cssc123

Based on the thread about the current Breakaway Bermuda cruise (that was diverted to Florida and Nassau), calling NCL or a travel agent will give you nothing but "cruise is scheduled as planned".

Without trying to add any fuel to any fire, I will just say - they saw before Sunday that Nicole was going to hit or at least impact the island while the Breakaway was scheduled to be docked. According to that other thread, people called NCL to see if there was an itinerary change and were told 'no, everything as planned' even though all reports showed it hitting right when they were supposed to be there. They were not told until around the muster drill that the itinerary changed.

Considering the storm is just about there now, and is expected to go north east of the island, I suspect we will be fine and in the clear. Granted the path to Bermuda will probably not be as direct as planned but I don't suspect we will be diverted considering come Saturday the storm is supposed to be well beyond Bermuda and well east of any path we might take to get to Bermuda.

With all that said, We are making sure to have some warm clothes just in case we end up in Canada/further north in New England.

I think it was $149 onboard

 

Can't speak to the Bermuda itinerary. We were just on the Boston to Quebec itinerary a few weeks ago. It was not crowded at all. But, I suspect that was partially due to he demographic (older crowd).

 

That being said, we were on the Jewel in September to Alaska for $149, and the thermal suite there was not crowded either.

 

We were on the Escape in May to the eastern Carib and the week was $199 and there was always a crowd then. Not uncomfortable, but always people.

 

On the Dawn and Jewel, there were often times when I was alone in the suite.

Thanks for the information.

We were on the Dawn a few weeks ago (post dry dock). I posted a few pics on the following thread

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2402752

Bird:

How crowded was it at sea? Also was it $119 on board, or does it go up if not pre-purchased.

also its the 7.95 per device.

So if its for her to check in with you (or whomever) you will have to pay to activate both devices.

It does not allow ship to shore communications, just passenger to passenger.

If it is for her to check in with friends at home (via text or some other app) then she will need an internet package, but will not need the iconcierge app.

Hope that clarifies.

I can not say how they do or do not veryify one's age on the ship - but I assume its like land establishments.

Do they look old enough? do they look close to 21 (either plus or minus)? that sort of criteria...they might ask to see the room card if they only look 25 (which around here, they card you if they think you are 30 or younger).

But also as an aside - the drinking age on NCL ships when not in US waters is NOT 21. It is 18 (with permission of the parents). I assume you are worried they will go drinking without your permission, but unfortunately with the nature of the beast (all inclusive in fare) there may be nothing you can do to stop them from getting beer wine at the minimum when you are not around. And it if they look like they are 25, then I'm sure they would have no issues getting anything they want onboard as things would be much more lax considering the drinking age is 18, not 21.

Could be because Visas are going to be difficult to come by for Brazil as long as the country's foreign ministry is dealing with a worker strike (no visas at all are indefinitely being issued). That doesn't account for the San Diego to Chile leg, but it would account for the leg going to Rio.

Mix that with the negative publicity Rio had during the Olympics (Copacabana beach being right around the bend from where raw sewage is dumped into the water) I'm sure people are not lining up in droves to see Rio as much anymore on an already niche itinerary.

LAX is NOT really near the port by any means I want to say a half hour drive or so. Its down past Long Beach if I remember correctly.

From what we saw, there wasn't a whole lot to do within walking distance to the ship and there isn't really much to do within walking distance to LAX. That whole area is very CAR heavy - just to rent a car at LAX you need to take a van to car rental area.

Even though the drive is only a half hour or so, if your taking a NCL transfer, it will stop at literally every terminal (unless your coming in at the last one of the loop) this will eat up time. The same would be very true to those shared van shuttle services unless you pay for a private trip.

The more I think about this situation; the more I want to know - WHO made the descion (or suggestion) to move Stuart and the like to CEO roles and out of COO roles.

That is where the motives lie.

