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

[insidecabin]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:02 PM, cruiseny4life said:

Exactly! All these people booking for 2025 and 2026. Will they really be able to afford it? Will NCL have record cancellations? I do appreciate NCL for having a refundable deposit, up until final payment date. But, I do wonder if that's going to catch them in the next couple of years. I just don't see Americans able to continue spending at the levels we've all been spending at these last two or so years.

As some keep saying book early nothing to lose, this makes people booking less price sensitive as they just cancel if the price does not drop enough.

 

UK non refundable so we just wait.

 

The first line to drop prices to sensible levels get our bookings.

 

Last year NCL did ok late booking so got some money off us.

 

Prices for the Southampton ones we have looked at double where they need to be even with FAS 50% off.

 

This year Princess made us an offer that will undercut anything NCL will come up with.

 

 

 

[BrianLo]

I’m batting about 25% missed, cancelled, rescheduled ports with NCL, over 8 cruises.

 

25% of that is bad luck, 25% is weather, 25% is the itineraries I book and it is starting to feel like 25% is the fault of NCL.

 

I am booked for Greenland June 2025, so I apologize to everyone who hopes it is going there! But at least that one was warned reasonably ahead of things and the replacement ports are not bad, assuming that’s what they do next year. But they are still offering Greenland itineraries for June 2025…

Edited March 17 by BrianLo

[pghflyer]

On 3/7/2024 at 7:17 AM, Cruise Guy50 said:

Another customer wrote: Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. 

Ugh this is terrible, so sorry for you. I never complain about decisions made due to weather or political stability of the port....but changing 20% of your stops purposely after the cancellation period starts only for purposes of saving some cash on fuel.....and being so unashamed to not even bothering making up some other story, boy that is something else. 

 

They are definitely turning into an unreliable customer unfriendly company, even if the onboard product is still great.   Honestly, the prices of future sailings along is so much more than other lines (who don't modify their itineraries as frequently), my NCL days may be numbered in the short-term.  Buyer beware for sure.

[NCL ruined vacation]

See message #212 to understand NCL’s mode of operation 

[woodley]

On 3/6/2024 at 8:49 PM, NCL ruined vacation said:

In Australia you cant waive your consumer rights (law) by taking a cruise under their contract. 2 days before sail NLC dropped the bucket list destination (paradise bay on mainland Antarctica) and waited untill after departure to advise passengers. Then they did the same thing to the passengers on the cruise straight after ours. On a cruise around Africa the did similar.

This behaviour is actually NCL’s current mode of operation. We have learned through many sources, including Cruise Industry News, that this is part of NCL’s cost cutting transformation initiative. Harry Sommer, president and CEO of NCL Holdings is quoted as saying that NLC has adopted a “company-wide focus” to reduce costs, and a “relentless focus on cost optimisation”. We will not sail with a company that displays such low regard for its customers. NLC has lost its way because its moral compass is broken. 

I totally agree with you.  More cruisers need to go to other cruise line the 5 we have been with since our last NCL cruises have all been so much more reliable.  When you book to go somewhere and pay for that trip you expect to go there unless of course bad weather or safety issues.  I for one will not be returning to NCL.

 

[NCL ruined vacation]

In our case booking through a local (Australian) travel agency for a cruise provided by an American billion dollar company is better for us. NLC is happy to ignore complaints from a few thousand customer when they take nearly 1 million passengers per year. On the other hand the travel agency cannot ignore us and have to explain how our consumer guarantees have been provided.

[Travelling2Some]

Itinerary is the most important thing to us and we have had our last 3 cruises on NCL impacted by ports canceled after final payment with bogus excuses given.  We prefer NCL and have status with them but feel they have become too unreliable to trust with our more important/expensive travel plans.  We do take an occasional cruise out of our homeport just to relax and get out of the NY winter where we don't really care much about the itinerary.  But, having been burnt 3 times we no longer trust NCL with our "important" trips.  Our two most recent cruises have been on other lines for this reason.

[erisajd]

We're on Bliss for Alaska inside passage in June in the Haven - at some level I don't really care if we miss ports - we are on the cruise for the scenery - not buying worthless crap in Ketchikan or drinking beer in Juneau or doing a zipline in Icy Strait.  The scenery is the star and as long as they don't skip the glaciers I'll be fine missing ports.   

 

Hell - I KNOW the one port they won't miss is Victoria since they have to stop in Canada to avoid paying their staff minimum wage.  Even if that port is 8pm arrival and 1159p departure!  

Edited March 26 by erisajd

[complawyer]

i am no pollyanna, and one of mankind's eternal skeptics. Having sailed on over 25 cruises with ncl over the past 13 years, while disappointed at times, i dont believe ncl intentionally lists ports of call that they have no intention of visiting.

 

sorry folks, stuff happens. if you miss a port try and enjoy the cruise anyway. last year we missed berlin and edinburgh. disappointment YES! complete downer NO! 7 years ago, we were on the 1st southeast asian cruise offered by ncl. due to mechanical problems, we were unable to dock in taipei, and hanoi. being a vietnam vet, not getting to see Hanoi was in fact a massive disappointment. However, as it must, the show must go on

[floridafish]

I don't believe they bait and switch either. They're losing money on missed excursions. Last summer on Escape to Canada they actually added a port, Newport, which I loved. Some people on the ship were very upset about missing out on one of two planned sea days. Do they deserve compensation? Spit happens. 

