Dawn's Adrift!

[GTJ]

I am as well...I have to say that although I can't imagine how horific a phobia can be and my heart goes out to people that have to live with this, I do not understand how a cruise line should be responsible for people's fears.

 

It never occured to me that cruising might entail unexpected flying for any passengers...but I don't HAVE to think about that because I don't have any phobias (thank goodness). But for someone that has to live with a fear that life altering, possible scenerios like this should have been thought over.

How is a cruise line supposed to accomodate this?????? And WHY should they be responsible?

 

Air transportation is certainly the most-utilized form of public transportation for long distances, as it offers fast service, usually at a reasonable cost. But there are people who, for one reason or another (be it phobia, health, comfort, or otherwise) do not. Buses, railroads, and ocean liners serve these passengers.

 

The reason for avoiding air travel is not always economic. These individuals simply do not want to (or will not) fly. Almost always long-distance travel by railroad (including the least expensive overnight accommodations) is more expensive than travel by airplane . . . even long-distance by bus can be more expensive than flying (New York to Los Angeles nonstop on American Airlines is $268; 3 days each way on Greyhound Lines is $402). Cunard's Queen Mary 2 is best known for its transatlantic service between New York and Southampton, and at a price that is usually more expensive than flight. The QM2 is not a cruise ship and does not make intermediate stops: in that regard it is in the same category as Amtrak and Greyhound Lines (albeit with much better service!).

 

(I no longer fly, and I use cruiseships as transportation in the same manner as Amtrak and Greyhound Lines. Most recently I visited friends in Montreal, going there on Amtrak and returning on Norwegian Cruise Line. Previously I had business in California, going there on Amtrak and returning on Celebrity Cruises. Before that we headed to Mexico to get married, going there on Norwegian Cruise Line and returning on Carnival Cruise Lines.)

 

People who fly expect to fly. In their contracts of carriage most airlines, in the event of a service disruption, promise to provide alternate transportation by air.

 

People who do not fly expect not to fly. Amtrak generally offers alternate ground transportation when they have a service failure. Other non-air carriers need to understand that some passengers choose their services for that very reason, and as such, should not expect that air transportation will be an acceptable alternative should they fail to perform their own obligations.

 

I think it is reasonable that cruise lines should expect that their passengers chose to go by sea instead of by air for a reason, and that in the event of a service failure that the line should fulfill its obligation to transport by alternate sea carrier.

[GTJ]

actually they can be accommodated on these ships without a PVSA violation as PR for these purposes is considered a nearby foreign port or there is an exemption still in effect from the Secretary of Transportation for PR to the Mainland. Since the Dawn was returning to its point of origin no PSVA violation either.

 

Reading the details of the regulations implementing the PSVA, 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a, I think you're right on that one, but for a slightly different reason.

 

Under the regulations ports are first classified as being coastwise ports or foreign ports; foreign ports are further classified as being either "nearby" or "distant." Ordinarily, the U.S. Virigin Islands and Puerto Rico would be considered coastwise ports since they are both territories or possessions of the United States, and therefore foreign-flagged or foreign-built vessels could not transport passengers legally between these places and the mainland United States.

 

I think you were considering the application of subsection (a)(2) where the U.S. Virgin Islands are specifically mentioned as being treated as a "nearby foreign port" and in which case passengers could be transported between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the mainland United States.

 

However, it is subsection © that applies to Puerto Rico. There it states that, "An exception to the prohibition in this section is the transportation of passengers between ports in Puerto Rico and other ports in the U.S. on passenger vessels not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade. Such transportation is permitted until there is a finding under 46 U.S.C. 289c that a qualified U.S.-flag passenger vessel is available for such service." I think this subsection treats Puerto Rico as a nearby foreign port without actually calling it as such. I don't know the regulatory history here, but I imagine that this provision was enacted when regular U.S.-flag oceanliners or ferries ceased providing transportation, and Puerto Ricans who would not fly (perhaps based on the

perceived cost of air transportation) persuaded regulators to insert this exception.