IF and that is a big IF FDR suggested/mandated/whatever that stuart and the like be moved to a CEO position AND he is as big of a micro-manager as believed. That would mean he is trying to create a buffer between his actions and his career. He is aligning up the proverbial chickens for slaughter. "They are the CEOs of the line, they are not performing, our stock is dropping they need to be cut" would be the line - not saying this is the case, but it is plausible.

IF and again that is a big IF, it was the board who mandated they become CEOs then its a power move. Again the old model FDR as CEO of holding and multiple COOs of each line was the traditional model for a hierarchy in the corportate world. This could be seen as a shot over the bow to Del Rio - We do not like what is happening to our stock prices, you've made changes and don't let the COOs run their lines step back.

Lastly I again reiterate - it could be a business as usual and just a shell game with the titles and positions to give the impression that things are changing for the positive. Just reassign some roles to give a specific impression (change is coming) to tied over the storm and eventually we will replace the unhappy people and gain the rich fat ones who could care less.

This is from NCL's leadership information prior to the change. I don't see where Mr. Del Rio was CEO of NCL, but President and CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line Holding Ltd. and Mr. Stuart was President and COO of Norwegian Cruise Line and now he is President and CEO.

 

 

Frank J. Del Rio

President and Chief Executive Officer, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.

Frank J. Del Rio is the president and chief executive officer of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: NCLH), comprised of Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises. These brands operate a combined 21 ships with approximately 40,000 lower berths visiting more than 430 destinations worldwide.

 

Andrew Stuart

President & Chief Operating Officer

Andy Stuart is President and Chief Operating Officer for Norwegian Cruise Line, appointed to this position in March 2015. A 27-year company veteran, Stuart has been instrumental in building the Norwegian brand and strengthening relationships with travel partners. In this role, he is responsible for ensuring that Norwegian excels in every facet and that the company continues to produce industry leading financial results, while bringing new ideas and ways of doing business that improve guest satisfaction and team member involvement.

 

 

And according to the article posted, Mr. Del Rio's title remains the same: One of Norwegian’s main strengths is the strong and deep bench of talent across our executive team,” said Frank Del Rio, president and chief executive officer of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings.

See the funny thing is the titles and there is no "standard" for positions from corporation or even subsidiary to another. We aren't talking about the military here. There is a certain order of rank, however that does not mean that all ranks are filled, nor does it mean a change in rank equals more or less responsibility.

Now origionally Stuart was the COO and president. This means it was following a standard practice. Stuart as COO and president over saw the day to day operations of NCL and reported to Del Rio as the CEO of NCLH the parent compnay. Now it is rumored or assumed that Del Rio has held a very active role in each of the companies - how true this is no one excepts those in that level of power will actually know.

Having a COO/president of a subsidiary and no CEO (at that level) would be the more "standard" practice for a make up like NCLH and its multiple lines.

This is why making them each CEOs of their respective lines actually eyebrow raising.

By tradition, the COO/President of the subsidiary (NCL) would oversee the day to day operations as the direction of the holding company (NCLH) and then the CEO of the holding company would report to the board of directors, and the board of directors report to the owner (stock holders). By making subsidiary level CEOs it gives the impression that there is change to come - either big or small, superficial or real no one really knows. It could just be a shell game to help the stock price (when there is change at any level stock prices move). It could be to separate Del Rio from the day to day operations even further - by having them all now be CEOs, traditionally they would be another stop between day to day and Del Rio. Under the old model Del Rio was the direct report to day to day operations. No one outside of that board room really knows what the motivation was in this case.

Again I re-iterate. This COULD mean change is in the works...or it COULD mean its just change on paper only in hopes of making stocks move. Only true way to tell is time.

In the large corporate world of holding companies and subsidaries, changes like this come for 2 reasons.

