@RocketMan275hmmm no direct evidence as no cruise line will open their books to the public. I suggest that skipping a port saves on port fees and regulatory charges. An extra day at see increases their bar, casino, beauty spa and other department revenue. Yes it impacts on shore excursions but they only lose their margin for a small percentage of passengers the take an excursion.
@Panhandle Couple the captain of the star directly told my wife and me that the Star's itinerary allowed for the speed restriction. He confirmed the there was no reason why we couldn't have sailed to Antarctic peninsula. NCL saved approximately 700km of fuel.
@Redtravel i totally agree. However, in our case weather was perfect, there were no health, security, mechanical, bio hazard or other reasonable reason for our change in itinerary.
@cruiseny4life i cant deny that we still might have take the cruise. However Australian consumer law affords certain rights that cant be waived by an all encompassing get out of jail clause. The issue for us is that we weren't given the opportunity to consider our options.
Re cost cutting. I also dont have a problem with that but it should be fair and reasonable and not at the expense of the passengers expectation and experience