NCL Star passenger revolt

[seaotter2]

I was on this cruise and registered a complaint.  This was the response I received from Norwegian:

I'm pretty sure that the bolded text is an untruth. 

 

Thank you for choosing Norwegian Cruise Line for your vacation at sea.
Our primary objective is to provide our guests with a memorable cruise vacation from beginning to end and we are committed to providing exceptional vacation experiences, both aboard our ships and by taking our guests to some of the most sought-out destinations around the world.  While we try to maintain original itineraries as much as possible, at times modifications are made to optimize the itinerary or to accommodate certain circumstances. To enhance the guest experience, the ship's current itinerary was revised to allow more time for guests to explore Stanley, Falkland Islands.  As such, the cruise by Paradise Bay, Antarctica was replaced with a cruise by Admiralty Bay, Antarctica.  In addition, due to a recent regulatory requirement in the area, the ship is operating at a reduced speed, also impacting its original itinerary. Under the terms and conditions of our Passenger Ticket Contract, Norwegian Cruise Line in its sole discretion may cancel, postpone or delay any port of call without prior notification. Therefore, we are unable to provide any compensation in this regard.

 

[clo]

On 2/13/2024 at 5:22 AM, WarfRatWA said:

Sounds like the change happened after final and just before departure.  An increasingly common occurrence at NCL and frankly other lines.  I wonder if the folks that did not receive emails were folks that used TA's.

Oh, did some of them say they DID get emails ahead of time?

[clo]

4 minutes ago, seaotter2 said:

I was on this cruise and registered a complaint.  This was the response I received from Norwegian:

I'm pretty sure that the bolded text is an untruth. 

 

Thank you for choosing Norwegian Cruise Line for your vacation at sea.
Our primary objective is to provide our guests with a memorable cruise vacation from beginning to end and we are committed to providing exceptional vacation experiences, both aboard our ships and by taking our guests to some of the most sought-out destinations around the world.  While we try to maintain original itineraries as much as possible, at times modifications are made to optimize the itinerary or to accommodate certain circumstances. To enhance the guest experience, the ship's current itinerary was revised to allow more time for guests to explore Stanley, Falkland Islands.  As such, the cruise by Paradise Bay, Antarctica was replaced with a cruise by Admiralty Bay, Antarctica.  In addition, due to a recent regulatory requirement in the area, the ship is operating at a reduced speed, also impacting its original itinerary. Under the terms and conditions of our Passenger Ticket Contract, Norwegian Cruise Line in its sole discretion may cancel, postpone or delay any port of call without prior notification. Therefore, we are unable to provide any compensation in this regard. "Recent regulatory requirement"?

 

Where is the infuriated emoji when I need it? "Recent regulatory requirement" You mean that like morning. From what I've read they were first informed of this coming regulation several years ago and that it went into affect some months ago. Sheesh. I wish you the best on a future lawsuit.

[clo]

On 2/14/2024 at 10:12 AM, dlh015 said:

Spin it whatever way you wish. I used plain English to describe what bothers me about certain phrases used by, well, just about every business...in this forum, it's cruise lines.

 

 

 

 

Ports? To my knowledge except for the official places, there are no ports in Antarctica. The expedition ships 'land' via zodiaks. 

 

[seaotter2]

8 minutes ago, clo said:

Oh, did some of them say they DID get emails ahead of time?

I check and I did not receive an email on changes; but, this is from my itineraryreceived 3 Feb, the day before the cruise left:

PORT OF CALL/ITINERARY ARRIVE DEPART
ORLANDO / MIAMI 02/03/24 02/03/24
MIAMI / BUENOS AIRES MINISTRO PISTARINI

02/04/24 02/03/24

TRANSFER 02/04/24
BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA 02/04/24 06:45 PM
MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY DOCK 02/05/24 08:00 AM   02/05/24 04:00 PM

AT SEA
PUERTO MADRYN, ARGENTINA DOCK 02/07/24 08:00 AM 02/07/24 04:00 PM

AT SEA
PUNTA ARENAS, CHILE TENDER 02/09/24 08:00 AM 02/09/24 04:00 PM

CRUISE CHILEAN FJORDS, CHILE
USHUAIA, ARGENTINA DOCK 02/10/24 10:00 AM 02/10/24 05:00 PM

AT SEA
CRUISING PARADISE BAY, ANTARCTICA
ELEPHANT ISLAND/CAPE LOOKOUT, ANTARCTICA

AT SEA
STANLEY, FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) TENDER 02/15/24 06:00 AM 02/15/24 03:00 PM

[dlh015]

2 minutes ago, clo said:

Ports? To my knowledge except for the official places, there are no ports in Antarctica. The expedition ships 'land' via zodiaks. 