 

There are in fact freighters than will accommodate guests from PR to Miami(the slow boats of course)....

 

I've tried looking for freighter voyages that make this journey, albeit without much success. I'm aware of the twice-monthly voyage between Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, but I don't see any listed in TravLtips to the mainland. Do you know of any lines that make this voyage?

[GTJ]

They are free to buy a boat if they won't fly, or lease a boat, or swim it...

 

Of course, this isn't the answer you wanted...

 

The passengers had engaged a common carrier. A privately-owned vessel would probably not be an adequate substitute.

 

Consider someone who had purchased a bus ticket from New York to Florida, and the bus broke down in North Carolina. Purchasing an automobile in North Carolina to complete the journey would require both purchase money and the acquisition of a license to drive the automobile, the absence of either making the option impracticable. The reasonable expectation of the passengers is to have a replacement bus carry the stranded passengers to Florida.

[smeyer418]

Reading the details of the regulations implementing the PSVA, 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a, I think you're right on that one, but for a slightly different reason.

 

Under the regulations ports are first classified as being coastwise ports or foreign ports; foreign ports are further classified as being either "nearby" or "distant." Ordinarily, the U.S. Virigin Islands and Puerto Rico would be considered coastwise ports since they are both territories or possessions of the United States, and therefore foreign-flagged or foreign-built vessels could not transport passengers legally between these places and the mainland United States.

 

I think you were considering the application of subsection (a)(2) where the U.S. Virgin Islands are specifically mentioned as being treated as a "nearby foreign port" and in which case passengers could be transported between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the mainland United States.

 

However, it is subsection © that applies to Puerto Rico. There it states that, "An exception to the prohibition in this section is the transportation of passengers between ports in Puerto Rico and other ports in the U.S. on passenger vessels not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade. Such transportation is permitted until there is a finding under 46 U.S.C. 289c that a qualified U.S.-flag passenger vessel is available for such service." I think this subsection treats Puerto Rico as a nearby foreign port without actually calling it as such. I don't know the regulatory history here, but I imagine that this provision was enacted when regular U.S.-flag oceanliners or ferries ceased providing transportation, and Puerto Ricans who would not fly (perhaps based on the

perceived cost of air transportation) persuaded regulators to insert this exception.

 

who do you think issued these regs? George Burns. Does any one really care what the history of the regs were? Not me and I said that is what they said.

 

 

I've tried looking for freighter voyages that make this journey, albeit without much success. I'm aware of the twice-monthly voyage between Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, but I don't see any listed in TravLtips to the mainland. Do you know of any lines that make this voyage?

 

I understand that there is at least one Japanese freighter that makes this trip...

the WhatsmataMaru... I think it also stops at Frostbite Falls(thanks Rocky)

and no I don't know any others before you ask

[beachchick]

Kinda like taking a flight across country. 4 1/2 hours, all is well. Last half hour, the A/C goes out, and the toilets stop working. Plane keeps flying.

 

What is there to complain about?

 

In that last 1/2 hour, how likely is it that the toilets will be overflowing into the aisles or that people will need to sleep overnight out on the wing? Sorry, not at all the same situation and not a fair comparison to equate 30 minutes in the air to 1 or 2 days on a cruise ship (with the possibility of having to wait 2 or more days for transportation to the final destination).

 

beachchick

[MrPete]

In that last 1/2 hour, how likely is it that the toilets will be overflowing into the aisles or that people will need to sleep overnight out on the wing? Sorry, not at all the same situation and not a fair comparison to equate 30 minutes in the air to 1 or 2 days on a cruise ship (with the possibility of having to wait 2 or more days for transportation to the final destination).

 

beachchick

 

is the airline going to give you a 75% refund AND 50% off your fare to use for a future flight?

 

don't think so.

 

You're both missing my point.

 

When asked how the flight was, the answer would be ......?

 

Would they be told not to complain due to the length of the good part of the trip? Or would they be allowed to complain?

