ok, has ncl finally crossed the line?

[julig22]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

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.)

Thank you. I should have put a disclaimer in my original post as simply mentioning the role of insurance in this instance seems to have taken a negative turn.

[luv2kroooz]

11 minutes ago, julig22 said:

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.

No worries. I did not see you denounce it. Are you sure travel insurance would cover this? It isnt trip cancellation? It isnt trip interruption, either. Maybe cancel for any reason....insurance is generally not intended to cover matters of convenience and deceptive business practices of the common carrier.

Edited 12 hours ago by luv2kroooz

[yakcruiser]

5 hours ago, njkate said:

 

 

I hope this comes back to bite them in the arse big time

I hope so! I am counting on some really cheap cruises in 27 or 28 when they run out of "new wallets" who most will not be return cruisers and offer some really good deals to the loyal cruisers who have jumped ship to lure them back.

[DCGuy64]

12 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Thank you. I should have put a disclaimer in my original post as simply mentioning the role of insurance in this instance seems to have taken a negative turn.

No worries. I am now very intrigued about whether travel insurance would kick in for this type of scenario. Typical policies cover you for trip cancellation, interruption or delay. I will ask a travel insurance expert about what happens if the carrier changes itineraries at a point where it's not possible to get a refund.

[PartyPlannerLady]

18 hours ago, complawyer said:

if any of you havent as yet read it, ncl spirit has supposed to embark from tokyo at the end of nov and a folowing cruise in dec and disembark in manilla!

i might aslo add that i understand post covid, ncl invested over 100,000,000 to completely refurbish the spirt. so please dont play  the mechanical problems card!

in the past, i  have posted many times, trying to at least give my opinion on what i considered various annoyances and not major problems that would otherwise spoil the entire cruise ( cancelling a show, canceling a port, some food not up to par or expectations)

 

i too have been disappointed when we  couldnt dock in taipei, or hanoi, and last year when we couldnt dock in berlin. These were all ports i had been eager to visit and were mostly my reasons for booking those cruises

 

also, many times my wife and i leave from 1 european city, to disembark in a totally different port. we did it in april, rio to lisbon, next week, reykjavick to southhampton, and in nov, barcelona to capetown . we book airfare and hotels consistent with these ports.

IMO, what ncl has now done  is beyond inexcusable!  tokyo to  manilla has now been changed from tokyo to hong kong, leaving passengers who made their plane reservations, and possibly hotel reservations trying to scramble getting home from china as opposed to the phillipines.

As per their usual MO, this announcement was made long after final payment was due.

if ncl is willing to pay the airfare difference for all its inconvenienced passengers (which aint gonna happen) i see this as the only way to appease this problem.

 

this is completely wrong on so many levels, it leaves me gobsmacked.

 

what say you all?

 

Nothing needs excusing.  All covered under 'at any time for any reason without compensation or explanation (or however it is worded).  You are a lawyer, no?  Sucks when it happens, but the contract is a contract that both parties agree to.

[DCGuy64]

32 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

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.

Hypothetically, if many passengers opted for that, NCL would stand to lose a lot of money from people who cancelled and spent their money elsewhere. I can see a corporation wanting to avoid that outcome, and I can also see them fitting into the cruise contract language that allows them to make changes without compensation. (Not saying that's right by any means, it seems underhanded, but it might be legal. Might.)

[julig22]

1 minute ago, luv2kroooz said:

No worries. I did not see you denounce it. Are you sure travel insurance would cover this? It isnt trip cancellation? It isnt trip interruption, either.

Insurance would be on a case-by-case basis, every policy is different. Cancel for any reason should work for anyone who has it and wants to cancel the cruise. I have an annual policy so no individual trip is actually insured but it also includes CFAR. 

As to the other possible expenses, it's a relatively specific situation that's probably not spelled out in a policy but always worth a conversation.

In the past NCL has always offered money toward flight cancellations (proof required) when there has been a change requiring people to change flights- maybe they will at least do that in this case?

[The Traveling Man]

23 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

I hope so! I am counting on some really cheap cruises in 27 or 28 when they run out of "new wallets" who most will not be return cruisers and offer some really good deals to the loyal cruisers who have jumped ship to lure them back.

As P.T. Barnum is credited with saying “There’s one born every minute.”  I don’t think that NCL is likely to run out of new customers any time soon.

[MagnoliaBlossom]

5 hours ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Obviously, I haven't read all of the policies out there, but the ones I've purchased and I suspect others don't cover a change that is made by the travel provider.  They expect the travel provider to cover guests' losses for something it has done.

