No Alcohol in any UK ports - what! 😱

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, hawkeyetlse said:

OK, but if your resort was charging you specific fees per day for the gym, spa, etc., then it would not be unreasonable to expect those to be removed/refunded for however many days those facilities were unavailable to you. In the case at hand, people with beverage packages paid (at least service charges) for each day of the cruise, and for let’s say half a day, NCL was unable to provide that service. It seems appropriate to refund that amount.

We paid what we paid based on what we were told the resort offered. When we got there and found out some things were closed, it was disappointing, but we didn't feel we'd been lied to or were owed any money. That part makes it quite similar to this one. That said, it might be a nice gesture if the cruise line gave some OBC to make up for the day the people had paid gratuities for, but were unable to use, in terms of the beverage package. However, that gets tricky because they *were* able to use it for some drinks, but not all. But it still might be nice. 😊

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, KeithJenner said:

I can absolutely understand companies getting caught out once or even twice, but there seems to be something wrong when it happens so many times, especially as the other cruise companies don’t seem to be having the same issues.

 

Just frustration for people when they should be getting on with enjoying their holidays. I’m sure we can all agree that NCL just need to resolve whatever the problem is that keeps causing this for the sake of their customers.

I agree with you, especially the last paragraph. It is a frustration people shouldn't have to contend with. But I can't agree with the first part, because it assumes a mistake was made on the part of the cruise line. Are you suggesting they were supposed to somehow know they needed to pay something in advance? How, exactly? I also don't agree that it hasn't happened to other lines, because it has. People have reported similar issues with other lines calling in Spain and Greece. But I agree 100% on your larger point, and if there's a way NCL can anticipate these snafus and avoid them, so much the better. I certainly hope the ports we're calling on this November don't have these rules (but I'm sure I'd still have a good time regardless).

[UKstages]

9 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

What is factual is what our friend @ziggyuk wrote because he's actually on the ship, and what he posted gives a reasonable explanation, from the cruise line.

 

i generally agree with many of your comments in this and other threads. but i disagree with your definition of what is "factual." 

 

what most of us can probably agree is a fact is what ziggy reported. he's on the ship and tells us that NCL has said that they were not given sufficient time. he says passengers were told that NCL was given just two days notice. that's a fact... that NCL told passengers that they were not given sufficient time. we accept that as a fact because our trusted correspondent is telling us it happened... ziggy is reporting that NCL said that. that's a fact.

 

what has not been established as fact is whether they were actually given just two days notice.

 

the factual part of this report is that is what they told passengers. we have no way of knowing, however, whether it's true. it's true that's what they announced to passengers. but we don't know what went on between the port and NCL.

 

it's the same logic that applies to your statements about not really knowing if its happening elsewhere... well, gosh, we don't really know, we can't tell for sure.

 

but what others have or have not reported in other threads about other cruise lines is relevant. these are indeed data points. we can and should infer that this is not happening on a widespread basis on other  cruise lines, based on specific reports within this thread. the fact that there are few reports about the absence of liquor service in ports on other cruise lines does matter. it doesn't prove that it's not happening on other lines. we can't say that for sure, but we're pretty darn confident that we can.

 

why?

 

because we read this forum and we know that if a cruise line so much as removes a single olive from a cobb salad, there will be sixteen page threads that will suddenly appear, with people taking strong pro-olive and anti-olive positions and people claiming that lobbyists for Big Olive are no longer as powerful as they used to be and others claiming that captain so and so banned olives from the ship as a point of personal privilege, while others say this is only - mysteriously - happening in greek  ports and still others complaining once again about how the olive hogs have ruined everything for the rest of us. 

 

it is unlikely that this is happening on other cruise lines simply because, yes, we would have heard about it!

[DCGuy64]

9 minutes ago, UKstages said:

because we read this forum and we know that if a cruise line so much as removes a single olive from a cobb salad, there will be sixteen page threads that will suddenly appear, with people taking strong pro-olive and anti-olive positions and people claiming that lobbyists for Big Olive are no longer as powerful as they used to be and others claiming that captain so and so banned olives from the ship as a point of personal privilege, while others say this is only - mysteriously - happening in greek  ports and still others complaining once again about how the olive hogs have ruined everything for the rest of us. 

