Norwegian has BBB rating of "F"

[CanadianTwosome]

Let me reword what I said.

 

You're really not serious about your "zero is included in up to two" argument having any possible legal validity, are you?

 

Please tell me you're just joking.

 

By the way...I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, so you might want to steer away from trying to convince me it's "technically correct" using some sort of mathematical argument. :D

 

Interesting... I have a similar education background (I have a BSc in Math/CS, and I've completed all the class requirements for an MSc in mathematics), and I have no problem including zero in 'up to two'. Math has a language all its own, and if I wanted to be really technical, I might say that two shouldn't be included because the phrase wasn't 'up to and INCLUDING two'. So really, let's just accept the wording as written by non-mathematicians for non-mathematicians (which I'm willing to bet it was, especially since they used English rather than mathematical symbols). People booking cabins and asking for this promotion qualified for one of three possibilities: two per cabin, one per cabin, or zero per cabin. Most of the people on this thread have confirmed that they qualified for zero. :)

[Ribeye53]

Of course Cruise Critic has no responsibility.

 

Cancelling and rebooking would not get us the promotion, since NCL says that it is not available for our sailing at all. Based on the explanations from NCL, it is not clear if it was ever available for the sailing we are on or it reached the capacity they will allow. In any event, as explained by NCL, there is no way for the TA to have gotten us the benefit of the promotion. As I noted in an earlier post, we have booked air and purchased insurance, so rebooking to another date outside of our vacation window when NCL would honor their promotion is not feasible.

 

New,

Did your TA get you the Lattitudes discount?

[newcruzrs4]

It's not a matter of not understanding the rules or regulations or wanting something for nothing. There were no rules or regulations referenced in the Facebook posting. Also, NCL by their own admission had removed any posting that might have had more detail from their own website, while maintaining the broad unqualified language in its Facebook posting. I am quite comfortable that I qualify under the criteria contained in the Facebook posting.

[njhorseman]

I don't have to convince you. It's plain English.

 

That doesn't mean anyone would like that interpretation. Plus, it would create a lot of bad PR for any company trying to use it as an "out" but that's what the wording allows.

 

I'm speechless...and that's a rarity. :rolleyes:

[newmexicoNita]

To be honest, I'm still not sure what the fuss is about. A friend of mine booked a cruise several weeks ago. When she booked, she asked her TA to get the lowest price for her based on the qualifying promotion codes that were available at the time. One of them was the Pepsi promotion. However, she is a Latitudes member and her Latitudes discount entitled her to a bigger discount, and she was told that she could NOT combine the Latitudes and Pepsi codes in the same booking. So, she passed on the Pepsi promotion. Isn't this the same scenario for the OP?

 

I don't understand either. It amounts to a couple of soda cards, that is all. You are right, you can not get 2 proms, that is what I was trying to tell the OP> the latitude discount is a promo, so is the Pepsi promo..

 

Even if this wasn't the case, to come on and rant and rave about something so minor (in my opinion) makes very little sense. I had a similar situation not long ago and it was related to a group pricing among other things. I won't go into detail, but there were several cruising, some had a group rate, one gal saw she could be on a deck higher for the same price and toward the front of the ship (why she wanted the front of the ship is another story) anyway, because it was only a few weeks out, the group was closed, we could not get her moved. I thought she would have cardiac arrest before it was all over..Did she let this ruin her cruise? To some degree yes, which was too bad.

 

Nita

[sottovoce]

Sorry to say this is a very small issue and would not consider it a compliant nor is it anything I would remotely consider cancelling a cruise about or stop cruising a line for. Don't let this ruin your cruise it is just a minor thing.

I wouldn't "remotely consider" starting a thread on the internet for such a trivial matter. It's a wonder some people can get by in this world without blowing an artery.

[jimd909]

I don't understand either. It amounts to a couple of soda cards, that is all. You are right, you can not get 2 proms, that is what I was trying to tell the OP> the latitude discount is a promo, so is the Pepsi promo..

 

Even if this wasn't the case, to come on and rant and rave about something so minor (in my opinion) makes very little sense. I had a similar situation not long ago and it was related to a group pricing among other things. I won't go into detail, but there were several cruising, some had a group rate, one gal saw she could be on a deck higher for the same price and toward the front of the ship (why she wanted the front of the ship is another story) anyway, because it was only a few weeks out, the group was closed, we could not get her moved. I thought she would have cardiac arrest before it was all over..Did she let this ruin her cruise? To some degree yes, which was too bad.

 

Nita

 

This is what I don't understand. What is minor to one person might not be minor to another. And, why does it make very little sense? Maybe to you but not the OP. Also, I didn't really see where the OP ranted and raved. I see where alot of the other posts were ranting and raving about the OP though.

 

Give some constructive help. If you don't like something, move along. At least I tried to help.

