Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. Norwegian cruise line knew the distance between the islands and ports when the cruise was advertised. NCL advertised an attractive cruise itinerary and then deleted two ports. NCL has defended this policy when we filed a claim with them and BBB and feels that it is perfectly acceptable to change ports for fuel efficiency, even telling us it would be unethical to give us our money back because they don't give others' back. The contract lists a number of possible reasons for changing schedules including war, weather, strike, etc. Changes due to such reasons are understandable. Even though NCL’s policy is to make changes to itineraries for fuel efficiency/cost savings, they do not include that reason in their list of causes in their contract. Writing a contract in such a manner is deceptive when a frequent reason for taking an action is omitted. They refused to refund our $266 when we cancelled though, like noted throughout this thread, NCL just happens to change the itinerary the FIRST day the penalty phase began. So frustrating!
Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. Norwegian cruise line knew the distance between the islands and ports when the cruise was advertised. NCL advertised an attractive cruise itinerary and then deleted two ports. NCL has defended this policy when we filed a claim with them and BBB and feels that it is perfectly acceptable to change ports for fuel efficiency, even telling us it would be unethical to give us our money back because they don't give others' back. The contract lists a number of possible reasons for changing schedules including war, weather, strike, etc. Changes due to such reasons are understandable. Even though NCL’s policy is to make changes to itineraries for fuel efficiency/cost savings, they do not include that reason in their list of causes in their contract. Writing a contract in such a manner is deceptive when a frequent reason for taking an action is omitted. They refused to refund our $266 when we cancelled though, like noted throughout this thread, NCL just happens to change the itinerary the FIRST day the penalty phase began. So frustrating!