[Harleycat]

Air transportation is certainly the most-utilized form of public transportation for long distances, as it offers fast service, usually at a reasonable cost. But there are people who, for one reason or another (be it phobia, health, comfort, or otherwise) do not. Buses, railroads, and ocean liners serve these passengers.

 

The reason for avoiding air travel is not always economic. These individuals simply do not want to (or will not) fly. Almost always long-distance travel by railroad (including the least expensive overnight accommodations) is more expensive than travel by airplane . . . even long-distance by bus can be more expensive than flying (New York to Los Angeles nonstop on American Airlines is $268; 3 days each way on Greyhound Lines is $402). Cunard's Queen Mary 2 is best known for its transatlantic service between New York and Southampton, and at a price that is usually more expensive than flight. The QM2 is not a cruise ship and does not make intermediate stops: in that regard it is in the same category as Amtrak and Greyhound Lines (albeit with much better service!).

 

(I no longer fly, and I use cruiseships as transportation in the same manner as Amtrak and Greyhound Lines. Most recently I visited friends in Montreal, going there on Amtrak and returning on Norwegian Cruise Line. Previously I had business in California, going there on Amtrak and returning on Celebrity Cruises. Before that we headed to Mexico to get married, going there on Norwegian Cruise Line and returning on Carnival Cruise Lines.)

 

People who fly expect to fly. In their contracts of carriage most airlines, in the event of a service disruption, promise to provide alternate transportation by air.

 

People who do not fly expect not to fly. Amtrak generally offers alternate ground transportation when they have a service failure. Other non-air carriers need to understand that some passengers choose their services for that very reason, and as such, should not expect that air transportation will be an acceptable alternative should they fail to perform their own obligations.

 

I think it is reasonable that cruise lines should expect that their passengers chose to go by sea instead of by air for a reason, and that in the event of a service failure that the line should fulfill its obligation to transport by alternate sea carrier.

 

Alternate Sea Carrier? What are they supposed to do? Get a ship out of mothballs, staff and provision it and send it to pick up the passengers?

 

You are not talking about 200 or less passengers on a plane or bus, you are talking about 2000+ passengers on a cruise ship. It's not reasonable to expect a cruiseline to have a spare ship in every area of the world they sail just in case. Even if they just kept one spare ship, where do they keep it? It it's on the west coast, they have to get it all the way to the east if it's need there.

 

It's not like they can book passage on another line. Most ships fill up way in advance.

[Globaliser]

I think it is reasonable that cruise lines should expect that their passengers chose to go by sea instead of by air for a reason, and that in the event of a service failure that the line should fulfill its obligation to transport by alternate sea carrier.

Thank you for the best laugh of the week.

[spiritkat090909]

I am not really a big fan of NCL...last time I sailed on them was when the

ownership changed just after the inaugural of the NCL Sun...I didn't care for the changes to the past pax program or the Freestyle concept.

 

BUT... I give credit where it is due. I suspect they have handled the situation better than any of the cruise lines I have since sailed on would have done.

 

My first sailing on the RCCL SOS was during Hurricane Marilyn...we diverted from St Thomas (it was hit). There was no compensation of any kind. Just a missed port, no fees refunded. BUT, when we got to the airport, we heard tales from NCL ships...they had an OPEN BAR! THAT was when I decided to give them a try.

 

So, from where I sit...NCL has a history of caring when it comes to unforeeseable circumstances. And it IS good for their business to do so...I probably would have never tried them, were it not for the word of mouth in the airport. And FWIW, I DID sail with them at least 3 more times before parting ways....

 

They do a lot of things wrong (for me)...but, they got this one right. IMO

 

GOOD JOB NCL!

[Don Haynes]

You're both missing my point.

 

When asked how the flight was, the answer would be ......?

 

Would they be told not to complain due to the length of the good part of the trip? Or would they be allowed to complain?

