NCL Dawn limping from port to port

[patseacruiser]

While I realize that I have been to the caribbean enough times that if they missed a port I probably wouldn't miss it at all because I stay on the ship a lot of the time anyway - I do think NCL should cough up more than 10% towards a next cruise. It should be a little more substantial than 10%. Most of the new cruisers wouldn't consider NCL again for a measly 10% with the cruise experience they are complaining about. Missing 2 ports is one thing but a new cruiser may even feel worried about their safety too and that is too stressful for a supposed vacation. I realize they are under no contract to provide anything but good will goes a long way to get that person back to NCL. With only 10% of the market share in cruises they should rethink the 10% compensation. Just my opinion.

[Globaliser]

The problem lies in the fact that the statement highlighted is indeed fact.

That IS the bottom line.

It is NOT an opinion.

 

Ports never have been and never will be a sure thing. That is the bottom line.

Exactly so.

 

The reality of ocean travel means that it cannot be any other way. That is why all cruise lines say so. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply indulging in wishful thinking.

[dougbass]

i am currentley on the sun and we met some of the dawn passengers in st marrteen and they was fine with the new stops, but the ship was limping along, because we passed it comming out of port.

[ike97756]

This discussion is getting tired, the frequent cruisers are decidedly set in their opinions.

 

I respectfully agree to disagree with many of the "factual" statements as apparently does NCLto an extent, based on the compensation they DID provide.

 

Adios

[Jokelady]

I would gladly change places with anyone on the Dawn right now. They can do my job and I can do their vacation.

 

I have done St. Thomas and other ports. I am paying for the five ports on this cruise.... I expect to see them. I agree with previous posters, it's NCL's fault that the engines are breaking down. Poor maintenance. I would be upset too. I was on Norwegian in the fall during hurricane season and we missed Turks and that was ok. This is not due to weather and people are justified in being upset.

 

PURE AND SIMPLE

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

One thing is not being able to get to a port because of a storm.

 

Another thing is having to alter the itinerary because the ship itself is broken.

 

That is NCL's responsibility. While I don't think the port cancellations should ruin people's vacations as long as they are safe on the ship; however, I do believe that NCL owes the passengers more than an onboard credit and 10% off a future cruise.

 

And the cruise contract you are all referring to is the cruise contract used for U.S. passengers. If there are European passengers onboard the ship who purchased their cruise in Europe, those cruise contracts actually say that if the cruiseline alters the itinerary the passenger must be compensated.

 

So the part about NCL owing passengers nothing is quite arguable, especially in a situation in which it is NCL's fault.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[tlm]

I'm currently on this cruise and I'm having a ball! Sure I'm disappointed we didn't get to see the ports we thought we were going to see, but I'm thankful we left Miami and got our cruise in. I feel that the compensation being offered is great and I will cruise with NCL again despite what's happened.

 

It seems some people are never satisfied...

 

One more thing...as far as I'm concerned, there was motion on the ship since we left St Thomas...but I have experienced much rougher. Suck it up people.

 

Toni

[sjbdtz]

I have done St. Thomas and other ports. I am paying for the five ports on this cruise.... I expect to see them. I agree with previous posters, it's NCL's fault that the engines are breaking down. Poor maintenance. I would be upset too. I was on Norwegian in the fall during hurricane season and we missed Turks and that was ok. This is not due to weather and people are justified in being upset.

 

PURE AND SIMPLE

 

 

No they're not.

 

We missed Moscow, because the airline's insurance company deemed that the airplanes were not airworthy.

 

THAT was a bit upsetting. For about an hour. Then we figured out what to do on our 2nd day in St. Petersburg, and carried on with life.

 

 

WHY the cruise is slow / delayed / rerouted, etc. is irrelevant. It's not NCL's 'fault' that the mechanicals broke down. Yes, they knew they had an engine down, but they mitigated by having an engine repair crew onboard.

 

Everyone in question still had a hotel (ship), commissary (restaurants), facilities (pools, gym, theatre, library, etc.) and service during the full course of their cruise.

 

AND they got compensation.

 

 

That's sufficient.

 

 

 

 

.

[Globaliser]

Everyone in question still had a hotel (ship), commissary (restaurants), facilities (pools, gym, theatre, library, etc.) and service during the full course of their cruise.

 

AND they got compensation.

 

 

That's sufficient.

No, it isn't.

 

NCL forgot to hand these out:

 

[UandMe4Ever]

No they're not.

 

We missed Moscow, because the airline's insurance company deemed that the airplanes were not airworthy.

 

THAT was a bit upsetting. For about an hour. Then we figured out what to do on our 2nd day in St. Petersburg, and carried on with life.

 

 

WHY the cruise is slow / delayed / rerouted, etc. is irrelevant. It's not NCL's 'fault' that the mechanicals broke down. Yes, they knew they had an engine down, but they mitigated by having an engine repair crew onboard.

