SeaShark

Sorry, but I never said every problem is a clog, nor did I say every issue took this many people. I was commenting on the one specific issue mentioned in the thread I quoted which was a clog and which did require a specific complement of workers to resolve. To try to say every incident is the same is as erroneous as trying to argue how one small difference negates the comparison. My point was (and still is) that workers are a resource, and when they are diverted for instances like the one described, then they are also not available to do the work they would normally do instead, and the problems flow downstream from there.

What people fail to realize is just how far reaching the effects of an incident can be. People see the clog, people see the inoperable toilets. However, three plumbers working shifts around the clock for days means that these people aren't available for other duties/issues/problems...so not only is there the immediate issues with the toilets, the work that these folks would otherwise be doing is delayed.

I don't think that is really the issue most people have. If you want to join a roll call, fine. If you don't, that is fine as well. The problem comes where people in a Roll Call agree to attend the M&G and then they blow it off once onboard. An organizer gives NCL a head count of X and then only Y show up. It's disrespectful plain and simple, and that is where people have a problem.

...And I would agree with that? It's not like there weren't toilets available onboard in this case, just not available in the OP's (and many other's) staterooms. My comment was to factor in the increased cost the cruisers pay in the Haven for a luxury experience, and to have any element of that room not be in order doesn't reflect well on NCL. --->Increased cost has nothing to do with it (which was my point). Things break and break down no matter what the cost or expectation. Even a Rolls Royce needs repaired now and again. On RCL, they have a sign in the bathroom that indicates the guest who caused the blockage can be fined and held responsible if they are deemed responsible. It's not like holding whoever caused the initial backup responsible isn't a thing in the industry. It seems like you're conflating the needs of the cruise line vs the needs of the passengers who are paid guests expecting a service to be rendered. Think of this situation from a consumer advocacy perspective- NCL promised these (and many other guests) a certain level of service that wasn't met. What obligation does NCL have to these guests? Nobody is "expecting" a handout, even the original OP said "I would appreciate feedback on what everyone believes is fair and reasonable." --->Not conflating, I'm looking at the WHOLE picture, not just one little portion in order to make a point. Your "think of this situation from a..." tact is the exact opposite. This is more than just one-sided. And yes, the handout was expected....the OP specifically asked about compensation as opposed to, for example, asking "Did NCL handle this in an appropriate manner?". See the original post. --->That is my point. It was MENTIONED in the original post. "Discussion" means it should be mentioned in multiple posts. The cause was stated in the thread, but it was not discussed.

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing...UNLESS...you are using CC and/or CC's connections to set up your M&G and then inviting people outside CC to attend. However, if you contact NCL and tell them you want to set up a Facebook (yes, you can say the name on CC...you just can't provide links to, or direct people to join your group there) M&G and they agree to do so, there is nothing wrong with doing that.

Welcome to Cruise Critic. Sorry that it took something like this to make you join. You've stated your situation well...what is it that you would like us to do to assist you?

Interesting that we're four pages into the thread without any discussion of the CAUSE of the issue. Somebody broke the plumbing. Somebody caused inconvenience for both NCL and a large number of NCL's guests. Somebody put NCL in the spot where now NCL has to provide "compensation" to people simply because not everything works perfectly 100% of the time. What sort of action should NCL take against that somebody? What sort of "compensation" should somebody have to provide to NCL for the damage they did? Should the affected guests be receiving their compensation from that somebody? Remember, NCL's property was damaged...they are a victim in this as well. Of course, some will say "I don't care about NCL. That is their problem, not mine. I'm only concerned about getting MY compensation". What a world we live in when Person A can screw over Company B and then Person C comes along to demand compensation from Company B as a result. Person A gets off scot free

First, I disagree with your last statement. A toilet is a basic necessity...not something that should fall under "especially folks who paid a high premium". A rich person's toilet is no more or less important than any other. That said...I agree with you that customers deserve something back in these situations. However, it is really up to the business (NCL in this case) as to a) whether or not to offer something, and b) exactly what that something should be. I don't particularly like the consumer who immediately puts out their hand EXPECTING compensation. For example "My question for everyone is what would feel is appropriate consideration for this very large inconvenience?". Everyone's focus should be on: What is the problem? How can it be fixed/repaired? How quickly and safely can the repairs be made? What is the interim solution? How can we prevent this issue in the future? The focus should NOT be on: "pay me".

NCL's website is a great resource. The terms and conditions for all parts of the promotion can be found at: https://www.ncl.com/about/terms-and-conditions/promotions Also, if you go to: https://www.ncl.com/cruise-deals/free-at-sea there is a "Learn More" button displayed for each part of the promotion which provides more details on that portion.

There is, of course, a difference between "most" and "all" if I'm not mistaken. The point is, even if you did go every night, the menu at a restaurant typically doesn't change. Besides, you don't HAVE to go to the same restaurant every single night. You can MDR, you can buffet, you can specialty restaurant, or you can go to the Local/O'Sheehans. Just how many people actually do eat in the exact same restaurant every night of the cruise?

