF the Spirit could not pass the Canadian Emissions test, they WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to dock in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  With 6 additional cruises lines sailing either out of Seattle, Washington or Vancouver, British Columbia to Alaska there is pobably a limit on how many cruise ships can cruise the Inside Passenger in a given day.  

 

19 minutes ago, www3traveler said:

IF the Spirit could not pass the Canadian Emissions test, they WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to dock in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  With 6 additional cruises lines sailing either out of Seattle, Washington or Vancouver, British Columbia to Alaska there is pobably a limit on how many cruise ships can cruise the Inside Passenger in a given day.  

The OP asked if NCL appears to post itineraries that it doesn't intend to keep.  My comment indicates that I believe that to be true.  If NCL knows " for whatever reason " it cannot make the port, in my case the Inside Passage on a Alaska cruise it should have gave me option to cancel, which I would have done.

[RocketMan275]

14 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

 

The OP asked if NCL appears to post itineraries that it doesn't intend to keep.  My comment indicates that I believe that to be true.  If NCL knows " for whatever reason " it cannot make the port, in my case the Inside Passage on a Alaska cruise it should have gave me option to cancel, which I would have done.

Have you read the NCL Terms and Conditions?  When you booked  the cruise, you signed up for those T&C which allows NCL to make changes at their discretion and without asking your permission or giving  you an option to cancel.

 

From the T&C:

Itinerary Changes

In the event of strikes, lockouts, stoppages of labor, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or any other reason whatsoever, Norwegian Cruise Line has the right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any scheduled sailing or itinerary without prior notice. Norwegian Cruise Line shall not be responsible for failure to adhere to published arrival and departure times for any of its ports of call. Norwegian Cruise Line may, but is not obliged to, substitute another vessel for any sailing and cannot be liable for any loss to passengers by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement or substitution. Reservations are subject to change or cancellation in the event of a full-ship charter, and in such event, NCL shall refund all passage moneys paid by the passenger.

Edited February 27, 2023 by RocketMan275

[PTC DAWG]

One thing to realize about cruising, you are never guaranteed any particular port or passage…ALL cruise lines..NCL isn’t trying to pick on you. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by PTC DAWG

[jdc987]

11 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Have you read the NCL Terms and Conditions?  When you booked  the cruise, you signed up for those T&C which allows NCL to make changes at their discretion and without asking your permission or giving  you an option to cancel.

 

From the T&C:

Itinerary Changes

In the event of strikes, lockouts, stoppages of labor, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or any other reason whatsoever, Norwegian Cruise Line has the right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any scheduled sailing or itinerary without prior notice. Norwegian Cruise Line shall not be responsible for failure to adhere to published arrival and departure times for any of its ports of call. Norwegian Cruise Line may, but is not obliged to, substitute another vessel for any sailing and cannot be liable for any loss to passengers by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement or substitution. Reservations are subject to change or cancellation in the event of a full-ship charter, and in such event, NCL shall refund all passage moneys paid by the passenger.

And this makes it right?  What about my rights to receive goods paid for?

[RocketMan275]

4 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

And this makes it right?  What about my rights to receive goods paid for?

Yes, that makes it right.  You signed a contract and NCL fulfilled that contract so you got exactly what you paid for.  You may think you paid for a specific itinerary but you did not as explained in the T&C.

Edited February 27, 2023 by RocketMan275

[jdc987]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

Yes, that makes it right.  You signed a contract and NCL fulfilled that contract so you got exactly what you paid for.  You may think you paid for a specific itinerary but you did not as explained in the T&C.

Thank you, please do not reply to any of my posts in the future and I'll do same for you.

[kitkat343]

Here is the link to the previous discussion of this happening across other cruises:

 

 

There is absolutely no question that for safety reasons all cruise lines need to have the right to cancel ports due to weather, safety or other emergency conditions.  However, on my January 8th Getaway cruise, they cancelled the DR and morning in Antigua for environmental reasons after final payment and continued to advertise and sell that cruise on their website for weeks as visiting the cancelled ports.  People who called to book directly with NCL after the ports were cancelled were not told the ports were cancelled and none of us were allowed to reschedule.  

 

As someone noted above, using other cruise lines is the only solution to this problem (after researching those cruise lines aren't routinely cancelling itineraries unless necessary).  I've sailed Princess, RC, HAL, Cunard, Carnival and NCL and found the mainstream lines more similar than different.  Because NCL seems to be consistently doing this, I am very hesitant to book with them again.   Ironically, this is the only line I have any status with.  

 

However, there were passengers on my cruise who were just happy to be out of the cold in NY, and weren't upset by the lost port.  If enough of those passengers exist, NCL will be able to continue to cancel itineraries for nonemergency reasons after final payment.  I really hope they aren't doing this on cruises in which most people are traveling for itineraries (on a Panama Canal cruise they removed the overnight in Panama and replaced it with a late night visit that didn't give people a chance to see the locks in action, which seems like a huge loss on that cruise, plus took away Costa Rica and Nicaragua and replaced them with Aculpulco and Jamaica for safety reasons).  Alaska also strikes me as a place where people should be booking for itineraries (and the inside passage is really special) so that is really concerning.

Edited February 27, 2023 by kitkat343

[CILCIANRQTS]

25 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

And this makes it right?  What about my rights to receive goods paid for?

You are correct - this does not make it right.

Just because the cruise lines pay lots of attorneys to draft an airtight contract, it’s called a contract of adhesion, meaning you have no say in the terms and cannot modify it in any way.

So they draft it entirely in their favor and you, the consumer, are SOL.