 

Oh, and I answered your earlier question, since it was so MAJOR to you to know if I received an e-mail confirmation. :rolleyes:

[Us2inFL]

(specifically, the Pepsi promotion)

 

Doesn't that say it all?

[njhorseman]

Interesting... I have a similar education background (I have a BSc in Math/CS, and I've completed all the class requirements for an MSc in mathematics), and I have no problem including zero in 'up to two'. Math has a language all its own, and if I wanted to be really technical, I might say that two shouldn't be included because the phrase wasn't 'up to and INCLUDING two'. So really, let's just accept the wording as written by non-mathematicians for non-mathematicians (which I'm willing to bet it was, especially since they used English rather than mathematical symbols). People booking cabins and asking for this promotion qualified for one of three possibilities: two per cabin, one per cabin, or zero per cabin. Most of the people on this thread have confirmed that they qualified for zero. :)

 

 

Yes, well you've missed my point. Zero is les than two...no doubt about it, but so is minus 637, for example. Extending the "logic" of johnql's argument, NCL could also be justified in charging the OP for 637 soda cards (and giving him no soda for it to boot) because after all, minus 637 is "included in the term "up to two".

 

The fact is that his argument is pseudo-mathematical bull crap, and if anyone tried to actually use the argument in a court of law, arbitration hearing, or anywhere else but an Internet forum like Cruise Crtitic, the judge or arbitrator would have a uncontrollable laughing fit.

[CanadianTwosome]

Yes, well you've missed my point. Zero is les than two...no doubt about it, but so is minus 637, for example. Extending the "logic" of johnql's argument, NCL could also be justified in charging the OP for 637 soda cards (and giving him no soda for it to boot) because after all, minus 637 is "included in the term "up to two".

 

The fact is that his argument is pseudo-mathematical bull crap, and if anyone tried to actually use the argument in a court of law, arbitration hearing, or anywhere else but an Internet forum like Cruise Crtitic, the judge or arbitrator would have a uncontrollable laughing fit.

 

I dunno... I think it's reasonable to assume that when talking about something tangible that can be acquired, that something can be counted in whole numbers. While negative numbers are fun to play with, so can fractions, but neither apply in terms of 'How many soda cards can I have?' The answer falls into the set N = {0,1,2... x} where x = the upper limit according to the spending limit of the purchaser, or in this case, because there is an upper limit stated (as well as the natural lower limit of 0), the set would be S = {0,1,2}.

 

Whether you believe this argument is 'pseudo-mathematical' or not, the fact is that people requesting the promotion have qualified for one of THREE possibilities, not two.

[Urban trekker]

Reading this thread has made me real thirsty - Coke or Pepsi - what shall it be - decisions, decisions, decisions, - oh well perhaps at little visit to IKEA will help me make up my mind.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[njhorseman]

I dunno... I think it's reasonable to assume that when talking about something tangible that can be acquired, that something can be counted in whole numbers. While negative numbers are fun to play with, so can fractions, but neither apply in terms of 'How many soda cards can I have?' The answer falls into the set N = {0,1,2... x} where x = the upper limit according to the spending limit of the purchaser, or in this case, because there is an upper limit stated (as well as the natural lower limit of 0), the set would be S = {0,1,2}.

 

Whether you believe this argument is 'pseudo-mathematical' or not, the fact is that people requesting the promotion have qualified for one of THREE possibilities, not two.

 

To repeat an earlier post:

 

I'm speechless...and that's a rarity. :rolleyes:

[Harleycat]

So... I'm a 'checker'. I like to do my own research and see things for myself. So, I went to the BBB and did a search on NCL... here's what I found:

 

Type of Response No. of Cmpl

 

5

 

Making a full refund, as the consumer requested

 

14

 

Making a partial refund

 

173

 

Agreeing to perform according to their contract

 

4

 

Refusing to make an adjustment

 

20

 

Refuse to adjust, relying on terms of agreement

 

45

 

Unanswered

 

7

 

Unassigned

 

 

268

 

Total

 

It's a little wonky (the second column is 'number of complaints'), but I think the gist of it is clear. NCL's response was POSITIVE in 192/268 complaints (that's 72%). In 20 cases, they refused to adjust relying on terms of agreement - which to me indicates that the complaint was not legitimate (it may have been something people were unhappy about, but NCL were not 'in the wrong', so to speak). (that's another 7%) There were only FOUR cases where NCL simply 'refused'. The 52 that are 'unanswered' and 'unassigned' really can't be counted, since there isn't enough information.

 

So I'm wondering how the 'F' rating is determined. I'd say the BBB is doing a bit of 'false advertising' themselves. The rating definitely does NOT, in my opinion, match the FACTS they've posted about NCL's response to complaints. Of course, we also know nothing about the nature of the complaints and complainants.