 

Surely you meant to quote someone else...the only port I mentioned (in another post, not the one you've quoted) was in reference to a Key West port...don't know anything about non-existent Antarctica ports...

🙄  

[SailorG1]

23 minutes ago, TRLD said:

The winds at Punta Arenas can be extreme. Was once there on another line a day we were stuck there for 5 hours after our planned departure because the winds were stronger than the side thrusters could safely maneuver away from the dock.

 

Missing one or more ports in that area not unusual for all of the lines. Especially Port Stanley.

Yes, it's my understanding from NCL crew that missing destinations is the norm, not the exception. I imagine the expedition boats have more success. In our case, the conditions were typical, not exceptional, according to an announcement made by our captain. It seems that a very prominent disclaimer notifying people that there is a high probability the itinerary may change before they book would prevent the disappointment. 

Edited February 22 by SailorG1

[clo]

1 minute ago, dlh015 said:

Surely you meant to quote someone else...the only port I mentioned (in another post, not the one you've quoted) was in reference to a Key West port...don't know anything about non-existent Antarctica ports...

🙄  

I'm sorry. I have no idea who I was replying to. And it's not happy hour yet 🙂

 

[dlh015]

1 minute ago, clo said:

I'm sorry. I have no idea who I was replying to. And it's not happy hour yet 🙂

 

No worries...I totally get that!  😉

[TRLD]

2 hours ago, clo said:

Where is the infuriated emoji when I need it? "Recent regulatory requirement" You mean that like morning. From what I've read they were first informed of this coming regulation several years ago and that it went into affect some months ago. Sheesh. I wish you the best on a future lawsuit.

Keep in mind there are different regulations implemented at different times. The one that seem to be the one involved here is one that requires reduction of speed in whale migration areas. Very similar to the ones that impacted some Alaska cruises last year.

[Mike07]

28 minutes ago, seaotter2 said:

I was on this cruise and registered a complaint.  This was the response I received from Norwegian:

I'm pretty sure that the bolded text is an untruth. 

 

Thank you for choosing Norwegian Cruise Line for your vacation at sea.
Our primary objective is to provide our guests with a memorable cruise vacation from beginning to end and we are committed to providing exceptional vacation experiences, both aboard our ships and by taking our guests to some of the most sought-out destinations around the world.  While we try to maintain original itineraries as much as possible, at times modifications are made to optimize the itinerary or to accommodate certain circumstances. To enhance the guest experience, the ship's current itinerary was revised to allow more time for guests to explore Stanley, Falkland Islands.  As such, the cruise by Paradise Bay, Antarctica was replaced with a cruise by Admiralty Bay, Antarctica.  In addition, due to a recent regulatory requirement in the area, the ship is operating at a reduced speed, also impacting its original itinerary. Under the terms and conditions of our Passenger Ticket Contract, Norwegian Cruise Line in its sole discretion may cancel, postpone or delay any port of call without prior notification. Therefore, we are unable to provide any compensation in this regard.

 

 

 

From my understanding, said regulatory or speed requirement NCL might have been referencing was implemented in 2021.... effectively the time of the restart after COVID.

 

Again, NCL may be pulling out a "new" rule, but no other lines or companies appear to be citing this mystery rule.

[clo]

28 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Keep in mind there are different regulations implemented at different times. The one that seem to be the one involved here is one that requires reduction of speed in whale migration areas. Very similar to the ones that impacted some Alaska cruises last year.

It didn't go into effect that day, whether Antarctic or Arctic.

[clo]

24 minutes ago, Mike07 said:

 

 

From my understanding, said regulatory or speed requirement NCL might have been referencing was implemented in 2021.... effectively the time of the restart after COVID.

 

Again, NCL may be pulling out a "new" rule, but no other lines or companies appear to be citing this mystery rule.

