Received Balcony upgrade with new room assignment. 5 hours later NCL reneged on the upgrade. Has this happened to anyone?

[Agent999]

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

this is fundamentally a question about who "owns" the customer relationship.

 

Not really. 100+ replies and I haven't come across any where the poster claims to not know who "owns" the customer relationship. I don't think this is the question on anyone's mind.

 

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

i focused strictly on the customer service aspects of this query.

 

Let's see: NCL saw the mistake, fixed it, refunded their customer's money, and explained what happened and apologized IN WRITING. And this was all done promptly and without the customer having to ask. Seems like the customer service aspect is spot on.

 

This all really seems like an exercise in "what is the best way to position this nothingburger in order to get compensation of some sort?".

 

There was a time when NCL doled out upgrades through the "upgrade fairy". Imagine in those days if your phone rang. The caller ID showed that it was NCL's "upgrade fairy" calling you. Excited for the upgrade, you happily answer the phone. The "upgrade fairy" says "Is this Mr Jones?", and you say "No, it is not...there is nobody here by that name", to which the "upgrade fairy" replies "Oh, I'm very sorry, I must have dialed the wrong number" and the conversation ends. NCL wouldn't owe you "compensation" for the error in dialing, and they don't owe "compensation" here either.

[UKstages]

look, 

1 hour ago, Agent999 said:

Not really. 100+ replies and I haven't come across any where the poster claims to not know who "owns" the customer relationship. I don't think this is the question on anyone's mind...

 

1 hour ago, Agent999 said:

This all really seems like an exercise in "what is the best way to position this nothingburger in order to get compensation of some sort?".

 

not really.

 

look, i'm not here to edumicate you, but you're barking up the wrong tree. go back and read my posts and perhaps you'll realize i'm not advocating for the things you seem to think i'm advocating for, namely compensation for the OP.

 

all my posts have been about who owns the customer relationship and, actually, if you read all the posts in this thread you will see that there is indeed widespread misunderstanding about that. 

 

[Agent999]

16 hours ago, UKstages said:

look, 

 

 

not really.

 

look, i'm not here to edumicate you, but you're barking up the wrong tree. go back and read my posts and perhaps you'll realize i'm not advocating for the things you seem to think i'm advocating for, namely compensation for the OP.

 

all my posts have been about who owns the customer relationship and, actually, if you read all the posts in this thread you will see that there is indeed widespread misunderstanding about that. 

 

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I never said YOU were advocating for compensation. I said "This all really seems like an exercise..." the "this all" part of my statement clearly indicates that I am referring to the topic as a whole, not to YOU specifically. Don't be so defensive. If this thread isn't about compensation, then what is the point of all this? An error was made, corrected, apologized for, and the customer was made whole. What, besides compensation, is missing?

 

As I stated, I have read the thread and I see no indication that anyone has said that they are not understanding who owns the customer relationship. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that there is "widespread misunderstanding" on that. Yet, you provide no examples of anyone questioning the ownership of the customer relationship. Your position might be easier to understand if you would.

[SeekingKillerWhales!]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:20 AM, DCGuy64 said:

Sorry, but no. That's not how it works. As someone else pointed out, the same bidding site is used by multiple cruise lines. They can't/don't all have control over a 3rd party's actions. Face it: this is an argument you aren't going to win. Time to move on.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think you've presented an argument, and I notice you did not answer my question. And I'm glad you think poor customer service is fantastic, but as a small business owner I know better than to pull these games with my customers. And the argument I've made, that it's bad customer service, has not been countered by your irrelevant examples. And I'll repeat what others have said that in this instance NCL doesn't have a legal obligation to the wronged customer, but should do something to ease the blow. That does not mean they would not have a legal obligation in another example where a third party they hired (regardless of how many others hired that company - how is that a stronger argument???) does damage to the customer. They set up something where another company has access to people's credit cards, they had better be doing their due diligence and standing behind the company.

 

Happy cruising. 

[Agent999]

2 hours ago, SeekingKillerWhales! said:

And I'm glad you think poor customer service is fantastic, but as a small business owner I know better than to pull these games with my customers.

 

You know better, but you play games here. Nobody said "I think poor customer service is fantastic", yet you claim they did simply so you can argue against it. When you have to put words in someone else's mouth to make your point, you've already lost the argument. 

 

2 hours ago, SeekingKillerWhales! said:

And the argument I've made, that it's bad customer service, has not been countered by your irrelevant examples. And I'll repeat what others have said that in this instance NCL doesn't have a legal obligation to the wronged customer, but should do something to ease the blow.

 

But you conveniently forget that NCL did "do something". The picked up on the error, they corrected the error, they undid any incorrect financial transactions, the placed the customer in the room the customer booked, and they apologized in writing all within a 5 hour window where the customer didn't even know about the error until everything was fixed. This is textbook "customer service", yet you claim it to be "bad". What is so "bad" about it?

 

2 hours ago, SeekingKillerWhales! said:

That does not mean they would not have a legal obligation in another example where a third party they hired (regardless of how many others hired that company - how is that a stronger argument???) does damage to the customer.