 

I don't mind when the passengers complain about power going out, or the toilets back up, or the air conditioning went south, BUT I DO MIND WHEN THEY USE THE WORDS NIGHTMARE AND DISASTER! Some inconvenience isn't either. A nightmare or disaster is a ship sinking with many of the passengers losing their lives....

[NormanW]

 

You are not talking about 200 or less passengers on a plane or bus, you are talking about 2000+ passengers on a cruise ship. It's not reasonable to expect a cruiseline to have a spare ship in every area of the world they sail just in case. Even if they just kept one spare ship, where do they keep it?

 

Freeport Bahamas...Norwegian Dream.

 

Living in a Dream World it's a Dream thing. Everyone else just does not understand. ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Norman

[Cruise_With_Me]

Freeport Bahamas...Norwegian Dream.

 

Living in a Dream World it's a Dream thing. Everyone else just does not understand. ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Norman

 

 

I think the Dream is now anchored off "somewhere" Greece. ;)

[BIG_Steve]

I don't mind when the passengers complain about power going out, or the toilets back up, or the air conditioning went south, BUT I DO MIND WHEN THEY USE THE WORDS NIGHTMARE AND DISASTER! Some inconvenience isn't either. A nightmare or disaster is a ship sinking with many of the passengers losing their lives....

 

Why get so upset over verbiage? And someone else's' idea of a nightmare vacation is different from the next.

 

Some of you take it much too personally when someone gripes about NCL.

[jumbo1]

I think the Dream is now anchored off "somewhere" Greece. ;)

 

I didn't know Greece was north of the British Virgin Islands ;)

[sillysailor 1955]

Why get so upset over verbiage? And someone else's' idea of a nightmare vacation is different from the next.

 

Some of you take it much too personally when someone gripes about NCL.

 

Well said Big Steve.... the loyalty factor with NCL folks goes way overboard.:cool:

[SDTraveler78]

You're both missing my point.

 

When asked how the flight was, the answer would be ......?

 

Would they be told not to complain due to the length of the good part of the trip? Or would they be allowed to complain?

 

MrPete-

There is a big difference.... people do not go on an airplane for a vacation, rest, pampering, and relaxation. We go on cruises for that...so when we work our tails off at our jobs all year to save up money and time for vacation, we expect it to be great-- anything less is a huge "disappointment", "nightmare", or however people have rightfully been describing it.

Let people vent and describe their experiences.... if the tables were turned, there is a possibility you would be singing a different tune!!

We were supposed to be on the 11/29 Dawn sailing and were very disappointed it was cancelled. It took us about 24 hours to get over the disappointment, but got over it the next day and we were on a flight to Hawaii for a week- just got back yesterday! Monday it will be time to talk with NCL to see how much hotel/ airline reimbursement we can get. We'll see what happens!

 

Pete

[GTJ]

MrPete-

There is a big difference.... people do not go on an airplane for a vacation, rest, pampering, and relaxation. We go on cruises for that...so when we work our tails off at our jobs all year to save up money and time for vacation, we expect it to be great-- anything less is a huge "disappointment", "nightmare", or however people have rightfully been describing it.

 

A big difference for many, but not all.

 

I have friends that belong to airline enthusiast organizations. They travel by airplane not so much for the destination but rather for the thrill of flight and the opportunity to travel upon various types of aircraft, different air lines, and to visit particular airports. They work all year long to so that they can take take a vacation and relax by traveling on airplanes. See, e.g., http://www.airliners.net.

 

On the other hand, I don't fly, and instead I travel by cruise ship as a means of transportation (though I've sailed on many vessels I've never "cruised" round-trip; I've always had a destination to which I was sailing). Recently I had business in California, and I traveled from the east coast by railroad, and returned by sea. I find it more pleasant on board virtually any vessel compared to an aircraft flying the same route, but nonetheless in these circumstances I am traveling on business not vacation.

