Jump to content

DBrown8939

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

Everything posted by DBrown8939

  1. As of my last cruise on the Sky (Feb 2023), The Local was not 24 hour-ish as it is on other Norwegian ships. It served food only during dinner hours and had bar service starting earlier in the afternoon. At breakfast and lunch it could be used as overflow seating for the buffet, especially when the weather wasn't suitable to eat in the Great Outdoors area. I doubt that this has changed in the past 18 months. If you check NCL's web site in the "What's On Board" section, there's a difference in The Local menus between the Sky and (for example) the Bliss. No breakfast items on the Sky! I'll be looking forward to the report in October.
  2. I was on the Star earlier this year on one of the cursed (non)Antarctica itineraries. I've also been on the Sky a couple times in the past two years. There were several things I disliked about the Star. The indoor areas were crowded, probably because it was a cold-weather route and there is no Observation Lounge. The buffet was sometimes packed to the point that there was no place to sit. Tendering was very, very slow. The internet was barely operational, though it may have since been fixed. The food and service seem to get more bad reviews than other ships. (I didn't have any major complaints in these areas, but I could tell there was some disorganization.) Overall, it was my least favorite of the four NCL ships I have experienced. I might be willing to give it another chance, depending on the price and itinerary -- ideally warm weather and no tender ports. That being said, the Star does have several nice food and beverage options that the Sky does not. The complimentary (but often very busy) Asian restaurant, the whiskey bar, and the Brazilian steakhouse, for example. It also has a Spice H2O. I had four specialty dinners on the Star and all of them were perfect. The Sky is a small ship so you tend to see the same passengers and crew a lot. The only thing I particularly dislike is that The Local is not 24/7 like it (or O'Sheehan's) is on other NCL ships. At breakfast/lunch it is used as overflow seating for the buffet.
  3. And I think that's the reason for the whole mess. Some guests on the Jan. 21 sailing could not accept the captain's decision to bypass Stanley for safety concerns related to potential afternoon storms. It is his ship and he has both that right and that responsibility, and yet a few passengers became disruptive. NCL changed the schedule to reduce the risk of unrest on later sailings (and rewarded the disruption by handing out $100 OBC). But the new itinerary is a very bad tradeoff: removing Antarctica (which was the main selling point of the cruise) and replacing it by two extra hours at a tender port that might not even happen. The current sailing has just missed Punta Arenas due to weather, and will miss Antarctica because of the itinerary change. The forecast for Stanley on Wed. is for showers and wind. For the sake of the Feb. 18 passengers, I really hope that the ship is able to anchor there. Otherwise, this will look like an even worse tradeoff in hindsight. The talk about speed restrictions is almost completely irrelevant. The restrictions may have tied NCL's hands as far as arranging a modified itinerary that made everyone happy, but they were not what motivated the change. NCL has said that they made the change to "optimize" the guest experience in Stanley, and everyone questioned it because it was so absurd. However, I believe they were actually being honest about it. They are NOT being honest by continuing to market this as an Antarctica cruise for next season under the original itinerary that they will almost certainly not be following.
  4. Maybe some people would be interested in suing over this, but I would be happy to simply have an acknowledgement that they messed up. As of now, they seem to think that they did everyone a favor by cutting Antarctica from the itinerary and focusing on the Falklands instead. I've done five NCL cruises in the past 18 months, and had been planning more. Now they need to convince me that I should sail with them again. I think your point about the ship being not "fit for purpose" is relevant, but as to the tender ports and not Antarctica. For whatever reason, the tendering process on the Star is very slow compared to other ships, and their original schedule did not allow for any margin of error at Punta Arenas and (especially) Stanley. Their misguided effort to improve this is what led to the fiasco. This ship shouldn't be used on itineraries that include tender ports with tight time frames.
  5. I would suggest that everyone on the impacted cruises open a case with NCL via the form at https://www.ncl.com/case-submission , unless a complaint was already registered with Guest Services. It's unbelievable that the only communication we have received on this matter is the letter on Day 1 that said they were "pleased to share" the revised itinerary with us. Given the amount of bad publicity that this situation has produced, I would have expected an apology email by now along with some kind of incentive to remain an NCL customer.
  6. I was on the Feb. 4 not-quite-Antarctica cruise. According to a couple of reviews that I read, passengers on the Jan. 21 cruise were given OBC of $100/pp for missing the Falklands. Skipping the Falklands was a weather/safety decision that was perhaps overly cautious but beyond NCL’s control, and it cost them money due to cancelled shore excursions. Our change was more significant, was entirely NCL’s fault, and it saved the company on fuel costs – yet we got no OBC for it. It makes no sense. However, I noticed that I got double Latitudes points, despite not having the relevant promo code on my booking. I wonder if this is some kind of inadequate and poorly communicated attempt at compensation?
×
×
  • Create New...

If you are already a Cruise Critic member, please log in with your existing account information or your email address and password.