ok, has ncl finally crossed the line?

[njkate]

3 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

 

The "change" needed here is for NCL to stop treating something like this as negligible and acceptable, and to give passengers an option to cancel for a full refund.  

I don’t know how anyone can think this is ok! That change wasn’t made Willy nilly on the fly, they knew and withheld until after final! Hope the passengers on board that now have to debark hundreds of miles away are very loud and vocal 

[DCGuy64]

I agree with the OP, this is frustrating, for sure. Please make sure you let the cruise line know this is a very undesirable change. (I won't say unacceptable, since we all know the T&C's allow all cruise lines to change ports at any time, with no compensation guaranteed, so we all accept that from the get-go). Did @complawyer use NCL's BOGO airfare, I wonder? Perhaps that will make a difference for those who do. I agree with others who mention travel insurance. It would seem worthwhile to check with one's airline to see about rebooking options. Best of luck and enjoy your cruise!

[luv2kroooz]

12 hours ago, ontheweb said:

According to the cruise contract, there is no line. They can do anything (expletive deleted) that they want to do. 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢

Hahaha. We assume this is a joke. If not, it is inaccurate and incomplete. Hahaha.

[luv2kroooz]

11 hours ago, julig22 said:

Norwegian Cruise Line Changes Disembarkation Port Due to Operational Challenges (cruisehive.com)

 

Why insurance is always necessary. And believe it or not, something I always consider when deciding whether or not to use NCL airfare.

Nice deflection....justifying bad behavior in the name of insurance....and very sad, I might add.

[DCGuy64]

11 hours ago, julig22 said:

Norwegian Cruise Line Changes Disembarkation Port Due to Operational Challenges (cruisehive.com)

 

Why insurance is always necessary. And believe it or not, something I always consider when deciding whether or not to use NCL airfare.

Agreed. Insurance isn't for things you know will happen (or are likely to), but exactly for those things you don't anticipate/don't want to happen. (Not agreeing with NCL's decision here, of course, just pointing out that unplanned changes to one's itinerary are a great reason to have trip insurance.)

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, BirdTravels said:

Hmmmm. Great line. But what would you expect to change?  Go to Manila??? That is already off the table. 

 

Ummmm. Maybe an offer of refund.....it is so obvious to most.

[DCGuy64]

13 hours ago, complawyer said:

what say you all?

What about flying one way from Hong Kong to Manila and keeping your original flight plans from that point on? Is that a possibility?

[cruiseny4life]

That bites, @complawyer! Sorry you're suffering through another of NCL's screw the passenger style customer service. It's too bad their operating style won't change as a result of this craptastic decision. 

 

Hopefully you are able to re-arrange all the details and enjoy your cruise, regardless of where it starts/finishes/goes. 

[RNRcruisers]

Wow, that is a huge change! They definitely should offer refunds.

 

[transoceanic]

Definitely crosses a line. To announce this just after final payment is dirty and underhanded. They knew exactly what they were doing. Everyone can agree that changing  port timings, skipping a port etc. are part of cruising. Changing the embarkation or disembarkation port after final payment is unacceptable. The only way that would be OK would be if a natural disaster or war made the port inaccessible. But for poor planning on NCLs part not acceptable. 

[Menocchio]

10 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

What about flying one way from Hong Kong to Manila and keeping your original flight plans from that point on? Is that a possibility?

Probably the cheapest way to make this work for many people (who aren't local to the region). Hopefully they were planning on staying in Manila a day or two and didn't just book the first possible flight after disembarkation. 

 

I'm a little surprised this is legal. Naively, I assumed that while cruise lines could screw around with the itineraries, they were still on the hook to get you to the final destination at least barring some extraordinary event which this doesn't count as. I guess since they're letting you know before you actually get on the ship, we can't say they're stranding anyone. 

 

They should definitely offer guests a choice between a full refund or OBC as an apology for the costs incurred in changing travel plans at a later date.

[BunnyHutt]

There are definitely things NCL could do for their customers… refund without penalty, or a partial refund to help cover costs associated with needing to change flight plans. It’s one thing to change an itinerary inside of the cruise, yes that’s a bummer when it happens, but changing start/end point after the vast majority of passengers have arranged travel plans is a completely different scenario. 
 