You've made your point quite well, and brought a smile to my face, as well. Thank you! 😊

 

A thread like this one can serve several purposes:

1. Inform the public (at least those who read CC) about a potential problem/issue.

2. Give those with an axe to grind yet another forum for venting their disgust and dissatisfaction with the cruise line

3. Encourage others to raise a fuss over it in hopes of changing the situation

4. Alert current/future passengers so they can make informed decisions.

 

There may be even more than that. It's hard to say based on the comments so far where most people stand. But one thing's for sure: opinions abound!

Edited May 12, 2023 by DCGuy64

[redlock]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

I agree with you, especially the last paragraph. It is a frustration people shouldn't have to contend with. But I can't agree with the first part, because it assumes a mistake was made on the part of the cruise line. Are you suggesting they were supposed to somehow know they needed to pay something in advance? How, exactly? I also don't agree that it hasn't happened to other lines, because it has. People have reported similar issues with other lines calling in Spain and Greece. But I agree 100% on your larger point, and if there's a way NCL can anticipate these snafus and avoid them, so much the better. I certainly hope the ports we're calling on this November don't have these rules (but I'm sure I'd still have a good time regardless).

Because this is a professional company, with years of cruising experience and must indeed know about certain (tax) regulations. 

[KeithJenner]

3 minutes ago, redlock said:

Because this is a professional company, with years of cruising experience and must indeed know about certain (tax) regulations. 

I was just going to reply with the same point. I absolutely am suggesting that they should have known in advance that they needed to do this stuff.

 

Theyve been doing this for decades.

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, KeithJenner said:

I was just going to reply with the same point. I absolutely am suggesting that they should have known in advance that they needed to do this stuff.

 

Theyve been doing this for decades.

Um, OK. I'll just point out the obvious, which is that as the UK has withdrawn from the EU, it's quite possible, even likely, that tax regulations are changing. So the fact they've been in business for years has nothing to do with it. Plenty of US businesses have to contend with tax laws that change every year and in 50 states. I suppose one could argue that, NCL being a large corporation, they should keep abreast of those changes, but I for one think any company is capable of missing something, especially if it wasn't known beforehand. For now, my money is on a last-minute issue they weren't told about until it was too late, as @ziggyuk reported.

[DCGuy64]

I understand a number of posters on Cruise Critic are shareholders in NCLH. If I were one, I'd bring this up to the board and say the company needs to do a better job of anticipating issues like this one and getting ahead of them vs inconveniencing the passengers. Whether or not NCL fixes things (assuming there is something that needs to be fixed to begin with, of which I am not convinced, FYI), surely that's a better route than posting online. I might as well go outside and shake my fist at a cloud. I might feel better afterwards, but nothing has changed.

[redlock]

16 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Um, OK. I'll just point out the obvious, which is that as the UK has withdrawn from the EU, it's quite possible, even likely, that tax regulations are changing. So the fact they've been in business for years has nothing to do with it. Plenty of US businesses have to contend with tax laws that change every year and in 50 states. I suppose one could argue that, NCL being a large corporation, they should keep abreast of those changes, but I for one think any company is capable of missing something, especially if it wasn't known beforehand. For now, my money is on a last-minute issue they weren't told about until it was too late, as @ziggyuk reported.

This has happened in Greece, Italy and now the UK.

Maybe they should keep up with local regulations more closely.

Edited May 12, 2023 by redlock

[UKstages]

21 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I'll just point out the obvious, which is that as the UK has withdrawn from the EU, it's quite possible, even likely, that tax regulations are changing.

 

what's obvious is that there haven't been any changes to UK law regarding this... it's status quo. it might have been different if they had joined the EU, perhaps, but while everything may have changed around them, one thing is certain... these are UK laws and regulations and they remain unchanged.