1. to have an actual change in direction - remember no one was fired and/or replaced in any fashion. So the actual change could be as suggested to remove Del Rio (either at or against his own request) out of the operations of each individual line and into a more "parent" role that is the holding company. This would mean that he has less say in the operations of each line and would be more concerned with revenue/stock prices. A sort of "I don't care how you make money, just make at least this much money" role.

or

2. to give the APPEARANCE of actual change in direction without any real change in direction. NCL has had some blows to their PR. Apparently people do not like Del Rio but do like Stuart (we have no opinions on either). What better way to boost positive PR than to make it look their is a change in managerial direction - without actually changing anything. This would also cover the "shell game" reorganization across the multiple brands so that upper management of each line is uniform across the board. This would give the impression of the holding company reorganizing and putting each executive on the same level in hopes that it boost stock moral rather than actually caring about client PR. (change affects stock prices either + or -).

I have no real speculation on what the change really means. I do not have opinions on any persons at that level and only base my vacation decisions on experience and value.

Kids are fine in the Haven, honestly I enjoyed thier pressence (wow that sounded kinda creepy in hindesight).

When we were on the Breakaway there were a couple families that had kids in the Haven, there were also a couple of well seasoned couples/families that obviously had far more money than I could ever dream.

The funny thing is, the kids were well behaved and having fun, and on the other hand some of the grumpy people who felt that their status/age/money had left them rigid and entitled. They would push by with their walkers knocking into people and make comments about how the person they just rammed from behind should have "known" and moved out of the way. (I'm sure those same people came on here to complain about me and my wife not wearing fancy clothes to lunch in the Haven restaurant, or me sitting on a lounger all day on the sun deck, or the fact that the bartender knew "my drink" and would make it for me every time I passed by since we had the UBP and would put it in a "to-go" cup).

This isn't an adults area only, nor an adults only line. Take the kids, but obviously remind them to be considerate of others as they would expect to be of them- as all parents should do no matter WHERE they bring their child(ren).

Don't worry about your kids - the fact that you are worried and considering others means they should be fine.

Be careful though with your bank refunding the ATM fees and check the full terms before going.

A local credit union here does that, then when we were cruising we wanted to give our steward a tip. I ran to the ATM to get the cash out (we were docked in Miami).

When I came back and looked at the statement, That particular ATM fee was NOT reversed out. When I called and asked, they said it was a foreign ATM - as in foreign country - and that only domestic ATM fees could be refunded. They said that even though the ship was in US waters, the ATM was registered to the Bahamas and thus it was considered a foreign ATM, not domestic.

Going forward, I would do 1 of 2 things - if taking out $100 or less, go via casino and pay the $3 (this would be more a we forgot cash and wanted to hand out a few tips, etc). Or I would preplan and bring cash with me onboard if I felt I needed it for anything besides tipping.

IF you want to give out extra tips to staff (steward, butler, whomever) what you can do is go to guest services and let them know you want to give a tip to an employee. They will have you fill out a form (you will need to know their department and name obviously) and then they give you a copy of it to give to the employee (or keep for your records) and then the money is directly added to their account. We just ended up doing this with our Butler and steward last time. Gave them the slip that said $X was added to their account and it was just the same as giving cash. This was then added to our on board account.

So the luggage tags are a separate occasion then, I assume? Are those too hit or miss...again, I know it seems petty, but it is a suite perk and I'll be darned if they try to skip out on one that was included in the price (again, I am full aware of the petty-ness)

(ps. thanks for the responses...we will wait some more and come a couple weeks, if nothing I'll call.)

Aprox when should we expect the pre-cruise preferences letter for suites?

I'm assuming its via snail-mail, or is supposed to be via email with the luggage tags being snail-mailed.

We're 50 days out and people on our roll call have mentioned getting it a while ago. We've been booked (in the suite) for well over 18 months (prior to sailing) so its not like we just upsold or anything and I'm looking for immediate gratification.

More just curious - not "oh my God, I need it or my cruise is ruined"

ps- I am aware of the pre-concierge email to send preferences.

We have 2 obc's from our TA. One is $100 and states cannot be used in casino or for gratuities. The other one is for $75 and does not state this and is refundable.