Back in summer 2019 I was booked to sail RCCL to Cuba. Less than a month before the cruise, the plug was pulled on travel to Cuba. This was entirely outside of the cruise line’s power. Yet, RC offered ability to cancel and receive a full refund (not FCC). Those who did choose to sail the revised itinerary were given 50% of their paid fare in *refundable* OBC. The cruise line was hung out to dry by the government, yet still managed to make things right by its customers. 

[complawyer]

menocchio

 

while your suggestion might be an alternative, OBC would definitely not cover the costs or rearranging flight plans or hotel reservations. remember airline tickets are usually non-refundable, and if you get a credit from the airline ,when will you use it. if they offer you a full refund, then  you're kind of stuck in tokyo. Not a bad place to be stuck in, but certainly what someone hasnt planned to do. by the way, tokyo is one of the most expensive cities in the world. also, flying from tokyo to get to your original flight from manilla, incurs the additional expense that wasnt factored into the total cost of the cruise. i believe it is totally  outrageous for a company to act this way. this, ncl should be on the hook for the cost difference. anyway you slice this, in is completely bad move on the part of ncl

what could their powers that be possibly be thinking. this is a total inconvenience to all the passengers 

 

also, if my original post was misinterpreted, i apologize to all.

 

we are not on this cruise, but after 14 years sailing exclusively with NCL, diamond status, and 30 cruise with them, i believe that they have crossed the line and am truly outraged for what they are doing to the people that are booked. IMHO, they  have absolutely NO EXCUSE for this, and this tactic has me totally p****d off. and p***ing me off is very rare

we are booked onthe 21 day cruise from barcelona to  capetown  nov 5th thru the 26th

had not all our flights, hotel reservations and the cruise being paid  in full, i probably would have cancelled this cruise, leaving me with little or no incentive to use NCL again, 

in the past, i have tried to stick  up for ncl for their apparent shortcomings, but after  this fiasco NEVER AGAIN!

[hallux]

I'd be curious to know what the logistical issues with Manila were.  Were they unable to source all the product needed to provision the ship?  Were they unable to find a company to staff the terminal?  Did the company they had contracted with to staff the terminal back out for some reason and a replacement couldn't be signed in time?

 

Changing the turn-around port is not something done 'willy nilly' as someone else put it - A LOT of things need to be coordinated at the facility where they relocate it to.  I don't disagree, by that reasoning, that this is something that has been in the works for a while, but until they had the new logistics coordinated they couldn't say for sure that it was going to happen.  Is the timing unfortunate?  Absolutely.  Do I agree that SOME kind of option to cancel because of this change is something NCL should do?  Sure.

[njkate]

15 minutes ago, complawyer said:

menocchio

 

while your suggestion might be an alternative, OBC would definitely not cover the costs or rearranging flight plans or hotel reservations. remember airline tickets are usually non-refundable, and if you get a credit from the airline ,when will you use it. if they offer you a full refund, then  you're kind of stuck in tokyo. Not a bad place to be stuck in, but certainly what someone hasnt planned to do. by the way, tokyo is one of the most expensive cities in the world. also, flying from tokyo to get to your original flight from manilla, incurs the additional expense that wasnt factored into the total cost of the cruise. i believe it is totally  outrageous for a company to act this way. this, ncl should be on the hook for the cost difference. anyway you slice this, in is completely bad move on the part of ncl

what could their powers that be possibly be thinking. this is a total inconvenience to all the passengers 

 

also, if my original post was misinterpreted, i apologize to all.

 

we are not on this cruise, but after 14 years sailing exclusively with NCL, diamond status, and 30 cruise with them, i believe that they have crossed the line and am truly outraged for what they are doing to the people that are booked. IMHO, they  have absolutely NO EXCUSE for this, and this tactic has me totally p****d off. and p***ing me off is very rare

we are booked onthe 21 day cruise from barcelona to  capetown  nov 5th thru the 26th

had not all our flights, hotel reservations and the cruise being paid  in full, i probably would have cancelled this cruise, leaving me with little or no incentive to use NCL again, 

in the past, i have tried to stick  up for ncl for their apparent shortcomings, but after  this fiasco NEVER AGAIN!

