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

[woodley]

9 minutes ago, mistertomatoe said:

My first cruise with NCL in December they switched a port to what I viewed as worse. Second cruise in Jan, they skipped Bermuda due to weather but no refund of port fees. We started the cruise with three sea days. Along with other reasons, I’m trying to get away from NCL. I unfortunately already paid for two upcoming cruises but after those I’m done with NCL. Seven cruises with Royal, Celebrity, and Carnival, no port issues. All cruises have been after the restart.

Pre covid I sailed a lot with NCL and yes there were a few ports missed but usually due to weather which was understandable.  Now I really think they are advertising and selling cruise itineraries to get people interested to book and after final payment dropping ports.  This is false advertising. When I complained I was offered $100 off a future cruise booking.  Not enough to compensate me for not going to Guernsey, Portugul, le havre, and Durban South Africa.  I just won't sail with them again as other lines seem to be more reliable.

[Beer Belly]

4 hours ago, woodley said:

Already have done. Azamara and celebrity are my next booked cruises.  I wouldn't be fool enough to continue to book cruises with NCL and not get what I have paid for.  I will see how these two line are in due course.

We just booked a Royal Caribbean cruise, been thinking about trying Royal, let's see how it turns out, might like it, might hate it....Odyssey of the Seas. Also, 10 days prior to our NLC sailing, we are doing an All Inclusive, nothing wrong with trying new things.

[Pete37B52]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:15 PM, 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!

When has the inside passage been part of Canada?

I thought it was part of Alaska which is the US.

It wouldn't be the Canadians rather than the Alaskan government trying to protect the environment. 

[jdc987]

4 minutes ago, Pete37B52 said:

When has the inside passage been part of Canada?

I thought it was part of Alaska which is the US.

It wouldn't be the Canadians rather than the Alaskan government trying to protect the environment. 

Well I guess the Canadian side of it is the issue.  Our cruise now goes around Pacific side of Vancouver Island and who knows where cuts back in from the ocean.

[CILCIANRQTS]

10 minutes ago, Pete37B52 said:

When has the inside passage been part of Canada?

I thought it was part of Alaska which is the US.

It wouldn't be the Canadians rather than the Alaskan government trying to protect the environment. 

Part Canada, part Alaska.

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Pete37B52 said:

When has the inside passage been part of Canada?

I thought it was part of Alaska which is the US.

It wouldn't be the Canadians rather than the Alaskan government trying to protect the environment. 

I've seen no information as to why the ship would be "banned" from the inside passage, but not from Vancouver, or anywhere in North America, for that matter.

[jdc987]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I've seen no information as to why the ship would be "banned" from the inside passage, but not from Vancouver, or anywhere in North America, for that matter.

I have no official explanation,  just stitching together comments that NCL has revealed to others.  Were you on B52 bombers?

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

NCL has revealed to others.

NCL officially, or crew scuttlebutt?

 

10 minutes ago, jdc987 said:

Were you on B52 bombers?

Huh?

[jdc987]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

NCL officially, or crew scuttlebutt?

 

Huh?

Sorry, that was pete37b52

[itsnotjustme]

1) I would be disappointed with a cancelled port.  I enjoy being on the ship as well as visiting the ports.

2)  If a port is cancelled, I would certainly hope it is for good reason, and that timely notice with truthful information is provided.

3) A google search on Bar Harbor cruise port reveals there are ongoing lawsuits from businesses in the town over limits being imposed.  Given the pending litigation, it is difficult for NCL or any cruise line to know if they can visit Bar Harbor this fall.  Cancelling when it may still occur is not right or necessary. Remember the itinerary was planned years out.  I do not blame the cruise lines for continuing to advertise the planned itinerary.  Yes - an asterisk would be nice.

4) I understand the terms of my contract but would have an expectation of truth/transparency.

5) I have been on 8 NCL cruises lasting a total of 74 days (average of 9) with approximately 60+ ports of call.  In these 8 cruises I have NEVER missed a port.  The worst we suffered was an adjusted departure time from Amsterdam due to lock opening restrictions which shortened our port call in Brugge.  Two of the eight cruises were recent (2022).

[CruiseMH]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:50 PM, 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.

Nobody forces you to accept these terms and conditions.If you don`t then just book on another cruise line. But i guess you will be surprised that similar wordings are mentioned in the T&C `s of practically all major cruise lines.