(my emphasis)

OP, states it is from a travel agent, though I assume it is probably OBC that is part of the perks for group bookings that NCL gives - and I know some TA book as groups when they have the volume - but we can not assume on the amount of info given that it will work the same way as NCL non-refundable.

yes, NCL non-refundable can be taken out at the casino (or gambled away for that matter), OP states it is from the Travel agent.

I concede I do not know of any OBC one could purchase that would be limiting as such, so again I too assume it is NCL non-refundable OBC that is being passed on by the TA via either a promo or group booking perk; however, I feel it is in OP's best interest to confirm or deny the validity of the 'no casino' prior to attempting that scheme. If it is actually stipulated as OP stated, they would then be on the hook for the $103 in full and assuming no other charges, in essence throw away the OBC that was given to them.

However to add, if it is allowed for use in the casino, you could take that $100 cash then bring the cash to the pursers desk and ask to add $100 cash to your account.

You will then be on the hook for $3 but again, but you will knock off $97 from your DSC (again assuming no other account charges).

I would be shocked...in 2014, far more of the premium brands were under $15. Now its your basic well stuff. Prices have sky rocketed because they are still trying to get drink money out of those with the UBP.

A menu I saw the only scotches/wiskeys under 15 were blends...Single Malts aren't really a mixed liquor so I don't really see them stocking much cheaper alternatives considering they will try to get that extra $2 out of those who prefer finer beverages.

Super excited that Getaway is getting Margaritaville! We loved their lunches on Escape. It gave some variety in setting and the food and service and drinks were awesome! After being on Escape in December, we really missed the option when we were on Getaway again in July. This improvement will have us re-considering Getaway itineraries instead of waiting for Escape to have more dates with port variety than the Thomas, Tortola, & Nassau it repeats most of the year.

 

Yes, hubby will miss Flamingo, but I didn't like it, so this change is great for me! He liked Margaritaville salads and they were only $4 for entree sizes. I think burgers I ordered were $8. So, overall, since we'll only go probably twice in a week, the cost for us of about $24 overall is minimal for the enjoyment we'll get out of it.

 

Now, NCL just has to re-work the dining plan option so that there are a certain number of lunches and a certain number of dinners (similar to what Disney parks offers). The existing plan is great for dinners, but overpriced to be used on a lunch. Plus, lunch doesn't have to be 3 courses. Including it in the Free at Sea options would be great!

Although I applaud your thought of how to take a 'meh' product offering (the specialty dining payment options as currently offered) and improve it to be beneficial to both company and consumer (vs the usually "I hate it, change it back" I've read on here lately) your thought process as I bold-ed above is sort of Del Rio's point.

You saw some value in the $24 lunch (for I'm assuming 2 people) and would probably do it twice. He just (almost) got his extra $50 out of you. Why would he then want to add into the SDP lunches, when he has you spending not just $24 but an extra $48 in the week that would have been free under your idea. Benefit to you and not NCL.

Del Rio wanted an extra $50 out of you, and he got all of it but $2 by just saying "pay for what used to be free". You saw value in that - and paid. NCL got their extra $48 out of you, allieviated some of the buffet crowd, and you got a dining experience that you were happy with and saw value. (I assume since you didn't say "oh that was a waste of money!")

In the end, I question if adding lunches would work to the model and have a positive result for all involved (consumer/corporate). Though we haven't cruised recently, I don't remember too many for fee lunch options. If it is just 1 or 2 venues on the larger ships only, then what is the point of adding it in. It then takes away that extra money NCL was making off the venue with no added benefit to anyone but the consumer.

In the end the company is in business to make money. There obviously is a fine line and dance that needs to go on between consumer and company, I have my feelings that NCL is trying to go in a certain direction but are going about it all wrong - but again that is just my perception.

I feel making a 'meh' place such as margaritaville a pay venue for lunch was a poor choice. The JB Margaritaville's I have been to, I wouldn't choose to eat at vs a free venue. I can only assume a similar experience on a ship. I don't personally see that value. You did, and that is more than fine.