[NCL ruined vacation]

@complawyerNCL replaced Antarctic mainland and a day of coastal sailing with a few hours at South Shetland Islands and no explanation. Miami told the captain 2 days before cruise departure but didn't tell passengers until they were onboard. Then they did the same thing to the cruise that followed our cruise. The did same to a cruise around south africa. This is NCL’s current operating model.

[RocketMan275]

10 minutes ago, NCL ruined vacation said:

@complawyerNCL replaced Antarctic mainland and a day of coastal sailing with a few hours at South Shetland Islands and no explanation. Miami told the captain 2 days before cruise departure but didn't tell passengers until they were onboard. Then they did the same thing to the cruise that followed our cruise. The did same to a cruise around south africa. This is NCL’s current operating model.

Please explan how "NCL's current operating model" contributes to increased profitability.

[complawyer]

dear ncl ruined.. would it have made a major difference if you had known about the changes prior to boarding. would you have turned around and headed for home?

 

while i'm not sticking up for ncl, do you think it's easy to try and track down over 2000 people prior to sailing and let each  and every one of them know the change of itinerary. 

Yes, if i booked to see Antarctica and or South Africa, i'd be plenty p***ed off.

 

I readily admit, i was more disappointed then angry when our cruise couldnt dock in Hanoi. It was one of the contributing factors for my booking (although not the only factor) but i got over it in a hurry. We were also disappointed in not docking in berlin on another cruise.  while i was looking forward to seeing this city, as it wasnt a primary factor in booking this cruise, i merely shrugged my shoulders, went up to modreno's for a leisurely breakfast, had a glass of proseco, went back to bed for a few more hours, and all was right again with the world.

 

dont let a change of ports ruin the rest of the cruise, no matter how much you wanted to visit a specific port

[NCL ruined vacation]

@complawer: If we would have been advised before leaving Australia then yes. We would have had a discussion with our travel agent to move us to another cruise. Regarding tracking down 2000 people - yes that's what they should do.  NCL does have everyone's contact details so how difficult can it be to email their 'valued guests'? The issue is that they didn't and not advising us until after boarding was strategic/intentional. The change of itinerary was driven by a cost cutting initiative (as described by NCL's President and CEO). This is where IT IS WRONG. My bucket list destination should not change because NCL want to make more money. 

[NCL ruined vacation]

@RocketMan275https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2024/02/nclh-new-
transformation-office-driving-cost-cutting/

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, NCL ruined vacation said:

@RocketMan275https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2024/02/nclh-new-
transformation-office-driving-cost-cutting/

I didn't see anything in that link that supports your claim that NCL avoids notifying passengers of itinerary changes to lower costs.

[NCL ruined vacation]

@RocketMan275 i thought you were asking for evidency regarding cost cutting - which is the key reason why they drop ports. They are not going to publish that they intentionally delay advising passengers!

[RocketMan275]

10 hours ago, NCL ruined vacation said:

@RocketMan275 i thought you were asking for evidency regarding cost cutting - which is the key reason why they drop ports. They are not going to publish that they intentionally delay advising passengers!

Cost cutting is a good thing.

What evidence do you have that dropping ports results in more profit.

If they drop a port, they also forego the revenue from shore excurtions.

[cruiseny4life]

14 hours ago, NCL ruined vacation said:

@complawer: If we would have been advised before leaving Australia then yes. We would have had a discussion with our travel agent to move us to another cruise. Regarding tracking down 2000 people - yes that's what they should do.  NCL does have everyone's contact details so how difficult can it be to email their 'valued guests'? The issue is that they didn't and not advising us until after boarding was strategic/intentional. The change of itinerary was driven by a cost cutting initiative (as described by NCL's President and CEO). This is where IT IS WRONG. My bucket list destination should not change because NCL want to make more money. 

First, I agree completely with you that your situation sucks and NCL should do better. They don't. And, they won't until cruisers (and a whole lot of them) move their money somewhere else. Alas, had you known in Australia, what would you have done? You say you'd move your cruise. Unless Australia cancellation penalty is a whole lot different, then you would be out the money anyway. Would travel insurance cover you? I kind of don't think it would - I suppose you would be far enough out for a CFAR (cancel for any reason), if that was offered in whatever travel insurance you purchased (if any). 

 

But, you probably would have wound up going on the cruise anyway. I'm not here to say NCL was right. They weren't. They were flat out wrong and anyone insinuating otherwise has more than just rose colored blinders on. 

 

Also, we're talking Antarctica here - there were no shore excursions to lose money on. NCL dropped the cruise-by for "environmental" reasons (aka to cut costs) or NCL Star had mechanical issues that didn't allow it to cruise as quickly as it needed to on the itinerary. Either way, passengers should have been notified when the change was made. Cost cutting, when done properly, is fine. When it's done unethically, it's never ok. 