 

Everyone in question still had a hotel (ship), commissary (restaurants), facilities (pools, gym, theatre, library, etc.) and service during the full course of their cruise.

 

AND they got compensation.

 

 

That's sufficient.

 

 

 

 

.

 

We were on the Dawn 8/29/10 for a 7 day to Bermuda...There was 1 engine down at that time and the second one was in jeopardy!:eek: I can't believe NCL hasn't found the 'where withall'' to get this fixed since August!

It's a shame. :mad: The cruises are certainly not free and people should feel totally safe onboard!

 

There are not getting my business any longer. Seems they are not truly worried about Passenger safety as they claim.:mad:

 

Safe sails.:)

[lambs2]

No, it isn't.

 

NCL forgot to hand these out:

 

 

 

Am I the only one that has no clue what the above IS???

[Globaliser]

This discussion is getting tired, the frequent cruisers are decidedly set in their opinions.

That's because we have both fact and experience on our side. ;)

I respectfully agree to disagree with many of the "factual" statements as apparently does NCLto an extent, based on the compensation they DID provide.

NCL has extended goodwill beyond what they're required to do. That's good. But some people still bash it.

If there are European passengers onboard the ship who purchased their cruise in Europe, those cruise contracts actually say that if the cruiseline alters the itinerary the passenger must be compensated.

 

So the part about NCL owing passengers nothing is quite arguable, especially in a situation in which it is NCL's fault.

I think that liability to compensate is very dubious in the case of a temporary and non-disabling mechanical difficulty which is being actively repaired at the time of sailing.

 

UK booking conditions:-

18. Delay and deviation

 

...

 

In all situations the ship shall have liberty to proceed without pilots. The ship shall also be at liberty to deviate from the advertised route and to call (or omit to call) at any port or place to tow and assist vessels and to offer or render assistance to preserve life or property or for any other reason or purpose which in the judgment of the Master of the ship (whether alone or acting on advice from others) is reasonable including, but not limited to, weather conditions, operational matters, the medical condition of anyone on board or the safety, comfort or convenience of guests. Such deviation shall not give rise to any liability on our part and shall not represent a significant change to the holiday.

EU booking conditions:-

5.1 Service Changes

 

... Alterations to the cruise itineraries are possible e.g. due to official regulations, particular hipping conditions, medical emergencies, or when, due to adverse weather conditions or in the interest of the safety of the guests, the Captain decides to alter the route. The Captain makes the decisions on necessary itinerary changes and/or travel times alone.

 

5.2. Individual service changes and deviations from the contractual contents of the travel contract, which become necessary after conclusion of contract and which were brought about contrary to good faith on behalf of NCL are permitted so far as the changes and deviations are not considerable and do not impair the overall form of the holiday. ...

[Globaliser]

Am I the only one that has no clue what the above IS???

It's the moon on a stick. ;)

[lambs2]

It's the moon on a stick. ;)

Thanks for explaining (I am a bit dense!) but GREAT analogy and I totally agree!!!! :D

[ksg]

Thanks for explaining (I am a bit dense!) but GREAT analogy and I totally agree!!!! :D

 

I think the poster meant it to be a magnifying glass with which to read the fine print.

 

As for those who asked if my husband actually ate dinner in the Venetian in his swim trunks, the answer is no. He was curious how low the bar would be set. Furthermore, the dress was not in conformity to NCL's own rules. Whatever. I just prefer that people treat eating in the dining room as a special occasion and break out the khakis and collared shirts. Makes for a more festive atmosphere all around.

 

I think NCL should have taken the ship out of service for repairs because these problems have been known for a while. My understanding was that on our own itinerary we had shortened port stays owing to the engine problems. And we did actually get into Tortola and Bridgetown later than stated. This wouldn't have been a big deal in Tortola, except that then our snorkeling excursion was abbreviated because too many others got to the snorkeling site ahead of us and the Park Service sent us away. (Now that I think about it, we should have asked for a refund/OBC/free cruise because of it.)

 

Years ago we were on an RCCL cruise and missed Grand Cayman due to weather. We didn't even get a refund of the port charges, let alone any OBCs. So IMHO, if this engine problem had just cropped up, NCL would have been more than generous, but because the problem was well-known to them, they were playing fast and loose with people's vacations. Not cool.

[swedish weave]

We were on the Dawn 8/29/10 for a 7 day to Bermuda...There was 1 engine down at that time and the second one was in jeopardy!:eek: I can't believe NCL hasn't found the 'where withall'' to get this fixed since August!

It's a shame. :mad: The cruises are certainly not free and people should feel totally safe onboard!

 

There are not getting my business any longer. Seems they are not truly worried about Passenger safety as they claim.:mad:

 

Safe sails.:)

 

How do you determine that an engine or two being down would affect your safety ?