 

But your underlying premise remains true: the failure of a carrier to deliver the journey that was promised is a huge disappointment. It grows into a nightmare if you fail to get to where you need to go, or if the delay causes substantial inconvenience. In your case it can ruin your annual vacation, a detriment to your quality of life (especially if the vacation time cannot be re-scheduled). In my case it may involve a missed meeting or a failed deal, possibly causing financial detriment to the company.

[GTJ]

who do you think issued these regs? George Burns. Does any one really care what the history of the regs were? Not me and I said that is what they said.

 

Some people may care about regulatory history: (1) if a regulation is facially ambiguous the history can help, (2) if one seeks to have the regulation changed it is helpful to understand why it was adopted in the first place, (3) if there are other places that can analogize (Hawaii, perhaps?) then those other places might try to get the same regulatory exception, and (4) sheer curiosity. Being a member of the club of people who likes to know how things work, choice (4) is regularly invoked.

 

I understand that there is at least one Japanese freighter that makes this trip...

the WhatsmataMaru... I think it also stops at Frostbite Falls(thanks Rocky)

and no I don't know any others before you ask

Drats! I was hoping that such might exist. I think I may have seen some freighter vessels call at a Caribbean port, but only on the way to South America.

 

It does seem to me that with so many islands, so many people, so many cruise vessels, and relatively short distances between them, that there ought to be more than just cruise ships connecting the Caribbean islands. Travelers to Alaska can choose between inclusive cruise ships or port-to-port ferries. Were similar options regularly available in the Caribbean they could also assist the air-wary travelers on disabled vessels like here. But as far as know, the only alternatives (besides domestic ferries) are between Florida and the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, and between the French islands.

[GTJ]

Alternate Sea Carrier? What are they supposed to do? Get a ship out of mothballs, staff and provision it and send it to pick up the passengers?

 

You are not talking about 200 or less passengers on a plane or bus, you are talking about 2000+ passengers on a cruise ship. It's not reasonable to expect a cruiseline to have a spare ship in every area of the world they sail just in case. Even if they just kept one spare ship, where do they keep it? It it's on the west coast, they have to get it all the way to the east if it's need there.

 

It's not like they can book passage on another line. Most ships fill up way in advance.

 

An Airbus 380 has 555 seats. When these aircraft break down, do the passengers not expect to be accommodated on alternative aircraft? Choices for the carrier might include waiting out the repairs, re-booking passengers on its other aircraft or competing lines, and chartering aircraft from other lines. Would an air carrier take an aircraft out of mothballs in such a situation? Probably not. Would the air carrier tell its passengers, "Our aircraft broke down, so instead we're transporting all of you from New York to Los Angeles by bus"? Probably not. The passengers would reasonably expect to be transported by air. Sure there may be delay since, as is the case with many forms of transportation, other flights may have filled up way in advance. But, eventually, passengers will be underway by air (the contracts of carriage for airlines excludes any guarantee of on-time service; see, e.g., Delta Air Lines Rule 240).

 

 

 

A typical cruise ship might be larger than an Airbus 380, but when it breaks down the carrier is really in the same predicament as the air carrier. Both cases are much the same. When a carrier's vehicle breaks down its passengers have a reasonable expectation of having their transportation continued in the same manner, be it by air, land, or sea. And when such break downs occur, there will likely be delay.

 

Finally, what would a sea carrier do in the event that it did attempt to shuffle off all of its passengers onto an air carrier, but one or more of those passengers were refused carriage by the air carrier? See, e.g., Delta Air Lines Rule 35 that enumerates seven circumstances under which the carrier may refuse to provide transportation. If a cruise ship passenger is unfit for flight what should be done?

[beachchick]

Well said Big Steve.... the loyalty factor with NCL folks goes way overboard.:cool:

 

As it does with RCI/Carnival/HAL/Princess (et al) folks. This is not cruise line specific at all.

 

beachchick

[sjbdtz]

Why get so upset over verbiage? And someone else's' idea of a nightmare vacation is different from the next.

 

Some of you take it much too personally when someone gripes about NCL.

