Don’t travel with NCL for Itinerary

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, Trailblazerram said:

If you are the sort of person who likes life on board a ship and don’t get off at ports then Norwegian is the cruise line for you.

If like me you select cruises for their itinerary DONT CHOOSE THIS CRUISELINE. They tempt you in with an exciting choice of ports then change them for penny pinching reasons to create a different cruise without giving you the option to cancel ( or they leave it so late it will cost you too much) Having achieved Sapphire status with this line we will now be voting with our feet and going with more reputable lines. I don’t mind paying more if they produce what they promise. 

Yes!! Just posted this today on another thread 

 

Sorry for the long post but thought I’d give everyone a heads up. Norwegian changed fully half (4 of 8 ports on a 2 week cruise this coming January), changing 3 and dropping one for another sea day. The ports dropped were the main reason I booked this itinerary. The last 5 days of the cruise would have been a bust for us. They offered $50 per person onboard credit for the “inconvenience”. I asked to switch to another sail date on that ship or another NCL ship that had an acceptable itinerary but was refused without a 25% cancellation fee. I ran it all the way up the resolutions desk pole. Insurance won’t cover because of “just a change in itinerary”. I ended up cancelling and taking the 25% hit and changed to another cruise line. NCL has lost a frequent cruiser for life. Don’t think they care that the $1250 cost them mine and anyone traveling with me in the futures business. NCL, totally dissatisfied and disappointed in your company. 

The following is my last communication to them. Their return email was again quoting they have the “right to change itinerary” and they wouldn’t budge on waiving or refunding penalty to change dates or ship. I’m DONE with NCL. 

 

I contacted your resolutions desk for the 3rd time today regarding this matter and asked to be allowed to change sail dates to get an itinerary we could be satisfied with but was told we would still be charged a 25% cancellation fee.  We could have changed to the next Galveston sailing on the 31st because the itinerary change there was acceptable to us or flown to Florida to sail on another Norwegian ship. Because the cancellation fees would not be waived to pick another sailing I have cancelled this cruise. I have given up hard earned money and will rebook with another company because NCL would not bend or compromise to allow us to enjoy our 49th Anniversary on the cruise we booked. Literally the last 5 days of this cruise would have been a washout for us not to mention the ports that were changed besides Jamaica ( we wouldn’t even have gotten off the ship there) were not ports we wanted to visit. I am so disappointed and disgusted with NCL that I intend to spread the word to all I know and as far as I can on cruise boards and social media to let others know your business practices. Although I can’t fully know all the reasons for such an extreme itinerary change it felt very much like it was all money/profit driven. This whole thing with that many port changes is unprecedented and felt very much like bait and switch. I very much drive the trips that the group of couples we travel with choose, we sailed NCL last Oct., England, Ireland, Scotland, Brussels and France) and will steer our group away from NCL on any future cruises.  My cancellation fee was $1249.00 and I feel that if NCL cared to keep a customer and protect their reputation the cancellation fee will be refunded to us.

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:44 AM, Capitan Obvious said:

 

If I was the sort of person who liked life on board a ship and I didn't get off at ports, then itinerary becomes totally irrelevant as I will enjoy myself onboard whether we are visiting a good port, a bad port, or if we are at sea. The only consideration for me as that sort of person is "which cruise line offers the best on board experience", right?

 

So, even though you are "voting with your feet" and leaving, are you, by the quoted statement above, saying that NCL offers the best on board experience?

Celebrity was better by far

[RocketMan275]

6 minutes ago, Cruisecorn said:

Yes!! Just posted this today on another thread 

 

 

Sorry for the long post but thought I’d give everyone a heads up. Norwegian changed fully half (4 of 8 ports on a 2 week cruise this coming January), changing 3 and dropping one for another sea day. The ports dropped were the main reason I booked this itinerary. The last 5 days of the cruise would have been a bust for us. They offered $50 per person onboard credit for the “inconvenience”. I asked to switch to another sail date on that ship or another NCL ship that had an acceptable itinerary but was refused without a 25% cancellation fee. I ran it all the way up the resolutions desk pole. Insurance won’t cover because of “just a change in itinerary”. I ended up cancelling and taking the 25% hit and changed to another cruise line. NCL has lost a frequent cruiser for life. Don’t think they care that the $1250 cost them mine and anyone traveling with me in the futures business. NCL, totally dissatisfied and disappointed in your company. 

 

 

 

So name a cruise line that would have allowed the change without a cancellation fee.

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:31 PM, herbanrenewal said:

I admit I sort of agreed with the prevalent support for NCL. But I'm booked on Africa on Dawn. On my upcoming cruise 3 ports were dropped on a 12day cruise adding 3 at sea days. All itinerary was changed except first and last day. Changes announced after final payment. And after anyone booking independent excursions had booked. The reason - "environmental concerns." The compensation for missing 25% of the cruise - $100 OBC and 10% FCC for most, but I was told my oceanview got me $50 OBC, NO FCC. From the USA I'm flying a 15 hour flight, missing 25% of itinerary, and they are generously offering me $50 OBC. 

