minabruuke

You may be stating this as a rhetorical question but I really don't understand your point. Are you actually concerned that NCL may change things because of this? Because I am fairly certain that NCL is well aware that there is no way that they can avoid every possible conflict, protest, demonstration, etc. in this world. I would expect protests to continue to occur in many cities around the world. Protests are a pretty normal occurrence in cities when war and tragedies occur (and at really any time for many different reasons).

You wouldn't feel the need to get to one of your children if they decided to travel abroad and were seriously injured? It may be terrible to think about and seem highly unlikely but things happen. It is not just about knowing someone who lives abroad. There was a local high school student group that traveled abroad a few years ago. They were involved in a bad accident and there were multiple fatalities and life threatening injuries. There were kids without their parents that were hospitalized with life threatening injuries and could not be immediately repatriated. It was covered quite thoroughly in our local news and one set of parents were frantically trying to get an emergency passport to get to their child; someone else went immediately to be with their child but they were delayed several days because of their choice not to have a valid passport. One of those kids died in that hospital, I never found out if it was that child. Those parents may have or could have missed their chance to say goodbye. This world is full of tragedy. It is horrible to think of the worst that could happen. But I 'd rather be as prepared as possible and that means having a valid passport.

* SOME Americans Others, including myself, think it is incredibly foolish to even consider trying to travel internationally without a passport and are very well aware that it is the norm to have a passport. I actually dread my passport renewal because having my passport unavailable for use makes me feel completely trapped and unprepared. I always have and always will pay to expedite my passport renewal regardless of whether or not I have a trip planned. I see my passport as one of my most important and valuable possessions. There are people I care about abroad and people I care about that could be traveling abroad and have an emergency. I want to be able to get to those people ASAP if the need were to arise. I will never understand why so many Americans are comfortable not having a passport (I understand that the cost is an issue for some). Even if one never expects to or wants to travel abroad, what if a loved one does and for some reason you need to get to that loved one in a moments notice? In an emergency, you're not going to enjoy having to try to obtain an emergency passport.

For flights that depart the US, you cannot complete or even attempt to complete online check-in until 24 hours in advanced so NCL'S email went out days before check in would even take place for an airline. One could argue that NCL was ahead of the game (I will not claim that). If you try to check in online for a flight with a travel document that isn't sufficient, the airlines I have traveled don't and won't tell you then and there that your travel document is the problem. They just give you the notice that you need to check-in in person at the airport. The day of your flight is when you'd be told that there is a problem just as the OP would've been told when they arrived at the port for the cruise if they hadn't decided to actually read the reminder email that NCL sent out. I feel terrible for the OP but I actually think that they are fortunate (that's my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree) that the email went out and that they read it before they arrived at port where there would've been nothing anyone could've done to get them on that ship same day. I just recently entered my passport information into an upcoming international flight reservation. Doing so changed that section from red to green and gave me check marks but that isn't confirmation that my passport is verified for travel. It is solely confirmation that I entered the information; just as is the case with NCL online check in. I just don't see how a cruise line or airline could even program their system to verify that a specific passenger meets the specific requirements for a specific trip. At least not while requirements such as having, for example, 6 blank pages in your passport still exist for certain countries. Airlines are very much in a similar situation as NCL when it comes to verifying required documents. Once a passenger presents their passport, agents have to check databases and not just their own information in order to try to determine what that specific passenger needs to travel. For some passports and itineraries, the airport staff know exactly what is needed and/or it is easily accessible from their system. At other times it is not easy and the agents have to work just as hard to dig up the information as the traveler would have needed to. I traveled to several countries in Southern Africa in 2022. We did have everything we needed but it took the check in agent at least thirty minutes of digging around on their computer and several phone calls to help desks to get the information they needed to be confident that we were good to go. As you mentioned, the airline would've indeed been responsible if they allowed us to actually board and fly without all of the necessary documents and permissions. Regarding the OP's claim that NCL didn't say anything until 3 days before... (PATLR - I am not adding this here to contradict anything you said but rather to add my opinion to the overall discussion): This claim is completely untrue. That email was just a reminder. The OP showed us a picture of their online check in. The place the OP's GF entered her birth certificate was a section on "proof of citizenship" not a section used to determine whether a cruiser holds the proper documents for travel. However, the information is and was available in the "guest ticket contract" that the OP's screenshot shows that they confirmed they read. At booking, one is also notified of their personal responsibility. OP wasn't notified for the very first time 3 days before, that's just the first time they actually did their due diligence and read that specific piece of information. I feel terrible for the OP and I am not an NCL fan but I see the fault lying solely with the OP on this one.