 

but the fundamental point remains the same... even if there have been wild and unpredictable changes to UK port regulations and taxes (there haven't been, but if there were...) they would be the same for all cruise lines.

 

21 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I suppose one could argue that, NCL being a large corporation, they should keep abreast of those changes...

 

yes, in fact, one could argue this. and in fact there are five pages of people arguing this!

Edited May 12, 2023 by UKstages

[SECdawg]

So this also was reported to have  occurred on NCL Dawn on May 4th. NCL obviously knew what was required more than 2 days before the May 11th sailing of the Star.  The officer at the meet and greet obviously should read cruise critic.

[schmoopie17]

It's like the old political question...what did they know and when did they know it.

In any case, if this happens on future cruises out of Southampton, my advice would be to down a few pints at a local pub before boarding. At least that's what I would do. (Of course, they won't accept my UBP at the pub, but that's another story...)

[ChiefMateJRK]

38 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I understand a number of posters on Cruise Critic are shareholders in NCLH. If I were one, I'd bring this up to the board and say the company needs to do a better job of anticipating issues like this one and getting ahead of them vs inconveniencing the passengers.

I'm one of those NCLH shareholders!  I bought my 100 shares in December.  So far, I've received and used $300 of "free" OBC.  As of 5 minutes ago, my stock had dropped $322.01, so I'm twenty two bucks in the red.  I'm sure that the NCLH BOD has no interest in my opinions on anything.😁

[SteveH2508]

52 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I understand a number of posters on Cruise Critic are shareholders in NCLH. If I were one, I'd bring this up to the board and say the company needs to do a better job of anticipating issues like this one and getting ahead of them vs inconveniencing the passengers. Whether or not NCL fixes things (assuming there is something that needs to be fixed to begin with, of which I am not convinced, FYI), surely that's a better route than posting online. I might as well go outside and shake my fist at a cloud. I might feel better afterwards, but nothing has changed.

Has this problem occurred in Oceania or Regent Seven Seas (who are both part of NCLH group)?

 

Thought not. Despite your desperate best efforts, NCL have either dropped the ball admin-wise or made a deliberate decision to not pay for the correct licence.

 

The UK Licensing laws have not changed in the last 10 years at least (leaving the EU has had no bearing on our domestic licensing laws BTW).

 

NCL have sailed from UK ports for at least 15 years (I did my first cruise on NCL out of Dover and my second was out of Southampton). They know perfectly well what the rules are.

 

My 'bovine excrement' detector went off the scale from that reported NCL officer's statement at the M&G.

 

Their position is indefensible.

[CruiseMH]

21 hours ago, Panhandle Couple said:

 

 

21 hours ago, Panhandle Couple said:

The easiest one I can think of is "You can't sell liquor here if you didn't buy it from us" regulation.

 

 

I know it at least from three different cruise lines that they do get their stuff shipped to their base port and all loading is done at their base port. They don`t buy the stuff in each country/port and so far i never had any issue with this in Europe, on 6 different cruise lines.

So this can`t be the reason.

 

[DCGuy64]

37 minutes ago, SteveH2508 said:

Has this problem occurred in Oceania or Regent Seven Seas (who are both part of NCLH group)?

 

Thought not. Despite your desperate best efforts, NCL have either dropped the ball admin-wise or made a deliberate decision to not pay for the correct licence.

 

The UK Licensing laws have not changed in the last 10 years at least (leaving the EU has had no bearing on our domestic licensing laws BTW).

 

NCL have sailed from UK ports for at least 15 years (I did my first cruise on NCL out of Dover and my second was out of Southampton). They know perfectly well what the rules are.

 

My 'bovine excrement' detector went off the scale from that reported NCL officer's statement at the M&G.

 

Their position is indefensible.