 

 

I think I'll stick with my own rating of NCL... A+. :)

 

That just backs up my post that sometimes the answer is just no. It might not be what we want to hear but it doesn't mean it's wrong or that a complaint is valid.

 

My company, a heating oil firm, took a lot of heat (forgive the pun) last year. In the beginning of any season, customers are offered a variety of contracts. One includes a fixed price for the season. People usually save with those except when oil goes down which happened last year. People locked in prices around $4.00 a gallon banking on oil going up. Based on those contracts, we purchased oil (really futures) based on how many customers locked in their prices. Well, oil went down but those people were still locked in at $4.00 a gallon since we had already paid for their oil. They bitched and moaned and went to the media but we had to stand firm. We purchased their oil at the beginning of the season at the higher price and we stood firm at that price. If the price had gone up, would they have wanted to pay the higher price? No! They would have waved their contract in our faces and unfortunately, we had to do the same.

[newmexicoNita]

This is what I don't understand. What is minor to one person might not be minor to another. And, why does it make very little sense? Maybe to you but not the OP. Also, I didn't really see where the OP ranted and raved. I see where alot of the other posts were ranting and raving about the OP though.

 

Give some constructive help. If you don't like something, move along. At least I tried to help.

 

Oh, and I answered your earlier question, since it was so MAJOR to you to know if I received an e-mail confirmation. :rolleyes:

 

good, I asked as a protection to you, not to start the 3rd world war. You are right what is major to one is minor to another, that is what we usually think of "as rolling with the punches" And if you don't like something, you can move on, no one is asking anyone to read all the comments..

 

I guess I am just someone who would never come on a website to complain about whether I was going to get 2 pormos or just one, or even none if it wansn't a major issue. We ahe not talking about $500 here.

 

And yes, he did rant on, he even mentioned he hadn't yet gone to BBB. That is something pretty much ranting in my opinion, to even consider something like that.

 

Many of us have truely faced things in our lives that are major, we are thankful we are here on earth, are able to travel, feel safe and can live a good life. We do not live in a world that says "i have a right" to such and such.

 

Nita

[newmexicoNita]

Reading this thread has made me real thirsty - Coke or Pepsi - what shall it be - decisions, decisions, decisions, - oh well perhaps at little visit to IKEA will help me make up my mind.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

 

Dennis, thanks for lightening the thread up, it has almost become a personal attack which I do not like. As for Pepsi or Coke, try the wine choice.

 

Nita

[Zeno]

My opinion (for what it's worth):

The OP should immediately cancel their cruise.

Why: If OP is this upset over a soft drink promo, I just don't see how they will enjoy their cruise.

[sjbdtz]

I don't have to convince you. It's plain English.

 

That doesn't mean anyone would like that interpretation. Plus, it would create a lot of bad PR for any company trying to use it as an "out" but that's what the wording allows.

 

 

Even better, it doesn't specify HOW they determine the number.

 

So you could presumably ask them for 1.25 soda cards... :rolleyes:

[sjbdtz]

It's not a matter of not understanding the rules or regulations or wanting something for nothing. There were no rules or regulations referenced in the Facebook posting. Also, NCL by their own admission had removed any posting that might have had more detail from their own website, while maintaining the broad unqualified language in its Facebook posting. I am quite comfortable that I qualify under the criteria contained in the Facebook posting.

 

 

The problem is that every contact a company makes with consumers is NOT necessarily advertising.

 

Some communications are news releases. Some are PR-related, some are verbal & reactive (incoming customer service), some are verbal and proactive (sales calls), some are on-air (and most advertisers don't recite the small-print on radio), etc.

 

So that's where I think the problem is.

 

If you had read part of a sentence, and it promised you a benefit, it does not mean you are entitled to NOT read the remainder of the sentence where the clarification confirms you are NOT eligible.

 

If I say "I'll pay $1,000,000 to everyone reading this, go to the next paragraph for details"

 

and the next paragraph says "over my shoulder, as I type it"....then it's clearly not false advertising....it's just that the caveat was separate from the broad offer, but the broad offer clearly directed you to the caveat.

 

NCL did that on Facebook...they said...here's the broad offer, go to NCL.com for details.

 

You chose not to, and chose instead to get upset that the details weren't immediately associated with the broad offer.

 

I suggest going to have a drink, enjoy the sunshine, and look forward to your next cruise.....'cause even if you DID see all of the Pepsi details ON facebook...you STILL didn't qualify for them!!!!!

[DocJohnB]

I agree that the BBB is useless. I also believe that statistical data is manipulated to match whatever viewpoint is trying to be made.

 

But did anyone notice this little tidbit.

 

173 Agreeing to perform according to their contract

 

Although the total complaints (268) is infinitesimally minute the vast majority of complaints (65%) have to do with NCL not agreeing to perform to the contract.