Thinking back on every international flight that I have taken that required a passport, I cannot recall a single occasion where any airline verified that I had all of the documents that I required to board an international flight prior to my arrival to the airport. I am not saying that there isn't some airline somewhere that does this for certain flights but I have traveled to around 50 countries at this point and have always had to have my documents checked in person to be officially checked in and able to board an international flight that required a passport (Schengen to Schengen flights being the only international flights that I have ever taken that didn't require a passport or passport checks). I have regularly been asked to enter my passport details online ahead of time during an online "check-in" but I still have needed to show my passport and any required visas at the airport for them to be checked to assure that they meet the requirements that I was personally responsible for determining and verifying ahead of time. Just like NCL, the airlines provide links that help me determine what I need but my specific reservations have not included an all inclusive list of what documents I require to travel. I am really having a hard time seeing how NCL has handled this differently than what is the norm for airlines.

I am glad to hear that MSC does this; it seems like the responsible path. I could see parents getting frustrated with such a policy if they wanted to send their kids off the ship with a close friend or other family member but a little inconvenience is worth it to keep kids safe. I am guessing that there are many different policies out there and it may also vary based on the ports. If I remember correctly, these teens were 16 or 17.

Yes, and those minors' own parents left them on the ship without a guardian. The teens weren't signed into any programming where an adult was responsible for monitoring them while their parents were off the ship I honestly do not have a clue as to if there is any official policy on this but I do know that I have never noticed any ship checking that minors getting off the ship were with their own guardians. Whether or not security bares any responsibility in doing so per the cruise contract, I have no idea. If those teens were surrounded by other adults, would there be anything to alert security to the fact that they weren't with their guardian?

Years back we were on an excursion in Curacao which ended with a family in utter panic. They'd left their teen onboard with another teen. The two teens decided they wanted to go to the beach; they didn't ask their parents but thankfully did have phones. Dad got a call towards the end of the excursion. The kids had met some local teens at the beach and went to their house to hang out (yikes!!!). The kids couldn't figure out how to get back to the ship, didn't take enough money for the return taxi and couldn't properly explain to Dad where they were. All aboard time was in less than an hour. I have no idea how it ultimately turned out but it was a horrible situation. As a past high school teacher, I've seen even the best behaved and smartest kids make some really stupid decisions, especially when dealing with peer pressure. Of course, there are plenty of teens that would know better than to do something as irresponsible as the two in the above story. But even leaving older kids/teens on the ship can be risky. In addition to concerns that others have raised, older kids most likely could walk right off the ship. You can't count on security realizing that it isn't their parent in front of or behind them.

Oh no.... I guess pre-registration on my phone will not be going well for me. Without my glasses I can see ok if I put something almost right up to an eye (a few centimeters/ inch or two away at most) and everything else is just a blur. This situation reminds me of my first encounter with the Smartgates in Sydney when they were relatively new (that are not smart or they'd realize that when you make a person take off their glasses they may not be able to see written instructions). I followed the instructions to take my glasses off and then just stood there clueless. An officer came over and unkindly reprimanded me for not following instructions. I explained that I was waiting for instructions but I didn't hear anything and since I was instructed to take my glasses off I couldn't see anything. The agent seemed humiliated; I couldn't believe that I was the first person that this person had encountered struggling because of their lack of vision. I have since encountered these types of eGates in many countries and I am always shocked that there aren't audible instructions or at least a button for visually impaired people to get audible instructions (at least I have yet to encounter this). We've just learned that my husband needs to remain behind me so that he can read the screen and tell me if my head needs to be turned because I am not looking in the right place, give any other necessary instructions and tell me when I can put my glasses back on. We occasionally get attitude from the agents because they'll want my husband to use an empty adjacent gate but as soon as we respond that I can't see, a light bulb seems to go off in their brain.

The answer to that is pretty obvious; both. Guests can and do decide with their wallet. If they are unhappy with what they see, they are free to never book another cruise again or never cruise with NCL again. NCL decides when they decide to ban people from returning (guests and/or crew), they also do this. There may be plenty of people who disagree. At times, I imagine that guests and NCL would not agree but that doesn't really matter. If anyone judges something to be inappropriate, they have the right to their opinion just as you would have the right to disagree with their opinion. I didn't see any reports here of anyone actually doing this. Did I miss those reports? I think there has been speculation.