 

"does damage to the customer" . . . great choice of words. This is yet another thing that is tossed out there without substance. What damage was done here that NCL has a legal obligation to fix? The already fixed everything and apologized. "Got my hopes up" doesn't rise to the level of "damage". The customer here is out absolutely nothing. Someone make a mistake and it was fixed and apologized for...there is NO damage here. The customer has done more damage on this forum by wasting everyone's time, then what was done by the third party...who, as it has been pointed out, really owes NCL an apology for THEIR error.

[SeekingKillerWhales!]

13 hours ago, Agent999 said:

 

You know better, but you play games here. Nobody said "I think poor customer service is fantastic", yet you claim they did simply so you can argue against it. When you have to put words in someone else's mouth to make your point, you've already lost the argument. 

Expressing the sentiment that is coming from someone's post is not playing games, it's calling them out when they ignore the argument a lot of posters are expressing because they simply do not share the concerns about what this company is doing. And while you put a direct quote in that you maintain had to be there for my rebuttal, news flash - it doesn't, and in no way did I ever say anyone said that directly. And no, a number of people on here would not say that I lost the argument. But you can keep playing the logical fallacy games.

13 hours ago, Agent999 said:

 

But you conveniently forget that NCL did "do something". The picked up on the error, they corrected the error, they undid any incorrect financial transactions, the placed the customer in the room the customer booked, and they apologized in writing all within a 5 hour window where the customer didn't even know about the error until everything was fixed. This is textbook "customer service", yet you claim it to be "bad". What is so "bad" about it?

I never once said NCL did not do all it had to do legally. I am saying it left a bad taste in the OP's mouth, and many on here could see the issues with that. I am arguing from a customer service standpoint based upon how I run my business. And I still feel NCL offering the customer a bottle of wine, or a tiny bit of nonrefundable credit, or a dinner coupon would not be amiss. Again, we can agree to disagree 

13 hours ago, Agent999 said:

 

"does damage to the customer" . . . great choice of words. This is yet another thing that is tossed out there without substance. What damage was done here that NCL has a legal obligation to fix? The already fixed everything and apologized. "Got my hopes up" doesn't rise to the level of "damage". The customer here is out absolutely nothing. Someone make a mistake and it was fixed and apologized for...there is NO damage here. The customer has done more damage on this forum by wasting everyone's time, then what was done by the third party...who, as it has been pointed out, really owes NCL an apology for THEIR error.

Heavy sigh. I know reading for comprehension is hard, but this conversation veered off from the original debate about NCL to liability in general. When DCGuy tried to explain that his missing a cruise would be the taxi driver's fault (even though I am guessing he would be the first person to blame a poster for missing a cruise due to a non-showing taxi, but whatever) a larger question of who holds responsibility for a third party's screw-ups, when that 3rd party does some type of damage to the customer. There was an example given that you convenient left out so you can veer into making an argument about things that were not even in the discussion. So here is the original example and the full quote, not just the tiny pieces that fit your narrative:

 

"And the bidding site works for NCL, so NCL holds control over their actions and is responsible for them. Another example if the bidding site accidently puts 15 different bids into one cabin, and those cabins are sold because of it, who is going to make it up to 14 of the fifteen parties that made bids, had paid off their cabins months ago, have plane tickets, etc.?"

 

"That does not mean they would not have a legal obligation in another example where a third party they hired (regardless of how many others hired that company - how is that a stronger argument???) does damage to the customer. They set up something where another company has access to people's credit cards, they had better be doing their due diligence and standing behind the company."

 

And I will stand by my position that the liability will ultimately fall onto NCL in this scenario. The third party may "really owes NCL an apology for THEIR error", but NCL will have to make it up to the customer in my example. 

 

Please do not come on here, selectively and falsely misquote me, and try and tell me I have lost the argument because of my game playing. I think most people can see who is playing games. 

[UKstages]

"never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

 

- robert heinlein

[omahabob]

Good thing it's not broken then. The problem was fixed almost immediately after it occurred. The only thing broken here is the people desperately looking to blame something, ANYTHING at all, on NCL. But, since the problem was fixed, and no one was harmed, there's nothing to blame them for.

[insidecabin]

46 minutes ago, omahabob said:

Good thing it's not broken then. The problem was fixed almost immediately after it occurred. The only thing broken here is the people desperately looking to blame something, ANYTHING at all, on NCL. But, since the problem was fixed, and no one was harmed, there's nothing to blame them for.

Is more the other way people trying to put the blame on anyone but NCL.

 

NCL say its a binding contract once payment i taken, if they can change their minds the customer should be able to as well. 

[omahabob]

There is no blame anymore. The customer hasn't expressed a desire to change their mind, not that there's actually anything for them to change their mind on. A mistake was made, They owned up to it, and fixed the problem. Are you saying NCL has to build a new cabin onto the ship for them because someone made a mistake? Should they kick another customer off the ship to make way for the OP in an upgraded cabin? Or are you saying people can't make mistakes? How long are you going to beat this dead horse?

[DCGuy64]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:40 PM, SeekingKillerWhales! said:

Happy cruising. 

Same to you, happy cruising.