I will keep my next 6 cruises booked for next year - they're all north American cruises and not bucket list. But I won't be booking anything exotic. I had planned to book a southeast Asia, but I'm not risking such a lengthy trip and missing out on 25% or more of what  I believed i was purchasing.

Yes!  Environmental concerns translates to making up or more $$. Total bait and switch because it’s not weather or Port related just $$. I’m done with NCL

[Cruisecorn]

7 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

So name a cruise line that would have allowed the change without a cancellation fee.

Don’t know, been cruising for years and Never have a had a full 50% of an itinerary change and a port dropped for “environmental and sustainability issues”, so it  hasn’t come up. Only had a couple of itinerary changes on sailings either weather or port related, one of which was weather on NCL which is understandable.  I don’t think the port change policy was intended to be at the cruise lines whim, but for circumstances beyond their control. Never had a change or

problem on Princess, Royal Caribbean, or Celebrity and have cruised all of these. Everyone has a choice, I’m just letting people

know my personal experience and dissatisfaction with NCL. Everyone is free to make their own decisions that work for them and voice their opinions. 

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:55 PM, Seas2mountains said:

I totally understand the need to go with the flow when it comes to cruising especially when weather or unforeseen events cause changes. I expect the OP who is at the Sapphire level has experienced port cancelations for various reasons and continued to choose NCL. We have too as is expected with 29 NCL cruises so far. We can go with the flow when things are out of the captain's control. That isn't the problem being discussed. 

 

A lot of recent changes in  NCL itineraries aren't spontaneous adjustments but rather planned and intentional changes. Unfortunately, these itinerary shifts are being made to cut costs on fuel and other expenses, and passengers aren’t being informed until after their final non-refundable payments have been made or close to final payment. This has happened to us three times this year.

 

I agree that if someone has their heart set on a specific destination, independent travel might be a better option. But for those of us who carefully selected NCL because of a specific itinerary over an alternate choice, it feels unfair when they realize that the trip they planned and paid for has changed significantly without adequate notice.  Please go look at the other itinerary change thread to see the 4 changed ports on the Prima sailing. That is ridiculous to make those kind of changes after final payment.

 

Most people seem to have no empathy on these changes until it happens to them after spending hours planning excursions that are now canceled and they are stuck with an extra unexpected sea day or a port they have already experienced and don't care to visit again.

We made a choice trusting the locations promised would be honored and now the only thing we can do is warn others about the increase in this practice of cancelations to save expenses and allow others to decide if they want to risk it or not. We are reducing our risk and choosing other options. 

 

It doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to the next few NCL cruises as we are excited as usual but we have a serious trust issue to resolve before making additional commitments or going through with final payments with NCL. 

 

Yes agree 100%

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:09 PM, The Traveling Man said:

@dhanakorn There is no doubt that NCL offers many wonderful itineraries on which they manage to sail to all of the promised ports exactly as advertised.  There also have been recent reports, however, that on many other cruises, NCL has made significant itinerary changes after the final payment due date.  The more disturbing fact is that many passengers have researched the schedules published by local port authorities and have found that in some cases NCL never made plans to visit the ports which they had advertised.  If this happened only once or twice, it might be dismissed as merely an unfortunate coincidence.  The repetitive nature of this pattern, though, seems to indicate a deliberate attempt on the part of NCL to engage in bait-and-switch marketing.

Yes, ridiculous. Are there thread about the people who researched the ports?

[Cruisecorn]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:19 PM, luv2kroooz said:

If they feel they need to implement a fuel surcharge, then that is exactly what they should do. Charge a fuel supplement. They'd be the only cruise line in the industry that needs a fuel supplement to operate their cruises, but hey, that is their choice. It is also our choice to pay it or cruise on a line that doesn't have a fuel supplement. 

 

I think what I would prefer is for NCL to be more intentional and transparent about itineraries and craft them in a manner that meets whatever fuel objectives or efficiencies they are trying to meet. They need to do all of this BEFORE they start marketing the itineraries and taking money from their passengers. They are the ONLY cruise line in the industry that currently does this to their paying guests by changing itineraries at the last hour for reasons that create economic benefits for NCL, and additional economic costs to their paying guests. I am only talking about matters of corporate convenience, fuel efficiencies, guest feedback, operational matters. I am not talking about medical emergencies, civil unrest, hurricanes, and mechanical failures, which require itinerary adjustments at times.

 

And they couch it with the most ridiculous platitudes about how they are working tirelessly to deliver vacation experiences, and how they value our vacation dollars.  I mean, why would have to work tirelessly to do that? This is a cruise vacation not a heart transplant. It is just a bunch of word salad and the hypocrisy is not lost on me.