Even a non-working employee should be behaving in an appropriate manner in front of guests. According to the OP: "guests were complaining about one name tag wearing guest because they thought he was an employee acting badly." This is where I see a problem. Had I not read this thread, I would have thought someone wearing what appeared to be an NCL name tag was an NCL employee. Civilian clothing would lead me to believe they were off duty, so I would not bother them. The name tag itself is something I may notice from a bit of a distance, especially on someone behaving in a poor manner, but due to poor vision I could not read a name tag unless that person were right in front of me and facing me. Someone with what appears to be an NCL name tag, misbehaving, is potentially not good for NCL's reputation. Personally, if I saw something once or twice from one or two people, it wouldn't much affect my opinion of NCL or their crew standards. If I saw issues again and again, that may have an impact on my opinion of NCL.

I agree with you on the pizza. I'm not a huge pizza fan but I definitely eat pizza at Alfredo's Pizzeria for multiple lunches when we sail on a Princess ship that has that venue. I love their seafood pizza. Were you on one of Princess' newer ship (Royal class)? I looked at zackarykeef's signature and it looks like they sailed on the Crown Princess; I imagine that ship would not impress given the other ships that they appear to have sailed in recent years are much newer and more modern than the Crown Princess. If you were on a Royal class ship, that likely explains why you seem to be more impressed by what Princess had to offer than they were.

Did Princess actually say that they were going to sail at those times? That they hoped to sail at those times? Or did they state that they would provide an update? I'm just genuinely curious what was actually being conveyed to passengers since I've seen/heard different reports from different people.

I'm not surprised guest services was chaos, I imagine that it was a very difficult and draining few days for them. I wouldn't expect new cruisers and/or infrequent travelers to come up with this sort of an alternate option on the fly. Some Princess staff may have thought of it but they couldn't really announce it as an option to the entire ship since there wouldn't have been enough availability on the other cruises or even flights to switch everyone that may have wished to make the change. The best person onboard to help with something like this would've probably been the onboard future cruise consultant but I'd probably have resorted to just calling my Princess cruise consultant and if I couldn't get through to her I'd have just booked online and used the FCC on a different cruise. I'm so sorry that your trip didn't turn out as planned. I truly hope that you have the opportunity to visit and experience Alaska in the near future. I agree with what other posters have recommended; the one-way glacier cruises on Princess are excellent!

If I had been on this cruise and the Alaskan ports were indeed my priority (rather than the cruise and ship itself), I'd have worked with Princess to be able to immediately use the FCC they were offering to get on one of the several other 7 night Princess cruises that left on Saturday or Sunday from Vancouver or Anchorage (there were several awesome last minute deals and there were cabins available). If they couldn't get the FCC applied right away then I'd have just paid for the new 7 night cruise; the last minute rates were really low! It may not have been in the cabin I wanted, but if seeing Alaska was truly my priority, I'd personally have been able to accept that. I'd have booked airfare out of San Fransisco to those locations with the thought that my 100% cash refund from the Ruby Princess cruise would likely be enough to cover that extra airfare. Sea days would be lost but I'd have been able to see the ports and glaciers that I'd hoped to see. The extra flights wouldn't have been ideal but life throws us hurdles and we have to make the best of them. I know this is just a 'would've, should've, could've' that I am sharing and it may irritate some people. I also get that doing something like this won't work for everyone, especially those who have special needs such as an accessible cabin. I still point it out because there are so many people who just get so upset/mad/frustrated/angry when things go wrong that they don't allow themselves to clear their mind and come up with a solution that will make them happy or at very least content. Trips can often be saved when major things go wrong but you have to be willing to think outside the box and help yourself. I remember listening to live interviews on the news during the Southwest system breakdown over the holidays. The people were devastated (completely understandable) because they were missing some super important event because the airline couldn't get them another flight for several days. During two different live interviews, I went online to search flight availability only to find availability on same day flights from the airport the person they were interviewing was standing in to exactly where they wanted to go for less than $200....just on a different airline. They just needed get online and book themselves a new ticket on a different airline rather than continue trying to work with an airline that was in the midst of a massive breakdown. Of course I know that there were destinations that didn't have open seats on any airline for days but in those two situations that I researched there definitely were other reasonable options. I understand that not everybody has extra money to just book another ticket but airlines will refund a flight that they cancelled if you don't use the ticket (it just unfortunately can take awhile). And then if you have insurance, it should cover any extra cost. So many people just don't know how or don't want to help themselves. But if you learn strategies on how you can help yourself when traveling, you will find yourself a lot less disappointed when things don't go exactly as planned.