Cruise Guy50

There is very suspicious timing with NCL changing itineraries the first day a full deposit is forfeited. Didn't know that issue was becoming widespread on other cruise lines also. We took several cruises in the past without issue except for weather related tending concerns (understandable). There are plenty of other travel options if this is how cruise companies decide to operate.

Please see earlier posts about NCL changing itineraries the very first day a refund is not allowed.

All of the comments below are opinion: From what I've read in order to bring a class action lawsuit it is first necessary to have to contract invalidated to nullify the arbitration clause. If the contract is fraudulent, it is possible to have it nulified. Once the contract is null it is possible to bring a suit seeking punitive damages. Another option is to seek mitigation which requires consumer to pay 150 and company to pay 500 initially. Then the costs go up from there. Mitigation is non-binding. Arbitration is more expensive but binding. I don't think it is worth the stress and hassle of going against a corporation. However filing a complaint with FTC, BBB, and trying to get a media outlet to cover NCL's policy, which they have confirmed in writing, is the route I'm taking.

Another customer wrote: 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!

There is another thread regarding this same topic:

There is another thread regarding this same topic:

Also loved the verbiage NCL used in response to another customer "It is always our intention to maintain original itineraries.... unfore seen circumstances require us to make modifications...." Tell me another funny one!

My point is that the guest ticket lists several perfectly reasonable and understandable reasons for deleting ports but omits a reason (to save fuel costs) which occurs frequently. In my opinion, such omissions can constitute a fraudulent/invalid contract (fraudulent inducement). We have another document from NCL that is even more specific regarding the reasons ports are cancelled (will provide later in a separate post). Enjoyed reading how the FTC went after NCL (and other lines) for advertising issues: Cruise line faces fine from FTC over illegal robocall operation Cruise line faces fine from FTC over illegal robocall operation (consumeraffairs.com)

Would like to encourage people impacted by NCL changing itineraries for reasons such as fuel efficiency after final payment has been made to report this to the FTC. NCL knows the distance between stops during the planning phase. For the company to advertise an itinerary and change it after final payment was made for known causes and withhold deposit refund is in my opinion fraudulent. Also, for the company to list an example of bonafide reasons in their contracts but exclude a frequent reason such as saving fuel costs is fraudulent inducement. Both of these reasons should justify investigation by the FTC if enough people complain.