And they got it after the fact. And sounds like only when they complained

[TRLD]

2 hours ago, SailorG1 said:

Yes, it's my understanding from NCL crew that missing ports is the norm, not the exception. I imagine the expedition boats have more success. In our case, the conditions were typical, not exceptional, according to an announcement made by our captain. It seems that a very prominent disclaimer notifying people that there is a high probability the itinerary may change before they book would prevent the disappointment. 

Or you can have a case where conditions are normal when you arrive, but are expected to get worse during day. On the I mentioned they were expected to remain the same. If they had known how the winds were going to pick up, we would have missed the port as well.

[clo]

3 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Or you can have a case where conditions are normal when you arrive, but are expected to get worse during day. On the I mentioned they were expected to remain the same. If they had known how the winds were going to pick up, we would have missed the port as well.

In sailing terms is a "port" somewhere where you anchor or 'tie up' (what's that term?) not far away. Close enough to tender to shore. Whereas to my knowledge, not even the expedition ships can do that. 

[TRLD]

3 hours ago, Mike07 said:

 

 

From my understanding, said regulatory or speed requirement NCL might have been referencing was implemented in 2021.... effectively the time of the restart after COVID.

 

Again, NCL may be pulling out a "new" rule, but no other lines or companies appear to be citing this mystery rule.

There are the polar ship certification rules. There are environmental rules such as the ban on heavy diesel starting in June of this year. So there are many rules impacting cruise ships in polar waters.

 

The one that NCL seems to be  talking about is relatively new. It is one aimed at protecting marine life in certain waters. For example the speed reductions in Canadian waters during whale migrations is one part of it. It also applies to polar waters. As I understand it, it is not have a hard start date or end date each year but is more dependent upon actual conditions such as whale migration and feeding patterns. The primary impact is speed reduction in the impacted area, the same as in some Canadian waters that resulted in itinerary changes last year.

 

This is covered in chapter 11 of the Polar Code that requires ships to take into account of local conditions and animal populations to minimize impact. Practices more formalized in Artic waters with tracking programs by US Canada and others but the code also applies to Antarctic waters.

Edited February 22 by TRLD

[Yesimapirate]

2 hours ago, SailorG1 said:

Class action litigation is not my practice area; that said, some passengers may wish to find a law firm that does class action work.  The fine print of the contact is irrelevant if the product itself is determined to not be fit for its purpose. You may be right about recovering damages, but you never know. I suspect NCL would negotiate a resolution before it would allow the complaint to go to trial.  I do think such a claim it would survive a summary judgement motion because, according to crew, very few NCL Antarctica cruises have fulfilled the advertised itinerary. 

I would think that as a long time mariner and attorney that you'd base a case on something more than hearsay but good luck with whatever you choose to do. 

[DMH15]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

The winds at Punta Arenas can be extreme. Was once there on another line a day we were stuck there for 5 hours after our planned departure because the winds were stronger than the side thrusters could safely maneuver away from the dock.

 

Missing one or more ports in that area not unusual for all of the lines. Especially Port Stanley.

I knew going into my 14 night SA cruise my excursion to Antarctica, by plane from Punta Arenas, was 50/50 at best.   Found out the two cruises before and one after did not get to go due to fog.   They land on a dirt runway.  
 

we made it to ALL of our ports including Ushuaia and Port Stanley.  
 

BUT, although it was calm when we got into Punta Arenas… leaving was a different story!!!  The tenders looked like the S.S. Minnow from Gilligan’s Island.  We we sitting on our aft balcony and watching people on the tender’s faces.  They were in terror.   We prayed.  We left port late but yes, we saw Mother Nature at her best and worst.  
 

This was my favorite cruise in my favorite suite on my favorite ship.  (Epic DOS a very close second.  Wink.)

Edited February 22 by DMH15
Typo

[TRLD]

2 hours ago, clo said:

In sailing terms is a "port" somewhere where you anchor or 'tie up' (what's that term?) not far away. Close enough to tender to shore. Whereas to my knowledge, not even the expedition ships can do that. 

Not sure what you are refering to, but my response was talking about the port of Punta Arenas. Not Antarctica.