I think that RocketMan275 was referring to jdc987 insisting on his right to get what he paid for.

He gets what he has paid for.

If someone does not want to read the T&C`s before booking then he can`t blame the cruise lines for it.

 

the T&C`s might be morally reprehensible(in my opinion they for sure are) but so far no no court has declared them invalid,so they seem to be compatible with the U.S. laws.(and the laws of all countries they are operating in)

Edited March 3, 2023 by CruiseMH

[styles27]

46 minutes ago, itsnotjustme said:

1) I would be disappointed with a cancelled port.  I enjoy being on the ship as well as visiting the ports.

2)  If a port is cancelled, I would certainly hope it is for good reason, and that timely notice with truthful information is provided.

3) A google search on Bar Harbor cruise port reveals there are ongoing lawsuits from businesses in the town over limits being imposed.  Given the pending litigation, it is difficult for NCL or any cruise line to know if they can visit Bar Harbor this fall.  Cancelling when it may still occur is not right or necessary. Remember the itinerary was planned years out.  I do not blame the cruise lines for continuing to advertise the planned itinerary.  Yes - an asterisk would be nice.

4) I understand the terms of my contract but would have an expectation of truth/transparency.

5) I have been on 8 NCL cruises lasting a total of 74 days (average of 9) with approximately 60+ ports of call.  In these 8 cruises I have NEVER missed a port.  The worst we suffered was an adjusted departure time from Amsterdam due to lock opening restrictions which shortened our port call in Brugge.  Two of the eight cruises were recent (2022).

The Bar Harbor thing doesn’t go into effect until 2024 so it won’t impact the 2023 cruises 

[LoungerOnBalcony55]

13 minutes ago, styles27 said:

The Bar Harbor thing doesn’t go into effect until 2024 so it won’t impact the 2023 cruises 

Source?

[LoungerOnBalcony55]

14 minutes ago, styles27 said:

The Bar Harbor thing doesn’t go into effect until 2024 so it won’t impact the 2023 cruises 

You are incorrect.

 

"The town council of Bar Harbor, Maine, on Tuesday officially approved an agreement with the cruise industry that places caps on cruiser arrivals during the tourist season of between 30,000 and 65,000 a month starting in 2023."

 

https://thepointsguy.com/news/bar-harbor-maine-limits-cruise-ship-arrivals/

[CILCIANRQTS]

41 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

Nobody forces you to accept these terms and conditions.If you don`t then just book on another cruise line. But i guess you will be surprised that similar wordings are mentioned in the T&C `s of practically all major cruise lines.

I think that RocketMan275 was referring to jdc987 insisting on his right to get what he paid for.

He gets what he has paid for.

If someone does not want to read the T&C`s before booking then he can`t blame the cruise lines for it.

 

the T&C`s might be morally reprehensible(in my opinion they for sure are) but so far no no court has declared them invalid,so they seem to be compatible with the U.S. laws.(and the laws of all countries they are operating in)

The T&C’s are morally reprehensible, so just accept them…

Interesting approach to the issue.🤔🤔

[itsnotjustme]

65,000 per month in Sep and Oct.  That is far from no ships.

 

And that is before the litigation.

[styles27]

6 hours ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

You are incorrect.

 

"The town council of Bar Harbor, Maine, on Tuesday officially approved an agreement with the cruise industry that places caps on cruiser arrivals during the tourist season of between 30,000 and 65,000 a month starting in 2023."

 

https://thepointsguy.com/news/bar-harbor-maine-limits-cruise-ship-arrivals/

This article says 2024 so who knows which is correct? Although your article was from September and this one is from November so I’m thinking this is the most current. 
 

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-port-in-maine-votes-to-restrict-cruise-ship-visitors/87122?fbclid=IwAR1XCxNQ4td12GE4HcWCrkYcakscCPhUDJ_GvnGq2_u2vWiL5p78n0_XrbE#letiurzzqv3htjhlql

Edited March 4, 2023 by styles27

[RocketMan275]

13 hours ago, CILCIANRQTS said:

The T&C’s are morally reprehensible, so just accept them…

Interesting approach to the issue.🤔🤔

 

Do you have a practical suggestion on how this might be changed?

[CILCIANRQTS]

45 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

 

Do you have a practical suggestion on how this might be changed?

Yup.

DON’T just accept them.

Make some noise, and not just on your post-cruise survey.