 

So if the "wording" is not really important, can we construe these complaints to be actually articles of PRAISE?

 

Words DO matter, in an environment such as this they are the only way we communicate, and we need to impart experience and emotion in a way which can be interpreted by others so that they understand what we are trying to get across.

 

If we start calling an "inconvenience" a "nightmare", or if we call a "disappointment" a "disaster", then what words should we use to discuss and emote regarding an ACTUAL nightmare, or disaster? There was a fabulous story (well...ok... a fable) about a shepherd boy and a wolf.

 

It's important to call-out the histrionics, because the board is NOT just used by the cheerleaders and the complainers...but because it is a publicly accessible forum, and when someone exaggerates unnecessarily, in a way which can ultimately be harmful to a firm whose services we enjoy.... it behooves us to speak up and reframe the drama in a realistic context.

 

 

 

Well said Big Steve.... the loyalty factor with NCL folks goes way overboard.:cool:

 

Actually, I think very few of us have gone overboard. It's my impression, based on anecdotal evidence, that most of the overboard happenings.....are on Carnival!!! :rolleyes: :eek:

[BarbCT605]

I understand that there is at least one Japanese freighter that makes this trip...

the WhatsmataMaru... I think it also stops at Frostbite Falls(thanks Rocky)

Holy smokes! You made me LOL.

 

Now, off to pull a rabbit out my hat...

[CeleBrat]

A typical cruise ship might be larger than an Airbus 380, but when it breaks down the carrier is really in the same predicament as the air carrier. Both cases are much the same. When a carrier's vehicle breaks down its passengers have a reasonable expectation of having their transportation continued in the same manner, be it by air, land, or sea. And when such break downs occur, there will likely be delay.

 

Finally, what would a sea carrier do in the event that it did attempt to shuffle off all of its passengers onto an air carrier, but one or more of those passengers were refused carriage by the air carrier? See, e.g., Delta Air Lines Rule 35 that enumerates seven circumstances under which the carrier may refuse to provide transportation. If a cruise ship passenger is unfit for flight what should be done?

 

This line of reasoning is a bit skewed. Had that REALLY been the method in which NCL had attempted to get all of the passengers back to Miami, then there would still be people waiting to get there, as there is no way there would have been 2000+ berths available on other ships anywhere to do so in a timely manner. They would have had to wait until the ship was repaired, which still would have resulted in their getting back to Miami LATER that the Sunday arrival date. Can you imagine the angry, upset people in that situation? They would claim they were being held hostage by NCL!

 

NCL was most likely operating under the fact that the cruise was scheduled to conclude on that SUNDAY (contractually), so the only way they could commit to getting everyone back to Miami by that SUNDAY would be to fly them. Their primary obligation was to start the cruise on XXX date, and end it on that SUNDAY.

 

And yes, airlines have contracted with bus lines in the past when their flights have landed prematurely. They shuffle all/most of the passengers on a bus to drive the remaining distance (usually within a hour or so of driving).

 

CeleBrat

[MrLee]

I think it's terrible that NCL didn't rent enough submarines to get those who don't fly frpm San Juan to Miami! :rolleyes:

[spongerob]

the WhatsmataMaru... I think it also stops at Frostbite Falls(thanks Rocky)

and no I don't know any others before you ask

No, it just putters around Veronica Lake. ;)

 

I think it is reasonable that cruise lines should expect that their passengers chose to go by sea instead of by air for a reason, and that in the event of a service failure that the line should fulfill its obligation to transport by alternate sea carrier.

I think here that NCL's reponsibility to get people back home includes only reasonable options. The lack of alternate sea travel would make your suggestion unreasonable. Also, I think the argument that considering a cruise line a means of transportation, in the way that most people use air travel, is stretching the point. Airlines do not guarantee on-time arrival, only transport from A to B. Since the overwhelming majority of people take cruises for pleasure, not as a means of regular transport, your argument is weak at best.

 

Your point about phobias being real and debilitating is correct and should not be dismissed.