 

The engines only produce electricity for the various systems on the ship including the propulsion.

[halos]

This discussion is getting tired, the frequent cruisers are decidedly set in their opinions.

I respectfully agree to disagree with many of the "factual" statements as apparently does NCLto an extent, based on the compensation they DID provide.

 

Adios

 

Again, this has nothing to do with opinions. It is what it is. You accept the fact that there is no 100% guarantee to see every port on your itinerary or you don't.

If you do not accept the facts, you do not belong on a cruise ship.

 

You can argue this forever and you will never change this.

The cruise line owes you nothing but a refund of your port fees if they do not dock at a scheduled port. If and when they offer you more it is a good will gesture, nothing more.

 

This is not to say that you shouldn't be disappointed, but you have to understand the risks involved. Someone mentioned on another thread and I have to agree...it seems a miracle that missed ports actually don't occur more often considering all the things that could go wrong.

[NMLady]

If I wanted an 4 port eastern caribbean or whatever usvi is considered that is what I would have booked. I didn't, I booked 5 port southern caribbean and thats what I want.

 

 

Read the cruise contract. An itinerary can be changed for any reason at any time. Since most cruises do go to the original ports listed, folks forget what the actual contract says.

At least ports are being visited. It isn't a 5 day cruise to nowhere, just floating around.

Just relax and enjoy not being at work or in the cold. Enjoy being waited on.

[NMLady]

Would you be happy if you purchased a plane ticket from LA to New York and were dropped off in Denver with a 200 dollar reinbusment on a $3000 ticket? Probably not. ...

 

Not a good comparison. You will reach your final destination as scheduled.

It's just the ports along the way will be different.

[NMLady]

NCL was going to be able to deliver a 9-day cruise, which is what they were selling.

 

The scheduled ports are a statement of hope, not expectation. And that's how cruising has always been, for good reason. Too many of today's cruisers just don't understand that.

 

 

Well said, and very true.

[ike97756]

Well said, and very true.

 

LOL, Are you kidding me?

How many cruises do you think they would sell with the Mantra " NCL Hopes to make X,X,X ports but dont Expect it" Yeah right. The cruise you purchase IS expected to make those ports. Now of course unforeseen thing occur and thus to prevent unreasonable lawsuits the fine print reads that the itinerary may change.

 

I find it interesting that the individuals who have several cruises under their belts and seem to have sufficient income to cruise at will are the ones most galvanized in the opinion "getting your ports is a roulette wheel, just roll with it". Maybe if I got to cruise every year I would be more accepting of it as well, but when it is a vacation that doesn't come around that often it holds a little more meaning.

 

And I get tired of reading " its in the contract, ports are not guaranteed"

Yes, no one has disputed that ( unless you book overseas but that is another topic). Lots of contracts and laws have fine print along the same lines, as a business owner myself though I know that while that serves a legal protection it doesn't mean that your customers will return if they aren't satisfied and many successful service oriented business go above and beyond to ensure continued sales .

 

The way I see it, it boils down to the bottom line. If the business model says x amount of customers will not return if we dont offer x amount of compensation BUT we have enough customers that will return to make up for that profit loss then compensation is or isnt warranted.

Now don't flame me, I don't have an issue with any of this necessarily. After all the cruise lines are in business to make money. If they dont make money then they wouldn't be there for us.

 

Knowledge is power and as a relatively new cruiser I now have more insight to make informed future vacation decisions

[Newleno]

Thanks for posting the information about your experience with DAWN, it is valuable to everyone. However you will not be able to win a debate about this issue with the vocal minority who write with great fervor on a daily basis, so please continue to write factual accounts about DAWN but dont try to explain yourself because it will result only in frustation. Thank you so much for the information at hand

 

Have a blessed day

[Mooder]

I have now read all your positions, but what I don't know is this: those of you who think there should be more compensation, what do you think would be fair? This should not an argument about whether or not anyone would be disappointed. It is a matter of what is fair compensation. Everyone has the right to be disappointed and I certainly would be. But from what I have seen the compensation was fair. I would love to know how those of you who are upset with NCL would calculate a fair resolution this situation.

[klingoncruiser]

Ouch, been on one of these types of cruises. I can be very aggravating.

[Phreddee]

I'd be thrilled to get my $$$ back. I'd get an all inclusive on a beach somewhere and not have to put up with the mendacity that NCL provides.

 

We are due to sail or sink or what ever on Feb 25 too and I don't want to be on board for a mutiny.

 

As far as OBC is concerned all I've ever used mine for was for tips to the MD who I had never seen.

 

If this keeps up the cruise industry which IMO is way over built is in for a very large shock. In spite of what I read on these posts the American public will smite them with their $$$ and spend them somewhere else. The cruise line will have only themselves to blame.