[Panhandle Couple]

1 minute ago, cruiseny4life said:

First, I agree completely with you that your situation sucks and NCL should do better. They don't. And, they won't until cruisers (and a whole lot of them) move their money somewhere else. Alas, had you known in Australia, what would you have done? You say you'd move your cruise. Unless Australia cancellation penalty is a whole lot different, then you would be out the money anyway. Would travel insurance cover you? I kind of don't think it would - I suppose you would be far enough out for a CFAR (cancel for any reason), if that was offered in whatever travel insurance you purchased (if any). 

 

But, you probably would have wound up going on the cruise anyway. I'm not here to say NCL was right. They weren't. They were flat out wrong and anyone insinuating otherwise has more than just rose colored blinders on. 

 

Also, we're talking Antarctica here - there were no shore excursions to lose money on. NCL dropped the cruise-by for "environmental" reasons (aka to cut costs) or NCL Star had mechanical issues that didn't allow it to cruise as quickly as it needed to on the itinerary. Either way, passengers should have been notified when the change was made. Cost cutting, when done properly, is fine. When it's done unethically, it's never ok. 

I'm fairly certain Antarctic was discussed in another thread.

The International body governing it imposed a 10 knot speed limit, making it impossible to stay with the listed schedule to and from Paradise Bay.

It had nothing to do with cost cutting.

[Redtravel]

Sadly when cruises change itineraries or cancel a port call, you have no recourse. I have cruised many times. Often there are changes. Some are for safety.  Nobody wants to visit a war zone.  Some are weather related.  Got stuck in Oporto for 3 days waiting out a bomb cyclone.  Some just happen without any explanation. Stuck at sea in March 2020 when ports turned ships away was crazy. We didn’t get any info from cruise line about lockdowns. It can be very annoying.  When you book a cruise, you should make the cruise your prime destination. Ports should be secondary. Usually, ships try do the advertised itinerary. They want to keep guests happy. 

[cruiseny4life]

9 minutes ago, Panhandle Couple said:

I'm fairly certain Antarctic was discussed in another thread.

The International body governing it imposed a 10 knot speed limit, making it impossible to stay with the listed schedule to and from Paradise Bay.

It had nothing to do with cost cutting.

It was. The person I quoted @NCL ruined vacation also discussed Antarctica, which is why it was pertinent to the conversation. My comments regarding NCL change not at all based on the speed limit that NCL could have informed guests was a possibility prior to cruising since it was implemented by IAATO in 2023. A whole lot of other ships made the trip though. I suppose NCL is the only cruise line following IAATO guidelines? 

[NCL ruined vacation]

@RocketMan275hmmm no direct evidence as no cruise line will open their books to the public. I suggest that skipping a port saves on port fees and regulatory charges. An extra day at see increases their bar, casino, beauty spa and other department revenue. Yes it impacts on shore excursions but they only lose their margin for a small percentage of passengers the take an excursion.

@Panhandle Couple the captain of the star directly told my wife and me that the Star's itinerary allowed for the speed restriction. He confirmed the there was no reason why we couldn't have sailed to Antarctic peninsula. NCL saved approximately 700km of fuel.

@Redtravel i totally agree. However, in our case weather was perfect, there were no health, security, mechanical, bio hazard or other reasonable reason for our change in itinerary.

@cruiseny4life i cant deny that we still might have take  the cruise. However Australian consumer law affords certain rights that cant be waived by an all encompassing get out of jail clause. The issue for us is that we weren't given the opportunity to consider our options. 

Re cost cutting. I also dont have a problem with that but it should be fair and reasonable and not at the expense of the passengers expectation and experience 

[IAcruising]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:44 PM, NCL ruined vacation said:

They are not going to publish that they intentionally delay advising passengers!

 

I thought I responded to this last night, but "poof" it's gone. Go figure.

 

So, let's try it again.

 

NCL can't publish something that doesn't exist.

 

[milamber]

Yes of course they are, but so are many of the other cruise lines. We've been cruising for 15 years. Up until last year we'd barely ever had an itinerary change before the cruise or a missed port once the cruise started. When we did miss a port, I can think of only one occasion when the reason given was spurious. 

 

December 2022, we had a major Cunard itinerary change once we embarked for an engine problem they were clearly aware of before the cruise started. June 2023 Princess sold our cruise to Svalbard, where they had apparently been banned from the year before for environmental reasons. They removed the destination after final payment and clearly never had any intention of going. November 2023 we had major itinerary changes on a Holland America cruise, told before final payment, but that's not much help in the UK where the deposit isn't refundable. Plus they missed the key destination once the cruise started. Feb 24, more major changes on another Holland America cruise prior to final payment. 

 

So in 35 cruises prior to December 2022, we barely had a problem. In 4 out of 5 cruises since then, across 4 different cruise lines, we've only had one sail as sold. Friends are all having the same experience. We were looking to book with NCL again, but reading reports its clearly happening there as well. There's a clear pattern of bait and switch since resuming after Covid. 

 

Bottom line, we no longer feel confident in booking a cruise with anyone for a destination that really matters. We'd only book if we would be happy with major itinerary changes.