^^^THIS. All day this. Over time, as FB has become more popular, people there started groups for their upcoming cruise(s). Inevitably, some people found themselves on both FB and CC. Some, while aware of both sites, stayed on FB as that was easier than "CC for cruises and FB for everything else". As NCL only has M&Gs for CC, people started inviting the FB people to come to the CC M&G. More and more people from FB would then crash the M&G that was being held for CC folks. The CC folks get tired of doing the work for M&Gs just to have a bunch of FB crashers....thus participation and attendance fall. Eventually, NCL will catch on to the fact that what they are doing for CC is being crashed by non CC folks...and then NCL will end the M&Gs all together.

If you pick 10 restaurants near your home and you eat at them repeatedly, how often you you get a completely different menu as opposed to a consistent menu with a one or more daily specials? Is this really something new and dramatically different that we've not seen before?

IF any of the officers were to engage, I think the discussion might be on the side of how much better satellite navigation is than having to rely on a sextant. Almost like taking an oar onboard to see if one of the engineers takes an interest in an old method of propulsion. For anyone interested in the oddity of the sextant, you can pick one up at your local Harbor Freight for $23.

Wow...make stuff up much? SeaShark told you no such thing. BTW, you don't have to locate the actual policy...there is a link to it right in the description called "terms & conditions". However, NCL is responsible for what the t&c says, but they are not responsible when someone assumes something that is, in fact, not correct. But you already learned that...the hard way.

Well, believe it or not, it should never be incumbent on the customer to know the business's intent. --Nor is it incumbent on the business to change operations due to the customer's assumptions, guesses, and misunderstandings. Can you show us the screen shot? Or perhaps you've seen the specification for the user interface?) --When NCL issues me an FCC with an OBC, I'll be happy to provide you a screenshot. Until then, I obviously cannot. Really? You found it important to explain the distinction between "IT" and the application developers? Thanks, that's really helpful to the conversation. The error was somewhere in the chain of application requirements specification through to program execution and display to the end user. Is that better? Technically, it's all "IT". --Actually the distinction was between IT an the business department making the work request of IT. In the case of the website, it is likely that any design is driven by NCL's Marketing and/or Sales Departments. They design and specify, the only thing IT would do is implement. As noted, the design specs come from the business...not from IT, so it is not all IT by any stretch. But we can go round and round on this to your heart's content...however, this is nothing more than FCC and no amount of "CC logic" is going to turn it into OBC.

But you are trying to sell something...you're trying to sell them on your view. You stated it was "confusing" and you "misunderstood" and now you think they should alter their policy because of your interpretation. You can tell anyone and everyone about why you made the decisions you did, but it isn't justified if your decisions were based on incorrect assumptions on your part. You could have asked them in advance to confirm your interpretation, but you did not. All of your funds are still there and available for your use...you didn't lose anything. I don't see a good reason why they should change policy simply because someone was confused.

It actually makes perfect sense to anyone who is honestly trying to understand it in context. However, that seems to be a good excuse if you're trying to sell a certain "interpretation". It won't work, of course, but it seems like a good excuse. "It should have indicated" is nothing more than a guess, right? You have no way of knowing what it "should have" indicated. You assume a screwup by IT, but IT just programs it to show what they are told. UAT would have marked the error for correction. It isn't IT's job to decide what to display and how to display it...that falls to the department that oversees the application. Through this whole pandemic, any and all cancellations have been either refunded to the method of payment or to FCC....NEVER to OBC. IMHO, it will be futile to try to convince them of otherwise.

The problem here is that you are only willing to hear what you WANT to hear...not what is accurate. Everyone from NCL told you the same thing that their website also confirms. Perhaps you should ask asked and gotten confirmation before your cruise instead of just assuming. It isn't up to them to "honor it" since "it" is totally based on your incorrect assumption. You have to take this as "lesson learned" and move on.

Assuming the base fare remains the same is the very rookie mistake I was talking about. Cruise fares change CONSTANTLY due to supply & demand. It is foolish to think that there is some "set in stone" fare out there that everything is based on.

One promo is 70% off, a different promo is 40% off. The big question is x% of off what exactly? Don't make the rookie mistake of assuming that the base price remains the same from one sale to the next. The same result can be achieved by different marketing approaches (think "buy one, get one free" vs "50% off") Cruise pricing is highly driven by supply and demand.

Your booking agent (TA or PCC) is your point of contact for the request.

Sorry, the middle paragraph above should read: "Had there been an OBC, there would have been information below both headings."

I disagree. I think there is an FCC heading with the FCC information beneath it. This is followed by an OBC heading with no information beneath it...indicating that there is no OBC involved. Had there been an FCC, there would have been information below both headings. The OP misunderstood. Everyone simply gave the OP an answer that he didn't want to hear, but there is no OBC credit here.

Prospect is the term they use in reference to someone with no latitude status. You should contact your booking agent and have them ensure that your husband's latitude information was properly entered.

Its nice to throw around wild stats from activist web sites (interesting how rounded and even the numbers always are...easier to parrot that way), but I'd still like to see the proof. Are these supported numbers or estimates? If the latter, what are the biases of the source? "Over 100 Million each year"...can you reference even ONE article from an objective source that shows the death of just ONE marine mammal directly attributed to a cruise duck? We all cruise, we all have cameras and camera phones...does anyone have photos they've taken on a cruise of all of this plastic in the ocean? Somebody must have pictures, right? Anyone have a photo that they've taken of the "over 100 million" dead marine mammals? Surely, we should be able to see them given the time we spend looking at the ocean...