It puzzles me why so many on CC take the position that “The contract allows them to do it, so it’s OK.”

It’s not OK, and it’s not fair.

[mking8288]

One strategy that we are adopted and going to deploy more, book "last" minute (hence, inside final payment/cancellation deadline - watch for coded words or phrases "unforeseen changes" on a # of related roll calls & similar port and itinerary schedules with the cruiseline - before we book as a non-refundable.  This doesn't work for many with vacations and holidays, school breaks for families with children & teens, etc. that are often "locked" into a specific cruise calendar or time period.  

 

And, some of us know about those "tricky" moves with port fees & misc charges being converted, sometimes, to non-refundable OBC while at sea.  Without naming ports involved, some of us have a pretty good idea of the most "probable" port stops to be smacked with cancellations.  

 

As for the NCL cheerleaders that frequently surf here, I make good use of the ignore button, they are free to comment and question, and the best response - silence, don't even acknowledge them and don't "quote" the post at all.  Works for me.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by mking8288

[Zippeedee]

One thing no one mentions is insurance. My last two cruises (before 2020) had ports dropped or changed and my trip insurance paid for all of them. At some point they reduced the covered amounts, likely because it is happening often, but I received $500 each time. Good insurance isn’t cheap but it can be priceless when you need it.

[mickeysgal]

23 minutes ago, CILCIANRQTS said:

You are correct - this does not make it right.

Just because the cruise lines pay lots of attorneys to draft an airtight contract, it’s called a contract of adhesion, meaning you have no say in the terms and cannot modify it in any way.

So they draft it entirely in their favor and you, the consumer, are SOL.

It puzzles me why so many on CC take the position that “The contract allows them to do it, so it’s OK.”

It’s not OK, and it’s not fair.

I get that they have to have a contract and terms such that they can modify ports in the event they absolutely HAVE to..  But the slight, subtle move of perhaps NCL using this verbiage a bit to their advantage is what seems to be annoying and raising suspicions.  If it's happening all too often, that too raises suspicions.  These cruises are planned so far in advance, you would think they'd know if there were too many other ships in port and now they can't dock (as in a case mentioned in this thread).

 

 

[Two Wheels Only]

25 minutes ago, CILCIANRQTS said:

It puzzles me why so many on CC take the position that “The contract allows them to do it, so it’s OK.”

It’s not OK, and it’s not fair.

 

People should know what they are agreeing to before making a deposit. By pointing out that something is in the contract, people aren't saying "Yeah, it's great....". People are just stating the facts. 

 

It can also be seen as a warning to others who will be impacted in the future. 

[PTC DAWG]

1 hour ago, jdc987 said:

Thank you, please do not reply to any of my posts in the future and I'll do same for you.

He’s just telling it like it is.  Don’t shoot the messenger. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by PTC DAWG

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, jdc987 said:

My Alaska 7-day on NCL Spirit had the Inside passage removed after I paid for it.  The issue appears to be that this ship will not pass Canadian emissions and is banished.  I would not have booked this had the correct information been provided.  This was clearly done to sucker in people!  I am very upset!

If the Spirit does not meet the "Canadian" emissions standards, then it does not meet the standards for the North America Emissions Control Area, and would not be allowed to sail anywhere within 200 nautical miles of the North American coastline (or Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the USVI), so your cruise, along with all the other Alaska and Hawaii cruises on the Spirit would have been canceled.  Since the cruise started (or ended) in Vancouver, the ship can not have been banished from Canadian waters.  The provinces do not have jurisdiction over navigable waters whether within the provincial boundaries or outside.  Canada's vessel emissions limits are based on the IMO's North America ECA, as per Annex VI of MARPOL.  Where did you get the information that this was due to emissions?

[Lakesregion]

Excellent job of loyalist rallying around the NCL flag. Never ever post a suggestion that may look like NCL is in the wrong. These folks are will sail NCL to get the low price booze cruise at any cost including being told one thing and get another from ports to services to food and so on. Keep up the great work NCL loves you as you are their major market base. Those folks that expect to get what they pay for are not their market.

[luv2kroooz]

3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Have you read the NCL Terms and Conditions?  When you booked  the cruise, you signed up for those T&C which allows NCL to make changes at their discretion and without asking your permission or giving  you an option to cancel.

 

From the T&C:

Itinerary Changes

In the event of strikes, lockouts, stoppages of labor, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or any other reason whatsoever, Norwegian Cruise Line has the right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any scheduled sailing or itinerary without prior notice. Norwegian Cruise Line shall not be responsible for failure to adhere to published arrival and departure times for any of its ports of call. Norwegian Cruise Line may, but is not obliged to, substitute another vessel for any sailing and cannot be liable for any loss to passengers by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement or substitution. Reservations are subject to change or cancellation in the event of a full-ship charter, and in such event, NCL shall refund all passage moneys paid by the passenger.

I dont think anyone disputes this. The question asked is whether or not they are advertising itineraries and ports of call that they have no intention of operating. Are they exercising their right to do exactly what you've posted?

[LoungerOnBalcony55]

No large cruise ships will be stopping in Bar Harbor this fall, but NCL is still selling Canadian itineraries with it on there. 

[Beer Belly]

"They have the right to change the itinerary as they wish" is what I've been told, which is also true with other lines, just sounds arrogant and with a BS excuse

[BirdTravels]

4 hours ago, jdc987 said:

 

The OP asked if NCL appears to post itineraries that it doesn't intend to keep.  My comment indicates that I believe that to be true.  If NCL knows " for whatever reason " it cannot make the port, in my case the Inside Passage on a Alaska cruise it should have gave me option to cancel, which I would have done.

Then cancel.