There is a very good travel insurance board where you could get some pretty solid advice.  Usually Steve from Trip Insurance Store is around with expert knowledge.

[PATRLR]

42 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Hypothetically, if many passengers opted for that, NCL would stand to lose a lot of money from people who cancelled and spent their money elsewhere. I can see a corporation wanting to avoid that outcome, and I can also see them fitting into the cruise contract language that allows them to make changes without compensation. (Not saying that's right by any means, it seems underhanded, but it might be legal. Might.)

I don't think there is any doubt about the things your wrote above.  I have no doubt they have the legal right to do what they are doing.  The fact that they are choosing to do these things and there now seems to be a pattern with no bounds, to me it sends the message that I should be concerned about future bookings, particularly when the itinerary is the primary motivation for selection.

Edited 11 hours ago by PATRLR

[doctoranna]

2 hours ago, Faels said:

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: 

 

Yeah, that was me.  Back then, we actually collected twice on itinerary change benefits from Nationwide, once on the pre-departure change ($750 payout each) in 2017 due to Irma and Maria, and once on a change that occurred during the cruise ($500 payout each) in Oct 2019 when we had to miss the Azores due to Hurricane Pablo.  We did not pay extra for the policies with these benefits.  It was included in the price of the policies, which was very competitive with the prices of policies from other companies.  Unfortunately for us (but probably fortunately for Nationwide), they have dropped that benefit since cov!d. They do still have a benefit that pays for nonrefundable private shore excursions if the port is missed due to an itinerary change, but that's about it.  That being said, I can't say enough good things about Nationwide's family of cruise-only travel insurance policies.  We still purchase coverage from them, having had not only the two itinerary change claims, but also 2 medical claims, and all were handled promptly and cheerfully.

 

[DCGuy64]

23 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

there now seems to be a pattern with no bounds

I wasn't aware this was a pattern with no bounds. I will have to look around on the boards here and see how frequent this type of thing is. I do see complaints from time to time about ports of call being changed, sometimes at the last minute (while the cruise is underway), but those can be due to a number of factors such as weather, war, unrest, disease, local ordinance, etc. I'm not aware of how frequent it is for a cruise line to change the port of disembarkation, however. I know now that OP @complawyer is not booked on the affected cruise, but if it happened to me, I'd be contacting my airline to see about changing the flight home. I had to do something similar earlier this year and the cost to change was negligible.

[pghflyer]

Changing of an embark or disembark should really trigger the option for a cancel/ refund. Yes, I know their contract may protect them otherwise...but things that legal aren't always the right way to do things.  This is different but similar from earlier this summer when initially some of the cruise lines (not NCL) in Baltimore would not allow customers to cancel when their embark/ disembark port was changed to Norfolk (5 hours away).  This wasn't the cruise line fault, but didn't make you feel good about how they were treating their customers either. Eventually I think all relented and unofficially did allow cancel/ refunds.  If an airline knows in advance that they cannot get you to the destination you booked, they are required to let you cancel for a refund. Shame it doesn't translate here and they aren't motivated to do the right thing for their customers.

[Anoynmous Phoenix]

Lots of theorizing but I would still love to see the two documents put out by NCL.   One for those now debarking in Hong Kong and then for those embarking in Hong Kong.

 

Or is only the first one available?   Has the second to wait till after the final payment for that cruise? 

 

What me cynical!

[julig22]

14 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I wasn't aware this was a pattern with no bounds. I will have to look around on the boards here and see how frequent this type of thing is. I do see complaints from time to time about ports of call being changed, sometimes at the last minute (while the cruise is underway), but those can be due to a number of factors such as weather, war, unrest, disease, local ordinance, etc. 

One problem that NCL has is their choice to offer unique itineraries - which is one reason why I sail NCL. When it all works out, it's great but with unique and one-off cruises there are bound to be unforeseen problems, some evident early on, some at the last minute.

Maybe that is why other larger cruiselines don't offer those itineraries in the first place. If they continue to have issues requiring last-minute adjustments they might eventually just give up the idea of offering extraordinary journeys.

 

Could NCL be a little more transparent and forgiving - sure. Should they offer a refund - or even FCC - probably. Will I book more NCL extraordinary journeys knowing the itinerary often gets modified- probably. Still kicking myself for not booking NY to Greenland/Iceland this summer, thinking they wouldn't make ports as usual. They did.

[DCGuy64]

13 minutes ago, pghflyer said:

If an airline knows in advance that they cannot get you to the destination you booked, they are required to let you cancel for a refund.