OK, I give up, you win. NCL is a terrible company, they don't get anything right, and they lie to our faces. I guess we won't be seeing you around anymore, then? I really and truly don't understand where the fascination lies in running down a company over and over and then, paradoxically, continuing to post about it. We (that is, my wife and I) aren't beholden to any one cruise line. We happen to like MSC best, but we also enjoy NCL, and we just took our first on Oceania. But again, it's clear you don't trust NCL, and you feel you have good reason not to. So why bother with all of the negativity? What exactly are you getting out of this? To be proven right? I don't get it. Obviously, you don't have to answer, but it really mystifies me. If you don't like NCL, no worries; I do and have no plans to boycott them.

[SteveH2508]

5 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

OK, I give up, you win. NCL is a terrible company, they don't get anything right, and they lie to our faces. I guess we won't be seeing you around anymore, then? I really and truly don't understand where the fascination lies in running down a company over and over and then, paradoxically, continuing to post about it. We (that is, my wife and I) aren't beholden to any one cruise line. We happen to like MSC best, but we also enjoy NCL, and we just took our first on Oceania. But again, it's clear you don't trust NCL, and you feel you have good reason not to. So why bother with all of the negativity? What exactly are you getting out of this? To be proven right? I don't get it. Obviously, you don't have to answer, but it really mystifies me. If you don't like NCL, no worries; I do and have no plans to boycott them.

I am Platinum on NCL, 9 cruises (DW has done 11), so I think I have some reasonable experience of NCL.

When Del Rio took over, the decline in their standards (and honesty) started. DW did a cruise last November in the Med and came back saying 'never again - they have lost the plot'.

 

If they cannot even sort out being able to serve drinks in ports, where they did so in the past, they have some major systemic issues to address. It would be wrong not to highlight these issues so other readers can make better informed decisions as to who to book with.

[hawkeyetlse]

Who said anything about a boycott? Maybe there are some people posting here because they hate NCL and just want to bash it, but I think most of us really like NCL and have every intention of continuing to cruise with NCL. And that is precisely why this persistent issue is so disappointing, because NCL gets so many things right, why do they keep having problems with this one thing, in country after country, season after season?

 

But again, it is just this one thing. You can be unhappy about one thing that a company does, it doesn't mean you have to hate the company and boycott it. And conversely, loving a company doesn't mean that you bend over backwards to defend them in every situation and shield them from all blame. But if somebody did happen to do that, and posted in this thread more than anyone else, saying the same thing over and over again, I wouldn't tell that person "why do you keep posting?" and mock them with pictures of dead horses. Because that would make me a jerk.

[WexIrl]

I quite like the analytical approach (of what information is available) taken by some on this thread outlining what was said from representatives on board, I also like it was also interpreted and dissected by others in what appears (my observation) to be driven by business logic of what people in the industry and this particular sector are paid to do and look after as part of their day to day duties ....port charges, taxes, customs laws, regulations etc....

These 'things' are not a 'peek a boo' business transaction that is a surprise to an established cruise line.

Our company has prepped for Brexit for many years.... today, the UK not being part of the EU is not a 'surprise' to anyone in business with regards fees or otherwise etc, unless they have their head buried in the sand on purpose.


 

It does appear that some people on this thread seem to be in a river in Egypt.

The Nile

😆


 

  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by WexIrl
What are words?

[RD64]

5 hours ago, UKstages said:

 

i generally agree with many of your comments in this and other threads. but i disagree with your definition of what is "factual." 

 

what most of us can probably agree is a fact is what ziggy reported. he's on the ship and tells us that NCL has said that they were not given sufficient time. he says passengers were told that NCL was given just two days notice. that's a fact... that NCL told passengers that they were not given sufficient time. we accept that as a fact because our trusted correspondent is telling us it happened... ziggy is reporting that NCL said that. that's a fact.

 

what has not been established as fact is whether they were actually given just two days notice.

 

the factual part of this report is that is what they told passengers. we have no way of knowing, however, whether it's true. it's true that's what they announced to passengers. but we don't know what went on between the port and NCL.

 

it's the same logic that applies to your statements about not really knowing if its happening elsewhere... well, gosh, we don't really know, we can't tell for sure.