You would be amazed on another forum how many apologists just Pooh Pooh this change! It’s astounding! I believe some of the current tensions between China and Philippines might be coming into play, I truly believe this decision was made before the final payment date and NCL attitude is so sad too bad! If it wasn’t before final the option to cancel with full refund should be on the table 

I truly hope this bites them square in the ass

Edited 14 hours ago by njkate

[complawyer]

AMEN! brother!

[Faels]

Not American so I don’t know all the details and I think it only qualifies in some US states but I was hearing yesterday about an extra type of travel insurance you can add on through Nationwide (think it’s Nationwide??). Anyways it costs like $750 and you have to sign up before final payment date or something but if there are port changes you get a refund from the insurance. I’m sure there are more details than that but seeing as NCL has been cancelling ports left and right lately it might be something to look into. Obv too late for this Dec trip for for future cruises… 

 

link: 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Faels
Added link

[luv2kroooz]

2 hours ago, Menocchio said:

I'm a little surprised this is legal.

No one has said it is legal. It has not been challenged in a court of law. My guess is NCL would be quick to settle any claims out of court. The last thing in the world wants is to proceed to court. They would be walking down a pretty dangerous line if they went to court. Think of the precedent an adverse judgment might set.

[PATRLR]

5 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Hmmmm. Great line. But what would you expect to change?  Go to Manila??? That is already off the table. 

I guess I don't really expect anything to change because for years now NCL has demonstrated that they really don't care about their passenger's experience, byond keeping them safe.   

What I would like to see change is NCL's well documented behavior of waiting until after final payment to announce substantive changes to their itineraries.

[DCGuy64]

2 hours ago, complawyer said:

we are not on this cruise, but after 14 years sailing exclusively with NCL, diamond status, and 30 cruise with them, i believe that they have crossed the line and am truly outraged for what they are doing to the people that are booked.

Relieved to hear you aren't one of the unfortunate souls in this predicament. I imagine we'll be hearing from some who are, before too long.

[DCGuy64]

1 minute ago, PATRLR said:

I guess I don't really expect anything to change because for years now NCL has demonstrated that they really don't care about their passenger's experience, byond keeping them safe.   

What I would like to see change is NCL's well documented behavior of waiting until after final payment to announce substantive changes to their itineraries.

Suppose they did announce the change prior to final payment date. What would happen, from a financial standpoint? Or an operational one? I have my own theories but am anxious to hear yours. Thanks.

[PATRLR]

2 hours ago, complawyer said:

leaving me with little or no incentive to use NCL again

You used the word incentive.  For me, it's not lack of incentive it's downright concern.  I'll probably use NCL again for something mindless like the Carribean where we really don't care where the ship stops, but for more "interesting" itineraries I'm concerned enough to look at lines other than NCL.

[PATRLR]

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Suppose they did announce the change prior to final payment date. What would happen, from a financial standpoint? Or an operational one? I have my own theories but am anxious to hear yours. Thanks.

Fair question.  At the very least I'd have options.  Maybe I cancel the cruise and convert it to a land vacation.  Maybe I can convert it to a combination shorter cruise and land vacation that still allows me to use my trans-Pacific flights.  

I don't know what I might do but I do know once you are past final payment your kinda stuck with going on that specific cruise.

[julig22]

5 hours ago, PATRLR said:

I assume insurance would pay for the lost/unuseable airfare, but I don't think insurance will cover a more expensive airfare to the new ports or more expensive hotels, etc.    And is it really right to make insurance pay for NCL's bad behavior?  As with anything that takes advantage of insurance, we all ultimately end up paying (and NCL skates away clean).

I don't recall saying that anything about this was right.

 

As to insurance, how is it different and/or right when insurance pays for expenses when you miss a connection due to delays/cancellations - something that is on the airlines. Whether or not insurance would pay for a more expensive ticket I don't know but, depending on your policy, they should reimburse you for non-refundable tickets you might have. In the overall scheme of things, nobody should have to have insurance to cover delays or changes made by airlines, cruiselines or anyone else in the travel industry. But that's the way it works.

 

But to my original point, IF your airfare is booked through NCL, then NCL does take care of the airfare. 

[julig22]

4 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

Nice deflection....justifying bad behavior in the name of insurance....and very sad, I might add.

Where did I justify bad behavior?

 

Stating simple facts is not a deflection nor is it a justification.

Sorry I didn't include a disclaimer with my post.