I think the idea of a fee venue for lunch in general isn't the greatest idea (and can lead to a slippery slope to further reductions of free venues) but if you WERE going to do a fee based venue for lunch why not open one of the specialties and do a lunch menu for a fixed price - for instance Tepanyaki. I feel this would have given the same result without the headaches of the "oh they are nickle and diming us" plus how many people would like to eat a speacilty that don't because of kids, or because of the shows, or because of the casino, whatever they want to grab a bite and go, vs during the day when they may be more relaxed....

Not many people say they want a new fee based restaurant that serves similar foods of what they can already get elsewhere on the ship for free.

I stand corrected. I thought it was for land only, not land/sea.

Unless things have changed, passpprt cards are for land travel only (ie car to canada or mexico)...you might want to check on that.

Yeah the cash back deal is not really a NCL gift card, but rather a gift card for that travel agency.

They also have "celebrity" and "Carnival" gift cards...that have to be booked through the TA listed.

Its an ok deal if you have the cash back and are looking to use a booking agent.

Just to tell you that we submitted a refund request, as directed by NCL, for a night in a hotel when a PoA cruise was delayed by NCL. Submitted in early April, approved May 21, cheque issued July 6 and received July 26. NCL's refund system moves extremely s-l-o-w-l-y. Check with NCL Guest Services to see what they say. Good luck...

This is a different (although extremely unfortunate situation). We have to assume that in OP's case, it was a charge on the ship (OP refers to lumping everything together). Which in the OPs case a chargeback is a necessary task. The hotel reimbursement is not one as that is a contractual issue not a charge issue.

I really feel for all of you that were on that cruise that are being jerked around for refunds that were promised and you guys are really at the mercy of NCL for anything. OP has though, can have the CC company fight on their behalf.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Daily Service Charge - but even if it is not, I would suggest you call your credit card company sooner than later.

IF you already submitted the paperwork with NCL you can prove that you made an effort with the merchant to get whatever the price issue was rectified.

Most credit card companies in the US require that you dispute charges within 60 days or they become final on your account (and solely up to the merchant to issue a refund).

If it has been 5 weeks, your over a full billing cycle and once the second one finalizes you'll most likely be at the graces of NCL.

You don't need to dispute the whole charge. What you do is call the CC company and say something like "I dispute the amount that was charged by NCL on this date, I requested a refund of a charge that they put on my final bill and it has been over a month with no refund. This is the amount they charged, this is the amount it should have been".

They will contact NCL and usually when stuff like this happens, the merchant will expedite the refund rather than let a chargeback go through. NCL will refund it and then tell the credit card company "refund issued on ___" to avoid the chargeback.

If you are worried about having to change reservations on board, I think your wife could log on separately and make an advance reservation at a different restaurant for that night. And once you're on board and get the info about possible special occasion menus, you can cancel one of the two.

yes and no, We tried to add an additional meal to our reservation (we too have the UDP) and we could only add 2 meals per night if they were many HOURS apart - like 530 and 930.

We wanted to do a traveling meal (entree in one restaurant, dessert and drinks in another). When she logged in to do the second meal, it kept giving her an error stating that there was conflict due to an overlap, even if the 2nd reservation was for 2 hours AFTER the 1st.

Best bet is to call and do it over the phone - that is what we had to do, they were able to get us exactly what we wanted. Apparently the online system thinks it takes over 3.5 hours per meal.

We booked directly with NCL (so no TA to worry about not relaying the message). We are currently 88 Days out, booked in a suite (so past cancellation without any penalty).

We have not received any email, message, phone call etc. about this policy change. We have 6 "messages" in our NCL account all sales pitches but not one in regards to any policy change.

For point of reference, we did receive emails about the last 2 DSC increases so it has nothing to do with MyNCL settings in our case.

Full disclosure, we never brought soda or water on board nor do we buy bottled water on board; so the policy did not have any change on our cruise experience. We fully agree that the implementation was poorly handled as well as the cost of water should have been adjusted especially if they will be using the line about making their policy similar to other lines.

Thank you for the responses.