 

but what others have or have not reported in other threads about other cruise lines is relevant. these are indeed data points. we can and should infer that this is not happening on a widespread basis on other  cruise lines, based on specific reports within this thread. the fact that there are few reports about the absence of liquor service in ports on other cruise lines does matter. it doesn't prove that it's not happening on other lines. we can't say that for sure, but we're pretty darn confident that we can.

 

why?

 

because we read this forum and we know that if a cruise line so much as removes a single olive from a cobb salad, there will be sixteen page threads that will suddenly appear, with people taking strong pro-olive and anti-olive positions and people claiming that lobbyists for Big Olive are no longer as powerful as they used to be and others claiming that captain so and so banned olives from the ship as a point of personal privilege, while others say this is only - mysteriously - happening in greek  ports and still others complaining once again about how the olive hogs have ruined everything for the rest of us. 

 

it is unlikely that this is happening on other cruise lines simply because, yes, we would have heard about it!

You forgot the -I refuse to subsidize the “I want an olive crowd”, and if they eliminate that olive that will just make cruises that much cheaper for me.

[KeithJenner]

2 hours ago, hawkeyetlse said:

Who said anything about a boycott? Maybe there are some people posting here because they hate NCL and just want to bash it, but I think most of us really like NCL and have every intention of continuing to cruise with NCL. And that is precisely why this persistent issue is so disappointing, because NCL gets so many things right, why do they keep having problems with this one thing, in country after country, season after season?

 

But again, it is just this one thing. You can be unhappy about one thing that a company does, it doesn't mean you have to hate the company and boycott it. And conversely, loving a company doesn't mean that you bend over backwards to defend them in every situation and shield them from all blame.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I'm very critical of NCL on this issue, because (in my opinion, and others are free to disagree) they have repeatedly messed up something that (in my opinion, and others are free to disagree) the other cruise lines are managing to deal with without causing frustration to their customers.

 

NCL are my cruise line of choice, and I have by 26th, 27th and 28th cruises with them booked. I really enjoy what they offer on the ships and there are some great itineraries offered which we haven't done yet.

 

However much I like the product, they also do some things very badly, and this (in my opinion, others are free to disagree) is probably the worst mess that they make, both ending up in this position and their communications with their customers. It really is very disappointing, and I will continue to discuss it for as long as it continues to happen.

[luv2kroooz]

5 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

I suppose one could argue that, NCL being a large corporation, they should keep abreast of those changes,

You suppose??? It has nothing to do with the size of the company.  You'd feel differently if they were a small, privately held company? I wouldn't.

 

Yes, if they are holding themselves out to be a cruise line offering cruises to world class destinations, it is not unreasonable to expect them to be fully aware of the local laws in the ports in which they choose to conduct business in advance of arriving at the port especially as it relates to offering for which they intend to charge passengers. They know or should know what the rules are. Yes, it is absolutely a reasonable expectation to have this all ironed out and buttoned down prior to docking at the port, as opposed to printing up nebulous, cryptic announcements about port rules and regulations after arriving in a port. No other cruise line does this, by the way. They are a cruise line operating cruises across the world. It is their business. It it is what they do.

[luv2kroooz]

11 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

I have sailed on more than 10 cruises and not once was I denied a drink, so I don't expect that to change.

Sail on a ship that calls in Livorno, Southampton, Dover. Then let us know how that worked out for you.

[ChiefMateJRK]

52 minutes ago, RD64 said:

You forgot the -I refuse to subsidize the “I want an olive crowd”, and if they eliminate that olive that will just make cruises that much cheaper for me.

Well, I DO want an olive but hate having to pay for those fancy olives with a pickle sticking out.  Sure, they're fun, but think of how much I could save if they made the folks who actually want them pay for them.  Some mornings, I would get not one but TWO of those things in my Bloody Mary.  

[cruiseny4life]

17 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

Sail on a ship that calls in Livorno, Southampton, Dover. Then let us know how that worked out for you.

Haven't you learned, if it doesn't impact some posters, it simply hasn't happened or doesn't matter.