 

Now what is even more interesting to me is that we have to math majors arguing on exactly what is less than two.

 

Only on C/C :D

[2Cruise4Ever]

OK, I didn't read all of the posts, but did anyone check this out? I went to the SE FL BBB site and found the "F" rating on the Pride of Hawaii, not NCL Corporate. The Pride of Hawaii doesn't even exist anymore. And, it doesn't surprise me that it got an "F" rating. When NCLA was launched, it struggled for a very long time. Many people had bad experiences. I don't give this any credence at all....

[newmexicoNita]

I agree that the BBB is useless. I also believe that statistical data is manipulated to match whatever viewpoint is trying to be made.

 

But did anyone notice this little tidbit.

 

 

 

Although the total complaints (268) is infinitesimally minute the vast majority of complaints (65%) have to do with NCL not agreeing to perform to the contract.

 

Now what is even more interesting to me is that we have to math majors arguing on exactly what is less than two.

 

Only on C/C :D

 

all stats are manipulated to fit the view.

 

Nita

[2Cruise4Ever]

all stats are manipulated to fit the view.

 

Nita

 

Ain't that the truth!

[fin]

Sorry to hear about your company's BBB experience and the inconsistency you note. Of course, the BBB, as a voluntary organization does not have teeth. Checking the ratings can be a helpful indicator of a company's track record in dealing with complaints. I did BBB research before buying my last car and went with a BBB member that had a strong record.

 

In any event, I am generally a very easy-going person who seldom complains (or in the words of one poster "whines") about things. I did not complain about my prior cruises.

 

 

The way the Pepsi promotion has been handled does bother me on principle. NCL, on its own Facebook page, posted the following verbiage:

 

 

Guests can quench their thirst on board all Freestyle Cruising ships with limited time complimentary soda packages

 

Norwegian Cruise Line and Pepsi are celebrating summer by offering up to two complimentary soda packages per stateroom on any seven-night sailing or longer. Guests who book a cruise on one of Norwegian Cruise Line’s 11 Freestyle Cruising ships from now through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010 can request the Pepsi Summer Cup promotion at the time of booking by referencing promotion code PGPOP. Once on board, guests are given a special Norwegian and Pepsi branded souvenir cup and have access to unlimited complimentary fountain soda refills at any bar, lounge or restaurant throughout the duration of the cruise and have the choice of selecting Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew or Sierra Mist.

 

NCL indicates that the promotion is not available on our sailing, because it is a holiday week, and referred to capacity limitations. Please note that NCL’s own posting clearly refers to “all Freestyle Crusing ships” and “any seven-night sailing or longer” and indicates that it is available for bookings made through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010. Not a single disclaimer is included in the posting.

 

NCL claims that it pulled the promotion from its own website during June (even though it left the promotion on its Facebook page, which is the posting I saw) and argued that the “for more information or to book a cruise, contact NCL” type language at the bottom of the Facebook posting solved the lack of disclaimers in the Facebook posting itself. Under advertising law principles I am aware of, such argument by NCL does not hold water.

 

 

It looks clear enough from this posting that they owe you. They should be equally responsible for their presence on another website unless they claim it was posted without their knowledge or consent. There is no disclaimer of holiday or ship capacity exceptions. I would send an email to the ceo, although I doubt it will have the same almost magical reaction that it used to.

[suzyed]

I drink a lot of diet pepsi so I would be a pissed off if I expected 2 soda cards and didn't get them because of shady advertising.

I would be too! And I am betting many folks here would also be annoyed if they did not get a promo that they felt they were promised.

 

Let's not jump on folks when they are having a problem....

 

As far as the BBB rating, well it's not worth the "paper" it's written on...the BBB, in my opinion is way past the point of having any value or importance and should not be a factor. Maybe once upon a time, they were legit but not now.

 

JMHO

[Leafpeeper]

We made our complaint directly to NCL corporate after spending a great deal of time on the phone.

 

After having the problem, I looked at the BBB site to see how NCL might be on resolving complaints and noticed the low rating. Haven't filed anything yet with BBB. Our first 2 cruises with NCL were fine, which is why we booked again. Those were our first cruises, but we expect to do a lot more cruising in the future.

 

We booked flights and travel agent insurance, so cancelling would not necessarily be so simple. I am sure we will enjoy the cruise like we enjoyed the prior ones, despite our dissatisfaction with how this issue was handled

 

My objection on the Pepsi promotion is not any "cannot be combined" rule. I will post separately on the details, but it relates to the lack of disclaimers in the internet advertising postings NCL did. There is very broad language, but NCL is not making the promotion available for our voyage even it is withing the advertised booking and sailing dates.

 

I also agree you should cancel and book a Carnival cruise or another cruiseline available for the same date from the same port or nearby port.

Once you have a bad feeling like this, it could ruin your cruise.