Yes, I would agree. However, despite multiple people claiming that NCL "just knew" it was going to change the disembarkation port from Manila to Hong Kong, there is no evidence of this. Conjecture and speculation aren't evidence. If I called up my travel insurer and told them "NCL had to have known, they just had to," I'm not getting diddly squat. All insurers care about are verifiable facts. If you file a claim and it turns out NCL has the legal right to do this, you're SOL.

[DCGuy64]

We have been lucky, I guess: never have had a port changed in 13 cruises. We've had to skip ports due to bad weather, but nothing where the embarkation or disembarkation ports changed after final payment. Closest we came was a cruise in 2020 that was going to leave from Miami, then was cancelled and we booked a new one leaving from St Maarten, and that was cancelled, too. (Both cancellations due to COVID) But since the cruise line cancelled them, we got all our money back.

[njkate]

1 hour ago, PATRLR said:

I don't think there is any doubt about the things your wrote above.  I have no doubt they have the legal right to do what they are doing.  The fact that they are choosing to do these things and there now seems to be a pattern with no bounds, to me it sends the message that I should be concerned about future bookings, particularly when the itinerary is the primary motivation for selection.

I’m with you! A cheap Caribbean cruise from Orlando or Tampa that is a 5 hour drive yes!! Europe nope I cancelled a cruise next year and opted for a land vacation, I’m also looking at Princess and Celebrity. 
I totally get port cancellations for weather, mechanical etc but lately NCL is pushing the card with vague nonsense reasons

[PATRLR]

5 minutes ago, njkate said:

I’m also looking at Princess and Celebrity. 

I did Princess to the Norwegian fjords this past summer.  Very pleased (there is a report around somewhere).  Booked Princess to the Med next summer.   I'm not writing off NCL, I'll cruise them again...

 

[NJGeorge]

If I had booked airfare and a hotel or two and now it's all for naught due to a major itinerary change AFTER final payment that would make me look elsewhere for a cruise. 

I have a Barcelona cruise booked for 9/2025 on the Getaway. 

Hope it leaves from there. I'm on the fence whether to cancel or not. Many of the ports have been experiencing tourist demonstrations. Can't say I blame them.

 

[luv2kroooz]

3 hours ago, PartyPlannerLady said:

 

Nothing needs excusing.  All covered under 'at any time for any reason without compensation or explanation (or however it is worded).  You are a lawyer, no?  Sucks when it happens, but the contract is a contract that both parties agree to.

Oh no, this is terrible advice. The courts would interpret 'at any time for any reason'. Gross misconduct or negligence invalidate all contracts and can never be agreed to be any party. But feel free to keep trotting out your opinion of "the contract". If only it was a simple as the erroneous information in your post.

Edited 8 hours ago by luv2kroooz

[luv2kroooz]

2 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Yes, I would agree. However, despite multiple people claiming that NCL "just knew" it was going to change the disembarkation port from Manila to Hong Kong, there is no evidence of this.

Only NCL knows their intention, so what type of evidence do you want from cruisecritic? Look, everyone has the ability to read English and the god given talent of a brain to process information. You are free to process the info, but please dont come on here asking people for evidence. They are speculating based on experience. Evidence will be produced if and when someone decides to litigate this. Go research these boards as you said you were going to and then form an opinion. If you need evidence, you likely wont find it in a message forum. Cheers!!

[complawyer]

my point was/is regardless of the reason, it's a lousy thing to do to a ship full of your passengers, advising where  the cruise will end, allowing them to make travel arrangements, and then pulling the rug out from under them and dropping them off in an entirely different country.

forget the very small fine print  that you might need a magnifying glass to read, this is entirely wrong no matter how you interpret the "contract"  Maybe changing itineraries or ports in the middle of a cruise is understandable, or even to be expected, ending  in an entirely different country "IS NOT"

 

Sorry, NCL should be totally ashamed of this move!

[pghflyer]

NCL can't help if this dynamic situation has changed since they created the itinerary.....perhaps they didn't share their decision as timely as they could IDK and they aren't sharing when they realized they wouldn't be doing it the way it was sold....but they CAN choose to not force all their customers to stay with an itinerary they didn't book and no longer want. 

[Red-Sol]

2 minutes ago, complawyer said:

Sorry, NCL should be totally ashamed of this move!

Add it to the ever growing list. While NCL was always my favorite cruise line I am not completely sure of their viability anymore. They now will need to do a lot to get me back...at this point I don't even want to risk a deposit with them...they have completely lost their way along with me as a customer.