 

Again, if they want to maximize itineraries for efficiencies, go ahead. But don't do it on someone else's dime.

 

 

 

 

Yes!!!

[Cruisecorn]

23 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

NCL cancellation policy is very similar to all other cruise lines.  

Passengers do not purchase an itinerary of specific ports.  And changes to those ports is justification for a penalty free cancellation. All a passenger is purchasing is a cruise of a set number of days in a certain class of accomodations.  Consequently, a passenger is only entitled to compensation when the cruise is reduced in length or if there is a change in cabin, etc.

If the cruise contract does not protect the cruise line, then why haven't there been class action suits for compensation?  Since such suits have not been filed, it would seem that the contracts do protect the cruise lines.

If you truly believe a cruise line is fraudulent, then there are lawyers that specialize in suing cruise lines.

Been sailing for quite a few years and although there have been some

port changes this is a new and unethical way to use the contract. If what you say is true they could put you on board and sail in circles back to the same port every day of your cruise. No one has filed suits because this “extreme excess of changes is a new phenomenon taking advantage of the policy in a way that was not intended. 

[RocketMan275]

1 minute ago, Cruisecorn said:

Been sailing for quite a few years and although there have been some

port changes this is a new and unethical way to use the contract. If what you say is true they could put you on board and sail in circles back to the same port every day of your cruise. No one has filed suits because this “extreme excess of changes is a new phenomenon taking advantage of the policy in a way that was not intended. 

So following the contract is unethical?

How do  you know what the intentions were of those who wrote the contract?

Another reason no one has filled suit could be the lack of a lawyer who would take the case.

[Cruisecorn]

21 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

The simple fact is the cruise line isn't selling cruises to specific ports.  Read the cruise contract.  It says:  "(1) The following Terms and Conditions together with your specific booking information form the basis of your contract of carriage with NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (also referred to herein as ‘NCL’), trading as Norwegian and/or Norwegian Cruise Line, a limited liability company incorporated in Bermuda, and are incorporated into the contract...." and

 

"(2) Your cruise holiday fare includes all meals in the main dining rooms, snack and buffet restaurants, entertainment on board ship (unless part of a dining entertainment production), numerous activities on-board, the use of many on-board facilities, detailed port briefings, port charges, departure taxes, baggage handling, and where part of your contracted holiday arrangements, flights, hotel stays (room only) and transfers between airport, hotel and ship (for flight inclusive cruises or where purchased at the same time as making your cruise only booking). ..."

 

You'll note that itineraries are not included.

That’s a ridiculous statement. 

[RocketMan275]

11 minutes ago, Cruisecorn said:

That’s a ridiculous statement. 

No, that is the cruise coontract you agreed to.

[Cruisecorn]

5 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

No, not this 100%. Here is the argument a smart liar, I mean lawyer, could make to a court and jury. It is not as black and white as you and others think. If bad faith can be shown, there is no contract.  You dont have to see it, understand it, agree with it, acknowledge it ... You can even hit the smiley face emoji. I couldn't care less. Feel free to crack on and post more incorrect information....A smart lawyer could make a very good argument that there’s a duty of good faith on both sides of the contract, and that it’s in bad faith to cancel or change an itinerary simply to save the cruise line money. They should not offer one thing and provide a different thing simply because it benefits them financially. That is not acting in good faith.

Yes, and it will only happen to me one. Never NCL again. 

[Cruisecorn]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

There are those who will say that even if the cruise line can do something, per the cruise contract, maybe it shouldn't. That's fair. But guess what else is fair? Just because someone who hates a particular cruise line and swears never to use it again, CAN post on Cruise Critic all of the time about it, doesn't mean he/she should.

Have cruised NCL many times in the past but this is the first time I’ve been screwed over by them so I feel the need to let others know and make their own choices going forward. Reading the many posts this isn’t a one off but a recent trend. 

[Cruisecorn]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

That's interesting, because we have always gotten port fees returned AND onboard credit when a port had to be skipped. The fuel cost issue really interests me. I sometimes wonder whether the cruise industry's bad reputation as being fuel hogs is prompting NCL to change its itineraries in order to burn less fuel and be better for the environment.

I call BS on the “environmental concern” it’s all about the $$. 

[Cruisecorn]

2 hours ago, complawyer said:

to paraphrase Shakespeare to cruise ncl or not to cruise ncl that is the question!

sorry. poetic license invoked here

 

so my friend, if your theory is do not cruise ncl for the itinerary (or any cruise line for their itinerary) what would be your actual reason to cruise ncl?

 

I've posted many times in the past, itinerary is my main motivation to choose NCL. 

I still maintain for price and itinerary. NCL gives  you the best bang for your buck!

Unless your itinerary is changed 50%, with dropped ports, then it’s bait and switch.