Let the higher-ups directly know you were disappointed in the change, why you felt so strongly about it, and that you are concerned that NCL seems to be increasingly changing and dropping ports. Not through petitions, which are accepted and ignored, but through individual input.

And not with an eye toward getting anything for your displeasure, but toward getting their attention and putting the issue on their radar and in the boardroom. 

Accepting the behavior of another without comment leads to enduring the same behavior again going forward. (Thank you sir, may I please have another.)

A good example is the non-reaction to chair hogs - “I didn’t want to make them mad or have them react to me.”. So we get the same unacceptable behavior.

 

”Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” - Thoreau

[jerseyjjs]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:18 PM, BirdTravels said:

Best Advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. 

 

Better Advice: If you truly believe "[NCL is] advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to.", then don't cruise on NCL and don't ask this question. 

 

 

Written like a true NCL stockholder.

[LoungerOnBalcony55]

It's 2023. 

[CILCIANRQTS]

18 minutes ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

It's 2023. 

Good to know!! 🧐

[Bluewake]

I realize that circumstances change and cruise lines are unable to stop at scheduled ports.  However, I have sympathy for the OP because we experienced something similar that caused to wonder the same thing.  The itinerary is a primary factor in the cruises we book. In 2019 (pre-covid) we booked an NCL cruise specifically because it was stopping at Cartagena.  A few weeks later, we attempted to pre-book excursions but nothing was listed for Cartegena and one other stop....all the other scheduled stops were still available for excursion booking.  Over the next few weeks the situation remained the same.  We finally called the excursions office to ask why only Cartagena and the other port were unavailable for booking excursions and were told that this wasn't unusual because it requires coordination with local vendors and this can sometimes be challenging...we were told to be patient.  Then, a couple of weeks before the final payment date, we happened to check a website which has port schedules and saw that neither Cartagena nor the other port were listing our ship as stopping at those respective ports on the scheduled dates.  We checked the NCL website and saw that the cruise still was being advertised/ sold as including Cartagena and the other port.  We placed another call to NCL to double check and were told that they were unaware of any changes having been made to the itinerary.  Based on that information, we elected to make the final payment.  About a month after final payment, we suddenly received a notice that Cartagena had been dropped with no replacement and the other port about which we had been wondering was now scheduled for a different day.  Since we were now in the penalty phase, it didn't make sense to cancel so we stuck with the cruise despite the fact that the main reason for booking it was now gone.  

 

I like NCL, just returned from a NCL cruise last week and will be on another on in 3 months..so I am not "hating NCL".  However, given the fact pattern, it's sure seems that NCL (at least the schedulers) had known for quite some time that they were not going to be stopping at Cartagena but had continued to advertise the cruise as though nothing had changed in the itinerary.  I understand that things happen at the last minute but this wasn't the case in this situation.  And, I suppose it's possible there was a problem and NCL was still "hoping" to stop there.  But, something just didn't "smell right" about our experience. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Bluewake

[itsnotjustme]

On 2/28/2023 at 10:16 AM, RocketMan275 said:

One wonders, if a passenger doesn't leave the ship at a specific port, should NCL refund the port charge for that port?

I don't think so.  Whether you get off or not, the ship still incurs port costs.  I am not in the cruise business, so I can only speculate on those cost, but these are possibilities:

 

- Pilot fees

- Berth charges

- Water, sewage, electric hookups

- Security/customs

 

No of these costs change if you don't get off.... and you probably eat more food and use other resources on the ship by staying aboard.  They do not increase your fare fior those items.

[The Traveling Man]

17 hours ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

You are incorrect.

 

"The town council of Bar Harbor, Maine, on Tuesday officially approved an agreement with the cruise industry that places caps on cruiser arrivals during the tourist season of between 30,000 and 65,000 a month starting in 2023."

 

https://thepointsguy.com/news/bar-harbor-maine-limits-cruise-ship-arrivals/

During the discussion, Bar Harbor city manager Kevin Sutherland noted the capacity of cruise ships currently booked to visit Bar Harbor in both September and October of 2023 already exceeds the new limits.

Sutherland said the excess ship arrivals would be allowed in 2023 because they were booked before the agreement was approved. However, he said the city had already begun telling cruise lines that moving forward it wouldn't take any new docking reservations for ship arrivals during those months.

 

So the result is that cruise lines which already have scheduled port stops at Bar Harbor in 2023 will be allowed to visit there, but that the full force of the restriction would not go into effect until 2024.