 

Though there are places in Antarctica that are ports such as McMurdo station and some of the other research bases in Antarctica. McMurdo brings in a freighter each year, or atleast did during the years I was  there as part of a research project. 

[clo]

8 minutes ago, TRLD said:

McMurdo

I know a woman who works there in season. I only meant ports in Antarctica. That's where we boarded.

[SailorG1]

2 hours ago, Yesimapirate said:

I would think that as a long time mariner and attorney that you'd base a case on something more than hearsay but good luck with whatever you choose to do. 

And you would be 100% correct. I'm not filing a complaint; I'm commenting on a legal issue.  Thankfully we made it to Paradise Bay. I would absolutely be seeking a legal remedy if we were rerouted like these latest NCL guests were.   Anyone seeking a remedy can hire counsel and move forward with the discovery process as appropriate. Crew statements about how common it is for NCL to make changes in Antarctica cruise routes and the frequency of missed stops can easily be verified through business records and guest & crew depositions.

[JulianB]

10 hours ago, SailorG1 said:

My family and I were just on the Norwegian Star cruise to Antarctica last month (January 7-21, 2024).  Crew on board the NCL Star told us that in the few years NCL has been operating in Antarctica, NCL has rarely (if ever) made it to all of their advertised ports.  According to NCL crew, cancellations are the norm not the exception.  Passengers on our NCL cruise were angry too. 

I was on that same cruise and loved it from start to finish with some big irritations with the Shore Ex department but most things came good in the end.

 

One of the attractions of this part of the world is that it’s hard to get to and yes it’s unpredictable. Stops get cancelled for ships like the Star and also the smaller expedition ships. I know someone who was on an expedition ship that had made not a single landing or port on its previous cruise! I went on the cruise with the hope that we would make all the ports and destinations in good weather, not the expectation of it.

 

Ultimately this farce comes down to communication and NCL’s wasn’t good on my trip and appears to have been appalling on this and the current one. The passengers do have the right in my opinion to know the truth and NCL needs to handle things far better or people will go elsewhere, it’s a very competitive industry now.

[Turtles06]

8 hours ago, clo said:

In sailing terms is a "port" somewhere where you anchor or 'tie up' (what's that term?) not far away. Close enough to tender to shore. Whereas to my knowledge, not even the expedition ships can do that. 

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Expedition ships anchor off shore and the guests take zodiacs ashore. 
 

(photo by turtles06)

[DBrown8939]

8 hours ago, SailorG1 said:

And you would be 100% correct. I'm not filing a complaint; I'm commenting on a legal issue.  Thankfully we made it to Paradise Bay. I would absolutely be seeking a legal remedy if we were rerouted like these latest NCL guests were.   Anyone seeking a remedy can hire counsel and move forward with the discovery process as appropriate. Crew statements about how common it is for NCL to make changes in Antarctica cruise routes and the frequency of missed stops can easily be verified through business records and guest & crew depositions.

 

Maybe some people would be interested in suing over this, but I would be happy to simply have an acknowledgement that they messed up. As of now, they seem to think that they did everyone a favor by cutting Antarctica from the itinerary and focusing on the Falklands instead. I've done five NCL cruises in the past 18 months, and had been planning more. Now they need to convince me that I should sail with them again.

 

I think your point about the ship being not "fit for purpose" is relevant, but as to the tender ports and not Antarctica. For whatever reason, the tendering process on the Star is very slow compared to other ships, and their original schedule did not allow for any margin of error at Punta Arenas and (especially) Stanley. Their misguided effort to improve this is what led to the fiasco. This ship shouldn't be used on itineraries that include tender ports with tight time frames.

[chengkp75]

14 hours ago, seaotter2 said:

I'm pretty sure that the bolded text is an untruth. 

 

14 hours ago, seaotter2 said:

In addition, due to a recent regulatory requirement in the area, the ship is operating at a reduced speed, also impacting its original itinerary. 

I'm not going to get involved in the discussion of what NCL did, or when they did it, or whether it was right or not, but I have to comment on this statement.

 

The IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators), of which NCL is a member, has adopted, for the 2023-2024 season (so recently), a voluntary 10 knot reduced speed zones around Antarctic areas in order to reduce whale strikes.  So, this statement is not an untruth, but may have been not considered by NCL in time, or not passed to customers in a timely fashion.